MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912742325 · doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)017

Ishibashi states, topological orders with boundaries and topological entanglement entropy. Part I

2019· article· en· W2912742325 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueFudan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsQuantum entanglementTopological entropy in physicsAnyonTopological orderSymmetry protected topological orderTopological entropyTopology (electrical circuits)Conformal map

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract In this paper, we study gapped edges/interfaces in a 2+1 dimensional bosonic topological order and investigate how the topological entanglement entropy is sensitive to them. We present a detailed analysis of the Ishibashi states describing these edges/interfaces making use of the physics of anyon condensation in the context of Abelian Chern-Simons theory, which is then generalized to more non-Abelian theories whose edge RCFTs are known. Then we apply these results to computing the entanglement entropy of different topological orders. We consider cases where the system resides on a cylinder with gapped boundaries and that the entanglement cut is parallel to the boundary. We also consider cases where the entanglement cut coincides with the interface on a cylinder. In either cases, we find that the topological entanglement entropy is determined by the anyon condensation pattern that characterizes the interface/boundary. We note that conditions are imposed on some non-universal parameters in the edge theory to ensure existence of the conformal interface, analogous to requiring rational ratios of radii of compact bosons.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207