MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2963017807 · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2016)073

A holographic model for quantum critical responses

2016· article· en· W2963017807 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert C. Myers, Todd Sierens, William Witczak‐Krempa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueSimons Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAnsatzScaling dimensionScalingQuantum phase transitionOperator (biology)Conformal field theoryAnalytic continuationQuantum critical pointCritical phenomenaScalar (mathematics)Phase transitionCritical point (mathematics)Operator product expansionQuantumCritical exponentConformal mapQuantum mechanicsScalar fieldQuantum field theoryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the dynamical response functions of strongly interacting quantum critical states described by conformal field theories (CFTs). We construct a self-consistent holographic model that incorporates the relevant scalar operator driving the quantum critical phase transition. Focusing on the finite temperature dynamical conductivity σ(ω, T ), we study its dependence on our model parameters, notably the scaling dimension of the relevant operator. It is found that the conductivity is well-approximated by a simple ansatz proposed in [1] for a wide range of parameters. We further dissect the conductivity at large frequencies ω ≫ T using the operator product expansion, and show how it reveals the spectrum of our model CFT. Our results provide a physically-constrained framework to study the analytic continuation of quantum Monte Carlo data, as we illustrate using the O(2) Wilson-Fisher CFT. Finally, we comment on the variation of the conductivity as we tune away from the quantum critical point, setting the stage for a comprehensive analysis of the phase diagram near the transition.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→