MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963902851 · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2018)061

Modular bootstrap revisited

2018· article· en· W2963902851 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Scott Collier, Ying-Hsuan Lin, Xi Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Tsing Hua UniversityTsinghua UniversityNational Center for Theoretical SciencesHarvard UniversitySimons FoundationFAS Division of Science, Harvard UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsDegeneracy (biology)Central chargeScalar (mathematics)Dimension (graph theory)Conformal mapUnitary stateUpper and lower boundsMathematical physicsTwistCharge (physics)Scalar fieldSpectrum (functional analysis)Theoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We constrain the spectrum of two-dimensional unitary, compact conformal field theories with central charge c > 1 using modular bootstrap. Upper bounds on the gap in the dimension of primary operators of any spin, as well as in the dimension of scalar primaries, are computed numerically as functions of the central charge using semi-definite programming. Our bounds refine those of Hellerman and Friedan-Keller, and are in some cases saturated by known CFTs. In particular, we show that unitary CFTs with c < 8 must admit relevant deformations, and that a nontrivial bound on the gap of scalar primaries exists for c < 25. We also study bounds on the dimension gap in the presence of twist gaps, bounds on the degeneracy of operators, and demonstrate how “extremal spectra” which maximize the degeneracy at the gap can be determined numerically.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations123
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207