MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989973281 · doi:10.1007/jhep04(2020)182

Entanglement entropy and the large N expansion of two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory

2020· article· en· W2989973281 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueGovernment of CanadaInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsQuantum entanglementJoint quantum entropySemiclassical physicsQuantum relative entropyEntropy (arrow of time)Replica trickFermionGeneralized relative entropyRényi entropyEntropy rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract Two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory is a useful model of an exactly solvable gauge theory with a string theory dual at large N . We calculate entanglement entropy in the 1 /N expansion by mapping the theory to a system of N fermions interacting via a repulsive entropic force. The entropy is a sum of two terms: the “Boltzmann entropy,” log dim( R ) per point of the entangling surface, which counts the number of distinct microstates, and the “Shannon entropy,” − Σ p R log p R , which captures fluctuations of the macroscopic state. We find that the entropy scales as N 2 in the large N limit, and that at this order only the Boltzmann entropy contributes. We further show that the Shannon entropy scales linearly with N , and confirm this behaviour with numerical simulations. While the term of order N is surprising from the point of view of the string dual — in which only even powers of N appear in the partition function — we trace it to a breakdown of large N counting caused by the replica trick. This mechanism could lead to corrections to holographic entanglement entropy larger than expected from semiclassical field theory.

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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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