MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correspondences among CFTs with different W-algebra symmetry

2020· article· en· W3008103122 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Creutzig, Naoki Genra, Yasuaki Hikida, Tianshu Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Physics B · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsEmbeddingPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldUniversal enveloping algebraLie conformal algebraLie algebraHamiltonian (control theory)Algebra representationField (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

W-algebras are constructed via quantum Hamiltonian reduction associated with a Lie algebra g and an sl(2)-embedding into g. We derive correspondences among correlation functions of theories having different W-algebras as symmetry algebras. These W-algebras are associated to the same g but distinct sl(2)-embeddings. For this purpose, we first explore different free field realizations of W-algebras and then generalize previous works on the path integral derivation of correspondences of correlation functions. For g=sl(3), there is only one non-standard (non-regular) W-algebra known as the Bershadsky-Polyakov algebra. We examine its free field realizations and derive correlator correspondences involving the WZNW theory of sl(3), the Bershadsky-Polyakov algebra and the principal W3-algebra. There are three non-regular W-algebras associated to g=sl(4). We show that the methods developed for g=sl(3) can be applied straightforwardly. We briefly comment on extensions of our techniques to general g.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Physics BSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207