MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042556711 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.046021

Free energy from replica wormholes

2021· article· en· W3042556711 on OpenAlexafffund
Netta Engelhardt, Sebastian Fischetti, Alexander Maloney

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimons FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsReplicaWormholeReplica trickQuantum entanglementTheoretical physicsPhysicsComputationSymmetry breakingGravitationTopology (electrical circuits)QuantumStatistical physicsClassical mechanicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsMathematicsAlgorithmCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Euclidean wormholes---geometries which connect disconnected boundaries---present a challenge to a standard quantum mechanical interpretation of the theory. One potential resolution is that the gravitational path integral computes the ensemble average of many theories. The connected topologies contribute to the simplest possible observable: the free energy, which is computed using a replica trick. This is distinct from the replica trick used to compute entanglement entropies and appears in the computation of any extensive quantity. We argue that both JT gravity and a simplified version of CGHS admit a regime where the contribution of connected replica wormholes to the free energy is larger than that of disconnected topologies. In both theories we find evidence of replica symmetry breaking, which is reminiscent of the behavior of certain spin glasses. We discuss possible insights about ensemble averaging in gravity from this perspective.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations95
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207