MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3099259189

Large Representation Recurrences in Large N Random Unitary Matrix Models

2016· article· en· W3099259189 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna L. Karczmarek, Gordon W. Semenoff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsUnitary matrixMathematicsRank (graph theory)Semiclassical physicsUnitary stateRepresentation (politics)Unitary representationCharacter (mathematics)Limit (mathematics)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Random matrixMatrix (chemical analysis)Pure mathematicsFunction (biology)Circular ensembleOrder (exchange)CombinatoricsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsPhysicsQuantumLie group
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a random unitary matrix model at large N, we study the properties of the ex-pectation value of the character of the unitary matrix in the rank k symmetric tensor representation. We address the problem of whether the standard semiclassical tech-nique for solving the model in the large N limit can be applied when the representation is very large, with k of order N. We find that the eigenvalues do indeed localize on an extremum of the effective potential; however, for finite but sufficiently large k/N, it is not possible to replace the discrete eigenvalue density with a continuous one. Nonethe-less, the expectation value of the character has a well-defined large N limit, and when the discreteness of the eigenvalues is properly accounted for, it shows an intriguing approximate periodicity as a function of k/N. ar X iv

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→