Holographic entanglement entropy in nonlocal theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compute holographic entanglement entropy in two strongly coupled nonlocal field theories: the dipole and the noncommutative deformations of SYM theory. We find that entanglement entropy in the dipole theory follows a volume law for regions smaller than the length scale of nonlocality and has a smooth cross-over to an area law for larger regions. In contrast, in the noncommutative theory the entanglement entropy follows a volume law for up to a critical length scale at which a phase transition to an area law occurs. The critical length scale increases as the UV cutoff is raised, which is indicative of UV/IR mixing and implies that entanglement entropy in the noncommutative theory follows a volume law for arbitrary large regions when the size of the region is fixed as the UV cutoff is removed to infinity. Comparison of behaviour between these two theories allows us to explain the origin of the volume law. Since our holographic duals are not asymptotically AdS, minimal area surfaces used to compute holographic entanglement entropy have novel behaviours near the boundary of the dual spacetime. We discuss implications of our results on the scrambling (thermalization) behaviour of these nonlocal field theories. 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".