MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109189861 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.046018

Trifundamental quartic model

2021· article· en· W3109189861 on OpenAlexafffund
Dario Benedetti, Razvan Gurău, Sabine Harribey

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueH2020 European Research CouncilDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Commission
KeywordsQuartic functionMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a multiscalar field theory either with short-range or long-range free action and with quartic interactions that are invariant under $O({N}_{1})\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}O({N}_{2})\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}O({N}_{3})$ transformations, of which the scalar fields form a trifundamental representation. We study the renormalization group fixed points at two loops at finite $N$ and in various large-$N$ scaling limits for small $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$, the latter being the deviation either from the critical dimension or from the critical scaling of the free propagator. In particular, for the homogeneous case ${N}_{i}=N$ for $i=1$, 2, 3, we study the subleading corrections to previously known fixed points. In the short-range model, for $\ensuremath{\epsilon}{N}^{2}\ensuremath{\gg}1$, we find complex fixed points with nonzero tetrahedral coupling that at leading order reproduce the results of Giombi et al. [Phys. Rev. D 96, 106014 (2017).]; the main novelty at next-to-leading order is that the critical exponents acquire a real part, thus allowing a correct identification of some fixed points as IR stable. In the long-range model, for $\ensuremath{\epsilon}N\ensuremath{\ll}1$, we find again complex fixed points with nonzero tetrahedral coupling that at leading order reproduce the line of stable fixed points of Benedetti et al. [J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2019) 053]; at next-to-leading order, this is reduced to a discrete set of stable fixed points. One difference between the short-range and the long-range cases is that in the former the critical exponents are purely imaginary at leading order and gain a real part at next-to-leading order, while for the latter the situation is reversed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.395 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207