A surprising similarity between holographic CFTs and a free fermion in (2 + 1) dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compare the behavior of the vacuum free energy (i.e. the Casimir energy) of various (2 + 1)-dimensional CFTs on an ultrastatic spacetime as a function of the spatial geometry. The CFTs we consider are a free Dirac fermion, the conformally-coupled scalar, and a holographic CFT, and we take the spatial geometry to be an axisymmetric deformation of the round sphere. The free energies of the fermion and of the scalar are computed numerically using heat kernel methods; the free energy of the holographic CFT is computed numerically from a static, asymptotically AdS dual geometry using a novel approach we introduce here. We find that the free energy of the two free theories is qualitatively similar as a function of the sphere deformation, but we also find that the holographic CFT has a remarkable and mysteriousquantitativesimilarity to the free fermion; this agreement is especially surprising given that the holographic CFT is strongly-coupled. Over the wide ranges of deformations for which we are able to perform the computations accurately, the scalar and fermion differ by up to 50% whereas the holographic CFT differs from the fermion by less than one percent.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".