MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210260917 · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.12.2.046

Constraints on beta functions in field theories

2022· article· en· W4210260917 on OpenAlexafffund
Han Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBETA (programming language)Field (mathematics)Beta function (physics)PhysicsQuantum electrodynamicsMathematicsComputer sciencePure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsProgramming languageThermal quantum field theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The $\beta$-functions describe how couplings run under the renormalization group flow in field theories. In general, all couplings that respect the symmetry and locality are generated under the renormalization group flow, and the exact renormalization group flow is characterized by the $\beta$-functions defined in the infinite dimensional space of couplings. In this paper, we show that the renormalization group flow is highly constrained so that the $\beta$-functions defined in a measure zero subspace of couplings completely determine the $\beta$-functions in the entire space of couplings. We provide a quantum renormalization group-based algorithm for reconstructing the full $\beta$-functions from the $\beta$-functions defined in the subspace. As examples, we derive the full $\beta$-functions for the $O(N)$ vector model and the $O_L(N) \times O_R(N)$ matrix model entirely from the $\beta$-functions defined in the subspace of single-trace couplings.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→