Numerical evaluation of spin foam amplitudes beyond simplices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the first numerical calculation of the 4D Euclidean spin foam vertex amplitude for vertices with hypercubic combinatorics. Concretely, we compute the amplitude for coherent boundary data peaked on cuboid and frustum shapes. We present the numerical algorithms to explicitly compute the vertex amplitude and compare the results in different cases to the semiclassical approximation of the amplitude. Overall we find good qualitative agreement of the amplitudes and evidence of convergence of the asymptotic formula to the full amplitude already at fairly small spins, yet also differences in the frequency of oscillations and a phase shift absent in the 4-simplex case. However, due to rapidly growing numerical costs, we cannot reach sufficiently high spins to prove agreement of both amplitudes. Lastly, this setup allows us to explore nonuniform vertex amplitudes, where some representations are small while others are large; we find indications that scenarios might exist in which the semiclassical amplitude is a valid approximation even if some spins remain small. This suggests that the transition of the quantum to the semiclassical regime (for a single vertex amplitude) is intricate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".