MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297424037 · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.13.4.081

Navigating through the O(N) archipelago

2022· article· en· W4297424037 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benoit Sirois

Bibliographic record

VenueSciPost Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCalifornia Institute of TechnologyMitsubishi International CorporationGordon and Betty Moore FoundationSimons Foundation
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Unitary stateLimit (mathematics)Simple (philosophy)Space (punctuation)ArchipelagoPlane (geometry)Range (aeronautics)ScalingPath (computing)Computer scienceParametric statisticsMathematicsIsing modelAlgorithmApplied mathematicsPhysicsStatistical physicsMathematical analysisGeometryStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel method for finding allowed regions in the space of CFT-data, coined navigator method, was recently proposed in [1]. Its efficacy was demonstrated in the simplest example possible, i.e. that of the mixed-correlator study of the 3D Ising Model. In this paper, we would like to show that the navigator method may also be applied to the study of the family of d d -dimensional O(N) O ( N ) models. We will aim to follow these models in the (d,N) ( d , N ) plane. We will see that the ``sailing’’ from island to island can be understood in the context of the navigator as a parametric optimization problem, and we will exploit this fact to implement a simple and effective path-following algorithm. By sailing with the navigator through the (d,N) ( d , N ) plane, we will provide estimates of the scaling dimensions (\Delta_{\phi},\Delta_{s},\Delta_{t}) ( Δ ϕ , Δ s , Δ t ) in the entire range (d,N) \in [3,4] \times [1,3] ( d , N ) ∈ [ 3 , 4 ] × [ 1 , 3 ] . We will show that to our level of precision, we cannot see the non-unitary nature of the O(N) O ( N ) models due to the fractional values of d d or N N in this range. We will also study the limit N \to 1 N → 1 , and see that we cannot find any solution to the unitary mixed-correlator crossing equations below N=1 N = 1 .

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciPost PhysicsSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207