MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Noninvertible Time-Reversal Symmetry

2023· article· en· W4361207520 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yichul Choi, Ho Tat Lam, Shu-Heng Shao

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and electron transport phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesGovernment of OntarioMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaCroucher FoundationGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsT-symmetryPhysicsSymmetry (geometry)Mathematical physicsHomogeneous spaceGauge theoryOperator (biology)Conformal mapGauge symmetryTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In gauge theory, it is commonly stated that time-reversal symmetry only exists at $\ensuremath{\theta}=0$ or $\ensuremath{\pi}$ for a $2\ensuremath{\pi}$-periodic $\ensuremath{\theta}$ angle. In this Letter, we point out that in both the free Maxwell theory and massive QED, there is a noninvertible time-reversal symmetry at every rational $\ensuremath{\theta}$ angle, i.e., $\ensuremath{\theta}=\ensuremath{\pi}p/N$. The noninvertible time-reversal symmetry is implemented by a conserved, antilinear operator without an inverse. It is a composition of the naive time-reversal transformation and a fractional quantum Hall state. We also find similar noninvertible time-reversal symmetries in non-Abelian gauge theories, including the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SU(2) super Yang-Mills theory along the locus $|\ensuremath{\tau}|=1$ on the conformal manifold.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations107
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum and electron transport phenomenaFrench-language works237,207