MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378363515 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acd97e

Light ray fluctuation and lattice refinement of simplicial quantum gravity

2023· article· en· W4378363515 on OpenAlexafffund
Ding Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueGovernment of CanadaMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsPhysicsLattice (music)SpacetimeUniversality (dynamical systems)QuantumQuantum gravityTheoretical physicsHilbert spaceClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In several approaches of non-perturbative quantum gravity, a major outstanding problem is to obtain results valid at the infinite lattice refinement limit. Working with Lorentzian simplicial quantum gravity, we compute light ray fluctuation probabilities in 3D and 4D across different lattices. In a simplified refined box model with the Einstein–Hilbert action, numerical results show that lattice refinement does not simply suppress or simply enhance light ray fluctuations, but actually drives very wide and very narrow light probability distributions towards intermediate ones. A comparison across lattices and across couplings reveals numerical hints at a lattice refinement fixed point associated with a universality class of couplings. The results fit the intuition that quantum spacetime fluctuations reflected by light ray fluctuations start wild microscopically and become mild macroscopically. The refined box model is limited by the assumption of a rigid frame at all scales. The present results suggest further studies around the zero-coupling limit to relax the simplifying assumptions of the model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207