MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381193457 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/acdf9a

Modified toric code models with flux attachment from Hopf algebra gauge theory

2023· article· en· W4381193457 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aaron Conlon, Daniel Pellegrino, J. K. Slingerland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIrish Research CouncilScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsGauge groupToric codeGauge theoryHopf algebraPhysicsAlgebra over a fieldMathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumTopological order

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kitaev’s toric code is constructed using a finite gauge group from gauge theory. Such gauge theories can be extended with the gauge group generalized to any finite-dimensional semisimple Hopf algebra. This also leads to extensions of the toric code. Here we consider the simple case where the gauge group is unchanged but furnished with a non-trivial quasitriangular structure (R-matrix), which modifies the construction of the gauge theory. This leads to some interesting phenomena; for example, the space of functions on the group becomes a non-commutative algebra. We also obtain simple Hamiltonian models generalizing the toric code, which are of the same overall topological type as the toric code, except that the various species of particles created by string operators in the model are permuted in a way that depends on the R-matrix. In the case of Z N gauge theory, we find that the introduction of a non-trivial R-matrix amounts to flux attachment.

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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207