Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We derive several new reformulations of the Hubeny-Rangamani-Takayanagi covariant holographic entanglement entropy formula. These include: (1) a minimax formula, which involves finding a maximal-area achronal surface on a timelike hypersurface homologous to D(A) (the boundary causal domain of the region A whose entropy we are calculating) and minimizing over the hypersurface; (2) a max V-flow formula, in which we maximize the flux through D(A) of a divergenceless bulk 1-form V subject to an upper bound on its norm that is non-local in time; and (3) a min U-flow formula, in which we minimize the flux over a bulk Cauchy slice of a divergenceless timelike 1-form U subject to a lower bound on its norm that is non-local in space. The two flow formulas define convex programs and are related to each other by Lagrange duality. For each program, the optimal configurations dynamically find the HRT surface and the entanglement wedges of A and its complement. The V-flow formula is the covariant version of the Freedman-Headrick bit thread reformulation of the Ryu-Takayanagi formula. We also introduce a measure-theoretic concept of a “thread distribution”, and explain how Riemannian flows, V-flows, and U-flows can be expressed in terms of thread distributions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".