MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387015311 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.054508

Reflected entropy and computable cross-norm negativity: Free theories and symmetry resolution

2023· article· en· W4387015311 on OpenAlexafffund
Clément Berthière, Gilles Parez

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesUniversité de MontréalCentre de Recherches Mathématiques
KeywordsQuantum entanglementPhysicsBosonFermionConformal field theoryQuantum mechanicsEntropy (arrow of time)Mathematical physicsConformal mapTheoretical physicsQuantumMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate a separability criterion based on the computable cross-norm (CCNR), and a related quantity called the CCNR negativity. We introduce a reflected version of the CCNR negativity, and discuss its connection with other well-established entanglement-related quantities, namely the reflected entropy and the operator entanglement entropy. For free fermionic and bosonic theories, we derive exact formulas in terms of two-point correlation functions, which allow for systematic numerical investigations and, in principle, analytical treatments. For systems with a global $U(1)$ symmetry, we study the symmetry-resolved reflected entropy and CCNR negativity. We provide conformal field theory results for the charged moments in the case of adjacent intervals, finding perfect agreement with the numerics. We observe an equipartition of reflected entropies and CCNR negativities, both for free-fermions and free-boson models. The first charge-dependent corrections are conjectured for fermions and worked out from the conformal field theory calculations for bosons.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.398 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207