MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392242345 · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.2.061

Solvable models for 2+1D quantum critical points: Loop soups of 1+1D conformal field theories

2024· article· en· W4392242345 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Moharramipour, Dan Sehayek, Thomas Scaffidi

Bibliographic record

VenueSciPost Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConformal mapLoop (graph theory)Field (mathematics)Conformal field theoryQuantumPhysicsQuantum electrodynamicsTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct a class of solvable models for 2+1D quantum critical points by attaching 1+1D conformal field theories (CFTs) to fluctuating domain walls forming a “loop soup”. Specifically, our local Hamiltonian attaches gapless spin chains to the domain walls of a triangular lattice Ising antiferromagnet. The macroscopic degeneracy between antiferromagnetic configurations is split by the Casimir energy of each decorating CFT, which is usually negative and thus favors a short loop phase with a finite gap. However, we found a set of 1D CFT Hamiltonians for which the Casimir energy is effectively positive, making it favorable for domain walls to coalesce into a single “snake” which is macroscopically long and thus hosts a CFT with a vanishing gap. The snake configurations are geometrical objects also known as fully-packed self-avoiding walks or Hamiltonian walks which are described by an \mathrm{O} O (n=0) loop ensemble with a non-unitary 2+0D CFT description. Combining this description with the 1+1D decoration CFT, we obtain a 2+1D theory with unusual critical exponents and entanglement properties. Regarding the latter, we show that the log contributions from the decoration CFTs conspire with the spatial distribution of loops crossing the entanglement cut to generate a “non-local area law”. Our predictions are verified by Monte Carlo simulations.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciPost PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207