MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393994586 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.086009

Further remarks on de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement

2024· article· en· W4393994586 on OpenAlexfundno aff
K. Narayan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInfosys Foundation
KeywordsQuantum entanglementDe Sitter spaceReplica trickAnti-de Sitter spaceDe Sitter universeReplicaEntropy (arrow of time)Physicsde Sitter invariant special relativityMathematical physicsTheoretical physicsSquashed entanglementQuantum mechanicsGeographyUniverseSymmetry breaking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop further the investigations by Narayan [de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement, ] on de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement. We discuss the no-boundary de Sitter extremal surface areas as certain analytic continuations from AdS while also amounting to space-time rotations. The structure of the extremal surfaces suggests a geometric picture of the time-entanglement or pseudo-entanglement wedge. We also study some entropy relations for multiple subregions. The analytic continuation suggests a heuristic Lewkowycz-Maldacena formulation of the extremal surface areas. In the bulk, this is now a replica formulation on the Wavefunction, which suggests interpretation as pseudo-entropy. Finally, we also discuss aspects of future-past entangled states and time evolution. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207