MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399669885 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l121702

Entanglement, soft modes, and celestial holography

2024· article· en· W4399669885 on OpenAlexafffund
Hong Zhe Chen, Robert P. Myers, Ana-Maria Raclariu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesGovernment of CanadaHeising-Simons FoundationInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueSimons Foundation
KeywordsMinkowski spaceQuantum entanglementPhysicsSpacetimeMathematical physicsTheoretical physicsEntropy (arrow of time)EinsteinClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluate the vacuum entanglement entropy across a cut of future null infinity for free Maxwell theory in four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The Weyl invariance of 4D Maxwell theory allows us to embed the Minkowski spacetime inside the Einstein static universe. The Minkowski vacuum can then be described as a thermofield double state on the (future) Milne wedges of the original and inverted Minkowski patches. We show that the soft mode contribution to entanglement entropy is due to correlations between asymptotic charges of these Milne wedges or, equivalently, nontrivial conformally soft (or edge) mode configurations at the entangling surface. 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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.400 · 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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→