MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403625736 · doi:10.1007/jhep10(2024)150

Spikes and spines in 4D Lorentzian simplicial quantum gravity

2024· article· en· W4403625736 on OpenAlexafffund
Johanna N. Borissova, Bianca Dittrich, Dongxue Qu, Marc Schiffer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate UniversityGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and Universities
KeywordsPhysicsQuantum gravityQuantumTheoretical physicsSpin foamAbstract simplicial complexSimplicial manifoldClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsLoop quantum gravitySimplicial complexPure mathematicsSimplicial set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract Simplicial approaches to quantum gravity such as quantum Regge calculus and spin foams include configurations where bulk edges can become arbitrarily large while the boundary edges are kept small. Spikes and spines are prime examples for such configurations. They pose a significant challenge for a desired continuum limit, for which the average lengths of edges ought to become very small. Here we investigate spike and spine configurations in four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum Regge calculus. We find that the expectation values of arbitrary powers of the bulk length are finite. To that end, we explore new types of asymptotic regimes for the Regge amplitudes, in which some of the edges are much larger than the remaining ones. The amplitudes simplify considerably in such asymptotic regimes and the geometric interpretation of the resulting expressions involves a dimensional reduction, which might have applications to holography.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207