Higher-matter and Landau-Ginzburg theory of higher-group symmetries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher-matter is defined by higher-representation of a symmetry algebra, such as the p <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mi>p</mml:mi> </mml:math> -form symmetries, higher-group symmetries or higher-categorical symmetries. In this paper, we focus on the cases of higher-group symmetries, which are formulated in terms of the strictification of weak higher-groups. We systematically investigate higher-matter charged under 2-group symmetries, defined by automorphism 2-representations. Furthermore, we construct a Lagrangian formulation of such higher-matter fields coupled to 2-group gauge fields in the path space of the spacetime manifold. We interpret such model as the Landau-Ginzburg theory for 2-group symmetries, and discuss the spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) of 2-group symmetries under this framework. Examples of discrete and continuous 2-groups are discussed. Interestingly, we find that a non-split 2-group symmetry can admit an SSB to a split 2-group symmetry, where the Postnikov class is trivialized. We also briefly discuss the strictification of weak 3-groups, weak 3-group gauge fields and 3-representations in special cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".