Superadditivity at large charge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract The weak gravity conjecture has been invoked to conjecture that the dimensions of charged operators in a CFT should obey a superadditivity relation (sometimes referred to as convexity). In this paper, we study superadditivity of the operator spectrum in theories expanded about the semi-classical saddle point that dominates correlators of large charge operators. We explore this in two contexts. The first is a model with two scalar fields that carry different charges, at a non-trivial Wilson-Fisher fixed point. A careful analysis of the semi-classics for this two field model demonstrates that ‘quantum’ violations of superadditivity (those not forbidden by the conjecture) persist in the large charge regime. We then turn to study the general properties of CFTs at large charge as bottom-up EFTs. By a trial and error procedure we come up with a seemingly consistent family of examples violating the conjecture. In so doing the presence of a genuine dilaton field appears necessary. On the one hand our result demonstrates that the superadditivity conjecture cannot be proven purely on the basis of a bottom-up analysis. On the other hand, the need for a dilaton, with the corresponding infinite fine tuning, indicates the conjecture-violating EFTs are unlikely to be UV completable.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".