MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412605819 · doi:10.1103/2wb3-9gsh

Physicality of evolution and statistical contractivity as equivalent notions of maps

2025· article· en· W4412605819 on OpenAlexafffund
Paolo Abiuso, Dario De Santis, Jacopo Surace

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersHorizon 2020QuantERAAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceAustrian Science FundEuropean CommissionConsejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaScuola Normale Superiore
KeywordsStatistical physicsEpistemologyEconomic geographyMathematicsGeographyPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical quantifiers are generically required to contract under physical evolutions, following the intuition that information should be lost under noisy transformations. This principle is very relevant in statistics, and it even allows to derive uniqueness results based on it: by imposing their contractivity under any physical maps, the Chentsov-Petz theorem singles out a unique family of metrics on the space of probability distributions (or density matrices) called the Fisher information metrics. This result might suggest that statistical quantifiers are a derived concept, as their very definition is based on physical maps. The aim of this work is to disprove this belief. Indeed, we present a result dual to the Chentsov-Petz theorem, proving that among all possible linear maps, the only ones that contract the Fisher information are exactly the physical ones. This result shows that, contrary to the common opinion, there is no fundamental hierarchy between physical maps and canonical statistical quantifiers, as either of them can be defined in terms of the other.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.021
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.411 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A→Same topicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals→French-language works237,207→