MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414749397 · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.19.4.084

Cryptographic tests of the python’s lunch conjecture

2025· article· en· W4414749397 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex May, Sabrina Pasterski, Chris Waddell, Ming Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueSciPost Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersMinistry of Colleges and Universities
KeywordsConjectureBounded functionTensor (intrinsic definition)CryptographyQuantum entanglementWedge (geometry)Surface (topology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the AdS/CFT correspondence, a subregion of the CFT allows for the recovery of a corresponding subregion of the bulk known as its entanglement wedge. In some cases, an entanglement wedge contains a locally but not globally minimal surface homologous to the CFT subregion, in which case it is said to contain a python’s lunch. It has been proposed that python’s lunch geometries should be modelled by tensor networks that feature projective operations where the wedge narrows. This model leads to the python’s lunch (PL) conjecture, which asserts that reconstructing information from past the locally minimal surface is computationally difficult. In this work, we use cryptographic tools related to a primitive known as the Conditional Disclosure of Secrets (CDS) to develop consequences of the projective tensor network model that can be checked directly in AdS/CFT. We argue from the tensor network picture that the mutual information between appropriate CFT subregions is lower bounded linearly by an area difference associated with the geometry of the lunch. Recalling that the mutual information is also computed by bulk extremal surfaces, this gives a checkable geometrical consequence of the tensor network model. We prove weakened versions of this geometrical statement in asymptotically AdS _{2+1} <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi/> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:math> spacetimes satisfying the null energy condition, and confirm it in some example geometries, supporting the tensor network model and by proxy the PL conjecture.

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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciPost PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207