MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416587718 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ae2356

Analogies between phase transitions in potential games and quantum phase transitions

2025· article· en· W4416587718 on OpenAlexaff
Archan Mukhopadhyay, Tanay Saha, Saikat Sur, Sagar Chakraborty

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsAntisymmetric relationQuantum phase transitionPhase transitionQuantum phasesQuantumPhase (matter)Limit (mathematics)Population

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Potential games at population level has a very natural analogy with statistical mechanical systems. Here we show that there are clear analogies between quantum phase transitions at zero temperature and phase transitions in potential games being played by fully rational players. Such phase transitions are brought about by tuning parameters which change the payoff matrix either directly (as in classical games) or indirectly through continuous change in strategies (as in quantum games). The phase transitions take the system from one Nash equilibrium to another; these Nash equilibria (NE) are, in a sense, refined as only the ones that correspond to global maxima of the potential are selected in the thermodynamic limit (infinite number of players). We observe that the types of the phase transitions depend on the states involved in the transition process: while transitions involving two symmetric NE are discontinuous, the transitions between a symmetric and an antisymmetric NE are continuous.

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 score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207