MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117784030 · doi:10.3390/e28010058

Matrix Quantum Mechanics and Entanglement Entropy: A Review

2025· article· en· W7117784030 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jackson R. Fliss, Alexander Frenkel

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate UniversityFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSYork UniversityTata Institute of Fundamental ResearchSimons Foundation
KeywordsQuantum entanglementSquashed entanglementEntropy (arrow of time)Joint quantum entropyMultipartite entanglementQuantum discordTopological entropy in physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review aspects of entanglement entropy in the quantum mechanics of N×N matrices, i.e., matrix quantum mechanics (MQM), at large N. In doing so, we review standard models of MQM and their relation to string theory, D-brane physics, and emergent non-commutative geometries. We overview, in generality, definitions of subsystems and entanglement entropies in theories with gauge redundancy and discuss the additional structure required for definining subsystems in MQMs possessing a U(N) gauge redundancy. In connecting these subsystems to non-commutative geometry, we review several works on ‘target space entanglement,’ and entanglement in non-commutative field theories, highlighting the conditions in which target space entanglement entropy displays an ‘area law’ at large N. We summarize several example calculations of entanglement entropy in non-commutative geometries and MQMs. We review recent work in connecting the area law entanglement of MQM to the Ryu–Takayanagi formula, highlighting the conditions in which U(N) invariance implies a minimal area formula for the entanglement entropy at large N. Finally, we make comments on open questions and research directions.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207