Neural Networks Everywhere


There are a bunch of papers on neural nets that I have been fascinated by, which I hope to eventually read. Here are a few of them:
  1. [2402.13321] Rigor with Machine Learning from Field Theory to the Poincaré Conjecture,
  2. Related to the above paper, [2310.19870] Metric Flows with Neural Networks,
  3. [1801.03918] Black Holes as Brains: Neural Networks with Area Law Entropy,
  4. A paper I found on diffusion models and neural nets (not exactly something I am familiar with yet) recommended by p-adic: [2211.14680] A Physics-informed Diffusion Model for High-fidelity Flow Field Reconstruction.
And some more that I have to find. I am also typing up on Part Three in Bulk Physics, Algebras and All That, which should be out in a while.

de Sitter Essay

Initially, I intended to write an Essay for the GRF contest on de Sitter subregions, which I have been fascinated by for quite some time now. The first thing I had in mind was to work on a bit with these subregions and see if I could come up with something, but noticing that the natural direction of progression went to doing double Wick rotations and stuff, I decided I wanted to ease on doing something original. Let me explain why I came to this decision.

The whole thing with dS/CFT is that we don't know what to do with subregions, and instead of having nice entanglement entropy like we have in AdS/CFT with the Ryu-Takayanagi formula, we instead have to deal with a non-unitary CFT, and work with transition matrices instead of density matrices. The result of this is that instead of having something like 

\[S=-\mathrm{Tr} \;\rho \log \rho \in \mathbb{R}\;,\]

we have to deal with something like 

\[\mathcal{S}=-\mathrm{Tr}\;\tau \log \tau \in \mathbb{C}\;,\]

which is ugly for two reasons: (1) complex-valued entanglement entropy is indicative of extremal surfaces that are timelike in nature rather than spacelike, and (2) this also implies a non-trivial set of information theoretic things. For instance, in AdS/CFT, Ryu-Takayanagi with corrections is the FLM formula, which in turn implies an equivalence of bulk and boundary relative entropies from the JLMS formula:

\[S(\rho _{A}|\sigma _{A})=S(\rho _{a}|\sigma _{a})\;,\]

where $\rho _{A}$ are density matrices associated to the boundary subregion $A$ and $\rho _{a}$ are density matrices associated to bulk subregions $a$ -- but how to look at something like this in dS/CFT is not entirely clear, since we have to deal with transition matrices; for that matter, what to even naively expect of subregion duality is not clear (except Narayan's geometric works, which are pretty good in having some intuition with this). One idea is to use the first law of entanglement with perturbed states $\rho \to \rho +\delta \rho $, which also works for transition matrices from pseudo-modular Hamiltonians so that we have something like 

\[S(\tau +\delta \tau )-S(\tau )\sim \langle \widetilde{K}_{\tau +\delta \tau }\rangle -\langle \widetilde{K}_{\tau }\rangle +O(\delta \tau ^{2})\;,\]

and do something similar to Dong, Harlow and Wall's works in AdS/CFT in dS/CFT, which is something I am currently working on. But the thing about double Wick rotations is that at least for me, it does not seem empirical enough; the basic idea is that going from Poincare AdS path

\[ds^{2}=\frac{l^{2}_{\text{AdS}}}{z^{2}}\left(-dt^{2}+dz^{2}+\sum _{a=1}^{D-2}dx^{a}dx^{a} \right)\;,\]

 to Euclidean AdS and double Wick rotating this by 

\[z\longrightarrow i\eta \;, \;\;\;\;\; l_{\text{AdS}}\longrightarrow -il_{\text{dS}}\;\]

to relate to the dS planar slicing (here I set $l_{\text{dS}}=1$)

\[ds^{2}=\frac{1}{\eta ^{2}}\left(-d\eta ^{2}+\sum _{a=1}^{D-1}dx^{a}dx^{a} \right)\;.\]

From this, one can find the timelike entanglement entropy and correspondingly subregions (at least in the Hartman-Maldacena fashion). I am trying to get a better feel for the more ``canonical" side of things, and this seems to be a little too straightforward for my liking.

So instead, I am writing a Tom Banks-inspired Essay in which I am basically presenting a few of my thoughts on how some things in dS/CFT could be resolved, although these are presented in a very straightforward way and is not meant to be precise whatsoever. One of the other things I was thinking of adding in the Essay is on asymptotic quantization and CFT partition-like functionals obtained in the $\mu \to 0$ limit (where $\mu $ is some deformation parameter; essentially tells us how the rescaling of the metric $g$ takes us to different slices, and more precisely is the deformation parameter attributed to $T\overline{T}$-deformations in doing Cauchy slice holography), although my remarks in that section are not very clear and I am yet to work on it. 

Bulk Ignorance vs Boundary Algebra

 Most of the time in AdS/CFT the bulk is the more complicated story, although in the general discussion of holography the bulk and the boundary both are somewhat mischievous. A result that I am working with is that the type III and type II attribution of the boundary algebras reflect the algebraic-ification of algebras $\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{U})$ associated to a bulk bounded region $\mathcal{U}$, in the following sense. One works from the basis of Haag-Kastler setting, where we attribute to these $\mathcal{U}\subset \Sigma $ in a globally hyperbolic manifold $(M, g)$. We do not wish to work in a non-holographic theory for the sake of this article, although being in a non-holographic theory allows some amount of ease with things like the split property. It should be clear immediately that this can be extended to bulk subregions, for which the algebra is type III as Liu-Leutheusser showed. In this framework, when $\mathcal{A}(\widetilde{R})$ (for some boundary subregion $\widetilde{R}$) is a type II algebra, one can associate the notion of density matrices and entanglement entropy; the bulk dual $\mathcal{A}(R)$ ($R$ being the bulk subregion dual to $\widetilde{R}$) would then have a plausible definition of generalized entropy. This is a very general argument; one can define entropy for $\widetilde{R}$, $\mathcal{S}(\widetilde{R})$ and attribute to it some generalized entropy, and establish a neat relation with the relative entropy. Formally, in type III von Neumann entropy is not well-defined, but nonetheless one can describe the relative entropy of some semiclassical state $|\hat{\Phi }\rangle $ with $|\hat{\Psi }\rangle $ a cyclic and separating state, set with $\delta A_{X}=0$, which looks something like 

\[S(\hat{\Phi }|\hat{\Psi })=-S(\hat{\Phi })-\langle \ln \rho _{\hat{\Psi }}\rangle _{\hat{\Phi }}\;,\]

which can be simplified into a better form by identifying the modular Hamiltonian. In type II, this is no longer merely ``formal", and allows us to elaborately identify the generalized entropy of the subregion. Of course, to work with bulk algebras more formally is certainly interesting, since usually the bulk is the more complicated half of AdS/CFT. A very vague idea of what I had initially is to essentially do this in terms of LCQFTs to see what happens to the split property established at the bifurcation surface $X$. While I did make some good-ish progress, I never got to formalizing it. However, in between, I am working on some set of notes on LCQFTs, which might be a good read once completed. 

P.S. More Hans Niemann debate in the chess world from the St. Louis club. Apparently SLCC did not invite him for their tournaments because of some ``inappropriate behaviour", which Niemann apologized for but is now claiming is just more drama. Catch up with Niemann's video on their letter to him here: I have fully addressed all of the claims made by the STL Chess club in their letter, addressed their private letter to me and given context to my history with the Club. Let's make one detail absolutely clear, I received 0 invitations to STL Events, before I regretably caused..."