MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stability of Anti–de Sitter Space in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity

2015· article· en· W1679034887 on OpenAlexafffund
Nils Deppe, Allison Kolly, Andrew R. Frey, G. Kunstatter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théorique
KeywordsPhysicsEinsteinDe Sitter spaceDe Sitter universeMathematical physicsSpace (punctuation)Gauss–Bonnet gravityde Sitter invariant special relativityClassical mechanicsUniversePhilosophyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently it has been argued that in Einstein gravity anti-de Sitter spacetime is unstable against the formation of black holes for a large class of arbitrarily small perturbations. We examine the effects of including a Gauss-Bonnet term. In five dimensions, spherically symmetric Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity has two key features: Choptuik scaling exhibits a radius gap, and the mass function goes to a finite value as the horizon radius vanishes. These suggest that black holes will not form dynamically if the total mass-energy content of the spacetime is too small, thereby restoring the stability of anti-de Sitter spacetime in this context. We support this claim with numerical simulations and uncover a rich structure in horizon radii and formation times as a function of perturbation amplitude.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207