MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1914015955 · doi:10.1007/jhep10(2015)071

String worldsheet for accelerating quark

2015· article· en· W1914015955 on OpenAlexafffund
Veronika E. Hubeny, Gordon W. Semenoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaScience and Technology Facilities CouncilAmbrose Monell Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsWorldsheetMinkowski spaceQuarkString (physics)Particle physicsSpacetimeBoundary value problemQuantum electrodynamicsTheoretical physicsString field theoryMathematical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the AdS bulk dual to an external massive quark in SYM following an arbitrary trajectory on Minkowski background. While a purely outgoing boundary condition on the gluonic field allows one to express the corresponding string worldsheet in a closed form, the setup has curious consequences. In particular, we argue that any quark whose trajectory on flat spacetime approaches that of a light ray in the remote past (as happens e.g. in the case of uniform acceleration) must necessarily be accompanied by an anti-quark. This is puzzling from the field theory standpoint, since one would expect that a sole quark following any timelike trajectory should be allowed. We explain the resolution in terms of boundary and initial conditions. We analyze the configuration in global AdS, which naturally suggests a modification to the boundary conditions allowing for a single accelerated quark without accompanying anti-quark. We contrast this resolution with earlier proposals.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→