MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985400971 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x07037330

HIGHER GAUGE THEORY AND GRAVITY IN 2+1 DIMENSIONS

2007· article· en· W1985400971 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntroduction to gauge theoryQuantum gauge theoryHamiltonian lattice gauge theorySupersymmetric gauge theoryGauge theoryGauge anomalyGauge bosonBRST quantizationLattice gauge theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-Abelian higher gauge theory has recently emerged as a generalization of standard gauge theory to higher-dimensional (two-dimensional in the present context) connection forms, and as such, it has been successfully applied to the non-Abelian generalizations of the Yang–Mills theory and 2-form electrodynamics. (2+1)-dimensional gravity, on the other hand, has been a fertile testing ground for many concepts related to classical and quantum gravity, and it is therefore only natural to investigate whether we can find an application of higher gauge theory in this latter context. In the present paper we investigate the possibility of applying the formalism of higher gauge theory to gravity in 2+1 dimensions, and we show that a nontrivial model of (2+1)-dimensional gravity coupled to scalar and tensorial matter fields — the ΣΦEA model — can be formulated as a higher gauge theory (as well as a standard gauge theory). Since the model has a very rich structure — it admits as solutions black-hole BTZ-like geometries, particle-like geometries as well as Robertson–Friedman–Walker cosmological-like expanding geometries — this opens a wide perspective for higher gauge theory to be tested and understood in a relevant gravitational context. Additionally, it offers the possibility of studying gravity in 2+1 dimensions coupled to matter in an entirely new framework.

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)0.001
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207