MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2060403785 · doi:10.1007/jhep01(2014)138

Holographic collisions in confining theories

2014· article· en· W2060403785 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaSan Diego Supercomputer CenterCERNPartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBLNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGauge theoryCollisionGauge (firearms)GravitationBlack hole (networking)Distortion (music)Gravitational waveStrong gravity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the gravitational dual of a high-energy collision in a confining gauge theory. We consider a linearized approach in which two point particles traveling in an AdS-soliton background suddenly collide to form an object at rest (presumably a black hole for large enough center-of-mass energies). The resulting radiation exhibits the features expected in a theory with a mass gap: late-time power law tails of the form t −3/2, the failure of Huygens’ principle and distortion of the wave pattern as it propagates. The energy spectrum is exponentially suppressed for frequencies smaller than the gauge theory mass gap. Consequently, we observe no memory effect in the gravitational waveforms. At larger frequencies the spectrum has an upward-stairway structure, which corresponds to the excitation of the tower of massive states in the confining gauge theory. We discuss the importance of phenomenological cutoffs to regularize the divergent spectrum, and the aspects of the full non-linear collision that are expected to be captured by our approach.

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)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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