MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100240049 · doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)054

de Sitter vacua in type IIB string theory: classical solutions and quantum corrections

2014· article· en· W2100240049 on OpenAlexafffund
Keshav Dasgupta, Rhiannon Gwyn, Evan McDonough, Mohammed Mia, Radu Tătar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and DiscoveryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSupergravityDe Sitter universePhysicsOrientifoldString theoryMathematical physicsAnti-de Sitter spaceSpacetimeDe Sitter spacede Sitter invariant special relativityCurvatureQuantum gravityTheoretical physicsSupersymmetryClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumUniverseGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the classical theory of ten-dimensional two-derivative gravity coupled to fluxes, scalar fields, D-branes, anti D-branes and Orientifold-planes. We show that such set-ups do not give rise to a four-dimensional positive curvature spacetime with the isometries of de Sitter spacetime. We further argue that a de Sitter solution in type IIB theory may still be achieved if the higher-order curvature corrections are carefully controlled. Our analysis relies on the derivation of the de Sitter condition from an explicit background solution by going beyond the supergravity limit of type IIB theory. As such this also tells us how the background supersymmetry should be broken and under what conditions D-term uplifting can be realized with non self-dual fluxes.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations76
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207