MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102836944 · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)055

tt * geometry in 3 and 4 dimensions

2014· article· en· W2102836944 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInstantonMagnetic monopolePartition function (quantum field theory)GeneralizationToroidSurface (topology)Space (punctuation)Moduli spaceGauge theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the vacuum geometry of supersymmetric theories with 4 supercharges, on a flat toroidal geometry. The 2 dimensional vacuum geometry is known to be captured by the tt * geometry. In the case of 3 dimensions, the parameter space is (T 2 × $ \mathbb{R} $ ) N and the vacuum geometry turns out to be a solution to a generalization of monopole equations in 3N dimensions where the relevant topological ring is that of line operators. We compute the generalization of the 2d cigar amplitudes, which lead to S 2 × S 1 or S 3 partition functions which are distinct from the supersymmetric partition functions on these spaces, but reduce to them in a certain limit. We show the sense in which these amplitudes generalize the structure of 3d Chern-Simons theories and 2d RCFT’s. In the case of 4 dimensions the parameter space is of the form X M,N = (T 3 × $ \mathbb{R} $ ) M × T 3N , and the vacuum geometry is a solution to a mixture of generalized monopole equations and generalized instanton equations (known as hyper-holomorphic connections). In this case the topological rings are associated to surface operators. We discuss the physical meaning of the generalized Nahm transforms which act on all of these geometries.

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 score0.005
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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