MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116294950 · doi:10.1088/0305-4470/36/13/320

Full component Lagrangian in the linear multiplet formulation of string-inspired effective supergravity

2003· article· en· W2116294950 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel Giedt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and General · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNuclear PhysicsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyHigh Energy PhysicsOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSupergravityDilatonPhysicsMultipletHeterotic string theoryOrbifoldModuliParticle physicsString theoryTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsSupersymmetryQuantum mechanicsSpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compute the component field four-dimensional N = 1 supergravity Lagrangian that is obtained from a superfield Lagrangian in the U(1) K formalism with a linear dilaton multiplet.All fermionic terms are presented.In a variety of important ways, our results generalize those that have been reported previously, and are flexible enough to accommodate many situations of phenomenological interest in string-inspired effective supergravity, especially models based on orbifold compactifications of the weakly coupled heterotic string.We provide for an effective theory of hidden gaugino and matter condensation.We include supersymmetric Green-Schwarz counterterms associated with the cancellation of U(1) and modular duality anomalies; the modular duality counterterm is of a rather general form.Our assumed form for the dilaton Khler potential is quite general and can accommodate Khler stabilization methods.We note possible applications of our results.We also discuss the usefulness of the linear dilaton formulation as a complement to the chiral dilaton 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 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)0.000
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207