MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122719663 · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2012)141

Exact results for ’t Hooft loops in Gauge theories on S 4

2012· article· en· W2122719663 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSociety of Fellows, Harvard UniversityDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaCERNAspen Center for PhysicsJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsInstantonGauge theorySupersymmetric gauge theoryPath integral formulationGauge (firearms)Quantum field theoryBRST quantizationQuantum gauge theoryConformal mapWilson loop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The path integral of a general $\mathcal{N} = 2$ supersymmetric gauge theory on S 4 is exactly evaluated in the presence of a supersymmetric ’t Hooft loop operator. The result we find — obtained using localization techniques — captures all perturbative quantum corrections as well as non-perturbative effects due to instantons and monopoles, which are supported at the north pole, south pole and equator of S 4. As a by-product, our gauge theory calculations successfully confirm the predictions made for ’t Hooft loops obtained from the calculation of topological defect correlators in Liouville/Toda conformal field theory.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations104
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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