Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we will analyze a three-dimensional supersymmetric Chern–Simons theory in SIM(1) superspace formalism. The breaking of the Lorentz symmetry down to the SIM(1) symmetry breaks half the supersymmetry of the Lorentz invariant theory. So, the supersymmetry of the Lorentz invariant Chern–Simons theory with $${\mathcal {N}} =1$$ supersymmetry will break down to $${\mathcal {N}}=1/2$$ supersymmetry, when the Lorentz symmetry is broken down to the SIM(1) symmetry. First, we will write the Chern–Simons action using SIM(1) projections of $${\mathcal {N}} =1$$ superfields. However, as the SIM(1) transformations of these projections are very complicated, we will define SIM(1) superfields which transform simply under SIM(1) transformations. We will then express the Chern–Simons action using these SIM(1) superfields. Furthermore, we will analyze the gauge symmetry of this Chern–Simons theory. This is the first time that a Chern–Simons theory with $${\mathcal {N}} =1/2$$ supersymmetry will be constructed on a manifold without a boundary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".