MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2155955419 · doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)144

Higher-spin gravity as a theory on a fixed (anti) de Sitter background

2015· article· en· W2155955419 on OpenAlexafffund
Yasha Neiman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSpacetimePhysicsMathematical physicsAnti-de Sitter spaceGravitationMassless particleDe Sitter universeLorentz transformationQuantum gravityTheoretical physicsLorentz groupClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsUniverseQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study Vasiliev’s higher-spin gravity in 3+1d. We formulate the theory in the so-called compensator formalism, where the local isometry group SO(4, 1) is reduced to the Lorentz group SO(3, 1) by a choice of spacelike direction in an internal 4+1d space. We present a consistent extension of Vasiliev’s equations that allows this internal direction to become spacetime-dependent. This allows a new point of view on the theory, where spacetime is identified with the de Sitter space of possible internal directions. We thus obtain an interacting theory of higher-spin massless gauge fields on a fixed, maximally symmetric background spacetime. We expect implications for the physical interpretation of higher-spin gravity, for the search for a Lagrangian formulation and/or quantization, as well as for higher-spin holography.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→