MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2342870154 · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2016)022

Eternal higher spin black holes: a thermofield Interpretation

2016· article· en· W2342870154 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsBlack hole (networking)BTZ black holeQuantum entanglementBlack hole thermodynamicsExtremal black holeSpin (aerodynamics)Causality (physics)Entropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study Lorentzian eternal black holes in the Chern-Simons sector of AdS3 higher spin gravity. We probe such black holes using bulk Wilson lines and motivate new regularity conditions that must be obeyed by the bulk connections in order for the geometry to be consistent with an interpretation as a thermofield state in the dual CFT2. We demonstrate that any higher spin black hole may be placed in a gauge that satisfies these conditions: this is the Chern-Simons analogue of the construction of Kruskal coordinates that permit passage through the black hole horizon. We also argue that the Wilson line provides a higher-spin notion of causality in higher spin gravity that can be used to associate a Penrose diagram with the black hole. We present some applications of the formalism, including a study of the time-dependent entanglement entropy arising from the higher spin black hole interior and evidence for an emergent AdS2 region in the extremal limit.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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