MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2345652868 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.064007

Black lenses in string theory

2016· article· en· W2345652868 on OpenAlexafffund
Hari K. Kunduri, James Lucietti

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsSupergravityBlack hole (networking)Mathematical physicsEvent horizonHorizonDecoupling (probability)String theoryGauged supergravitySupersymmetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new supersymmetric, asymptotically flat, black hole solution to five-dimensional $U(1{)}^{3}$ supergravity which is regular on and outside an event horizon of lens space topology $L(2,1)$. The solution has seven independent parameters and uplifts to a family of $1/8$-supersymmetric D1-D5-P black brane solutions to type IIB supergravity. The decoupling limit is asymptotically ${\mathrm{AdS}}_{3}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{S}^{3}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{T}^{4}$, with a near-horizon geometry that is a twisted product of the near-horizon geometry of the extremal Ba\~nados-Teitelboim-Zanelli black hole and $L(2,1)\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{T}^{4}$, although it is not (locally) a product space in the bulk. We show that the decoupling limit of a special case of the black lens is related to that of a black ring by spectral flow, thereby supplying an account of its entropy. Analogous solutions of $U(1{)}^{N}$ supergravity are also presented.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→