MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577849856 · doi:10.1007/jhep03(2017)074

Supersymmetric partition functions and the three-dimensional A-twist

2017· article· en· W2577849856 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaStony Brook UniversityNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaJohn Templeton FoundationMinistero dello Sviluppo Economico
KeywordsPartition function (quantum field theory)SuperpotentialSupersymmetric gauge theorySupersymmetrySeiberg dualityGauge theoryTopological quantum field theoryWilson loop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study three-dimensional $$ \mathcal{N}=2 $$ supersymmetric gauge theories on $$ {\mathrm{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,p} $$ , an oriented circle bundle of degree p over a closed Riemann surface, Σ g . We compute the $$ {\mathrm{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,p} $$ supersymmetric partition function and correlation functions of supersymmetric loop operators. This uncovers interesting relations between observables on manifolds of different topologies. In particular, the familiar supersymmetric partition function on the round S 3 can be understood as the expectation value of a so-called “fibering operator” on S 2 ×S 1 with a topological twist. More generally, we show that the 3d $$ \mathcal{N}=2 $$ supersymmetric partition functions (and supersymmetric Wilson loop correlation functions) on $$ {\mathrm{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,p} $$ are fully determined by the two-dimensional A-twisted topological field theory obtained by compactifying the 3d theory on a circle. We give two complementary derivations of the result. We also discuss applications to F-maximization and to three-dimensional supersymmetric dualities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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