MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786140425 · doi:10.1007/jhep03(2018)150

Holographic studies of Einsteinian cubic gravity

2018· article· en· W2786140425 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEuclidean geometryCentral chargeMassive gravityQuantum entanglementEntropy (arrow of time)EinsteinBlack hole (networking)HolographyAction (physics)Boundary (topology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Einsteinian cubic gravity provides a holographic toy model of a nonsupersymmetric CFT in three dimensions, analogous to the one defined by Quasi-topological gravity in four. The theory admits explicit non-hairy AdS4 black holes and allows for numerous exact calculations, fully nonperturbative in the new coupling. We identify several entries of the AdS/CFT dictionary for this theory, and study its thermodynamic phase space, finding interesting new phenomena. We also analyze the dependence of Rényi entropies for disk regions on universal quantities characterizing the CFT. In addition, we show that η/s is given by a non-analytic function of the ECG coupling, and that the existence of positive-energy black holes strictly forbids violations of the KSS bound. Along the way, we introduce a new method for evaluating Euclidean on-shell actions for general higher-order gravities possessing second-order linearized equations on AdS(d+1). Our generalized action involves the very same Gibbons-Hawking boundary term and counterterms valid for Einstein gravity, which now appear weighted by the universal charge a * controlling the entanglement entropy across a spherical region in the CFT dual to the corresponding higher-order theory.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations71
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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