MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798711842 · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2018)046

Holographic complexity in Vaidya spacetimes. Part I

2018· article· en· W2798711842 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYükseköğretim KuruluNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraSimons Foundation
KeywordsNull (SQL)Boundary (topology)HolographyAction (physics)Holographic principleBlack hole (networking)GravitationSpacetime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We examine holographic complexity in time-dependent Vaidya spacetimes with both the complexity=volume (CV) and complexity=action (CA) proposals. We focus on the evolution of the holographic complexity for a thin shell of null fluid, which collapses into empty AdS space and forms a (one-sided) black hole. In order to apply the CA approach, we introduce an action principle for the null fluid which sources the Vaidya geometries, and we carefully examine the contribution of the null shell to the action. Further, we find that adding a particular counterterm on the null boundaries of the Wheeler-DeWitt patch is essential if the gravitational action is to properly describe the complexity of the boundary state. For both the CV proposal and the CA proposal (with the extra boundary counterterm), the late time limit of the growth rate of the holographic complexity for the one-sided black hole is precisely the same as that found for an eternal black hole.

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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations114
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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