Superconformal models for graphene and boundary central charges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the context of boundary conformal field theory, we investigate whether the boundary trace anomaly can depend on marginal directions in the presence of supersymmetry. Recently, it was found that a graphene-like non-supersymmetric conformal field theory with a four-dimensional bulk photon and a three-dimensional boundary electron has two boundary central charges that depend on an exactly marginal direction, namely the gauge coupling. In this work, we supersymmetrize this theory, paying special attention to the boundary terms required by supersymmetry. We study models with 4, 8, and 16 Poincaré supercharges in the bulk, half of which are broken by the boundary. In all cases, we find that at all orders in perturbation theory, the gauge coupling is not renormalized, providing strong evidence that these theories are boundary conformal field theories. Moreover, the boundary central charges depend on the coupling. One possible exception to this dependence on marginal directions is that the difference between the two charges is coupling independent at one-loop in the maximally supersymmetric case. In our analysis, a possible boundary Chern-Simons term is incorporated by a bulk θ-term.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".