MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898540926 · doi:10.1007/jhep01(2019)212

A geometric dual of c-extremization

2019· article· en· W2898540926 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher Couzens, Jerome P. Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, James Sparks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekEuropean Commission
KeywordsSupergravitySupersymmetryPhysicsCompactification (mathematics)QuiverGauged supergravityMathematical physicsDimension (graph theory)Pure mathematicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider supersymmetric AdS3 × Y 7 and AdS2 × Y 9 solutions of type IIB and D = 11 supergravity, respectively, that are holographically dual to SCFTs with (0, 2) supersymmetry in two dimensions and $$ \mathcal{N} $$ N = 2 supersymmetry in one dimension. The geometry of Y 2n+1, which can be defined for n ≥ 3, shares many similarities with Sasaki-Einstein geometry, including the existence of a canonical R-symmetry Killing vector, but there are also some crucial differences. We show that the R-symmetry Killing vector may be determined by extremizing a function that depends only on certain global, topological data. In particular, assuming it exists, for n = 3 one can compute the central charge of an AdS3 × Y 7 solution without knowing its explicit form. We interpret this as a geometric dual of c-extremization in (0, 2) SCFTs. For the case of AdS2 × Y 9 solutions we show that the extremal problem can be used to obtain properties of the dual quantum mechanics, including obtaining the entropy of a class of supersymmetric black holes in AdS4. We also study many specific examples of the type AdS3 × T 2 × Y 5, including a new family of explicit supergravity solutions. In addition we discuss the possibility that the (0, 2) SCFTs dual to these solutions can arise from the compactification on T 2 of certain d = 4 quiver gauge theories associated with five-dimensional Sasaki-Einstein metrics and, surprisingly, come to a negative conclusion.

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 score0.016

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations70
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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