MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950995596 · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2019)091

3d Abelian gauge theories at the boundary

2019· article· en· W2950995596 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaSimons Foundation
KeywordsGauge theoryDecoupling (probability)Boundary conformal field theoryConformal field theoryFermionAbelian groupDirac fermionBoundary (topology)Boundary value problemQuantum field theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A four-dimensional Abelian gauge field can be coupled to a 3d CFT with a U(1) symmetry living on a boundary. This coupling gives rise to a continuous family of boundary conformal field theories (BCFT) parametrized by the gauge coupling τ in the upper-half plane and by the choice of the CFT in the decoupling limit τ → ∞. Upon performing an SL(2, ℤ) transformation in the bulk and going to the decoupling limit in the new frame, one finds a different 3d CFT on the boundary, related to the original one by Witten’s SL(2, ℤ) action [1]. In particular the cusps on the real τ axis correspond to the 3d gauging of the original CFT. We study general properties of this BCFT. We show how to express bulk one and two-point functions, and the hemisphere free-energy, in terms of the two-point functions of the boundary electric and magnetic currents. We then consider the case in which the 3d CFT is one Dirac fermion. Thanks to 3d dualities this BCFT is mapped to itself by a bulk S transformation, and it also admits a decoupling limit which gives the O(2) model on the boundary. We compute scaling dimensions of boundary operators and the hemisphere free-energy up to two loops. Using an S-duality improved ansatz, we extrapolate the perturbative results and find good approximations to the observables of the O(2) model. We also consider examples with other theories on the boundary, such as large-N f Dirac fermions — for which the extrapolation to strong coupling can be done exactly order-by-order in 1/N f — and a free complex scalar.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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