MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963092953 · doi:10.1007/s00220-017-2903-0

The Coulomb Branch of 3d $${\mathcal{N}= 4}$$ N = 4 Theories

2017· article· en· W2963092953 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathew Bullimore, Tudor Dimofte, Davide Gaiotto

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Mathematical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueU.S. Department of EnergyMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoIndustry CanadaEuropean CommissionGovernment of Canada
KeywordsQuiverModuli spaceCoulombPhysicsHolomorphic functionInstantonMathematical physicsGauge theorySupersymmetryDyonSupersymmetric gauge theoryTwistor spaceMagnetic monopoleTwistor theoryTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a construction for the quantum-corrected Coulomb branch of a general 3d gauge theory with $${\mathcal{N}=4}$$ supersymmetry, in terms of local coordinates associated with an abelianized theory. In a fixed complex structure, the holomorphic functions on the Coulomb branch are given by expectation values of chiral monopole operators. We construct the chiral ring of such operators, using equivariant integration over BPS moduli spaces. We also quantize the chiral ring, which corresponds to placing the 3d theory in a 2d Omega background. Then, by unifying all complex structures in a twistor space, we encode the full hyperkähler metric on the Coulomb branch. We verify our proposals in a multitude of examples, including SQCD and linear quiver gauge theories, whose Coulomb branches have alternative descriptions as solutions to Bogomolnyi and/or Nahm equations.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations142
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Mathematical PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207