Are “Superentropic” black holes superentropic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We study a critical limit in which asymptotically-AdS black holes develop maximal conical deficits and their horizons become non-compact. When applied to stationary rotating black holes this limit coincides with the “ultraspinning limit” and yields the Superentropic black holes whose entropy was derived recently and found to exceed the maximal possible bound imposed by the Reverse Isoperimetric Inequality [1, 2]. To gain more insight into this peculiar result, we study this limit in the context of accelerated AdS black holes that have unequal deficits along the polar axes, hence the maximal deficit need not appear on both poles simultaneously. Surprisingly, we find that in the presence of acceleration, the critical limit becomes smooth, and is obtained simply by taking various upper bounds in the parameter space that we elucidate. The Critical black holes thus obtained have many common features with Superentropic black holes, but are manifestly not superentropic. This raises a concern as to whether Superentropic black holes actually are superentropic.1 We argue that this may not be so and that the original conclusion is likely attributed to the degeneracy of the resulting first law.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".