MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996066851 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab8143

Chemistry and complexity for solitons in <b>AdS</b> <sub> <b>5</b> </sub>

2020· article· en· W2996066851 on OpenAlexafffund
Shane E. Andrews, Robie A. Hennigar, Hari K. Kunduri

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsSpacetimeGravitationAction (physics)Black hole (networking)Mathematical physicsNull (SQL)Simple (philosophy)Topology (electrical circuits)Theoretical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsCombinatoricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Minimal D = 5 supergravity admits asymptotically globally AdS 5 gravitational solitons (stationary, geodesically complete, horizonless spacetimes with positive mass). We show that, like asymptotically flat gravitational solitons, these solutions satisfy mass and mass variation formulas analogous to those satisfied by AdS black holes. A thermodynamic volume associated to the non-trivial topology of the spacetime plays an important role in this construction. We then consider these solitons within the holographic ‘complexity equals action’ and ‘complexity equals volume’ conjectures as simple examples of spacetimes with nontrivial rotation and topology. We find distinct behaviours for the volume and action, with the counterterm for null boundaries playing a significant role in the latter case. For large solitons we find that both proposals yield a complexity of formation proportional to a power of the thermodynamic volume, V 3/4 . In fact, up to numerical prefactors, the result coincides with the analogous one for large black holes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207