MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lower-dimensional Gauss–Bonnet gravity and BTZ black holes

2020· article· en· W3018390074 on OpenAlexafffund
Robie A. Hennigar, David Kubizňák, Robert B. Mann, Christopher Pollack

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of WaterlooMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsBTZ black holeLimit (mathematics)GeneralizationEinsteinGauss–Bonnet theoremGaussBlack hole (networking)Gauss–Bonnet gravityCurvaturePhysicsMathematical physicsCoupling constantMassive gravityConstant (computer programming)Theoretical physicsMathematicsGravitationMathematical analysisClassical mechanicsBlack braneExtremal black holeQuantum mechanicsGeometryEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the D→3 limit of Gauss–Bonnet gravity. We find two distinct but similar versions of the theory and obtain black hole solutions for each. For one theory the solution is an interesting generalization of the BTZ black hole that does not have constant curvature but whose thermodynamics is identical. The other theory admits a solution that is asymptotically AdS but does not approach the BTZ black hole in the limit of small Gauss–Bonnet coupling. We also discuss the distinction between our solutions and those obtained by taking a D→3 limit of solutions to D-dimensional Einstein Gauss–Bonnet gravity. We find that these latter metrics are not solutions of the theories we consider except for particular constraints on the parameters.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations59
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207