MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028826068 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abce48

Rotating and charged Gauss–Bonnet BTZ black holes

2020· article· en· W3028826068 on OpenAlexafffund
Robie A. Hennigar, David Kubizňák, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter InstituteMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBTZ black holePhysicsGauss–Bonnet theoremBlack hole (networking)Universality (dynamical systems)Black hole thermodynamicsGauss–Bonnet gravityEntropy (arrow of time)CurvatureGaussMathematical physicsHorizonEinsteinTheoretical physicsCharged black holeClassical mechanicsCosmological constantExtremal black holeQuantum mechanicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We obtain charged and rotating black hole solutions to the novel 3D Gauss–Bonnet theory of gravity recently proposed, both of which generalize the Banados–Teitelboim–Zanelli (BTZ) metric. The charged solutions are obtained in the Maxwell and Born–Infeld theories and feature ‘universal thermodynamics’—identical to the thermodynamics of their Einstein cousins. The rotating Gauss–Bonnet BTZ black holes are quite exceptional and are not of constant curvature. They possess an ergoregion and outer horizon, but do not have an inner horizon. We present their basic properties and show that they break the universality of thermodynamics present for their static charged counterparts. Extending our considerations to higher dimensions, we also obtain novel 4D Gauss–Bonnet rotating black strings.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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