MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037798522 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x07036877

BRANE TILINGS

2007· article· en· W3037798522 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian D. Kennaway

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsModuli spaceQuiverOrbifoldMirror symmetryBraneTheoretical physicsGauge theorySymplectic geometryBrane cosmologyToric varietyCone (formal languages)Mathematical physicsPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review and extend the progress made over the past few years in understanding the structure of toric quiver gauge theories; those which are induced on the worldvolume of a stack of D3-branes placed at the tip of a toric Calabi–Yau cone, at an "orbifold point" in Kähler moduli space. These provide an infinite class of four-dimensional [Formula: see text] superconformal field theories which may be studied in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence. It is now understood that these gauge theories are completely specified by certain two-dimensional torus graphs, called brane tilings, and the combinatorics of the dimer models on these graphs. In particular, knowledge of the dual Sasaki–Einstein metric is not required to determine the gauge theory, only topological and symplectic properties of the toric Calabi–Yau cone. By analyzing the symmetries of the toric quiver theories we derive the dimer models and use them to construct the moduli space of the theory both classically and semiclassically. Using mirror symmetry the brane tilings are shown to arise in string theory on the worldvolumes of the fractional D6-branes that are mirror to the stack of D3-branes at the tip of the cone.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations167
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207