MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3091756353 · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2020)025

Quantum extremal islands made easy. Part II. Black holes on the brane

2020· preprint· en· W3091756353 on OpenAlexafffund
Hong Zhe Chen, Robert C. Myers, Dominik Neuenfeld, Ignacio A. Reyes, Joshua Sandor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungSimons Foundation
KeywordsBranePhysicsDimension (graph theory)QuantumCutoffHorizonTheoretical physicsBlack hole (networking)Mathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We discuss holographic models of extremal and non-extremal black holes in contact with a bath in d dimensions, based on a brane world model introduced in [1]. The main benefit of our setup is that it allows for a high degree of analytic control as compared to previous work in higher dimensions. We show that the appearance of quantum extremal islands in those models is a consequence of the well-understood phase transition of RT surfaces, and does not make any direct reference to ensemble averaging. For non-extremal black holes the appearance of quantum extremal islands has the right behaviour to avoid the information paradox in any dimension. We further show that for these models the calculation of the full Page curve is possible in any dimension. The calculation reduces to numerically solving two ODEs. In the case of extremal black holes in higher dimensions, we find no quantum extremal islands for a wide range of parameters. In two dimensions, our results agree with [2] at leading order; however a finite UV cutoff introduced by the brane results in subleading corrections. For example, these corrections result in the quantum extremal surfaces moving further outward from the horizon, and shifting the Page transition to a slightly earlier time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→