MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097970914 · doi:10.1007/jhep02(2021)173

Quantum extremal islands made easy. Part III. Complexity on the brane

2021· article· en· W3097970914 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsGeneralizationBoundary (topology)CurvatureQuantum gravityMetric (unit)BraneFocus (optics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Action (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine holographic complexity in the doubly holographic model introduced in [1, 2] to study quantum extremal islands. We focus on the holographic complexity=volume (CV) proposal for boundary subregions in the island phase. Exploiting the Fefferman-Graham expansion of the metric and other geometric quantities near the brane, we derive the leading contributions to the complexity and interpret these in terms of the generalized volume of the island derived from the induced higher-curvature gravity action on the brane. Motivated by these results, we propose a generalization of the CV proposal for higher curvature theories of gravity. Further, we provide two consistency checks of our proposal by studying Gauss-Bonnet gravity and f(ℛ) gravity in the bulk.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations109
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207