Higher Gauge Theory and Gravity in (2+1) Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-abelian higher gauge theory has recently emerged as a generalization of standard gauge theory to higher dimensional (2-dimensional in the present context) connection forms, and as such, it has been successfully applied to the non-abelian generalizations of the Yang-Mills theory and 2-form electrodynamics. (2+1)-dimensional gravity, on the other hand, has been a fertile testing ground for many concepts related to classical and quantum gravity, and it is therefore only natural to investigate whether we can find an application of higher gauge theory in this latter context. In the present paper we investigate the possibility of applying the formalism of higher gauge theory to gravity in (2+1) dimensions, and we show that a nontrivial model of (2+1)-dimensional gravity coupled to scalar and tensorial matter fields - the $\\Sigma\\Phi EA$ model - can be formulated both as a standard gauge theory and as a higher gauge theory. Since the model has a very rich structure - it admits as solutions black-hole BTZ-like geometries, particle-like geometries as well as Robertson-Friedman-Walker cosmological-like expanding geometries - this opens a wide perspective for higher gauge theory to be tested and understood in a relevant gravitational context. Additionally, it offers the possibility of studying gravity in (2+1) dimensions coupled to matter in an entirely new framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".