Are “Superentropic” black holes superentropic?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a critical limit in which asymptotically-AdS black holes develop maximal conical deficits and their horizons become non-compact. When applied to stationary rotating black holes this limit coincides with the “ultraspinning limit” and yields the Superentropic black holes whose entropy was derived recently and found to exceed the maximal possible bound imposed by the Reverse Isoperimetric Inequality [1, 2]. To gain more insight into this peculiar result, we study this limit in the context of accelerated AdS black holes that have unequal deficits along the polar axes, hence the maximal deficit need not appear on both poles simultaneously. Surprisingly, we find that in the presence of acceleration, the critical limit becomes smooth, and is obtained simply by taking various upper bounds in the parameter space that we elucidate. The Critical black holes thus obtained have many common features with Superentropic black holes, but are manifestly not superentropic. This raises a concern as to whether Superentropic black holes actually are superentropic.1 We argue that this may not be so and that the original conclusion is likely attributed to the degeneracy of the resulting first law.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it