MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105029242 · doi:10.1007/jhep10%282014%29062

The superconformal index and an elliptic algebra of surface defects

2014· article· en· W3105029242 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew Bullimore, Martin Fluder, Lotte Hollands, Paul Richmond

Bibliographic record

VenueDurham Research Online (Durham University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbeddingMathematicsAntisymmetric relationPartition function (quantum field theory)Pure mathematicsDuality (order theory)Superconformal algebraSupersymmetric gauge theoryMathematical physicsPhysicsAlgebra over a fieldQuantum mechanicsGauge theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we continue the study of the superconformal index of four-dimensional N =2 theories of class S in the presence of surface defects. Our main result is the construction of an algebra of difference operators, whose elements are labeled by irreducible representations of A N −1. For the fully antisymmetric tensor representations these difference operators are the Hamiltonians of the elliptic Ruijsenaars-Schneider system. The structure constants of the algebra are elliptic generalizations of the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients. In the Macdonald limit, we identify the difference operators with local operators in the two-dimensional TQFT interpretation of the superconformal index. We also study the dimensional reduction to difference operators acting on the three-sphere partition function, where they characterize supersymmetric defects supported on a circle, and show that they are transformed to supersymmetric Wilson loops under mirror symmetry. Finally, we compare to the difference operators that create ’t Hooft loops in the four-dimensional N =2* theory on a four-sphere by embedding the three-dimensional theory as an S-duality domain wall.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDurham Research Online (Durham University)Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207