MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3125490362

The Fate of Unstable Gauge Flux Compactifications

2008· article· en· W3125490362 on OpenAlexaff
C. P. Burgess, Susha Parameswaran, Ivonne Zavala

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMagnetic monopoleDilatonSupergravityGauge theoryTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsSupersymmetry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluxes are widely used to stabilise extra dimensions, but the supporting monopolelike configurations are often unstable, particularly if they arise as gauge flux within a non-abelian gauge sector. We here seek the endpoint geometries to which this instability leads, focussing on the simplest concrete examples: sphere-monopole compactifications in six dimensions. Without gravity most monopoles in non-abelian gauge groups are unstable, decaying into the unique stable monopole in the same topological class. We show that the same is true in Einstein-YM systems, with the new twist that the decay leads to a shrinkage in the size of the extra dimensions and curves the non-compact directions: in D dimensions a MinkD−2 × S2 geometry supported by an unstable monopole relaxes to AdSD−2 × S2, with the endpoint sphere smaller than the initial one. For supergravity the situation is more complicated because the dilaton obstructs such a simple evolution. The endpoint instead acquires a dilaton gradient, thereby breaking some of the spacetime symmetries. For 6D supergravity we argue that it is the 4D symmetries that break, and examine several candidates for the

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→