A connection between linearized Gauss–Bonnet gravity and classical electrodynamics II: Complete dual formulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent publication, a procedure was developed which can be used to derive completely gauge invariant models from general Lagrangian densities with [Formula: see text] order of derivatives and [Formula: see text] rank of tensor potential. This procedure was then used to show that unique models follow for each order, namely classical electrodynamics for [Formula: see text] and linearized Gauss–Bonnet gravity for [Formula: see text]. In this paper, the nature of the connection between these two well-explored physical models is further investigated by means of an additional common property; a complete dual formulation. First, we give a review of Gauss–Bonnet gravity and the dual formulation of classical electrodynamics. The dual formulation of linearized Gauss–Bonnet gravity is then developed. It is shown that the dual formulation of linearized Gauss–Bonnet gravity is analogous to the homogenous half of Maxwell’s theory; both have equations of motion corresponding to the (second) Bianchi identity, built from the dual form of their respective field strength tensors. In order to have a dually symmetric counterpart analogous to the nonhomogenous half of Maxwell’s theory, the first invariant derived from the procedure in [Formula: see text] can be introduced. The complete gauge invariance of a model with respect to Noether’s first theorem, and not just the equation of motion, is a necessary condition for this dual formulation. We show that this result can be generalized to the higher spin gauge theories, where the spin-[Formula: see text] curvature tensors for all [Formula: see text] are the field strength tensors for each [Formula: see text]. These completely gauge invariant models correspond to the Maxwell-like higher spin gauge theories whose equations of motion have been well explored in the literature.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".