Holographic and localization calculations of boundary F for $$ \mathcal{N} $$ = 4 SUSY Yang-Mills theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract $$ \mathcal{N} $$ N = 4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory can be defined on a half-space with a variety of boundary conditions preserving scale invariance and half of the original supersymmetry; more general theories with the same symmetry can be obtained by coupling to a 3D SCFT at the boundary. Each of these theories is characterized by a quantity called “boundary F”, conjectured to decrease under boundary renormalization group flows. In this paper, we calculate boundary F for U(N) $$ \mathcal{N} $$ N = 4 SYM theory with the most general half-supersymmetric boundary conditions arising from string theory constructions with D3-branes ending on collections of D5-branes and/or NS5-branes. We first perform the calculation holographically by evaluating the entanglement entropy for a half-ball centered on the boundary using the Ryu-Takayanagi formula in the dual type IIB supergravity solutions. For boundary conditions associated with D3-branes ending on D5 branes only or NS5-branes only, we also calculate boundary F exactly by evaluating the hemisphere partition function using supersymmetric localization. The leading terms at large N in the supergravity and localization results agree exactly as a function of the t’ Hooft coupling λ.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".