MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197298579 · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.12.1.032

Generalized dilaton gravity in 2d

2022· preprint· en· W3197298579 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Grumiller, Romain Ruzziconi, Céline Zwikel

Bibliographic record

VenueSciPost Physics · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersAustrian Science FundOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDilatonHomogeneous spacePhysicsInvariant (physics)Lorentz covarianceMathematical physicsRenormalizationScale invarianceTheoretical physicsBoundary (topology)Renormalization groupGravitationLorentz transformationClassical mechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generalized dilaton gravity in 2d is the most general consistent deformation of the Jackiw–Teitelboim model that maintains local Lorentz invariance. The action is generically not power-counting renormalizable, thus going beyond the class of models typically studied. Nevertheless, all these models are exactly soluble. We focus on a subclass of dilaton scale invariant models. Within this subclass, we identify a 3-parameter family of models that describe black holes asymptoting to AdS _2 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi/> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:math> in the UV and to dS _2 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi/> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:math> in the IR. Since these models could be interesting for holography, we address thermodynamics and boundary issues, including boundary charges, asymptotic symmetries and holographic renormalization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciPost PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207