MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380629824 · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.14.6.153

Monopole operators and bulk-boundary relation in holomorphic topological theories

2023· article· en· W4380629824 on OpenAlexafffund
Keyou Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueSciPost Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsMagnetic monopoleGauge theorySuperpotentialHolomorphic functionBoundary (topology)Abelian groupPhysicsGauge (firearms)MathematicsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldSupersymmetryMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the holomorphic twist of 3d 3 d N = 2 N = 2 supersymmetric field theories, discuss the perturbative bulk local operators in general, and explicitly construct non perturbative bulk local operators for abelian gauge theories. Our construction is verified by matching the character of the algebra with the superconformal index. We test a conjectural relation between the derived center of boundary algebras and bulk algebras in various cases, including Landau-Ginzburg models with an arbitrary superpotential and some abelian gauge theories. In the latter cases, monopole operators appear in the derived center of a perturbative boundary algebra. We briefly discuss the higher structures in both boundary and bulk algebras.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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