Report on 2304.10102v1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A holographic description of three-dimensional warped black holes suffers from ambiguities due to a seemingly harmless choice of coordinate system.This gives rise to the notion of ensembles in warped black holes, and we focus on two of them: the canonical and quadratic ensemble.Our aim is to quantify the imprint of these ensembles in the near-extremal limit of a warped black hole.To this end, for each ensemble, we explore the thermodynamic response and evaluate greybody factors.We also set-up a holographic dictionary in their near-AdS 2 region, and decode aspects of the dual near-CFT 1 .This gives us different perspectives of the black hole that we can contrast and compare.On the one hand, we find perfect agreement between the near-extremal limit of the canonical ensemble warped black holes, their near-AdS 2 effective analysis, and a warped conformal field theory description.On the other, we are led to rule out the quadratic ensemble due to inconsistencies at the quantum level with the near-AdS 2 effective description.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.872 | 0.842 |
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".