MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408975368 · doi:10.1007/s00029-025-01024-x

Eleven-dimensional supergravity as a Calabi–Yau twofold

2025· article· en· W4408975368 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fabian Hahner, Ingmar Saberi

Bibliographic record

VenueSelecta Mathematica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMainz Institute for Theoretical Physics, Johannes Gutenberg University MainzGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSupergravityCalabi–Yau manifoldPhysicsGeologyPure mathematicsMathematical physicsMathematicsSupersymmetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We construct a generalization of Poisson–Chern–Simons theory, defined on any supermanifold equipped with an appropriate filtration of the tangent bundle. Our construction recovers interacting eleven-dimensional supergravity in Cederwall’s formulation, as well as all possible twists of the theory, and does so in a uniform and geometric fashion. Among other things, this proves that Costello’s description of the maximal twist is the twist of eleven-dimensional supergravity in its pure spinor description. It also provides a pure spinor lift of the interactions in the minimally twisted theory. Our techniques enhance the BV formulation of the interactions of each theory to a homotopy Poisson structure by defining a compatible graded-commutative product; this suggests interpretations in terms of deformations of geometric structures on superspace, and provides some concrete evidence for a first-quantized origin of the theories.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSelecta MathematicaSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207