MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412354797 · doi:10.1007/jhep07(2025)123

An Airy tale at large N

2025· article· en· W4412354797 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nikolay Bobev, Pieter-Jan De Smet, Junho Hong, Valentin Reys, Xuao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaVlaamse regeringKU LeuvenNational Research Foundation of KoreaFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Research FoundationSogang UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesAgence Nationale de la RechercheYork University
KeywordsPhysicsTheoretical physicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We study the sphere partition function of 3d $$ \mathcal{N} $$ N = 2 holographic SCFTs arising on the worldvolume of N coincident M2-branes in the presence of squashing and real mass deformations. We argue that the all-order large N perturbative expansion of the partition function resums into a compact expression in terms of an Airy function. We provide ample evidence for this conjecture using numerical methods, saddle point analysis in the ’t Hooft limit, and the relation of the squashed sphere partition function to the Cardy-like limit of the superconformal index. We also discuss the relation of our results to topological string theory and the statistical mechanics of Fermi gases. Our conjecture has a bearing on the AdS/CFT correspondence and the structure of perturbative M-theory corrections to 11d supergravity which we discuss.

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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→