Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While the early literature on black holes focused on event horizons, subsequently it was realized that their teleological nature makes them unsuitable for many physical applications both in classical and quantum gravity. Therefore, over the past two decades, event horizons have been steadily replaced by quasi-local horizons which do not suffer from teleology. In numerical simulations event horizons can be located as an ‘after thought’ only after the entire space-time has been constructed. By contrast, quasi-local horizons naturally emerge in the course of these simulations, providing powerful gauge-invariant tools to extract physics from the numerical outputs. They also lead to interesting results in mathematical GR, providing unforeseen insights. For example, for event horizons we only have a qualitative result that their area cannot decrease, while for quasi-local horizons the increase in the area during a dynamical phase is quantitatively related to local physical processes at the horizon. In binary black hole mergers, there are interesting correlations between observables associated with quasi-local horizons and those defined at future null infinity. Finally, the quantum Hawking process is naturally described as formation and evaporation of a quasi-local horizon. This article focuses on the dynamical aspects of quasi-local horizons in classical general relativity, emphasizing recent results and ongoing research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".