MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7090921434 · doi:10.1112/jlms.70328

Kazhdan‐Lusztig correspondence for vertex operator superalgebras from abelian gauge theories

2025· article· en· W7090921434 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the London Mathematical Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesGovernment of Canada
KeywordsVertex (graph theory)Operator algebraVertex operator algebraAbelian groupAffine transformationGauge theoryTensor (intrinsic definition)Conformal field theoryTwist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We prove the Kazhdan–Lusztig correspondence for a class of vertex operator superalgebras that, via the work of Costello–Gaiotto, arise as boundary vertex operator algebra (VOAs) of the topological B twist of 3d abelian gauge theories. This means that we show equivalences of braided tensor categories of modules of certain affine vertex superalgebras and corresponding quantum supergroups. We build on the work of Creutzig–Lentner–Rupert for this large class of VOAs and extend it since, in our case, the categories do not have projective objects, and objects can have arbitrary Jordan–Hölder length. Our correspondence significantly improves the understanding of the braided tensor category of line defects associated with this class of topological quantum field theory (TQFT) by realizing line defects as modules of a Hopf algebra. In the process, we prove a special case of the conjecture of Semikhatov–Tipunin, relating logarithmic conformal field theory (CFTs) to Nichols algebras of screening operators.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207