48 research outputs found
Fivebranes and 4-manifolds
We describe rules for building 2d theories labeled by 4-manifolds. Using the
proposed dictionary between building blocks of 4-manifolds and 2d N=(0,2)
theories, we obtain a number of results, which include new 3d N=2 theories
T[M_3] associated with rational homology spheres and new results for
Vafa-Witten partition functions on 4-manifolds. In particular, we point out
that the gluing measure for the latter is precisely the superconformal index of
2d (0,2) vector multiplet and relate the basic building blocks with coset
branching functions. We also offer a new look at the fusion of defect lines /
walls, and a physical interpretation of the 4d and 3d Kirby calculus as
dualities of 2d N=(0,2) theories and 3d N=2 theories, respectivelyComment: 81 pages, 18 figures. v2: misprints corrected, clarifications and
references added. v3: additions and corrections about lens space theory,
4-manifold gluing, smooth structure
Vortices, Instantons and Branes
The purpose of this paper is to describe a relationship between the moduli
space of vortices and the moduli space of instantons. We study charge k
vortices in U(N) Yang-Mills-Higgs theories and show that the moduli space is
isomorphic to a special Lagrangian submanifold of the moduli space of k
instantons in non-commutative U(N) Yang-Mills theories. This submanifold is the
fixed point set of a U(1) action on the instanton moduli space which rotates
the instantons in a plane. To derive this relationship, we present a D-brane
construction in which the dynamics of vortices is described by the Higgs branch
of a U(k) gauge theory with 4 supercharges which is a truncation of the
familiar ADHM gauge theory. We further describe a moduli space construction for
semi-local vortices, lumps in the CP(N) and Grassmannian sigma-models, and
vortices on the non-commutative plane. We argue that this relationship between
vortices and instantons underlies many of the quantitative similarities shared
by quantum field theories in two and four dimensions.Comment: 32 Pages, 4 Figure
Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search
Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe