Pith. Sign in

RECORD

On the relation of Matrix theory and Maldacena conjecture

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 23 Jun 1998

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We report a sign that M(atrix) theory conjecture and the Maldacena conjecture for the case of D0-branes are compatible.

how it is stated · hedged possibility 0.96 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDhep-th/9806188 (version 1)
Pith IDVFWRDZHU, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationPedro J. Silva. "On the relation of Matrix theory and Maldacena conjecture." arXiv:hep-th/9806188 (1998). https://pith.science/paper/VFWRDZHU
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,559 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.58 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.23 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We report a sign that M(atrix) theory conjecture and the Maldacena conjecture for the case of D0-branes are compatible. Furthermore Maldacena point of view implies a restriction of range of validity in the DLCQ version of M(atrix) theory. The analysis is based on the uplift of type IIA supersymetric solution in the Maldacena approach to eleven dimensions, using a boost as a main tool. The relation is explored on both, IMF and DLCF versions of M(atrix) theory

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We report a sign that M(atrix) theory conjecture and the Maldacena conjecture for the case of D0-branes are compatible. result 0.99 0.88 0.88 hedged possibility 0.96
s1 Furthermore Maldacena point of view implies a restriction of range of validity in the DLCQ version of M(atrix) theory. interpretation 0.73 0.58 0.15 asserted 0.95
s2 The analysis is based on the uplift of type IIA supersymetric solution in the Maldacena approach to eleven dimensions, using a boost as a main tool. method 1.00 0.77 0.04 asserted 0.98
s3 The relation is explored on both, IMF and DLCF versions of M(atrix) theory contribution 0.52 0.81 0.05 asserted 0.89

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.95 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.91.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We report a sign that M(atrix) theory conjecture and the Maldacena conjecture for the case of D0-branes are compatible. Furthermore Maldacena point of view implies a restriction of range of validity in the DLCQ version of M(atrix) theory. The analysis is based on the uplift of type IIA supersymetric solution in the Maldacena approach to eleven dimensions, using a boost as a main tool. The relation is explored on both, IMF and DLCF versions of M(atrix) theory

Human review

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.