MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Revising the Predictions of Inflation for the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies

2009· article· en· W1965040848 on OpenAlexaff
Iván Agulló, José Navarro-Salas, Gonzalo J. Olmo, Leonard Parker

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCMB cold spotPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundInflatonInflation (cosmology)Scalar (mathematics)AmplitudeRenormalizationPrimordial fluctuationsPlanckSlow rollCosmic background radiationSpectral densitySpectral indexHubble volumeAnisotropyHubble's lawAstrophysicsCosmologyTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsDark energyQuantum mechanicsSpectral lineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We point out that, if quantum field renormalization is taken into account and the counterterms are evaluated at the Hubble-radius crossing time or few e-foldings after it, the predictions of slow-roll inflation for both the scalar and the tensorial power spectrum change significantly. This leads to a change in the consistency condition that relates the tensor-to-scalar amplitude ratio with spectral indices. A reexamination of the potentials varphi;{2} and varphi;{4} shows that both are compatible with five-year WMAP data. Only when the counterterms are evaluated at much larger times beyond the end of inflation does one recover the standard predictions. The alternative predictions presented here may soon come within the range of measurement of near-future experiments.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations56
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207