MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965680547 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/03/033

Super-Hubble de Sitter fluctuations and the dynamical RG

2010· article· en· W1965680547 on OpenAlexaff
C. P. Burgess, Louis Leblond, R. Holman, Sarah Shandera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDe Sitter universeCosmological perturbation theoryDe Sitter spaceMassless particleMathematical physicsQuartic functionHubble volumeRenormalization groupScalar fieldScalar (mathematics)RenormalizationSpacetimePerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)Hubble's lawTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsCosmologyDark energyQuantum mechanicsUniverse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perturbative corrections to correlation functions for interacting theories in de Sitter spacetime often grow secularly with time, due to the properties of fluctuations on super-Hubble scales. This growth can lead to a breakdown of perturbation theory at late times. We argue that Dynamical Renormalization Group (DRG) techniques provide a convenient framework for interpreting and resumming these secularly growing terms. In the case of a massless scalar field in de Sitter with quartic self-interaction, the resummed result is also less singular in the infrared, in precisely the manner expected if a dynamical mass is generated. We compare this improved infrared behavior with large- N expansions when applicable.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations208
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207