MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010180782 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/06/007

Inflationary potential reconstruction for a Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe running power spectrum

2006· article· en· W2010180782 on OpenAlexafffund
James M. Cline, Loison Hoi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsPhysicsCMB cold spotInflatonCosmic microwave backgroundPlanckSpectral indexInflation (cosmology)Spectral densityCosmic background radiationScalar (mathematics)AnisotropyScalar fieldSlow rollCosmological perturbation theoryTheoretical physicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanicsSpectral lineGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first-year WMAP measurement of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropy is intriguingly consistent with a larger running of the inflationary scalar spectral index than would be expected for single-field inflation. We revisit the issue of a large running spectral index, first by re-examining the evidence from the data, and then by reconstructing the inflationary potential, using an improved method based upon the Hamilton–Jacobi formulation. We note that a spectrum which runs only over 1.5 decades of k space provides as good a fit to the CMB data as one which runs at all k , that significant evidence for running comes from multipoles l near 40, and that large running gives a better fit than a flat spectrum primarily if the tensor-to-scalar ratio r is large, r ∼0.5, and the field values are at the Planck scale. This allows one to break the large degeneracy of potentials which would be consistent with the scalar power alone. Large running, should it be confirmed, is thus linked to a high scale of inflation and the possibility of seeing effects of tensor modes in the CMB and Planck-scale physics. Nevertheless, we show that the reconstructed inflaton potential is well described by a renormalizable potential whose quantum corrections are under control despite the large field values.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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