MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050271202 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.103008

Cosmology of the proxy theory to massive gravity

2014· article· en· W2050271202 on OpenAlexaff
Lavinia Heisenberg, Rampei Kimura, Kazuhiro Yamamoto

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmologyMassive gravityTheoretical physicsDark energyMinkowski spaceDecoupling (probability)Mathematical physicsScalar–tensor theoryDe Sitter universeGravitationClassical mechanicsUniverseQuantum mechanicsGraviton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we scrutinize very closely the cosmology in the proxy theory to massive gravity obtained in de Rham and Heisenberg [Phys. Rev. D 84, 043503 (2011)]. This proxy theory was constructed by covariantizing the decoupling limit Lagrangian of massive gravity, and it represents a subclass of Horndeski scalar-tensor theory. Thus, this covariantization unifies two important classes of modified gravity theories, namely, massive gravity and Horndeski theories. We go beyond the regime which was studied in de Rham and Heisenberg [Phys. Rev. D 84, 043503 (2011)] and show that the theory does not admit any homogeneous and isotropic self-accelerated solutions. We illustrate that the only attractor solution is the flat Minkowski solution; hence, this theory is less appealing as a dark energy model. We also show that the absence of de Sitter solutions is tightly related to the presence of shift symmetry breaking interactions.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations76
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207