MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055490828 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.086006

Technically natural vacuum energy at the tip of a supersymmetric teardrop

2014· article· en· W2055490828 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsVacuum energyBraneSupersymmetryQED vacuumExtra dimensionsCurvatureTheoretical physicsVacuum stateParticle physicsQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A minimal supersymmetric braneworld model is presented which has (i) zero classical four-dimensional vacuum curvature, despite the large naive vacuum energy due to contributions from Standard Model particles and (ii) one-(bulk)-loop quantum corrections to the vacuum energy with a size set by the radius of the extra-dimensional spheroid. These corrections are technically natural because a Bogomol'nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield-like relation between the brane tension and $R$ charge---which would have preserved (half of) the bulk supersymmetry---is violated by the requirement that the stabilizing $R$-symmetry gauge flux be quantized. The extra-dimensional geometry is similar to previous rugby-ball geometries, but is simpler in that there is only one brane and so fewer free parameters. Although the sign of the renormalized vacuum energy ends up being the unphysical one for this model (in the limit considered here, where the massive bulk loop is the leading contribution), it serves as an illustrative example of the relevant physics.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→