MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057487159 · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2014)074

Who you gonna call? Runaway ghosts, higher derivatives and time-dependence in EFTs

2014· article· en· W2057487159 on OpenAlexafffund
C. P. Burgess, Matthew R. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Call to actionField (mathematics)Computer scienceTheoretical physicsEnergy (signal processing)Order (exchange)Action (physics)Statistical physicsPhysicsMathematicsEpistemologyStatisticsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsEconomicsBusinessPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We briefly review the formulation of effective field theories (EFTs) in timedependent situations, with particular attention paid to their domain of validity. Our main interest is the extent to which solutions of the EFT capture the dynamics of the full theory. For a simple model we show by explicit calculation that the low-energy action obtained from a sensible UV completion need not take the restrictive form required to obtain only secondorder field equations, and we clarify why runaway solutions are nevertheless typically not a problem for the EFT. Although our results will not be surprising to many, to our knowledge they are only mentioned tangentially in the EFT literature, which (with a few exceptions) largely addresses time-independent situations.

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)0.003
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207