MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067788522 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/01/016

B-modes and the nature of inflation

2015· article· en· W2067788522 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPlanckCosmic microwave backgroundUpper and lower boundsInflation (cosmology)Equilateral triangleScalar (mathematics)Cosmic background radiationNon-GaussianitySpectral density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observations of the cosmic microwave background do not yet determine whether inflation was driven by a slowly-rolling scalar field or involved another physical mechanism. In this paper we discuss the prospects of using the power spectra of scalar and tensor modes to probe the nature of inflation. We focus on the leading modification to the slow-roll dynamics, which entails a sound speed c s for the scalar fluctuations. We derive analytically a lower bound on c s in terms of a given tensor-to-scalar ratio r, taking into account the difference in the freeze-out times between the scalar and tensor modes. We find that any detection of primordial B-modes with r > 0.01 implies a lower bound on c s that is stronger than the bound derived from the absence of non-Gaussianity in the Planck data. For r 0.1, the bound would be tantalizingly close to a critical value for the sound speed, (c s ) = 0.47 (corresponding to f equil NL = -0.93), which we show serves as a threshold for non-trivial dynamics beyond slow-roll. We also discuss how an order-one level of equilateral non-Gaussianity is a natural observational target for other extensions of the canonical paradigm.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations61
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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