MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086822241 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.126009

Stabilizing moduli with thermal matter and nonperturbative effects

2008· article· en· W2086822241 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca J. Danos, Andrew R. Frey, Robert Brandenberger

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsModuliPhysicsDilatonCompactification (mathematics)OrbifoldHeterotic string theoryGauginoTheoretical physicsModular equationParticle physicsScalar potentialModuli spaceString theoryModuli of algebraic curvesMathematical physicsSupersymmetryPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even with recent progress, it is still very much an open question to understand how all compactification moduli are stabilized, since there are several mechanisms. For example, it is possible to generate a scalar potential either classically or through nonperturbative effects, such as gaugino condensation. Such a potential can stabilize certain of the moduli fields, for example, the dilaton. On the other hand, a background of thermal matter with moduli-dependent masses can also stabilize certain of the moduli, e.g., the radion. It is important to understand whether these two distinct mechanisms are compatible with each other, that is, that there are no interference terms that could spoil the moduli stabilization. In this paper, we study heterotic string theory on an $\mathcal{N}=1$ orbifold near an enhanced symmetry point. We then consider both a nonperturbatively generated potential and a gas of strings with moduli-dependent masses to stabilize the dilaton and radial modulus, respectively. We conclude that, given certain approximations, these two moduli stabilization mechanisms are compatible.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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