MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277433598 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/030

Holographic curvature perturbations in a cosmology with a space-like singularity

2016· article· en· W2277433598 on OpenAlexaff
Elisa G. M. Ferreira, Robert Brandenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSingularityCurvatureDe Sitter spaceCosmologyDe Sitter universeClassical mechanicsBoundary (topology)Initial singularityCosmological perturbation theoryAnti-de Sitter spaceMathematical physicsTheoretical physicsUniverseQuantum mechanicsGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the evolution of cosmological perturbations in an anti-de-Sitter (AdS) bulk through a cosmological singularity by mapping the dynamics onto the boundary conformal fields theory by means of the AdS/CFT correspondence. We consider a deformed AdS space-time obtained by considering a time-dependent dilaton which induces a curvature singularity in the bulk at a time which we call $t = 0$, and which asymptotically approaches AdS both for large positive and negative times. The boundary field theory becomes free when the bulk curvature goes to infinity. Hence, the evolution of the fluctuations is under better controle on the boundary than in the bulk. To avoid unbounded particle production across the bounce it is necessary to smooth out the curvature singularity at very high curvatures. We show how the bulk cosmological perturbations can be mapped onto boundary gauge field fluctuations. We evolve the latter and compare the spectrum of fluctuations on the infrared scales relevant for cosmological observations before and after the bounce point. We find that the index of the power spectrum of fluctuations is the same before and after the bounce.

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 score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207