MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2349829831 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/045

Goldilocks models of higher-dimensional inflation (including modulus stabilization)

2016· article· en· W2349829831 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflatonAttractorGoldilocks principleInflation (cosmology)Simple (philosophy)Extra dimensionsString (physics)Field (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the mechanics of inflation in simplified extra-dimensional models involving an inflaton interacting with the Einstein-Maxwell system in two extra dimensions. The models are Goldilocks-like in that they are just complicated enough to include a mechanism to stabilize the extra-dimensional size, yet simple enough to solve the full 6D field equations using basic tools. The solutions are not limited to the effective 4D regime with H << m_KK (the latter referring to the mass splitting of the Kaluza-Klein excitations) because the full 6D Einstein equations are solved. This allows an exploration of inflationary physics in a controlled regime away from the usual 4D lamp-post. The inclusion of modulus stabilization is important as experience with string models teaches that this is usually what makes models fail: stabilization energies dominate the shallow potentials required by slow roll and open up directions to evolve that are steeper than those of the putative inflationary direction. We explore three representative inflationary scenarios within this simple setup. In one the radion is trapped in an inflaton-dependent local minimum whose non-zero energy drives inflation. Inflation ends as this energy relaxes to zero when the inflaton finds its minimum. The others involve power-law solutions during inflation. One is an attractor whose features are relatively insensitive to initial conditions but whose slow-roll parameters cannot be arbitrarily small; the other is not an attractor but can roll much more slowly, until eventually decaying to the attractor. These solutions can satisfy H > m_KK, but when they do standard 4D fluctuation calculations need not apply. When in a 4D regime the solutions predict eta ~ 0 hence r ~ 0.11 when n_s ~ 0.96 and so are ruled out if tensor modes remain unseen. Analysis of general parameters is difficult without a full 6D fluctuation calculation.

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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207