MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471224050 · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2017)025

Evidence for a sublattice weak gravity conjecture

2017· article· en· W2471224050 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum gravityString theoryGravitationConjectureQuantum field theoryLattice (music)Non-perturbativeGauge theoryCharge (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Weak Gravity Conjecture postulates the existence of superextremal charged particles, i.e. those with mass smaller than or equal to their charge in Planck units. We present further evidence for our recent observation that in known examples a much stronger statement is true: an infinite tower of superextremal particles of different charges exists. We show that effective Kaluza-Klein field theories and perturbative string vacua respect the Sublattice Weak Gravity Conjecture, namely that a finite index sublattice of the full charge lattice exists with a superextremal particle at each site. In perturbative string theory we show that this follows from modular invariance. However, we present counterexamples to the stronger possibility that a superextremal particle exists at every lattice site, including an example in which the lightest charged particle is subextremal. The Sublattice Weak Gravity Conjecture has many implications both for abstract theories of quantum gravity and for real-world physics. For instance, it implies that if a gauge group with very small coupling e exists, then the fundamental gravitational cutoff energy of the theory is no higher than ∼ e 1/3 M Pl.

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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations210
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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