MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901079807 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x19501641

Axion hilltops, Kahler modulus quintessence and the swampland criteria

2019· article· en· W2901079807 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAxionQuintessenceModuliDe Sitter universeSaddle pointInflation (cosmology)Field (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the interplay among extrema of axion potentials, Kahler moduli stabilization and the swampland criteria. We argue that moving away from the minima of nonperturbatively generated axion potentials can lead to a runaway behavior of moduli that govern the couplings in the effective field theory. The proper inclusion of these degrees of freedom resolves the conflict between periodic axion potentials and the gradient de Sitter criterion, without the need to invoke the refined de Sitter criterion. We investigate the possibility of including this runaway direction as a model of quintessence that satisfies the swampland criteria. Using a single nonperturbative effect, the maximum along the axion direction provides such a runaway direction, which is unstable in the axion directions, sensitive to initial conditions and too steep to allow for a Hubble time of expansion without violating the field excursion criterion. Adding a second nonperturbative effect generates a saddle point in the potential satisfying the refined de Sitter criterion, which solves the steepness problem and improves the initial conditions problem although some fine-tuning remains required.

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)0.000
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207