Spin-2 fields and the weak gravity conjecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, it has been argued that application of the weak gravity conjecture (WGC) to spin-2 fields implies a universal upper bound on the cutoff of the effective theory for a single spin-2 field. We point out here that these arguments are largely spurious, because of the absence of states carrying spin-2 St\"uckelberg $U(1)$ charge, and because of incorrect scaling assumptions. Known examples such as Kaluza-Klein theory that respect the usual WGC do so because of the existence of a genuine $U(1)$ field under which states are charged, as in the case of the St\"uckelberg formulation of spin-1 theories, for which there is an unambiguously defined $U(1)$ charge. Theories of bigravity naturally satisfy a naive formulation of the WGC, ${M}_{W}<{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, since the force of the massless graviton is always weaker than the massive spin-2 modes. It also follows that theories of massive gravity trivially satisfies this form of the WGC. We also point out that the identification of a massive spin-2 state in a truncated higher derivative theory, such as Einstein-Weyl-squared or its supergravity extension, bears no relationship with massive spin-2 states in the UV completion, contrary to previous statements in the literature. We also discuss the conjecture from a swampland perspective and show how the emergence of a universal upper bound on the cutoff relies on strong assumptions on the scale of the couplings between the spin-2 and other fields, an assumption which is known to be violated in explicit examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".