MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2950055061 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1408.0046

Hybrid Inflation with Planck Scale Fields

2014· preprint· en· W2950055061 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Dine, Laurel Stephenson-Haskins

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxionInflation (cosmology)Theoretical physicsPhysicsField (mathematics)Planck massScale (ratio)String (physics)Eternal inflationCosmologyParticle physicsInflatonStatistical physicsDark matterClassical mechanicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGravitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The BICEP2 observations, if confirmed, point to a high scale of inflation and large field excursions during the inflationary era. Non-compact string moduli spaces are a suggestive setting for these phenomena. While unlikely to be described by weak coupling models, one can write down plausible effective field theories compatible with known features of cosmology. These models can be viewed as generalizations to a large field regime of hybrid inflation. We note close parallels to small and large field axion models. This paper outlines the requirements for successful modular inflation, and gives examples of effective field theories which satisfy them. The required tunings are readily characterized. These models can also be thought of as models of chaotic inflation, in a way we describe. In the modular framework, one would expect that any would-be Peccei-Quinn symmetry would likely be badly broken during inflation, and the axion would have Hubble scale mass; in this situation, isocurvature fluctuations would be suppressed and the initial misalignment angle would be fixed, rather than being a random variable.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→