MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997692162 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063525

Electroweak baryogenesis at high bubble wall velocities

2020· article· en· W2997692162 on OpenAlexafffund
James M. Cline, Kimmo Kainulainen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAcademy of Finland
KeywordsBaryogenesisElectroweak interactionPhysicsBubbleAsymmetryFormalism (music)Classical mechanicsBaryon asymmetryGravitational waveGravitationMechanicsParticle physicsQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely believed that electroweak baryogenesis should be suppressed in strong phase transitions with fast-moving bubble walls, but this effect has never been quantitatively studied. We rederive fluid equations describing transport of particle asymmetries near the bubble wall without making the small-wall-velocity approximation. We show that the suppression of the baryon asymmetry is a smooth function of the wall speed and that there is no special behavior when crossing the sound speed barrier. Electroweak baryogenesis can thus be efficient also with strong detonations, generically associated with models with observably large gravitational waves. We also make a systematic and critical comparison of our improved transport equations to another one commonly used in the literature, based on the vacuum expectation value (VEV)-insertion formalism.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations108
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207