UV Shadows in EFTs: Accidental Symmetries, Robustness and No‐Scale Supergravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We argue that accidental approximate scaling symmetries are robust predictions of weakly coupled string vacua, and show that their interplay with supersymmetry and other (generalised) internal symmetries underlies the ubiquitous appearance of no‐scale supergravities in low‐energy 4D EFTs. We identify 4 nested types of no‐scale supergravities, and show how leading quantum corrections can break scale invariance while preserving some no‐scale properties (including non‐supersymmetric flat directions). We use these ideas to classify corrections to the low‐energy 4D supergravity action in perturbative 10D string vacua, including both bulk and brane contributions. Our prediction for the Kähler potential at any fixed order in and string loops agrees with all extant calculations. p‐form fields play two important roles: they spawn many (generalised) shift symmetries; and space‐filling 4‐forms teach 4D physics about higher‐dimensional phenomena like flux quantisation. We argue that these robust symmetry arguments suffice to understand obstructions to finding classical de Sitter vacua, and suggest how to get around them in UV complete models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".