MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319953719 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/02/023

Vacuum decay actions from tunneling potentials for general spacetime dimension

2023· article· en· W4319953719 on OpenAlexafffund
J. R. Espinosa, Jean-François Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónEuropean Regional Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMinkowski spacePhysicsFalse vacuumSpacetimeVacuum stateFormalism (music)Euclidean geometryQuantum field theory in curved spacetimeDe Sitter universeGravitationQuantum tunnellingTheoretical physicsQED vacuumQuantum mechanicsClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsQuantum gravityQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The tunneling potential method to calculate the action for vacuum decay is an alternative to the Euclidean bounce method that has a number of attractive features. In this paper we extend the formalism to general spacetime dimension d > 2 and use it to give simple proofs of several results. For Minkowski or Anti de Sitter false vacua, we show that gravity or higher barriers increase vacuum lifetime and describe a very clean picture of gravitational quenching of vacuum decay. We also derive the thin-wall limit of the action, show how detailed balance for dS to dS transitions works in the new formalism and how to obtain potentials for which the vacuum decay solution can be obtained analytically.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207