MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4378229743 · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2023)193

TCC bounds on the static patch of de Sitter space

2023· article· en· W4378229743 on OpenAlexafffund
Mattéo Blamart, Samuel Laliberte, Robert Brandenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichMcGill University
KeywordsPhysicsHawking radiationMathematical physicsBlack hole (networking)Effective field theoryDe Sitter universeDe Sitter spaceScramblingQuantum field theoryField (mathematics)Quantum gravityQuantum mechanicsQuantumGravitational waveUniverse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, Pei-Ming Ho and Hikaru Kawai [1] have argued that treating particles as wave packets can lead to a shutdown of Hawking radiation after a scrambling time in the case of Schwarzschild black holes. This shutdown arises from viewing quantum field theory near the black hole horizon as an effective field theory, and imposing an appropriate UV cutoff. We show that this effect is also present in the static patch of de Sitter space, leading to a shutdown of Gibbons-Hawking radiation at late times. Assuming this effect is due to the breakdown of effective field theory, we obtain a bound t ≲ H−1 ln(H−1MP) on the time scale of validity of effective field theory in de Sitter space, which matches with the predictions of the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture.

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)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→