Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review, a number of approaches to superstring cosmology which make use of key features which distinguish string theory from point particle theories are discussed, with particular emphasis on emergent scenarios. One motivation for the discussion is the realization that, in order to describe the evolution of the very early universe, it is necessary to go beyond a conventional effective field theory (EFT) analysis. Some of the conceptual problems of an EFT analysis will be discussed. The review begins with a summary of the criteria for a successful early universe scenario, emphasizing that cosmic inflation is not the only scenario of early universe cosmology which is consistent with current cosmological observations. Bouncing and emergent scenarios as interesting alternatives are introduced. Some realizations of these scenarios from superstring theory are reviewed, e.g. String Gas Cosmology, the Pre-Big-Bang scenario, the Ekpyrotic model, Double Field Theory cosmology and matrix model cosmology. In light of the difficulties in obtaining cosmic inflation from string theory (at the level of EFT), and realizing that there are promising examples of alternative early universe scenarios which are derived from basic principles of superstring theory, one must entertain the possibility that the cosmology emerging from string theory will not involve an extended period of accelerated expansion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".