Constraining the quantum gravity polymer scale using LIGO data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the first empirical constraints on the polymer scale describing polymer quantized GWs propagating on a classical background. These constraints are determined from the polymer-induced deviation from the classically predicted propagation speed of GWs. We leverage posterior information on the propagation speed of GWs from two previously reported sources: (1) inter-detector arrival time delays for signals from the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration’s first gravitational-wave transient catalog, GWTC1, and (2) from arrival time delays between GW signal GW170817 and its associated gamma-ray burst GRB170817A. For pure-GW constraints, we find relatively uninformative combined constraints of <?CDATA $\nu = 0.96\substack{+0.15 \\ -0.21} \times 10^{-53} \, \mathrm{kg}^{1/2}$?> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>ν</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.96</mml:mn> <mml:mtable columnspacing="0em 0em 0em 0em" rowspacing="0.1em"> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.15</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.21</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> </mml:mtable> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>53</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">k</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> and <?CDATA $\mu = 0.94\substack{+0.75 \\ -0.20} \times 10^{-48} \, \mathrm{kg}^{1/2} \cdot s$?> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.94</mml:mn> <mml:mtable columnspacing="0em 0em 0em 0em" rowspacing="0.1em"> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.75</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.20</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> </mml:mtable> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>48</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">k</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:math> at the <?CDATA $90\%$?> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mn>90</mml:mn> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi> </mml:math> credible level for the two polymer quantization schemes, where ν and µ refer to polymer parameters associated to the polymer quantization schemes of propagating gravitational degrees of freedom. For constraints from GW170817/GRB170817A, we report much more stringent constraints of <?CDATA $\nu_{\mathrm{low}} = 2.66\substack{+0.60 \\ -0.10}\times 10^{-56}$?> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>ν</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2.66</mml:mn> <mml:mtable columnspacing="0em 0em 0em 0em" rowspacing="0.1em"> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.60</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.10</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> </mml:mtable> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>56</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> , <?CDATA $\nu_{\mathrm{high}} = 2.66\substack{+0.45 \\ -0.10}\times 10^{-56} $?> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>ν</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2.66</mml:mn> <mml:mtable columnspacing="0em 0em 0em 0em" rowspacing="0.1em"> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.45</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> <mml:mtr> <mml:mtd> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.10</mml:mn> </mml:mtd> </mml:mtr> </mml:mtable> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>56</mml:mn> </mml:mrow>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".