MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389877937 · doi:10.15407/ujpe68.11.717

Chirality Production during Axion Inflation

2023· article· en· W4389877937 on OpenAlexaff
É. V. Gorbar, A. I. Momot, I. Rudenok, O. O. Sobol, S. I. Vilchinskiĭ, І. В. Олейнікова

Bibliographic record

VenueUkrainian Journal of Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflatonPhysicsAxionPseudoscalarChiral anomalyElectromagnetic fieldQuantum electrodynamicsChirality (physics)Particle physicsAsymmetryFermionInflation (cosmology)Quantum mechanicsQuarkDark matter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the generation of a chiral charge during the axion inflation, where the pseudoscalar inflaton field φ couples axially to the electromagnetic field via the term (β/Mp)φ E · B with the dimensionless coupling constant β. To describe the evolution of the electromagnetic field and to determine ⟨E·B⟩ sourcing the chiral asymmetry during the inflation due to the chiral anomaly, we employ the gradient-expansion formalism. It operates with a set of vacuum expectation values of the bilinear electromagnetic functions and allows us to consider the backreaction of generated fields on the inflaton evolution, as well as the Schwinger production of charged fermions. In addition, we assume that the produced fermions thermalize and include the chiral magnetic effect contribution to the electric current given by jCME = e2/(2π2)μ5B, where μ5 is the chiral chemical potential which quantifies the produced chiral asymmetry. Solving a set of equations for the inflaton field, scale factor, quadratic functions of the electromagnetic field, and the chiral charge density (chiral chemical potential), we find that the chirality production is quite efficient leading to the generation of a large chiral chemical potential at the end of the axion inflation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUkrainian Journal of PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207