UV and IR effects in axion quality control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Motivated by recent discussions and the absence of exact global symmetries in UV completions of gravity we re-examine the axion quality problem (and naturalness issues more generally) using antisymmetric Kalb-Ramond (KR) fields rather than their pseudoscalar duals, as suggested by string and higher dimensional theories. Two types of axions can be identified: a model independent S -type axion dual to a two form B μν in 4D and a T -type axion coming directly as 4D scalar Kaluza-Klein (KK) components of higher-dimensional tensor fields. For T -type axions our conclusions largely agree with earlier workers for the axion quality problem, but we also reconcile why T -type axions can couple to matter localized on 3-branes with Planck suppressed strength even when the axion decay constants are of order the KK scale. For S -type axions, we review the duality between form fields and massive scalars and show how duality impacts naturalness arguments about the UV sensitivity of the scalar potential. In particular UV contributions on the KR side suppress contributions on the scalar side by powers of m/M with m the axion mass and M the UV scale. We re-examine how the axion quality problem is formulated on the dual side and compare to recent treatments. We study how axion quality is affected by the ubiquity of p -form gauge potentials (for both p = 2 and p = 3) in string vacua and identify two criteria that can potentially lead to a problem. We also show why most fields do not satisfy these criteria, but when they do the existence of multiple fields also provides mechanisms for resolving it. We conclude that the quality problem is easily evaded.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".