White paper and roadmap for quantum gravity phenomenology in the multi-messenger era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity has long been elusive. Only recently have empirical predictions of various possible theories of quantum gravity been put to test, where a clear signal of quantum properties of gravity is still missing. The dawn of multi-messenger high-energy astrophysics has been tremendously beneficial, as it allows us to study particles with much higher energies and travelling much longer distances than possible in terrestrial experiments, but more progress is needed on several fronts. A thorough appraisal of current strategies and experimental frameworks, regarding quantum gravity phenomenology, is provided here. Our aim is twofold: a description of tentative multimessenger explorations, plus a focus on future detection experiments. As the outlook of the network of researchers that formed through the COST Action CA18108 ‘Quantum gravity phenomenology in the multi-messenger approach (QG-MM)’, in this work we give an overview of the desiderata that future theoretical frameworks, observational facilities, and data-sharing policies should satisfy in order to advance the cause of quantum gravity phenomenology.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".