How much null-energy-condition breaking can the Universe endure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum fields can notoriously violate the null energy condition (NEC). In a cosmological context, NEC violation can lead to, e.g., dark energy at late times with an equation-of-state parameter smaller than $-1$ and nonsingular bounces at early times. However, it is expected that there should still be a limit in semiclasssical gravity to how much `negative energy' can accumulate over time and in space as a result of quantum effects. In the course of formulating quantum-motivated energy conditions, the smeared null energy condition has emerged as a recent proposal. This condition conjectures the existence of a semilocal bound on negative energy along null geodesics, which is expected to hold in semiclassical gravity. In this work, we show how the smeared null energy condition translates into theoretical constraints on NEC-violating cosmologies. Specifically, we derive the implied bounds on dark energy equation-of-state parameters and an inequality between the duration of a bouncing phase and the growth rate of the Hubble parameter at the bounce. In the case of dark energy, we identify the parameter space over which the smeared null energy condition is consistent with the recent constraints from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI).
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Theoretical cosmology on null energy condition violation.
It derives theoretical constraints on cosmological models.
Theoretical cosmology bounds on NEC violation; object is physics, not research practice.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".