MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414094043 · doi:10.3390/sym17091507

Back-Reaction of Super-Hubble Fluctuations, Late Time Tracking, and Recent Observational Results

2025· article· en· W4414094043 on OpenAlexaff
M. A. Álvarez, Leila L. Graef, Robert Brandenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueSymmetry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsConstant (computer programming)Cosmological constantHomogeneousLambda-CDM modelCosmological perturbation theoryObservational studyCosmological modelMechanism (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have suggested that the back-reaction of super-Hubble cosmological fluctuations on a symmetric background space-time, with respect to being homogeneous and isotropic, could behave like a dynamical relaxation of the cosmological constant. Moreover, this mechanism appears to be self-regulatory, potentially leading to oscillatory behavior in the effective DE. Such an effect would occur in any cosmological model with super-Hubble matter fluctuations, including the standard ΛCDM model. Apart from that, recent DESI data, which indicate that DE may be dynamical, have renewed interest in exploring scenarios leading to such an oscillatory behavior. In this study, we propose a parameterization to account for the impact of super-Hubble fluctuations on the background energy density of the Universe. We model the total effective cosmological constant as the sum of a constant and an oscillating contribution. We performed a preliminary comparison of the background dynamics of this model with recent radial BAO data from DESI. We also discuss the status of the H0 tension problem in this model.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymmetrySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207