Running couplings and operator mixing in the gravitational corrections to coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of a running coupling constant in renormalizable theories is well known, but the imple-mentation of this idea for effective field theories with a dimensional coupling constant is in general less useful. Nevertheless there are multiple attempts to define running couplings including the effects of gravity, with varying conclusions. We sort through many of the issues involved, most particularly the idea of operator mixing and also the kinematics of crossing, using calculations in Yukawa and λφ4 theory as illustrative examples. We remain in the perturbative regime. In some theories with a high permutation symmetry, such as λφ4, a reasonable running coupling can be defined. However in most cases, such as Yukawa and gauge theories, a running coupling fails to correctly account for the energy dependence of the interaction strength. As a byproduct we also contrast on-shell and off-shell renormalizaton schemes and show that operators which are normally discarded, such as those that vanish by the equations of motion, are required for off-shell renormalization of effective field theories. Our results suggest that the inclusion of gravity in the running of couplings is not useful or universal in the description of physical processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".