MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987196317

Running couplings and operator mixing in the gravitational corrections to coupling

2011· article· en· W6987196317 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsYukawa potentialCoupling (piping)RenormalizationCoupling constantMixing (physics)Operator (biology)Renormalization groupGravitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst)Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207