Ode to SnarXiv
So many things pass me by these days that I’m not usually surprised when I have no idea what people around me are talking about. I am however quite surprised that, until yesterday, never heard of the snarXiv. As its author explains:
The snarXiv is a random high-energy theory paper generator incorporating all the latest trends, entropic reasoning, and exciting moduli spaces. The arXiv is similar, but occasionally less random.
The snarXiv uses “Context Free Grammar” together with a database of stock words and phrases to generate its content, which is actually just limited to titles and abstracts rather than entire papers. It’s just a matter of time, though. The results are variable, with some making no sense at all even by the standards of theoretical particle physics, but the best are almost good enough to pass off as real abstracts.
Here’s an example in the form of the abstract of a paper called (P,q) Brane Probe Predicted From Conformal Blocks:
Recently, work on new inflation has opened up a perturbative class of braneworld matrix models. We make contact with observables, moreover investigating trivial Beckenstein-Boltzmann equations. Next, using the behavior of a left-right reduction of models of WIMPs, we reformulate instanton liquids at the LHC. After discussing positrons, we check that worldsheet symmetric central charges are equivalent to electric-duality in gravity. Finally, we make contact with a special lagrangian brane, surprisingly obtaining models of inertial fluctuations.
Why not have a go at arXiv versus SnarXiv to see if you can spot the genuine article titles?
I’m tempted, with a nod in the light of the Sokal Affair, to suggest that a similar approach used in the social sciences, but the thing that really struck me is that someone should do a snarXiv for astronomy and astrophysics. Or is someone going to tell me it already exists?
Come to think of it, judging by some of the proposals I’ve read while serving on the Astronomy Grants Panel over the years, a similar generator may already exist for writing grant applications…
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
April 30, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Worryingly, there is still contention whether the papers of Igor and Grichka Bogdanov in these areas a decade ago was genuine physics or a Sokal-type hoax aimed back at physicists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair
May 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm
“Do you know of anyone who thinks that their papers have genuine physics content? Note that Classical and Quantum Gravity publicly retracted one of their papers, apologizing for the fact that it “slipped through” the refereeing process.”
Well apparently one of the referees at Classical and Quantum Gravity thought the paper had genuine physics content.
April 30, 2014 at 3:45 pm
The arXiv is similar, but occasionally less random.
LOL. Seriously though, there seems to be some issues wherein cosmology is “infected” with theoretical physics that is verging on pseudoscience. Steve Eales had a bit of a pop at this kind of thing in Origins and Jim Baggot devoted a book to it in Farewell to Reality. I think it’s turning into a bit of a problem myself, threatening to bring cosmology into disrepute. Naming no names of course.
April 30, 2014 at 6:00 pm
O boy, how did I miss Baggott’s book? I’ve ordered it. Thank you!