Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Gravity Relativistic Quantum Information
Tame Complexity of Effective Field Theories in the Quantum Gravity Landscape
arXiv
Authors: Thomas W. Grimm, David Prieto, Mick van Vliet
Year
2026
Paper ID
3310
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
190
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Effective field theories consistent with quantum gravity obey surprising finiteness constraints, appearing in several distinct but interconnected forms. In this work we develop a framework that unifies these observations by proposing that the defining data of such theories, as well as the landscape of effective field theories that are valid at least up to a fixed cutoff, admit descriptions with a uniform bound on complexity. To make this precise, we use tame geometry and work in sharply o-minimal structures, in which tame sets and functions come with two integer parameters that quantify their information content; we call this pair their tame complexity. Our Finite Complexity Conjectures are supported by controlled examples in which an infinite Wilsonian expansion nevertheless admits an equivalent finite-complexity description, typically through hidden rigidity conditions such as differential or recursion relations. We further assemble evidence from string compactifications, highlighting the constraining role of moduli space geometry and the importance of dualities. This perspective also yields mathematically well-defined notions of counting and volume measures on the space of effective theories, formulated in terms of effective field theory domains and coverings, whose finiteness is naturally enforced by the conjectures.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Gravity & Relativistic Quantum Information research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Effective field theories consistent with quantum gravity obey surprising finiteness constraints, appearing in several distinct but interconnected forms.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.