MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493088679 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.116008

Constraints from electric dipole moments on chargino baryogenesis in the minimal supersymmetric standard model

2002· article· en· W1493088679 on OpenAlexaff
Darwin Chang, W. L. Chang, Wai-Yee Keung

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaryogenesisPhysicsCharginoParticle physicsMinimal Supersymmetric Standard ModelCP violationBaryon asymmetryElectric dipole momentGauginoDipoleElectroweak interactionSupersymmetryQuantum electrodynamicsElectronQuantum mechanicsLepton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A commonly accepted mechanism of generating baryon asymmetry in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) depends on the CP violating relative phase between the gaugino mass and the Higgsino $\ensuremath{\mu}$ term. The direct constraint on this phase comes from the limit of electric dipole moments (EDM's) of various light fermions. To avoid such a constraint, a scheme which assumes that the first two generation sfermions are very heavy is usually evoked to suppress the one-loop EDM contributions. We point out that under such a scheme the most severe constraint may come from a new contribution to the electric dipole moment of the electron, the neutron, or atoms via the chargino sector at the two-loop level. As a result, the allowed parameter space for baryogenesis in the MSSM is severely constrained, independent of the masses of the first two generation sfermions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations58
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fieldsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207