<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math>asymmetry in charged Higgs decays to chargino-neutralino pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze the charge-parity ($CP$) asymmetry in the charged Higgs boson decays to chargino-neutralino pairs, ${H}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\ensuremath{\chi}}_{i}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}{\ensuremath{\chi}}_{j}^{0}$, $i=1$, 2, $j=1,\dots{},4$. We show first that these modes have a large branching ratio for ${m}_{{H}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}600\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}$. We use Cutkosky rules to obtain the analytical formulas needed for the evaluation of the asymmetry under consideration. We then calculate the $CP$ asymmetry in chargino-neutralino decays by including supersymmetric mass bounds, as well as constraints from $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}s\ensuremath{\gamma}$, $(g\ensuremath{-}2{)}_{\ensuremath{\mu}}$, $\ensuremath{\Delta}\ensuremath{\rho}$ and electric dipole moments. Finally, we discuss observability of the asymmetry at the LHC by calculating the number of required charged Higgs events to observe the asymmetry for each decay channel. We show that the inclusion of constraints considerably reduces the projected $CP$ asymmetry, and that the optimal channel for observing the asymmetry is ${H}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\ensuremath{\chi}}_{1}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}{\ensuremath{\chi}}_{2}^{0}$.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.022 |
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".