MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1536021394 · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2015)210

Higgs portal valleys, stability and inflation

2015· article· en· W1536021394 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guillermo Ballesteros, Carlos Tamarit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueCERNMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónUniversitat de BarcelonaIndustry CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsHiggs bosonParticle physicsInflation (cosmology)Scalar (mathematics)Cosmic microwave backgroundTop quarkStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Vacuum expectation valueHiggs fieldTheoretical physicsQuarkQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The measured values of the Higgs and top quark masses imply that the Standard Model potential is very likely to be unstable at large Higgs values. This is particularly problematic during inflation, which sources large perturbations of the Higgs. The instability could be cured by a threshold effect induced by a scalar with a large vacuum expectation value and directly connected to the Standard Model through a Higgs portal coupling. However, we find that in a minimal model in which the scalar generates inflation, this mechanism does not stabilize the potential because the mass required for inflation is beyond the instability scale. This conclusion does not change if the Higgs has a direct weak coupling to the scalar curvature. On the other hand, if the potential is absolutely stable, successful inflation in agreement with current CMB data can occur along a valley of the potential with a Mexican hat profile. We revisit the stability conditions, independently of inflation, and clarify that the threshold effect cannot work if the Higgs portal coupling is too small. We also show that inflation in a false Higgs vacuum appearing radiatively for a tuned ratio of the Higgs and top masses leads to an amplitude of primordial gravitational waves that is far too high, ruling out this possibility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→