MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978738335 · doi:10.1007/jhep11(2012)134

A fast track towards the ‘Higgs’ spin and parity

2012· article· en· W1978738335 on OpenAlexaff
John Ellis, Dae Sung Hwang, Verónica Sanz, Tevong You

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research FoundationCERN
KeywordsHiggs bosonParticle physicsPhysicsTevatronParity (physics)Large Hadron ColliderInvariant massNuclear physicsAtlas (anatomy)Gauge bosonGauge theoryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The LHC experiments ATLAS and CMS have discovered a new boson that resembles the long-sought Higgs boson: it cannot have spin one, and has couplings to other particles that increase with their masses, but the spin and parity remain to be determined. We show here that the ‘Higgs’ + gauge boson invariant-mass distribution in ‘Higgs’-strahlung events at the Tevatron or the LHC would be very different under the J P =0+ ,0− and 2+ hypotheses. Ouranalysisisbasedonsimulationsoftheexperimental event selections and cuts using PYTHIA and Delphes, and incorporates statistical samples of ‘toy’ experiments. The observation of ‘Higgs’-strahlung at the Tevatron and the expected peaking of backgrounds at low invariant masses suggest that this process could provide a fast-track indicator of the ‘Higgs’ spin and parity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations81
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207