MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979234049 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.015013

Indirect constraints on the Georgi-Machacek model and implications for Higgs boson couplings

2015· article· en· W1979234049 on OpenAlexafffund
Katy Hartling, Kunal Kumar, Heather E. Logan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHiggs bosonParticle physicsElectroweak interactionPhysicsLarge Hadron ColliderScalar (mathematics)ObservableStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Physics beyond the Standard ModelTechnicolorBosonHiggs mechanismHiggs fieldMathematicsGauge bosonQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We update the indirect constraints on the Georgi-Machacek model from $B$-physics and electroweak precision observables, including new constraints from $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}s\ensuremath{\gamma}$ and ${B}_{s}^{0}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$. We illustrate the effect of these constraints on the couplings of the Standard-Model-like Higgs boson by performing scans using the most general scalar potential, subject to vacuum stability and perturbativity constraints. We find that simultaneous enhancements of all the Higgs production cross sections by up to 39% are still allowed after imposing these constraints. LHC rate measurements on the Higgs pole could be blind to these enhancements if unobserved nonstandard Higgs decays are present.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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