MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076115983 · doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)022

The Higgs mass and the scale of new physics

2015· article· en· W2076115983 on OpenAlexafffund
Astrid Eichhorn, Holger Gies, Joerg Jaeckel, Tilman Plehn, Michael M. Scherer, René Sondenheimer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftImperial College LondonGovernment of Canada
KeywordsHiggs bosonCutoffPhysicsRenormalization groupParticle physicsRenormalizationPhysics beyond the Standard ModelScale (ratio)Standard Model (mathematical formulation)InstabilityUltravioletStatistical physicsTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In view of the measured Higgs mass of 125 GeV, the perturbative renormalization group evolution of the Standard Model suggests that our Higgs vacuum might not be stable. We connect the usual perturbative approach and the functional renormalization group which allows for a straightforward inclusion of higher-dimensional operators in the presence of an ultraviolet cutoff. In the latter framework we study vacuum stability in the presence of higher-dimensional operators. We find that their presence can have a sizable influence on the maximum ultraviolet scale of the Standard Model and the existence of instabilities. Finally, we discuss how such operators can be generated in specific models and study the relation between the instability scale of the potential and the scale of new physics required to avoid instabilities.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations77
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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