MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2107452887 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.115009

Determination of nonuniversal supergravity models at the Large Hadron Collider

2010· article· en· W2107452887 on OpenAlexaff
Bhaskar Dutta, T. Kamon, Abram Krislock, Nikolay Ivanov Kolev, Youngdo Oh

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNational Research FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsParticle physicsHiggsinoLarge Hadron ColliderHiggs bosonNeutralinoDark matterLightest Supersymmetric ParticleSupergravityStandard Model (mathematical formulation)SupersymmetryMinimal Supersymmetric Standard ModelBosonPhysics beyond the Standard ModelGauge (firearms)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine a well-motivated nonuniversal supergravity model where the Higgs boson masses are not unified with the other scalars at the grand unified scale at the LHC. The dark matter content can easily be satisfied in this model by having a larger Higgsino component in the lightest neutralino. Typical final states in such a scenario at the LHC involve $W$ bosons. We develop a bi-event subtraction technique to reduce a huge combinatorial background to identify $W\ensuremath{\rightarrow}jj$ decays. This is also a key technique to reconstruct supersymmetric particle masses in order to determine the model parameters. With the model parameters, we find that the dark matter content of the Universe can be determined in agreement with existing experimental results.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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