Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space-time supersymmetry (SUSY) is widely believed to play an important role in most fundamental theories of physics, and is usually invoked in order to address problems of naturalness. In this paper, we examine the question of whether SUSY itself is 'natural' (i.e. likely to exist as a fundamental component of nature at high-energy scales). Our approach to answering this question is based on a statistical examination of the heterotic string landscape, and our conclusion is that SUSY is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. We also find that the likelihood of SUSY appearing at the string scale is dependent on the gauge symmetries present at the string scale, with certain gauge groups strongly favoring the appearance of SUSY and others not. This paper summarizes several recent papers, yet also contains some new results. In particular, one new result is that the heterotic landscape appears to favor either the non-supersymmetric Standard Model or an SUSY GUT gauge group at the string scale; by contrast, the opposite outcomes (namely the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) or a non-supersymmetric GUT) are significantly disfavored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".