MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155281649 · doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)089

Dirac gauginos, R symmetry and the 125 GeV Higgs

2015· article· en· W2155281649 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónAgence Nationale de la RechercheFermilabFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsHiggs bosonElectroweak interactionParameter spaceLarge Hadron ColliderObservableDirac (video compression format)Minimal Supersymmetric Standard ModelHiggs mechanismSupersymmetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a supersymmetric scenario with a quasi exact R-symmetry in light of the discovery of a Higgs resonance with a mass of 125 GeV. In such a framework, the additional adjoint superfields, needed to give Dirac masses to the gauginos, contribute both to the Higgs mass and to electroweak precision observables. We analyze the interplay between the two aspects, finding regions in parameter space in which the contributions to the precision observables are under control and a 125 GeV Higgs boson can be accommodated. We estimate the fine-tuning of the model finding regions of the parameter space still unexplored by the LHC with a fine-tuning considerably improved with respect to the minimal supersymmetric scenario. In particular, sizable non-holomorphic (non-supersoft) adjoints masses are required to reduce the fine-tuning.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
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

Citations46
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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