Uncovering mass generation through Higgs flavor violation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A discovery of the flavor-violating decay $h\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\mu}$ at the LHC would require extra sources of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) beyond the Higgs in order to reconcile it with the bounds from $\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\gamma}$, barring fine-tuned cancellations. In fact, an $h\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\mu}$ decay rate at a level indicated by the CMS measurement is easily realized if the muon and electron masses are due to a new source of EWSB, while the tau mass is due to the Higgs. We illustrate this with two examples: a two Higgs doublet model, and a model in which the Higgs is partially composite, with EWSB triggered by a technicolor sector. The first- and second-generation quark masses and Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing can also be assigned to the new EWSB source. Large deviations in the flavor diagonal lepton and quark Higgs Yukawa couplings are generic. If ${m}_{\ensuremath{\mu}}$ is due to a rank 1 mass matrix contribution, a novel Yukawa coupling sum rule holds, providing a precision test of our framework. Flavor-violating quark and lepton (pseudo)scalar couplings combine to yield a sizable ${B}_{s}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\mu}$ decay rate, which could be $\mathcal{O}(100)$ times larger than the Standard Model ${B}_{s}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\mu}$ decay rate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".