Implications of a light “dark Higgs” solution to the<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>discrepancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A light scalar $\ensuremath{\phi}$ with mass $\ensuremath{\lesssim}1\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}$ and muonic coupling $\mathcal{O}(1{0}^{\ensuremath{-}3})$ would explain the $3.5\ensuremath{\sigma}$ discrepancy between the Standard Model (SM) muon $g\ensuremath{-}2$ prediction and experiment. Such a scalar can be associated with a light remnant of the Higgs mechanism in the ``dark'' sector. We suggest $\ensuremath{\phi}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{l}^{+}{l}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ bump hunting in $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}e\ensuremath{\nu}\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}\ensuremath{\phi}$, ${\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}p\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{\ensuremath{\mu}}n\ensuremath{\phi}$ (muon capture), and ${K}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}\ensuremath{\nu}\ensuremath{\phi}$ decays as direct probes of this scenario. In a general setup, a potentially observable muon electric dipole moment $\ensuremath{\lesssim}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}23}\text{ }\text{ }e\text{ }\mathrm{cm}$ and lepton-flavor-violating decays $\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\mu}(e)\ensuremath{\phi}$ or $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}e\ensuremath{\phi}$ can also arise. Depending on parameters, a deviation in BR($H\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$) from SM expectations, due to Higgs coupling misalignment, can result. We illustrate how the requisite interactions can be mediated by weak-scale vector-like leptons that typically lie within the reach of future LHC measurements.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.006 |
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".