MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602969550 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.015006

Vectorlike fermions and Higgs effective field theory revisited

2017· article· en· W2602969550 on OpenAlexafffund
Chien-Yi Chen, S. Dawson, Elisabetta Furlan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaPerimeter Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaH2020 European Research CouncilOffice of ScienceInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaFermilabHigh Energy PhysicsU.S. Department of EnergySchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsPhysicsHiggs bosonParticle physicsFermionQuarkConnection (principal bundle)Effective field theoryStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Physics beyond the Standard ModelSimple (philosophy)Field (mathematics)Theoretical physicsMathematicsGeometryPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy vectorlike quarks (VLQs) appear in many models of beyond the Standard Model physics. Direct experimental searches require these new quarks to be heavy, $\ensuremath{\gtrsim}800--1000\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}$. We perform a global fit of the parameters of simple VLQ models in minimal representations of $SU(2{)}_{L}$ to precision data and Higgs rates. An interesting connection between anomalous $Zb\overline{b}$ interactions and Higgs physics in VLQ models is discussed. Finally, we present our analysis in an effective field theory (EFT) framework and show that the parameters of VLQ models are already highly constrained. Exact and approximate analytical formulas for the $S$ and $T$ parameters in the VLQ models we consider are available in the Supplemental Material as Mathematica files.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations82
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207