MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765743385 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.075008

Probing baryogenesis through the Higgs boson self-coupling

2018· article· en· W2765743385 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Manuel Reichert, Astrid Eichhorn, Holger Gies, Jan M. Pawlowski, Tilman Plehn, Michael M. Scherer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilInternational Max Planck Research School for Precision Tests of Fundamental SymmetriesInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueEmberi Eroforrások MinisztériumaInternational Max Planck Research School for Environmental, Cellular and Molecular MicrobiologyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftHelmholtz-Gemeinschaft
KeywordsHiggs bosonBaryogenesisParticle physicsPhysicsLarge Hadron ColliderPolynomialPhase transitionHiggs fieldRenormalizationTachyonic fieldCoupling (piping)Renormalization groupOrder (exchange)Higgs mechanismMathematicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The link between a modified Higgs self-coupling and the strong first-order phase transition necessary for baryogenesis is well explored for polynomial extensions of the Higgs potential. We broaden this argument beyond leading polynomial expansions of the Higgs potential to higher polynomial terms and to nonpolynomial Higgs potentials. For our quantitative analysis we resort to the functional renormalization group, which allows us to evolve the full Higgs potential to higher scales and finite temperature. In all cases we find that a strong first-order phase transition manifests itself in an enhancement of the Higgs self-coupling by at least 50%, implying that such modified Higgs potentials should be accessible at the LHC.

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)0.000
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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