MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783665797 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.035025

Axionic landscape for Higgs coupling near-criticality

2018· article· en· W2783665797 on OpenAlexafffund
James M. Cline, J. R. Espinosa

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadGeneralitat de CatalunyaCERN
KeywordsPhysicsHiggs bosonInflation (cosmology)Higgs fieldParticle physicsFalse vacuumRenormalization groupVacuum stateTheoretical physicsCoupling (piping)Anthropic principleInflatonQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The measured value of the Higgs quartic coupling $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ is peculiarly close to the critical value above which the Higgs potential becomes unstable, when extrapolated to high scales by renormalization group running. It is tempting to speculate that there is an anthropic reason behind this near-criticality. We show how an axionic field can provide a landscape of vacuum states in which $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ scans. These states are populated during inflation to create a multiverse with different quartic couplings, with a probability distribution $P$ that can be computed. If $P$ is peaked in the anthropically forbidden region of Higgs instability, then the most probable universe compatible with observers would be close to the boundary, as observed. We discuss three scenarios depending on the Higgs vacuum selection mechanism: decay by quantum tunneling, by thermal fluctuations, or by inflationary fluctuations.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207