MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inflating to the Weak Scale

2019· article· en· W2891677436 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Geller, Yonit Hochberg, Eric Kuflik

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMainz Institute for Theoretical Physics, Johannes Gutenberg University MainzIsraeli Centers for Research ExcellenceAzrieli FoundationIsrael Science FoundationPlanning and Budgeting Committee of the Council for Higher Education of IsraelAspen Center for PhysicsUnited States-Israel Binational Science FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHiggs bosonPhysicsParticle physicsHierarchy problemHiggs fieldInflation (cosmology)Electroweak interactionAxionBosonVacuum energyElectroweak scaleUniverseTechnicolorInflatonTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsDark matterGauge boson

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new solution to the hierarchy problem, where the Higgs boson mass is at its observed electroweak value because such a patch inflates the most in the early Universe. If the Higgs boson mass depends on a field undergoing quantum fluctuations during inflation, then inflation will fill the Universe with the Higgs boson mass that corresponds to the largest vacuum energy. The hierarchy problem is solved if the maximum vacuum energy occurs for the observed Higgs boson mass. We demonstrate this notion with a proof-of-principle model containing an axion, a modulus field and the Higgs boson, and show that inflation can be responsible for the weak scale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207