MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A global likelihood for precision constraints and flavour anomalies

2019· article· en· W2896273149 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsElectroweak interactionLeptonMuonObservableUniversality (dynamical systems)Electroweak scalePhysics beyond the Standard ModelMixing (physics)Scaling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a global likelihood function in the space of dimension-six Wilson coefficients in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory. The likelihood includes contributions from flavour-changing neutral current B decays, lepton flavour universality tests in charged- and neutral-current B and K decays, meson-antimeson mixing observables in the K, B, and D systems, direct CP violation in $$K\rightarrow \pi \pi $$ , charged lepton flavour violating B, tau, and muon decays, electroweak precision tests on the Z and W poles, the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron, muon, and tau, and several other precision observables, 265 in total. The Wilson coefficients can be specified at any scale, with the one-loop running above and below the electroweak scale automatically taken care of. The implementation of the likelihood function is based on the open source tools flavio and wilson as well as the open Wilson coefficient exchange format (WCxf) and can be installed as a Python package. It can serve as a basis either for model-independent fits or for testing dynamical models, in particular models built to address the anomalies in B physics. We discuss a number of example applications, reproducing results from the EFT and model building literature.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations146
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207