MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3036296120 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.033006

Tree-level interference in vector boson fusion production of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>

2020· article· lv· W3036296120 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Stolarski, Yongcheng Wu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParticle physicsElectroweak interactionHiggs bosonPhysicsVector bosonBosonStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Gauge bosonTechnicolorGauge theoryGauge (firearms)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vector boson scattering is a well known probe of electroweak symmetry breaking. Here we study a related process of two electroweak vector bosons scattering into a vector boson and a Higgs boson ($VV\ensuremath{\rightarrow}Vh$, $V=W$, $Z$). This process exhibits tree level interference and grows with energy if the Higgs couplings to electroweak bosons deviate from their Standard Model values. Therefore, this process is particularly sensitive to the relative sign of the ratio of the coupling between the Higgs and the $W$ and $Z$, ${\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{WZ}$. In this work we show that a high energy lepton collider is well suited to study this process through vector boson fusion, estimate the potential sensitivity to this ratio, and show that a relatively modest amount of data can exclude ${\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{WZ}\ensuremath{\simeq}\ensuremath{-}1$.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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