MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A dark seesaw solution to low energy anomalies: MiniBooNE, the muon (g − 2), and BaBar

2021· article· en· W3044343179 on OpenAlexafffund
Asli M. Abdullahi, Matheus Hostert, Silvia Pascoli

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersFP7 Ideas: European Research CouncilH2020 European Research CouncilInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionGovernment of CanadaH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsOntario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and TradeMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsMiniBooNEPhysicsParticle physicsMuonNeutrinoSeesaw molecular geometryLeptonStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Anomaly (physics)Nuclear physicsSterile neutrinoGauge (firearms)ElectronNeutrino oscillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent update from MiniBooNE has strengthened the observed 4.8σ excess of e-like events. Motivated by this and other notable deviations from standard model predictions, such as the muon (g−2), we propose a solution to low energy anomalies through a dark neutrino sector. The model is renormalizable and can also explain light neutrino masses with an anomaly-free and dark U(1)′ gauge symmetry broken at the GeV scale. Large kinetic mixing leads to s-channel production of heavy neutral leptons at e+e− colliders, where we point out and explain a ≳2σ excess observed in the BaBar monophoton data. Our model is also compatible with anomalous e-like events seen at old accelerator experiments, as well as with an excess of double vertex signatures observed at CCFR.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations65
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207