Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform comparative studies for four types of the two Higgs Doublet Models (2HDMs) under the precision measurements of the Standard Model (SM) Higgs observables at the proposed Higgs factories. We explore the discovery potential based on the hypothetical deviations in the precision data for the 2HDMs up to one-loop level. We find 5σ observability from the χ2 fitting in a significant theory parameter space at future Higgs factories. For the Type-I 2HDM, regions with cos(β - α) ≲ -0.1 or cos(β - α) ≳ 0.08 are discoverable at more than 5σ level. For the other three types of 2HDMs, the 5σ region is even bigger: | cos(β - α)| ≳ 0.02 for tan β ~ 1. At small and large values of tan β, the region in cos(β - α) is further tightened. We examine the extent to which the different 2HDM theories may be distinguishable from one to the other at the 95% Confidence Level with four benchmark points as case studies. We show that a large part of the parameter space of the other types of 2HDMs can be distinguished from the benchmark points of the target model. The impacts of loop corrections are found to be significant in certain parameter regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".