Who's Afraid of the Supersymmetric Dark? The Standard Model vs Low‐Energy Supergravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Use of supergravity equations in astronomy and late‐universe cosmology is often criticized on three grounds: ( i ) phenomenological success usually depends on the supergravity form for the scalar potential applying at the relevant energies; () the low‐energy scalar potential is extremely sensitive to quantum effects involving very massive particles and so is rarely well‐approximated by classical calculations of its form; and () almost all Standard Model particles count as massive for these purposes and none of these are supersymmetric. Why should Standard Model loops preserve the low‐energy supergravity form even if supersymmetry is valid at energies well above the electroweak scale? We use recently developed tools for coupling supergravity to non‐supersymmetric matter to estimate the loop effects of heavy non‐supersymmetric particles on the low‐energy effective action, and provide evidence that the supergravity form is stable against integrating out such particles (and so argues against the above objection). This suggests an intrinsically supersymmetric picture of Nature where supersymmetry survives to low energies within the gravity sector but not the visible sector (for which supersymmetry is instead non‐linearly realized). We explore the couplings of both sectors in this picture and find that the presence of auxiliary fields in the gravity sector makes the visible sector share many features usually attributed to linearly realized supersymmetry although (unlike for the MSSM) a second Higgs doublet is not required for all Yukawa couplings to be non‐vanishing and changes the dimension of the operator generating the Higgs mass. We discuss the naturalness of this picture and some of the implications it might have when searching for dark‐sector physics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".