Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of dark matter, a massive neutral particle known to exist through astrophysical observations but having no description in the Standard Model of particle physics.We consider possible extensions to the Standard Model that add a dark matter candidate and investigate how the effects of these extensions could be detected by various experiments.We study the phenomenology of such models to motivate analyses and experimental searches.We first consider a model with a scalar dark matter candidate interacting with the Standard Model through a scalar portal, a staple of early dark matter modelling.We explore the parameter space of said model with the goal of finding regions where physical effects cause experiments to become less sensitive and unable to reject the model.We find several effects which cause this to happen, one notably due to the non-monotony of the relic abundance as a function of the vacuum expectation value of the scalar portal.We next investigate whether the use of different materials in direct detection experiments can offer information about dark matter models through complementarity, specifically in quantifying isospin violation in dark matter interactions with nuclei.We consider a two-Higgs doublet model and use xenon and argon as our detector materials.We find that scalar mediators mostly couple to the gluon content of the nucleons, and that the isospin violation from the valence quark content must be inordinately high for it to be detected in experiments.We conclude that, while measurements of isospin violation in scalar-mediated dark matter models are not feasible in the near future, the subject merits further investigation for models with a different (vector) mediator.Lastly, we consider a model wherein dark matter couples with the Standard i Model through a massive gluophilic neutral vector boson.This coupling is feeble enough that dark matter achieves relic abundance through the freeze-in scenario, an alternative mechanism to the more common freeze-out.We observe that such a model evades most experimental bounds on traditional dark matter models, but that it can be constrained at particle colliders through mono-jet signatures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".