Probing neutral triple gauge couplings via $lt;inline-formula$gt;$lt;math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="c:\heptemp\HML77603525.png" baseline="-2.5" display="inline" id="mathml_M1" overflow="scroll"$gt; $lt;mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"$gt;$lt;mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"$gt;$lt;mml:mi$gt;Z$lt;/mml:mi$gt;$lt;mml:mi$gt;γ$lt;/mml:mi$gt;$lt;mml:mspace width="thinmathspace"/$gt;$lt;mml:mo stretchy="false"$gt;($lt;/mml:mo$gt;$lt;mml:msup$gt;$lt;mml:mi$gt;ℓ$lt;/mml:mi$gt;$lt;mml:mo$gt;+$lt;/mml:mo$gt;$lt;/mml:msup$gt;$lt;mml:msup$gt;$lt;mml:mi$gt;ℓ$lt;/mml:mi$gt;$lt;mml:mo$gt;−$lt;/mml:mo$gt;$lt;/mml:msup$gt;$lt;mml:mi$gt;γ$lt;/mml:mi$gt;$lt;mml:mo stretchy="false"$gt;)$lt;/mml:mo$gt;$lt;/mml:mrow$gt;$lt;/mml:mrow$gt;$lt;/math$gt;$lt;/inline-formula$gt; production at $lt;inline-formula$gt;$lt;math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="c:\heptemp\HML77603526.png" baseline="-0.5" display="inline" id="mathml_M2" overflow="scroll"$gt; $lt;mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"$gt;$lt;mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"$gt;$lt;mml:msup$gt; $lt;mml:mi$gt;e$lt;/mml:mi$gt;$lt;mml:mo$gt;+$lt;/mml:mo$gt;$lt;/mml:msup$gt;$lt;mml:msup$gt;$lt;mml:mi$gt;e$lt;/mml:mi$gt;$lt;mml:mo$gt;−$lt;/mml:mo$gt;$lt;/mml:msup$gt;$lt;/mml:mrow$gt;$lt;/mml:mrow$gt;$lt;/math$gt;$lt;/inline-formula$gt; colliders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neutral triple gauge couplings (nTGCs) are absent in the Standard Model (SM) and at the dimension-6 level in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT), arising first from dimension-8 operators. As such, they provide a unique window for probing new physics beyond the SM. These dimension-8 operators can be mapped to nTGC form factors whose structure is consistent with the spontaneously-broken electroweak gauge symmetry of the SM. In this work, we study the probes of nTGCs in the reaction e+e−→ Zγ with Z→ℓ+ℓ− (ℓ=e,μ ) at an e+e− collider. We perform a detector-level simulation and analysis of this reaction at the Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC) with collision energy s=240 GeV and an integrated luminosity of 20 ab−1. We present the sensitivity limits on probing the new physics scales of dimension-8 nTGC operators via measurements of the corresponding nTGC form factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.020 |
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".