MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405553468 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202431501004

A New Method for Measuring Higgs Mass

2024· article· en· W4405553468 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Berger, Junping Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHiggs bosonParticle physicsPhysicsTheoretical physicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Higgs mass as one of the fundamental parameters in the Standard Model has been already measured with a precision of 110 MeV with the data collected so far at the LHC. However in some cases of looking for small deviations from the SM, current precision or projection of the Higgs mass measurement at the LHC or HL-LHC may not be enough. One prominent exam-ple is for the SM prediction of the Higgs partial decay width H → WW* or H → ZZ* , in which the Higgs mass uncertainty becomes one of the leading sources of parametric theory error. It is expected that at future e+e- colliders the Higgs mass precision can be significantly improved by the “recoil mass method”, at least statistically. This research proposes a new method which may complement to the recoil mass method in terms of systematic errors. The new method employs the signal channel of Higgs decaying to a pair of fermions, in particular τ leptons, or 2 quarks bb¯ and makes use of transverse momentum conservations alone instead of the 4-momentum conservation in the recoil mass method. The key experimental observables will be the momentum directions of tau leptons or b -jets without any input from energy measurement, and the momentum directions can possibly be measured by reconstructing the decaying vertex of the tau leptons or B -hadrons. This new method can in principle be applied at lepton colliders and the LHC as well. This method is studied by performing realistic detector simulation and physics analysis with the ILC frameworks based on the ILD. In the case of H → bb¯ without any background the statistical precision is found to be comparable to the expectation by recoil mass method, thus potentially very useful. The H → τ − τ + channel is rather statistically limited and worth of further investigations.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207