Entanglement maximization and mirror symmetry in two-Higgs-doublet models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract We consider 2-to-2 scatterings of Higgs bosons in a CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) and study the implication of maximizing the entanglement in the flavor space, where the two doublets Φ a , a = 1, 2, can be viewed as a qubit: Φ 1 = |0⟩ and Φ 2 = |1⟩. More specifically, we compute the scattering amplitudes for Φ a Φ b → Φ c Φ d and require the outgoing flavor entanglement to be maximal for a full product basis such as the computational basis, which consists of {|00⟩, |01⟩, |10⟩, |11⟩}. In the unbroken phase and turning off the gauge interactions, entanglement maximization results in the appearance of an U(2) × U(2) global symmetry among the quartic couplings, which in general is broken softly by the mass terms. Interestingly, once the Higgs bosons acquire vacuum expectation values, maximal entanglement enforces an exact U(2) × U(2) symmetry, which is spontaneously broken to U(1) × U(1). As a byproduct, this gives rise to Higgs alignment as well as to the existence of 6 massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons. The U(2) × U(2) symmetry can be gauged to lift the massless Goldstones, while maintaining maximal entanglement demands the presence of a discrete Z 2 symmetry interchanging the two gauge sectors. The model is custodially invariant in the scalar sector, and the inclusion of fermions requires a mirror dark sector, related to the standard one by the Z 2 symmetry.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".