MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6958101591 · doi:10.60692/2yg0x-mrd63

Search for charged Higgs bosons in top quark decays

2009· article· en· W6958101591 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityYork UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHiggs bosonTop quarkTevatronFermilabBosonLeptonStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Elementary particleParameter space

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a search for charged Higgs bosons in top quark decays. We analyze the \eplus, \muplus, $ee$, $e\mu$, $\mu\mu$, \etau and \mutau final states from top quark pair production events, using data from about 1${\text{fb}}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity recorded by the \dzero experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron Collider. We consider different scenarios of possible charged Higgs boson decays, one where the charged Higgs boson decays purely hadronically into a charm and a strange quark, another where it decays into a $\tau$ lepton and a $\tau$ neutrino and a third one where both decays appear. We extract limits on the branching ratio $B(t\to H^+ b)$ for all these models. We use two methods, one where the $t\bar{t}$ production cross section is fixed, and one where the cross section is fitted simultaneously with $B(t\to H^+b)$. Based on the extracted limits, we exclude regions in the charged Higgs boson mass and $\tan \beta$ parameter space for different scenarios of the minimal supersymmetric standard model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→