MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W77642300 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.103507

Minimal supersymmetric standard model flat direction as a curvaton

2003· article· en· W77642300 on OpenAlexaff
Kari Enqvist, Asko Jokinen, Shinta Kasuya, Anupam Mazumdar

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflatonPhysicsSupergravitySupersymmetryParticle physicsInflation (cosmology)Adiabatic processHidden sectorHubble's lawMinimal Supersymmetric Standard ModelSymmetry (geometry)Theoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsDark energyCosmologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study in detail the possibility that the flat directions of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) could act as a curvaton and generate the observed adiabatic density perturbations. For that the flat direction energy density has to dominate the Universe at the time when it decays. We point out that this is not possible if the inflaton decays into MSSM degrees of freedom. If the inflaton is completely in the hidden sector, its decay products do not couple to the flat direction, and the flat direction curvaton can dominate the energy density. This requires the absence of a Hubble-induced mass for the curvaton, e.g. by virtue of the Heisenberg symmetry. In the case of hidden radiation, $n=9$ is the only admissible direction; for other hidden equations of state, directions with lower n may also dominate. We show that the MSSM curvaton is further constrained severely by the damping of the fluctuations, and as an example, demonstrate that in no-scale supergravity it would fragment into Q balls rather than decay. Damping of fluctuations can be avoided by an initial condition, which for the $n=9$ direction would require an initial curvaton amplitude of $\ensuremath{\sim}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}2}{M}_{p},$ thereby providing a working example of the MSSM flat direction curvaton.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 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

Citations96
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fieldsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207