RECORD
Monte Carlo Exploration of Warped Higgsless Models
High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 5 Jul 2004
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim We show, however, that the additional requirement of perturbative unitarity up to the cut-off, $\simeq 10$ TeV, in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering in the absence of dangerous tachyons eliminates all models.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
We have performed a detailed Monte Carlo exploration of the parameter space for a warped Higgsless model of electroweak symmetry breaking in 5 dimensions. This model is based on the $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group in an AdS$_5$ bulk with arbitrary gauge kinetic terms on both the Planck and TeV branes. Constraints arising from precision electroweak measurements and collider data are found to be relatively easy to satisfy. We show, however, that the additional requirement of perturbative unitarity up to the cut-off, $\simeq 10$ TeV, in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering in the absence of dangerous tachyons eliminates all models. If successful models of this class exist, they must be highly fine-tuned.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | We have performed a detailed Monte Carlo exploration of the parameter space for a warped Higgsless model of electroweak symmetry breaking in 5 dimensions. | contribution 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.03 | asserted 0.99 |
| s1 | This model is based on the $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group in an AdS$_5$ bulk with arbitrary gauge kinetic terms on both the Planck and TeV branes. | method 0.77 | 0.16 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | Constraints arising from precision electroweak measurements and collider data are found to be relatively easy to satisfy. | result 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.04 | asserted 1.00 |
| s3 | We show, however, that the additional requirement of perturbative unitarity up to the cut-off, $\simeq 10$ TeV, in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering in the absence of dangerous tachyons eliminates all models. | result 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.87 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | If successful models of this class exist, they must be highly fine-tuned. | interpretation 0.93 | 0.74 | 0.51 | asserted 0.57 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v2
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
We have performed a detailed Monte Carlo exploration of the parameter space for a warped Higgsless model of electroweak symmetry breaking in 5 dimensions. This model is based on the $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group in an AdS$_5$ bulk with arbitrary gauge kinetic terms on both the Planck and TeV branes. Constraints arising from precision electroweak measurements and collider data are found to be relatively easy to satisfy. We show, however, that the additional requirement of perturbative unitarity up to the cut-off, $\simeq 10$ TeV, in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering in the absence of dangerous tachyons eliminates all models. If successful models of this class exist, they must be highly fine-tuned.
Human review
References
How the literature uses it
Papers whose main result relates to this one's
States the same result 1 paper
-
However, we find that the entire range of model parameters leads to violation of perturbative unitarity in gauge boson scattering and hence this model is not a reliable perturbative framework.
Higgsless Electroweak Symmetry Breaking in Warped Backgrounds: Constraints and Signatures · 0.98
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.