A SUSY SO(10) GUT with 2 Intermediate Scales


 Oliver Cannon
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 A SUSY SO(10) GUT with 2 Intermediate Scales Manuel Drees Bonn University & Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics SUSY SO(10) p. 1/25
2 Contents 1 Motivation: SO(10), intermediate scales SUSY SO(10) p. 2/25
3 Contents 1 Motivation: SO(10), intermediate scales 2 The Model SUSY SO(10) p. 2/25
4 Contents 1 Motivation: SO(10), intermediate scales 2 The Model 3 Neutralino Dark Matter SUSY SO(10) p. 2/25
5 Contents 1 Motivation: SO(10), intermediate scales 2 The Model 3 Neutralino Dark Matter 4 LHC Phenomenology SUSY SO(10) p. 2/25
6 Contents 1 Motivation: SO(10), intermediate scales 2 The Model 3 Neutralino Dark Matter 4 LHC Phenomenology 5 Summary SUSY SO(10) p. 2/25
7 Contents 1 Motivation: SO(10), intermediate scales 2 The Model 3 Neutralino Dark Matter 4 LHC Phenomenology 5 Summary Based on: MD, Ju Min Kim, arxiv: v1 (JHEP); MD, Ju Min Kim, EunKyung Park, to appear very soon SUSY SO(10) p. 2/25
8 Introduction: Why SO(10)? 3 gauge couplings of SM unify quite nicely in MSSM SUSY SO(10) p. 3/25
9 Introduction: Why SO(10)? 3 gauge couplings of SM unify quite nicely in MSSM Minimal unified group has rank 4: SU(5). SUSY SO(10) p. 3/25
10 Introduction: Why SO(10)? 3 gauge couplings of SM unify quite nicely in MSSM Minimal unified group has rank 4: SU(5). In SU(5), ν R would have to be gauge singlet. SUSY SO(10) p. 3/25
11 Introduction: Why SO(10)? 3 gauge couplings of SM unify quite nicely in MSSM Minimal unified group has rank 4: SU(5). In SU(5), ν R would have to be gauge singlet. Instead, in SO(10): ν R required to fill 16 with matter (s)fermions! SUSY SO(10) p. 3/25
12 Introduction: Why SO(10)? 3 gauge couplings of SM unify quite nicely in MSSM Minimal unified group has rank 4: SU(5). In SU(5), ν R would have to be gauge singlet. Instead, in SO(10): ν R required to fill 16 with matter (s)fermions! Naturally allows to implement see saw mechanism! SUSY SO(10) p. 3/25
13 Introduction: Why intermediate scales? SO(10) has rank 5 SUSY SO(10) p. 4/25
14 Introduction: Why intermediate scales? SO(10) has rank 5 Usually need several Higgs reps to break it to SM gauge group SUSY SO(10) p. 4/25
15 Introduction: Why intermediate scales? SO(10) has rank 5 Usually need several Higgs reps to break it to SM gauge group No reason why the corresponding vevs should be the same SUSY SO(10) p. 4/25
16 Introduction: Why intermediate scales? SO(10) has rank 5 Usually need several Higgs reps to break it to SM gauge group No reason why the corresponding vevs should be the same See saw: m ν = m2 ν D M νr < 3 mev, if m νd m t = 170 GeV, M νr M X GeV! SUSY SO(10) p. 4/25
17 Introduction: Why intermediate scales? SO(10) has rank 5 Usually need several Higgs reps to break it to SM gauge group No reason why the corresponding vevs should be the same See saw: m ν = m2 ν D M νr < 3 mev, if m νd m t = 170 GeV, M νr M X GeV! Need m ν3 > 50 mev! SUSY SO(10) p. 4/25
18 Introduction: Why intermediate scales? SO(10) has rank 5 Usually need several Higgs reps to break it to SM gauge group No reason why the corresponding vevs should be the same See saw: m ν = m2 ν D M νr < 3 mev, if m νd m t = 170 GeV, M νr M X GeV! Need m ν3 > 50 mev! = need M νr GeV! SUSY SO(10) p. 4/25
19 The model Ref: al. et Senjanovic, Nucl. Phys B597 (2001) 89 SO(10) SU(4) SU(2) L SU(2) R D at M X using 54 SU(3) C U(1) B L SU(2) L SU(2) R at M C using 45 SU(3) C SU(2) L U(1) Y at M R using 126,126 D: Discrete symmetry, ensures parity (same L and R couplings) SUSY SO(10) p. 5/25
20 Higgs fields Most general renormalizable superpotential = light Higgs states: SUSY SO(10) p. 6/25
21 Higgs fields Most general renormalizable superpotential = light Higgs states: 54 = (1,1,1) (20,1,1) (1,3,3) (6,2,2); 45 = (15,1,1) (1,1,3) (1,3,1) (6,2,2); 126 = (10,1,3) (10,3,1) (15,2,2) (6,1,1); 126 = (10,1,3) (10,3,1) (15,2,2) (6,1,1). Decomposition under SU(4) SU(2) L SU(2) R ; components obtaining vev are written first. SUSY SO(10) p. 6/25
22 Higgs spectrum all of 54 State Mass all of 45, except (15,1,1) 45 all of 126 and 126, except 10, 10 of SU(4) M X (10,3,1) 126 and (10,3,1) 126 3, 6 of SU(3) C in (10,1,3) 126 and (10,1,3) 126 M C color triplets of (15,1,1) 45 (δ 0 δ 0 ), δ +, δ M R [ ] M 2 color octet and singlet of (15,1,1) A M 1 max R M C, M2 C M X (δ 0 + δ 0 ), δ ++, δ M2 M 2 R /M X δ = (1,1,3) 126 ; δ = (1,1,3) 126 SUSY SO(10) p. 7/25
23 Running gauge couplings Existence of states with mass < M R is crucial for allowing intermediate scales, given that single step unification works. SUSY SO(10) p. 8/25
24 Running gauge couplings Existence of states with mass < M R is crucial for allowing intermediate scales, given that single step unification works. From RGE: Can compute M C and M R for given M X (and given weak scale parameters): No prediction for M X or ratios of weak scale couplings. SUSY SO(10) p. 8/25
25 Running gauge couplings Existence of states with mass < M R is crucial for allowing intermediate scales, given that single step unification works. From RGE: Can compute M C and M R for given M X (and given weak scale parameters): No prediction for M X or ratios of weak scale couplings. In particular, M X = M C = M R remains possible: allows smooth transition to Grand Desert SUSY SO(10) p. 8/25
26 Running gauge couplings Existence of states with mass < M R is crucial for allowing intermediate scales, given that single step unification works. From RGE: Can compute M C and M R for given M X (and given weak scale parameters): No prediction for M X or ratios of weak scale couplings. In particular, M X = M C = M R remains possible: allows smooth transition to Grand Desert Introduce second pair of 10, 10 with mass M 2, to allow more realistic fermion masses (see below). SUSY SO(10) p. 8/25
27 Relation between scales log(q/gev) log(m X /GeV) log(m C /GeV) log(m R /GeV) /α U SUSY SO(10) p. 9/25
28 Superpotential above M C W = Y 1 F c FΦ Y N ( F c ΣR F c + F Σ L F ) F = (4, 2, 1): left handed matter fields F c = ( 4, 1, 2): right handed matter fields Φ 1,2 = (1, 2, 2): Higgs bi doublets Σ R = (10, 1, 3) of 126 Σ L = (10, 3, 1) of 126 SUSY SO(10) p. 10/25
29 Superpotential above M C W = Y 1 F c FΦ Y N ( F c ΣR F c + F Σ L F ) F = (4, 2, 1): left handed matter fields F c = ( 4, 1, 2): right handed matter fields Φ 1,2 = (1, 2, 2): Higgs bi doublets Σ R = (10, 1, 3) of 126 Σ L = (10, 3, 1) of 126 Have set coupling Y 2 of Φ 2 to zero: can always be done via field re definition SUSY SO(10) p. 10/25
30 Superpotential above M C W = Y 1 F c FΦ Y N ( F c ΣR F c + F Σ L F ) F = (4, 2, 1): left handed matter fields F c = ( 4, 1, 2): right handed matter fields Φ 1,2 = (1, 2, 2): Higgs bi doublets Σ R = (10, 1, 3) of 126 Σ L = (10, 3, 1) of 126 Have set coupling Y 2 of Φ 2 to zero: can always be done via field re definition Y N generates ν R mass! SUSY SO(10) p. 10/25
31 Superpotential between M R and M C W = Y q1 Q c QΦ 1 + Y l1 L c LΦ Y NL c δl c Q c = ( 3, 1, 2, 1/3): right handed quarks Q = (3, 2, 1, 1/3): left handed quarks L c = (1, 1, 2, 1): right handed leptons L = (1, 2, 1, 1): left handed leptons δ = (1, 1, 3, 2): breaks SU(2) R U(1) B L U(1) Y. SUSY SO(10) p. 11/25
32 Superpotential between M R and M C W = Y q1 Q c QΦ 1 + Y l1 L c LΦ Y NL c δl c Q c = ( 3, 1, 2, 1/3): right handed quarks Q = (3, 2, 1, 1/3): left handed quarks L c = (1, 1, 2, 1): right handed leptons L = (1, 2, 1, 1): left handed leptons δ = (1, 1, 3, 2): breaks SU(2) R U(1) B L U(1) Y. Matching condition at E = M C : Y q1 = Y l1 = Y 1 SUSY SO(10) p. 11/25
33 Superpotential between M R and M 2 W = Y u1 U c QH u1 + Y d1 D c QH d1 + Y l1 E c LH d Y NE c δ E c SUSY SO(10) p. 12/25
34 Superpotential between M R and M 2 W = Y u1 U c QH u1 + Y d1 D c QH d1 + Y l1 E c LH d Y NE c δ E c Matching condition at E = M R : Y u1 = Y d1 = Y q1 SUSY SO(10) p. 12/25
35 Superpotential below M 2 As in MSSM: W = Y u U c QH u + Y d D c H d + Y l E c LH d SUSY SO(10) p. 13/25
36 Superpotential below M 2 As in MSSM: W = Y u U c QH u + Y d D c H d + Y l E c LH d Matching: H u,d = cosϕ u,d H (u,d)1 +sin ϕ u,d H (u,d)2 = Y u,d = Y (u,d)1 cosϕ u,d SUSY SO(10) p. 13/25
37 Superpotential below M 2 As in MSSM: W = Y u U c QH u + Y d D c H d + Y l E c LH d Matching: H u,d = cosϕ u,d H (u,d)1 +sin ϕ u,d H (u,d)2 = Y u,d = Y (u,d)1 cosϕ u,d = need cos ϕ u 1, since Y t already near maximal SUSY SO(10) p. 13/25
38 Superpotential below M 2 As in MSSM: W = Y u U c QH u + Y d D c H d + Y l E c LH d Matching: H u,d = cosϕ u,d H (u,d)1 +sin ϕ u,d H (u,d)2 = Y u,d = Y (u,d)1 cosϕ u,d = need cos ϕ u 1, since Y t already near maximal = cosϕ d = Y d(m 2 ) Y u (M R ) [ g 2 1 (M R ) g 2 1 (M 2) ] 1/60 = Y d1 Y u,1 : always in large tanβ scenario for E M 2! SUSY SO(10) p. 13/25
39 Gaugino masses Assume unified boundary conditions: scalar mass m 0, gaugino mass M 1/2, single parameter A 0. SUSY SO(10) p. 14/25
40 Gaugino masses Assume unified boundary conditions: scalar mass m 0, gaugino mass M 1/2, single parameter A 0. Gauge β functions increase for E > M 2 = ratios M i /M 1/2 decrease (M i, i = 1, 2, 3: weak scale gaugino masses) SUSY SO(10) p. 14/25
41 Gaugino masses Assume unified boundary conditions: scalar mass m 0, gaugino mass M 1/2, single parameter A 0. Gauge β functions increase for E > M 2 = ratios M i /M 1/2 decrease (M i, i = 1, 2, 3: weak scale gaugino masses) E.g. for M X = GeV (minimal value): M 1 = 0.23M 1/2 M 2 = 0.46M 1/2 M 3 = 1.4M 1/2 Coefficients nearly two times smaller than in msugra. SUSY SO(10) p. 14/25
42 Gaugino masses Assume unified boundary conditions: scalar mass m 0, gaugino mass M 1/2, single parameter A 0. Gauge β functions increase for E > M 2 = ratios M i /M 1/2 decrease (M i, i = 1, 2, 3: weak scale gaugino masses) E.g. for M X = GeV (minimal value): M 1 = 0.23M 1/2 M 2 = 0.46M 1/2 M 3 = 1.4M 1/2 Coefficients nearly two times smaller than in msugra. Ratios M 1 : M 2 : M 3 same as in msugra! SUSY SO(10) p. 14/25
43 Sfermion masses (1 st generation) For fixed M i, get larger gaugino loop contributions to sfermion masses; partly cancels previous effect when expressed in terms of M 1/2 : SUSY SO(10) p. 15/25
44 Sfermion masses (1 st generation) For fixed M i, get larger gaugino loop contributions to sfermion masses; partly cancels previous effect when expressed in terms of M 1/2 : m 2 f(m SUSY ) = m c fm 2 1/2 cẽr = 0.15 (as in msugra); cẽl = 0.21 (smaller than in msugra); c q = 1.15 (smaller than in msugra). SUSY SO(10) p. 15/25
45 Sfermion masses (1 st generation) For fixed M i, get larger gaugino loop contributions to sfermion masses; partly cancels previous effect when expressed in terms of M 1/2 : m 2 f(m SUSY ) = m c fm 2 1/2 cẽr = 0.15 (as in msugra); cẽl = 0.21 (smaller than in msugra); c q = 1.15 (smaller than in msugra). mẽr 1.68 M 1 : No co annihilation of χ 0 1 with ẽ R, µ R! mẽl M 2 : No W l L decays! m q 0.75m g : Similar to msugra SUSY SO(10) p. 15/25
46 3 rd generation sfermions & Higgs Y N reduces m τl,r, m t L,R, m br SUSY SO(10) p. 16/25
47 3 rd generation sfermions & Higgs Y N reduces m τl,r, m t L,R, m br = increases m 2 H u (M SUSY ) (and hence m A ) SUSY SO(10) p. 16/25
48 3 rd generation sfermions & Higgs Y N reduces m τl,r, m t L,R, m br = increases m 2 H u (M SUSY ) (and hence m A ) = reduces µ(m SUSY ) via EWSB condition SUSY SO(10) p. 16/25
49 3 rd generation sfermions & Higgs Y N reduces m τl,r, m t L,R, m br = increases m 2 H u (M SUSY ) (and hence m A ) = reduces µ(m SUSY ) via EWSB condition m ν3 m2 t Y N M R = smaller m ν3 implies larger Y N! SUSY SO(10) p. 16/25
50 Effect on the spectrum 2e+06 (a) m 0 = 1500GeV, M 12 = 900GeV, A 0 = 0, tanb = (b) m 0 = 700GeV, A 0 = 0, tanb = 50, m ν = 0.4eV M 12 = 700GeV M 12 = 1400GeV m 2 sf (M S ) 1.5e+06 1e m A0 /2mχ m 2 t m 2 L τ m 2 L 0.9 t m 2 R τ R m ν (ev) log (M X /GeV) SUSY SO(10) p. 17/25
51 Survey of parameter space (a) tanb=40, A 0 =0, m ν =0.4eV (a) tanb=40, A 0 =0, m ν =0.2eV m 0 (GeV) 1000 m 0 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) Grey: no ESWB or tachyonic sfermion; red: mass bounds; pink: b sγ excluded; blue: favored by g µ ; green: DM allowed; black: all ok SUSY SO(10) p. 18/25
52 Survey of parameter space (a) tanb=40, A 0 =0, m ν =0.4eV (a) tanb=40, A 0 =0, m ν =0.2eV m 0 (GeV) 1000 m 0 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) Grey: no ESWB or tachyonic sfermion; red: mass bounds; pink: b sγ excluded; blue: favored by g µ ; green: DM allowed; black: all ok In msugra: don t find allowed region (DM & g µ ) with m 2 0 M2 1/2! SUSY SO(10) p. 18/25
53 Same for tanβ = 50 (a) tanb=50, A 0 =0, m ν =0.4eV (a) tanb=50, A 0 =0, m ν =0.2eV m 0 (GeV) 1000 m 0 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) SUSY SO(10) p. 19/25
54 Same for tanβ = 50 (a) tanb=50, A 0 =0, m ν =0.4eV (a) tanb=50, A 0 =0, m ν =0.2eV m 0 (GeV) 1000 m 0 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) In right frame, DM relic density too small everywhere SUSY SO(10) p. 19/25
55 Same for tanβ = 50 (a) tanb=50, A 0 =0, m ν =0.4eV (a) tanb=50, A 0 =0, m ν =0.2eV m 0 (GeV) 1000 m 0 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) In right frame, DM relic density too small everywhere 50% of plane DM allowed for tan β = 49! SUSY SO(10) p. 19/25
56 Impact on DM searches For m 0 M 1/2 : ( focus point, but no focussing in this scenario!) Very similar to msugra, if m χ 0 1, Ω χ 0 1 are fixed. SUSY SO(10) p. 20/25
57 Impact on DM searches For m 0 M 1/2 : ( focus point, but no focussing in this scenario!) Very similar to msugra, if m χ 0 1, Ω χ 0 1 are fixed. τ 1 co annihilation region: More promising, due to reduced µ = more higgsino gaugino mixing = enhanced couplings of χ 0 1 to Higgs bosons and Z0! SUSY SO(10) p. 20/25
58 Impact on DM searches For m 0 M 1/2 : ( focus point, but no focussing in this scenario!) Very similar to msugra, if m χ 0 1, Ω χ 0 1 are fixed. τ 1 co annihilation region: More promising, due to reduced µ = more higgsino gaugino mixing = enhanced couplings of χ 0 1 to Higgs bosons and Z0! cross section[*1036 cm 2 ] 1e05 1e06 1e07 1e08 1e09 tanβ=40, A 0 =0, m ν =0.2eV, M 1/2 =1000GeV FP CO CDMS II XENON100 (projected) 1e log M X [GeV] SUSY SO(10) p. 20/25
59 LHC signals: large m 0 region In SO(10) model: can get large bino higgsino mixing for relatively modest m 0, where q can be produced at LHC. This is not possible in msugra. SUSY SO(10) p. 21/25
60 LHC signals: large m 0 region In SO(10) model: can get large bino higgsino mixing for relatively modest m 0, where q can be produced at LHC. This is not possible in msugra. To get correct DM density in msugra for same m q, m g : have to increase tan β quite a lot (to reach A funnel ) SUSY SO(10) p. 21/25
61 LHC signals: large m 0 region In SO(10) model: can get large bino higgsino mixing for relatively modest m 0, where q can be produced at LHC. This is not possible in msugra. To get correct DM density in msugra for same m q, m g : have to increase tan β quite a lot (to reach A funnel ) = msugra has much smaller heavy Higgs masses: can be detected in τ + τ channel! SUSY SO(10) p. 21/25
62 LHC signals: large m 0 region In SO(10) model: can get large bino higgsino mixing for relatively modest m 0, where q can be produced at LHC. This is not possible in msugra. To get correct DM density in msugra for same m q, m g : have to increase tan β quite a lot (to reach A funnel ) = msugra has much smaller heavy Higgs masses: can be detected in τ + τ channel! msugra has much larger µ :changes χ 0, χ ± spectrum; can be checked via l + l invariant mass distribution! SUSY SO(10) p. 21/25
63 M l + l distribution (m 0 M 1/2 ) SO(10) msugra Events/10 GeV/300fb Invariant mass (GeV) Only msugra has Z 0 peak; SO(10) model has softer spectrum SUSY SO(10) p. 22/25
64 LHC signals: co annihilation region In msugra: either slightly change A 0 (option a) or slightly increase tanβ (option b) to match Ω χ 0 1 for fixed m q, m g. SUSY SO(10) p. 23/25
65 LHC signals: co annihilation region In msugra: either slightly change A 0 (option a) or slightly increase tanβ (option b) to match Ω χ 0 1 for fixed m q, m g. In SO(10): smaller m t 1,2, m b1 SUSY SO(10) p. 23/25
66 LHC signals: co annihilation region In msugra: either slightly change A 0 (option a) or slightly increase tanβ (option b) to match Ω χ 0 1 for fixed m q, m g. In SO(10): smaller m t 1,2, m b1 Smaller µ = smaller m χ 0 3,4, m χ ± 2 SUSY SO(10) p. 23/25
67 LHC signals: co annihilation region In msugra: either slightly change A 0 (option a) or slightly increase tanβ (option b) to match Ω χ 0 1 for fixed m q, m g. In SO(10): smaller m t 1,2, m b1 Smaller µ = smaller m χ 0 3,4, m χ ± 2 = more g χ 0 3,4, χ± 2 decays SUSY SO(10) p. 23/25
68 LHC signals: co annihilation region In msugra: either slightly change A 0 (option a) or slightly increase tanβ (option b) to match Ω χ 0 1 for fixed m q, m g. In SO(10): smaller m t 1,2, m b1 Smaller µ = smaller m χ 0 3,4, m χ ± 2 = more g χ 0 3,4, χ± 2 decays = more g Z 0 on shell in SO(10)! SUSY SO(10) p. 23/25
69 ubtracted M l + l distribution (m 0 M 1/2 ) Events/10 GeV/300fb SO(10) msugra 2b msugra 2a Invariant mass (GeV) SO(10) has significantly more pronounced Z 0 peak SUSY SO(10) p. 24/25
70 ubtracted M l + l distribution (m 0 M 1/2 ) Events/10 GeV/300fb SO(10) msugra 2b msugra 2a Invariant mass (GeV) SO(10) has significantly more pronounced Z 0 peak SO(10) model also has more like sign di lepton events: 492 vs. 422 (434). SUSY SO(10) p. 24/25
71 Summary and Outlook SO(10) model natural if ν R state! SUSY SO(10) p. 25/25
72 Summary and Outlook SO(10) model natural if ν R state! Allows intermediate scale; required for see saw. SUSY SO(10) p. 25/25
73 Summary and Outlook SO(10) model natural if ν R state! Allows intermediate scale; required for see saw. This modifies the RG running below M X. SUSY SO(10) p. 25/25
74 Summary and Outlook SO(10) model natural if ν R state! Allows intermediate scale; required for see saw. This modifies the RG running below M X. For fixed boundary condition at M X : reduced µ tends to make DM detection easier! SUSY SO(10) p. 25/25
75 Summary and Outlook SO(10) model natural if ν R state! Allows intermediate scale; required for see saw. This modifies the RG running below M X. For fixed boundary condition at M X : reduced µ tends to make DM detection easier! Points with same m q, m g, m χ 0 1, Ω χ 0 1 can be distinguished at LHC, using di lepton events and heavy Higgs searches SUSY SO(10) p. 25/25
76 Summary and Outlook SO(10) model natural if ν R state! Allows intermediate scale; required for see saw. This modifies the RG running below M X. For fixed boundary condition at M X : reduced µ tends to make DM detection easier! Points with same m q, m g, m χ 0 1, Ω χ 0 1 can be distinguished at LHC, using di lepton events and heavy Higgs searches Results should be qualitatively same in other models where M R < M X. SUSY SO(10) p. 25/25
77 Summary and Outlook SO(10) model natural if ν R state! Allows intermediate scale; required for see saw. This modifies the RG running below M X. For fixed boundary condition at M X : reduced µ tends to make DM detection easier! Points with same m q, m g, m χ 0 1, Ω χ 0 1 can be distinguished at LHC, using di lepton events and heavy Higgs searches Results should be qualitatively same in other models where M R < M X. To fix high scale physics: need to know m ν, proton lifetime! SUSY SO(10) p. 25/25
About the Author. journals as Physics Letters, Nuclear Physics and The Physical Review.
About the Author Dr. John Hagelin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Doctoral Program in Physics at Maharishi International University. Dr. Hagelin received his A.B. Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth
More informationSteering User Behavior with Badges
Steering User Behavior with Badges Ashton Anderson Daniel Huttenlocher Jon Kleinberg Jure Leskovec Stanford University Cornell University Cornell University Stanford University ashton@cs.stanford.edu {dph,
More informationRevisiting the Edge of Chaos: Evolving Cellular Automata to Perform Computations
Revisiting the Edge of Chaos: Evolving Cellular Automata to Perform Computations Melanie Mitchell 1, Peter T. Hraber 1, and James P. Crutchfield 2 In Complex Systems, 7:8913, 1993 Abstract We present
More informationTHE PROBLEM OF finding localized energy solutions
600 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 45, NO. 3, MARCH 1997 Sparse Signal Reconstruction from Limited Data Using FOCUSS: A Reweighted Minimum Norm Algorithm Irina F. Gorodnitsky, Member, IEEE,
More informationMultiresolution Gray Scale and Rotation Invariant Texture Classification with Local Binary Patterns
Ref: TPAMI 112278 Multiresolution Gray Scale and Rotation Invariant Texture Classification with Local Binary Patterns Timo Ojala, Matti Pietikäinen and Topi Mäenpää Machine Vision and Media Processing
More informationNot Seeing is Also Believing: Combining Object and Metric Spatial Information
Not Seeing is Also Believing: Combining Object and Metric Spatial Information Lawson L.S. Wong, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Tomás LozanoPérez Abstract Spatial representations are fundamental to mobile
More informationINTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF BLACK HOLES
ITPUU09/11 SPIN09/11 INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF BLACK HOLES internet: Gerard t Hooft Institute for Theoretical Physics Utrecht University and Spinoza Institute Postbox 80.195 3508 TD Utrecht, the
More informationThe Reasons for this Symposium on Past, Present and Future of Subnuclear Physics
Subnuclear Physics: Past, Present and Future Pontifical Academy Sciences, Scripta Varia 119, Vatican City 2014 www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv119/sv119zichichi.pdf The Reasons for this Symposium
More informationON THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPACINGS BETWEEN ZEROS OF THE ZETA FUNCTION. A. M. Odlyzko AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey ABSTRACT
ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPACINGS BETWEEN ZEROS OF THE ZETA FUNCTION A. M. Odlyzko AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey ABSTRACT A numerical study of the distribution of spacings between zeros
More informationFrom Few to Many: Illumination Cone Models for Face Recognition Under Variable Lighting and Pose. Abstract
To Appear in the IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence From Few to Many: Illumination Cone Models for Face Recognition Under Variable Lighting and Pose Athinodoros S. Georghiades Peter
More informationHow to Read MTF Curves
How to Read MTF Curves by H. H. Nasse Carl Zeiss Camera Lens Division December 28 Preface The rules of optics are complex and nasty! This is a nice, honest sentence from an internet discussion about How
More informationOrthogonal Bases and the QR Algorithm
Orthogonal Bases and the QR Algorithm Orthogonal Bases by Peter J Olver University of Minnesota Throughout, we work in the Euclidean vector space V = R n, the space of column vectors with n real entries
More information32. Passage of particles through matter 1
32. Passage of particles through matter 1 32. PASSAGE OF PARTICLES THROUGH MATTER...................... 2 32.1. Notation.................... 2 32.2. Electronic energy loss by heavy particles...... 2 32.2.1.
More informationTHE adoption of classical statistical modeling techniques
236 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, VOL. 28, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2006 Data Driven Image Models through Continuous Joint Alignment Erik G. LearnedMiller Abstract This paper
More informationWHICH SCORING RULE MAXIMIZES CONDORCET EFFICIENCY? 1. Introduction
WHICH SCORING RULE MAXIMIZES CONDORCET EFFICIENCY? DAVIDE P. CERVONE, WILLIAM V. GEHRLEIN, AND WILLIAM S. ZWICKER Abstract. Consider an election in which each of the n voters casts a vote consisting of
More informationhow to use dual base log log slide rules
how to use dual base log log slide rules by Professor Maurice L. Hartung The University of Chicago Pickett The World s Most Accurate Slide Rules Pickett, Inc. Pickett Square Santa Barbara, California 93102
More informationInformation and Computation
Information and Computation 207 (2009) 849 866 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Information and Computation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ic The myriad virtues of Wavelet Trees Paolo
More informationThere s more to volatility than volume
There s more to volatility than volume László Gillemot, 1, 2 J. Doyne Farmer, 1 and Fabrizio Lillo 1, 3 1 Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501 2 Budapest University of Technology
More informationProperties of Electrons, their Interactions with Matter and Applications in Electron Microscopy
Properties of Electrons, their Interactions with Matter and Applications in Electron Microscopy By Frank Krumeich Laboratory of Inorganic Chemistry, ETH Zurich, VladimirPrelogWeg 1, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
More informationA Tutorial on Spectral Clustering
A Tutorial on Spectral Clustering Ulrike von Luxburg Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics Spemannstr. 38, 7276 Tübingen, Germany ulrike.luxburg@tuebingen.mpg.de This article appears in Statistics
More informationHighRate Codes That Are Linear in Space and Time
1804 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL 48, NO 7, JULY 2002 HighRate Codes That Are Linear in Space and Time Babak Hassibi and Bertrand M Hochwald Abstract Multipleantenna systems that operate
More informationRECENTLY, there has been a great deal of interest in
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY 1999 187 An Affine Scaling Methodology for Best Basis Selection Bhaskar D. Rao, Senior Member, IEEE, Kenneth KreutzDelgado, Senior Member,
More informationDistinctive Image Features from ScaleInvariant Keypoints
Distinctive Image Features from ScaleInvariant Keypoints David G. Lowe Computer Science Department University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C., Canada lowe@cs.ubc.ca January 5, 2004 Abstract This paper
More informationBasic Notions for the Analysis of Large Twomode Networks
Basic Notions for the Analysis of Large Twomode Networks Matthieu Latapy, Clémence Magnien and Nathalie Del Vecchio 2 Abstract Many large realworld networks actually have a 2mode nature: their nodes
More information7 Twodimensional NMR
7 Twodimensional NMR 7. Introduction The basic ideas of twodimensional NMR will be introduced by reference to the appearance of a COSY spectrum; later in this chapter the product operator formalism will
More informationChapter 10 Electronic Wavefunctions Must Also Possess Proper Symmetry. These Include Angular Momentum and Point Group Symmetries
Chapter 10 Electronic Wavefunctions Must Also Possess Proper Symmetry. These Include Angular Momentum and Point Group Symmetries I. Angular Momentum Symmetry and Strategies for Angular Momentum Coupling
More informationFake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud
Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud Michael Luca Harvard Business School Georgios Zervas Boston University Questrom School of Business May
More informationWhy Has Urban Inequality Increased?
Why Has Urban Inequality Increased? Nathaniel BaumSnow, Brown University Matthew Freedman, Drexel University Ronni Pavan, Royal HollowayUniversity of London October, 2014 Abstract The increase in wage
More informationSome Applications of Laplace Eigenvalues of Graphs
Some Applications of Laplace Eigenvalues of Graphs Bojan MOHAR Department of Mathematics University of Ljubljana Jadranska 19 1111 Ljubljana, Slovenia Notes taken by Martin Juvan Abstract In the last decade
More informationSingleElectron Devices and Their Applications
SingleElectron Devices and Their Applications KONSTANTIN K. LIKHAREV, MEMBER, IEEE Invited Paper The goal of this paper is to review in brief the basic physics of singleelectron devices, as well as their
More information