{"id":"b039ebdf-3827-422f-849e-a06548c62977","arxiv_id":"0801.0237","paper_version":2,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":5.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"Stoponium should be visible at the LHC as a narrow diphoton resonance for masses below about 500 GeV with 100 inverse femtobarns, after correcting factor-of-two errors in earlier gluon and photon widths.","lead":"If the lighter top squark has no allowed two-body decay, it can bind into stoponium, and this paper estimates whether the LHC could see that state as a narrow diphoton peak. The answer is yes for stoponium below roughly 500 GeV with high luminosity, which would give an unusually clean handle on superpartner masses.","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"Reach figures pair a LO signal with a LO background, yet the paper's own cited NLO studies put the background at least twice larger; this is not propagated into Figs. 4, 7, 9, so the quoted luminosity targets are optimistic by a factor of order two.","rationale":"The paper is a careful, self-correcting feasibility study, and its core physics checks out. I verified the two widths that carry the correction: eq. (2.1) follows from eqs. (A.1)-(A.2) with the identical-particle factor 1/2, and eq. (2.2) follows from eqs. (A.1)-(A.3); the ratio Gamma(gamma gamma)/Gamma(gg) = (8/9)(alpha/alpha_S)^2 ~ 0.005 matches the text. The production formula eq. (2.5) is the standard narrow-resonance Drell-Yan expression, and the stated ratio to Higgs production is correct at leading order. The model lines are tied to external constraints (Omega_DM h^2 = 0.11 via micrOMEGAs, the LEP Higgs bound), and the limitations are stated candidly. So I do not think the central argument is broken; the concern is about calibration, not correctness. I partially agree with the reader. The potential-model extrapolation (eqs. 2.3-2.4, ref. [29]) is a genuine soft spot and the authors acknowledge it ('other potentials can give quite different results'). But I would weight the leading-order background treatment as at least as load-bearing, because the paper itself quantifies it ('a factor of 2 or more') and then does not propagate it into the reach figures, and because its effect is monotonic in the pessimistic direction rather than bidirectional. The reader mentions this in the rationale but does not make it the weakest assumption. The abstract/body tension the reader notes is real: abstract:s4 says the signal 'will be observable over background' and promises a 'uniquely precise measurement,' while Section V concedes the precision is 'quite sensitive to unknowns' and the 500 GeV point reaches only S/sqrt(B) ~ 2 at 100 fb^-1. That is an overstatement in the abstract, not an error in the analysis. My concern reinforces rather than overturns the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict: the channel is worth pursuing below about 500 GeV, but the numbers in Figs. 4, 7 and 9 should carry an explicit theory-uncertainty band and a look-elsewhere estimate before being treated as calibrated. I would keep the verdict at CONDITIONAL.","tokens_in":19754,"tokens_out":8447,"duration_ms":148632,"concrete_test":"Recompute the S/sqrt(B) curves of Fig. 4 (and the rescaled Figs. 7 and 9) with the background multiplied by the factor of 2 or more quoted from refs. [36]-[39] after the same |cos theta*| < 0.7 and |cos theta| < 0.95 cuts, and read off (a) the significance at m_eta_t = 500 GeV for 100 fb^-1 and (b) the luminosity needed for S/sqrt(B) = 5 at m_eta_t = 300 GeV. If (a) falls below 2 or (b) rises above about 100 fb^-1, the abstract's flat observability statement needs qualification and the figures need an explicit theory-uncertainty band. A cross-check of |R(0)|^2/m^2 against a second potential from ref. [30] would bound the signal-side spread.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central quantitative claim is the reach curves in Figs. 4, 7 and 9, which are S/sqrt(B) computed with a leading-order background (Fig. 2: qqbar -> gamma gamma plus gg -> gamma gamma). Section II states plainly: 'Higher-order corrections to the background can be quite important, increasing the cross-section after cuts by a factor of 2 or more [36]-[39].' Because S/sqrt(B) scales as 1/sqrt(B), a factor-2 background increase lowers every significance by sqrt(2) and raises every required luminosity in Figs. 4, 7 and 9 by roughly 2x. The paper declines to include these corrections ('beyond the scope of this paper') and attaches no uncertainty band, so the figures read as calibrated numbers when they are leading-order placeholders. The effect is directional and pessimistic: the 500 GeV point, already only S/sqrt(B) ~ 2 at 100 fb^-1, falls to ~1.4, i.e. no longer 'observable'; the m_eta_t <~ 300 GeV, 10 fb^-1 claim survives but with reduced margin. The paper's defense -- that the background will be measured from sidebands -- does not recover the lost significance; it only means B is measured rather than calculated. The missing signal higher-order corrections are unknown in sign and cannot be assumed to compensate. This is distinct from, though comparable in size to, the potential-model uncertainty the reader flags: the potential model moves |R(0)|^2/m^2 in either direction, whereas the NLO background moves the reach monotonically in the pessimistic direction. The abstract's unqualified 'will be observable over background' (abstract:s4) is therefore supported only in the lower-mass corner and only at leading order.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The manuscript studies the prospects for observing scalar stoponium (the 1S J^{PC}=0^{++} bound state of the lighter top squark) in its diphoton decay at the LHC, pp -> eta_t -> gamma gamma. It updates and corrects the earlier Drees-Nojiri analysis: it uses the measured top mass, adopts the Hagiwara et al. potential model for the wavefunction at the origin and binding energy (eqs. 2.3-2.4), and corrects a factor-of-2 error in the gg and gamma gamma partial widths of ref. [9] (Appendix). Section II gives the leading-order signal (eqs. 2.5-2.6) and the leading-order q qbar -> gamma gamma and gg -> gamma gamma backgrounds after angular cuts, and presents the luminosity required for S/sqrt(B) = 2-5 in a bin of width 0.04 m_eta_t (Figs. 3-4). Sections III and IV apply this to compressed-supersymmetry models with stop-mediated neutralino annihilation/co-annihilation and to models accommodating electroweak-scale baryogenesis, computing the branching ratios (Figs. 5-6, 8) and the resulting reach (Figs. 7, 9). The Appendix collects the full set of stoponium annihilation partial widths, including sbottom mixing and CP phases.","tokens_in":20041,"tokens_out":6086,"duration_ms":108512,"significance":"The paper is a careful, self-contained update of a long-standing proposal, and it earns credit on several counts. It corrects a factor-of-2 error in the published gg and gamma gamma widths of ref. [9] and verifies the corrected normalization against refs. [11, 65]; I checked eqs. (2.1)-(2.2) against the Appendix master formula (A.1)-(A.3) and they are mutually consistent. The Appendix gives explicit, reusable expressions for all relevant final states, so the calculation is reproducible. The spectra and relic density are obtained with standard public tools (SOFTSUSY, micrOMEGAs) with cross-checks against SuSpect, ISAJET and DarkSUSY, and the parton distributions are CTEQ5L. The reach estimates are deliberately conservative in places (no excited-state enhancement, a wider signal bin than ref. [9]). The result is a falsifiable prediction: a narrow diphoton peak at a mass tied to the stop mass, with quoted luminosity targets. These are genuine strengths and are appropriately reflected in the assessment below.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The abstract states that the signal enables 'a uniquely precise measurement of the superpartner masses through a narrow peak in the diphoton invariant mass spectrum, limited by statistics and electromagnetic calorimeter resolutions.' The peak position measures m_eta_t, not m_t1 directly; extracting m_t1 requires the binding-energy relation eq. (2.4), which Section II itself describes as 'based on a considerable extrapolation from known experimental results on c cbar and b bbar bound states, and other potentials can give quite different results.' The precision on m_t1 is therefore limited by the potential-model binding energy, not only by calorimetry and statistics, and Section V concedes this ('sensitive to unknowns, including ... theoretical errors in the binding energies and wavefunctions'). The abstract and Section V should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, quote a representative binding-energy uncertainty so the reader can judge the achievable m_t1 precision.","section":"Abstract (s4); Section II; Section V","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The reach curves in Figs. 4, 7 and 9 are computed with a leading-order background (Fig. 2), while Section II states plainly that higher-order corrections 'can be quite important, increasing the cross-section after cuts by a factor of 2 or more [36]-[39].' Because S/sqrt(B) scales as 1/sqrt(B), a factor-2 background increase lowers every significance by sqrt(2) and roughly doubles every required luminosity in these figures. The paper declines to include these corrections and attaches no uncertainty band, so the figures read as calibrated numbers when they are leading-order placeholders. The authors acknowledge the omission and argue the background will be measured from sidebands, but that does not recover the lost significance. Since these figures are the central quantitative result, at minimum an estimated systematic band (or an explicit LO-only caveat in each caption) should be added; note that the 500 GeV point, already only S/sqrt(B) ~ 2 at 100 fb^-1, would fall to ~1.4 under a factor-2 background increase.","section":"Section II; Figs. 4, 7, 9","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The text and the figure caption disagree on the Higgs mass assignments: the text describes the left panel as m_h0 = 120 GeV and the right panel as m_h0 = 115 GeV, while the caption states the left panel is m_h0 = 115 GeV and the right panel is m_h0 = 120 GeV. The qualitative conclusion is unaffected, but the labels should be made consistent.","section":"Section IV; Fig. 8 caption","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The quoted range 120 GeV < m_t1 < 135 GeV for electroweak-scale baryogenesis is attributed to ref. [28], which is listed as 'to appear.' Since this range is the quantitative basis for the reach shown in Fig. 9, the citation should be updated to the published version if available, or the provenance of the range stated more carefully.","section":"Section IV; ref. [28]","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The potential-model dependence of |R(0)|^2/m^2 is acknowledged but not quantified. A short statement of how the reach in Fig. 4 shifts for, say, a factor-of-2 change in |R(0)|^2/m^2 would let the reader gauge the dominant theoretical uncertainty on the signal normalization.","section":"Section II; eq. (2.3)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The bin width of 0.04 m_eta_t is stated to contain 'essentially all' of the signal peak. A brief justification showing how the electromagnetic calorimeter resolution folded with the intrinsic width motivates this choice would clarify the comparison with ref. [9], which used a narrower bin.","section":"Section II","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The cut |cos theta*| < 0.7 is imposed although the text identifies z0 ~ 0.705 as the S/sqrt(B) optimum. This is harmless, but a sentence noting that the difference is negligible would avoid the appearance of an inconsistency.","section":"Section II; eq. (2.9)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"minor_revision"},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"Bottom line: the part of this I would actually cite is the Appendix. Martin recomputes the stoponium annihilation widths and finds that eqs. (A.1) and (A.2) of Drees–Nojiri [9] — the gg and γγ partial widths — are each too large by a factor of 2, with independent agreement claimed against [11] and [65]. He also generalizes the set to include sbottom mixing and CP phases. That is a real, checkable service, and it is the piece with a shelf life. The rest is a re-run of the Drees–Nojiri feasibility study with the top mass now known, CTEQ5L gluon densities, the Hagiwara et al. potential model for |R(0)|^2 and the binding energy, and model lines pinned to Omega_DM h^2 = 0.11 and the LEP Higgs bound. The targeting is the useful part: compressed SUSY with stop-mediated neutralino annihilation lands at m_eta_t around 400–600 GeV, and the baryogenesis window at 235–270 GeV. The conclusion is appropriately sober — 500 GeV gives S/sqrt(B) around 2 at 100 fb^-1, below 300 GeV maybe 10 fb^-1 — and Section V says so without dressing it up. On the stress test: it lands, but the author already says it. Section II states the NLO background is 'a factor of 2 or more' and declines to include it, and the figures carry no uncertainty band, so they read as calibrated when they are leading-order placeholders. Two things soften it. The signal is also leading order, and the excited-state feed-down he deliberately omits is quoted at roughly 1.5 in the signal's favor. And the sideband argument is right about measuring B, not about recovering significance. Still, a factor-2 band on Figs. 4, 7 and 9 would cost nothing and would keep the abstract's 'will be observable' from outrunning Section V. Two smaller items. Fig. 8's caption and the Section IV text swap the left and right panels (115 vs 120 GeV, 0.3 vs 0.5); the text's assignment is the physically sensible one, so the caption is the error. And the 120–135 GeV stop window leans on ref. [28], listed as 'to appear' — worth confirming it says what is claimed. Who should read it: anyone working on light stops with compressed spectra, and anyone who quotes stoponium widths. Send it out.","headline":"The durable content is the Appendix: a genuine factor-of-two correction to the Drees–Nojiri stoponium gg and γγ widths, wrapped around an honest but leading-order reach study whose caveats the author already states.","tokens_in":20791,"tokens_out":2062,"duration_ms":43994},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["12.60.Jv","14.80.Ly"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"If the lighter top squark cannot decay, it can bind into stoponium and annihilate to two photons, leaving a narrow mass peak at the LHC.","keywords":["stoponium","lighter top squark","diphoton resonance","compressed supersymmetry","gluon fusion","electroweak baryogenesis","neutralino dark matter","LHC searches"],"falsifier":"A dedicated LHC diphoton search in the 200–400 GeV mass range, with the stop mass independently known from gluino or open-stop cascades, that finds no narrow excess at the corresponding invariant mass after roughly 10 fb$^{-1}$ would rule out the optimistic reach claimed here.","tokens_in":21031,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":2758,"duration_ms":56392,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper asks whether the LHC can see stoponium: a bound state of the lighter top squark, which forms only when the squark has no allowed two-body decay into a chargino or neutralino. In that situation the squark lives long enough to bind, and the spin-0 ground state annihilates mainly into gluons, with a small but clean branch into two photons that would appear as a very narrow peak in the diphoton invariant mass spectrum. The author recomputes the production and decay rates, correcting factor-of-two errors in the earlier gluon and photon widths of the classic Drees–Nojiri analysis, and folds in the now-known top mass and a more conservative calorimeter resolution. He then evaluates the reach in two families of motivated models: compressed supersymmetry, where stop-mediated neutralino annihilation gives the observed dark matter density, and models with a first-order electroweak phase transition for baryogenesis. The claim is that in favourable regions of these models the peak is observable, and its position would read off a superpartner mass far more precisely than the usual kinematic edges of missing-energy events.","feed_headline":"Stoponium could appear as a narrow diphoton peak","feed_subtitle":"If the lighter stop squark cannot decay, it binds and annihilates to two photons, reading off a superpartner mass.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the wavefunction at the origin, $|R(0)|^2/m^2_{eta_{tilde t}}$, taken from the non-relativistic potential model of Hagiwara et al. and parameterized in eqs. (2.3) and (2.4) together with the binding energy $2m_{tilde t_1} - m_{eta_{tilde t}}$. It fixes both the annihilation widths, $Gamma(eta_{tilde t} to gg) = frac{4}{3} alpha_S^2 |R(0)|^2/m^2$ and $Gamma(eta_{tilde t} to gamma gamma) = frac{32}{27} alpha^2 |R(0)|^2/m^2$, and the criterion for the bound state to form at all: the binding energy must exceed the total annihilation width, which it does comfortably since the gluon width is of order 2 MeV. The competing widths into $W^+W^-$, $ZZ$, $h^0h^0$, $t bar t$, $b bar b$ and neutralinos are collected in the Appendix, including interference terms and the possibility of resonant heavy-Higgs exchange, and these determine the branching ratios that rescale the idealized signal.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that $pp$ collisions at the LHC can produce the scalar stoponium ground state $p p to eta_{tilde t} to gamma gamma$, and that in realistic, dark-matter- and Higgs-consistent supersymmetric models this gives a detectable narrow resonance. The author writes the signal cross-section in a form that separates production from decay, $sigma = (pi^2/8 m^3) BR(eta_{tilde t} to gg) Gamma(eta_{tilde t} to gamma gamma) int dx tau x g(x) g(tau/x)$, so that any model's rate follows from the idealized case $BR(eta_{tilde t} to gg) approx 1$ by scaling with $1/[BR(eta_{tilde t} to gg)]^2$. In that idealized limit, the luminosity needed for $S/sqrt{B} = 2, 3, 4, 5$ in a bin of width $0.04 m_{eta_{tilde t}}$ is mapped over stoponium masses from 200 to 800 GeV; a 500 GeV resonance reaches only about $S/sqrt{B} = 2$ at $100$ fb$^{-1}$, while masses below roughly 300 GeV could be probed with about $10$ fb$^{-1}$. In the compressed-supersymmetry model lines the gluon branching ratio is typically 80% or more, and the photon branching ratio sits between 0.004 and 0.005, so the idealized reach largely survives, except where an $s$-channel heavy-Higgs resonance in the $b bar b$ or $t bar t$ channel suppresses the gluon width. In the baryogenesis model lines the stoponium is light enough that the reach is good even though $eta_{tilde t} to h^0 h^0$ takes a large share of the width.","pith_inferences":["If the peak is found, the difference between twice the stop mass measured from cascade endpoints and the peak position would itself be a measurement of the stoponium binding energy, offering a rare handle on the strong-interaction potential between supersymmetric colour sources.","The same logic applies to any long-lived coloured scalar with closed two-body decays, so a null diphoton search at low mass would constrain not just stops but any such candidate whose width stays below its binding energy.","Since the background is best fixed from sidebands in the data, the practical sensitivity will hinge on the diphoton mass resolution and on how well photon isolation suppresses the $qg to gamma gamma q$ and jet-faking-photon contributions, which the paper deliberately leaves at leading order."],"forward_implications":["A diphoton peak at $M_{gamma gamma} approx 2m_{tilde t_1}$ minus a few GeV would give the lightest top-squark mass directly, complementing the mass differences obtainable from gluino and open-stop cascade endpoints.","In compressed supersymmetry the parameter region where stop-mediated neutralino annihilation yields $Omega_{DM} h^2 approx 0.11$ is the same region where the stoponium mass is 400–600 GeV, so the dark matter mechanism and the collider signal are tied to a common parameter choice.","Because the required luminosity scales as $1/[BR(eta_{tilde t} to gg)]^2$, a model with a suppressed gluon width — for instance through near-resonant $eta_{tilde t} to b bar b$ from heavy-Higgs exchange — can be pushed out of reach even at high luminosity.","In the baryogenesis models, where $235$ GeV $< m_{eta_{tilde t}} < 270$ GeV, a clear observation could come with less than $100$ fb$^{-1}$, and with less than $10$ fb$^{-1}$ if $eta_{tilde t} to h^0h^0$ is kinematically closed."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"The prior Drees–Nojiri analysis of stoponium at hadron colliders, whose gluon and photon widths the present paper corrects by a factor of 1/2 and whose reach estimate it revises.","marker":"[9]"},{"why":"Supplies the potential model, wavefunction at the origin and binding energies that normalize the signal and decide whether the bound state forms.","marker":"[29]"},{"why":"Provides the CTEQ5L gluon parton distributions used in the production integral for signal and backgrounds.","marker":"[31]"},{"why":"Supplies the compressed-supersymmetry framework with non-universal gaugino masses in which stop-mediated neutralino annihilation gives the observed relic density.","marker":"[23]"},{"why":"Supplies the dark-matter and direct-detection context for the same compressed models, including the tuning of $m_0$ that the model lines follow.","marker":"[24]"},{"why":"Supplies the electroweak-baryogenesis model framework, with its light right-handed stop and mixing parameters, used for the second set of model lines.","marker":"[27]"},{"why":"micrOMEGAs, used to adjust $m_0$ so that each model line reproduces $Omega_{DM} h^2 = 0.11$.","marker":"[41]"},{"why":"SOFTSUSY, used to compute the supersymmetric spectra that feed the branching-ratio calculation.","marker":"[43]"},{"why":"One of the leading-order calculations of the $gamma gamma$ background that the signal must be seen over.","marker":"[32]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Stoponium diphoton peak could reveal superpartner masses at the LHC","LHC could see stoponium as a narrow diphoton resonance","Stoponium diphoton reach depends on statistics and calorimeter resolution","Corrected stoponium estimate maps diphoton reach from 200 to 800 GeV","Favorable conditions could make stoponium diphoton signal observable"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"Everything rests on a potential model extrapolated from charm and bottom quark bound states, and the paper itself notes that other potentials can give quite different wavefunctions and binding energies, which would move the luminosity targets by a comparable factor.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Stoponium diphoton peak could reveal superpartner masses at the LHC","LHC could see stoponium as a narrow diphoton resonance","Stoponium diphoton reach depends on statistics and calorimeter resolution","Corrected stoponium estimate maps diphoton reach from 200 to 800 GeV","Favorable conditions could make stoponium diphoton signal observable"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":2424,"prompt_tokens":1070,"completion_tokens":1354,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":1271}},"tokens_in":1070,"tokens_out":1354,"duration_ms":29852,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":1271,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-11-13T06:00:17.014038+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v1.5.0-archive-selfhost","input_kind":null,"input_chars":null,"input_total_chars":null,"passes_missing":null,"published_standing":null,"published_confidence":null,"objection_audit":null,"run_record":null,"basis":{"kind":"not_recorded","source":null,"chars_given":null,"chars_total":null},"receipt":null,"falsifier":"A dedicated LHC diphoton search in the 200–400 GeV mass range, with the stop mass independently known from gluino or open-stop cascades, that finds no narrow excess at the corresponding invariant mass after roughly 10 fb$^{-1}$ would rule out the optimistic reach claimed here.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"A new signal for scalar top bound state production","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9310209","evidence_quote":"The prior Drees–Nojiri analysis of stoponium at hadron colliders, whose gluon and photon widths the present paper corrects by a factor of 1/2 and whose reach estimate it revises."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the potential model, wavefunction at the origin and binding energies that normalize the signal and decide whether the bound state forms."},{"cited_title":"Barger et al., Phys","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the CTEQ5L gluon parton distributions used in the production integral for signal and backgrounds."},{"cited_title":"Relic density of neutralino dark matter in the MSSM with CP violation","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0604150","evidence_quote":"Supplies the compressed-supersymmetry framework with non-universal gaugino masses in which stop-mediated neutralino annihilation gives the observed relic density."},{"cited_title":"Compressed supersymmetry and natural neutralino dark matter from top squark-mediated annihilation to top quarks","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0703097","evidence_quote":"Supplies the dark-matter and direct-detection context for the same compressed models, including the tuning of $m_0$ that the model lines follow."},{"cited_title":"On the electroweak phase transition in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9303317","evidence_quote":"Supplies the electroweak-baryogenesis model framework, with its light right-handed stop and mixing parameters, used for the second set of model lines."},{"cited_title":"Search for Randall-Su ndrum excitations of gravitons decaying into two photons for CMS at LHC,","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"micrOMEGAs, used to adjust $m_0$ so that each model line reproduces $Omega_{DM} h^2 = 0.11$."},{"cited_title":"DarkSUSY: Computing Supersymmetric Dark Matter Properties Numerically","cited_arxiv_id":"astro-ph/0406204","evidence_quote":"SOFTSUSY, used to compute the supersymmetric spectra that feed the branching-ratio calculation."},{"cited_title":"Global QCD Analysis of Parton Structure of the Nucleon: CTEQ5 Parton Distributions","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9903282","evidence_quote":"One of the leading-order calculations of the $gamma gamma$ background that the signal must be seen over."}],"lane_accuracy":{"status":"not yet measured","lane":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","input_kind":null},"url":"https://pith.science/accuracy"},"review_version":1}