Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Semi-visible higgs decay as a probe for new invisible particles

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Semi-visible Higgs decays can expose invisible particles below 50 GeV, and the paper shows the HL-LHC could detect them in ZH production.

desk verdict Useful DSMEFT sensitivity study whose main new O_eφ reach is fragile without background systematics; the operator-discrimination analysis is the solid part. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.09778 v2 pith:VWZQYJ77 submitted 2025-11-12 hep-ph

Sally Dawson , Arnab Roy , German Valencia This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords semi-visibleHiggsdecaydarkSMEFTinvisibleparticlesHiggs-neutrinofloorboosteddecisiontreeHL-LHCsensitivityZwidthperturbativeunitarity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the High-Luminosity LHC can detect Higgs bosons decaying into a pair of light invisible scalars or fermions plus a visible lepton pair or jet pair, by studying pp→ZH production in the semi-visible channel. It claims that, within the dark-SMEFT framework, this channel gives the strongest 3σ reach for the leptonic operator O_eφ (C/Λ² ≈ 80 TeV⁻² in the cut-based analysis, improved three- to fourfold with a boosted decision tree), while for the derivative-current operators it reaches about 25 TeV⁻² but stays second to the invisible Z width. A key insight is that a cut on the dilepton mass makes the 'Higgs-neutrino floor' reducible, so the HL-LHC can probe semi-visible branching fractions below the previously irreducible background. A reader should care because this offers a concrete, near-term path to discover invisible particles with masses below 50 GeV and to tell apart two operator structures that point to different underlying theories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semi-visible decay topology pp→ZH with Z→jj or ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ and H→ℓ⁺ℓ⁻/jj + E_T. The carrying mechanism is the transverse mass M_T(ℓ,ℓ,E_T), whose endpoint at the Higgs mass suppresses non-Higgs backgrounds, together with the dilepton invariant mass M_ℓℓ: for the derivative-current operators a partial cancellation in the amplitude near M_ℓℓ ≈ M_Z reduces the Higgs-neutrino floor to a negligible level (the ratio is ≲0.15). The analysis uses a BDT with eight kinematic input variables ranked by separation power, and a rescaling rule C_min = C_0 × (S_target/S_0)^{1/2} because the DSMEFT contribution is purely quadratic with no SM interference.

What would settle it

At the HL-LHC with 3000 fb⁻¹, if the observed event yield in the BDT-defined signal region for Z→ℓ⁺ℓ⁻, H→ℓ⁺ℓ⁻+E_T with M_ℓℓ < 60 GeV, M_T < 125 GeV is consistent with the SM background, then the claimed 3σ reach C_eφ/Λ² ≈ 80 TeV⁻² would be ruled out; conversely, an NLO calculation that shifts the dominant ZZ background by more than the BDT's 3–4× improvement would invalidate the projected limits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that semi-visible Higgs decays — H→ℓ⁺ℓ⁻+E_T or H→jj+E_T in ZH production — can probe dimension-six dark-SMEFT operators coupling the Higgs to new Z₂-odd scalars or fermions, with masses below ~50 GeV. The paper's main quantitative results are the projected 3σ sensitivities at 3000 fb⁻¹: C_eφ/Λ² ≈ 80 TeV⁻² with simple cuts (improved by a BDT), and C/Λ² ≈ 25 TeV⁻² for the derivative-current operators O_DHχχ and O_DHχχ2, for which the invisible Z width is the stronger constraint up to m_DM ≈ 45 GeV. For the quark operators O_uφ and O_dφ, the reach is overtaken by perturbative unitarity at 1 TeV and by monojet bounds. The authors also show that the dilepton mass M_ℓℓ is the

Load-bearing premise

The projected limits assume that leading-order, fast-simulated signal and background samples with no systematic uncertainties accurately represent the HL-LHC environment, so a modest miscalibration of the ZZ or top backgrounds would shift the BDT working point and the quoted coefficient reaches by an amount comparable to the claimed improvement; for O_uφ and O_dφ the EFT region is already excluded by unitarity at 1 TeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The HL-LHC with 3000 fb⁻¹ can reach C_eφ/Λ² ≈ 80 TeV⁻² (cut-based), with a three- to fourfold improvement from a BDT, making the semi-visible channel the strongest probe of the leptonic operator.
  • For the derivative-current operators O_DHχχ and O_DHχχ2, the semi-visible channel reaches C/Λ² ≈ 25 TeV⁻², but the invisible Z width remains the leading constraint for dark-scalar or dark-fermion masses below about 45 GeV.
  • A cut on the dilepton invariant mass reduces the Higgs-neutrino floor to a negligible level for derivative-current operators, so semi-visible branching fractions can be probed below 5.4×10⁻³.
  • The BDT separates derivative-current from Yukawa-like operators with AUC 0.91–0.93 using M_ℓℓ, M_T, p_T(ℓ), E_T and azimuthal angles, which would help identify the underlying new-physics structure.
  • For O_uφ and O_dφ, the semi-visible reach is excluded by perturbative unitarity at √s = 1 TeV and by monojet searches, so those operators cannot be probed by this channel.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the M_ℓℓ cancellation is specific to derivative-current operators, a measured deficit in the dilepton-mass peak could itself be a diagnostic of that operator class, independent of the overall signal rate.
  • If the BDT improvement survives next-to-leading-order corrections and real detector systematics, the same strategy could be transplanted to VBF or gluon-fusion Higgs production, where the larger rate might extend the mass reach.
  • For asymmetric or co-annihilating dark matter with suppressed direct and indirect detection rates, the semi-visible channel could become the leading discovery mode; the paper notes this but leaves the quantitative study for the future.
  • The reducibility of the Higgs-neutrino floor suggests that dedicated searches with tighter mass-window cuts could probe even smaller semi-visible branching fractions than the 3σ projections shown.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies semi-visible Higgs decays in pp→ZH production at the HL-LHC (√s=14 TeV, 3000 fb^-1), with Z→jj/ℓℓ and H→ℓℓ/jj + E_T, within a Z2-symmetric dark-SMEFT framework of dimension-six operators. It considers scalar dark states through O_DH∂ϕ, O_eϕ, O_uϕ, O_dϕ and fermionic dark states through O_DHχχ, O_DHχχ2, and compares the collider reach with perturbative-unitarity bounds and the invisible Z width. The main claims are: (i) for the leptonic operator O_eϕ, semi-visible Higgs decays give the strongest 3σ reach among the constraints considered (C/Λ² ≈ 80 TeV^-2 cut-based, improved with a BDT); (ii) for the derivative-current operators the invisible Z width dominates except at large m_DM; (iii) a BDT can separate derivative-current from Yukawa-like operators with AUC ≈ 0.91–0.93; and (iv) the HL-LHC can probe BR(H→semi-visible) below the Higgs-neutrino floor for these operators.

Significance. If the quantitative reach were robust, this would be a useful complementarity study: it shows that a simple ZH final state can probe semi-visible Higgs decays to sub-50 GeV invisible states, and it demonstrates a practical kinematic separation of operator structures. The paper is well organized, uses standard public tools (MadGraph5, Pythia8, Delphes, TMVA), gives detailed cut flows, and correctly emphasizes that the H→ZZ*→ℓℓνν background is reducible via the dilepton invariant mass. However, the central quantitative claims are not yet fully supported because the significance estimates omit experimental and theoretical systematics, and because the BDT results that enter the main sensitivity plots are only partially documented.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V.B, Fig. 6 and Fig. 9] The central O_eϕ reach is driven by a counting significance with no background systematics. At the benchmark C/Λ²=10 TeV^-2, the post-cut signal is 0.0009 fb and the total background is 1.66 fb; at 3000 fb^-1 this is S≈2.7 and B≈4980, i.e. S0≈0.038. Scaling with Eq. (12) gives C_min≈80 TeV^-2. The required background normalization accuracy is therefore at the ~1% level: with a 2% normalization uncertainty the effective noise becomes sqrt(4980+(0.02×4980)^2)≈122 events, requiring S≈366 events and C_min≈116 TeV^-2, above the paper's own unitarity bound of ≈102 TeV^-2 from Eq. (5); a 5% uncertainty pushes C_min to ≈170 TeV^-2. Since the dominant ZZ and top backgrounds in Table I are generated at LO with no k-factors, such normalization shifts are routine. The BDT may reduce the background and mitigate this, but no O_eϕ BDT-level yields are reported, so the Fig. 9 contours cannot be checked
  2. [§V.B, Fig. 6 and Fig. 9] The BDT part of the analysis is not sufficiently documented to support the main sensitivity plots. The threshold scan in Fig. 6 is shown only for O_DHχχ, and the claimed 'three to four-fold improvement' is not accompanied by an overtraining check or by a comparison of training and test samples. Fig. 9, which contains the headline O_eϕ and derivative-operator contours, uses BDTs trained separately in three mass bins for all operators, but the corresponding classifier outputs, working points, and signal/background efficiencies are not given. In particular, the O_eϕ BDT result is never shown, so one cannot tell whether the improvement seen for O_DHχχ carries over to the operator that drives the paper's main conclusion. Please provide BDT output distributions, efficiency tables, and an overtraining check for all operators and mass bins.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V.B (after Eq. 12)] The sentence quoting cut-based 3σ minima is inconsistent: it lists 'C_min≃25 TeV^-2 for C_DHχχ and C_DHχχ2, C_min≃55 TeV^-2 for C_DHχχ' — the last entry should presumably be C_min≃55 TeV^-2 for C_DH∂ϕ.
  2. [§V.B] Typos: 'HL-HLC' should be 'HL-LHC'; in §IV 'frOM' should be 'from'.
  3. [Fig. 9] The x-axis labels in the lower panels appear as '100 101', which is not readable; the correct mass ranges should be shown consistently for all operators.
  4. [§II, Ref. [48]] Reference [48] (a muon-collider forward-detection paper) seems unrelated to the statement about the exceptional operator O_(6)□ϕ; please check that the citation is correct.
  5. [§V.C, Fig. 8] The AUC values 0.907 and 0.927 are quoted for a single benchmark M_DM=10 GeV with no statistical uncertainty and no cross-validation. A short table of AUC versus mass bin would strengthen the operator-discrimination claim.
  6. [§VI, Fig. 9] For O_uϕ and O_dϕ, the text states that monojet constraints give C/Λ²≲3 TeV^-2, far stronger than the semi-visible sensitivity shown. This is acknowledged, but it would be clearer to overlay the monojet exclusion on the relevant panels so the figure is not read as showing competitive hadronic-operator coverage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: sensitivities are computed from independent MC samples; self-citations are context only.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative results are the HL-LHC 3σ sensitivities on DSMEFT Wilson coefficients from semi-visible Higgs decays. These are obtained from a standard, self-contained MC chain: signal and background events are generated with MadGraph5+Pythia8+Delphes independently, and sensitivities are derived from a counting significance S0 = S/sqrt(S+B) with no coefficient fitted to the target limit. The rescaling formula C_min = C0*(S_target/S0)^(1/2) (Eq. 12) is justified because the DSMEFT signal is quadratic in the Wilson coefficient and there is no SM-DSMEFT interference. External constraints—invisible Z-width from LEP data, unitarity bounds from Ref. [50], and monojet limits—are used only for comparison, not as inputs to the sensitivity calculation. The self-citations (Refs. [40,42,43]) provide existing operator subsets, asymmetric-dark-matter limits, and a monojet bound, respectively; none is load-bearing for the central semi-visible Higgs sensitivity curves, which are generated directly from the EFT Lagrangian. The BDT operator-discrimination study (Sec. V.C) is an internal classifier-performance measure on the same simulated samples, not a prediction derived from a fitted parameter. The paper explicitly acknowledges that for derivative-current operators the invisible-Z-width constraint dominates (Sec. V.A), so there is no claim of an independent prediction from the semi-visible channel in that case. No equation or parameter is redefined as an independent result. Overall, the derivation is self-contained; the only minor concern is the presence of self-citations, but they are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The analysis is a model-space scan: it contributes sensitivity projections conditional on the DSMEFT operator set, the Z2 symmetry, and the fast-simulation pipeline. The physics inputs pulled from outside are the EFT operator catalog, unitarity-bound technology, and measured Z/Higgs constraints; the semi-visible cross sections and BDT limits are computed in this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • C_α/Λ² operator coefficients = benchmark C/Λ² = 10 TeV⁻²; limits reported up to ~1000 TeV⁻²
    Central model parameters scanned to define signal cross sections and rescaled via Eq. 12; they are inputs, not fitted to data.
  • M_DM (mass of φ or χ) = benchmark 10 GeV; scanned 1–50 GeV
    Chosen to define kinematic regions for BDT training; controls phase space and unitarity constraints.
  • Λ (new physics scale) = 1 TeV
    Fixed in the simulations; changing Λ changes EFT validity and the allowed coefficient range.
  • BDT classifier threshold = 0.99 working point
    Chosen to maximize significance at 3000 fb⁻¹; the trade-off is shown in Fig. 6.
  • Kinematic cut thresholds = M_ll<60 GeV, M_T<125 GeV, E_Tmiss>20 GeV, b-jet veto
    Chosen by inspection of the distributions for the cut-based analysis; the BDT replaces them in the MVA part.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Z2 symmetry with all BSM fields odd and SM fields even, with no other dark-sector interactions
    Selects the operator set in Section II; if broken or augmented, the semi-visible decay phenomenology changes.
  • domain assumption Dimension-6 DSMEFT with Λ = 1 TeV is a valid description for m_DM ≤ 50 GeV and coefficients up to ~100–1000 TeV⁻²
    Used throughout Section V; the paper itself shows this is not uniformly true, since O_uφ/O_dφ probe regions excluded by unitarity at √s=1 TeV.
  • domain assumption The new light states are invisible and appear only as missing transverse energy, with no additional SM couplings
    Essential to mapping H→ℓℓφφ/jjφφ onto ℓℓ+E_Tmiss final states.
  • standard math Standard partial-wave unitarity bounds from Ref. [50] apply with the coefficient scale defined as in the paper
    Section III relies on these bounds for Eqs. (5)–(7).
  • domain assumption SM–DSMEFT interference vanishes for these operators, so cross sections are quadratic in C/Λ²
    Used to justify the rescaling in Eq. 12; follows from the invisible final-state particles being different species from SM neutrinos.
  • domain assumption Detector response is modeled by Delphes with the CMS card, with no systematic uncertainties
    Section V uses this for all signal and background samples; the projected significances inherit this assumption.
invented entities (2)
  • Complex scalar dark field φ independent evidence
    purpose: Produces ℓℓφφ / jjφφ final states that appear as semi-visible Higgs decays; mass m≲50 GeV.
    Hypothetical; the paper predicts where it would appear at HL-LHC, giving a falsifiable collider handle, but there is no external evidence for its existence.
  • Fermionic dark field χ independent evidence
    purpose: Produces ℓℓχχ / jjχχ final states via vector and axial-vector operators; mass m≲50 GeV.
    Same status as φ: a model hypothesis with predicted collider signatures, no independent confirmation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-visible higgs decay as a probe for new invisible particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWZQYJ77

@misc{pith2026251109778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-visible higgs decay as a probe for new invisible particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWZQYJ77}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.09778}
}
abstract

We discuss the HL-LHC sensitivity to probe new invisible particles including scalars and fermions using semi-visible Higgs decays in the $pp\to ZH, Z\to jj\, (\ell^+\ell^-), ~H\to \ell^+\ell^- (jj) + ~\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T$ production mode. The kinematics of these decays allow new particle masses below $m\lesssim 50$ GeV. We carry out our analysis using both a cut-based approach and a multivariate method based on a boosted decision tree. We work within the dark-SMEFT framework with operators up to dimension six and a discrete $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry under which the new particles are odd and the SM particles are even. We compare our results to those obtained from considering the invisible $Z$-width, as well as perturbative unitarity arguments. Finally, we outline kinematic strategies at the LHC to distinguish different operator structures of the postulated invisible particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.09778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Window onto New Invisible Particles via Semi-Visible Higgs Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    HL-LHC semi-visible Higgs decays in ZH production can probe dim-6 EFT couplings of light invisible scalars or fermions, with BDT analysis making the SM neutrino background reducible.

  2. A Window onto New Invisible Particles via Semi-Visible Higgs Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Semi-visible Higgs decays to ll+MET and jj+MET can probe invisible scalars and fermions with dimension-six couplings, reaching Wilson coefficients of a few tens of TeV^-2 at the HL-LHC.

  3. Muonphilic asymmetric dark matter at a future muon collider

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Muonphilic portals to fermionic asymmetric dark matter are constrained by existing data and can be probed further by 3 and 10 TeV muon colliders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    Semidark Higgs boson decays: Sweeping the Higgs neutrino floor,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. M. Cano, J. M. No, and D. G. Cerde˜ no, “Semidark Higgs boson decays: Sweeping the Higgs neutrino floor,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 11, (2022) 115023, arXiv:2206.01214 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [3]

    A complete effective field theory for dark matter,

    J. C. Criado, A. Djouadi, M. Perez-Victoria, and J. Santiago, “A complete effective field theory for dark matter,”JHEP07(2021) 081,arXiv:2104.14443 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [4]

    Dark matter effective field theory and an application to vector dark matter,

    J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, “Dark matter effective field theory and an application to vector dark matter,”JHEP06(2022) 086, arXiv:2202.06968 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [5]

    An Effective Theory of Dirac Dark Matter,

    R. Harnik and G. D. Kribs, “An Effective Theory of Dirac Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 095007,arXiv:0810.5557 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [6]

    Constraints on Light Majorana dark Matter from Colliders,

    J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu, “Constraints on Light Majorana dark Matter from Colliders,”Phys. Lett. B695(2011) 185–188,arXiv:1005.1286 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [7]

    Gamma Ray Line Constraints on Effective Theories of Dark Matter,

    J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu, “Gamma Ray Line Constraints on Effective Theories of Dark Matter,”Nucl. Phys. B844(2011) 55–68,arXiv:1009.0008 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  7. [8]

    Maverick dark matter at colliders,

    M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E. W. Kolb, Z. A. C. Krusberg, and T. M. P. Tait, “Maverick dark matter at colliders,”JHEP09(2010) 037,arXiv:1002.4137 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [9]

    Constraints on Dark Matter from Colliders,

    J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu, “Constraints on Dark Matter from Colliders,”Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 116010, arXiv:1008.1783 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 64 references
  1. [10]

    FCNC portals to the dark sector,

    J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, “FCNC portals to the dark sector,”JHEP03(2012) 090, arXiv:1111.6402 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Missing Energy Signatures of Dark Matter at the LHC,

    P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and Y. Tsai, “Missing Energy Signatures of Dark Matter at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 056011,arXiv:1109.4398 [hep-ph]. 22

    2012 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Dark Matter Effective Theory,

    E. Del Nobile and F. Sannino, “Dark Matter Effective Theory,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A27 (2012) 1250065,arXiv:1102.3116 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Global Constraints on Effective Dark Matter Interactions: Relic Density, Direct Detection, Indirect Detection, and Collider,

    K. Cheung, P.-Y. Tseng, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and T.-C. Yuan, “Global Constraints on Effective Dark Matter Interactions: Relic Density, Direct Detection, Indirect Detection, and Collider,” JCAP05(2012) 001,arXiv:1201.3402 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Using Effective Operators to Understand CoGeNT and CDMS-Si Signals,

    M. R. Buckley, “Using Effective Operators to Understand CoGeNT and CDMS-Si Signals,” Phys. Rev. D88no. 5, (2013) 055028,arXiv:1308.4146 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Co-annihilating Dark Matter: Effective Operator Analysis and Collider Phenomenology,

    N. F. Bell, Y. Cai, and A. D. Medina, “Co-annihilating Dark Matter: Effective Operator Analysis and Collider Phenomenology,”Phys. Rev. D89no. 11, (2014) 115001, arXiv:1311.6169 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [16]

    On the effective operators for Dark Matter annihilations,

    A. De Simone, A. Monin, A. Thamm, and A. Urbano, “On the effective operators for Dark Matter annihilations,”JCAP02(2013) 039,arXiv:1301.1486 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [17]

    The Fermionic Dark Matter Higgs Portal: an effective field theory approach,

    M. A. Fedderke, J.-Y. Chen, E. W. Kolb, and L.-T. Wang, “The Fermionic Dark Matter Higgs Portal: an effective field theory approach,”JHEP08(2014) 122,arXiv:1404.2283 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Singlet Majorana fermion dark matter: a comprehensive analysis in effective field theory,

    S. Matsumoto, S. Mukhopadhyay, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, “Singlet Majorana fermion dark matter: a comprehensive analysis in effective field theory,”JHEP10(2014) 155, arXiv:1407.1859 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [19]

    New Constraints on Dark Matter Effective Theories from Standard Model Loops,

    A. Crivellin, F. D’Eramo, and M. Procura, “New Constraints on Dark Matter Effective Theories from Standard Model Loops,”Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 191304, arXiv:1402.1173 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Dark matter direct detection constraints from gauge bosons loops,

    A. Crivellin and U. Haisch, “Dark matter direct detection constraints from gauge bosons loops,”Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 115011,arXiv:1408.5046 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Classification of effective operators for interactions between the Standard Model and dark matter,

    M. Duch, B. Grzadkowski, and J. Wudka, “Classification of effective operators for interactions between the Standard Model and dark matter,”JHEP05(2015) 116, arXiv:1412.0520 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Effective Theories for Dark Matter Nucleon Scattering,

    J. Hisano, R. Nagai, and N. Nagata, “Effective Theories for Dark Matter Nucleon Scattering,”JHEP05(2015) 037,arXiv:1502.02244 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [23]

    LHC constraints on gauge boson couplings to dark matter,

    A. Crivellin, U. Haisch, and A. Hibbs, “LHC constraints on gauge boson couplings to dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 074028,arXiv:1501.00907 [hep-ph]. 23

    2015 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Effective Theory of WIMP Dark Matter supplemented by Simplified Models: Singlet-like Majorana fermion case,

    S. Matsumoto, S. Mukhopadhyay, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, “Effective Theory of WIMP Dark Matter supplemented by Simplified Models: Singlet-like Majorana fermion case,”Phys. Rev. D94no. 6, (2016) 065034,arXiv:1604.02230 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Simplified models vs. effective field theory approaches in dark matter searches,

    A. De Simone and T. Jacques, “Simplified models vs. effective field theory approaches in dark matter searches,”Eur. Phys. J. C76no. 7, (2016) 367,arXiv:1603.08002 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Chiral Effective Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection,

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, “Chiral Effective Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection,”JCAP02(2017) 009,arXiv:1611.00368 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Validity of dark matter effective theory,

    M. Bauer, A. Butter, N. Desai, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, and T. Plehn, “Validity of dark matter effective theory,”Phys. Rev. D95no. 7, (2017) 075036,arXiv:1611.09908 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [28]

    The Last Gasp of Dark Matter Effective Theory,

    S. Bruggisser, F. Riva, and A. Urbano, “The Last Gasp of Dark Matter Effective Theory,” JHEP11(2016) 069,arXiv:1607.02475 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Setting limits on Effective Field Theories: the case of Dark Matter,

    F. Pobbe, A. Wulzer, and M. Zanetti, “Setting limits on Effective Field Theories: the case of Dark Matter,”JHEP08(2017) 074,arXiv:1704.00736 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Analysis of the Bounds on Dark Matter Models from Monojet Searches at the LHC,

    S. Belwal, M. Drees, and J. S. Kim, “Analysis of the Bounds on Dark Matter Models from Monojet Searches at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 5, (2018) 055017,arXiv:1709.08545 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Effective field theory of the Majorana dark matter,

    H. Han, H. Wu, and S. Zheng, “Effective field theory of the Majorana dark matter,”Chin. Phys. C43no. 4, (2019) 043103,arXiv:1711.10097 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Direct Detection up to Dimension Seven,

    J. Brod, A. Gootjes-Dreesbach, M. Tammaro, and J. Zupan, “Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Direct Detection up to Dimension Seven,”JHEP10(2018) 065, arXiv:1710.10218 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 012 (2023)]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Interplay of the LHC and non-LHC Dark Matter searches in the Effective Field Theory approach,

    A. Belyaev, E. Bertuzzo, C. Caniu Barros, O. Eboli, G. Grilli Di Cortona, F. Iocco, and A. Pukhov, “Interplay of the LHC and non-LHC Dark Matter searches in the Effective Field Theory approach,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 1, (2019) 015006,arXiv:1807.03817 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Light and Darkness: consistently coupling dark matter to photons via effective operators,

    C. Arina, A. Cheek, K. Mimasu, and L. Pagani, “Light and Darkness: consistently coupling dark matter to photons via effective operators,”Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 3, (2021) 223, arXiv:2005.12789 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Effective Theory of Freeze-in Dark Matter,

    B. Barman, D. Borah, and R. Roshan, “Effective Theory of Freeze-in Dark Matter,”JCAP 11(2020) 021,arXiv:2007.08768 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Feebly coupled vector boson dark matter in effective theory,

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, and B. Grzadkowski, “Feebly coupled vector boson dark matter in effective theory,”JHEP12(2020) 162,arXiv:2009.07438 [hep-ph]. 24

    2020 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Effective theories with dark matter applications,

    S. Bhattacharya and J. Wudka, “Effective theories with dark matter applications,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D30no. 13, (2021) 2130004,arXiv:2104.01788 [hep-ph]. [38]GAMBITCollaboration, P. Athronet al., “Thermal WIMPs and the scale of new physics: global fits of Dirac dark matter effe...

    2021 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Dark photon bounds in the dark EFT,

    D. Barducci, E. Bertuzzo, G. Grilli di Cortona, and G. M. Salla, “Dark photon bounds in the dark EFT,”JHEP12(2021) 081,arXiv:2109.04852 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [40]

    FCNC B and K meson decays with light bosonic Dark Matter,

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, and G. Valencia, “FCNC B and K meson decays with light bosonic Dark Matter,”JHEP03(2023) 037,arXiv:2209.05223 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Collider and CMB complementarity of leptophilic dark matter with light Dirac neutrinos,

    D. Borah, N. Das, S. Jahedi, and B. Thacker, “Collider and CMB complementarity of leptophilic dark matter with light Dirac neutrinos,”JHEP01(2025) 074, arXiv:2408.14548 [hep-ph]

    2025

  32. [42]

    Constraining Asymmetric Dark Matter using colliders and direct detection,

    A. Roy, B. Dasgupta, and M. Guchait, “Constraining Asymmetric Dark Matter using colliders and direct detection,”JHEP08(2024) 095,arXiv:2402.17265 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Monojet and direct detection constraints on real scalar dark matter: EFT and a simple UV completion,

    A. Roy, M. A. Schmidt, and G. Valencia, “Monojet and direct detection constraints on real scalar dark matter: EFT and a simple UV completion,”arXiv:2509.14869 [hep-ph]

  34. [44]

    Multi-messenger FIMP,

    D. Borah, N. Das, S. Jahedi, and D. Pradhan, “Multi-messenger FIMP,”arXiv:2506.13860 [hep-ph]. [45]CMSCollaboration, A. Tumasyanet al., “Search for invisible decays of the Higgs boson produced via vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV,”Phys. Rev. D 105no....

    2022

  35. [47]

    The Higgs-portal for dark matter: effective field theories versus concrete realizations,

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Kado, “The Higgs-portal for dark matter: effective field theories versus concrete realizations,”Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 7, (2021) 653, arXiv:2101.02507 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [48]

    Building the case for forward muon detection at a muon collider,

    M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni, and A. Wulzer, “Building the case for forward muon detection at a muon collider,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 5, (2025) 053010,arXiv:2411.00096 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [49]

    New Constraints (and Motivations) for Abelian Gauge Bosons in the MeV-TeV Mass Range,

    M. Williams, C. P. Burgess, A. Maharana, and F. Quevedo, “New Constraints (and Motivations) for Abelian Gauge Bosons in the MeV-TeV Mass Range,”JHEP08(2011) 106, 25 arXiv:1103.4556 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [50]

    Unitarity Bounds on Dark Matter Effective Interactions at LHC,

    M. Endo and Y. Yamamoto, “Unitarity Bounds on Dark Matter Effective Interactions at LHC,”JHEP06(2014) 126,arXiv:1403.6610 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [51]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,”JHEP07...

    2014 arXiv

  40. [54]

    Partially (in)visible Higgs decays at the LHC,

    C. Englert, M. Spannowsky, and C. Wymant, “Partially (in)visible Higgs decays at the LHC,”Phys. Lett. B718(2012) 538–544,arXiv:1209.0494 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [55]

    FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, “FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,”Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300,arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [56]

    PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II,

    J. Butterworthet al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II,”J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001,arXiv:1510.03865 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [57]

    PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,”JHEP05 (2006) 026,arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

    2006 arXiv

  44. [58]

    A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,”Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852–867,arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]. [59]DELPHES 3Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, “DELPHE...

    2008 arXiv

  45. [61]

    FastJet User Manual,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual,”Eur. Phys. J.C72(2012) 1896,arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]. [62]CMSCollaboration, “Particle-Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and MET,”

    2012 arXiv

  46. [63]

    The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm,”JHEP04 (2008) 063,arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]. [64]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “ATLAS searches for additional scalars and exotic Higgs boson decays with the LHC Run 2 dataset,”Phys. Rept.1116(2...

    2008 arXiv

  47. [65]

    TMV A - Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis,

    A. Hockeret al., “TMV A - Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis,” arXiv:physics/0703039

    arXiv

  48. [66]

    TMV A, the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT,

    H. Voss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMV A, the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT,”PoSACA T(2007) 040. [67]LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking GroupCollaboration, D. de Florianet al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature o...

    2007 arXiv

  49. [68]

    An Upper Limit on the Neutrino Rest Mass,

    R. Cowsik and J. McClelland, “An Upper Limit on the Neutrino Rest Mass,”Phys. Rev. Lett.29(1972) 669–670

    1972

  50. [69]

    Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, “Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,”Phys. Rev. Lett.39(1977) 165–168

    1977

  51. [70]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, vol. 69. Taylor and Francis, 5, 2019. [71]LZCollaboration, J. Aalberset al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,”arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]. [72]PandaXCollaboration, S. L...

    2019 arXiv

  52. [75]

    Constraints on dark matter with future MeV gamma-ray telescopes,

    K. E. O’Donnell and T. R. Slatyer, “Constraints on dark matter with future MeV gamma-ray telescopes,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 8, (2025) 083037,arXiv:2411.00087 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [76]

    TECHNOCOSMOLOGY: COULD A TECHNIBARYON EXCESS PROVIDE A ’NATURAL’ MISSING MASS CANDIDATE?,

    S. Nussinov, “TECHNOCOSMOLOGY: COULD A TECHNIBARYON EXCESS PROVIDE A ’NATURAL’ MISSING MASS CANDIDATE?,”Phys. Lett. B165(1985) 55–58

    1985

  54. [77]

    What Is the Cosmion?,

    G. B. Gelmini, L. J. Hall, and M. J. Lin, “What Is the Cosmion?,”Nucl. Phys. B281 (1987) 726

    1987

  55. [78]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints,

    K. M. Zurek, “Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints,”Phys. Rept.537(2014) 91–121,arXiv:1308.0338 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [79]

    Review of asymmetric dark matter,

    K. Petraki and R. R. Volkas, “Review of asymmetric dark matter,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28 (2013) 1330028,arXiv:1305.4939 [hep-ph]. 28

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.