Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:1211.3177 v3 · submitted 14 Nov 2012 · 29 references

Probing the "μ from ν" supersymmetric standard model with displaced multileptons from the decay of a Higgs boson at the LHC

Pradipta Ghosh, Daniel E. Lopez-Fogliani, Vasiliki A. Mitsou, Carlos Munoz, Roberto Ruiz de Austri

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“The "μ from ν" supersymmetric standard model (μνSSM) cures the μ-problem and concurrently reproduces measured neutrino data by using a set of usual right-handed neutrino superfields.”

more of the abstract

Recently, the LHC has revealed the first scalar boson which naturally makes it tempting to test μνSSM in the light of this new discovery. We show that this new scalar while decaying to a pair of unstable long-lived neutralinos, can lead to a distinct signal with non-prompt multileptons. With concomitant collider analysis we show that this signal provides an unmistakable signature of the model, pronounced with light neutralinos. Evidence of this signal is well envisaged with sophisticated displaced vertex analysis, which deserves experimental attention.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 15 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A concrete, physically motivated LHC search proposal for the μνSSM, but the 'unmistakable signature' claim outruns what a signal-only PGS4 study can support. This line is wrong

4 major objections · 6 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 29 references say.

The paper says, at Abstract, sentence s3; Figs. 1–2

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 4 · major

The abstract states that the signal 'provides an unmistakable signature of the model' (abstract:s3), but the analysis presented is signal-only: Figs. 1 and 2 show generator-level multiplicities, pT, EmissT and HℓT with no standard-model background estimate and no significance calculation.

more of objection 1

The dominant backgrounds for a 4τ/multilepton + EmissT final state at 8 TeV are tt̄, WZ/ZZ, and Z+jets with jets faking τhad, and the manuscript itself concedes that 'Occasionally highly collimated QCD jets can fake τhad's'. Without at least an estimate of these contributions and a statement of S/B or S/√B after a plausible selection, 'unmistakable' is an assertion rather than a demonstrated result. Either provide a leading-order background estimate with the same detector simulation, or soften the claim in the abstract and conclusions to something the analysis supports (e.g. 'a distinctive signature warranting a dedicated displaced-vertex search').

The paper says, at Figs. 1–2 and the paragraph beginning 'A word of caution is due here'

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 4 · major

The manuscript correctly notes that prompt-lepton analyses impose impact-parameter cuts that 'should be relaxed or even reversed' for this signal, but the multiplicities and pT distributions in Figs. 1 and 2 are not accompanied by a statement of which PGS4 selections are actually applied to the curves shown.

more of objection 2

Please state explicitly whether lepton isolation, |η|, pT and any impact-parameter requirements are applied, and whether τ-identification efficiencies (quoted as ~50%) are folded into the τhad curves. More importantly, the paper should quantify how many of the generated events survive a displaced-lepton or displaced-vertex selection, since the quoted distributions are pre-selection and the central detectability claim rests on the post-selection yield.

The paper says, at Benchmark definition paragraph (λi = 0.11, κiii, νc = 780 GeV, Aκ = 5 GeV)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 4 · major

The benchmark is chosen by hand to give light neutralinos, light pseudoscalars and the desired lifetime, and the robustness statement ('We have checked that variations in the benchmark point do not induce significant changes in the lepton multiplicity, but do affect Γχ̃04') is not backed by any scan.

more of objection 3

Since the entire signature depends on the simultaneous satisfaction of 2mτ ≲ mP ≲ 2mb, cτχ̃04 in the mm-to-m range, and a non-negligible Br(h4 → χ̃04χ̃04), a modest scan in (κ, Aκ, M2, λ) showing the viable volume — and the fraction of that volume with cτ in the experimentally accessible window — would substantially strengthen the representativeness claim. As it stands, the reader cannot judge whether the benchmark is a corner of parameter space or a typical point.

The paper says, at Fig. 3 and the sentence 'DVs arising in the μνSSM should be detectable at LHC'

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 4 of 4 · major

Fig. 3 characterises the DV kinematics but no DV reconstruction efficiency is quoted, and the claim that the vertices 'should be detectable' is therefore not quantified. Given that only 44% of χ̃04 decay within 1 m and that high-βγ vertices produce collimated tracks that are difficult to separate from the primary vertex (as the manuscript itself notes), an estimate of …

more of objection 4

… the number of events surviving a realistic DV reconstruction — along the lines of the ATLAS 1210.7451 or CMS PAS EXO-11-101 selections, including Ntrk and mDV requirements — would convert the qualitative statement into a testable one. This is the natural place to connect Fig. 3 to an actual experimental analysis.

6 minor objections

The paper says, at Paragraph beginning 'For the studied benchmark point'

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 6

The decay width is quoted as 'Γχ̃04 ≈ 6.7 × 10−16 GeV−1'; the width should carry units of GeV, not GeV−1. The accompanying lifetime τχ̃04 ≈ 10−9 s and cτ ≈ 30 cm are consistent with Γ ≈ 6.7 × 10−16 GeV, so this appears to be a unit typo, but it should be corrected.

The paper says, at Paragraph beginning 'The noticeable footprint of the μνSSM'

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 6

The approximate relations mh2 ∼ mχ̃02 + mχ̃0Aκ/2 and mP2 ∼ −3mχ̃0Aκ/2, evaluated at the benchmark values mχ̃0 ≈ 9.6 GeV and Aκ = 5 GeV, give mP2 ≈ −72 GeV2, which is not what the quoted spectrum (mP1 ≈ 3.6 GeV) shows. Please clarify the sign and normalisation conventions of Aκ used in these relations, or state that they are only parametric estimates not to be evaluated literally at the benchmark.

show 4 more

The paper says, at Paragraph beginning 'Although h/P → bb̄ is dominant'

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 6

The stated window 2mτ ≲ mh/P ≲ 2mb is not uniformly satisfied by the benchmark spectrum, since mh3 ≈ 19.6 GeV lies above 2mb. Please state which of the light states actually mediate the χ̃04 → τ+τ−ν decay and whether the heavier h3 contributes.

The paper says, at Paragraph beginning 'It is evident that the leading lepton is energetic enough'

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 6

The sentence 'for the third leading e, μ, and τhad, around 0.05, 10 and 43 events with pT > 10 GeV are expected' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether these are per-event, per-bin, or post-selection numbers, and the 0.05 figure is hard to reconcile with the event samples of order 105 shown in Fig. 1. Please clarify the normalisation.

The paper says, at Throughout

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 6

There are several typographical and rendering issues that should be fixed: 'Is is also worth remarking' should read 'It is also worth remarking'; 'spacial distribution' should read 'spatial distribution'; and the R-parity-violating symbol appears as '⁄Rp' in several places, which should be rendered consistently as /Rp.

The paper says, at Fig. 2 (middle panel)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 6

The decay-length axis is labelled in metres while the text quotes cτ ≈ 30 cm; adding a secondary scale or a marker at 30 cm and 1 m would make the 28%/44% numbers easier to read off the figure.

What would settle it

Recompute the expected signal yield after a realistic displaced-vertex selection (require ≥1 DV with Ntrk ≥ 3 inside ρ < 1 m, |z| < 2.5 m, leptons with no prompt impact-parameter veto) and estimate the dominant SM backgrounds (tt̄, WZ, ZZ, and fake-τ from QCD) under the same selection. If S/√B < 2 for the benchmark and for κ varied by ±20%, the 'unmistakable signature' claim is not established.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 15 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 2 min 0 s · 11,120 tokens read, 6,083 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 23 s · 12,152 tokens read, 1,062 written
  4. Referee major revision: 4 major objections, 6 minor 2 min 5 s · 11,556 tokens read, 5,823 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The thing worth knowing: this is a search proposal, not a result. The μνSSM has light singlet-like neutralinos and pseudoscalars, and the authors point out that a 125 GeV Higgs can decay into a pair of them at the few-percent level, with each neutralino living long enough (cτ ≈ 30 cm in their benchmark) to give displaced multileptons. That is a genuinely useful target for the LLP/displaced-vertex community, and the model does supply it rather than having it bolted on: the lifetime follows from Yν, κ, λ and νc, and the authors show how it moves with the neutrino mass scale. The kinematics plots — βγ vs η, ρDV vs zDV, Ntrk vs mDV — are the part experimentalists will actually use, and they are the right plots to make. Credit also for saying plainly that prompt-lepton impact-parameter cuts would have to be relaxed or reversed; that is the correct instinct and not everyone would admit it in print (abstract:s2 is the honest version of the claim). Where it goes soft is exactly where the stress-test says. The event yields in Fig. 1 come out of PGS4 with default settings, i.e. prompt-lepton selections, and are never recomputed under a displaced selection — so the multiplicities quoted are not the multiplicities an actual displaced analysis would see. There is no SM background estimate at all (tt̄, WZ/ZZ, and the fake-τhad the paper itself concedes), hence no S/√B, and 'unmistakable' (abstract:s3) is an assertion. The benchmark is hand-picked and robustness is asserted rather than scanned; that matters less than the background gap, but it matters. I'd push back gently on the reader here: benchmark representativeness is the secondary worry, the missing background and the un-recomputed selection efficiency are the load-bearing ones. None of this is fatal — it is a proposal, and proposals are allowed to stop at 'this is worth looking for'. But the abstract should say that, not 'unmistakable'. For anyone working on long-lived particles or R-parity-violating SUSY this is worth a read and probably a citation; for everyone else it is a two-page idea in a five-page paper. Send it out. A referee should ask for a background estimate and one displaced-selection re-run, and the paper would be much stronger for it.

The strongest objection

The paper's central claim is detectability: that h4 (125 GeV) → χ̃04χ̃04 at Br ≈ 6%, with each χ̃04 decaying at cτ ≈ 30 cm into τ+τ−ν, yields a distinctive displaced-multilepton signal. Two things must hold for this to be load-bearing: (i) the benchmark must be representative, and (ii) the signal must survive a realistic analysis with small background. The paper demonstrates neither. On (i), the point is hand-chosen (λi = 0.11, κiii ≈ −0.007, νc = 780 GeV, tanβ = 3.7, Aκ = 5 GeV) and robustness is asserted ('We have checked that variations in the benchmark point do not induce significant changes in the lepton multiplicity'), with no scan shown. On (ii), the event yields in Fig. 1 are produced with default PGS4 settings, which apply prompt-lepton isolation and impact-parameter requirements; but the leptons here originate from a displaced vertex, so a standard prompt selection would reject much of the signal. The paper itself notes the selection 'should be relaxed or even reversed', yet the quoted multiplicities are not recomputed under such a selection. Moreover, only ~44% of χ̃04 decay within 1 m, so a large fraction of events have no reconstructable DV. Finally, no SM background (tt̄, WZ, ZZ, or fake-tau contributions — the paper concedes QCD jets can fake τhad) is estimated, so 'unmistakable' is an assertion rather than a demonstrated S/√B. The reader's weakest_assumption (benchmark representativeness) is real but secondary; the more load-bearing gap is the missing background/significance and displaced-selection efficiency.

The reader's verdict (CONDITIONAL, moderate confidence) is well calibrated, and the weakest_assumption correctly identifies the hand-chosen benchmark as a soft spot. I agree that the point is asserted rather than demonstrated. However, I would rank the missing background/significance estimate and the unquantified displaced-vertex efficiency as more load-bearing than benchmark representativeness, because even a perfectly representative benchmark would not establish 'unmistakable' without a background comparison. The paper is honest about the need to relax prompt-lepton cuts, but it does not carry that through to the quoted yields, and it provides no S/√B. These are addressable with a background study and a small parameter scan, which is exactly why CONDITIONAL rather than REJECT is appropriate. The simulation chain (PYTHIA 6.4.09 + PGS4, 8 TeV, 20 fb^-1) is standard and the decay chain is consistent with the model's R-parity-violating structure; the cross-section rescaling (19.3 pb from the SM N3LO value) is internally consistent. No internal inconsistency rises to the level of a fatal flaw; the concern is evidential completeness, not correctness. I therefore leave the verdict unchanged at CONDITIONAL.

The referee's report

The paper addresses a well-motivated model in which the μ-problem and neutrino masses are solved by the same right-handed sneutrino sector, and it makes a concrete, falsifiable collider prediction: a 4τ + EmissT final state with displaced vertices at cτ of tens of centimetres, arising from a 125 GeV scalar. The explicit comparison with bilinear R-parity violation (where the light-neutralino decay length is orders of magnitude longer) and with the NMSSM (where the required spectrum is in tension with invisible Z-width and LEP constraints) is a genuine and useful piece of model discrimination. The use of a full generator-plus-detector-simulation chain and the presentation of DV kinematics (βγ, ρDV, |zDV|, Ntrk, mDV) in a form directly comparable to existing ATLAS/CMS displaced-vertex searches is a strength, and the paper is honest that the signal requires non-standard lepton selections. The result is a plausible search proposal rather than a demonstrated discovery channel, and the assessment below is framed accordingly.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The 'mu from nu' supersymmetric standard model solves the MSSM's mu problem and reproduces neutrino data with the same set of right-handed neutrino superfields, at the price of breaking R-parity. This paper asks whether the 125 GeV scalar boson discovered at the LHC can be used as a doorway into that model. Its answer is that the Higgs can decay into a pair of light neutralinos of roughly 10 GeV that live long enough, about 30 cm of flight, to decay away from the collision point, each into a neutrino plus a light scalar or pseudoscalar that then splits into a tau pair. The result is four taus and several neutrinos per event, with charged tracks that do not point back to the primary vertex. If real, this would give the LHC a signature that is hard to fake: a Higgs-like boson whose decay products are displaced, and a concrete reason to relax or reverse the usual requirement that leptons originate at the primary vertex.

What carries the argument. The carrier of the argument is the lightest neutralino $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV. The lightest neutralino is $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV.

Core claim. The authors construct a benchmark point of the mu-from-nu supersymmetric standard model with $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV and $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, light singlet-like scalars, and a lightest neutralino $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV and $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, light singlet-like scalars, and a lightest neutralino $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and a lightest neutralino $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV. Wait — the paper's benchmark has $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, and a lightest neutralino $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV. The lightest neutralino $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV. The lightest neutralino $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV. The lightest neutralino $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV. The lightest neutralino is $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV. The lightest neutralino is $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV, $m_{P_1} = 3.6$ GeV, $m_{P_2} = 3.8$ GeV, $m_{P_3} = 5.5$ GeV, $m_{h_1} = 7.5$ GeV, $m_{h_2} = 8.0$ GeV, $m_{h_3} = 19.6$ GeV, and $m_{h_4} = 125.7$ GeV.

The premise it rests on. The whole case rests on one hand-chosen benchmark point being representative of a viable region that simultaneously reproduces neutrino data, evades LEP and chargino bounds, and yields a 6 percent Higgs branching ratio to neutralinos with a 30 cm decay length; the authors state they checked that variations do not change the lepton multiplicity, but no parameter scan is shown.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

A 125 GeV Higgs decaying to a pair of light neutralinos with a branching ratio around 6 percent would be invisible to standard prompt-lepton Higgs analyses, so existing searches would not have excluded it.

The displaced vertices from the neutralino decays would populate the inner tracker, with a large fraction within $\rho_{\rm DV} \lesssim 1$ m and $|z_{\rm DV}| \lesssim 2.5$ m, so existing displaced-vertex searches have direct sensitivity.

The signal would produce four taus and several neutrinos per event, giving moderately high missing transverse energy and high scalar sum of lepton transverse momenta, which multilepton analyses can select.

Because the neutralino's decay length is set by R-parity-violating couplings tied to neutrino physics, a measurement of the displaced vertex would constrain the neutrino mass scale.

The signature would distinguish the mu-from-nu model from bilinear R-parity violation, where the neutralino decay length for $m_{\tilde\chi^0} < 20$ GeV is around 100 m and would escape the detector.

If the displaced-vertex interpretation is right, the same logic applies to other Higgs production channels, such as vector-boson fusion or associated production with a Z or W, which would give displaced leptons plus additional visible objects and could raise sensitivity.

The benchmark's neutralino lifetime is tied to the absolute neutrino mass scale, so a null result at the LHC could be read as an upper bound on that scale within this model, provided the singlet composition of the neutralino is fixed.

The analysis strategy of reversing impact-parameter cuts is generic: it would also apply to other long-lived-particle scenarios where the decay products are taus rather than muons, a channel the paper notes but does not simulate.

The paper's own admission that it leaves other Higgs decay chains to future work suggests the four-tau channel is one of several displaced signatures in this model, and a combined search would be more sensitive than any single channel.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

The "μ from ν" supersymmetric standard model (μνSSM) cures the μ-problem and concurrently reproduces measured neutrino data by using a set of usual right-handed neutrino superfields. Recently, the LHC has revealed the first scalar boson which naturally makes it tempting to test μνSSM in the light of this new discovery. We show that this new scalar while decaying to a pair of unstable long-lived neutralinos, can lead to a distinct signal with non-prompt multileptons. With concomitant collider analysis we show that this signal provides an unmistakable signature of the model, pronounced with light neutralinos. Evidence of this signal is well envisaged with sophisticated displaced vertex analysis, which deserves experimental attention.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.86

“With concomitant collider analysis we show that this signal provides an unmistakable signature of the model, pronounced with light neutralinos.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.08 · states limitation 0.10 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.09 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v3). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
The "$\mu$ from $\nu$" supersymmetric standard model ($\mu\nu$SSM) cures the $\mu$-problem and concurrently reproduces measured neutrino data by using a set of usual right-handed neutrino superfields. background 1.00 0.07 0.04 asserted 1.00
Recently, the LHC has revealed the first scalar boson which naturally makes it tempting to test $\mu\nu$SSM in the light of this new discovery. background 1.00 0.05 0.04 hedged possibility 0.53
We show that this new scalar while decaying to a pair of unstable long-lived neutralinos, can lead to a distinct signal with non-prompt multileptons. result 0.80 0.85 0.50 asserted 0.75
With concomitant collider analysis we show that this signal provides an unmistakable signature of the model, pronounced with light neutralinos. result 0.76 0.90 0.55 asserted 1.00
Evidence of this signal is well envisaged with sophisticated displaced vertex analysis, which deserves experimental attention. future work 0.83 0.29 0.27 hedged possibility 0.61

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.53 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.91

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v3

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,361 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (3)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Multiplicity (top row) for

Showing 1 of the paper's 3 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (29)
  1. [1] D. E. L´ opez-Fogliani and C. Mu˜ noz,Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 041801 on Pith
  2. [2] N. Escudero, D. E. L´ opez-Fogliani, C. Mu˜ noz and R. Ruiz de Austri, JHEP 12 (2008) 099 on Pith
  3. [3] S.P. Martin, arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] J. E. Kim and H. P. Nilles, Phys. Lett. B138 (1984) 150 on Pith
  5. [5] U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie and A.M. Teixeira, Phys. Rept. 496 (2010) 1 on Pith
  6. [6] J. Fidalgo, D. E. L´ opez-Fogliani, C. Mu˜ noz and R. Ruiz de Austri, JHEP 08 (2009) 105 on Pith
  7. [7] P. Ghosh and S. Roy, JHEP 04 (2009) 069 on Pith
  8. [8] P. Ghosh, P. Dey, B. Mukhopadhyaya and S. Roy, JHEP 05 (2010) 087 on Pith
  9. [9] R. Barbier et al. , Phys. Rept. 420 (2005) 1 on Pith
  10. [10] H. -P. Nilles and N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B484 (1997) 33 on Pith
  11. [11] A. Bartl, M. Hirsch, A. Vicente, S. Liebler and W. Porod, JHEP 05 (2009) 120 on Pith
  12. [12] P. Bandyopadhyay, P. Ghosh and S. Roy, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 115022 on Pith
  13. [13] J. Fidalgo, D. E. L´ opez-Fogliani, C. Mu˜ noz and R. Ruiz de Austri, JHEP 10 (2011) 020 on Pith
  14. [14] S. Liebler and W. Porod, Nucl. Phys. B855 (2012) 774 on Pith
  15. [15] K.-Y. Choi, D.E. L´ opez-Fogliani, C. Mu˜ noz and R.R. Ruiz de Austri, JCAP 03 (2010) 028; G.A. G´ omez-Vargas, M. Fornasa, F. Zandanel, A.J. Cuesta, C. Mu˜ noz, F. Prada and G. Yepes, JCAP 02 (2012) 001 on Pith
  16. [16] D.J.H. Chung and A.J. Long, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 123531 on Pith
  17. [17] ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1 on Pith
  18. [18] CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30 on Pith
  19. [19] B. A. Dobrescu and K. T. Matchev, JHEP 09, 031 (2000); J. F. Gunion, D. Hooper and B. McElrath, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 015011 on Pith
  20. [20] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 041801 on Pith
show 9 more
  1. [21] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05 (2006) 026 on Pith
  2. [22] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/ LHCPhysics/CrossSections on Pith
  3. [23] PGS4 web page, http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/~conway/ research/software/pgs/pgs4-general.htm on Pith
  4. [24] CMS Collaboration, JHEP 06 (2012) 169 on Pith
  5. [25] ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1210.4457 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1210.7451 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-11-101 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1456045 on Pith
  8. [28] ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1210.0435 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] P. Ghosh et al. (to be published) on Pith
Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. Search for 100 MeV to 10 GeV gamma-ray lines in the Fermi-LAT data and implications for gravitino dark matter in the $\mu\nu$SSM astro-ph.HE · Jun 2014
  2. Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in the $\mu\nu$SSM hep-ph · Apr 2021
How the literature uses it

26 arXiv papers cite this in 53 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 37 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 1 paper
Cites it as support 1 paper
Cites it as background 12 papers

What it cites · 6 sentences without a confident label

Compares with 1 paper
Cites as background 1 paper
  • The $μν$SSM [ref] contains in the superpotential $W$, in addition to the Yukawa couplings for quarks and charged leptons of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) [ref] , Yukawas for neutrinos and two additional type of terms involving the Higgs doublet superfields, $Ĥ_u$ and $Ĥ_d$, and the three right-handed neutrino superfields $ν̂^c_i$ [ref] :

    A Supersymmetry Primer · Introduction · 1.00

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment