Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:1402.2285 v1 · submitted 10 Feb 2014 · 47 references

Monojet versus rest of the world I: t-channel Models

Michele Papucci, Alessandro Vichi, Kathryn M. Zurek

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

The paper says

“Monojet searches using Effective Field Theory (EFT) operators are usually interpreted as a robust and model independent constraint on direct detection (DD) scattering cross-sections.”

more of the abstract

At the same time, a mediator particle must be present to produce the dark matter (DM) at the LHC. This mediator particle may be produced on shell, so that direct searches for the mediating particle can constrain the effective operator being applied to monojet constraints. In this first paper, we do a case study on t-channel models in monojet searches, where the (Standard Model singlet) DM is pair produced via a t-channel mediating particle, whose supersymmetric analogue is the squark. We compare monojet constraints to direct constraints on single or pair production of the mediator from multi-jets plus missing energy searches and we identify the regions where the latter dominate over the former. We show that computing bounds using supersymmetric simplified models and in the narrow width approximation, as done in previous work in the literature, misses important quantitative effects. We perform a full event simulation and statistical analysis, and we compute the effects of both on- and off-shell production of the mediating particle, showing that for both the monojet and multi-jets plus missing energy searches, previously derived bounds provided more conservative bounds than what can be extracted by including all relevant processes in the simulation. Monojets and searches for supersymmetry (SUSY) provide comparable bounds on a wide range of the parameter space, with SUSY searches usually providing stronger bounds, except in the regions where the DM particle and the mediator are very mass degenerate. The EFT approximation rarely is able to reproduce the actual limits. In a second paper to follow, we consider the case of s-channel mediators.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 29 Oct 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 careful, honest event-level simulation showing narrow-width simplified-model recastings understate jets+MET reach for t-channel mediators by an O(1) factor in the coupling; the CMS comparison to prior bounds is the one loose end. This line is wrong

4 major objections · 8 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 47 references say.

The paper says, at Sec. II B, Fig. 4 (right panel), Sec. III A

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 4 · major

The headline claim of the abstract (abstract:s6) is that previously derived bounds were more conservative than what the full simulation gives, and the comparison to prior work [22–24] runs through the official simplified-model limits (black dashed in Fig. 4). For ATLAS this is clean: the authors' NWA simulation (blue) reproduces the official limit and the full simulation (orange) is stronger.

more of objection 1

For CMS the authors state they 'were unable reproduce its normalization' and attribute the discrepancy to their more conservative CLs treatment, yet they also call CMS their strongest constraint (Sec. III A). The manuscript never states explicitly whether the full-simulation orange curve is stronger than the official CMS black dashed curve. If it is not, the quantitative claim relative to prior work is not established for the strongest channel. Please state this comparison explicitly, at least at representative points in the (m_DM, m_M) plane, and separate the qualitative point (full simulation stronger than the authors' own NWA) from the quantitative point (full simulation stronger than the published simplified-model limit).

The paper says, at Sec. III A, Fig. 5(a)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 4 · major

The text states that in the black region of Fig. 5(a) 'the model is excluded for all g_M and hence all Λ', on the grounds that at small g_M the production is dominated by irreducible QCD and the width is narrow.

more of objection 2

This conclusion assumes the mediator decays promptly. Since Γ_min ∝ g_M^2 (Eq. 2), at sufficiently small g_M the mediator becomes long-lived, can hadronize, and the jets+MET search — which assumes prompt decays — no longer applies. Please quantify the g_M range over which the prompt-decay assumption holds (for example, the coupling at which cτ reaches a millimetre) and restrict the 'excluded for all g_M' statement accordingly, or state explicitly that the exclusion is claimed only for the prompt-decay window.

The paper says, at Appendix A.3, Eq. (A2)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 4 · major

The recombination of the three split samples rests on the N_I rescaling of Eq. (A2), which the authors themselves describe as 'clearly an approximation' that 'introduces up to O(30%) deviations in the rates', compounded by the Pythia6 forced on-shell mediator decay.

more of objection 3

Because the split sample produces the final contours in Figs. 5–10, this rate uncertainty propagates directly into the quoted contour positions. The manuscript asserts the effect is 'within our uncertainties once translated into a bound on the DM coupling' but does not show the propagated band. Please display the resulting uncertainty on the excluded g_M (or Λ) for at least one representative slice, and state explicitly in which regions the N_I-dependent curve, rather than the N_I-free pp→jjχχ curve (dotted orange), is doing the work.

The paper says, at Appendix A, Ref. [38]

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 4 of 4 · major

The entire analysis chain depends on Atom, which is listed in the references as 'in preparation'. The validation against the experimental papers is described in the text, but the tool itself is not publicly documented, so the central simulation cannot be independently reproduced from the manuscript as it stands. Please provide sufficient documentation of the recasting procedure, or a public release of the code, so that the validation against the ATLAS and CMS signal regions can be checked.

8 minor objections

The paper says, at Eq. (4)

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 8

The propagator denominator |m_M^2 − m_DM^2 − iΓ_M m_M|^2 is the form appropriate for s-channel exchange. For t-channel exchange at the small momentum transfers relevant for direct detection one would expect the denominator to reduce to m_M^4. Please clarify the convention or the approximation under which the m_DM^2 and width terms enter Eq. (4).

The paper says, at Abstract

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 8

The phrase 'previously derived bounds provided more conservative bounds' is redundant; 'previously derived bounds were more conservative' would read more cleanly.

show 6 more

The paper says, at Sec. II A

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 8

The sentence 'In the more compressed region, however, when mM−mDM & 300 GeV, additional jets in the matrix element must be included' appears to use the wrong inequality; the compressed region is mM−mDM ≲ 300 GeV, as the preceding sentence implies.

The paper says, at Sec. II A

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 8

The statement that the constraint on g_M changes 'as large as 50% in the compressed region' should specify whether the 50% refers to g_M or to the rate, since the two scale differently.

The paper says, at Fig. 10

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 8

The figure labels the jets+MET channel as 'dijet+MET' while the rest of the paper uses 'jets+MET'; please make the nomenclature uniform.

The paper says, at Sec. III A, footnote 4

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 8

The EFT limit is mimicked by setting the mediator mass to 5 TeV. Please confirm that the extracted Λ bound is insensitive to this choice, for example by repeating one representative point at 10 TeV, so that the EFT comparison is not an artifact of the chosen proxy mass.

The paper says, at Sec. II, Appendix A

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 8

The simulation study does not discuss the size of standard systematics (PDF choice, renormalization and factorization scales, jet energy scale, and the merging-scale uncertainty). A brief estimate of their impact on the excluded coupling would strengthen the quantitative claims.

The paper says, at Fig. 5

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 8

The axis and legend labels in Fig. 5 are garbled in the present version ('BestExclusionlimitfromjets+METongMforGSQ=Gmin'); please clean these up so the figure is readable independently of the caption.

What would settle it

Read off the orange (split-sample) and black dashed (official CMS simplified-model) curves in Fig. 4(c) at m_DM = 100, 300, and 500 GeV for m_M = 800 GeV. If the orange curve lies above (weaker than) the black dashed at any of these points, the claim that prior bounds were more conservative fails for CMS in that region, and the headline is undermined for the strongest channel. If orange lies below black dashed everywhere, the concern does not land and the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict can be relaxed toward ACCEPT on this point. A stronger version: recompute the CMS limit with the official multi-bin likelihood (if bin-to-bin correlations were available) and check whether the orange curve moves below the black dashed.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 29 Oct 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence high
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 6 min 37 s · 24,731 tokens read, 22,484 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 31 s · 25,691 tokens read, 1,745 written
  4. Referee major revision: 4 major objections, 8 minor 1 min 44 s · 24,983 tokens read, 5,890 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

Short version: this is the careful version of an argument people have been making loosely. Papucci, Vichi and Zurek simulate t-channel mediator DM production end to end — on-shell mediator pairs, mediator-DM associated production, off-shell continuum, finite width, extra ISR — and show that the narrow-width simplified-model recasting of refs [22-25] understates the jets+MET reach by an O(1) factor in the coupling. The EFT point is secondary and it lands: the EFT line only converges to the real limit above roughly 2 TeV, where the mediator is no longer a perturbative story anyway [abstract:s8]. The monojet-versus-SUSY comparison in [abstract:s7] is a fair summary of what the contours show, including the compressed-region exception at splittings near 10 GeV, which is a genuinely useful observation rather than a throwaway caveat. What earns credit is the validation in Fig. 4: their NWA simulation (blue) reproduces the ATLAS squark-neutralino simplified-model exclusion (black dashed) well. That is the check that matters, because it says the gap between their curves and prior work is physics, not event processing. They are also candid about their approximations — bwcutoff rescaling, forced on-shell Pythia decays, neglected interference between split samples, the CMS normalization they cannot reproduce. The classifier reports no stated limitations; that is wrong, they are stated in Sec. II and Appendix A. Where it is soft: the CMS channel. They cannot reproduce the official CMS simplified-model normalization and attribute it to their more conservative CLs. So the clean comparison against prior published bounds is really the ATLAS one. For CMS the internal blue-versus-orange comparison still shows NWA is more conservative, and the NI-free pp to jj chi chi curve carries the point outside the compressed region, so the headline survives — but the specific quantitative claim against the published CMS limit is not nailed down. Second, the NI rescaling's O(30%) rate error is never propagated into the contours. It moves gM by maybe ten percent, so it does not threaten the O(1) claim, but a band would cost them nothing. Third, Atom is in preparation with no release, and the whole efficiency chain runs through it. Who should read it: anyone converting monojet limits into direct-detection cross-sections, and anyone still quoting EFT monojet bounds without checking the mediator mass. The DD-plane bands in Figs. 8-9 are the useful deliverable. Recommendation: send it out. The direction is right, the method is a real step past the recastings, and the fixes are presentational.

The strongest objection

The central claim [abstract:s6] is that prior NWA simplified-model recastings gave more conservative bounds than the full simulation. For jets+MET, the comparison to prior work [22-24] runs through the official CMS and ATLAS simplified-model limits (black dashed in Fig. 4). For ATLAS, the authors' NWA simulation (blue) reproduces the official limit well, and the full simulation (orange) is stronger, so the claim holds. For CMS, however, the authors state they 'were unable reproduce its normalization' and attribute the discrepancy to their more conservative CLs treatment (Sec. II B). The full simulation (orange) is stronger than their own NWA (blue), but the text never states whether orange is stronger than the official CMS black dashed curve. Since the authors call CMS their strongest constraint (Sec. III A), if orange is not stronger than the official CMS limit, the headline 'previously derived bounds provided more conservative bounds' fails for the strongest channel. The clean internal comparison (blue vs orange) establishes the qualitative point that NWA is more conservative, but not the quantitative comparison to the specific prior bounds. This is the unresolved gap; the N_I rescaling flagged by the reader is a real approximation but shifts g_M by only ~7-15% (30% rate error, signal scaling as g^2 to g^4), which does not overturn an O(1) claim, and the N_I-free pp→jjχχ curve (dotted orange) carries the NWA-vs-full comparison outside the compressed region.

I read the full manuscript. The paper's central claim has two parts: (i) NWA simplified-model recasting is more conservative than a full simulation including on/off-shell mediator production, associated production, finite width, and ISR; (ii) the EFT rarely reproduces the actual limits. Part (ii) is well supported by Figs. 6-9: the EFT line (5 TeV mediator) lies outside the width band for m_M < 2 TeV and converges only above ~2 TeV, consistent with the text. Part (i) is supported by the internal blue-vs-orange comparison in Fig. 4, which is N_I-free in the non-compressed region (dotted orange, pp→jjχχ) and shows the NWA curve is less constraining almost everywhere. The reader's weakest assumption (the N_I rescaling of Eq. A2) is a real approximation, but its magnitude is overstated: a 30% rate error maps to roughly a 7-15% shift in g_M (the signal scales as g^2 for χq̃ associated production and g^4 for q̃q̃ and χχ+jets), not an O(1) factor, and the N_I-free pp→jjχχ curve carries the headline comparison outside the compressed region. The more load-bearing gap is the CMS normalization: the authors' strongest constraint is CMS, but they cannot reproduce the official CMS simplified-model limit and attribute the discrepancy to statistics, so the comparison to prior work [22-24] is confounded for that channel. The ATLAS comparison is clean and supports the claim. A secondary, unacknowledged issue: Eq. 4's DD propagator denominator |m_M^2 - m_DM^2 - iΓ m_M|^2 has the form of an s-channel propagator with √s = m_DM; for t-channel mediator exchange the denominator should be m_M^4 (t→0), so the DD contours in Figs. 8-9 may be off by up to a factor of ~30 in the compressed region. This does not affect the LHC contours (Figs. 5-7, 10) and is not part of the classifier's main claim, but it is a concrete formula-level issue worth checking. Overall, the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is appropriate; my concern shifts the reason from the N_I rescaling to the CMS normalization confound, and I would keep the verdict at CONDITIONAL.

The referee's report

If the central claim holds, the paper is a useful corrective to a body of work that recast monojet and jets+MET limits through narrow-width simplified models: it shows that the NWA can be quantitatively misleading at the O(1) level in g_M precisely where the searches are sensitive, and it maps the resulting bands onto the DD plane in a way that makes the model dependence explicit. The strengths are real and should be credited: a genuine full event simulation rather than a recast, an explicit external validation against the ATLAS squark–neutralino simplified model (Fig. 4), a careful split-sample treatment of on- versus off-shell mediator production, and a quantitative, falsifiable comparison between two search channels across the parameter space. The paper is also candid about its approximations (the N_I rescaling, the Pythia6 on-shell decay, the CMS normalization mismatch), which is to its credit.

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

Monojet searches at the LHC are routinely translated, through an effective field theory (EFT) operator, into a bound on dark matter scattering off nuclei. The paper's point is that this translation hides a particle: something must mediate the dark matter's interaction with quarks, and if that mediator is a coloured t-channel state (the supersymmetric squark is the template), it can be produced on shell at the LHC and searched for directly in jets plus missing energy. The authors redo both analyses with a full event simulation that keeps on-shell mediator pair production, mediator-dark matter associated production, the off-shell continuum, finite width, and extra initial-state jets, then set limits with a CLs statistical treatment. They find that the earlier narrow-width, simplified-model recastings gave bounds that were too conservative by an order-one factor in the dark matter coupling, and that jets plus missing energy typically beats monojets except when the mediator and the dark matter are nearly degenerate. The EFT, they argue, rarely reproduces the true limit: the answer is a band of allowed couplings in the mediator-mass plane, not a single line.

What carries the argument. The load-bearing device is a three-way splitting of the event sample, which lets the authors keep the on-shell resonant rate without assuming the narrow-width approximation everywhere. Sample one is mediator pair production plus zero, one, or two jets; sample two is dark matter plus a single mediator plus jets, with a second on-shell mediator vetoed; sample three is dark matter pair production plus jets with all on-shell mediators vetoed. Double counting is removed by the MadGraph on-shell resonance veto, and because the veto window $bwcutoff times Gamma_M$ is kept near $O(50)$ GeV for broad mediators, the samples are rescaled by the fraction of the Breit-Wigner contained in that window, $N_I = int_{I} BW(x),dx / Gamma_M$, with the event counts combined as $n_i = N_I^2 sigma_1 epsilon_1^i + N_I sigma_2 epsilon_2^i + sigma_3 epsilon_3^i$. Limits are then extracted with a CLs test statistic built from a Poisson likelihood for the signal on top of a Gaussian-constrained background, generalised to a multi-bin likelihood where the coupling $g$ rescales the signal in every bin. The same machinery is applied to monojet and to jets-plus-missing-energy signal regions from the 7 and 8 TeV ATLAS and CMS analyses, with the strongest single result quoted for each point in the plane.

Core claim. For a Standard-Model-singlet Dirac fermion $m_chi$ coupled with strength $g_M$ to a t-channel scalar mediator of mass $m_M$ (a squark-like state coupling to the first two quark families), the paper shows that the constraint on $g_M$ depends strongly on which production processes are included. Simulating only on-shell mediator pair production and applying the experimental squark-neutralino simplified-model efficiencies — the procedure used in earlier work — misses finite-width effects and the associated-production and off-shell diagrams, and yields bounds that are weaker than the true ones across much of the $(m_M, m_{DM})$ plane. The authors' combined sample (pair production, associated production, and continuum, each merged with up to two extra partons) gives exclusion contours that differ by an $O(1)$ factor in $g_M$. Comparing channels, jets plus missing energy excludes mediator masses up to roughly 600 GeV for dark matter below about 250 GeV when the width is the natural one, while monojets reach only about 500 GeV and 150 GeV; at heavier mediators the two are competitive, and monojets become the stronger probe only in the highly compressed regime with mass splittings of order 10 GeV. Expressed as a bound on the EFT scale $Lambda = m_M/g_M$, the results form bands parameterised by the mediator width rather than a single model-independent number, and the EFT curve matches the true limit only once the mediator is far above the reach of the searches.

The premise it rests on. The final contours rest on recombining three separately generated event samples with a Breit-Wigner rescaling factor that the authors themselves call an approximation, and which they estimate can shift the rates by up to about 30 percent before it is translated into a bound on the coupling.

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

Quoting a monojet limit as a model-independent bound on dark matter-nucleon scattering is only defensible when the mediator is far heavier than the search's missing-energy scale; otherwise the bound is one member of a width-parameterised band.

For t-channel mediators with natural width, the jets-plus-missing-energy searches already exclude mediator masses up to about 600 GeV, so a monojet-only interpretation of the same parameter space understates the reach.

In the compressed region, where the mediator and the dark matter differ in mass by only tens of GeV, the monojet channel becomes the more sensitive of the two because the mediator's decay jets are too soft to pass the multi-jet cuts.

Because the excluded coupling is often of order one, the mediator width is comparable to the jet transverse-momentum thresholds, so narrow-width recastings of supersymmetry simplified models are not a reliable translation for these dark matter models.

The authors' mapping onto the spin-independent direct-detection plane shows collider bands that sit on either side of the EFT line, so the EFT result is neither a floor nor a ceiling on the true constraint.

The same logic should apply to any coloured t-channel mediator, including ones with flavour-non-universal couplings; the paper's two extremes (all squarks versus only right-handed down-type squarks) bracket the multiplicity but not the parton-distribution-driven shape differences, which a flavoured mediator would shift further.

If the O(1) shift in the excluded coupling is generic, then the standard practice of publishing monojet limits as EFT operator coefficients is best read as a coordinate system for comparing experiments rather than as a physical constraint on a UV-complete model.

The residual reliance on a Breit-Wigner rescaling to recombine split samples suggests that a fully off-shell matrix-element calculation with matching at the mediator mass would be the clean way to settle the size of the finite-width effect; such a calculation is now feasible and would turn the authors' estimated 30 percent rate uncertainty into a controlled error bar.

Because the compressed region is where monojets dominate, a dedicated monojet search with a looser second-jet veto would be the natural place to close the remaining gap between the two channels.

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

Monojet searches using Effective Field Theory (EFT) operators are usually interpreted as a robust and model independent constraint on direct detection (DD) scattering cross-sections. At the same time, a mediator particle must be present to produce the dark matter (DM) at the LHC. This mediator particle may be produced on shell, so that direct searches for the mediating particle can constrain the effective operator being applied to monojet constraints. In this first paper, we do a case study on t-channel models in monojet searches, where the (Standard Model singlet) DM is pair produced via a t-channel mediating particle, whose supersymmetric analogue is the squark. We compare monojet constraints to direct constraints on single or pair production of the mediator from multi-jets plus missing energy searches and we identify the regions where the latter dominate over the former. We show that computing bounds using supersymmetric simplified models and in the narrow width approximation, as done in previous work in the literature, misses important quantitative effects. We perform a full event simulation and statistical analysis, and we compute the effects of both on- and off-shell production of the mediating particle, showing that for both the monojet and multi-jets plus missing energy searches, previously derived bounds provided more conservative bounds than what can be extracted by including all relevant processes in the simulation. Monojets and searches for supersymmetry (SUSY) provide comparable bounds on a wide range of the parameter space, with SUSY searches usually providing stronger bounds, except in the regions where the DM particle and the mediator are very mass degenerate. The EFT approximation rarely is able to reproduce the actual limits. In a second paper to follow, we consider the case of s-channel mediators.

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 0.52

“The EFT approximation rarely is able to reproduce the actual limits.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 0.96

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.20 · states limitation 0.42 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.27 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.11 · compares with prior results 0.97 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Monojet searches using Effective Field Theory (EFT) operators are usually interpreted as a robust and model independent constraint on direct detection (DD) scattering cross-sections. background 1.00 0.05 0.04 asserted 0.96
At the same time, a mediator particle must be present to produce the dark matter (DM) at the LHC. background 0.97 0.05 0.02 asserted 1.00
This mediator particle may be produced on shell, so that direct searches for the mediating particle can constrain the effective operator being applied to monojet constraints. background 0.99 0.06 0.04 hedged possibility 1.00
In this first paper, we do a case study on t-channel models in monojet searches, where the (Standard Model singlet) DM is pair produced via a t-channel mediating particle, whose supersymmetric analogue is the squark. contribution 0.89 0.57 0.05 asserted 0.95
We compare monojet constraints to direct constraints on single or pair production of the mediator from multi-jets plus missing energy searches and we identify the regions where the latter dominate over the former. contribution 0.90 0.93 0.16 asserted 1.00
We show that computing bounds using supersymmetric simplified models and in the narrow width approximation, as done in previous work in the literature, misses important quantitative effects. result 0.52 0.41 0.17 asserted 1.00
We perform a full event simulation and statistical analysis, and we compute the effects of both on- and off-shell production of the mediating particle, showing that for both the monojet and multi-jets plus missing energy searches, previously derived bounds provided more conservative bounds than what can be extracted by including all relevant processes in the simulation. result 0.66 0.96 0.34 asserted 1.00
Monojets and searches for supersymmetry (SUSY) provide comparable bounds on a wide range of the parameter space, with SUSY searches usually providing stronger bounds, except in the regions where the DM particle and the mediator are very mass degenerate. result 0.99 0.85 0.40 asserted 0.99
The EFT approximation rarely is able to reproduce the actual limits. result 0.86 0.70 0.32 asserted 0.96
In a second paper to follow, we consider the case of s-channel mediators. future work 1.00 0.18 0.02 asserted 0.78

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

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, 7,722 input tokens, $0.0003 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 (11)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sample Feynman diagrams for monojet
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Exclusion limit from monojet searches obtained simulating events according to the three
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. The squark-neutralino simplified model implicitly assumes that the cross-section
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Limits on
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. FIG. 6. Constraint on Λ =
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. FIG. 7. Exclusion bounds for a DM model containing only squarks
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. FIG. 8. Monojet (in red) and jets+MET (in blue) bounds on the DD cross-section as a function
Figure 9 of the paper
Figure 9. FIG. 9. Exclusion bounds for a DM model containing only squarks
Figure 10 of the paper
Figure 10. FIG. 10. Constraints from dijet+MET (blue) and monojet (red) on
Figure 11 of the paper
Figure 11. FIG. 11. Probability distribution function (a) and cumulative distribution function (b) of the test

Showing 10 of the paper's 11 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (47)
  1. [1] O. Nachtmann, A. Reiter, and M. Wirbel, Z.Phys. C27, 577 (1985) on Pith
  2. [2] D. Dicus, S. Nandi, and J. Woodside, Phys.Rev. D41, 2347 (1990) on Pith
  3. [3] A. Brignole, F. Feruglio, M. L. Mangano, and F. Zwirner, Nucl.Phys. B526, 136 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9801329 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] F. J. Petriello, S. Quackenbush, and K. M. Zurek, Phys.Rev. D77, 115020 (2008), arXiv:0803.4005 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] L. M. Carpenter, A. Nelson, C. Shimmin, T. M. Tait, and D. Whiteson, Phys.Rev. D87, 074005 (2013), arXiv:1212.3352 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] A. Birkedal, K. Matchev, and M. Perelstein, Phys.Rev. D70, 077701 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0403004 [hep-ph] on Pith
  7. [7] Y. Gershtein, F. Petriello, S. Quackenbush, and K. M. Zurek, Phys.Rev. D78, 095002 (2008), arXiv:0809.2849 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] A. Nelson, L. M. Carpenter, R. Cotta, A. Johnstone, and D. Whiteson, (2013), arXiv:1307.5064 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. Tait, et al. , Phys.Lett. B695, 185 (2011), arXiv:1005.1286 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. Tait, et al., Phys.Rev. D82, 116010 (2010), arXiv:1008.1783 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] Y. Bai, P. J. Fox, and R. Harnik, JHEP 1012, 048 (2010), arXiv:1005.3797 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [12] P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and Y. Tsai, Phys.Rev. D84, 014028 (2011), arXiv:1103.0240 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [13] P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and Y. Tsai, Phys.Rev. D85, 056011 (2012), arXiv:1109.4398 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [14] P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, R. Primulando, and C.-T. Yu, Phys.Rev. D86, 015010 (2012), arXiv:1203.1662 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [15] H. An, X. Ji, and L.-T. Wang, JHEP 1207, 182 (2012), arXiv:1202.2894 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] T. Lin, E. W. Kolb, and L.-T. Wang, Phys.Rev. D88, 063510 (2013), arXiv:1303.6638 [hep- ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [17] H. Davoudiasl, T. Han, and H. E. Logan, Phys.Rev. D71, 115007 (2005), 30 arXiv:hep-ph/0412269 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] L. Carpenter, A. DiFranzo, M. Mulhearn, C. Shimmin, S. Tulin,et al., (2013), arXiv:1312.2592 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, and J. Tattersall, Europhys.Lett. 102, 51001 (2013), arXiv:1303.3348 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] G. Busoni, A. De Simone, E. Morgante, and A. Riotto, Phys.Lett. B728, 412 (2014), arXiv:1307.2253 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 27 more
  1. [21] O. Buchmueller, M. J. Dolan, and C. McCabe, JHEP 1401, 025 (2014), arXiv:1308.6799 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] S. Chang, R. Edezhath, J. Hutchinson, and M. Luty, Phys.Rev. D89, 015011 (2014), arXiv:1307.8120 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] H. An, L.-T. Wang, and H. Zhang, (2013), arXiv:1308.0592 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [24] Y. Bai and J. Berger, JHEP 1311, 171 (2013), arXiv:1308.0612 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] A. DiFranzo, K. I. Nagao, A. Rajaraman, and T. M. P. Tait, JHEP 1311, 014 (2013), arXiv:1308.2679 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] “Search for squarks and gluinos with the ATLAS detector in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum and 20.3 fb −1 of√s = 8 TeV proton-proton collision data,” (2013), ATLAS-CONF-2013-047, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2013-049 on Pith
  7. [27] “Search for squarks and gluinos with the ATLAS detector using final states with jets and miss- ing transverse momentum and 5.8 fb−1 of√s=8 TeV proton-proton collision data,” (2012), ATLAS-CONF-2012-109, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2012-140 on Pith
  8. [28] “Search for squarks and gluinos using final states with jets and missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector in s = 7 TeV proton-proton collisions,” (2012), ATLAS-CONF- 2012-033 on Pith
  9. [29] “Search for pair-produced top squarks decaying into a charm quark and the lightest neutralinos with 20.3 fb−1 ofpp collisions at√s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” (2013), ATLAS-CONF-2013-068, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2013-076 on Pith
  10. [30] “Search for New Physics in the Multijets and Missing Momentum Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions at 8 TeV,” (2013), CMS-PAS-SUS-13-012 on Pith
  11. [31] “Search for supersymmetry in final states with missing transverse energy and 0, 1, 2, 3, or at least 4 b-quark jets in 8 TeV pp collisions using the variable AlphaT,” (2012), 31 CMS-PAS-SUS-12-028 on Pith
  12. [32] “Search for supersymmetery in final states with missing transverse momentum and 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 b jets with CMS,” (2012), CMS-PAS-SUS-11-022 on Pith
  13. [33] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett. 109, 171803 (2012), arXiv:1207.1898 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] R. Mahbubani, M. Papucci, G. Perez, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Weiler, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 151804 (2013), arXiv:1212.3328 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, JHEP 0701, 013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611129 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [37] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [38] I.-W. Kim, M. Papucci, K. Sakurai, and A. Weiler, in preparation on Pith
  19. [39] A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, L. Lonnblad, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, et al. , Com- put.Phys.Commun. 184, 2803 (2013), arXiv:1003.0694 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur.Phys.J. C72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  21. [41] “Search for new physics in monojet events in pp collisions at sqrt(s)= 8 TeV,” (2013), CMS- PAS-EXO-12-048 on Pith
  22. [42] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 1209, 094 (2012), arXiv:1206.5663 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  23. [43] “Search for New Phenomena in Monojet plus Missing Transverse Momentum Final States using 10fb-1 of pp Collisions at sqrts=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” (2012), ATLAS-CONF-2012-147, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2012-190 on Pith
  24. [44] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JHEP 1304, 075 (2013), arXiv:1210.4491 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [45] W. Beenakker, R. Hopker, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas, Nucl.Phys. B492, 51 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9610490 [hep-ph] on Pith
  26. [46] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur.Phys.J. C71, 1554 (2011), arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [47] B. Mistlberger and F. Dulat, (2012), arXiv:1204.3851 [hep-ph]. 32 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
Cited by 39 Pith papers

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

  1. A universal framework for t-channel dark matter models hep-ph · Jan 2020
  2. The Leptoquark Hunter's Guide: Large Coupling hep-ph · Oct 2018
  3. Signatures from Scalar Dark Matter with a Vector-like Quark Mediator hep-ph · Nov 2015
  4. The Coannihilation Codex hep-ph · Oct 2015
  5. Connecting Dark Matter UV Complete Models to Direct Detection Rates via Effective Field Theory hep-ph · Nov 2014
  6. Constraining Dark Sectors at Colliders: Beyond the Effective Theory Approach hep-ph · Nov 2014
  7. Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV $pp$ collision data collected by the ATLAS detector hep-ex · Mar 2019
  8. Search for dark matter and other new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and large missing transverse momentum using the ATLAS detector hep-ex · Nov 2017
  9. LHC Searches for Dark Sector Showers hep-ph · Jul 2017
  10. Determining the CP nature of spin-0 mediators in associated production of dark matter and $t \bar t$ pairs hep-ph · Nov 2016
  11. Forbidden Dark Matter at the Weak Scale via the Top Portal hep-ph · Aug 2016
  12. Effective Theory of WIMP Dark Matter supplemented by Simplified Models: Singlet-like Majorana fermion case hep-ph · Apr 2016
  13. Mono-W Dark Matter Signals at the LHC: Simplified Model Analysis hep-ph · Dec 2015
  14. Discovering Inelastic Thermal-Relic Dark Matter at Colliders hep-ph · Aug 2015
  15. Robust collider limits on heavy-mediator Dark Matter hep-ph · Feb 2015
  16. Scalar Simplified Models for Dark Matter hep-ph · Oct 2014
  17. Characterising dark matter searches at colliders and direct detection experiments: Vector mediators hep-ph · Jul 2014
  18. Wino-like Minimal Dark Matter and future colliders hep-ph · Jul 2014
  19. On the Validity of the Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC Part III: Analysis for the $t$-channel hep-ph · May 2014
  20. Hidden On-Shell Mediators for the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess hep-ph · Apr 2014
  21. Generating X-ray lines from annihilating dark matter hep-ph · Apr 2014
  22. Simplified Dark Matter Models for the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess hep-ph · Mar 2014
  23. Majorana Dark Matter with a Coloured Mediator: Collider vs Direct and Indirect Searches hep-ph · Mar 2014
  24. Mono-Higgs Detection of Dark Matter at the LHC hep-ph · Feb 2014
  25. Lepton Portal Dark Matter hep-ph · Feb 2014
  26. Dark matter with $t$-channel mediator: a simple step beyond contact interaction hep-ph · Aug 2013
  27. Theory, phenomenology, and experimental avenues for dark showers: a Snowmass 2021 report hep-ph · Mar 2022
  28. Towards the next generation of simplified Dark Matter models hep-ex · Jul 2016
  29. S-Channel Dark Matter Simplified Models and Unitarity hep-ph · Apr 2016
  30. Simplified Models for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC hep-ph · Jun 2015
  31. Interplay and Characterization of Dark Matter Searches at Colliders and in Direct Detection Experiments hep-ex · Sep 2014
  32. Leptophilic Effective WIMPs hep-ph · Feb 2014
  33. Dark sector searches with the CMS experiment hep-ex · May 2024
  34. Dark Matter Searches at Colliders hep-ex · Oct 2018
  35. Review of LHC Dark Matter Searches hep-ph · Feb 2017
  36. Simplified Models vs. Effective Field Theory Approaches in Dark Matter Searches hep-ph · Mar 2016
  37. Signatures of Majorana dark matter with t-channel mediators hep-ph · Mar 2015
  38. Simplified Models for Dark Matter and Missing Energy Searches at the LHC hep-ph · Sep 2014
  39. The Pursuit of Dark Matter at Colliders - An Overview hep-ex · Dec 2017

Topics: Dark Matter, Dark Matter

How later papers used it

75 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 71 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 10 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 19 of the 115 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

Uses its method or tool 2 of 3 papers with this label
Compares with it 1 paper · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

How the literature uses it

74 arXiv papers cite this in 114 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 · 66 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper
  • This complements and extends similar studies for minimal dark sectors [ref] , as well as searches for complex dark sectors coupled via s-channel mediators [ref] .

    Collider constraints on dark mediators · Introduction · 0.95

Uses its method or tool 3 papers
Compares with it 1 paper
  • We can see that in comparison to the mono-jets and jets + $$ constraints derived in [ref] , the constraints from mono-$Z$ production are very weak. 14 TeV projections, performed with the procedure described in Appendix [ref], are shown in the right panel of Fig. [ref].

    Mono-X Versus Direct Searches: Simplified Models for Dark Matter at the LHC · Squarks with mono-$Z$ · 0.97

Cites it as support 7 papers
Cites it as background 32 papers

What it cites · 42 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 6 papers
  • The events were then showered using Pythia6 [ref] , and then passed through Atom [ref] , a software package for reinterpreting BSM searches based on Rivet [ref] , and finally Fastjet [ref] for jet clustering.

    FastJet user manual · Monojet: importance of additional jets · 1.00

  • The events were then showered using Pythia6 [ref] , and then passed through Atom [ref] , a software package for reinterpreting BSM searches based on Rivet [ref] , and finally Fastjet [ref] for jet clustering.

    Rivet user manual · Monojet: importance of additional jets · 1.00

  • The events were then showered using Pythia6 [ref] , and then passed through Atom [ref] , a software package for reinterpreting BSM searches based on Rivet [ref] , and finally Fastjet [ref] for jet clustering.

    PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual · Monojet: importance of additional jets · 1.00

Uses data or values from 3 papers
Cites as support 2 papers
  • If the mediator is accessible and sufficiently heavy (with a mass of the order of the MET cut applied in the monojet search) the actual bounds will be stronger than the EFT limit on account of resonant production [ref] .

    Missing Energy Signatures of Dark Matter at the LHC · Introduction · 0.97

  • On the other hand if the mediator (and the DM) is light the signal will appear mostly in the region contaminated by the SM and the constraints from an EFT analysis are overly strong [ref] .

    Light dark matter and $Z'$ dark force at colliders · Introduction · 0.97

Cites as background 19 papers
  • This dijet final state, and the comparison to the monojet final state, has already been considered in the literature [ref] .

    Effective WIMPs · The Model and the Searches · 0.87

  • This dijet final state, and the comparison to the monojet final state, has already been considered in the literature [ref] .

    Dark matter with $t$-channel mediator: a simple step beyond contact interaction · The Model and the Searches · 0.87

  • This dijet final state, and the comparison to the monojet final state, has already been considered in the literature [ref] .

    Fermion Portal Dark Matter · The Model and the Searches · 0.87

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