Minimal Composite Dynamics versus Axion Origin of the Diphoton excess

Emiliano Molinaro; Francesco Sannino; Natascia Vignaroli

REVIEW

Minimal Composite Dynamics versus Axion Origin of the Diphoton excess

Emiliano Molinaro, Francesco Sannino, Natascia Vignaroli

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 16 Dec 2015 · 56 references

Pith's verdict: A competent composite-eta-prime reading of the 750 GeV bump, with a genuinely useful WZW coupling computation undermined by two dimensionally wrong equations in exactly the places that matter.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1512.05334 (version 3)

Pith IDVTNB5POI, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationEmiliano Molinaro, Francesco Sannino, Natascia Vignaroli. "Minimal Composite Dynamics versus Axion Origin of the Diphoton excess." arXiv:1512.05334 (2015). https://pith.science/paper/VTNB5POI

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Two things to know up front. The axion half of this is bread-and-butter and correctly done. The composite half is the part worth your time, and it has two equations that are dimensionally wrong as printed — typos, I think, but they sit on the load-bearing lines. Also, the excess is gone; the paper's value now is as a template, not as an explanation of anything real. Read it that way and it's fine. Read it as a claim about the world and it isn't. What's actually new: they read the 750 GeV pseudoscalar as the singlet eta-prime of a minimal SU(N_T) technicolor sector with two Dirac flavors, then work out the Wess-Zumino-Witten contributions to the a-photon, a-Z, a-ZZ and a-WW couplings (Eqs. 21-24) on top of the heavy-T loop. That's an explicit, usable computation, and the discriminant they propose is clean: the composite state has WW and ZZ branching ratios enhanced relative to the axion, whose dijet rate dominates. That's a real, falsifiable separation rather than hand-waving. Soft spots, in order of how much they matter. Eqs. (18) and (19) are wrong as printed: (19) carries (F_T/f_pi)^3 where the quoted 6/N_T TeV needs exponent 1, and (18) has mass dimension 6 instead of 2. Eq. (21) has F_T where it needs 1/F_T — taken literally it gives g ~ 1.8 GeV^-1 and a width vastly larger than the mass. Fig. 2 clearly uses the right normalization, so this is a slip, not a physics error, but a reader cannot reproduce the figure from the text. Second: 'naturally accommodates 750 GeV' is a discrete pick of N_T = 6 or 8 after importing the QCD eta-prime mass relation wholesale. That's a selection, not a prediction, and the paper should say so more plainly. Third: the claim that the composite scenario survives a top coupling as large as m_t/F_T is asserted with no numbers shown. Fourth, ref [48], which carries the photon-fusion fraction, has no resolvable record. None of this breaks the central claim as stated, which is conditional on the excess being real. Model builders working on composite pNGBs will get something from the WZW section, and anyone wanting a worked example of using an anomalous sector as a discriminant should look at Fig. 2. Worth a referee report; the fixes are local and minor.

Referee report

Major objections (4)

[Minimal Composite Dynamics, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The printed mass formula m_a = sqrt(2/3)(F_T/f_π)³(3/N_T)m_η0 ≈ 6/N_T TeV is dimensionally inconsistent. With F_T = 246 GeV, f_π = 92 MeV, and m_η0 = 849 MeV, the printed expression evaluates to ~4×10⁷/N_T TeV, not 6/N_T TeV; the numerical value 6/N_T TeV is reproduced only if the exponent is 1, not 3. Eq. (18) for κ is likewise dimensionally wrong: κ = 16F_T²f_π²m_η0²/(9N_T) has mass dimension 6, whereas Eq. (16) requires κ to have mass dimension 2, since L_ma = κF_T²/(8N_T)Tr[lnU - lnU†]² and Tr[lnU - lnU†]² ~ a²/F_T². This is load-bearing: the claim that 750 GeV 'naturally emerges' for N_T = 6 and 8, and the anchor of the composite fit in Fig. 2, rest on this formula. Please correct Eqs. (18)-(19) and show the matching to the QCD η' explicitly.
[Minimal Composite Dynamics, Eqs. (21)-(24)] Eq. (2) defines g_{V1V2} with mass dimension -1 (a has dimension 1, V~V has dimension 4), and Eq. (5) respects this with 1/f_a. Eq. (21), g^comp_{A~A} = (1+y²)e²F_T d(R)/(8π²), has mass dimension +1. Taken literally with F_T = 246 GeV and d(R) = 6, it gives g_{A~A} ~ 1.8 GeV^-1 and Γ(a→γγ) ~ 7×10⁶ GeV, far exceeding m_a. The physically sensible normalization is 1/F_T, which gives g_{A~A} ~ 3×10⁻⁵ GeV^-1 and Γ_γγ ~ 2 MeV. As printed, the reader cannot reproduce Fig. 2 or the branching-ratio pattern that is supposed to disentangle the composite from the axion scenario. Please correct the normalization in Eqs. (21)-(24) and state the convention explicitly.
[Minimal Composite Dynamics, paragraph after Eq. (19)] The claim that the composite model 'naturally accommodates the 750 GeV mass' is a discrete selection over N_T rather than a prediction: the scaling m_a ∝ 1/N_T is imported from the QCD η' relation through the matching in Eq. (18), and 750 GeV is obtained by choosing N_T = 6 or 8. Please soften the naturalness language or justify why the QCD η' matching is expected to hold in a near-conformal sector with N_T = 6, 8.
[Minimal Composite Dynamics, Fig. 2 and disentangling discussion] The paper argues that the axion and composite scenarios can be disentangled by the WW, ZZ, Zγ, and di-jet channels, but the quantitative significance of the separation is not given. Please provide at least one quantitative estimate (expected event rates and uncertainties at 100 fb^-1) showing that the channels separate the two scenarios at a stated confidence level.

Minor objections (8)

[References] Reference [48] is a placeholder ('*** Non-standard form, no INSPIRE lookup performed ***'). Please provide the full citation.
[Eq. (2)] The sum over V1~V2 is ambiguous: please state whether it runs over ordered pairs, since the factor of 2 affects the matching to Eq. (7).
[Fig. 2, left panel] Regions 2 and 3 correspond to |y_T|m_T/F_T > sqrt(4π), which the paper itself calls non-perturbative. Please state explicitly whether region 1 alone can explain the excess, and if so, what the branching ratios are.
[Axion Realisation, Eq. (1)] The fit assumes the fermion couplings in Eq. (1) are negligible, but the paper itself notes that m_t/f_a ~ 0.7 would kill the diphoton rate. Please state what symmetry or mechanism suppresses the top coupling.
[Eq. (10)] Please state the value of α_S used to obtain the branching ratios in Eq. (10).
[Axion Realisation, paragraph after Eq. (10)] The statement that the branching ratio into two photons 'dominates with respect to the other EW channels' is correct, but it should be clarified that the gg channel is the dominant decay (B ~ 0.99), not the γγ channel.
[Eq. (19)] Please give the numerical coefficient and the assumed values of F_T, f_π, and m_η0 used to obtain '≈ 6/N_T TeV'.
[Fig. 1] The vertical bar at 750 GeV is described as the ±1σ deviation from the central value of the excess; please state whether the band corresponds to the ATLAS fit alone or to the combined ATLAS+CMS fit.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that a single 750 GeV pseudoscalar can explain the diphoton excess either as a low-scale axion or as a composite eta-prime, and that the two readings can be separated by their gauge-boson decays.

The reading

The paper asks whether the 750 GeV diphoton excess reported by ATLAS and CMS can be explained by a single new pseudoscalar, and whether that state's ultraviolet origin can be identified. It shows that an effective pseudoscalar coupled to gluons and photons through a heavy vectorlike quark fits the roughly 6 fb signal for $f_a/|y_T|$ near 245 GeV. The same state can be read as the singlet $eta'$ of a minimal composite gauge sector with two techniflavors, where the QCD-like anomalous mass relation gives $m_a$ of about $6/N_T$ TeV and therefore 750 GeV for $N_T=6$ or 8. The two readings differ in their gauge-boson branching ratios because the composite case adds Wess-Zumino-Witten couplings, so the paper argues that run-2 measurements can separate an elementary axion-like state from a composite one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a CP-odd pseudoscalar $a$ whose couplings to Standard Model gauge bosons are generated either by a heavy colored fermion loop or by the gauged Wess-Zumino-Witten term of a composite sector. In the elementary case the $T$-loop gives $g_{aGG}$, $g_{a gamma gamma}$, $g_{aZ gamma}$, and $g_{aZZ}$ in terms of $y_T/f_a$; in the composite case the same couplings receive additional terms proportional to $F_T d(R)/(8 pi^2)$, with $d(R)$ the dimension of the technifermion representation. The composite mass is fixed by the anomalous mass term $mathcal{L}_{m_a}=kappa F_T^2/(8N_T) mathrm{Tr}[ln U-ln U^dagger]^2$, matched to the QCD $eta'$ normalization, which yields $m_a$ of about $6/N_T$ TeV. That anomaly-driven coupling structure is what makes the two ultraviolet completions experimentally distinguishable.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the diphoton bump need not point to a unique new sector: one low-energy pseudoscalar can accommodate the excess either as a low-scale axion-like particle or as a composite $eta'$-like state of minimal dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking. In the axion-like reading a vectorlike quark $T$ generates the $aGG$, $a gamma gamma$, $aZ gamma$, and $aZZ$ couplings, and the observed rate fixes $f_a/|y_T|$ near the electroweak scale. In the composite reading the same $a$ is the singlet pseudoscalar of an $SU(N_T)$ gauge sector with $N_F=2$; its mass follows the anomalous $eta'$ relation, and its couplings receive extra topological contributions that change the branching ratios. The paper's further claim is that these differences are large enough to disentangle the two scenarios at the LHC, especially through $WW$, $ZZ$, and $Z gamma$ channels.

Load-bearing premise

The composite reading assumes that the anomalous mass term of a near-conformal gauge sector follows the QCD $eta'$ normalization, so that $m_a$ is about $6/N_T$ TeV and a 750 GeV state is obtained by choosing $N_T=6$ or 8.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The axion-like fit predicts a $Z gamma$ signal with roughly the same event yield as the diphoton excess once about 100 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV data are collected.
The composite $eta'$ predicts suppressed dijet production but non-negligible $WW$ and enhanced $ZZ$ rates, all within current 8 TeV and 13 TeV bounds.
The vectorlike quark $T$ that generates the axion-like couplings should be within reach of the current LHC run, with run-1 data already requiring $m_T$ above about 800 GeV.
If the pseudoscalar couples to the Standard Model top with strength $m_t/f_a$, the axion-like reading loses its diphoton branching ratio, whereas the composite reading can still fit because of its topological couplings.
A 750 GeV mass arises naturally in the composite reading for $N_T=6$ or 8, tying the resonance to a specific number of new colors.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's dual fit suggests that the diphoton excess alone is a poor discriminator: many ultraviolet completions can reproduce one number, so the useful observable is the full set of gauge-boson branching ratios.
If the composite reading is correct, the 750 GeV state is a first direct handle on the topological sector of a near-conformal technicolor-like theory, and its $WW$ and $ZZ$ decays become a probe of the new strong dynamics rather than just a resonance search.
The discrete choice $N_T=6$ or 8 is a postdiction for the mass; a future measurement of the state's total width or of a second composite resonance could turn the number of technicolors into a testable label.
The low fitted decay constant, $f_a/|y_T|$ near 245 GeV, places the axion-like reading in a low-scale axion-like-particle regime rather than a conventional invisible axion, which invites dedicated searches for its top and electroweak couplings.

Original abstract

ATLAS and CMS observe deviations from the expected background in the diphoton invariant mass searches of new resonances around 750 GeV. We show that a simple realization in terms of a new pseudoscalar state can accommodate the observations. The model leads to further footprints that can be soon observed. The new state can be interpreted both as an axion or as a {highly natural} composite state arising from minimal models of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking. We further show how to disentangle the two scenarios. Beyond the possible explanation of the diphoton excess the results show that it is possible to directly test and constrain composite dynamics via processes stemming from its distinctive topological sector.

The compiled record

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. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,819 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.13 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.20 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.36 · compares with prior results 0.38 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

ATLAS and CMS observe deviations from the expected background in the diphoton invariant mass searches of new resonances around 750 GeV. We show that a simple realization in terms of a new pseudoscalar state can accommodate the observations. The model leads to further footprints that can be soon observed. The new state can be interpreted both as an axion or as a {highly natural} composite state arising from minimal models of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking. We further show how to disentangle the two scenarios. Beyond the possible explanation of the diphoton excess the results show that it is possible to directly test and constrain composite dynamics via processes stemming from its distinctive topological sector.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	ATLAS and CMS observe deviations from the expected background in the diphoton invariant mass searches of new resonances around 750 GeV.	background 1.00	0.06	0.03	asserted 1.00
s1	We show that a simple realization in terms of a new pseudoscalar state can accommodate the observations.	result 0.58	0.93	0.38	asserted 0.97
s2	The model leads to further footprints that can be soon observed.	result 0.36	0.69	0.11	asserted 0.86
s3	The new state can be interpreted both as an axion or as a {highly natural} composite state arising from minimal models of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking.	interpretation 0.99	0.61	0.33	hedged possibility 0.66
s4	We further show how to disentangle the two scenarios.	contribution 0.86	0.89	0.13	asserted 1.00
s5	Beyond the possible explanation of the diphoton excess the results show that it is possible to directly test and constrain composite dynamics via processes stemming from its distinctive topological sector.	interpretation 0.86	0.83	0.46	asserted 0.84

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.32.

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

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** shows the production cross-section of the pseudoscalar a at the LHC with √ s = 13 TeV as function of ma for the specific fa/yT value which reproduces the ATLAS excess, and for a 1 TeV vectorlike quark T. A fit to the ATLAS excess, in the narrow-widthapproximation, gives the value σ(pp → a → 2γ) = (6 ± 3) fb. Remarkably this value is reproduced by our model for an fa scale fa/|yT | = 245+100 −45 GeV , (11) with mT = 1 TeV. We find a very mild dependence of our results on the T mass. A lower limit on mT of the order �� ma [GeV]

Showing 1 of the paper's 2 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:1512.05334 by the authors.

References

Works cited (56)

[48]

S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorﬀ, O. Kepka, B. Lenzi, C. Royon and M. Saimpert, Phys. Rev. D 89, 114004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.114004 [arXiv:1312.5153 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[3]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 974 (1976). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.974

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.13.974 1976
[4]

L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619 (1979). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2619

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.20.2619 1979
[5]

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 136, 183 (1984). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91177-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91177-8 1984
[6]

D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 136, 187 (1984). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91178-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91178-x 1984
[7]

P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 95, 247 (1980). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90480-3

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90480-3 1980
[8]

F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 71, 051901 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.051901 [hep- ph/0405209]

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.051901 2005
[9]

D. D. Dietrich, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 055001 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.055001 [hep-ph/0505059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[10]

T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 78, 115010 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.115010 [arXiv:0809.0713 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[11]

A. Belyaev, R. Foadi, M. T. Frandsen, M. Jarvi- nen, F. Sannino and A. Pukhov, Phys. Rev. D 79, 035006 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.035006 [arXiv:0809.0793 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[12]

D. B. Franzosi, M. T. Frandsen and F. San- nino, Phys. Rev. D 92, 115005 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.115005 [arXiv:1506.04392 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[13]

with the eﬀective couplings in (5) and we calculate the a production cross-section at leading order. The QCD next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections are cal- culated using the model provided in [14]. For ma≃ 750 GeV we obtain a NLO K-factor: KNLO≃ 2.6. Fig. 1 shows the production cross-section of the pseu- doscalar a at the LHC with √s = 13 TeV as functio...

View on Pith
[14]

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Matte- laer and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106, 128 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128 [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[15]

F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, B. Page and M. Zaro, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 9, 3065 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3065-2 [arXiv:1407.5089 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[16]

CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS- B2G-12-017

View on Pith
[17]

The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2015-012

View on Pith 2015
[18]

N. Vignaroli, Phys. Rev. D 86, 075017 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.075017 [arXiv:1207.0830 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[19]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 5, 052007 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052007 [arXiv:1407.1376 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[20]

CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS- EXO-14-005

View on Pith
[21]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 3, 032004 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.032004 [arXiv:1504.05511 [hep-ex]]. 6

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[22]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 750, 494 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.062 [arXiv:1506.02301 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[23]

T. Appelquist and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 59, 067702 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.067702 [hep- ph/9806409]

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.067702 1999
[24]

T. Appelquist, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 60, 116007 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.116007 [hep-ph/9906555]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[25]

Z. y. Duan, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva and F. San- nino, Nucl. Phys. B 592, 371 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(00)00550-2 [hep-ph/0001303]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[26]

D. D. Dietrich, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 73, 037701 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.037701 [hep-ph/0510217]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[27]

D. D. Dietrich and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 75, 085018 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.085018 [hep- ph/0611341]

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.085018 2007
[28]

R. Foadi, M. T. Frandsen, T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 76, 055005 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.055005 [arXiv:0706.1696 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[29]

R. Foadi, M. T. Frandsen and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 9, 095001 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.095001 [arXiv:1211.1083 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[30]

G. Bergner, T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, JHEP 1512, 054 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)054 [arXiv:1510.01763 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[31]

S. Catterall and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 76, 034504 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034504 [arXiv:0705.1664 [hep-lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[32]

A. Hietanen, J. Rantaharju, K. Rummukainen and K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys. A 820, 191C (2009). doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.01.047

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.01.047 2009
[33]

L. Del Debbio, B. Lucini, A. Patella, C. Pica and A. Rago, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014510 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014510 [arXiv:1004.3206 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[34]

T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074507 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.074507 [arXiv:1102.2843 [hep-lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[35]

T. Appelquist, G. T. Fleming, M. F. Lin, E. T. Neil and D. A. Schaich, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054501 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.054501 [arXiv:1106.2148 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[36]

T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054503 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.054503 [arXiv:1006.0707 [hep-lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[37]

Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. No- gradi and C. H. Wong, JHEP 1509, 039 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)039 [arXiv:1506.06599 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[38]

A. Hasenfratz, Y. Liu and C. Y. H. Huang, arXiv:1507.08260 [hep-lat]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[39]

A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner and B. Lu- cini, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 11, 114508 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.114508 [arXiv:1412.5994 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[40]

H. S. Fukano and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 82, 035021 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.035021 [arXiv:1005.3340 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[41]

B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 143, 227 (1984). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90840-2

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90840-2 1984
[42]

G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 213 (1979). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90332-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90332-8 1979
[43]

P. Di Vecchia and F. Sannino, Eur. Phys. J. Plus129, 262 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2014-14262-4 [arXiv:1310.0954 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[44]

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 269 (1979). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2 1979
[45]

O. Kaymakcalan, S. Rajeev and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 30, 594 (1984). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.594

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.594 1984
[46]

E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 117, 324 (1982). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90728-6

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90728-6 1982
[47]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1307, 122 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)122 [arXiv:1305.0491 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[49]

*** Non-standard form, no INSPIRE lookup performed ***

View on Pith
[50]

The ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-071

View on Pith 2015
[51]

The ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-075

View on Pith 2015
[52]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 1, 45 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3820-z [arXiv:1507.05930 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[53]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1601, 032 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)032 [arXiv:1509.00389 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[54]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 738, 428 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.002 [arXiv:1407.8150 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[55]

CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS- B2G-13-008

View on Pith
[56]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1508, 148 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)148 [arXiv:1505.07018 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[57]

A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D (2016) 1, 015017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.015017 [arXiv:1512.04931 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[58]

Y. Mambrini, G. Arcadi and A. Djouadi, arXiv:1512.04913 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 35 Pith papers

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

Precision tools and models to narrow in on the 750 GeV diphoton resonance
hep-ph 2016-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Forty SARAH model files plus automated NLO and N3LO diphoton and digluon decay rates let any weakly coupled 750 GeV explanation be checked with the same precision machinery.
Singlets in Composite Higgs Models in light of the LHC di-photon searches
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

All composite Higgs models with top partners contain a singlet pseudoscalar coupling to gauge bosons through the Wess-Zumino-Witten anomaly, and only a subset survives LHC di-boson bounds if it explains the 750 GeV di...
Flavor Anomalies, the Diphoton Excess and a Dark Matter Candidate
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A singlet scalar at 750 GeV, produced via leptoquark loops and decaying to photons via new vector-like fermions, is proposed to explain the diphoton excess, the B-physics anomalies, and dark matter at once.
Interpreting a 750 GeV Diphoton Resonance
hep-ph 2015-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A 750 GeV spin-zero diphoton resonance requires a photon coupling above about 2.7 and cannot be a pure singlet, doublet, 2HDM scalar, or vacuum-stable MSSM Higgs.
A Visible QCD Axion from an Enlarged Color Group
hep-ph 2016-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Enlarging the color group to SU(3+N') gives the QCD axion a second nonperturbative mass contribution from the hidden SU(N') confinement scale, allowing an electroweak-scale axion searchable at the LHC.

Show 30 more citing papers

Indirect Constraints on the Scalar Di-Photon Resonance at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A beta-function-based calculability criterion shows that perturbative weakly coupled explanations of the 750 GeV diphoton excess require very large charges or multiplicities, and low-energy precision data tightly cons...
A new scalar resonance at 750 GeV: Towards a proof of concept in favor of strongly interacting theories
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A singlet scalar coupled to vector-like fermions can fit the 750 GeV diphoton excess at low energy, but its couplings run to strong coupling or vacuum instability at high energy unless finely tuned.
Shedding Light on Diphoton Resonances
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Ratios of resonant diboson branching fractions are fixed by the Standard Model gauge representations of the matter coupling to or constituting the resonance, giving a representation probe that survives Higgs mixing fo...
Di-photon Excess Explained by a Resonant Sneutrino in R-parity Violating Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV sneutrino with R-parity violating couplings and a 375 to 389 GeV stau in the loop reproduces the LHC di-photon excess while staying under di-jet bounds.
On the 750 GeV di-photon excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A gauge-singlet scalar explains the 750 GeV diphoton excess far more easily than a second Higgs doublet, and cascade decays of a heavier resonance can fit the 13 TeV signal while staying under 8 TeV limits.
Asymmetric Dark Matter in the Sun and the Diphoton Excess at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 2 GeV asymmetric dark matter particle coupled through scalar and pseudoscalar mediators can accommodate both the solar abundance anomaly and the 750 GeV diphoton excess, provided an unspecified additional sector sup...
LHC diphoton 750 GeV resonance as an indication of $SU(3)_c\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A neutral CP-even scalar of a 3-3-1 gauge model, coupled to photons and gluons through vector-like fermion loops, is offered as the source of the 750 GeV diphoton excess.
Vector Leptoquarks and the 750 GeV Diphoton Resonance at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV singlet scalar coupled to TeV-scale vector leptoquarks has viable parameter space to produce the observed diphoton rate without violating unitarity, Higgs measurements, or resonance searches.
The LHC diphoton resonance from gauge symmetry
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 3-3-1 gauge extension of the Standard Model supplies the vector-like quarks and a singlet scalar that can fit the 750 GeV diphoton excess, with the scalar-quark couplings tuned to the data.
One jet to rule them all: monojet constraints and invisible decays of a 750 GeV diphoton resonance
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Recasting the 8 TeV ATLAS monojet search excludes mediator scales below roughly 500 to 650 GeV for a 750 GeV scalar portal to Majorana dark matter, leaving narrow windows where a broad diphoton resonance and the relic...
Tricking Landau-Yang: How to obtain the diphoton excess from a vector resonance
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A new Z' boson decaying to a photon plus a GeV-scale scalar, whose two photons merge in the calorimeter, can reproduce the 750 GeV diphoton excess without violating the Landau-Yang theorem.
750 GeV Diphotons from a D3-brane
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A probe D3-brane in an F-theory GUT yields a 750 GeV scalar modulus whose dimension-five couplings to Standard Model gauge fields can reproduce the reported diphoton excess, with correlated ZZ and Z gamma signals.
Interpreting $750$ GeV Diphoton Excess with R-parity Violating Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The 750 GeV diphoton excess can be fit by a first-generation sneutrino resonance in leptonic R-parity-violating MSSM, with slepton loops boosted by a 10 TeV trilinear soft term, favoring smuon and stau masses near 375...
Symmetries Behind the 750 GeV Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A gauged baryon-number or B+L model with a 750 GeV scalar and anomaly-cancelling vector-like quarks can accommodate the LHC diphoton excess, with the width supplied by a tuned dark matter coupling.
The 750 GeV $S$-cion: Where else should we look for it?
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Associated production of the 750 GeV diphoton resonance with Z or W bosons would yield detectable gamma-gamma-lepton-lepton, gamma-gamma-lepton-plus-missing-energy, and three-lepton-plus-photon-plus-missing-energy sig...
A resonance without resonance: scrutinizing the diphoton excess at 750 GeV
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A cascade of two pseudoscalars, a heavy one near 1.75 TeV decaying to two 750 GeV states that decay to photons, can fit the 13 TeV diphoton excess with chi-squared 1.8 versus 8.8 for the Standard Model alone.
A 750 GeV Dark Pion: Cousin of a Dark G-parity-odd WIMP
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A dark QCD sector with an unbroken dark G-parity can host both the 750 GeV diphoton resonance, as a G-even pion, and a WIMP, as the lightest G-odd pion, predicting a WIMP mass between 613 and 750 GeV.
Phenomenology of a 750 GeV Singlet
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV singlet scalar coupled to vector-like quarks fits the 2015 diphoton excess, but mixing with the Higgs is constrained to sin(alpha) below about 0.1 and a large invisible width is excluded by monojet searches.
The Minimal Model of a Diphoton Resonance: Production without Gluon Couplings
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Elastic photon-photon fusion in pp collisions can produce a 750 GeV photon-coupled resonance at a few to ten fb at 13 TeV, enough to account for the reported diphoton excess without any gluon coupling.
A hidden confining world on the 750 GeV diphoton excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A hidden confining gauge theory with four vector-like fermions yields a 750 GeV pseudo-Goldstone boson whose anomaly-induced couplings to gluons and photons can reproduce the LHC diphoton excess.
Quirky Explanations for the Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A hybrid quirk-plus-scalar model can accommodate the 750 GeV diphoton excess while evading current bounds, and predicts additional dijet, dilepton, and displaced-vertex signals in LHC run 2.
Scattering Light by Light at 750 GeV at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Photon fusion of a 750 GeV scalar can account for the 2015 diphoton excess, and elastic light-by-light scattering with tagged protons provides a clean confirmation channel.
A Boost Test of Anomalous Diphoton Resonance at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A boosted Z-jet plus a hard photon is a viable channel to confirm or exclude the 750 GeV diphoton resonance at the 14 TeV LHC, reaching 5 sigma for a Z-gamma branching ratio about 4.9 times the diphoton one at 300 inv...
Goldstones in Diphotons
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Of three Goldstone-type explanations for the 750 GeV diphoton excess, a CP-odd pseudo-Goldstone boson with a large electromagnetic anomaly and the sgoldstino survive Run-1 constraints, while the minimal dilaton does not.
Di-photon excess illuminates Dark Matter
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV scalar mediator decaying invisibly to a ~300 GeV Dirac fermion can simultaneously account for the large width hinted by ATLAS and the observed dark matter relic density, predicting a jet plus missing-energy ...
LHC 750 GeV Diphoton excess in a radiative seesaw model
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A singlet scalar coupled to multiple doubly charged scalars in a three-loop neutrino mass model can produce the 750 GeV diphoton excess via photon fusion, with a diphoton branching ratio fixed near 60% by quantum numbers.
Quark Seesaw, Vectorlike Fermions and Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A singlet scalar in a left-right quark seesaw model with vectorlike fermions can match the 750 GeV diphoton rate once the singlet VEV and Yukawa coupling are chosen to fit it.
Diphoton and Dark Matter from Cascade Decay
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A heavy 1.6 TeV scalar decaying to two 750 GeV scalars, each decaying to photons or dark matter, can reproduce the 2015 diphoton excess while predicting four-photon and diboson signals.
The Minimal Scalar-Stealth Top Interpretation of the Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A singlet scalar at 750 GeV with a stealth vector-like top quark of 400 to 500 GeV and Yukawa coupling 0.5 to 1.5 can fit the 2015 diphoton excess without violating dijet or dark matter constraints.
Implications of diphoton searches for a Radion in the Bulk-Higgs Scenario
hep-ph 2015-12 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Diphoton searches at the LHC are the most sensitive probe of a bulk-Higgs radion, already excluding large regions of its parameter space, especially at small warp factors.

How the literature uses it

81 arXiv papers cite this in 96 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 · 31 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

Such a scenario has been considered independently in Refs. [ref] , but in this work we extend such models to a case where the new strongly coupled sector (dark QCD) has an exact dark $G$-parity and demonstrate that this model has a viable dark matter candidate as the lightest $G$-odd pion.

A 750 GeV Dark Pion: Cousin of a Dark G-parity-odd WIMP · Introduction · 0.99

Uses its data or values 1 paper

The photon-fusion reference cross-section is $σ_γγ→ϕ, 0≃3$ fb for a pseudo-scalar with $Γ_γγ, 0=0.34$ GeV [ref] but the error on this estimate is large and we refer the reader to recent studies [ref] . .

Asymmetric Dark Matter Models and the LHC Diphoton Excess · Interpretation of the diphoton excess · 0.98

Compares with it 2 papers

These results have been obtained in [ref] with the important difference that in that work the production mechanism was induced by a new vector-like colored fermion with a mass around one TeV.

Collider Tests of (Composite) Diphoton Resonances · WZW induced photon fusion production · 0.97
The models we consider here are qualitatively different from other proposals in the literature [ref] because our scenario provides, at the same time, a composite pNGB Higgs and top partners (thus addressing the hierarchy problem), as well as minimality (only the WZW interactions are needed).

Singlets in Composite Higgs Models in light of the LHC di-photon searches · Introduction · 0.97

Cites it as support 1 paper

The composite pseudoscalar resonance also offers a natural explanation for the observed excess at 750 GeV, as shown in [ref] .

Collider Tests of (Composite) Diphoton Resonances · The relevance of the Diphoton channel · 1.00

Cites it as background 56 papers

A lot of studies have been done here [ref] .

The Fourth Generation Quark and the 750 GeV Diphoton Excess · Introduction · 0.97
Although the significance of this excess is only around $3 σ$ and more statistics is required to draw a firm conclusion, it has already triggered an avalanche of theoretical speculations in terms of a new resonance $X$; see e.g. [ref] .

Asymmetric Dark Matter in the Sun and the Diphoton Excess at the LHC · Introduction · 0.88
Various explanations have been offered [ref] .

Electroweak and Majorana Sector Higgs Bosons and Pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone Bosons · Symmetry Breaking and Majorana Masses · 0.96

What it cites · 28 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 2 papers

The QCD next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections are calculated using the model provided in [ref] .

Higgs characterisation at NLO in QCD: CP properties of the top-quark Yukawa interaction · Axion Realisation · 1.00
We implement our model in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO [ref] with the effective couplings in ([ref]) and we calculate the $a$ production cross-section at leading order.

MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond · Axion Realisation · 1.00

Uses data or values from 1 paper

Direct limits on stable singly-charged SM-like heavy fermions require them to be heavier than about $574$ GeV [ref] .

Searches for long-lived charged particles in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 and 8 TeV · Minimal Composite Dynamics · 0.89

Cites as background 1 paper

We move now to the interpretation of the new state within minimal (near-conformal) models of dynamical EW symmetry breaking [ref] .

Minimal Walking Technicolor: Set Up for Collider Physics · Minimal Composite Dynamics · 0.92

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [48]

S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorﬀ, O. Kepka, B. Lenzi, C. Royon and M. Saimpert, Phys. Rev. D 89, 114004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.114004 [arXiv:1312.5153 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[2] [3]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 974 (1976). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.974

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.13.974 1976

[3] [4]

L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619 (1979). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2619

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.20.2619 1979

[4] [5]

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 136, 183 (1984). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91177-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91177-8 1984

[5] [6]

D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 136, 187 (1984). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91178-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91178-x 1984

[6] [7]

P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 95, 247 (1980). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90480-3

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90480-3 1980

[7] [8]

F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 71, 051901 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.051901 [hep- ph/0405209]

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.051901 2005

[8] [9]

D. D. Dietrich, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 055001 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.055001 [hep-ph/0505059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[9] [10]

T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 78, 115010 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.115010 [arXiv:0809.0713 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[10] [11]

A. Belyaev, R. Foadi, M. T. Frandsen, M. Jarvi- nen, F. Sannino and A. Pukhov, Phys. Rev. D 79, 035006 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.035006 [arXiv:0809.0793 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[11] [12]

D. B. Franzosi, M. T. Frandsen and F. San- nino, Phys. Rev. D 92, 115005 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.115005 [arXiv:1506.04392 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[12] [13]

with the eﬀective couplings in (5) and we calculate the a production cross-section at leading order. The QCD next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections are cal- culated using the model provided in [14]. For ma≃ 750 GeV we obtain a NLO K-factor: KNLO≃ 2.6. Fig. 1 shows the production cross-section of the pseu- doscalar a at the LHC with √s = 13 TeV as functio...

View on Pith

[13] [14]

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Matte- laer and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106, 128 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128 [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[14] [15]

F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, B. Page and M. Zaro, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 9, 3065 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3065-2 [arXiv:1407.5089 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[15] [16]

CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS- B2G-12-017

View on Pith

[16] [17]

The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2015-012

View on Pith 2015

[17] [18]

N. Vignaroli, Phys. Rev. D 86, 075017 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.075017 [arXiv:1207.0830 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[18] [19]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 5, 052007 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052007 [arXiv:1407.1376 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[19] [20]

CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS- EXO-14-005

View on Pith

[20] [21]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 3, 032004 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.032004 [arXiv:1504.05511 [hep-ex]]. 6

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[21] [22]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 750, 494 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.062 [arXiv:1506.02301 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[22] [23]

T. Appelquist and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 59, 067702 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.067702 [hep- ph/9806409]

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.067702 1999

[23] [24]

T. Appelquist, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 60, 116007 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.116007 [hep-ph/9906555]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[24] [25]

Z. y. Duan, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva and F. San- nino, Nucl. Phys. B 592, 371 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(00)00550-2 [hep-ph/0001303]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[25] [26]

D. D. Dietrich, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 73, 037701 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.037701 [hep-ph/0510217]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[26] [27]

D. D. Dietrich and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 75, 085018 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.085018 [hep- ph/0611341]

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.085018 2007

[27] [28]

R. Foadi, M. T. Frandsen, T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 76, 055005 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.055005 [arXiv:0706.1696 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[28] [29]

R. Foadi, M. T. Frandsen and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 9, 095001 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.095001 [arXiv:1211.1083 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[29] [30]

G. Bergner, T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, JHEP 1512, 054 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)054 [arXiv:1510.01763 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[30] [31]

S. Catterall and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 76, 034504 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034504 [arXiv:0705.1664 [hep-lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[31] [32]

A. Hietanen, J. Rantaharju, K. Rummukainen and K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys. A 820, 191C (2009). doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.01.047

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.01.047 2009

[32] [33]

L. Del Debbio, B. Lucini, A. Patella, C. Pica and A. Rago, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014510 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014510 [arXiv:1004.3206 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[33] [34]

T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074507 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.074507 [arXiv:1102.2843 [hep-lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[34] [35]

T. Appelquist, G. T. Fleming, M. F. Lin, E. T. Neil and D. A. Schaich, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054501 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.054501 [arXiv:1106.2148 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[35] [36]

T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054503 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.054503 [arXiv:1006.0707 [hep-lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[36] [37]

Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. No- gradi and C. H. Wong, JHEP 1509, 039 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)039 [arXiv:1506.06599 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[37] [38]

A. Hasenfratz, Y. Liu and C. Y. H. Huang, arXiv:1507.08260 [hep-lat]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[38] [39]

A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner and B. Lu- cini, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 11, 114508 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.114508 [arXiv:1412.5994 [hep- lat]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[39] [40]

H. S. Fukano and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 82, 035021 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.035021 [arXiv:1005.3340 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[40] [41]

B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 143, 227 (1984). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90840-2

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90840-2 1984

[41] [42]

G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 213 (1979). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90332-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90332-8 1979

[42] [43]

P. Di Vecchia and F. Sannino, Eur. Phys. J. Plus129, 262 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2014-14262-4 [arXiv:1310.0954 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[43] [44]

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 269 (1979). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2 1979

[44] [45]

O. Kaymakcalan, S. Rajeev and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 30, 594 (1984). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.594

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.594 1984

[45] [46]

E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 117, 324 (1982). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90728-6

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90728-6 1982

[46] [47]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1307, 122 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)122 [arXiv:1305.0491 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[47] [49]

*** Non-standard form, no INSPIRE lookup performed ***

View on Pith

[48] [50]

The ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-071

View on Pith 2015

[49] [51]

The ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-075

View on Pith 2015

[50] [52]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 1, 45 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3820-z [arXiv:1507.05930 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[51] [53]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1601, 032 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)032 [arXiv:1509.00389 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[52] [54]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 738, 428 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.002 [arXiv:1407.8150 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[53] [55]

CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS- B2G-13-008

View on Pith

[54] [56]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1508, 148 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)148 [arXiv:1505.07018 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[55] [57]

A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D (2016) 1, 015017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.015017 [arXiv:1512.04931 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[56] [58]

Y. Mambrini, G. Arcadi and A. Djouadi, arXiv:1512.04913 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv