On a possible large width 750 GeV diphoton resonance at ATLAS and CMS

Aielet Efrati; Avital Dery; Daniel Aloni; Kfir Blum; Yosef Nir

REVIEW

On a possible large width 750 GeV diphoton resonance at ATLAS and CMS

Daniel Aloni, Kfir Blum, Avital Dery, Aielet Efrati, Yosef Nir

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 17 Dec 2015 · 22 references

Pith's verdict: A careful, useful constraint paper whose ggF branch holds up but whose tree-level 'cannot' is stronger than its own numbers.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 9, 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 →

· 3 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1512.05778 (version 3)

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

CitationAielet Efrati, Avital Dery, Daniel Aloni, Kfir Blum, Yosef Nir. "On a possible large width 750 GeV diphoton resonance at ATLAS and CMS." arXiv:1512.05778 (2015). https://pith.science/paper/GPICKWNU

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

The thing worth knowing: this is a clean early take on the 750 GeV diphoton excess, and its real contribution is not the width argument everyone remembers but the flavor analysis in Sec. III B. Applying K0-K0 and D0-D0 mixing bounds to a 750 GeV scalar coupled to first-generation quarks (Eqs. 18-22) is genuinely new for this signal, and the observation that a U(2)-symmetric texture evades flavor but doubles the dijet width is the kind of point that saves a reader a week of work. Eq. (1), the rate-width-production consistency relation, is a tidy piece of bookkeeping that I have since seen reused in other contexts. The top-loop and W-loop exclusions (Eqs. 5, 8) are standard but correctly done, and the toy-model ggF bound in Eq. (13) is conservative in the right direction: y^4 N^4 Q^4 > 6x10^3 really does mean N of order 8 at O(1) couplings and charges, and the m_psi > 500 GeV floor is defensible against Run-I colored-fermion searches. That branch I believe. The soft spot is conclusion (ii) in the abstract, that tree-level quark production 'cannot' explain the diphoton rate. Run Eqs. 22, 24, 26 at the low end of the allowed signal — sigma_gg = 2 fb, Gamma/M = 0.03, K = 1.5 — and the required enhancement over the natural perturbative value of order one is only a factor of a few, not orders of magnitude. App. B's own N = 3 vector-like-fermion estimate lands around 0.7-0.9, which the text itself calls 'just barely' sufficient. So the calculation shows a quantitative gap that two or three extra states can close; 'cannot' is only true under a strict reading of 'no ad-hoc multiplicity.' I would have written 'is strongly disfavored' and let the numbers speak. The hand-estimated K-factors and dijet acceptances enter Eqs. 22, 24, 26 with no propagated uncertainty, which matters precisely because the margins are thin. The narrow-width concern is real but bounded at the 6-10% level and the authors flag it in footnote 2; it does not move the conclusions. The multi-scalar suggestion at the end is a gesture, not an argument, and is presented as such. Who should read it: anyone working on a heavy scalar coupled to light quarks, and anyone who wants a template for turning a width hint into a model-building constraint. Worth a serious referee, with a request to soften conclusion (ii) and attach error bars to K and A.

Referee report

Significance

The paper is timely and well organized, and Eq. (1) is a genuinely useful model-independent organizing principle that separates the rate, the width, and the diphoton partial width. The flavor analysis of Sec. III.B.1 is, to my knowledge, novel relative to the concurrent 750 GeV literature, and the tt̄ and W-loop arguments of Sec. II are clean and hard to evade. The paper is also honest about its limitations: footnote 2 explicitly bounds the narrow-width approximation, and Sec. III.B.1 explicitly declines to develop the multi-state proposal. The result is falsifiable in a useful way: the width is identified as the discriminating observable, and the multi-state alternative makes a concrete prediction (adjacent bumps resolvable at the ~10 GeV electromagnetic resolution). These are real strengths and should be weighed in favor of publication.

Major objections (3)

[Abstract, conclusion (ii); Eqs. (22), (24), (26); App. B] Conclusion (ii) as stated in the abstract (s7) — that tree-level production 'cannot' explain the required diphoton branching ratio — outruns what Eqs. (22)-(26) establish at the low end of the allowed signal region. Evaluating Eq. (22) at σ_γγ = 2 fb and Γ_S/M_S = 0.03 with K = 1.5 gives a required enhancement of only ~1.2; Eq. (24) gives ~4; Eq. (26) gives ~2. The 'natural' perturbative value is ~1, and App. B's own Eq. (B12) gives r_eff ≈ 0.1 y^4 N^2, i.e. ~0.9 for N = 3, y ~ 1, which the text itself describes as 'just barely' sufficient. The gap at the low end is therefore a factor of a few, not orders of magnitude, and N = 2-3 additional vector-like states can close it. The qualifier 'without ad-hoc introduction of many new states' in the abstract partially covers this, but the word 'cannot' should be softened, or the low-end region should be discussed explicitly with the numbers above. This does not overturn the central thesis, but it is a calibration issue on a headline claim.
[Abstract (s9); Sec. III.B.1, paragraph on nearly degenerate states] The paper's constructive proposal — that more than one nearly degenerate scalar could conspire to produce a wide bump — is the sentence the abstract ends on, but it receives only one paragraph in Sec. III.B.1 and no calculation. There is no estimate of how many states are needed, what mass splitting is required, or whether the ATLAS and CMS bump-hunt algorithms would resolve the individual peaks at the quoted ~10 GeV resolution. Since this is presented as the way out of the tight spot the rest of the paper establishes, either add a short quantitative sketch (e.g. two states split by ~10 GeV, the resulting line shape versus a single Breit-Wigner, and the implied rate per state) or demote the suggestion from the abstract to the discussion. As written, the abstract's final claim is the least supported statement in the manuscript.
[Sec. III.A, Eq. (13) and the m_ψ ≥ 500 GeV choice] The bound σ(gg→s) ≤ 0.2 pb, and hence Eq. (13), depends quantitatively on the imposed m_ψ ≥ 500 GeV. The loop factor |A_ψ(τ)|^2 τ used in Eq. (11) is bounded by 0.5 for τ < 0.5, but footnote 7 itself notes that the same factor reaches 6.85 near τ ≈ 4, i.e. m_ψ ≈ M_S/2 ≈ 375 GeV. Lowering m_ψ from 500 to 375 GeV relaxes the production bound by a factor of a few once the v^2/m_ψ^2 dependence of Eq. (12) is included, so the quoted '8 copies' becomes roughly 5-6. The qualitative conclusion (i) survives, but the specific number is presented as firmer than it is. Please show Eq. (13) as a function of m_ψ, or state explicitly that the '8 copies' figure assumes m_ψ ≥ 500 GeV and would be reduced for lighter vector-like fermions.

Minor objections (9)

[Eq. (1)] Recomputing the left-hand side with α = 1/137 and M_S = 750 GeV gives a coefficient of roughly 890 rather than the quoted 770. Please state the values of α and M_S used, or correct the coefficient; the discrepancy is numerically harmless but the equation is the paper's backbone.
[Eq. (7)] The expression as printed appears to contain a duplicated m_W^2 factor ('m2W M3S m2W') and does not obviously carry the correct mass dimension. Please check the typesetting against the intended Γ(S→WW) ∝ |κ|^2 M_S^3/m_W^2 form.
[Sec. II, first paragraph] The statement that light SM fermions are suppressed 'from the loop amplitude' is imprecise: for τ → ∞ the fermion loop function A_ψ(τ) approaches a constant (4/3 in the standard normalization), so the suppression of light-fermion contributions comes from the Yukawa coupling y_f = m_f/v, not from the loop function. Please rephrase.
[Eq. (20) and its derivation] The step from Eqs. (18)-(19) to the numerical bound y < 0.5 [M_H/750 GeV]^{1/2} is not shown. Please display the loop function and the numerical factor so the reader can reproduce the coefficient.
[Fig. 4] The figure would be more informative if the ATLAS best-fit point (Γ_S/M_S = 0.06, σ_γγ ≈ 5 fb) were marked explicitly, and if the caption stated that real Yukawa couplings and M_H = M_A are assumed, since Sec. III.B.1 notes that complex couplings and mass splittings would change the contours by up to a factor of two.
[Sec. III.A, paragraph after Eq. (13)] The assertion that a multitude of sub-TeV colored fermions is 'unlikely' to have evaded Run-I constraints should be backed by a specific citation to the relevant vector-like quark searches, with the mass range and assumed decay channels stated.
[Eq. (17)] Please state the PDF set and factorization/renormalization scales used in the MG5@NLO evaluation of σ(pp→H0), so the quoted 125 K |Y|^2 pb can be reproduced.
[Abstract (s5) and footnote 2] The 'of order 10^5 fb' total production cross section quoted in the abstract inherits the narrow-width approximation. Footnote 2 bounds the approximation at the ~10% level for Γ_S up to roughly twice the ATLAS best fit, which is adequate, but the abstract should point the reader to that caveat rather than presenting the number unqualified.
[Throughout] Several typographical and grammatical issues should be corrected: 'F ermann' in the Fig. 1 caption and 'F ermion' in the App. A title; 'unobvservably' in Sec. III.B.1; 'luminusity' in Sec. III.B.2; 'complimentary' should be 'complementary' in Sec. I; 'slight more generality' should be 'slightly more generality' in Sec. III.B.1; 'TeVatron' and 'Tevatron' are used inconsistently; and the abstract's 'more than one scalar states' should be 'more than one scalar state'.

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

The paper

The paper claims

A 750 GeV scalar with the ~45 GeV width hinted by ATLAS cannot be accommodated by simple perturbative models: gluon fusion falls short of the required rate and tree-level quark production is squeezed by flavor and dijet data.

The reading

In December 2015, ATLAS and CMS reported a small excess of photon pairs with combined mass near 750 GeV. ATLAS also hinted that the signal might be broad, about 45 GeV wide, rather than a sharp spike. This paper asks what kind of new particle could produce such a signal. The authors first show that the Standard Model's own heavy charged particles, the top quark and the W boson, cannot generate enough diphoton decays without violating existing LHC limits on top-pair and W-pair production. So new charged particles are required. They then derive a consistency relation linking the total production rate, the diphoton branching ratio, and the width. A 45 GeV width at the observed rate implies a total production cross section of order 100,000 fb, far above what gluon fusion can deliver in perturbative models with a few new particles of ordinary charge and coupling. Turning to production from initial-state quarks, the authors find that flavor-changing constraints (kaon and D-meson mixing) and dijet searches at the LHC and Tevatron cap the production rate, forcing an implausibly large diphoton partial width. They conclude that a single perturbative scalar cannot explain a broad 750 GeV bump, and suggest that several nearly degenerate scalars could collectively mimic a wide resonance.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A 750 GeV scalar with the ~45 GeV width hinted by ATLAS cannot be accommodated by perturbative extensions of the Standard Model with O(1) multiplicities, charges, and couplings. The backbone is Eq. (1): [σ(pp→S)/1 pb] × [Γ(S→γγ)/M_S/(α/4π)^2] ≈ 770 × [σ_γγ/5 fb] × [Γ_S/M_S/0.06]. The paper argues that neither gluon fusion (Eq. 13 requires y^4 N^4 Q^4 ≳ 6×10^3) nor tree-level quark production (Eqs. 22, 24, 26 require Γ(S→γγ)/M_S/(α/4π)^2 ≳ 5-14) can satisfy this without exotic model building.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis uses the narrow width approximation in Eq. (1) while specifically addressing a large-width scenario. Footnote 2 states the relation is valid to about ten percent only if Γ_S is at most roughly twice the ATLAS best fit. If the true width is larger, or if the line shape is not a single Breit-Wigner, the quantitative mapping between rate, width, and production cross section shifts. The paper's headline figure of ~10^5 fb total production inherits this approximation error, and the single-resonance assumption is only relaxed qualitatively at the end.

Original abstract

The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC have reported an excess of diphoton events with invariant mass around 750 GeV, with local significance of about $3.6 \sigma$ and $2.6 \sigma$, respectively. We entertain the possibility that this excess is due to new physics, in which case the data suggest a new particle with 13 TeV LHC production cross section times diphoton branching ratio of about 5~fb. Interestingly, ATLAS reports a mild preference for a sizeable width for the signal of about 45 GeV; this result appears consistent with CMS, and is further supported by improving the compatibility of the 8 TeV and 13 TeV analyses. We focus on the possibility that the new state is a scalar. First, we show that, in addition to the new state that is needed directly to produce the diphoton bump, yet more new particles beyond the Standard Model are needed to induce diphoton decay rate of the right size. Second, we note that if the excess is attributed to the Breit-Wigner peak of a single new state, then the signal strength and width -- taken together -- suggest a total LHC production cross section of order $10^5$ fb. Restricting to perturbative models without ad-hoc introduction of many new states or exotic charges, we reach the following conclusions: (i) Gluon-fusion cannot explain the required large production cross section. (ii) Tree level production from initial state quarks cannot explain the required branching ratio to two photons. (iii) Tree level production is constrained by flavor data as well as LHC Run-I and Tevatron dijet analyses. Insisting on a large width we are led to suggest that more than one scalar states, nearly degenerate in mass, could conspire to produce an observed wide bump.

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, 7,829 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.70 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.96 · compares with prior results 0.78 · 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.

The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC have reported an excess of diphoton events with invariant mass around 750 GeV, with local significance of about $3.6 \sigma$ and $2.6 \sigma$, respectively. We entertain the possibility that this excess is due to new physics, in which case the data suggest a new particle with 13 TeV LHC production cross section times diphoton branching ratio of about 5~fb. Interestingly, ATLAS reports a mild preference for a sizeable width for the signal of about 45 GeV; this result appears consistent with CMS, and is further supported by improving the compatibility of the 8 TeV and 13 TeV analyses. We focus on the possibility that the new state is a scalar. First, we show that, in addition to the new state that is needed directly to produce the diphoton bump, yet more new particles beyond the Standard Model are needed to induce diphoton decay rate of the right size. Second, we note that if the excess is attributed to the Breit-Wigner peak of a single new state, then the signal strength and width -- taken together -- suggest a total LHC production cross section of order $10^5$ fb. Restricting to perturbative models without ad-hoc introduction of many new states or exotic charges, we reach the following conclusions: (i) Gluon-fusion cannot explain the required large production cross section. (ii) Tree level production from initial state quarks cannot explain the required branching ratio to two photons. (iii) Tree level production is constrained by flavor data as well as LHC Run-I and Tevatron dijet analyses. Insisting on a large width we are led to suggest that more than one scalar states, nearly degenerate in mass, could conspire to produce an observed wide bump.

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	The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC have reported an excess of diphoton events with invariant mass around 750 GeV, with local significance of about $3.6 \sigma$ and $2.6 \sigma$, respectively.	background 0.99	0.06	0.03	asserted 1.00
s1	We entertain the possibility that this excess is due to new physics, in which case the data suggest a new particle with 13 TeV LHC production cross section times diphoton branching ratio of about 5~fb.	interpretation 0.68	0.38	0.07	hedged possibility 0.95
s2	Interestingly, ATLAS reports a mild preference for a sizeable width for the signal of about 45 GeV; this result appears consistent with CMS, and is further supported by improving the compatibility of the 8 TeV and 13 TeV analyses.	result 0.36	0.20	0.06	hedged possibility 0.86
s3	We focus on the possibility that the new state is a scalar.	contribution 0.61	0.60	0.03	hedged possibility 0.48
s4	First, we show that, in addition to the new state that is needed directly to produce the diphoton bump, yet more new particles beyond the Standard Model are needed to induce diphoton decay rate of the right size.	result 0.86	0.83	0.09	asserted 1.00
s5	Second, we note that if the excess is attributed to the Breit-Wigner peak of a single new state, then the signal strength and width -- taken together -- suggest a total LHC production cross section of order $10^5$ fb.	result 0.73	0.77	0.10	hedged possibility 0.89
s6	Restricting to perturbative models without ad-hoc introduction of many new states or exotic charges, we reach the following conclusions: (i) Gluon-fusion cannot explain the required large production cross section.	result 0.92	0.85	0.19	asserted 1.00
s7	(ii) Tree level production from initial state quarks cannot explain the required branching ratio to two photons.	result 0.95	0.72	0.09	asserted 1.00
s8	(iii) Tree level production is constrained by flavor data as well as LHC Run-I and Tevatron dijet analyses.	result 0.89	0.25	0.06	asserted 0.99
s9	Insisting on a large width we are led to suggest that more than one scalar states, nearly degenerate in mass, could conspire to produce an observed wide bump.	interpretation 0.85	0.80	0.65	hedged possibility 0.96

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.71 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.59.

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.** FIG. 1: Feynmann graphs illustrating the connection between the loop contribution of SM top quarks in the

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Flavor and dijet constraints on a tree-level 2HDM model for the 750 GeV resonance, assuming

Showing 3 of the paper's 4 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:1512.05778 by the authors.

References

Works cited (22)

[1]

Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2015-081, CERN, Geneva (2015), URL http://cds.cern.ch/record/2114853

View on Pith 2015
[2]

Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-EXO-15-004, CERN, Geneva (2015), URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2114808

View on Pith 2015
[3]

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Heinemeyer, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and R. Tanaka (Eds.), CERN-2013-004 (CERN, Geneva, 2013), 1307.1347

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[4]

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JHEP 08, 148 (2015), 1505.07018

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[5]

V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D93, 012001 (2016), 1506.03062

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[6]

R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[7]

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana (2016), 1601.01167

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[8]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 189 (2009), 0901.0002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[9]

M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252004 (2013), 1303.6254

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[10]

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration) (2015), 1509.00389

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[11]

B. A. Kniehl and M. Spira, Z. Phys. C69, 77 (1995), hep-ph/9505225

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[12]

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014), 1405.0301

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[13]

K. Blum, Y. Hochberg, and Y. Nir, JHEP 10, 124 (2011), 1107.4350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[14]

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D91, 052007 (2015), 1407.1376

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[15]

Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-EXO-14-005, CERN, Geneva (2015), URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2063491

View on Pith 2015
[16]

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D79, 112002 (2009), 0812.4036

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[17]

D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, and D. Marzocca, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 116 (2016), 1512.04929

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[18]

M. Low, A. Tesi, and L.-T. Wang, JHEP 03, 108 (2016), 1512.05328

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[19]

R. Franceschini, G. F. Giudice, J. F. Kamenik, M. McCullough, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, M. Redi, F. Riva, A. Strumia, and R. Torre, JHEP 03, 144 (2016), 1512.04933

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[20]

J. Ellis, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, V. Sanz, and T. You, JHEP 03, 176 (2016), 1512.05327

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[21]

A. Falkowski, O. Slone, and T. Volansky, JHEP 02, 152 (2016), 1512.05777

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[22]

A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B311, 255 (1993), hep-ph/9305335

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

Forward citations

Cited by 24 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.
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.
Challenges and opportunities for heavy scalar searches in the $t\bar t$ channel at the LHC
hep-ph 2016-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Heavy scalar signals in the gluon-fusion to top-pair channel can appear as dips rather than bumps, and a lineshape search that counts both excess and deficit recovers sensitivity that bump searches lose.
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.

Show 19 more citing papers

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 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.
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.

How the literature uses it

58 arXiv papers cite this in 66 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 · 21 sentences without a confident label

Compares with it 3 papers

In this respect, we qualitatively agree with the effective model approach conclusions of Ref. [ref] on the large production rates.

A SUSY Inspired Simplified Model for the 750 GeV Diphoton Excess · Effective Field Theory Approach · 0.86
Since the SM Higgs remains the only source of spontaneous EWSB, this scenario is intrinsically different from models where the neutral component of an $SU(2)_L$ doublet is responsible for the diphoton excess [ref] , as well as from left-right symmetric approaches to the diphoton excess [ref] or Georgi-Machacek models [ref] , in which an EW triplet acquires a vev, and from extensions of $SU(2)_L$ [ref] .

Diphotons from an Electroweak Triplet-Singlet · Introduction · 0.81
These estimates are also in agreement with other estimates [ref] ,

Hypercharge Axion and the Diphoton $750$ GeV Resonance · Comparison with Experiment · 0.95

Cites it as support 1 paper

It has already been shown (see, , [ref] ) that decays into Standard Model (SM) particles alone cannot account for a width as large as $45$ GeV.

One jet to rule them all: monojet constraints and invisible decays of a 750 GeV diphoton resonance · Introduction · 0.96

Cites it as background 40 papers

This could be an argument against the reality of the diphoton excess, meaning nothing but a statistical fluctuations; but if taken seriously, it put strong constraint on the implied model building [ref] [ Refs. [ref] on this subject appeared at the same time as this work.].

The Minimal Scalar-Stealth Top Interpretation of the Diphoton Excess · Introduction · 0.85
Although many attempts [ref] have already been made in the context of a scalar resonance coupled to vector-like fermions, our prime goal in this paper is to show that the vector-like fermions assisting the production and decay of the scalar can be related to a possible dark sector.

750 GeV Di-photon excess at CERN LHC from a dark sector assisted scalar decay · Introduction · 0.81
Subsequently a vast of paper along this line of issue has been arisen in Ref. [ref] .

Four-loop Neutrino Model Inspired by Diphoton Excess at 750 GeV · Introduction · 0.98

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] [1]

Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2015-081, CERN, Geneva (2015), URL http://cds.cern.ch/record/2114853

View on Pith 2015

[2] [2]

Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-EXO-15-004, CERN, Geneva (2015), URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2114808

View on Pith 2015

[3] [3]

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Heinemeyer, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and R. Tanaka (Eds.), CERN-2013-004 (CERN, Geneva, 2013), 1307.1347

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[4] [4]

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JHEP 08, 148 (2015), 1505.07018

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[5] [5]

V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D93, 012001 (2016), 1506.03062

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[6] [6]

R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[7] [7]

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana (2016), 1601.01167

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 189 (2009), 0901.0002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[9] [9]

M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252004 (2013), 1303.6254

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[10] [10]

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration) (2015), 1509.00389

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[11] [11]

B. A. Kniehl and M. Spira, Z. Phys. C69, 77 (1995), hep-ph/9505225

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[12] [12]

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014), 1405.0301

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[13] [13]

K. Blum, Y. Hochberg, and Y. Nir, JHEP 10, 124 (2011), 1107.4350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[14] [14]

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D91, 052007 (2015), 1407.1376

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[15] [15]

Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-EXO-14-005, CERN, Geneva (2015), URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2063491

View on Pith 2015

[16] [16]

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D79, 112002 (2009), 0812.4036

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[17] [17]

D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, and D. Marzocca, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 116 (2016), 1512.04929

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[18] [18]

M. Low, A. Tesi, and L.-T. Wang, JHEP 03, 108 (2016), 1512.05328

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[19] [19]

R. Franceschini, G. F. Giudice, J. F. Kamenik, M. McCullough, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, M. Redi, F. Riva, A. Strumia, and R. Torre, JHEP 03, 144 (2016), 1512.04933

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[20] [20]

J. Ellis, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, V. Sanz, and T. You, JHEP 03, 176 (2016), 1512.05327

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[21] [21]

A. Falkowski, O. Slone, and T. Volansky, JHEP 02, 152 (2016), 1512.05777

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[22] [22]

A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B311, 255 (1993), hep-ph/9305335

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993