Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:1607.02050 v2 · submitted 7 Jul 2016 · 84 references

Scalar versus fermionic top partner interpretations of $t\bar t + E_T^{\rm miss}$ searches at the LHC

Sabine Kraml, Ursula Laa, Luca Panizzi, Hugo Prager

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

The paper says

“We assess how different ATLAS and CMS searches for supersymmetry in the $t\bar t + E_T^{\rm miss}$ final state at Run 1 of the LHC constrain scenarios with a fermionic top partner and a dark matter candidate.”

more of the abstract

We find that the efficiencies of these searches in all-hadronic, 1-lepton and 2-lepton channels are quite similar for scalar and fermionic top partners. Therefore, in general, efficiency maps for stop-neutralino simplified models can also be applied to fermionic top-partner models, provided the narrow width approximation holds in the latter. Owing to the much higher production cross-sections of heavy top quarks as compared to stops, masses up to mT ≈ 850 GeV can be excluded from the Run 1 stop searches. Since the simplified-model results published by ATLAS and CMS do not extend to such high masses, we provide our own efficiency maps obtained with CheckMATE and MadAnalysis 5 for these searches. Finally, we also discuss how generic gluino/squark searches in multi-jet final states constrain heavy top partner production.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 14 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

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

Holds up, with conditions. A careful, honest recasting study: the transferability claim holds where it's tabulated, and the authors flag their own weak spots — the 850 GeV reach is the softest number in it. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 6 minor

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

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 84 references say.

The paper says, at Section 5, Fig. 5, and abstract:s3

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

The headline reach of m_T approximately 850 GeV (abstract:s3) is quoted in a mass region where the SUSY-versus-XQ efficiency agreement is demonstrated only by the visual coincidence of the rescaled-SUSY (dotted) and true-XQ (solid) contours in Fig. 5, not by any tabulated number.

more of objection 1

All quantitative efficiency comparisons in the paper (Tables 3, 5, 7, 10) are at m_T = 600 GeV, where the differences are a few percent; the reader cannot tell from the manuscript whether the same holds at 800-850 GeV, where the top quarks are much more boosted and the jet-multiplicity and b-tagging acceptances behave differently. Since footnote 8 itself warns that mass-limit extrapolation is unreliable for analyses with mass-scale-sensitive cuts, the assertion that it works for the stop searches needs support. Please add a small table giving, for two or three points at m_T = 800-850 GeV and fixed m_DM, the total signal efficiency in the most sensitive SR for SUSY, XQ-SDM and XQ-VDM, and the resulting shift in the 95% CL m_T at fixed m_DM between the rescaled-SUSY and true-XQ contours. This is a local addition and would put the 850 GeV number on the same footing as the 600 GeV numbers.

The paper says, at Section 4.4, Fig. 6, footnote 11

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

The strongest exclusion quoted anywhere in the paper, m_T approximately 900-950 GeV for m_DM below about 300 GeV, is driven by the 2jl, 4jm and 6jm signal regions that the authors added to the MadAnalysis 5 recast code themselves, and footnote 11 states that these SRs could not be validated because no cut flows or kinematic distributions are available from ATLAS.

more of objection 2

The authors are to be credited for stating this openly, but the consequence for the quoted number is not quantified. Please show the Fig. 6 XQ contour obtained with only the validated SRs (4jl, 4jlm, 5j, 6jl, 6jtp) alongside the full-SR contour, or state explicitly in the text and abstract-adjacent discussion how much of the 900-950 GeV reach survives without the unvalidated regions. As written, the paper's most aggressive number rests on the least cross-checked part of the analysis.

The paper says, at Section 3.1 and Fig. 2

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The T Tbar production cross-section used to convert excluded cross-sections into mass limits is taken at NLO+NNLL from ref. [73], which is the Standard Model top-pair calculation. For a 600-900 GeV fermionic partner this is an approximation whose accuracy is not discussed, yet the reach in m_T scales directly with the assumed cross-section: a 20% cross-section shift moves the 95% CL m_T by several tens of GeV, comparable to the efficiency differences the paper is careful to track elsewhere.

more of objection 3

Please add a sentence or two justifying the use of the SM ttbar resummation at these masses, quoting the estimated cross-section uncertainty at m_T = 800-850 GeV and the corresponding shift in the quoted reach. If a dedicated heavy-quark pair-production calculation exists, it should be cited or the difference noted.

6 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract (abstract:s2)

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 6

The abstract's 'in general' carries only the narrow-width condition, whereas the body imposes two further restrictions that matter for applicability: the branching ratio to t + DM is taken as 100% (Section 5), and, as stated in Section 2.3, the comparison is effectively between SUSY and chiral-XQ scenarios rather than vector-like ones because the benchmark couplings are not pure.

more of objection 1

Both are stated clearly in the body; please carry at least the 100% BR condition into the abstract so that the scope of the transferability claim is visible without reading Section 5.

The paper says, at Tables 3, 5, 7, 10, 12

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 6

The excluded cross-sections and the '1 - CLs' values are quoted without a description of the statistical procedure. Please state in the text which CLs implementation is used in CheckMATE and in the MadAnalysis 5 recast, and in particular how the background uncertainties listed in Appendix B (for example 4.7 +/- 1.4 expected events in the CMS SR-A) are treated - profiled, added in quadrature, or neglected. This matters for the small-event-count signal regions that drive several of the limits.

show 4 more

The paper says, at Section 2.2, Eq. (2.9)

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 6

The doublet with hypercharge -5/6 is introduced in the text as Psi_{-5/6} = (B, Y_{-4/3}), but the second line of Eq. (2.9) contains (lambda^b_{22})' Psi_{-1/6} P_R b. Please check the subscript; the same symbol appears as Psi_{-1/6} only here, and the intended state appears to be Psi_{-5/6}.

The paper says, at Section 4.4 and Appendix B, Table 17

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 6

The text states that the ATLAS analysis 'comprises 15 inclusive SRs characterized by increasing minimum jet multiplicity', but Table 17 lists 13 signal regions. Please reconcile the count, or clarify whether two SRs are omitted from the table.

The paper says, at Section 2.3

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 6

It would help to state explicitly that the (600,10)L and (600,10)R benchmarks, although dominated by one chirality, are not pure left or pure right, and that they therefore bracket rather than reproduce the vector-like limit in which one of the two couplings vanishes identically. The current text says the conclusions do not depend on this, which is plausible, but the bracketing logic deserves one explicit sentence.

The paper says, at Figs. 5, 6, 8

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 6

The contour plots carry a great deal of information (three line styles, three marker sets, SR colour codes, official limits) and are difficult to read at print size. A compact summary table of the 95% CL m_T reach as a function of m_DM for the SUSY, rescaled-SUSY and true-XQ cases, for each of the three stop searches, would make the central result accessible without decoding the figures.

What would settle it

At m_T = 800 GeV, m_DM = 10 GeV, run the full CheckMATE/MadAnalysis 5 chain for the SUSY and XQ-SDM cases in the CMS 1-lepton channel (the strongest stop-search limit, Table 5) and report the SR efficiency ratio and the resulting excluded-cross-section ratio. If the efficiency deviates from unity by more than the ~5% seen at 600 GeV, the 'few percent' characterization and the 850 GeV reach need a stated uncertainty; if it stays within a few percent, the transferability claim extends cleanly into the reach region.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 14 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 1 min 55 s · 54,801 tokens read, 6,569 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 15 s · 55,825 tokens read, 846 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 3 major objections, 6 minor 1 min 29 s · 55,138 tokens read, 4,926 written

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

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

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The useful thing here is narrow and real: the authors show, channel by channel, that stop-neutralino efficiency maps can be reused for fermionic top partners. That matters to anyone running SModelS or XQCAT, and it's the kind of claim people will actually act on, so it's worth getting right. They get it right where they show their work. Tables 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 give step-by-step cut flows for SUSY, scalar-DM and vector-DM at the same masses, and the few-percent differences are traced to specific cuts — jet multiplicity, the 3-closest-jets requirement, Meff. That's the right way to argue this, and the mass-plane scan in Fig. 5 confirms it isn't a single-point accident. They also release the efficiency maps, which is more than most recasting papers bother to do, and they're upfront about the superseded hadronic conference note, the missing tN_boost SR, and the 2-lepton MVA they can't reproduce. Credit for all of that. On the stress-test note: it lands, but lightly. The tabulated comparison is at 600 GeV; the 850 GeV reach is supported by contour coincidence in Fig. 5 rather than a tabulated high-mass efficiency ratio. That's a gap in the presentation of the reach number, not in the transferability claim, and it's fixable with one extra table. The abstract's 'in general' also carries two conditions the body states but the abstract doesn't: 100% BR to t+DM, and that the comparison is effectively SUSY-vs-chiral-XQ, not vector-like. Minor, but the abstract should say so. The genuinely soft number is the 900-950 GeV multi-jet reach, which rests on three SRs the authors added themselves and concede in footnote 11 they could not validate. They say so plainly, which is to their credit, but that number shouldn't be quoted without the caveat. Who should read it: anyone doing BSM reinterpretation, and the ATLAS/CMS simplified-model conveners, who should take the point about extending maps past the stop reach. Worth a serious referee — the physics is sound and the presentation needs only tightening, not redoing.

The strongest objection

The central claim (abstract:s2) is demonstrated with tabulated, step-by-step cut flows at four benchmark points, all at m_T = 600 GeV (Tables 3, 5, 7, 10), where SUSY-vs-XQ efficiency differences are a few percent. The headline reach (abstract:s3, m_T ≈ 850 GeV) lives at m_T ≈ 800–850 GeV, where the paper reports only that the rescaled-SUSY and true-XQ contours in Fig. 5 'coincide quite well' without quantifying the m_T shift at fixed m_DM. Footnote 8 itself warns that mass-limit extrapolation is unreliable for analyses with mass-scale-sensitive cuts; the authors assert it works for the stop searches but do not tabulate the high-mass efficiency ratio that would justify the assertion. A second, smaller gap: the abstract's condition ('provided the narrow width approximation holds') is necessary but not sufficient. Section 5 assumes 100% BR(T→t+DM), and Section 2.3 concedes the comparison is effectively SUSY-vs-ChQ, not VLQ; both are stated in the body but not carried into the abstract's 'in general.' Neither point is an error — the physics is internally consistent and the cut flows check out — but the quantitative reach claim rests on visual contour agreement in exactly the region where the number is quoted.

The reader's weakest_assumption targets the unvalidated multi-jet signal regions (2jl, 4jm, 6jm; footnote 11) that underpin the 900–950 GeV multi-jet reach. That is a real and correctly flagged limitation, but the reader's own rationale concedes it does not bear on the central transferability claim, which is the paper's load-bearing assertion. So the reader identified a genuine soft spot, but not the one most load-bearing for abstract:s2. The more load-bearing gap for the central claim is the un-quantified high-mass efficiency comparison: the tabulated evidence is at 600 GeV, while the quoted reach is at 800–850 GeV, and the only support there is visual contour coincidence in Fig. 5. This is a modest concern, not a correctness error: the cut flows are internally consistent, the efficiencies match the tables, the cross-sections and background counts come from independent external sources, and the authors are transparent about the ChQ-vs-VLQ and 100% BR assumptions in the body. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is therefore appropriate; my concern refines rather than overturns it, so I would leave the verdict unchanged. Confidence in the central claim is reasonably high; the residual risk is quantitative (how large is the high-mass efficiency shift?) rather than structural, and the concrete test above would settle it without new theory.

The referee's report

The result is useful and, if it holds, directly actionable: users of SModelS and XQCAT could reinterpret stop simplified-model limits for extra-quark models without new detector simulation, and the paper quantifies how much further the Run 1 stop searches reach for fermionic top partners because of the factor 5-10 larger QCD pair-production cross-section. The strengths are real and should be named: the cut-flow tables (Tables 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11) make the comparison auditable rather than asserted; the L/R benchmark pair brackets the chirality dependence; the released efficiency maps [80] and the Appendix B background/observed counts make the limits reproducible; and the paper is candid about where the transfer fails (Section 4.4, footnote 11, footnote 8). The falsifiable prediction - a fermionic top partner at 800-850 GeV with a light DM candidate, together with a corroborating multi-jet signal - is the kind of statement that can be checked against future data.

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

The paper asks a practical question: when ATLAS and CMS publish a search for stops decaying to a top quark and a dark-matter particle, can that result be reused for a completely different model in which the top partner is a fermion rather than a scalar? The authors simulate both cases with matched masses and matched left- or right-handed couplings and push them through four Run 1 analyses, covering the all-hadronic, one-lepton and two-lepton channels plus a generic multi-jet search. They find the cut acceptances agree at the level of a few percent, so the stop efficiency maps carry over to the fermionic case as long as the heavy quark decays narrowly. Because a fermionic top partner is pair-produced five to ten times more copiously than a stop of the same mass, the same searches then reach roughly 200 GeV further, excluding top-partner masses up to about 850 GeV. Since the official simplified-model maps stop short of that mass range, the authors publish their own efficiency maps so others can use the result.

What carries the argument. The machinery is a matched-benchmark comparison. Both models are generated as full $2 o 6$ processes, $pp o tbar t, DM, DM$, with MadGraph5 so that the spin correlations in $t o W b$ are retained, then showered with Pythia6 and passed through Delphes 3 inside CheckMATE and MadAnalysis 5. The stop couplings $a^{tilde t}_{11}$ and $b^{tilde t}_{11}$ computed with SuSpect are reused as the extra-quark couplings $lambda^t_{21}$ and $lambda^t_{11}$ (reduced by a factor of ten for the vector dark-matter case, to keep the width narrow), so the two models sit at the same masses and the same chirality of the outgoing top. Efficiencies are then read off signal region by signal region, and 95 percent CL limits are set with a CLs prescription using the published background and observed event counts. The same procedure is repeated on a grid in the top-partner versus dark-matter mass plane, with the most sensitive signal region tracked bin by bin.

Core claim. The central claim is that the selection efficiencies of $tbar t + E_T^{miss}$ searches are, to a good approximation, independent of whether the top partner is a scalar or a fermion. Working with benchmark points at $(m, m_{DM}) = (600, 10)$ and $(600, 300)$ GeV in both left- and right-polarised versions, the authors compare a stop-neutralino simplified model against an extra-quark model with a scalar or vector dark-matter candidate. In the all-hadronic ATLAS search the final signal-region event counts agree within about 5 percent; in the CMS one-lepton search the difference is 6 to 7 percent; in the two-lepton ATLAS search the total efficiencies differ by only a few percent. The residual differences trace back to slightly softer jets and slightly fewer jets in the fermionic case, and mostly cancel across the cut flow. The consequence the authors draw is that cross-section upper-limit and efficiency maps built for stop-neutralino models can be applied to fermionic top-partner models in the narrow-width regime, and that the larger QCD production rate for a colour-triplet fermion pushes the Run 1 stop-search reach to $m_T approx 850$ GeV.

The premise it rests on. The load-bearing premise is that matching the masses and the left- or right-handed coupling is enough to make the two models equivalent at the level of detector acceptances, so that the few-percent differences seen in jet multiplicity and missing-energy spectra stay few-percent differences in every signal region of interest.

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

Users of public reinterpretation tools can reuse stop-neutralino cross-section upper-limit maps for fermionic top-partner models without generating new signal samples, as long as the partner decays narrowly to top plus dark matter.

Run 1 stop searches exclude fermionic top partners up to $m_T approx 850$ GeV, roughly 200 GeV beyond the stop reach, because the $Tbar T$ cross-section is five to ten times the stop cross-section at equal mass.

The generic multi-jet gluino/squark search extends the fermionic reach further, to $m_T approx 900$-$950$ GeV for dark-matter masses below about 300 GeV, while giving essentially no stop limit.

A signal seen in $tbar t + E_T^{miss}$ cannot be assigned to a scalar or fermionic origin from event counts alone; the authors suggest correlating the effective mass scale with the observed rate, and note that a corroborating multi-jet signal would favour the fermionic reading.

If the transferability holds at 8 TeV, the same argument should hold for the 13 TeV stop searches, which would let the much larger Run 2 datasets be reinterpreted for fermionic top partners immediately rather than after dedicated simulations.

The one place the argument visibly strains is the multi-jet channel, where efficiencies differ by about 20 percent and the naive rescaling of stop efficiencies overestimates the fermionic reach; that suggests the transfer is a property of top-tagging-style searches, not of searches built on an overall mass-scale cut.

A clean experimental test would be for ATLAS or CMS to publish efficiency maps for a fermionic top-partner signal alongside the stop maps in the same signal regions, which would turn this simulation-level comparison into a measured statement.

Because the two models differ in spin, a positive signal would leave open the question of the dark-matter candidate's spin as well; the paper's own point that scalar and vector dark matter give indistinguishable efficiencies means that question needs angular observables rather than rates.

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

We assess how different ATLAS and CMS searches for supersymmetry in the $t\bar t + E_T^{\rm miss}$ final state at Run 1 of the LHC constrain scenarios with a fermionic top partner and a dark matter candidate. We find that the efficiencies of these searches in all-hadronic, 1-lepton and 2-lepton channels are quite similar for scalar and fermionic top partners. Therefore, in general, efficiency maps for stop-neutralino simplified models can also be applied to fermionic top-partner models, provided the narrow width approximation holds in the latter. Owing to the much higher production cross-sections of heavy top quarks as compared to stops, masses up to mT ≈ 850 GeV can be excluded from the Run 1 stop searches. Since the simplified-model results published by ATLAS and CMS do not extend to such high masses, we provide our own efficiency maps obtained with CheckMATE and MadAnalysis 5 for these searches. Finally, we also discuss how generic gluino/squark searches in multi-jet final states constrain heavy top partner production.

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 0.72

“Therefore, in general, efficiency maps for stop-neutralino simplified models can also be applied to fermionic top-partner models, provided the narrow width approximation holds in the latter.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 0.57

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.73 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.18 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.81 · mentions code or data availability 0.20

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We assess how different ATLAS and CMS searches for supersymmetry in the $t\bar t + E_T^{\rm miss}$ final state at Run 1 of the LHC constrain scenarios with a fermionic top partner and a dark matter candidate. contribution 0.99 0.74 0.06 asserted 0.78
We find that the efficiencies of these searches in all-hadronic, 1-lepton and 2-lepton channels are quite similar for scalar and fermionic top partners. result 1.00 0.94 0.36 asserted 1.00
Therefore, in general, efficiency maps for stop-neutralino simplified models can also be applied to fermionic top-partner models, provided the narrow width approximation holds in the latter. interpretation 0.97 0.67 0.36 asserted 0.57
Owing to the much higher production cross-sections of heavy top quarks as compared to stops, masses up to $m_T\approx 850$ GeV can be excluded from the Run 1 stop searches. result 0.92 0.57 0.23 asserted 0.95
Since the simplified-model results published by ATLAS and CMS do not extend to such high masses, we provide our own efficiency maps obtained with CheckMATE and MadAnalysis 5 for these searches. contribution 0.87 0.94 0.06 asserted 1.00
Finally, we also discuss how generic gluino/squark searches in multi-jet final states constrain heavy top partner production. contribution 0.99 0.53 0.05 asserted 0.54

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.98 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.85

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v2

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-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,111 input tokens.

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 (8)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. Feynman diagrams for the production of tt¯ + Emiss T in the SUSY and XQ scenarios. We have omitted for simplicity the gg and qq¯ initial states which are common for the s-channel gluon topologies
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. Production cross-sections for SUSY and XQ top partners at √ s = 8 TeV. cteq6l1 set [63]. To analyse and compare the effects of various ATLAS and CMS 8 TeV analyses, we employ CheckMATE [24] as well as MadAnalysis 5 [25]. Both frameworks use Delphes 3 [64] for the emulation of detector effects. The Feynman diagrams relevant for the SUSY and XQ processes are shown in
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. Differential distributions (normalized to one) of jet multiplicity njets, trans￾verse momentum of the leading and sub-leading jet pT (j1) and pT (j2), missing transverse energy Emiss T , and pT of the leading and sub-leading lepton pT (l1) and pT (l2) for the mass combination (600, 10)
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. Comparisons of constraints in the top-partner versus DM mass plane for the fully hadronic stop search from ATLAS recast with CheckMATE (top), the 1-lepton stop search from CMS recast with MadAnalysis 5 (middle), and the 2-lepton stop search from ATLAS recast with CheckMATE (bottom). See text for details. – 24 –
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. Comparison of constraints in the top-partner versus DM mass plane based on the MadAnalysis 5 recast code for the ATLAS gluino/squark search with 2–6 jets. As in
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. Comparison of the Meff distributions for SUSY and XQ scenarios, af￾ter preselection cuts of the CMS 1-lepton stop search [21]. Here, Meff is computed as PpT (jets) + pT (l) + Emiss T . The green, violet and blue histograms are for the default (600, 10) benchmark points, while the orange and brown histograms show XQ scenarios that would give roughly the same visible cross-sections as the (600, 10) SUSY cases. nally, the distinction between the two scenarios may be refined by considering special kinematic distributions as discussed in [83–85]. Acknowledgments We thank Daniel Schmeier a
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. Additional comparison of constraints in the top-partner versus DM mass plane based on ATLAS analyses implemented in CheckMATE: 1-lepton stop search [20] (top row), generic gluino/squark search [77] (middle row) and combination of all CheckMATE ATLAS analyses (bottom row). As before, the left panels are for the couplings of Point (600, 10)L, the right panels for the couplings of Point (600, 10)R. – 29 –

Showing 7 of the paper's 8 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (84)
  1. [80] The efficiency maps can be downloaded from http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/projects-th/recasting/susy-vs-vlq/ttbarMET/ on Pith
  2. [73] M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov, and P. Nason,Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation, Phys.Lett. B710 (2012) 612–622, [arXiv:1111.5869] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [1] A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29, [arXiv:1207.7214] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [2] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61, [arXiv:1207.7235] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [3] S. P. Martin,A Supersymmetry primer, hep-ph/9709356. [Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18,1(1998)] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [4] M. Drees, R. Godbole, and P. Roy,Theory and phenomenology of sparticles: An account of four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetry in high energy physics, World Scientific, 2004 on Pith
  7. [5] H. Baer and X. Tata,Weak scale supersymmetry: From superfields to scattering events, Cambridge University Press, 2006 on Pith
  8. [6] https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults on Pith
  9. [7] https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS on Pith
  10. [8] I. Antoniadis,A Possible new dimension at a few TeV, Phys.Lett. B246 (1990) 377–384 on Pith
  11. [9] T. Appelquist, H.-C. Cheng, and B. A. Dobrescu,Bounds on universal extra dimensions, Phys.Rev. D64 (2001) 035002, [hep-ph/0012100] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [10] G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait,Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?, Nucl. Phys. B650 (2003) 391–419, [hep-ph/0206071] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [11] C. Csaki, C. Grojean, J. Hubisz, Y. Shirman, and J. Terning,Fermions on an interval: Quark and lepton masses without a Higgs, Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 015012, [hep-ph/0310355] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [12] G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and J. Llodra-Perez,A Dark Matter candidate from Lorentz Invariance in 6D, JHEP 1003 (2010) 083, [arXiv:0907.4993] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [13] H.-C. Cheng and I. Low,TeV symmetry and the little hierarchy problem, JHEP 09 (2003) 051, [hep-ph/0308199] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [14] H.-C. Cheng and I. Low,Little hierarchy, little Higgses, and a little symmetry, JHEP 08 (2004) 061, [hep-ph/0405243] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [15] I. Low,T parity and the littlest Higgs, JHEP 10 (2004) 067, [hep-ph/0409025] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [16] J. Hubisz and P. Meade,Phenomenology of the littlest Higgs with T-parity, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 035016, [hep-ph/0411264] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [17] J. Hubisz, P. Meade, A. Noble, and M. Perelstein,Electroweak precision constraints on the littlest Higgs model with T parity, JHEP 01 (2006) 135, [hep-ph/0506042]. – 33 – on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [18] H.-C. Cheng, I. Low, and L.-T. Wang,Top partners in little Higgs theories with T-parity, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 055001, [hep-ph/0510225] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 64 more
  1. [19] A TLASCollaboration, Search for direct production of the top squark in the all-hadronic ttbar + etmiss final state in 21 fb-1 of p-pcollisions at sqrt(s)=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2013-024 on Pith
  2. [20] A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for top squark pair production in final states with one isolated lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum in√s =8 TeVpp collisions with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 11 (2014) 118, [arXiv:1407.0583] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [21] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Search for top-squark pair production in the single-lepton final state in pp collisions at√s = 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J.C73 (2013), no. 12 2677, [arXiv:1308.1586] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [22] A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for direct top-squark pair production in final states with two leptons in pp collisions at√s = 8TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 06 (2014) 124, [arXiv:1403.4853] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [24] M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and J. S. Kim,CheckMATE: Confronting your Favourite New Physics Model with LHC Data, Comput. Phys. Commun. 187 (2014) 227–265, [arXiv:1312.2591] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [25] E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks, and C. Wymant,Designing and recasting LHC analyses with MadAnalysis 5, Eur. Phys. J.C74 (2014), no. 10 3103, [arXiv:1405.3982] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [26] B. Dumont, B. Fuks, S. Kraml, S. Bein, G. Chalons, E. Conte, S. Kulkarni, D. Sengupta, and C. Wymant,Toward a public analysis database for LHC new physics searches using MADANALYSIS 5, Eur. Phys. J.C75 (2015), no. 2 56, [arXiv:1407.3278] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [27] S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, W. Magerl, D. Proschofsky-Spindler, and W. Waltenberger,SModelS: a tool for interpreting simplified-model results from the LHC and its application to supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J.C74 (2014) 2868, [arXiv:1312.4175] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [28] S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, V. Magerl, W. Magerl, D. Proschofsky-Spindler, M. Traub, and W. Waltenberger,SModelS v1.0: a short user guide, arXiv:1412.1745 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [29] D. Barducci, A. Belyaev, M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, S. De Curtis, J. Marrouche, S. Moretti, and L. Panizzi,Framework for Model Independent Analyses of Multiple Extra Quark Scenarios, JHEP 12 (2014) 080, [arXiv:1405.0737]. – 34 – on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [30] D. Barducci, A. Belyaev, M. Buchkremer, J. Marrouche, S. Moretti, and L. Panizzi, XQCAT: eXtra Quark Combined Analysis Tool, Comput. Phys. Commun.197 (2015) 263–275, [arXiv:1409.3116] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [31] CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al.,Search for Production of Heavy Particles Decaying to Top Quarks and Invisible Particles inp¯p collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011) 191801, [arXiv:1103.2482] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [32] CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al.,Search for NewT′ Particles in Final States with Large Jet Multiplicities and Missing Transverse Energy in ppbar Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.107 (2011) 191803, [arXiv:1107.3574] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [33] A TLASCollaboration, Search for Anomalous Missing ET in tt Events, ATLAS-CONF-2011-036 on Pith
  15. [34] CMS Collaboration, A search for the decays of a new heavy particle in multijet events with the razor variables at CMS in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV, CMS-PAS-SUS-12-009 on Pith
  16. [35] G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, J. Ellis, J. Marrouche, and L. Panizzi,LHC Missing-Transverse-Energy Constraints on Models with Universal Extra Dimensions, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013), no. 7 075006, [arXiv:1302.4750] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [36] L. Edelhäuser, M. Krämer, and J. Sonneveld,Simplified models for same-spin new physics scenarios, JHEP 04 (2015) 146, [arXiv:1501.03942] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [37] C. Arina, M. E. C. Catalan, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, and U. Laa,Constraints on sneutrino dark matter from LHC Run 1, JHEP 05 (2015) 142, [arXiv:1503.02960] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [38] S. Baek, P. Ko and P. Wu,Top-philic Scalar Dark Matter with a Vector-like Fermionic Top Partner, arXiv:1606.00072 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [39] T. Gajdosik, R. M. Godbole, and S. Kraml,Fermion polarization in sfermion decays as a probe of CP phases in the MSSM, JHEP 09 (2004) 051, [hep-ph/0405167] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  21. [40] P. Z. Skands et al.,SUSY Les Houches accord: Interfacing SUSY spectrum calculators, decay packages, and event generators, JHEP 07 (2004) 036, [hep-ph/0311123] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [41] Q. H. Cao, C. S. Li and C.-P. Yuan,Impact of Single-Top Measurement to Littlest Higgs Model with T-Parity, Phys. Lett. B668 (2008) 24 [hep-ph/0612243] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  23. [42] M. M. Nojiri and M. Takeuchi,Study of the top reconstruction in top-partner events at the LHC, JHEP 0810 (2008) 025 [arXiv:0802.4142 [hep-ph] ] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  24. [43] J. Shelton,Polarized tops from new physics: signals and observables, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 014032 [arXiv:0811.0569] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [44] M. Perelstein and A. Weiler,Polarized Tops from Stop Decays at the LHC, JHEP 0903 (2009) 141 [arXiv:0811.1024] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  26. [45] E. L. Berger, Q. H. Cao, J. H. Yu and H. Zhang,Measuring Top Quark Polarization – 35 – in Top Pair plus Missing Energy Events, Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012) 152004 [arXiv:1207.1101] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [46] C.-Y. Chen, A. Freitas, T. Han, and K. S. M. Lee,New Physics from the Top at the LHC, JHEP 11 (2012) 124, [arXiv:1207.4794] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  28. [47] B. Bhattacherjee, S. K. Mandal and M. Nojiri,Top Polarization and Stop Mixing from Boosted Jet Substructure, JHEP 1303 (2013) 105 [arXiv:1211.7261] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  29. [48] G. Belanger, R. M. Godbole, L. Hartgring, and I. Niessen,Top Polarization in Stop Production at the LHC, JHEP 05 (2013) 167, [arXiv:1212.3526] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  30. [49] I. Low,Polarized charginos (and top quarks) in scalar top quark decays, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) no.9, 095018 [arXiv:1304.0491] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [50] G. Belanger, R. M. Godbole, S. Kraml, and S. Kulkarni,Top Polarization in Sbottom Decays at the LHC, arXiv:1304.2987 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  32. [51] K. Wang, L. Wang, T. Xu and L. Zhang,Polarization effects in early SUSY searches at the CERN LHC, Eur. Phys. J.C75 (2015) no.6, 285 [arXiv:1312.1527] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  33. [52] A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct pair production of third-generation squarks at the Large Hadron Collider, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015), no. 10 510, [arXiv:1506.08616] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  34. [53] CMS Collaboration, Search for top squarks decaying to a charm quark and a neutralino in events with a jet and missing transverse momentum, CMS-PAS-SUS-13-009 on Pith
  35. [54] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Search for new physics in the multijet and missing transverse momentum final state in proton-proton collisions at√s= 8 TeV, JHEP 1406 (2014) 055, [arXiv:1402.4770] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  36. [55] CMS Collaboration, Exclusion limits on gluino and top-squark pair production in natural SUSY scenarios with inclusive razor and exclusive single-lepton searches at 8 TeV, CMS-PAS-SUS-14-011 on Pith
  37. [56] CMS Collaboration, Search for direct production of top squark pairs decaying to all-hadronic final states in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV, CMS-PAS-SUS-16-007 on Pith
  38. [57] A. Djouadi, J.-L. Kneur, and G. Moultaka,SuSpect: A Fortran code for the supersymmetric and Higgs particle spectrum in the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 176 (2007) 426–455, [hep-ph/0211331] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  39. [58] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer,MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP 1106 (2011) 128, [arXiv:1106.0522] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  40. [59] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 (... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  41. [60] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands,PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, [hep-ph/0603175] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  42. [61] R. Boughezal and M. Schulze,tt+large missing energy from top-quark partners: A comprehensive study at next-to-leading order QCD, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013), no. 11 114002, [arXiv:1309.2316] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  43. [62] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2250–2300, [arXiv:1310.1921] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  44. [63] J. Pumplin, D. Stump, J. Huston, H. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, et al.,New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis, JHEP 0207 (2002) 012, [hep-ph/0201195] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  45. [64] J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaïtre, et al., DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, arXiv:1307.6346 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  46. [65] http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/∼akule_01/nllwiki/index.php/NLL-fast on Pith
  47. [66] W. Beenakker, R. Hopker, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas,Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders, Nucl.Phys. B492 (1997) 51–103, [hep-ph/9610490] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  48. [67] A. Kulesza and L. Motyka,Threshold resummation for squark-antisquark and gluino-pair production at the LHC, Phys.Rev.Lett. 102 (2009) 111802, [arXiv:0807.2405] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  49. [68] A. Kulesza and L. Motyka,Soft gluon resummation for the production of gluino-gluino and squark-antisquark pairs at the LHC, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 095004, [arXiv:0905.4749] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  50. [69] W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, et al.,Soft-gluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction, JHEP 0912 (2009) 041, [arXiv:0909.4418] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  51. [70] W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, et al.,Squark and Gluino Hadroproduction, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A26 (2011) 2637–2664, [arXiv:1105.1110] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  52. [71] W. Beenakker, M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas,Stop production at hadron colliders, Nucl.Phys. B515 (1998) 3–14, [hep-ph/9710451] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  53. [72] W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, et al., Supersymmetric top and bottom squark production at hadron colliders, JHEP 1008 (2010) 098, [arXiv:1006.4771] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  54. [74] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam,Dispelling theN 3 myth for thekt jet-finder, Phys. Lett. B641 (2006) 57–61, [hep-ph/0512210]. – 37 – on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  55. [75] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J.C72 (2012) 1896, [arXiv:1111.6097] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  56. [76] B. Dumont, B. Fuks, and C. Wymant,MadAnalysis 5 implementation of CMS-SUS-13-011: search for stops in the single lepton final state at 8 TeV, doi:10.7484/INSPIREHEP.DATA.LR5T.2RR3, (validation material in http://madanalysis.irmp.ucl.ac.be/raw- attachment/wiki/PublicAnalysisData... on Pithdoi:10.7484/inspirehep.data.lr5t.2rr3
  57. [77] G. Chalons and D. Sengupta,MadAnalysis 5 implementation of the ATLAS multi jet analysis documented in arXiv:1405.7875, JHEP 1409 (2014) 176, doi:10.7484/INSPIREHEP.DATA.UYT6.GFD9 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  58. [78] A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for direct pair production of the top squark in all-hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 09 (2014) 015, [arXiv:1406.1122] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  59. [79] J. Cao, L. Shang, J. M. Yang, and Y. Zhang,Explanation of the ATLAS Z-Peaked Excess in the NMSSM, JHEP 06 (2015) 152, [arXiv:1504.07869] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  60. [81] M. E. Cabrera and J. A. Casas,Understanding and improving the Effective Mass for LHC searches, arXiv:1207.0435 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  61. [82] A. Datta, G. L. Kane and M. Toharia,Is it SUSY?, hep-ph/0510204 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  62. [83] T. Han, R. Mahbubani, D. G. E. Walker and L. T. Wang,Top Quark Pair plus Large Missing Energy at the LHC, JHEP 0905 (2009) 117 [arXiv:0803.3820 [hep-ph] ] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  63. [84] J. M. Smillie and B. R. Webber,Distinguishing spins in supersymmetric and universal extra dimension models at the large hadron collider, JHEP 10 (2005) 069, [hep-ph/0507170] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  64. [85] A. Datta, K. Kong, and K. T. Matchev,Discrimination of supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 096006, [hep-ph/0509246]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D72,119901(2005)]. – 38 – on PithPith's reviewarXiv
Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. Constraining new physics with SModelS version 2 hep-ph · Dec 2021
  2. Exotic decays of top partners: mind the search gap hep-ph · Aug 2019
  3. Constraining new physics with searches for long-lived particles: Implementation into SModelS hep-ph · Aug 2018
  4. Charged Composite Scalar Dark Matter hep-ph · Jul 2017
  5. Searching for Dark Photons with Maverick Top Partners hep-ph · Apr 2019
  6. Top-philic Vector-Like Portal to Scalar Dark Matter hep-ph · Apr 2018
  7. Common exotic decays of top partners hep-ph · Feb 2018
  8. SModelS v1.1 user manual hep-ph · Jan 2017
  9. Collider limits on new physics within micrOMEGAs4.3 hep-ph · Jun 2016

Topics: Dark Matter, Dark Matter

How the literature uses it

25 arXiv papers cite this in 31 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 · 24 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper
  • We extend a previous study relying on simplified model results from the Run 1 of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [ref] by considering more recent LHC Run 2 supersymmetry searches that can be recast to constrain any model featuring strongly-interacting quark partners decaying into a final-state comprised of missing energy and several SM objects [ref] .

    Top-philic Vector-Like Portal to Scalar Dark Matter · Introduction · 0.99

Uses its method or tool 1 paper
Uses its data or values 1 paper
  • To estimate the current bound on $M_𝒴 = M_𝒵$, we start from the result obtained in the dedicated $8$ TeV analysis of Ref. [ref] , $m_ψ> 0.85$ TeV based on $∼20$ fb$^-1$ of data.

    Charged Composite Scalar Dark Matter · LHC constraints on top partners · 0.94

Cites it as background 4 papers
  • Recently, however, a new exotic decay possibility of $T$ has attracted considerable attention in the literature [ref] where a $T$ quark decays to the top quark along with a scalar ($ϕ$) or pseudoscalar ($η$) that is SM singlet.

    Discovery prospects of a vectorlike top partner decaying to a singlet boson · Introduction · 0.89

  • Recently there has been raising interest in exploring “exotic” decays into non-SM bosons: they could arise as new pseudo-Nambu-Goldstones in non-minimal cosets [ref] , as additional pseudo-scalars carrying QCD colour charge [ref] , as Dark Matter candidates [ref] , or they could be a gluon or a photon [ref] or simply new scalar states [ref] .

    Exotic decays of top partners: mind the search gap · Introduction · 0.90

  • [The treatment of charged tracks is also possible in the context of simplified models [ref] and will be available in future versions of .] It has been applied to a number of minimal and non-minimal supersymmetric (SUSY) models in [ref] but may also be used for non-SUSY models, see e.g. [ref] .

    On the coverage of the pMSSM by simplified model results · Introduction · 0.81

What it cites · 65 sentences without a confident label

Contests 1 paper
Uses the method or tool of 15 papers
Cites as support 1 paper
  • (This was also observed in [ref] .

    Is it SUSY? · Conclusions · 0.99

Cites as background 28 papers

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