Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

A case study about the mass exclusion limits for the BSM vector resonances with the direct couplings to the third quark generation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Bottom-quark annihilation can dominate production of a new heavy neutral boson, so it controls the LHC mass limits.

desk verdict The b-quark dominance claim is solid and this paper's main contribution; its updated mass limits outrun the NWA validity the authors themselves set, so treat the numbers as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11619 v2 pith:N7KDI2JB submitted 2019-08-30 hep-ph

Mikuláš Gintner , Josef Juráň This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords tBESSmodelvectorresonancetripletmassexclusionlimitsbottomquarkpartondistributionDrell-YanproductionnarrowwidthapproximationthirdgenerationcouplingsLHCsearches
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that when a new heavy vector boson couples directly to the third quark generation, the standard shortcut of dropping bottom quarks from the proton's parton content fails. In the tBESS model studied here, the neutral resonance's Drell-Yan production can be dominated by $b\bar{b}$ annihilation: in one benchmark with resonance mass 1 TeV, $g''=20$, $b_L=b_R=0.1$, and $p=1$, the $b\bar{b}\to\rho^0$ subprocess supplies 95% of the production cross section despite the bottom quark's tiny parton density. Because every neutral decay channel inherits this production, the LHC mass exclusion limits for the resonance, including the $WW$ channel, depend on the direct bottom couplings; ignoring bottom quarks changes the limits qualitatively. The paper also finds that updated LHC bounds push the exclusion limits beyond 3 TeV for weaker resonance couplings, but at those masses the resonance width is so large that the narrow width approximation used to derive the limits is no longer clearly valid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective-Lagrangian vector triplet introduced via hidden local symmetry, with direct couplings $b_L$, $b_R$, and $p$ to the third-generation quarks. The cross section is assembled from the narrow width formula $\sigma(pp\to abX)=\sigma_{\rm prod}(pp\to\rho X)\times{\rm BR}(\rho\to ab)$, where the production cross section is a sum over parton channels of $16\pi^2 K_{AB}F_{AB}\,d\Pi_{AB}/d\hat{s}$ evaluated at $\hat{s}=M_\rho^2$. The decisive factor is the partial fatness $F_{AB}=\Gamma_{\rho\to AB}/M_\rho$: the $b\bar{b}$ partial fatness is the only DY entry that grows with the direct couplings, and this is what allows the tiny $b\bar{b}$ quasi-luminosity to win. This mechanism, not an exotic PDF feature, carries the argument that bottom-quark partons must be included.

What would settle it

Compute the full off-shell $pp\to W^+W^-$ cross section with the complete propagator of the broad $\rho^0$ and with signal-background interference included, for example at $g''=20$, $M_\rho=1.8$ TeV, $b_L=b_R=0.1$, $p=1$. If the full result differs from the narrow-width value by more than the experimental uncertainty, or if the full calculation moves the excluded-region boundary in the $(b_L,b_R)$ plane, then the NWA-based exclusion limits are not reliable for those parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for an $SU(2)_{L+R}$ vector resonance triplet coupled directly and only to top and bottom quarks, bottom-quark partons cannot be dropped from neutral-resonance production. The partial fatness $F_{bb}$ is the only Drell-Yan entry that grows with the direct couplings, scaling as $g''^2(b_L^2+p^4 b_R^2)$ while all other Drell-Yan fatnesses fall as $1/g''^2$; this overcomes the 2--3 order-of-magnitude deficit of the $b\bar{b}$ parton luminosity. With $M_\rho=1$ TeV, $g''=20$, $b_L=b_R=0.1$, $p=1$, the $b\bar{b}\to\rho^0$ contribution is 95% of neutral DY production, and the paper states there are parameter regions where more than 90% of neutral resonance production proceeds through $b\bar{b}\to\rho^0$. The $WW$ and $WZ$ channels remain the only ones that exclude the triplet, and their limits now extend past 3 TeV for the weakest couplings in the considered range, with resonance fatness above 40%; the paper explicitly cautions that such limits rest on the narrow width approximation beyond its expected range of validity.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical limits assume that a broad resonance can still be treated as if it decays on-shell, and the paper itself doubts this once the width exceeds about 10% of the mass; several updated limits sit at 11-44%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reinterpretations of LHC neutral-resonance limits in models with enhanced third-generation couplings must include $b$-quark parton distribution functions in the production calculation.
  • The $WW$ and $WZ$ channels are the only current sources of mass exclusion limits for the tBESS triplet; the $tt$, $bb$, and $tb$ channels do not yet reach the experimental upper bounds.
  • In the $(b_L,b_R)$ plane the excluded region can be ring-shaped, with a central allowed island, so limits on the direct couplings are highly mass- and $p$-dependent.
  • Updated LHC bounds raise the exclusion limits past 3 TeV for weaker couplings, but the corresponding width-to-mass ratios exceed 10% (up to about 44%), so those numerical limits should be treated with caution.
  • Flavor-physics restrictions from $Z\to b\bar{b}$ and $B\to X_s\gamma$ are consistent with the LHC-derived limits on $b_L$ and $b_R$ and can complement them once the auxiliary $\lambda$ parameters are fixed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same $b\bar{b}$-dominance mechanism should appear in any $Z'$-like or composite vector model with enhanced bottom couplings, so the lesson extends beyond tBESS to composite-Higgs and partial-compositeness parameter regions.
  • Editorial inference: the sharp change in excluded regions between $M_\rho=1.75$ and $1.85$ TeV seen in the paper suggests that coarse mass grids in limit reinterpretations could miss narrow allowed windows; fine mass scans are needed.
  • Editorial inference: because the updated excluded regions concern broad resonances, a full off-shell calculation including signal-background interference could shift the boundaries; this is a direct, testable extension of the paper's NWA-based limits.
  • Editorial inference: future LHC searches for strongly coupled resonances may need to use broad line-shape templates instead of narrow-peak searches, since the width-to-mass ratio grows quickly with the resonance mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies mass exclusion limits for a strongly coupled composite SU(2)_L+R vector resonance triplet (the tBESS model) with direct couplings to the third quark generation only. Using LHC upper bounds on σ×BR and the narrow width approximation (NWA), the authors compute exclusion limits for the neutral and charged resonances, updating earlier work by including sea-quark (including bottom) parton densities and new ATLAS/CMS data. The central qualitative result is that b-quark partons cannot be neglected in the neutral Drell-Yan production: for e.g. Mρ=1 TeV, g''=20, bL=bR=0.1, p=1, the bbar→ρ0 contribution is 95%. The paper also presents updated mass exclusion limits in Tables 6-8, where the resonance fatness Γtot/Mρ ranges from 11% to over 40%, and includes a discussion of flavor physics constraints on the direct couplings. The authors are candid that the NWA is unreliable above Γtot/Mρ≈10% and that the quoted high-fatness limits must be considered with caution.

Significance. If the b-quark dominance claim holds, the paper makes a useful and non-obvious point: direct couplings to the third generation can compensate the small b-quark parton luminosity, so phenomenological recasts of LHC resonance searches that drop b-quark initial states can be qualitatively wrong. The analytic partial-width formulas, the explicit luminosity treatment with CT10 PDFs, and the systematic scanning of bL, bR, and p are clear strengths, and the authors openly flag the limitations of their approximations. The weakness is that the headline numerical mass exclusion limits (Tables 6-8) are all derived in the regime where the NWA is acknowledged to be unreliable, so the quantitative limits are not established even though the qualitative conclusion is likely robust. The paper is best viewed as a methodology case study with a robust qualitative message, not as a source of final exclusion numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [3, Eq. (27); Tables 6-8; Section 5] The updated mass exclusion limits are obtained from the NWA factorization σ=σprod×BR, which the paper itself expects to be valid only for Γtot/Mρ ≲ 10%. Tables 6-8 quote limits at fatnesses from 0.11 to above 0.44; for example, Table 7 lists Γtot/Mρ=0.41 at MEL=2.96 TeV for g''=20, and Table 8 lists 0.40 at 2.97 TeV. At such widths, off-shell production, line-shape effects, and signal-background interference are not negligible, and the caution in Section 5 does not turn these numbers into reliable predictions. The quantitative central claim of the paper is therefore not supported. I recommend either restricting all quoted MELs to the region Γtot/Mρ ≤ 0.10, or providing a finite-width/off-shell calculation that accounts for the propagation and interference effects, or explicitly presenting the high-fatness numbers only as an illustrative extrapolation.
  2. [4.4 and Section 4.1; experimental bounds] The comparison of model predictions with ATLAS and CMS upper bounds inherits the experimental analyses' own narrow-resonance assumptions. The Collaborations' signal templates used to derive the 95% CL bounds in Refs. [39-61] are constructed for narrow line shapes; for a resonance with Γtot/Mρ>20%, the acceptance, efficiency, and the very definition of the on-shell cross section differ from what the NWA predicts. The manuscript does not quantify this systematic mismatch, and merely noting that the limits are 'based on the narrow resonance qualification' is insufficient. This is a separate, load-bearing issue from the theoretical NWA validity, and it affects the numerical MELs even if the NWA were replaced by a more accurate production calculation.
  3. [Conclusions, Tables 6-8] The Conclusions present the updated numerical MELs as the main results (e.g., limits between 2.28 TeV and 2.97 TeV with fatnesses 11-40%) and only then state that these values 'must be considered with caution'. Because the fatness exceeds the paper's own 10% rule by a large margin, the text should clearly separate the region where the NWA-based limits are reliable from the region where they are not. As written, a reader can easily take the tables to be actual exclusion bounds rather than a demonstration of where the procedure breaks down. A re-framing that makes the methodology-caution message primary would resolve this.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4 caption] The caption says 'within the interval |bL=R| ≤ 1', but the model parameter space and the surrounding text restrict |bL,R| to ≤0.1. This looks like a typo and should be corrected to |bL=R| ≤ 0.1 to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 4.4] The text says 'we restrain ourselves from displaying the mass exclusion limits when they exceed 3 TeV', yet Tables 6-8 quote '> 3 TeV' entries for several g'' values. This is a verbal-logical mismatch; please clarify that limits above 3 TeV are expressed only as a lower bound and are not numerically resolved.
  3. [Figure 6] The legend labels 'WL+ZL' and 'WL-ZL' are ambiguous; they presumably denote the luminosities for W_L Z_L and W_L W_L (or the like) in the VBF contribution. Please use explicit particle names for clarity.
  4. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'the sea-without-b quark production' is awkward; consider replacing with 'the production of all sea quarks except the bottom quark'.
  5. [Abstract] The sentence 'Their validity are also limited by the assumptions and approximations applied to their calculations' contains a subject-verb agreement error; 'validity are' should be 'validity is'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predictions are external model-vs-data comparisons, and the b-quark production share is a computed output, not a fitted input.

full rationale

Verdict: no significant circularity. The paper's central comparison is external: model predictions sigma(pp -> rho X -> ab X) from Eq. (27) are confronted with ATLAS/CMS 95% C.L. upper bounds (Section 4, Tables 6-8). The model cross sections are computed from the tBESS Lagrangian reproduced in Appendix A, and the parameters M_rho, g'', b_L, b_R, p are scanned over stated ranges (Section 4: 1 <= M_rho/TeV <= 3, 12 <= g'' <= 25, |b_L,R| <= 0.1, 0 <= p <= 1), not fitted to the bounds. The 95% bbar -> rho0 production share quoted in Section 3.1 follows from Eq. (28), sigma_prod = sum 16 pi^2 K_AB F_AB dPi_AB/ds-hat, where F_bb is the partial fatness computed from the Lagrangian (Eqs. 15-18) and dPi_bb is the CT10 PDF luminosity of Eq. (30); the 95% number is a numerical output of that calculation, not an input. Tables 4 and 5 quote the smallest exclusion limits over the allowed parameter ranges, i.e., minima of a computed exclusion region rather than fitted predictions. The self-citations [16-19] supply the phenomenological Lagrangian and earlier no-direct-interaction results; the Lagrangian itself is stated in Appendix A, and the present direct-interaction calculation is new, so the citation chain does not replace independent content. The only flagged weakness is explicit and non-circular: Section 3 states the NWA formula (27) is generally expected to work when Gamma_tot/M_rho <= 10%, and Section 4.4 plus the Conclusions note that the updated Tables 6-8 correspond to fatnesses of 11-44%, so the quoted limits 'must be considered with caution.' That is a correctness/reliability caveat, not a reduction of the predictions to their inputs, and it does not undermine the qualitative b-quark production claim, which is computed at fatness below 10%.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model introduces five scanned or fixed parameters (Mρ, g'', bL, bR, p, plus aV/aρ fixed and λL,λR in the flavor discussion), a specific hidden local symmetry construction, and one invented resonance triplet. The comparison to external LHC upper bounds is the main non-circular anchor of the analysis.

free parameters (6)
  • Mρ = 1-3 TeV (scanned)
    Resonance mass obtained by trading the Lagrangian parameter alpha; the paper scans it to map exclusion regions.
  • g'' = 12-25 (scanned)
    Hidden local symmetry gauge coupling; chosen in the interval suggested by perturbativity and prior constraints; all key cross sections depend on it.
  • bL, bR = -0.1 to 0.1 (scanned)
    Direct couplings to third-generation left and right doublets; scan range taken from prior electroweak precision studies.
  • p = 0 to 1 (scanned)
    Suppresses the direct coupling to the right bottom quark; scanned to map exclusion dependence.
  • aV, aρ = aV=1, aρ=0 (fixed)
    Free prefactors of Higgs couplings set to the SM value and zero; the authors argue these choices do not affect the analysis.
  • λL, λR = free, not varied in LHC scan
    Additional symmetry-allowed non-SM couplings in the fermion sector; they appear only in the Section 4.3 flavor constraints.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Model gauge structure and fermion content with the 125 GeV Higgs boson
    The BSM Lagrangian is built on SM fields and the observed Higgs boson; this is the background for all calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper Global symmetry breaking pattern SU(2)_L x SU(2)_R to SU(2)_(L+R), with the vector triplet introduced via hidden local symmetry
    This is the defining tBESS construction from the authors' prior papers; it is not derived from data in this work.
  • domain assumption The vector triplet couples directly only to the third-generation quarks; lighter fermions interact only through gauge mixing
    Central scenario assumption, motivated by top/bottom compositeness but not independently tested.
  • domain assumption Narrow Width Approximation is valid for resonance fatness at or below about 10%
    Used to convert production cross section times branching ratio into the signal; the paper relies on this and then applies it above 10% in updated tables.
  • domain assumption CT10 PDF set with LHAPDF6, Effective-W Approximation for VBF, tree-level amplitudes, and CKM set to unity
    Computational framework used for all numerical values; no uncertainty estimates are included.
  • domain assumption ATLAS and CMS 95% C.L. upper bounds derived for narrow resonances can be compared with this model's NWA cross sections
    The entire exclusion procedure assumes the experimental limits are applicable to the tBESS signals; the paper notes this is restricted.
invented entities (1)
  • SU(2)_(L+R) vector resonance triplet (rho0, rho+/-)
    purpose: Hypothetical composite spin-1 bound states carrying direct couplings to top and bottom quarks; the central object of the exclusion study.
    The triplet is an ingredient of the tBESS model, not a discovered particle. LHC searches only set upper limits, and the paper provides no independent falsifiable signature outside the model constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A case study about the mass exclusion limits for the BSM vector resonances with the direct couplings to the third quark generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N7KDI2JB

@misc{pith2026190811619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A case study about the mass exclusion limits for the BSM vector resonances with the direct couplings to the third quark generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N7KDI2JB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11619}
}
abstract

The upper bounds that the LHC measurements searching for heavy resonances beyond the Standard model set on the resonance production cross sections are not universal. They depend on various characteristics of the resonance under consideration, like its mass, spin, and its interaction pattern. Their validity are also limited by the assumptions and approximations applied to their calculations. The bounds are typically used to derive the mass exclusion limits for the new resonances. In our work, we address some of the issues that emerge when deriving the mass exclusion limits for the strongly coupled composite $SU(2)_{L+R}$ vector resonance triplet which would interact directly to the third quark generation only. We investigate the restrictions on the applicability of the generally used limit-obtaining procedure to this particular type of vector resonances. We demonstrate that, in this case, it is necessary to consider the bottom quark partonic contents of the proton. Eventually, we find the mass exclusion limits for this resonance triplet for some representative subsets of the parameter space.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Grojean, Proc

    C. Grojean, Proc. Sci., EPS-HEP2009, 008 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Contino, arXiv:1005.4269

    R. Contino, arXiv:1005.4269

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer, Lect. Notes Phys. 913, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Arbey, G

    A. Arbey, G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea, S. Le Corre, and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 95, 015028 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer, JHEP 1109 (2011) 135; arXiv:1106.2719

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Contino, D

    R. Contino, D. Marzocca, D. Pappadopulo, R. Rattazzi, JHEP 1110 (2011) 081; O. Matsedonskyi, G. Panico, and A. Wulzer, JHEP 1301 (2013) 164

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 19, 1277 (1979); L. Susskind, ibid. 20, 2619 (1979); E. Farhi and L. Susskind, Phys. Rept. 74, 277 (1981)

    work page 1979

  8. [8]

    Dimopoulos and L

    S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B155, 237 (1979); E. Eichten and K. D. Lane, Phys. Lett. B90, 125 (1980)

    work page 1979

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1441 (1981); Phys. Lett. B150, 301 (1985); K. Yamawaki, M. Bando, and K.- i. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1335 (1986); T. Ap- pelquist, D. Karabali, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, ibid. 57, 957 (1986); T. Akiba and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B169, 432 (...

    1981

  2. [10]

    C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett. B266, 419 (1991); C. T. Hill, ibid. B345, 483 (1995). J.-Y. Lang, S.-Z. Jiang, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015002 (2009)

    1991

  3. [11]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B429, 263 (1998); I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, ibid. B436, 257 (1998); L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 3370, (1999); L. Randall and R. Sundrum, ibid., 83, 4690, (1999)

    1998

  4. [12]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998); E. Witten, ibid. 2, 253 (1998); S. S. Gubser et al. , Phys. Lett. B428, 105 (1998); N. Arkani-Hamed et al. , JHEP 0108 (2001) 017; R. Rattazzi et al. , ibid. 0104, 021 (2001)

    1998

  5. [13]

    R. S. Chivukula, B. Coleppa, S. Chiara, E. Simmons, H.- J. He, M. Kurachi, and M. Tanabashi, Phys. Rev. D 74, 075011 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    Accomando, S

    E. Accomando, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici, and L. Fedeli, Phys. Rev. D 79, 055020 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Contino, T

    R. Contino, T. Kramer, M. Son, and R. Sundrum, JHEP 0705 (2007) 074. 22

    2007

  8. [16]

    Gintner, J

    M. Gintner, J. Jur´ aˇ n, and I. Melo, Phys. Rev. D 84, 035013 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Gintner, J

    M. Gintner, J. Jur´ aˇ n, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2577 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Gintner, J

    M. Gintner, J. Jur´ aˇ n, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 651 (2016), erratum, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 6 (2017); arXiv: 1608.00463

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gintner, J

    M. Gintner, J. Jur´ aˇ n, Acta Physica Polonica B 48, 1383 (2017); arXiv: 1705.04806

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    T. L. Barklow et al. , in Proceedings of 1996 DPF/DPB Summer Study On New Directions For High-Energy Physics (Snowmass 96), Snowmass, Colorado, 25 Jun - 12 Jul 1996 , edited by D. G. Cassel, L. Trindle Gennari, R. H. Siemann (Stanford, CA, Stanford Linear Accelera- tor Center,...

    1996 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Han, Int

    T. Han, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23, 4107 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    T. Han, G. Valencia, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034002 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    He and G

    X.-G. He and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D 66, 013004 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    Contino, Y

    R. Contino, Y. Nomura, and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B671, 148 (2003); K. Agashe, R. Contino, A. Pomarol, ibid. B719, 165 (2005)

    2003

  17. [25]

    Bellazzini, C

    B. Bellazzini, C. Cs´ aki, J. Hubisz, J. Serra, and J. Tern - ing, JHEP 1211 (2012) 003; arXiv:1205.4032

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Liu, L.-T

    D. Liu, L.-T. Wang, and K.-P. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 100, 075021 (2019); arXiv:1901.01674

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B365, 259 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    T. Han, Y. J. Kim, A. Likhoded, and G. Valencia, Nucl. Phys. B593, 415 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    T. Han, D. L. Rainwater, and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D 68, 015003 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Accomando, L

    E. Accomando, L. Fedeli, S. Moretti, S. De Curtis, and D. Dominici, Phys. Rev. D 86, 115006 (2012); L. Fedeli, S. Moretti, S. De Curtis, and D. Dominici, Phys. Rev. D 87, 015021 (2013)

    2012

  23. [31]

    A. E. C. Hern´ andez and R. Torre, Nucl. Phys. B841, 188 (2010); A. E. C. Hern´ andez, B. D. S´ aez, C. O. Dib, and A. Zerwekh, Phys. Rev. D 96, 115027 (2017); arXiv:1707.05195

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. S. Chivukula, P. Ittisamai, K. Mohan, and E. H. Sim- mons, Phys. Rev. D 96, 055043 (2017); arXiv:1707.01080

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rep. 164, 217 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Casalbuoni, S

    R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici, and R. Gatto, Phys. Lett. 155B, 95 (1985); Nucl. Phys. B282, 235 (1987); R. Casalbuoni, P. Chiappetta, S. De Curtis, F. Feruglio, R. Gatto, B. Mele, and J. Terron, Phys. Lett. B249, 130 (1990)

    1985

  27. [35]

    Pappadopulo, A

    D. Pappadopulo, A. Thamm, R. Torre and A. Wulzer, JHEP 1409 (2014) 060; arXiv:1402.4431

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dawson, Nucl

    S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B249, 42 (1985)

    1985

  29. [37]

    D. B. Clark, E. Godat, F. I. Olness, arXiv:1605.08012. Mane Parse package download: https://ncteq.hepforge.org/mma/index.html

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Buckley et al

    A. Buckley et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015); arXiv:1412.7420. LHAPDF6 PDFs download: http://lhapdf.hepforge.org/pdfsets

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/EXOT- 2017-31/

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-EXOT-2017-31. https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/EXOT- 2017-31/

    2017

  32. [40]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1803 (2018) 009; arXiv:1708.09638

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-B2G-17-001

  34. [42]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-082

    2016

  35. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-062

    2016

  36. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1803 (2018) 174; arXiv:1712.06518

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 96, 052004 (2017); arXiv:1703.09127

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-16-056

  39. [47]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-027

    2017

  40. [48]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-016

    2017

  41. [49]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1801 (2018) 055; arXiv:1709.07242

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 161802 (2018); arXiv:1801.06992

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1904 (2019) 031; arXiv:1810.05905

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 98, 032016 (2018); arXiv:1805.09299

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B788, 347 (2019); arXiv:1807.10473

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-B2G-17-010

  47. [55]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-B2G-18-006

  48. [56]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B792, 107 (2019); arXiv:1807.11421

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-B2G-18-002

  50. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2018-017

    2018

  51. [59]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2019-007

    2019

  52. [60]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2019-001

    2019

  53. [61]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2019-003

    2019

  54. [62]

    R. L. Delgado, A. Dobado, D. Espriu, C. Garcia-Garcia, M. J. Herrero, X. Marcano, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP 1711 (2017) 098; arXiv:1707.04580. R. L. Delgado, C. Garcia-Garcia, and M. J. Herrero, JHEP 1911 (2019) 065; arXiv:1907.11957

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Amhis et al

    Y. Amhis et al. (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group), arXiv:1909.12524

    1909 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.