Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Scalar leptoquark effects on $B \to \mu \bar\nu$ decay

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 A TeV-scale scalar leptoquark can modify the B→μν decay rate enough to match the measured central value.

desk verdict A competent, honest application of S1 leptoquark to B→μν with a standard matching calculation, but the LHC recast that secures the surviving parameter space is too crude to trust for quantitative exclusion regions. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00403 v2 pith:XH74BGE6 submitted 2019-09-01 hep-ph hep-ex

Wei-Shu Hou , Tanmoy Modak , Gwo-Guang Wong This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 13.20.He12.60.-i14.80.Sv
keywords scalarleptoquarkS1BtomunudecaypurelyleptonicdecaysWilsoncoefficientshelicitysuppressionneutronelectricdipolemomentfuturecollidersearches
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

Purely leptonic B decays are a clean window onto new physics, and this paper argues that the scalar leptoquark S1 at roughly 1 TeV can open that window wide in the muon channel. Although the Standard Model rate for B→μν̄ is helicity-suppressed, S1 generates a scalar Wilson coefficient that interferes with the Standard Model amplitude, and the scalar operator is enhanced by $m_B^2/(m_\mu m_b) \sim 60$ relative to the vector operator. Matching the measured branching ratio of $5.3 \times 10^{-7}$ requires $|C_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mu\mu}| \simeq 0.0344$ at relative phase $0$, or $\simeq 0.0026$ at phase $\pi$; a tau antineutrino in the final state needs $|C_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mu\tau}| = 0.009$. If the paper is right, a TeV-scale S1 with Yukawa couplings that are still allowed by direct searches and electric dipole moments is a concrete explanation of the current $2.8\sigma$ excess, and the next round of B-factory data should be able to distinguish it from the Standard Model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scalar Wilson coefficient $C_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\ell\ell'}$ generated by the TeV-scale leptoquark in the effective Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}} = \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}} V_{ub}(C_{VL}O_{VL} + C_{SL}O_{SL})$. The coefficient is the product $y^{R*}_{1\ell} y^L_{3\ell'}/m_{S1}^2$, run down to the B-meson scale, and it works because the scalar operator $O_{\mathrm{SL}}$ is helicity-enhanced in $B \to \ell \bar{\nu}$ by $m_B^2/(m_\ell m_b)$; the phase between this coefficient and $V_{ub}$ controls whether the S1 contribution interferes constructively or destructively with the Standard Model amplitude. This one coefficient, rather than the full leptoquark Lagrangian, is what lets the paper translate the measured rate into required Yukawa coupling ranges.

What would settle it

A future measurement at a B factory that finds $\mathcal{B}(B \to \mu \bar{\nu})$ within $1\sigma$ of the Standard Model value $3.92 \times 10^{-7}$ with an uncertainty below roughly $0.5 \times 10^{-7}$ would remove the empirical motivation for the S1 explanation; a future neutron-EDM bound $|d_n/e| < 10^{-28}$ cm would specifically kill the CP-violating $\phi_{\tau\tau} = \pi/2$ branch of the $B \to \tau \bar{\nu}$ solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the scalar leptoquark S1, with mass around 1.2 TeV, can reproduce the observed B→μν̄ rate through the scalar operator $O_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\ell\ell'} = (\bar{u}_L b)(\bar{\ell}_L \nu_{\ell'})$, not through the vector operator. The S1 contribution to the Wilson coefficient is $C_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\ell\ell'} = -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{8G_F V_{ub}}\frac{y^{R*}_{1\ell} y^L_{3\ell'}}{m_{S1}^2}$, and it enters the branching ratio with a relative phase and with the helicity enhancement $m_B^2/(m_\ell m_b)$. For the muon channel this enhancement is about 60, so the required coefficient is an order of magnitude smaller than the vector-coefficient alternative. The paper shows quantitatively that $|C_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mu\mu}| \lesssim 0.0344$ at phase $0$ or $\lesssim 0.0026$ at phase $\pi$ matches the measured central value, and that $|C_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mu\tau}| = 0.009$ does the same by adding in quadrature when the unseen antineutrino is a $\tau$. After imposing S1 pair-production searches and neutron-EDM constraints, part of the corresponding Yukawa parameter space remains.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that all S1 Yukawa couplings except the plotted $y^R_{1\ell}$ and $y^L_{3\ell'}$ products are zero (to satisfy electron EDM) or CKM-suppressed, so the Wilson coefficients simplify to those products; if those other couplings are not small, the quoted ranges and exclusion plots no longer describe the full S1 parameter space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured B→μν̄ rate remains above the Standard Model, an S1 leptoquark near 1.2 TeV with the plotted Yukawa products is a viable explanation; Belle II should confirm the rate with early data.
  • A future neutron-EDM bound near $|d_n/e| < 10^{-28}$ cm would exclude the CP-violating $\phi_{\tau\tau} = \pi/2$ region that supports the higher $B \to \tau \bar{\nu}$ rate, while leaving the $\phi = 0, \pi$ solutions.
  • HL-LHC searches for $S_1 \to t\mu$ and heavy resonances in $\tau\tau$, $\tau\nu$, and $\mu\nu$ final states can cover much of the still-open Yukawa parameter space, especially if $|y^L_{33}|$ is as large as the R(D^{(*)}) tension favors.
  • The paper's comparison shows that the $B \to \mu \bar{\nu}$ channel is the sharper probe among purely leptonic B decays: the same S1 couplings need much larger values to move $B \to \tau \bar{\nu}$, because the scalar enhancement is only about 4 there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the ratio $R^{\mu/\tau}_B = \mathcal{B}(B \to \mu \bar{\nu})/\mathcal{B}(B \to \tau \bar{\nu})$, which the paper notes is 0.0045 in the SM, would be a nearly parameter-free cross-check: both decays are set by the same $y^R_{1\ell} y^L_{3\ell'}$ products, and their ratio is almost insensitive to $f_B$ and $|V_{ub}|$.
  • Editorial extension: the paper truncates to $y^R_{1\ell}$ and $y^L_{3\ell'}$; allowing non-negligible $y^L_{2i}$ or $y^L_{3i}$ would change the Wilson coefficients, the inferred coupling ranges, and the LHC branching-fraction interpretation, so a global fit with those couplings switched on is a natural next step.
  • Editorial extension: if the R(D^{(*)}) anomalies persist, the same $y^L_{33}$ that drives $b \to c\tau\nu$ would also, when paired with $y^R_{12}$, feed $B \to \mu \bar{\nu}$ through $C_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mu\tau}$; a combined flavor and dijet analysis could connect the two anomalies.
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. This paper studies the impact of the scalar leptoquark S1 on the purely leptonic decays B→μν̄ and B→τν̄. Starting from the S1 Yukawa Lagrangian, the authors derive the effective Hamiltonian and Wilson coefficients at the S1 mass scale, including RGE running to the B-meson scale. Using the Belle measurement of B(B→μν) and the world average for B(B→τν), they extract the required magnitudes and phases of scalar Wilson coefficients, highlighting the m_B^2/(m_l m_b) enhancement of scalar over vector operators. They then translate these requirements into the S1 Yukawa couplings under the assumption that all couplings except selected products vanish or are CKM-suppressed, and overlay constraints from b→cℓν observables, (g−2)_μ, τ→μγ, neutron EDM, and LHC direct searches. The main quantitative claim is that for m_S1 ≈ 1.2 TeV, a part of the S1 Yukawa parameter space that can explain the Belle central value remains unexcluded after LHC and EDM constraints.

Significance. The analytic matching in Eqs. (5)–(8) is standard and internally consistent, and the paper correctly identifies the scalar enhancement factor m_B^2/(m_l m_b) and its implications for B→μν. The compilation of flavor and collider constraints, including an explicit MC recast for the ditau search, is useful. The paper's central claim that sizable S1 couplings remain viable, however, rests on approximate recasts: the ATLAS pair-production constraint is applied as a simple scaling by B(S1→uμ), and the ditau recast uses a simplified test statistic without nuisance parameters. These limitations are partially self-flagged, but they directly affect the surviving-region conclusion. The results are nonetheless a reasonable first map of the S1 parameter space for B→μν, provided the approximations are treated as indicative rather than definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.F, Fig. 3] The ATLAS pair-production constraint is implemented by comparing B(S1→uμ) directly with the 95% CL upper limit on B(LQ→qμ) from Ref. [16]. In the two-coupling scenario (y^R_12, y^L_32), S1 also decays to tμ and bν_μ, with branching fractions correlated to the same couplings; these modes have different jet multiplicities, b-tag content, and lepton/MET acceptances, so the signal rate is not simply proportional to B(S1→uμ). For φ=π, the Belle central-value contour corresponds to B(S1→uμ) ~ 0.4, and a factor-of-two change in the effective limit could remove or substantially shrink the surviving region. The exclusion boundaries in Fig. 3 should therefore be treated as approximate; a full recast including all decay modes is needed to secure the claim that part of the parameter space remains unexcluded.
  2. [Sec. IV.F, footnote 3, Eq. (25)] The ditau recast uses the test statistic with ΔN_i = sqrt(N_obs) and no nuisance parameters, as acknowledged in footnote 3. This ignores correlated systematic uncertainties and can bias the exclusion boundary; the light-gray excluded region in Fig. 4 is correspondingly not robust at the quoted 2σ level. Since this constraint is used to limit the τ-related parameter space, the quantitative boundary should be revisited with a more complete likelihood, or the paper should state a conservative lower bound rather than a precise exclusion contour.
  3. [After Eq. (5) and Sec. IV.A] The analysis assumes all S1 Yukawa couplings other than the plotted products are zero (y^L(R)_i1 = 0) or do not overpower CKM suppression. Under this truncation, the Wilson coefficients in Eq. (5) reduce to y^R_1l y^L_3l' terms, and the LHC decay modes are restricted to uℓ, tℓ, bνℓ. If, for instance, y^L_2i or y^L_3i couplings are non-negligible, both the Wilson coefficients entering Eq. (7) and the S1 branching fractions used in Sec. IV.F change, so the quoted coupling ranges in Figs. 3 and 4 are not a fully general characterization of the S1 parameter space. This limitation is stated, but its impact on the surviving-region claim should be quantified or made more prominent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'in prinicple' should be corrected to 'in principle'.
  2. [Section IV heading] The heading 'YUKA W A COUPLINGS' appears to be a typo; it should read 'YUKAWA COUPLINGS'.
  3. [Sec. IV.F] The reference to 'Sec. 4.6' should be updated to 'Sec. IV.F' for consistency with the section numbering.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The sentence 'the black colors does not correspond to any phase labeling' contains an agreement error; it should be 'the black color does not correspond to any phase labeling.'
  5. [Eq. (11) and Sec. III.A] The extraction of the required Wilson coefficients is a fit to the Belle central value rather than a prediction; the wording 'can modify the B→μν rate significantly' in the abstract should be qualified as 'can accommodate the measured central value' to avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper constrains S1 Wilson coefficients and Yukawa couplings from Belle data, then compares with external LHC, EDM and flavor limits.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is a constraints analysis rather than a prediction: Sec. III inverts Eq. (7) to express Belle's measured B(B→μν) and B(B→τν) values as allowed regions in Wilson-coefficient space, and Sec. IV A repeats the inversion in S1 Yukawa-coupling planes. The extracted quantities are explicitly described as 'required' to match the Belle central value (e.g., 'to account for the Belle central value ... one needs |C_SL^μμ| ≲ 0.0344 (0.0026)'), so the central value is an input, not a claimed output. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then relabeled as an independent prediction. The remaining constraints—ATLAS pair production [16], CMS tμ/tτ searches [15], the pp→ττ recast of [48], neutron EDM [36], ACME [19], HFLAV R(D(*)) and aμ—are all external data or externally derived limits; the recast in Sec. IV F is explicitly approximate (footnote 3), which is a robustness concern but not a circular reduction. Self-citations ([1], [4], [5]) are not load-bearing: [5] supplies a comparative g2HDM plot and the SM expectation 3.92×10^-7, which is independently obtained from the standard formula with fB=190 MeV from FLAG [20] and |Vub|=3.70×10^-3 from PDG [2]. Equations (1)–(8) are standard tree-level matching, CKM rotation, and RGE, and none defines the target observable in terms of itself. Hence no step reduces by construction or through self-citation to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not require new fundamental constants. It rests on the standard B -> l nu operator basis, the S1 Yukawa structure of Eq. (1), and several truncations of the 3x3 Yukawa matrix that the authors state explicitly. The only scanned scale is m_S1 = 1.2 TeV, phases are scanned, and no new particles are introduced beyond the pre-existing S1 leptoquark.

free parameters (2)
  • m_S1 = 1.2 TeV
    Mass scale chosen for illustration in Sec. IV; all required Yukawa couplings scale as m_S1^2, so the plotted ranges are specific to this choice.
  • CP phases phi_ll' = scanned over 0 to pi
    Not predicted by the model; the required coupling sizes depend strongly on phase, for example |C_SL^mu mu| = 0.0344 at phi = 0 versus 0.0026 at phi = pi in Eq. (11).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Standard Model effective Hamiltonian for B -> l nu is dominated by the V-A operator with C_VL^SM = 1, with only vector and scalar operators added from S1.
    Sec. II, Eqs. (3)-(4). This is the standard operator basis used by Belle and prior phenomenological literature.
  • domain assumption S1 has quantum numbers (3bar, 1, 1/3) and couples only through the Yukawa terms in Eq. (1), with diquark couplings turned off to protect proton stability.
    Sec. II, footnote 1. This defines the model space and excludes other possible S1 couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper The neglected S1 couplings y^L(R)_i1 and the non-CKM-suppressed y^L_2i, y^L_3i are either zero or do not overpower CKM suppression, so Eq. (5) involves only products such as y^R_1l y^L_3l'.
    Sec. II after Eq. (5) and Sec. IV. This truncation determines the plotted parameter space and could fail if other couplings are large.
  • standard math Scalar Wilson coefficients are RGE-evolved from m_S1 to mb using the one-loop running-mass factor in Eq. (8).
    Eq. (8); this is standard QCD running for the scalar operator and introduces no new physics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar leptoquark effects on $B \to \mu \bar\nu$ decay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XH74BGE6

@misc{pith2026190900403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar leptoquark effects on $B \to \mu \bar\nu$ decay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XH74BGE6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00403}
}
abstract

Purely leptonic $B$ meson decays provide unique probes for physics Beyond the Standard Model. We study the impact of a scalar leptoquark, $S_1$, on $B \to \mu \bar\nu$ decay. We find that, for $m_{S_1}\sim 1$ TeV, the $S_1$ leptoquark can modify the $B \to \mu \bar\nu$ rate significantly. Such a leptoquark can in prinicple also alter the $B \to \tau \bar\nu$ rate. However, current searches from LHC and low energy physics provide some constraints on the parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Branching ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Similar to Fig. 1, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Similar to Fig. 3 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Correlating Tauonic B Decays to the Neutron EDM via a Scalar Leptoquark

    A. Crivellin and F. Saturnino, arXiv:1905.08257 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1905

  2. [16]

    B¨ uchmuller, R

    W. B¨ uchmuller, R. R¨ uckl and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 191, 442 (1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [1]

    Hou, Phys

    W.-S. Hou, Phys. Rev. D 48, 2342 (1993)

    work page 1993

  4. [2]

    Tanabashi et al

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

    2018

  5. [3]

    See e.g. G.C. Branco et al. , Phys. Rept. 516, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [4]

    Chang, K.-F

    P. Chang, K.-F. Chen and W.-S. Hou, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 261 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [5]

    W.-S. Hou, M. Kohda, T. Modak and G.-G. Wong, arXiv:1903.03016 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1903

  8. [6]

    Sibidanov et al

    A. Sibidanov et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 031801 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 64 references
  1. [7]

    Prim at Moriond EW 2019, La Thuile, Italy, March 2019, arXiv:1906.06871 [hep-ex]

    Talk by M.T. Prim at Moriond EW 2019, La Thuile, Italy, March 2019, arXiv:1906.06871 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Kou et al

    E. Kou et al. [Belle-II Collaboration], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

  3. [9]

    For a recent review, see e.g. I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J.F. Kamenik and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Rept.641, 1 (2016); and references therein

    2016

  4. [10]

    Dorˇ sner, J

    I. Dorˇ sner, J. Drobnak, S. Fajfer, J.F. Kamenik and N. Koˇ snik, JHEP1111, 002 (2011)

    2011

  5. [12]

    We defer discussion regarding this constraint for Sec

    are non-vanishing and, could be sensitive to direct search limits [23]. We defer discussion regarding this constraint for Sec. 4.6. In such scenarios, to open up the parameter space for smaller |yL 33|, one may require other non-zero couplings such as yR 23 andyL 23, or possib...

    2014

  6. [13]

    We closely follow the procedure outlined in Refs

    We utilize ATLAS√s = 13 TeV 36.1 fb−1 ditau search result [48] to constrain|yR 13|. We closely follow the procedure outlined in Refs. [41, 44] in our anal- ysis for extraction of the upper limit. The ATLAS search [48] is divided the into two cat- egories, based on τhadτhad and...

  7. [14]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1906, 144 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    Sirunyan et al

    A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 99, 052002 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Sirunyan et al

    A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241802 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1902.00377 [hep-ex]

    1902 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hiller, D

    G. Hiller, D. Loose and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, Phys. Rev. D97, 075004 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Y. Cai, J. Gargalionis, M.A. Schmidt and R.R. Volkas, JHEP 1710, 047 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Andreev et al

    V. Andreev et al. [ACME Collaboration], Nature 562, 355 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Aoki et al

    S. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group], arXiv:1902.08191 [hep-lat]

    1902 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Amhis et al

    Y. Amhis et al. [HFLAV Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 895 (2017); The updated aver- age of R(D) and R(D(∗)) for Spring 2019 are available at: https://hflav-eos.web.cern.ch/hflav- eos/semi/spring19/html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs.html

    2017

  16. [24]

    Blanke, A

    M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, T. Kitahara, M. Moscati, U. Nierste and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, Phys. Rev. D100, 035035 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Greljo, J

    A. Greljo, J. Martin Camalich and J. D. Ruiz-lvarez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 131803 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Angelescu, D

    A. Angelescu, D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, D.A. Faroughy and O. Sumensari, JHEP 1810, 183 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Glattauer et al

    R. Glattauer et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 93, 032006 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:1702.01521 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Greljo, G

    A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, JHEP 1507, 142 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Olive et al

    K.A. Olive et al. [Particle Data Group], Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Cheung, Phys

    K.-m. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D 64, 033001 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Benbrik, M

    R. Benbrik, M. Chabab and G. Faisel, arXiv:1009.3886 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114025 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Hayasaka et al

    K. Hayasaka et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 666, 16 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. Jung and K. K. Vos, JHEP 1901, 069 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034031 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Pendlebury et al

    J.M. Pendlebury et al. , Phys. Rev. D 92, 092003 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Baker et al

    C.A. Baker et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 131801 (2006) [hep-ex/0602020]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hewett et al

    J.L. Hewett et al. arXiv:1205.2671 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sirunyan et al

    A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 707 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Chandak, T

    K. Chandak, T. Mandal and S. Mitra, arXiv:1907.11194 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mandal, S

    T. Mandal, S. Mitra and S. Raz, Phys. Rev. D 99, 055028 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Bandyopadhyay and R

    P. Bandyopadhyay and R. Mandal, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 491 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Faroughy, A

    D.A. Faroughy, A. Greljo and J.F. Kamenik, Phys. Lett. B 764, 126 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Greljo and D

    A. Greljo and D. Marzocca, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 548 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Sirunyan et al

    A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1806, 120 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Raj, Phys

    N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D 95, 015011 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Schmaltz and Y.-M

    M. Schmaltz and Y.-M. Zhong, JHEP 1901, 132 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1801, 055 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Maguire, L

    E. Maguire, L. Heinrich and G. Watt, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 898, 102006 (2017); The number of events in different mtop T bin can be found here: https://www.hepdata.net/record/78402

    2017

  44. [52]

    Alwall et al

    J. Alwall et al. , JHEP 1407, 079 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Ball et al

    R.D. Ball et al. [NNPDF Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B 877, 290 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Skands, JHEP0605, 026 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    de Favereau et al

    J. de Favereau et al. [DELPHES 3 Collaboration], JHEP 1402, 057 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Alwall et al

    J. Alwall et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 473 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Alloul, N.D

    A. Alloul, N.D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Dorˇ sner and A

    I. Dorˇ sner and A. Greljo, JHEP1805, 126 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 161802 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 792 (2019) 107

    2019

  54. [62]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 100, 052013 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 98, 092008 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Bansal, R.M

    S. Bansal, R.M. Capdevilla, A. Delgado, C. Kolda, A. Martin and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D 98, 015037 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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