Searching for heavy vector-like B quark via pair production in fully hadronic channels at the CLIC

Ji-Long Ma; Peng-Bo Zhao; Shuo Yang; Yi-Hang Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Searching for heavy vector-like B quark via pair production in fully hadronic channels at the CLIC

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper projects that pair-produced vector-like B quarks decaying to bZ or bh can be discovered at the 3 TeV CLIC in fully hadronic channels with 5 ab^-1.

desk verdict Useful CLIC sensitivity projection for hadronic VLQ-B searches, but the Section IV discovery claim overstates the reach and the conclusion misquotes the paper's own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15882 v1 pith:JNEHJRWU submitted 2025-04-22 hep-ph

Shuo Yang , Yi-Hang Wang , Peng-Bo Zhao , Ji-Long Ma This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords vector-likeBquarkCLICpairproductionfatjetsboostedhadronicdecaysexclusionlimitsdiscoveryprospectsnewphysics

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 projects that a 3 TeV CLIC running at 5 $ab^{-1}$ can search for a heavy vector-like B quark through pair production followed by B->bh or B->bZ, using fully hadronic decays of the Higgs or Z boson. Because the B quark is TeV-scale, the Higgs or Z is highly boosted and its decay products merge into a single fat jet, so the analysis clusters hadrons with a large jet radius and applies mass-window cuts. The projected 95% CL exclusions cover branching ratios down to about 0.107 in the boosted-Higgs channel and 0.116 in the boosted-Z channel, for masses between 1.0 TeV and roughly 1.48-1.49 TeV. A 5-$\sigma$ discovery is projected for a B quark with mass between 1 and 1.4 TeV when Br(B->bZ) exceeds 0.185. The motivation is that exotic decay modes can reduce standard-model branching ratios and relax existing LHC bounds, so a lepton-collider search in hadronic channels provides complementary coverage.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the boosted fat jet: at mB between 1 and 1.4 TeV and sqrt(s) = 3 TeV, the decay products of the Higgs or Z are collimated enough to be captured by large-radius jets using the Valencia Linear Collider algorithm with R = 1.0 for the Higgs channel and R = 0.8 for the Z channel. The discriminating variables are the reconstructed masses of the two leading jets, which must fall in the 100-150 GeV Higgs window or the 80-100 GeV Z window, together with an HT > 600 GeV cut and mass constraints pairing each fat jet with a light jet. The simplified effective Lagrangian for the singlet VLQ-B generates the signal, and the Goldstone-boson equivalence relation Br(B->bh) ~ Br(B->bZ) ~ (1-beta_new)/4 ties the two channels, allowing the results to be expressed as limits on the branching ratios after exotic decay modes are introduced.

What would settle it

Take the same event generation and cut flow but replace the fast detector model with a full simulation, or inflate the jet energy resolution by 20-30%, and recompute S/$\sqrt$(S+B) for mB = 1.2 TeV at 5 $ab^{-1}$; if the Higgs and Z mass-window efficiencies fall enough to push the significance below 5, the paper's quoted reach overestimates the CLIC sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the clean e+e- environment of a 3 TeV CLIC with 5 $ab^{-1}$ makes the fully hadronic B-pair channel competitive with leptonic channels for a weak-isospin singlet vector-like B quark. For B->bh, after requiring at least four jets, HT > 600 GeV, the two leading mass-ordered jets in the 100-150 GeV Higgs window, light jets with mass below 70 GeV, and each fat-jet paired with a light jet to a combined mass above 300 GeV, the background falls to about 0.013 fb while the 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4 TeV signals retain 0.020, 0.0155, and 0.0082 fb, giving S/$\sqrt$(S+B) values of 7.8, 6.5, and 4.0. For B->bZ with R = 0.8, a 80-100 GeV Z-mass window, and a combined two-light-jet mass cut above 100 GeV, the corresponding significances are 6.9, 6.3, and 4.7. On this basis the paper concludes that branching ratios down to 0.107 (bh channel) and 0.116 (bZ channel) can be excluded over 1000-1480 and 1000-1490 GeV respectively, and that a B quark with Br(B->bZ) above 0.185 is discoverable up to about 1.4 TeV.

Load-bearing premise

The projection rests on the fast detector simulation faithfully reproducing the mass resolution of large-radius jets at 3 TeV; if the real detector smears fat-jet masses more than that simulation does, the mass-window efficiencies and significances will be lower than quoted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With 5 ab^-1 at 3 TeV, the boosted-Higgs channel excludes Br(B->bh) in [0.107, 0.25] for mB from 1000 to 1480 GeV, and the boosted-Z channel excludes Br(B->bZ) in [0.116, 0.25] for mB from 1000 to 1490 GeV at 95% CL.
A singlet VLQ-B with mass between 1 and 1.4 TeV and Br(B->bZ) > 0.185 is discoverable at 5 sigma at the 3 TeV CLIC.
Fully hadronic channels reach about the same sensitivity as leptonic channels at CLIC, so they add coverage rather than merely duplicating existing searches.
If exotic decay modes reduce the standard branching ratios, the CLIC hadronic search can still probe standard decays in branching-ratio regions that are relaxed relative to current LHC bounds.
At a 10 TeV muon collider the pair-production cross section is s-channel suppressed, around 0.5 fb for mB = 1.5-2.5 TeV, so the same search is not promising there.
The same cut-based strategy, with shifted mass windows, would apply to other new-physics signals that produce pairs of boosted Higgs or Z bosons plus b-jets.

Reading between the lines

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

The h and Z channels are analyzed separately; combining them in a single likelihood would likely push the 5-sigma discovery threshold below Br(B->bZ) = 0.185, a step the paper leaves implicit.
The paper fixes the benchmark Br(B->bh) = Br(B->bZ) = 0.25 for the cut flow and then rescales; an explicit scan over beta_new, the exotic branching fraction, would turn the two exclusion floors into direct constraints on models with extra scalars.
If the real CLIC detector has better jet mass resolution than the fast simulation, the same event selection would give higher significances and lower branching-ratio floors, meaning the quoted 0.107 and 0.116 values could be conservative.
Pair production of other vector-like quark species, such as a T or X quark, would produce similar boosted top/W/Z final states, so the method is likely transferable beyond the singlet-B case studied here.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is a workmanlike CLIC projection for pair-produced singlet VLQ-B in fully hadronic boosted h and Z channels, using the standard MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes stack. It does what it sets out to do, and the cut-flow tables are internally consistent. But the conclusion overstates the discovery reach: the 5-sigma claim does not reproduce from the paper's own tables, and the significance values cited in the conclusion are shifted relative to Table I.

What's new: the fully hadronic boosted h/Z channel at 3 TeV CLIC has not been studied before for VLQ-B pair production; the previous CLIC study [38] used leptonic Z decays. So this fills a real niche. The physics case and effective Lagrangian are standard, and the comparison with HL-LHC sensitivity is a useful benchmark. The cut flow for three signal masses and three backgrounds is coherent: I checked the numbers, and the quoted significances match S/sqrt(S+B) with the stated luminosity. The citation pattern is normal; the only self-citation [55] backs a generic fat-jet technique and does not feed the numerics.

The soft spots: the conclusion assigns h-channel significances 7.8148 (6.5169) to 1.2 (1.4) TeV, but Table I assigns those values to 1.0 (1.2) TeV; the Z channel has the same one-step shift. More importantly, the Section IV claim that a VLQ-B with Br(B->bZ)>0.185 can be discovered over the full 1-1.4 TeV range is contradicted by Table II. At 1.4 TeV and Br=0.185, scaling the Table II signal by (0.185/0.25)^2 gives S~28, B~65, significance about 2.9 in the Z channel; combining with the h channel gives around 3.8, not 5. At 1.2 TeV the combined significance would be about 5.7, so the claim should be reworded to a mass range that stops near 1.2 TeV, or a corrected Fig. 5 should be provided. The other caveats are minor for this genre: no systematic uncertainties, cut thresholds tuned on the same samples, and Delphes-only detector modeling. None of that sinks the paper, but it should be stated clearly.

For whom: anybody who wants a quick, organized comparison of CLIC's reach for VLQ-B in hadronic channels against the LHC and HL-LHC. It deserves a serious referee; the central analysis looks sound, but the discovery claim and the misquoted table values must be corrected before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies pair production of a weak-singlet vector-like B quark at the 3 TeV CLIC with 5 ab^-1, targeting B->bh and B->bZ decays in fully hadronic final states. The analysis uses MadGraph5 aMC@NLO, Pythia8, and Delphes3 with the VLC jet algorithm (R=1.0 for the h channel, R=0.8 for the Z channel), defines cut flows for both channels, and reports S/sqrt(S+B) significances for mB = 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4 TeV. The paper also presents 95% CL exclusion and 5-sigma discovery contours in the (mB, branching ratio) plane.

Significance. If the projections are correct, the fully hadronic boosted-jet approach offers a complementary and potentially competitive search for TeV-scale VLQ-B at CLIC, with the advantage of large hadronic branching ratios and a clean lepton-collider environment. The paper is transparent in its use of standard simulation tools and provides internally consistent cut-flow tables, which is a strength. However, the central discovery claim in the conclusion is contradicted by the paper's own tables, and the significance treatment lacks systematic uncertainties and a clear definition of the exclusion/discovery contours. These issues are load-bearing because the quantitative reach is the main result, so the paper needs substantial correction before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section IV, Tables I and II] The 5-sigma discovery statement in Section IV is inconsistent with the paper's own tables. For the Z channel at mB=1.4 TeV and Br(B->bZ)=0.25, Table II gives signal 0.01018 fb and total background 0.012922 fb after Cut-4. With L=5 ab^-1, S=50.9 and B=64.6, so S/sqrt(S+B)=4.73. If the branching ratio is lowered to 0.185, the signal scales as (0.185/0.25)^2=0.547 because both B and anti-B must decay to bZ, giving S≈27.9 and significance≈2.90. The corresponding h-channel significance is ≈2.39, so combining channels gives sqrt(2.90^2+2.39^2)≈3.76, well below 5. Even at mB=1.0 TeV, the Z-only significance at Br=0.185 is ≈4.39, also below 5. Consequently the claim that Br(B->bZ)>0.185 can be discovered across 1.0-1.4 TeV is contradicted by the reported cut-flow tables. The discovery contours in Fig. 5 and the conclusion must be recalculated, and the significance definition or the quoted Br threshold must be revised.
[Section IV, Tables I and II] The benchmark significances quoted in the conclusion are misassigned. Section IV says 'Taking mB=1.2 TeV (1.4 TeV)... significance 7.8148 (6.5169)... in boosted higgs channel', but Table I lists 7.8148 for mB=1000 GeV and 6.5169 for 1200 GeV. For the Z channel, the text reports 'a significance 6.898 (6.3358)', whereas Table II lists 6.898 for 1000 GeV and 6.3358 for 1200 GeV. These misquotations make the mass dependence of the search appear weaker than it is and should be corrected; in particular, the 1400 GeV Z-channel significance is 4.728, not 6.3358.
[Section III and Fig. 5] The statistical treatment is under-specified. The quoted S/sqrt(S+B) is purely statistical; there is no systematic uncertainty on the background normalizations, which are significant after the final cuts (e.g., in the Z channel at 1.4 TeV, t-tbar contributes 0.01001 fb, comparable to the signal 0.01018 fb). The 95% CL exclusion and 5-sigma discovery contours in Fig. 5 are presented without stating the corresponding S/sqrt(S+B) thresholds or the procedure used to scan branching ratios (e.g., whether the signal is scaled by Br^2 and whether backgrounds are held fixed). The authors should specify the significance formula, include or justify omission of background systematics, and provide the numerical definition of the contours. Without this, the reach curves cannot be independently checked.
[Section III, Cut-1 to Cut-4] The optimized cuts (HT>600, the mass windows 100<Mj1,2<150 or 80<Mj1,2<100, Mj3,4<70, and the combined-mass requirements) are defined using the same simulated signal and background samples that are later used to compute significances. This 'training on the test set' can bias the quoted significances upward, especially for small event counts after the final cuts. A cross-check with statistically independent samples, or at least an explicit statement that the thresholds are not optimized on the final samples, would be needed to support the absolute sizes of the reported exclusion and discovery reaches.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and misspellings ('senarios', 'foucs', 'genarally', 'natrally', 'compenste', 'enviroment', 'respecitvely', 'booted higgs channel', 'braching ratios', 'moun collider'); a careful proofread is needed.
[Section III] The sentence 'we don't take b-tagging which is not valid for the discrimination from backgrounds because many background processes have b-jets' is unclear; b-tagging is not 'invalid' merely because backgrounds contain b-jets, and the statement should be rephrased or supported quantitatively.
[Fig. 5] The figure would be easier to interpret if the y-axis and the statistical definition of the exclusion and discovery contours (including the S/sqrt(S+B) thresholds used) were given in the caption or in the text.
[Eq. (1)] A reference for the derivation of the effective couplings in Eq. (1) would help readers verify the relative normalization of the W, Z, and Higgs couplings and the factor of 1/sqrt(2) in the Z term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the quoted significances are direct Monte-Carlo event counts with no fitted parameter entering the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained simulation. The signal and background cross sections in Tables I and II are obtained from MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes/FastJet with a fixed set of cuts, and the quoted significances are S/sqrt(S+B) computed directly from those cross sections at L_int = 5 ab^-1. No parameter entering the final exclusion or discovery contours is fitted to the target quantity: kappa_B = 0.1 and Br = 0.25 are declared input benchmarks, and the Br-dependence shown in Fig. 5 is a scaling of the same simulated counts, not a re-fit. The only self-citation, [55], supports the general use of large-radius jets and jet substructure for boosted VLQ searches; it supplies no numerical input to the CLIC analysis and is therefore not load-bearing. The Goldstone-boson branching-ratio relation is cited to standard external literature. The text does contain an internal numerical inconsistency: the conclusion maps 7.8148/6.5169 to mB = 1.2/1.4 TeV while Table I assigns them to 1000/1200 GeV, and the 5-sigma Br(B->bZ) > 0.185 discovery claim is not reproducible from Table II; however, this is a correctness/reproducibility issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; the VLQ-B is a pre-existing theoretical object. The central claim rests on benchmark parameters (kappa_B and branching ratios) and on the fidelity of the fast detector simulation. The cut thresholds are hand-optimized on the simulated samples, which is a form of in-sample tuning but not a fitted physical constant.

free parameters (3)

kappa_B = 0.1
Coupling strength in the VLQ-B Lagrangian (Eq. 1) fixed to 0.1 for the simulation; the production cross section scales as kappa_B^2, so the absolute reach depends on this benchmark choice.
Br(B -> bh) and Br(B -> bZ) = 0.25 each
Benchmark branching ratios used for the Monte Carlo samples. The final exclusion plots scan over these branching ratios, so the benchmark is not a fitted constant but the quoted example significances use these values.
Cut thresholds = HT > 600 GeV; 100 < Mj1,2 < 150 GeV (h channel); 80 < Mj1,2 < 100 GeV (Z channel); Mj3,4 < 70 GeV; combined masses >…
Chosen after inspecting the same simulated signal and background distributions used to report significance, making the quoted significances in-sample rather than validated on independent pseudo-data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The effective Lagrangian in Eq. (1) with a singlet VLQ-B coupling only to third-generation quarks describes the production and decay.
This simplified framework is taken from Ref. [49] and is not derived in the paper.
domain assumption Branching ratios follow the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem, giving Br(B->bh) ~ Br(B->bZ) ~ (1-beta_new)/4.
Eqs. (2) and (4); the benchmark uses beta_new = 0.
domain assumption The dominant SM backgrounds in the fully hadronic final state are e+e- -> WWZ, ttbar, and ttbar h.
Section III lists these three backgrounds and does not quantify other processes such as ZZ or Zhh with hadronic decays.
domain assumption Delphes3 with the CLIC detector card and the VLC jet algorithm reproduce the jet mass resolution needed for the mass windows.
Section III, simulation setup; no validation against a full Geant-based detector simulation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for heavy vector-like B quark via pair production in fully hadronic channels at the CLIC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNEHJRWU

@misc{pith2026250415882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for heavy vector-like B quark via pair production in fully hadronic channels at the CLIC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNEHJRWU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15882}
}

abstract

Vector-like quarks (VLQs) are introduced in many new physics senarios beyond the Standard Model (SM) to address some problems faced by SM. In this paper, we explore the pair production of TeV-scale vector-like B quark (VLQ-$B$) at the future 3 TeV Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) in simplified effective lagrangian framework. We consider the decay modes of $B\rightarrow bZ$ and $B\rightarrow bh$ followed by hadronic decay of $Z$ and $h$ bosons. The large mass of VLQ-$B$ will induce highly boosted bosons $Z$ or $h$ which are more likely to form as fat-jets. By performing a rapid detector simulation of the signal and background events and clustering the jets with a large radius R, signal-background analyses are carried out. And the exclusion limit at the 95\% confidence level and the 5$\sigma$ discovery prospects are obtained with an integrated luminosity of 5$\text{ab}^{-1}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15882 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The normalized distributions for jet mass of for the signal and backgrounds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The normalized distributions for transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of jets for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: The normalized distributions for the mass of first four jets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Exclusion limit (at 95% CL) and discovery prospects (at 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[38]

J. Z. Han, Y. B. Liu and S. Y. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.1, 61

work page 2024
[55]

S. Yang, J. Jiang, Q. S. Yan and X. Zhao, JHEP 09 (2014), 035

work page 2014
[1]

De Simone, O

A. De Simone, O. Matsedonskyi, R. Rattazzi and A. Wulzer, JHEP 04 (2013), 004

work page 2013
[2]

Arkani-Hamed, A

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz and A. E. Nelson, JHEP 07 (2002), 034

work page 2002
[3]

T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003), 095004

work page 2003
[4]

Chang and H

S. Chang and H. J. He, Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004), 95-105

work page 2004
[5]

Agashe, R

K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 719 (2005), 165-187

work page 2005
[6]

H. J. He, T. M. P. Tait and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 011702

work page 2000

Show all 65 references

[7]

X. F. Wang, C. Du and H. J. He, Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013), 314-323

2013
[8]

H. J. He, C. T. Hill and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002), 055006

2002
[9]

H. J. He and Z. Z. Xianyu, JCAP 10 (2014), 019

2014
[10]

H. J. He, N. Polonsky and S. f. Su, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001), 053004

2001
[11]

P. Q. Hung and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 037302

2008
[12]

Hashimoto, Phys

M. Hashimoto, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 075023

2010
[13]

A. J. Buras, B. Duling, T. Feldmann, T. Heidsieck, C. Promberger and S. Recksiegel, JHEP 09 (2010), 106

2010
[14]

Denner, S

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, A. Muck, G. Passarino, M. Spira, C. Sturm, S. Uccirati and M. M. Weber, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012), 1992

2012
[15]

Djouadi and A

A. Djouadi and A. Lenz, Phys. Lett. B 715 (2012), 310-314

2012
[16]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], [arXiv:2403.09292 [hep-ex]]

arXiv
[17]

Hayrapetyan et al

A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], [arXiv:2405.17605 [hep-ex]]. 13

arXiv
[18]

Benbrik, M

R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, M. Ech-chaouy, S. Moretti, K. Salime and Q. S. Yan, [arXiv:2412.01761 [hep-ph]]
[19]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 843, 138019 (2023)

2023
[20]

Banerjee, E

A. Banerjee, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann, V. Ellajosyula, R. Enberg, G. Ferretti and L. Panizzi, SciPost Phys. Core 7 (2024), 079

2024
[21]

Aguilar-Saavedra, D.E

J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, D.E. L´ opez-Fogliani and C. Mu˜ noz, JHEP06, 095 (2017)

2017
[22]

K. Das, T. Mondal and S.K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D 99, 115002 (2019)

2019
[23]

Benbrik, E.B

R. Benbrik, E.B. Kuutmann, D. Buarque Franzosi, V. Ellajosyula, R. Enberg, G. Ferretti, M. Isacson, Y.B. Liu, T. Mandal, T. Mathisen, et al. JHEP 05, 028 (2020)

2020
[24]

Cacciapaglia, T

G. Cacciapaglia, T. Flacke, M. Park and M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 798, 135015 (2019)

2019
[25]

Aguilar-Saavedra, J

J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. Alonso-Gonz´ alez, L. Merlo and J.M. No, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035015 (2020)

2020
[26]

Zhou and N

H. Zhou and N. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115028 (2020)

2020
[27]

D. Wang, L. Wu and M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 115017 (2021)

2021
[28]

Corcella, A

G. Corcella, A. Costantini, M. Ghezzi, L. Panizzi, G.M. Pruna and J. ˇSalko, JHEP 10, 108 (2021)

2021
[29]

Cacciapaglia, T

G. Cacciapaglia, T. Flacke, M. Kunkel and W. Porod, JHEP 02, 208 (2022)

2022
[30]

Cui, Y.Q

X.M. Cui, Y.Q. Li and Y.B. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 115025 (2022)

2022
[31]

Banerjee, D

A. Banerjee, D. B. Franzosi and G. Ferretti, JHEP 03 (2022), 200

2022
[32]

Banerjee, D

A. Banerjee, D. B. Franzosi, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, G. Ferretti, T. Flacke, B. Fuks, M. Kunkel, L. Panizzi and W. Porod, et al. [arXiv:2203.07270 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[33]

Bhardwaj, K

A. Bhardwaj, K. Bhide, T. Mandal, S. Mitra and C. Neeraj, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.7, 075024 (2022)

2022
[34]

Bhardwaj, T

A. Bhardwaj, T. Mandal, S. Mitra and C. Neeraj, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.9, 095014 (2022)

2022
[35]

Bardhan, T

J. Bardhan, T. Mandal, S. Mitra and C. Neeraj, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.11, 115001 (2023)

2023
[36]

Linssen, A

L. Linssen, A. Miyamoto, M. Stanitzki and H. Weerts, [arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv
[37]

de Blas et al

J. de Blas et al. [CLIC], [arXiv:1812.02093 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[39]

Qin and C

X. Qin and C. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 992 (2023), 116248

2023
[40]

Franceschini, Int

R. Franceschini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) no.15n16, 2041015 14

2020
[41]

Qin and J

X. Qin and J. F. Shen, Nucl. Phys. B 966 (2021), 115388

2021
[42]

Han and J

L. Han and J. F. Shen, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.5, 463

2021
[43]

J. Z. Han, J. Yang, S. Xu and H. K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.1, 015005

2022
[44]

X. Qin, L. F. Du and J. F. Shen, Nucl. Phys. B 979 (2022), 115784

2022
[45]

L. Han, L. F. Du and Y. B. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.11, 115032

2022
[46]

L. Han, J. F. Shen and Y. B. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.7, 637

2022
[47]

J. Z. Han, S. Xu, H. Q. Song and Y. J. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 985 (2022), 116030

2022
[48]

B. Yang, S. Wang, X. Sima and L. Shang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 (2023) no.3, 035202

2023
[49]

Buchkremer, G

M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea and L. Panizzi, Nucl. Phys. B 876 (2013), 376-417

2013
[50]

H.J. He, Y.P. Kuang, and X.Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2619 (1992)

1992
[51]

H.J. He, Y.P. Kuang, and X.Y. Li, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4842 (1994)

1994
[52]

H. J. He, Y. P. Kuang, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6463 (1995)

1995
[53]

H.J. He, Y.P. Kuang, and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3038 (1997)

1997
[54]

He and W.B

H.J. He and W.B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1515 (1997)

1997
[56]

Choudhury, K

D. Choudhury, K. Deka and N. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.3, 035004

2021
[57]

Alwall, R

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

2014
[58]

Sj¨ ostrand, S

T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen et al. , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015)

2015
[59]

de Favereau et al

J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), JHEP 02, 057 (2014)

2014
[60]

Leogrande, P

E. Leogrande, P. Roloff, U. Schnoor and M. Weber, arXiv:1909.12728 [hep-ex]

1909 arXiv
[61]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012), 1896

2012
[62]

Boronat, J

M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, E. Ros and M. Vos, Phys. Lett. B 750, 95-99 (2015)

2015
[63]

Boronat, J

M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, P. Roloff, R. Simoniello and M. Vos, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 144 (2018)

2018
[64]

Conte, B

E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013)

2013
[65]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer and M. P´ erez-Victoria, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.9, 094010 15

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [38]

J. Z. Han, Y. B. Liu and S. Y. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.1, 61

work page 2024

[2] [55]

S. Yang, J. Jiang, Q. S. Yan and X. Zhao, JHEP 09 (2014), 035

work page 2014

[3] [1]

De Simone, O

A. De Simone, O. Matsedonskyi, R. Rattazzi and A. Wulzer, JHEP 04 (2013), 004

work page 2013

[4] [2]

Arkani-Hamed, A

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz and A. E. Nelson, JHEP 07 (2002), 034

work page 2002

[5] [3]

T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003), 095004

work page 2003

[6] [4]

Chang and H

S. Chang and H. J. He, Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004), 95-105

work page 2004

[7] [5]

Agashe, R

K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 719 (2005), 165-187

work page 2005

[8] [6]

H. J. He, T. M. P. Tait and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 011702

work page 2000