Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Toponium physics at the Large Hadron Collider

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that toponium formation at the LHC is observable through the top-antitop momentum spectrum and the decay asymmetry of the two top quarks, provided the production amplitude is re-weighted with non-relativistic QCD Green's…

desk verdict A short, honest method comparison: NRQCD Green's function reweighting beats pseudo-scalar toy models on the top-quark momentum and lightest-top mass distributions, but the central factorization assumption is asserted rather than tested and nothing is presented with uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03869 v2 pith:YIQHO7WW submitted 2025-05-06 hep-ph hep-ex

Benjamin Fuks This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 14.65.Ha12.38.-t
keywords toponiumtop-antitoppairproductionnon-relativisticQCDGreen'sfunctionLHCphenomenologytopquarkboundstatenear-threshold
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 claims that the best way to see toponium at the LHC is to treat the top-antitop pair as a genuine non-relativistic bound state: take Standard Model production, then re-weight each event by the ratio of the interacting to the free QCD Green's function. Within a narrow near-threshold window, the calculation concentrates events at a binding energy near $-2$ GeV with low relative momentum, and it predicts an average top momentum around 20 GeV, matching the inverse Bohr radius of the system. The same calculation gives an asymmetric decay picture: the lighter (first-decaying) top quark acquires a distorted, shifted invariant-mass distribution, while the heavier one keeps its free Breit-Wigner shape. The paper argues these features are observable fingerprints of toponium and are missed by pseudo-scalar toy models even when those models are tuned to the total cross section.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the momentum-space Green's function $\widetilde G(E;p^*)$ of the non-relativistic Schr\"odinger equation $\left[-\vec\nabla^2/m_t + V_{\mathrm{QCD}}(\vec x) - (E+i\Gamma_t)\right]G(E;\vec x)=\delta^{(3)}(\vec x)$, obtained by solving the Lippmann-Schwinger equation with the Coulombic QCD potential. It enters predictions through the replacement $|M|^2 \to |M|^2\,|\widetilde G(E;p^*)/\widetilde G_0(E;p^*)|^2$, which converts the full top-antitop matrix element into a colour-singlet near-threshold amplitude. The free Green's function $\widetilde G_0$ provides the normalisation, so the re-weighting is blind to overall rate and controls only the shape in $E$ and $p^*$. The paper also uses the three-point Green's function $K(x,y,z)$ to justify the space-time picture in which one top decays first, while the other remains bound.

What would settle it

Compare the re-weighted prediction against the unmodified event-generator prediction for the $p^*$ distribution inside the same window; a disagreement beyond the stated approximation would invalidate the central comparison. On the data side, a high-statistics measurement of $d^2\sigma/(dp^*\,dm_{t\bar t})$ and of the lighter-top invariant-mass distribution in di-leptonic events at the LHC, with $p^*$ resolution of a few GeV, would settle whether the predicted $-2$ GeV peak and the $\sim20$ GeV mean momentum are present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that toponium formation is not a hidden resonance effect but a resolvable distortion of Standard Model top-pair kinematics. Re-weighting the colour-singlet top-antitop matrix element by $\left|\widetilde G(E;p^*)/\widetilde G_0(E;p^*)\right|^2$ produces a doubly-differential cross section with a peak at $E\simeq -2$ GeV and an average relative momentum $\langle p\rangle\simeq 20$ GeV, quantitatively consistent with the non-relativistic bound-state expectation $1/a_0 = C_F\alpha_s(a_0^{-1}) m_t/2$. The first-decaying top quark, bound by the Coulomb potential of the other, shows an invariant-mass distribution shifted downward from a free Breit-Wigner; the heavier top is unaffected. Both a pseudo-scalar toy model with Green's-function re-weighting and a 7 GeV width, and one without re-weighting and a 2.8 GeV width, reproduce the peak position but fail to reproduce the momentum spectrum, and the invariant-mass discrepancy grows for the lighter top. The paper concludes that toponium forms with size $\sim 1/(20\ \mathrm{GeV})$ and decays before hadronisation, so it is in principle visible in existing high-statistics LHC data.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that inside the selected window (top-pair mass between 340 and 350 GeV and relative momentum below 50 GeV) the event generator's full production rate is a valid stand-in for the non-relativistic bound-state production rate, an approximation the paper states but does not directly test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-dimensional distribution $d^2\sigma/(dp^*\,dm_{t\bar t})$ in the window $340\le m_{t\bar t}\le 350$ GeV and $p^*<50$ GeV is dominated by bound-state dynamics, so measuring it with sufficient $p^*$ resolution gives direct access to non-perturbative QCD at the toponium scale.
  • In di-leptonic $t\bar t$ events, the lighter reconstructed top quark should show a distorted, downward-shifted invariant-mass spectrum, while the heavier top keeps a free Breit-Wigner shape; this asymmetry is a testable signature that does not require the overall rate to be correct.
  • The position of the near-threshold peak is not a useful discriminator, since both toy models place it at $E\simeq -2$ GeV; only the momentum spectrum and the lighter-top mass shape separate the non-relativistic treatment from the toy models.
  • Toponium decays on a timescale $1/(2\Gamma_t)$, well before hadronisation, so the bound-state corrections should be included in Standard Model $t\bar t$ predictions; omitting them biases distributions in the measured LHC phase-space region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The approximation that the full event-generator matrix element equals the non-relativistic matrix element in the chosen window is not tested against the unmodified generator output; a direct comparison of the re-weighted and unmodified $p^*$ distributions would be the cheapest check of the method.
  • If the lighter-top invariant-mass distortion is confirmed, unfolding it in existing dilepton $t\bar t$ measurements could discriminate toponium from detector-resolution or off-shell effects without new dedicated analyses.
  • The same Green's-function machinery could in principle be extended beyond $p^*>50$ GeV or to colour-octet configurations, but the present results should not be extrapolated there, since the non-relativistic approximation is expected to degrade.
  • A detector-level simulation with experimental smearing for $m_{t_L}$ and $p^*$ would sharpen the comparison and might make the predicted asymmetry measurable at the high-luminosity LHC run.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper examines toponium formation in top-antitop pair production at the LHC, focusing on the near-threshold region defined by 340 GeV ≤ m_ttbar ≤ 350 GeV and p* < 50 GeV. It advocates modelling toponium by re-weighting Standard Model matrix elements with the ratio of the non-relativistic QCD Green's function to the free Green's function, Eq. (4), implemented through a modified MG5aMC event generator following the author's previous work. The paper compares the resulting two-dimensional distribution in (m_ttbar, p*) and the invariant-mass distributions of the reconstructed top quarks against two pseudo-scalar toy-model configurations: one with Green's-function re-weighting and a broad toponium width, and one without re-weighting and a narrower width. The central claim is that the non-relativistic QCD framework yields a distinctive p* spectrum and a distorted invariant-mass distribution for the lighter reconstructed top quark, which the Breit-Wigner toy models fail to reproduce, and that these features are potentially observable at the LHC.

Significance. If the central re-weighting assumption is valid, the paper identifies p*-dependent and lighter-top invariant-mass observables that could discriminate between a genuine non-relativistic QCD treatment of toponium and simplified pseudo-scalar resonance models. This is timely given recent LHC excesses and the renewed interest in toponium. The paper uses standard physical inputs (mt = 173 GeV, Γt = 1.49 GeV, αs(mZ) = 0.12) and does not fit the Green's-function prediction to the distributions it predicts; the toy-model couplings are the only fitted parameters, and the comparison is therefore not circular. The predicted distributions are falsifiable with LHC data. However, the significance is conditional on validation of the factorisation assumption behind Eq. (4), which the paper currently asserts but does not test, and on a quantification of theoretical uncertainties, which is absent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] The central re-weighting is load-bearing and the factorisation assumption behind it is asserted, not tested. The manuscript states that the cuts 340 GeV ≤ m_ttbar ≤ 350 GeV and p* < 50 GeV ensure that the non-relativistic matrix element 'is well-approximated by the full matrix element generated automatically by MG5aMC', but no numerical check is provided. For Eq. (4) to produce an NRQCD prediction, the unmodified colour-singlet matrix element must factor as a hard coefficient times the free Green's function G0(E, p*) over the whole window, with the coefficient flat in both m_ttbar and p*. Residual E- or p*-dependence from off-shell top propagators, P-wave admixtures, or colour-octet intermediates would make the reweighted distribution an ad hoc rescaling of the full matrix element rather than the NRQCD Green's-function prediction. Please add a numerical validation: compare the unmodified, colour-singlet-projected MG5aMC matrix element with |G0(E, p*)|^2 across the window and quantify the residual slope in E and p*; this is checkable and directly addresses the validity of the central comparison.
  2. [Section 3, Figures 1 and 2] The paper's central claim that the toy models 'fail to describe the correct momentum spectrum' and that the lighter-top invariant-mass distortion is a signature is not accompanied by any uncertainty estimate. There are no scale, αs, top-width, PDF, or re-weighting uncertainties, nor statistical uncertainties from the event generation. The reader therefore cannot judge whether the visible differences between the non-relativistic QCD prediction and the toy models are significant relative to the theoretical error budget. Section 4 itself lists the quantification of theoretical uncertainties as future work, but the qualitative conclusions in Section 3 are presented without that caveat. Please add at least an estimate of the dominant uncertainties, or explicitly reframe the conclusions as shape-level observations pending validation.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 1 and toy-model normalisation] The toy-model couplings are chosen to reproduce the non-relativistic QCD total cross section of 6.43 pb, but the manuscript does not state whether the NRQCD prediction obtained from the reweighted MG5aMC events also has this total. Since Eq. (4) multiplies the SM matrix element by |G/G0|^2, the total cross section of the modified sample is not automatically equal to the unmodified one; the re-weighting may change the normalisation as well as the shape. If the curves in Figures 1 and 2 are normalised to the same integrated cross section by construction, this should be stated explicitly; if not, the comparison mixes shape and normalisation effects. Please clarify the normalisation procedure and, if the comparison is shape-only, provide the normalisation factors.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (6)] The text calls the potential a 'tree-level Coulombic potential', but the expression includes a term proportional to αs^2 with the one-loop coefficient; please align the wording with the perturbative order actually used.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 1 caption] The caption label d^2σ/(p*)^2 is ambiguous; please specify the differential variables explicitly, for example d^2σ/(dp* dm_ttbar).
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (8)] The expression for the average momentum is mis-typeset and, as printed, is not a well-formed fraction; please correct the equation so that the numerator and denominator are unambiguous and the quoted value ⟨p(−2 GeV)⟩ ≈ 20 GeV is reproducible.
  4. [Section 1] The statement that 'recent excesses in several distributions' [2–4] are consistent with toponium formation would be more useful if it specified which distributions are affected and the significance of the excesses.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'massmt' in Section 2, 'Coloumbic' in Section 3, and inconsistent spacing around m_ttbar; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  6. [Section 3] The manuscript does not state whether the modified MG5aMC code used for the re-weighting is publicly available beyond the description in reference [9]; a short code/data availability statement would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the NRQCD Green's function shapes are computed from external inputs, not fitted to the distributions they are used to predict.

full rationale

The central simulation re-weights SM top-antitop matrix elements by |G(E,p*)/G0(E,p*)|^2 (Eq. 4), with G obtained by solving the Lippmann-Schwinger equation (5) using standard physical inputs (alpha_s(mZ)=0.12, mt=173 GeV, Gamma_t=1.49 GeV). These inputs are not fitted to the p* or invariant-mass distributions the paper predicts, so the claimed NRQCD momentum spectrum is a genuine model prediction rather than a renaming of fitted data. The comparison pseudo-scalar toy models are explicitly fitted only to the total cross section (6.43 pb, from [18]), not to the differential shapes, so the statement that they fail to reproduce the p* spectrum is not forced by construction. The paper's reliance on [9] for the re-weighting implementation is a self-citation, but the underlying Green's function formalism is cited to external work [1,6,10,11,18]; therefore the self-citation is not load-bearing for the physics claim. The Section 3 approximation that the full MG5aMC matrix element matches the non-relativistic matrix element in the 340-350 GeV, p*<50 GeV window is asserted rather than validated, and the absence of systematic uncertainties is a correctness/robustness concern; however, an untested approximation is not circularity. No specific equation reduces a predicted observable to an input by construction, so the circularity score is low.

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

The central NRQCD prediction introduces no fitted free parameters; it uses standard inputs (top mass, width, alpha_s) and a tree-level Coulomb potential. The only fitted parameters belong to the pseudo-scalar toy-model benchmarks that the paper criticizes. The principal axioms are the validity of NRQCD near threshold, the adequacy of the tree-level Coulomb potential, the colour-singlet S-wave truncation, and the unvalidated phase-space approximation. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Pseudo-scalar toy model couplings g_g and g_t = Adjusted to total cross section 6.43 pb (numerical values not disclosed)
    In Section 3 the couplings in the effective Lagrangian (Eq. 10) are set so that the toy model matches the NRQCD total cross section of 6.43 pb [18]. These fitted couplings define the toy-model benchmarks used in the comparison.
  • Pseudo-scalar toponium width Gamma_eta = 7 GeV (with re-weighting) or 2.8 GeV (=2*Gamma_t, without re-weighting)
    The 7 GeV width was fitted in the author's earlier work [5] to reproduce NRQCD predictions, and the 2.8 GeV width from [8] is the 'physical' width. These widths shape the toy-model curves in Figures 1 and 2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization applies to top-antitop production near threshold.
    Section 2 uses the non-relativistic QCD Hamiltonian and Green's functions (Eqs. 3-5) to describe toponium formation, assuming the heavy-quark non-relativistic expansion is valid in the threshold region.
  • domain assumption The tree-level Coulomb potential with alpha_s(mZ)=0.12 is adequate for the S-wave Green's function.
    After Eq. (6), the paper adopts a tree-level Coulomb potential with alpha_s normalized at the Z pole. Higher-order and non-perturbative potential corrections are not included.
  • domain assumption Only the colour-singlet S-wave channel contributes to the re-weighted matrix elements.
    Eq. (4) states the re-weighting is applied for a colour-singlet top-antitop pair. Higher-spin, P-wave and colour-octet contributions are neglected in the NRQCD predictions, though the paper notes they should be included in future work.
  • domain assumption The phase-space cuts ensure the full MG5aMC matrix element matches the non-relativistic matrix element.
    Section 3: 'This ensures that the non-relativistic matrix element, that is required for toponium modelling as the top-antitop pair is non relativistic, is well-approximated by the full matrix element generated automatically by MG5aMC.' This assumption is asserted without numerical validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toponium physics at the Large Hadron Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIQHO7WW

@misc{pith2026250503869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toponium physics at the Large Hadron Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIQHO7WW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03869}
}
read the original abstract

We examine toponium formation effects in top-antitop pair production at the LHC, focusing on the near-threshold region where non-relativistic corrections are relevant. We discuss their modelling using non-relativistic QCD Green's functions, and show that predictions reproduce features expected from bound-state dynamics, in contrast to pseudo-scalar toy models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extracting a Toponium Signal at the LHC with Spin and Quantum Information Tools

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spin and quantum-information observables add only marginal statistical power beyond kinematic variables for isolating toponium in near-threshold top-pair events, but improve interpretability.

  2. New physics in toponium's shadow?

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Consistently including toponium bound-state effects inside the new-physics amplitude, not just the Standard Model one, reshapes the allowed mass–coupling region for a top-philic pseudoscalar near the top-antitop threshold.

  3. Toponia at the HL-LHC and FCC-ee

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Toponium ηt and ψt states have promising discovery channels at HL-LHC (ηt b bbar, about 6σ) and FCC-ee (ψt interference in b bbar, about 14σ), while P-wave states remain out of reach.

  4. Toponium Spectrum in the Complex-Energy Plane

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Toponium's T-matrix poles survive at realistic top width, supporting a quasi-bound-state interpretation despite the spectrum appearing as a single broad peak.

  5. Phenomenology of Hypothetical Single-Top Hadronic States

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    QCD sum-rule calculations yield single-top baryon and meson masses near the top-quark mass, with a few channels slightly below the naive quark-sum threshold.

  6. Examining possible doubly topped baryon configurations

    hep-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    QCD sum rules give doubly topped baryon masses of 345-350 GeV, essentially the sums of the constituent quark masses, with no sign of genuine binding.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [5]

    Signatures of toponium formation in LHC run 2 data

    Benjamin Fuks, Kaoru Hagiwara, Kai Ma, and Ya-Juan Zheng. Signatures of toponium formation in LHC run 2 data. Phys. Rev. D , 104(3):034023, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [8]

    Quantum detection of new physics in top-quark pair production at the LHC

    Fabio Maltoni, Claudio Severi, Simone Tentori, and Eleni Vryonidou. Quantum detection of new physics in top-quark pair production at the LHC. JHEP, 03:099, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Fadin and Valery A

    Victor S. Fadin and Valery A. Khoze. Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production in e+ e- Collisions. JETP Lett., 46:525–529, 1987

    work page 1987

  4. [2]

    Inclusive and differential cross-sections for dilepton tt production measured in√s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    Georges Aad et al. Inclusive and differential cross-sections for dilepton tt production measured in√s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector. JHEP, 07:141, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    Differential cross section measurements for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets using dilepton events from pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    Armen Tumasyan et al. Differential cross section measurements for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets using dilepton events from pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV. JHEP, 02:064, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [4]

    Observation of a pseudoscalar excess at the top quark pair production threshold

    Aram Hayrapetyan et al. Observation of a pseudoscalar excess at the top quark pair production threshold. CMS-TOP-24-007, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    Fadin, Valery A

    Victor S. Fadin, Valery A. Khoze, and T. Sjostrand. On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production. Z. Phys. C , 48:613–622, 1990

    work page 1990

  8. [7]

    Bound-state Effects on Top Quark Production at Hadron Colliders

    Kaoru Hagiwara, Yukinari Sumino, and Hiroshi Yokoya. Bound-state Effects on Top Quark Production at Hadron Colliders. Phys. Lett. B , 666:71–76, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Simulating toponium formation signals at the LHC

    Benjamin Fuks, Kaoru Hagiwara, Kai Ma, and Ya-Juan Zheng. Simulating toponium formation signals at the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C , 85(2):157, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Sumino, K

    Y. Sumino, K. Fujii, Kaoru Hagiwara, H. Murayama, and C. K. Ng. Top quark pair production near threshold. Phys. Rev. D , 47:56–81, 1993

    1993

  3. [11]

    Strassler and Michael E

    Matthew J. Strassler and Michael E. Peskin. The Heavy top quark threshold: QCD and the Higgs. Phys. Rev. D , 43:1500–1514, 1991

    1991

  4. [12]

    Jezabek, Johann H

    M. Jezabek, Johann H. Kuhn, and T. Teubner. Momentum distributions in t anti-t production and decay near threshold. Z. Phys. C , 56:653–660, 1992

    1992

  5. [13]

    Probing CP violation in e+e− production of the Higgs boson and toponia

    Kaoru Hagiwara, Kai Ma, and Hiroshi Yokoya. Probing CP violation in e+e− production of the Higgs boson and toponia. JHEP, 06:048, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Alwall, R

    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, ...

    2014

  7. [15]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high- precision data from the LHC

    Tie-Jiun Hou et al. New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high- precision data from the LHC. Phys. Rev. D , 103(1):014013, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era

    Andy Buckley, James Ferrando, Stephen Lloyd, Karl Nordstr¨ om, Ben Page, Martin R¨ ufe- nacht, Marek Sch¨ onherr, and Graeme Watt. LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era. Eur. Phys. J. C , 75:132, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Confronting new physics theories to LHC data with MadAnalysis 5

    Eric Conte and Benjamin Fuks. Confronting new physics theories to LHC data with MadAnalysis 5. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 33(28):1830027, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Bound-state effects on kinematical distributions of top quarks at hadron colliders

    Yukinari Sumino and Hiroshi Yokoya. Bound-state effects on kinematical distributions of top quarks at hadron colliders. JHEP, 09:034, 2010. [Erratum: JHEP 06, 037 (2016)]

    2016

  11. [19]

    UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format

    Luc Darm´ e et al. UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format. Eur. Phys. J. C , 83(7):631, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Christensen, Priscila de Aquino, Celine Degrande, Claude Duhr, Benjamin Fuks, Michel Herquet, Fabio Maltoni, and Steffen Schumann

    Neil D. Christensen, Priscila de Aquino, Celine Degrande, Claude Duhr, Benjamin Fuks, Michel Herquet, Fabio Maltoni, and Steffen Schumann. A Comprehensive approach to new physics simulations. Eur. Phys. J. C , 71:1541, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Christensen, C´ eline Degrande, Claude Duhr, and Benjamin Fuks

    Adam Alloul, Neil D. Christensen, C´ eline Degrande, Claude Duhr, and Benjamin Fuks. FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology. Comput. Phys. Com- mun., 185:2250–2300, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Llanes-Estrada

    Felipe J. Llanes-Estrada. Ensuring that toponium is glued, not nailed. 2024. arXiv:2411.19180 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kiyo, Johann H

    Y. Kiyo, Johann H. Kuhn, S. Moch, M. Steinhauser, and P. Uwer. Top-quark pair production near threshold at LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C , 60:375–386, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    M. V. Garzelli, G. Limatola, S. O. Moch, M. Steinhauser, and O. Zenaiev. Updated predictions for toponium production at the LHC. 12 2024. arXiv:2412.16685 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.