Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Closing in on singly charged scalars

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a promptly decaying singly charged scalar that decays to several lepton flavors at once — concretely, with $B_e = B_\mu = 25\%$ and $B_\tau = 50\%$ — is not excluded by current LHC and LEP data for masses above…

desk verdict A careful, useful recast that finds genuine open windows for a multi-flavor singly charged scalar, with boundaries that are more approximate than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05258 v2 pith:Y5GWT4LF submitted 2025-06-05 hep-ph hep-ex

Snehadri Das , Will Howe , Brian Shuve , David Tucker-Smith , Ruby Yager This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords singlychargedscalarsleptonsearchesLHCreinterpretationleptonflavorviolationboosteddecisiontreesfreeze-indarkmattermissingtransversemomentumcolliderconstraints
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 a spin-zero, singly charged particle that decays promptly to a lepton plus an invisible partner can hide from all current collider searches if its decays are shared among lepton flavors rather than concentrated in one. For the benchmark scenario in which it decays to an electron, a muon, or a tau 25%, 25%, and 50% of the time, respectively, the authors find that masses above roughly 185 GeV, and a window from roughly 80 to 125 GeV, are still allowed at 95% confidence. A sympathetic reader should care because a singly charged scalar is one of the simplest additions to the Standard Model and a natural ingredient in dark-sector models; the paper shows that the multi-flavor case, which arises naturally from a generic coupling structure, is far less constrained than the single-flavor slepton scenarios that searches are usually designed around. It then argues that a boosted-decision-tree analysis at the (HL-)LHC would close much of the gap, improving expected sensitivity by roughly 40% at high masses and by more at low masses where the leptons are soft.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a careful reinterpretation of the public ATLAS 139 fb$^{-1}$ slepton search: a Monte Carlo pipeline (MadGraph, Pythia, Delphes with a customized card) feeding the MadAnalysis-based offline code that approximates the ATLAS selection, producing expected signal counts in the 36 signal regions, which are then combined with the ATLAS-supplied HistFactory background workspace and evaluated with pyhf to obtain 95% CL signal-strength limits. The physical mechanism that opens the windows is the branching-ratio structure: a generic antisymmetric lepton-doublet coupling $\mathcal{L} \supset -\frac{\lambda_{\alpha\beta}}{2} l_\alpha l_\beta \Phi^* + \mathrm{h.c.}$ caps any single flavor at 50%, and the $B_e = B_\mu = 25\%$, $B_\tau = 50\%$ benchmark dilutes the same-flavor dilepton signal that slepton searches are most sensitive to, while the tau decays are only partially visible as light leptons.

What would settle it

Run the same 25/25/50 benchmark SCS signal through the full ATLAS selection including the true lepton trigger efficiencies and the object-based MET significance requirement, using the public HistFactory workspace: if a 100 GeV SCS then yields $\mu_{95} < 1$, the claimed 80–125 GeV window is an artifact of the simplified recast rather than a real gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a promptly decaying singly charged scalar (SCS), an SU(2)$_w$ and SU(3)$_c$ singlet with unit electric charge and the quantum numbers of a right-handed slepton, need not decay to a single lepton flavor, and that once it decays to several flavors it evades the experimental net that catches selectrons, smuons, and staus. Concretely, for the benchmark branching ratios $B_e = B_\mu = 25\%$ and $B_\tau = 50\%$, the authors reinterpret the 139 fb$^{-1}$ ATLAS slepton search in all 36 of its signal regions and conclude that only the mass range $\simeq 125$–185 GeV is excluded, leaving an open window above $\sim 185$ GeV and a lower window $\sim 80$–125 GeV bounded from below by LEP. They also show that such an SCS can supply freeze-in dark matter while still decaying promptly, because the couplings that set the decay rate sit about four orders of magnitude below lepton-flavor-violation bounds. On the search side, they find that a BDT-based analysis of dilepton-plus-missing-energy events would outperform the cut-based strategy, with significance gains of about 40% above roughly 150 GeV and larger gains at lower SCS masses.

Load-bearing premise

The recast's claim to mirror the real ATLAS search — a flat 85% trigger efficiency, no object-based missing-energy significance cut, and a Delphes-based detector model — must hold well enough that the simulated signal efficiencies match the experiment's, particularly near 100 GeV where the leptons are soft and where the paper's own cross-checks show the agreement degrades.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the surviving SCS parameter space has two distinct targets: masses above about 185 GeV and the low window from about 80 to 125 GeV.
  • A dedicated (HL-)LHC search using a BDT trained on the multi-flavor signature, with relaxed lepton-$p_T$ and $M_{T2}$ thresholds, would probe the surviving windows, improving significance by roughly 40% above 150 GeV and by more at low masses.
  • The sensitivity gain is not an artifact of binning: a single-bin version of the BDT analysis retains most of the improvement over the cut-based approach.
  • Freeze-in dark matter with a light (50 keV to 1 MeV) dark fermion remains consistent with a prompt-decaying SCS for couplings matching the benchmark flavor structure, with gamma-ray decay bounds allowing prompt lifetimes.
  • The flavor pattern matters: two-flavor benchmarks such as $B_\mu = B_\tau = 50\%$ are already excluded to higher masses (about 255 GeV), so future searches should map the full branching-ratio space rather than a single benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's flat 85% trigger efficiency almost certainly underestimates the trigger efficiency for high-mass SCS events where the leptons are hard, so the true upper window may open up even above 185 GeV; conversely, low-mass signal efficiencies are the least trustworthy part of the recast, making the 80–125 GeV window the claim most worth testing experimentally.
  • If lepton triggers can be kept near 10 GeV, the BDT gain at roughly 100 GeV suggests the low window could be closed within HL-LHC luminosity, rather than waiting for a future lepton collider.
  • The same recast machinery, applied to the mixed $e\tau$ and $\mu\tau$ channels that the paper leaves for future work, could probe SCS couplings where the visible lepton comes mostly from tau decay.
  • A null result at about 100 GeV from a dedicated BDT search would push the SCS lower bound up near 125 GeV and, combined with LEP's roughly 80 GeV bound, would shrink the allowed region to a single high-mass frontier.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the collider phenomenology of a singly charged scalar (SCS) that is an SU(2)_w x SU(3)_c singlet and decays promptly to a charged lepton plus an invisible particle. The authors adopt a benchmark with branching ratios Be = Bmu = 25% and Btau = 50%, reinterpret the ATLAS 139 fb^-1 slepton search using a MadAnalysis/Delphes pipeline together with the public HistFactory workspace and pyhf, and conclude that for this benchmark the 95% CL exclusion leaves SCS masses above ~185 GeV and a lower window ~80-125 GeV still allowed. They also estimate constraints from other LHC searches, LEP, and lepton-flavor-violating processes, discuss a freeze-in dark matter motivation, and use Monte Carlo simulations to compare cut-based and BDT-based analyses at the (HL-)LHC, reporting roughly 40% higher sensitivity for the BDT analysis at high masses and larger gains at low masses.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper fills a genuine gap: it demonstrates that a singly charged scalar with mixed-flavor branching ratios is considerably less constrained than single-flavor sleptons, and it provides concrete benchmark scenarios and surviving mass windows that future searches should target. The paper has clear strengths: it uses public ATLAS auxiliary data, the limit-setting procedure through pyhf is reproducible in principle, the authors perform direct cross-checks against ATLAS slepton results, and they are unusually candid about the limitations of their recast (flat trigger efficiency, omitted MET significance selection) and of their BDT projections (no systematic uncertainties). The main scientific value is the recalibration of what remains unprobed for this benchmark; that value depends on the fidelity of the recast exactly in the low-mass, tau-admixed region where the validation is thinnest.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV and Appendices A-B] The central claim that masses above ~185 GeV and the window ~80-125 GeV are still allowed depends on the signal-efficiency model used in the recast of Ref. [10], but the validation in Fig. 4 covers only degenerate e_L,R and mu_L,R sleptons, with agreement at the 10% level for 200-500 GeV and about 20% at 100 GeV, and no ATLAS benchmark between 100 and 200 GeV. The actual SCS benchmark has Btau = 50%, so half of all decays produce taus, and a substantial part of the light-lepton signal comes from leptonic tau decays with softer leptons. Appendix A states that a flat 85% trigger efficiency is applied to all events and that ATLAS's object-based MET significance selection is not simulated; these are precisely the selections that control acceptance near M_Phi = 100-125 GeV, where Fig. 2 places the upper edge of the lower allowed window. Because no tau-admixed final state is validated in this mass range and the direction of the efficiency error is not established, the quoted 125 GeV boundary (and hence the lower window) is not supported to the stated precision. I request either a validation against a tau-admixed ATLAS benchmark or an explicit efficiency-systematic scan demonstrating that the Fig. 2 contours are stable.
  2. [Section V.C] The lower edge of the allowed window, M_Phi > ~80 GeV, is set by a LEP reinterpretation described in a single sentence: a leading-order MadGraph cross section is compared with 'available 95% CL cross-section upper limits' from Ref. [14]. The text does not state which LEP channels enter (tau_R, mu_R, e_R), how the three branching ratios are combined, which selection efficiencies are assumed, or how sensitive the 80 GeV result is to these choices. Since this number appears in the abstract and conclusions as part of the advertised '~80-125 GeV' window, please provide the full calculation or explicitly label the lower boundary as an order-of-magnitude estimate rather than a derived 95% CL constraint.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V.D] The heading 'precion electroweak data' should read 'precision electroweak data'.
  2. [Section VI] The BDT projections omit systematic uncertainties, which the authors acknowledge in the text; because the abstract and conclusions do not carry the same caveat, I suggest adding a sentence to the conclusions clarifying that the reported 'significant increase in sensitivity' is based on statistical-only projections.
  3. [Appendix B] The last sentence of Appendix B, 'the discrepancies suggests that...', should read 'the discrepancies suggest that...'.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (3)] The freeze-in matching condition in Eq. (3) is presented without derivation or an explicit reference at the equation; since this section is illustrative and does not feed into the collider limits, please state that the formula is taken from Ref. [18] or provide a derivation.
  5. [Appendix A] The sentence 'we relegate further details about our background MC simulations to Appendix. A' contains a stray period; it should read 'Appendix A'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central mass-window claim is a recast of external ATLAS data, not a fit, and the only self-citation is illustrative and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central result (Sec. IV, Fig. 2) is obtained by taking the public ATLAS 139 fb^-1 slepton-search HistFactory workspace and HEPData auxiliary materials, generating SCS signal events with an independent MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes/MadAnalysis pipeline, and computing CL_s limits with pyhf. No SCS parameter is fitted to the data, and the benchmark branching ratios are chosen, not inferred. The cross-section inputs are external NLO-NLL calculations, and the recast is cross-checked in Appendix B against ATLAS's own slepton signal MC, with agreement at the 10-20% level; the comparison is not used to tune efficiencies. The freeze-in DM discussion in Sec. III uses the width formula of Ref. [18], which includes two of the present authors, but this is explicitly illustrative and does not feed into the collider limits; it is a published derived formula, not an unverified input equivalent to the conclusion. The remaining limitations—flat 85% trigger efficiency, omitted MET significance, and lack of ATLAS validation for 100-200 GeV tau-admixed final states—are fidelity/validation concerns about the recast, not circular reductions: they do not make the output equal to an input by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the result. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its external data inputs, and there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central collider result rests on a set of standard phenomenological modeling assumptions: a minimal SCS interaction structure, massless invisible decay products, a small-width approximation, and faithful reproduction of the ATLAS analysis by a Delphes-based pipeline. The benchmark branching ratios are the main hand-picked input; no new particles or forces are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Benchmark branching ratios (Be, Bmu, Btau) = (0.25, 0.25, 0.50)
    Chosen in Section II as the representative scenario; the exclusion ranges in Fig. 2 and projections in Fig. 3 depend on these values, and Appendix C shows how the ranges change for other branching-ratio choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SCS is an SU(2)_w and SU(3)_c singlet with only gauge interactions, so LHC pair production proceeds through s-channel Z/gamma exchange.
    Section I defines the model; production cross sections are taken from right-handed slepton NLO-NLL results (Refs. [49-54]).
  • domain assumption The invisible particle produced in SCS decays has negligible mass for collider physics.
    Section II and the conclusions set the invisible particle mass to zero; the MT2 and lepton pT distributions in the recast and BDT study rely on this kinematics.
  • standard math The lambda couplings in Eq. (1) are antisymmetric in flavor space, which bounds any single-flavor branching ratio at 50%.
    The SU(2) contraction of two lepton doublets in Eq. (1) forces antisymmetry in the flavor indices; this motivates the multi-flavor benchmark but is not load-bearing for the recast numbers.
  • domain assumption The SCS width is small enough to neglect off-shell production and interference with SM processes.
    Appendix A states this small-width assumption; it is motivated by LFV constraints but not independently proven for the full parameter space.
  • ad hoc to paper The public ATLAS HistFactory workspace and the MadAnalysis/Delphes re-implementation with a flat 85% trigger efficiency and no MET significance requirement faithfully reproduce the ATLAS signal efficiencies.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the recast (Section IV, Appendix A); the paper validates it against ATLAS slepton MC for a simplified SUSY model, but only in the 200-500 GeV range, with larger deviations at 100 GeV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Closing in on singly charged scalars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5GWT4LF

@misc{pith2026250605258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Closing in on singly charged scalars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5GWT4LF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05258}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate current experimental constraints and future search prospects for a hypothetical spin-zero particle that carries unit electric charge: a singly charged scalar (SCS). In addition to providing useful benchmarks for collider searches, SCS particles are also well-motivated ingredients in relatively minimal dark sectors. We focus on scenarios in which the SCS decays promptly at colliders to a lepton plus either a neutrino or an invisible dark-sector particle of negligible mass. A promptly decaying SCS can easily have appreciable branching ratios to more than one lepton flavor while remaining consistent with constraints on lepton flavor violation. This broadens the allowed range of SCS masses to extend well beyond those for right-handed selectrons, smuons, or staus. For particular benchmark SCS branching ratios, we find that SCS masses above ~185 GeV and in a lower-mass window ~80-125 GeV are still allowed at 95% confidence level. We carry out Monte Carlo simulations to explore the potential of a boosted-decision-tree-based analysis to probe the surviving SCS parameter space in future searches at the (HL-)LHC, finding a significant increase in sensitivity relative to cut-based analyses both in the lower-mass window and at higher SCS masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: For the freeze-in DM scenario described in the text, lower bounds on the SCS lifetime coming from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Reinterpretation of Ref. [10], the ATLAS search [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a): Expected signal significances, scaled to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a): Signal-strength upper limits on degenerate sleptons (˜e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Reinterpretation of Ref. [10] for an SCS that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Same as Fig. 3, except with a simple optimized cut on the BDT variable (or on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Crivellin, F

    A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Panizzi, Phys. Rev. D 103, 073002 (2021), arXiv:2012.09845 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [10]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 123 (2020), arXiv:1908.08215 [hep-ex]. 12 (a) (b) 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 500 1000 (c) (d) 100 150 200 250 300 350 4001.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 FIG. 6: Same as Fig. 3, except with a simple ...

    arXiv 2020

  3. [14]

    cern.ch/lepsusy/

    LEP2 SUSY Working Group, https://lepsusy.web. cern.ch/lepsusy/

    work page

  4. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 02, 143 (2021), arXiv:2010.14293 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [2]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 10, 244 (2019), arXiv:1908.04722 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [3]

    Aad et al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aad et al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D104, 112010 (2021), arXiv:2108.07586 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [4]

    Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in final states containing hadronic decays of WW, WZ, or WH and missing transverse momentum

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 842, 137460 (2023), arXiv:2205.09597 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [5]

    Q.-H. Cao, G. Li, K.-P. Xie, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115036 (2018), arXiv:1711.02113 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 79 references
  1. [6]

    K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, S. Jana, and A. Thapa, JHEP 03, 006 (2020), arXiv:1907.09498 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 05, 150 (2024), arXiv:2402.00603 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D 108, 012011 (2023), arXiv:2207.02254 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 04, 123 (2021), arXiv:2012.08600 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 790, 140 (2019), arXiv:1806.05264 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 05, 071 (2014), arXiv:1403.5294 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    McDonald, Phys

    J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091304 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0106249 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  8. [16]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP 03, 080 (2010), arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuomi- nen, and V. Vaskonen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32, 1730023 (2017), arXiv:1706.07442 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Berman, B

    J. Berman, B. Shuve, and D. Tucker-Smith, Phys. Rev. D 105, 095027 (2022), arXiv:2201.11502 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Asadi, A

    P. Asadi, A. Radick, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 035022 (2024), arXiv:2312.03826 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Perez, K

    K. Perez, K. C. Y. Ng, J. F. Beacom, C. Hersh, S. Hori- uchi, and R. Krivonos, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123002 (2017), arXiv:1609.00667 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Neronov, D

    A. Neronov, D. Malyshev, and D. Eckert, Phys. Rev. D 94, 123504 (2016), arXiv:1607.07328 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    K. C. Y. Ng, B. M. Roach, K. Perez, J. F. Beacom, S. Ho- riuchi, R. Krivonos, and D. R. Wik, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083005 (2019), arXiv:1901.01262 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Calore, A

    F. Calore, A. Dekker, P. D. Serpico, and T. Siegert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 520, 4167 (2023), arXiv:2209.06299 [hep-ph]

    2023

  16. [24]

    A. R. Pullen, R.-R. Chary, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 76, 063006 (2007), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 83, 029904 (2011)], arXiv:astro-ph/0610295

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Essig, E

    R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 11, 193 (2013), arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Albert, G

    A. Albert, G. A. Gomez-Vargas, M. Grefe, C. Munoz, C. Weniger, E. D. Bloom, E. Charles, M. N. Mazziotta, and A. Morselli (Fermi-LAT), JCAP 10, 023 (2014), arXiv:1406.3430 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    W. L. Xu, J. B. Mu˜ noz, and C. Dvorkin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 095029 (2022), arXiv:2107.09664 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Agrawal, S

    P. Agrawal, S. Blanchet, Z. Chacko, and C. Kilic, Phys. Rev. D 86, 055002 (2012), arXiv:1109.3516 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Batell, T

    B. Batell, T. Lin, and L.-T. Wang, JHEP 01, 075 (2014), arXiv:1309.4462 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bai and J

    Y. Bai and J. Berger, JHEP 08, 153 (2014), arXiv:1402.6696 [hep-ph]. 13

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chang, R

    S. Chang, R. Edezhath, J. Hutchinson, and M. Luty, Phys. Rev. D 90, 015011 (2014), arXiv:1402.7358 [hep- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Agrawal, B

    P. Agrawal, B. Batell, D. Hooper, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 90, 063512 (2014), arXiv:1404.1373 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Agrawal, M

    P. Agrawal, M. Blanke, and K. Gemmler, JHEP 10, 072 (2014), arXiv:1405.6709 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Agrawal, Z

    P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, C. Kilic, and C. B. Verhaaren, JHEP 08, 072 (2015), arXiv:1503.03057 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Agrawal, Z

    P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, E. C. F. S. Fortes, and C. Kilic, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103510 (2016), arXiv:1511.06293 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Agrawal, C

    P. Agrawal, C. Kilic, S. Swaminathan, and C. Trendafilova, Phys. Rev. D 95, 015031 (2017), arXiv:1608.04745 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Desai, C

    N. Desai, C. Kilic, Y.-P. Yang, and T. Youn, Phys. Rev. D 101, 075043 (2020), arXiv:2001.00720 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Acaro˘ glu, P

    H. Acaro˘ glu, P. Agrawal, and M. Blanke, JHEP05, 106 (2023), arXiv:2211.03809 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    ATLAS Collaboration, HEPData record 89413, https: //doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.89413.v4

    doi

  32. [40]

    Cranmer, G

    K. Cranmer, G. Lewis, L. Moneta, A. Shibata, and W. Verkerke (ROOT), (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers, Phys. Lett. B 463, 99 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9906349

    1999 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. Barr, C. Lester, and P. Stephens, J. Phys. G 29, 2343 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304226

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    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), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bierlich et al., (2022), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    C. Bierlich et al., (2022), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 184, 222 (2013), arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. Y. Araz and B. Fuks, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36, 2141005 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    LHC SUSY Cross Section Working Group, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/ SUSYCrossSections13TeVslepslep

  42. [50]

    Bozzi, B

    G. Bozzi, B. Fuks, and M. Klasen, Nucl. Phys. B 777, 157 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701202

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2480 (2013), arXiv:1304.0790 [hep- ph]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, JHEP 01, 168 (2014), arXiv:1310.2621 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Fiaschi and M

    J. Fiaschi and M. Klasen, JHEP 03, 094 (2018), arXiv:1801.10357 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Beenakker, M

    W. Beenakker, M. Klasen, M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3780 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 100, 029901 (2008)], arXiv:hep-ph/9906298

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Heinrich, M

    L. Heinrich, M. Feickert, G. Stark, and K. Cranmer, J. Open Source Softw. 6, 2823 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    A. L. Read, J. Phys. G 28, 2693 (2002)

    2002

  49. [57]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SUS-23-002

  50. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration, HEPData record 63216, https: //doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.63216

    doi

  51. [59]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 995 (2018), arXiv:1803.02762 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    ATLAS Collaboration, HEPData record 81996, https: //doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.81996.v1

    doi

  53. [61]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 06, 031 (2023), arXiv:2209.13935 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    ATLAS Collaboration, HEPData record 134068, https: //doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.134068

    doi

  55. [63]

    Barbier et al., Phys

    R. Barbier et al., Phys. Rept. 420, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0406039

    2005

  56. [64]

    A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG), Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 434 (2016), arXiv:1605.05081 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Grimus, L

    W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, Nucl. Phys. B 801, 81 (2008), arXiv:0802.4353 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Tmva - toolkit for multi- variate data analysis,

    A. Hoecker, P. Speckmayer, J. Stelzer, J. Therhaag, E. von Toerne, H. Voss, M. Backes, T. Carli, O. Cohen, A. Christov, D. Dannheim, K. Danielowski, S. Henrot- Versille, M. Jachowski, K. Kraszewski, A. K. Jr., M. Kruk, Y. Mahalalel, R. Ospanov, X. Prudent, A. Robert, D. Schout...

    2009 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), (2025), arXiv:2503.17186 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Trec- cani, JHEP 01, 013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611129

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2018-038

    2018

  62. [70]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov, and P. Nason, Phys. Lett. B710, 612 (2012), arXiv:1111.5869 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    B¨ arnreuther, M

    P. B¨ arnreuther, M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 132001 (2012), arXiv:1204.5201 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, JHEP 12, 054 (2012), arXiv:1207.0236 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, JHEP 01, 080 (2013), arXiv:1210.6832 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Czakon, P

    M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252004 (2013), arXiv:1303.6254 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazz- itelli, and H. Sargsyan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 051501 (2019), arXiv:1901.04005 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2930 (2014), arXiv:1112.5675 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Gehrmann, M

    T. Gehrmann, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, P. Maierh¨ ofer, A. von Manteuffel, S. Pozzorini, D. Rathlev, and L. Tan- credi, Physical Review Letters 113 (2014), 10.1103/phys- revlett.113.212001

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    Grazzini, S

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, D. Rathlev, and M. Wiese- mann, Phys. Lett. B 761, 179 (2016), arXiv:1604.08576 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Cascioli, T

    F. Cascioli, T. Gehrmann, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, P. Maierh¨ ofer, A. von Manteuffel, S. Pozzorini, D. Rath- lev, L. Tancredi, and E. Weihs, Phys. Lett. B 735, 311 (2014), arXiv:1405.2219 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.