Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Personal Memories of 50 Years of Quarkonia

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 LHC ttbar excess is most plausibly the long-predicted toponium bound state, completing the quarkonium family after 50 years.

desk verdict A readable personal history of quarkonium with a toponium opinion that is honestly presented but underdetermined by the evidence cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10643 v2 pith:V7NY2HVO submitted 2025-06-12 hep-ph hep-exphysics.hist-ph

John Ellis This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exphysics.hist-ph
keywords quarkoniumcharmoniumbottomoniumtoponiumJ/psitopquarkpairthresholdpseudoscalarHiggsquantumentanglement
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 is a personal retrospective of 50 years of quarkonium physics, from the 1974 discovery of the J/psi through charmonium and bottomonium to the present. Its central scientific judgment, stated as a concession by an advocate of extra Higgs bosons, is that the LHC excess of events near the top-quark-antiquark threshold is most plausibly the lowest-lying toponium state: a bound top quark and antiquark in a 1S0 pseudoscalar configuration produced by gluon-gluon fusion. If correct, this completes the quarkonium sequence and gives the first observation of a top-antitop bound state at a hadron collider, decades earlier than the e+e- machines originally thought necessary. The paper is careful to note that the pseudoscalar Higgs interpretation cannot yet be excluded.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the quarkonium bound-state concept, extended from charm and bottom quarks to top quarks. The key object is the 1S0 para-toponium state, a color-singlet, Coulomb-bound top-antitop pair with total spin zero and negative parity, produced in gluon-gluon collisions near threshold. The argument also relies on the Zweig/OZI rule, which suppresses hadronic decays of quarkonia and explains the narrowness of the J/psi, psi-prime, and Upsilon states, and on QCD calculations of toponium production at the LHC. The discriminating tool between toponium and a pseudoscalar Higgs is the line shape: a Higgs would show a destructive-interference dip that toponium would not, though current experimental resolution cannot yet see that dip.

What would settle it

Measure the ttbar invariant-mass line shape near twice the top mass with per-event resolution good enough to resolve a dip below the peak: a pseudoscalar Higgs predicts a Breit-Wigner peak with a destructive-interference dip on its low-mass side, whereas toponium predicts a bound-state peak without that dip. Observation of the dip at high significance would rule out toponium, while its absence would leave toponium as the only pseudoscalar explanation. Alternatively, a future e+e- threshold scan around 350 GeV should find the 1S0 resonance if toponium is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the excess at the top-quark-pair threshold seen by the two hadron-collider experiments is the 1S0 para-toponium state. The author offers three concordant observations: the mass of the excess matches the expected toponium mass; its signal strength agrees with QCD calculations of toponium production; and the measured spin correlations, including quantum entanglement in the final-state top quarks, match what is expected for gluon-gluon production of a pseudoscalar 1S0 state. Because a heavy pseudoscalar Higgs boson would produce a similar final state, the author concedes that toponium is the more plausible interpretation while explicitly cautioning that the Higgs hypothesis is not yet excluded by the available invariant-mass resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The whole case depends on the reported excess being a real signal whose observed spin correlations really mark it as a spin-zero, negative-parity state, rather than a statistical fluctuation or an artifact of the background model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the excess is toponium, the LHC has already produced the first bound state of top quarks, something most physicists expected to require a future e+e- collider.
  • Toponium would complete the quarkonium family in the same pattern as charmonium and bottomonium, strengthening confidence in QCD bound-state calculations.
  • A confirmed toponium state would provide a new probe of the top quark mass and its couplings, since its binding energy, production rate, and width encode those parameters.
  • The pseudoscalar Higgs hypothesis remains viable; finer invariant-mass resolution or higher statistics could reveal the predicted interference dip and settle which interpretation is correct.
  • Future e+e- colliders would be able to scan the toponium resonance directly and measure its properties far more precisely than the hadron collider can.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If toponium is real, current LHC top-quark mass measurements, which assume free top quarks, may carry a small systematic shift from bound-state formation near threshold; correcting for this could move the measured top mass slightly.
  • The spin-correlation and entanglement techniques that exposed the pseudoscalar character could be applied at other quark-pair thresholds to search for further bound states or exotic hadrons.
  • A near-term high-luminosity measurement of the ttbar line shape, even without a future collider, might achieve enough resolution to distinguish toponium from a pseudoscalar Higgs, making this ambiguity experimentally resolvable.
  • If the excess instead turns out to be a pseudoscalar Higgs, the same data would constitute the first sign of physics beyond the Standard Model; the two hypotheses have very different long-term consequences, so settling the ambiguity is the urgent next step.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a personal memoir by John Ellis reviewing 50 years of quarkonium physics, from the discovery of the φ and J/ψ, through charmonium spectroscopy, bottomonium, and the recent CMS and ATLAS excess near the top-quark pair threshold. The narrative is interwoven with anecdotes from the author's career at CERN and SLAC, and it concludes with a short speculative section arguing that the observed ttbar threshold excess is more plausibly interpreted as the lowest-lying para-toponium 1S0 state than as a pseudoscalar Higgs boson. The paper is written for a proceedings volume celebrating the 50th anniversary of the J/ψ discovery, and it makes no claim to present new calculations or data analysis.

Significance. As a historical account, the paper is valuable for its eyewitness perspective, its careful references to the original discovery papers, and its candid recollection of how theoretical interpretations evolved. The author explicitly acknowledges the central limitation of the current experimental information: the ttbar invariant mass resolution is not yet sufficient to distinguish toponium from a pseudoscalar Higgs boson. The paper's strength lies in its documentary and memoiristic value, not in any technical advance. However, the abstract and Section 4 assert that toponium is 'the most plausible interpretation' and that the author 'concedes' this, which is stronger than the evidence the paper itself marshals. The three supporting observations (mass near 2m_t, signal strength consistent with QCD calculations, and pseudoscalar spin correlations) are all also properties of a pseudoscalar Higgs produced by gluon fusion with a suitably chosen mass and coupling. Unless the prior favoring the Standard Model over new scalars is made explicit and defended, the central claim is an underdetermined preference rather than a conclusion established by the cited evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The statement in the Abstract that the excess 'is most plausibly interpreted as the lowest-lying toponium state', and the Section 4 assertion that 'toponium is the more plausible interpretation', are underdetermined by the evidence the paper itself provides. The preceding paragraph in Section 4 states that the experimental resolution in ttbar invariant mass is not precise enough to distinguish toponium from a pseudoscalar Higgs, and the three listed supports (mass near 2m_t, signal strength matching QCD calculations, and pseudoscalar spin correlations) are also consistent with a pseudoscalar Higgs boson produced via gluon fusion with mass at threshold and coupling tuned to the observed rate. Since no prior favoring Standard Model dynamics over new scalars is quantified or defended, the claim of 'more plausible' is a personal preference presented as a conclusion. Please soften the abstract and Section 4 to say explicitly that this is the author's judgment based on theoretical prejudice, or present the Bayesian reasoning (prior, likelihood, and posterior) needed to support the comparative claim.
  2. [Section 4] The sentence 'the signal strength is consistent with theoretical calculations in QCD' is not substantiated within the manuscript because no quantitative comparison is provided. The cited QCD calculations (refs [39-45]) are not summarized with numbers such as predicted production cross sections or the observed excess size, nor is it stated which specific calculation is being compared and with what uncertainty. As a personal memoir this may be acceptable, but if this sentence is intended as a scientific argument in favor of toponium, it needs at least a specific reference to a figure or table in those papers, or a one-line numerical statement of the comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the garbled phrase 'related ¯ cc states', which should be written as 'related c\bar{c} states' or simply 'charmonium states'.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract says 'in the second half of 2024 the CMS Collaboration reported an excess of events', but Section 4 describes the 2024 evidence as 'hints' and 'initially not with high significance', with the >5 sigma observation appearing only in the 2025 paper (ref [51], arXiv:2503.22382). Please clarify the chronology so that the abstract does not overstate what was known in 2024.
  3. [Section 5] The sentence 'Toponium will be a very interesting target for future e+e− colliders, which will be able determine its properties' is missing the word 'to' before 'determine'.
  4. [References] Reference [48] is cited in Section 4 as a CMS search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to top pairs; please confirm the PAS number is correct and that the cited study is the one used to improve sensitivities, as the text is slightly ambiguous about which 'studies' were used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the toponium preference is an external-data-driven judgment, not an equation fitted to its inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a personal memoir and commentary, not a derivation. It contains no new equations, no fitted parameters, and no first-principles calculation; the toponium interpretation is presented as an interpretation of CMS and ATLAS excesses using QCD production calculations [39-45] and spin-correlation measurements [46,47,51,52]. The author explicitly concedes that the experimental resolution is not precise enough to distinguish toponium from a pseudoscalar Higgs [50,53], so the central claim is a stated preference rather than a derived result. Self-citations [49,50] are used for background phenomenology (interference dips) and to support the caveat that the Higgs hypothesis cannot be excluded, not to define the toponium signal into existence; the supporting QCD calculations and experimental measurements are external to this paper. The mass-consistency item is a necessary-condition check rather than a circular deduction: the paper itself notes a threshold pseudoscalar Higgs would share these features, which is an admission of underdetermination, not a circularity. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

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

The central claim rests on standard QCD and on experimental and theoretical results from the literature. The paper introduces no free parameters or new entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model with QCD and the three-generation quark model correctly describes strong interactions.
    The entire narrative and the toponium interpretation presuppose this framework, which is established but not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The CMS and ATLAS experimental results reporting a ttbar threshold excess with pseudoscalar spin correlations are correct.
    The central physics opinion depends on these measurements, cited in Section 4, being genuine and correctly interpreted.
  • domain assumption The QCD theoretical calculations of toponium production at the LHC (references [39-45]) are accurate enough to support the comparison.
    The author uses these predictions to argue that the mass and signal strength are consistent with toponium, without reproducing the calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Personal Memories of 50 Years of Quarkonia." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7NY2HVO

@misc{pith2026250610643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Personal Memories of 50 Years of Quarkonia},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7NY2HVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10643}
}
read the original abstract

The world of particle physics was revolutionised in November 1974 by the discovery of the J/psi particle, the first particle to be identified as a quarkonium state composed of charm quarks and antiquarks. The charmonium interpretation of the J/psi was cemented by the subsequent observations of a spectrum of related c \bar c states, and finally by the discovery of charmed particles in 1976. The discovery of charmonium was followed in 1977 by the discovery of bottomonium mesons and particles containing bottom quarks. Toponium bound states of top quark and antiquarks were predicted to exist in principle but, following the discovery of the top quark in 1995, most physicists thought that its observation would have to wait for next-generation e^+ e^- collider. However, in the second half of 2024 the CMS Collaboration reported an excess of events near the threshold for \bar t t production at the LHC that is most plausibly interpreted as the lowest-lying toponium state. These are the personal recollections of an eyewitness who followed closely these 50 years of quarkonium discoveries.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Topped baryons from QCD sum rules

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QCD sum rules in HQET predict ground-state singly topped baryon masses near 174 GeV, some 1.1-1.5 GeV above the top quark pole mass.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

53 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P. L. Connolly, E. L. Hart, K. W. Lai, G. London, G. C. Moneti, R. R. Rau, N. P. Samios, I. O. Skillicorn, S. S. Yamamoto and M. Goldberg, et al. , Ex- istence and Properties of the ϕ Meson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963), 371-376, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.371

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.10.371 1963

  2. [2]

    Okubo, Phi meson and unitary symmetry model , Phys

    S. Okubo, Phi meson and unitary symmetry model , Phys. Lett. 5 (1963), 165-168, doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(63)92548-9

    doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(63)92548-9 1963

  3. [3]

    Petermann, Propri´ et´ es de l’´ etranget´ e et une formule de masse pour les m´ esons vectoriels, Nucl

    A. Petermann, Propri´ et´ es de l’´ etranget´ e et une formule de masse pour les m´ esons vectoriels, Nucl. Phys. 63 (1965) no.2, 349-352, doi:10.1016/0029-5582(65)90348-2. The submission date of this paper was December 1963. It is thought that the author delayed returning the page proofs. His paper might be better known if he had not delayed, and had wri...

    work page doi:10.1016/0029-5582(65)90348-2 1965

  4. [4]

    Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons , Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons , Phys. Lett. 8 (1964), 214-215, doi:10.1016/S0031-9163(64)92001-3. The author acknowledges discussions with Robert Serber. In his autobiography, co-authored with Robert Crease, ( Peace & War: Reminiscences of a Life on the Frontiers of Science , Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-10546-0) Serbe...

    doi:10.1016/s0031-9163(64)92001-3 1964

  5. [5]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Version 1, CERN preprint 8182/TH.401, doi:10.17181/CERN-TH-401; An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Version 2 , CERN preprint 8419/TH.412, doi:10.17181/CERN-TH-412. Notoriously, Zweig did not submit his work for publication because of opposition by the ...

    doi:10.17181/cern-th-401

  6. [6]

    Iizuka, Systematics and phenomenology of meson family , Prog

    J. Iizuka, Systematics and phenomenology of meson family , Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 37 (1966), 21-34, doi:10.1143/PTPS.37.21

    doi:10.1143/ptps.37.21 1966

  7. [7]

    Litke, G

    A. Litke, G. Hanson, A. Hofmann, J. Koch, L. Law, M. E. Law, J. Leong, R. Little, R. Madaras and H. Newman, et al. Hadron Production by electron positron anni- hilation at 4-GeV center-of-mass energy , Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973), 1189-1192, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1189

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.30.1189 1973

  8. [8]

    Richter, Talk at the 17th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 74), 1-10 July 1974

    B. Richter, Talk at the 17th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 74), 1-10 July 1974. London, United Kingdom

    work page 1974

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J. Ellis, Theoretical Ideas About e−e+ → Hadrons at High Energy , Contribu- tion to the Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 74), 1-10 July 1974. London, United Kingdom (C74-07-01), https://inspirehep.net/files/9d33a38efbdba68841361d15051105ce

    1974

  2. [10]

    R. N. Cahn and J. R. Ellis, Electron-Positron Annihilation into Hadrons, AIP Conf. Proc. 14 (1973), 65-79 doi:10.1063/1.2947173

    1973 doi

  3. [11]

    Ellis, Theoretical Ideas about e+e− Annihilation, CERN preprint TH.1880 (1974) https://inspirehep.net/files/a27a850c96729f4a26e196afd3d30d10

    J. Ellis, Theoretical Ideas about e+e− Annihilation, CERN preprint TH.1880 (1974) https://inspirehep.net/files/a27a850c96729f4a26e196afd3d30d10

    1974

  4. [12]

    J. J. Aubert et al., Experimental Observation of a Heavy Particle J, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974), 1404-1406, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.1404

    1974 doi

  5. [13]

    J. E. Augustin et al., Discovery of a Narrow Resonance in e+e− Annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974), 1406-1408, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.1406

    1974 doi

  6. [14]

    The CERN Theory Boson Workshop, The Narrow Peaks in pp → (e+e−) + X and e+e− Annihilation, doi:10.17181/CERN-TH-1964

    1964 doi

  7. [15]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani, Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970), 1285-1292, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.2.1285

    1970 doi

  8. [16]

    M. K. Gaillard and B. W. Lee, Rare Decay Modes of the K-Mesons in Gauge Theo- ries, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), 897, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.897

    1974 doi

  9. [17]

    M. K. Gaillard, B. W. Lee and J. L. Rosner, Search for Charm, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47 (1975), 277-310, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.47.277 7

    1975 doi

  10. [18]

    G. S. Abrams, D. Briggs, W. Chinowsky, C. E. Friedberg, G. Goldhaber, R. J. Holle- beek, J. A. Kadyk, A. Litke, B. Lulu and F. Pierre, et al. The Discovery of a Second Narrow Resonance in e+e− Annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974), 1453-1455, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.1453

    1974 doi

  11. [19]

    Appelquist and H

    T. Appelquist and H. D. Politzer, Orthocharmonium and e+e− Annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975), 43, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.34.43

    1975 doi

  12. [20]

    De Rujula and S

    A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, Is Bound Charm Found? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975), 46-49 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.34.46

    1975 doi

  13. [21]

    Altarelli, N

    G. Altarelli, N. Cabibbo, R. Petronzio, L. Maiani and G. Parisi, Is the 3104-MeV Vector Meson the ϕc or the W0?, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 11 (1974) no.14, 609-612, doi:10.1007/BF02763153

    1974 doi

  14. [22]

    Appelquist, A

    T. Appelquist, A. De Rujula, H. D. Politzer and S. L. Glashow, Charmonium Spec- troscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975), 365, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.34.365

    1975 doi

  15. [23]

    Braunschweig et al

    W. Braunschweig et al. [DASP Collaboration], Observation of the Two Photon Cas- cade 3.7-GeV – > 3.1-GeV + gamma gamma via an Intermediate State p - Charm , Phys. Lett. B 57 (1975), 407-412, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(75)90482-7

    1975 doi

  16. [24]

    W. M. Tanenbaum, J. S. Whitaker, G. S. Abrams, A. Boyarski, M. Breidenbach, F. Bulos, W. Chinowsky, G. J. Feldman, C. E. Friedberg and G. Goldhaber, et al. Observation of an Intermediate State in psi-prime (3684) Radiative Cascade Decay , Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975), 1323, doi:...

    1975 doi

  17. [25]

    Goldhaber, F

    G. Goldhaber, F. Pierre, G. S. Abrams, M. S. Alam, A. Boyarski, M. Breidenbach, W. C. Carithers, W. Chinowsky, S. Cooper and R. DeVoe, et al. Observation in e+ e- Annihilation of a Narrow State at 1865-MeV/c**2 Decaying to K pi and K pi pi pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976), 255-2...

    1976 doi

  18. [26]

    Feldman and P

    G. Feldman and P. T. Matthews, A Case for Color , Nuovo Cim. A 31 (1976), 447- 486, doi:10.1007/BF02734266

    1976 doi

  19. [27]

    M. L. Perl, G. S. Abrams, A. Boyarski, M. Breidenbach, D. Briggs, F. Bulos, W. Chi- nowsky, J. T. Dakin, G. J. Feldman and C. E. Friedberg, et al. Evidence for Anoma- lous Lepton Production in e+ − e− Annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975), 1489- 1492, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLet...

    1975 doi

  20. [28]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973), 652-657, doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652

    1973 doi

  21. [29]

    M. S. Chanowitz, J. R. Ellis and M. K. Gaillard, The Price of Natural Flavor Conservation in Neutral Weak Interactions , Nucl. Phys. B 128 (1977), 506-536, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90057-8

    1977 doi

  22. [30]

    S. W. Herb et al. , Observation of a Dimuon Resonance at 9.5 GeV in 400 GeV Proton-Nucleus Collisions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977), 252-255, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.252 8

    1977 doi

  23. [31]

    J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, D. V. Nanopoulos and S. Rudaz, The Phenomenology of the Next Left-Handed Quarks , Nucl. Phys. B 131 (1977), 285 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 132 (1978), 541], doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90374-1

    1977 doi

  24. [32]

    W. R. Innes et al. , Observation of Structure in the Υ Region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977), 1240-1242 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977), 1640], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.1240

    1977 doi

  25. [33]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov,Nonleptonic Decays of K Mesons and Hyperons, Sov. Phys. JETP 45 (1977), 670

    1977

  26. [34]

    V. S. Fadin and V. A. Khoze, Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production in e+ e- Collisions , JETP Lett. 46 (1987), 525-529, LENINGRAD-87-1333

    1987

  27. [35]

    V. S. Fadin, V. A. Khoze and T. Sjostrand, On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production, Z. Phys. C 48 (1990), 613-622, doi:10.1007/BF01614696

    1990 doi

  28. [36]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. [CDF], Observation of top quark production in ¯pp collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995), 2626-2631, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626 [arXiv:hep- ex/9503002 [hep-ex]]

    1995

  29. [37]

    Abachi et al

    S. Abachi et al. [D0], Observation of the top quark , Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995), 2632-2637, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2632 [arXiv:hep-ex/9503003 [hep-ex]]

    1995 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. Vos, G. Abbas, M. Beneke, S. Bilokin, M. J. Costa, S. De Curtis, K. Fujii, J. Fuster, I. Garcia Garcia and P. Gomis, et al. Top physics at high-energy lepton colliders, arXiv:1604.08122 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y. Kiyo, J. H. Kuhn, S. Moch, M. Steinhauser and P. Uwer, Top-quark pair production near threshold at LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 60 (2009), 375-386, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-0892-7 [arXiv:0812.0919 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sumino and H

    Y. Sumino and H. Yokoya, Bound-state effects on kinematical distributions of top quarks at hadron colliders , JHEP 09 (2010), 034 [erratum: JHEP 06 (2016), 037], doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)034 [arXiv:1007.0075 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    W. L. Ju, G. Wang, X. Wang, X. Xu, Y. Xu and L. L. Yang, Top quark pair pro- duction near threshold: single/double distributions and mass determination , JHEP 06 (2020), 158, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)158 [arXiv:2004.03088 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and Y. J. Zheng, Signatures of toponium formation in LHC run 2 data , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.3, 034023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034023 [arXiv:2102.11281 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Toponium hunter’s guide , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.5, 054032, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054032 [arXiv:2407.20330 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and Y. J. Zheng, Simulating toponium formation signals at the LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.2, 157, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-13853-3 [arXiv:2411.18962 [hep-ph]]. 9

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. V. Garzelli, G. Limatola, S. O. Moch, M. Steinhauser and O. Zenaiev, Updated predictions for toponium production at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 866 (2025), 139532, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139532 [arXiv:2412.16685 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  38. [46]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector , Nature 633 (2024) no.8030, 542-547, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07824-z [arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Measurements of polarization and spin correlation and observation of entanglement in top quark pairs using lepton+jets events from proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.11, 112016, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11...

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to top quark pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, CMS-PAS-HIG-22-013

  41. [49]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, A. Popov and J. Quevillon, Interference effects in tt production at the LHC as a window on new physics , JHEP 03 (2019), 119, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2019)119 [arXiv:1901.03417 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Ellis and J. Quevillon, Contrasting pseudoscalar Higgs and to- ponium states at the LHC and beyond , Phys. Lett. B 866 (2025), 139583, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139583 [arXiv:2412.15138 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  43. [51]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Observation of a pseudoscalar excess at the top quark pair production threshold , arXiv:2503.22382 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of a cross-section enhancement near the t¯t pro- duction threshold in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector , ATLAS- CONF-2025-008, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2937636

    2025

  45. [53]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV , arXiv:2507.05119 [hep-ex]. 10

Pith tools

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