Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

After the 2025 LZ limits, light bino-higgsino neutralinos in natural SUSY contribute at most ~2% of dark matter, and the HL-LHC will probe the remaining viable region.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:18 UTC pith:FNE3MNWR

load-bearing objection Solid, incremental scan: LZ-2025 pushes light bino-higgsino DM to subdominant f≤0.02, but the exact cap rests on an unjustified χ² cut and a fixed 3 TeV soft-mass benchmark. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.14088 v2 pith:FNE3MNWR submitted 2026-02-15 hep-ph

Current status and prospects of light bino-higgsino dark matter in natural SUSY

XinTian Wang , Murat Abdughani This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords supersymmetryneutralino dark matterbino-higgsinonatural SUSYdirect detectionLZ experimentrelic densityLHC electroweakino searches
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper asks whether the lightest neutralino — the leading particle candidate for dark matter in supersymmetric theories — can still constitute the observed dark matter once the latest direct-detection limits (especially LZ's 2025 result) and collider searches are imposed. Restricting the theory to 'natural' supersymmetry, where the higgsino mass parameter must lie between 100 and 350 GeV to avoid fine-tuning, and scanning the bino mass from 10 to 350 GeV, the authors find that every surviving point predicts a thermal relic density below the Planck-measured value, never exceeding about 2% of the total dark matter. Part of the remaining parameter space is already excluded by 13 TeV LHC searches, and the future 14 TeV high-luminosity LHC is projected to probe the rest. If correct, the light bino-higgsino neutralino is necessarily a subdominant dark matter component, and the scenario is either discoverable or disprovable at the HL-LHC.

Core claim

The central claim is that after imposing the LZ-2025 direct-detection limits, Higgs and B-physics constraints, LEP bounds, and the observed Planck relic density (with under-abundance treated as acceptable), the relic density of the lightest neutralino in the natural-SUSY parameter space with Δ_EW<30, |μ|∈[100,350] GeV and M1∈[10,350] GeV is always below the observed value, with the fraction f=Ωh²/0.118 lying between about 5×10^-5 and 0.02. In other words, this DM candidate can contribute at most ~2% of the dark matter. Furthermore, current 13 TeV LHC electroweakino searches exclude part of the surviving region, and the projected 14 TeV HL-LHC with 3000 fb^-1 will probe the entire remaining r

What carries the argument

The neutralino mass matrix in the gaugino-higgsino basis, parameterized by M1 (bino mass), μ (higgsino mass), tanβ, and the electroweak symmetry-breaking scale, controls the mixings that set both the annihilation cross section and the spin-independent scattering cross section. The argument turns on the relic density being computed with a likelihood that assigns zero penalty to any prediction below the Planck value, and on the LZ-2025 upper limit on spin-independent scattering, which together force M1 into the Z-funnel region (m_χ ≈ M_Z/2) where annihilation is resonantly enhanced, and drive the scattering cross sections down via the blind-spot condition (negative M1/μ suppressing the Higgs c

Load-bearing premise

The viability conclusion rests on accepting under-abundant relic densities: any point predicting less than the Planck value is treated as allowed, so the surviving neutralino is assumed to be only a subdominant dark matter component.

What would settle it

If a future measurement pins down a neutralino in the |μ|∈[100,350] GeV, M1∈[10,350] GeV window whose computed thermal relic density equals the full Planck abundance (f≈1) while evading the LZ-2025 limit, the paper's central claim would be overturned.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the light neutralino is discovered at the HL-LHC, its measured properties would predict a relic density of at most 2% of the observed dark matter, so a second dark matter component would be required.
  • The parameter region that survives direct detection is narrow, centered on the Z-funnel and the blind-spot condition, giving concrete mass and mixing targets for future searches.
  • The 14 TeV HL-LHC with 3000 fb^-1 will either discover the electroweakinos or exclude the entire natural-SUSY light bino-higgsino scenario.
  • Since the neutralino contributes at most a few percent of dark matter, indirect-detection searches are not promising; the decisive probes are LHC and direct detection.
  • The consistency of the electroweakino contribution to muon g-2 with the latest measurement means this scenario neither explains nor contradicts the (now reduced) discrepancy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The subdominant-relic assumption opens the door to multi-component dark matter; if future CMB or structure-formation data tighten constraints on subdominant WIMPs, the 'viable' region could shrink further even without collider data.
  • Fixing all non-μ/M1 soft masses to 3 TeV may hide additional blind-spot or coannihilation regions; relaxing that simplifying choice could shift the surviving region and the 2% upper bound, so the quantitative limits should be read as specific to that prior.
  • The Z-funnel concentration suggests a sharp predicted mass near 45 GeV; if HL-LHC searches bracket that mass without a signal, the scenario will be in trouble even before full luminosity.
  • The methodology of treating under-abundance as zero penalty makes the 'viable' label depend on a cosmological prior; a Bayesian treatment weighting full-abundance models differently could change the interpretation of the surviving region.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies light bino-higgsino neutralino dark matter in natural SUSY, scanning μ ∈ [100, 350] GeV and M1 ∈ [10, 350] GeV while fixing all other MSSM soft masses to 3 TeV. It applies constraints from Planck relic density, B-physics, HiggsSignals, LZ-2025 direct detection, LEP, and 13 TeV LHC electroweakino searches, using an MCMC scan. The main result is that after these constraints the neutralino relic density is always below the observed Planck value, with f ≡ Ωχh²/0.118 in [5×10^-5, 0.02], so the LSP is at most a ~2% DM component, and the 14 TeV HL-LHC at 3000 fb^-1 will probe the remaining parameter space. The paper also notes that the electroweakino contribution to muon g-2 is consistent with the latest measurement.

Significance. If the result is robust, it is an important phenomenological statement: after the 2025 LZ results, light bino-higgsino neutralinos in natural SUSY would be only a subdominant DM component, and upcoming HL-LHC searches would cover the entire surviving region. The paper uses public numerical tools (MicroMEGAS, SuperIso, HiggsTools, MadGraph, PYTHIA, Delphes, CheckMATE) and includes recent experimental inputs, which is a strength. However, the central 'at most 2%' claim rests on several undocumented analysis choices—the χ²_tot<6 selection, the fixed 3 TeV soft masses, and the absence of MCMC convergence evidence—so the quantitative conclusion is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 1 caption] The selection 'χ²_tot<6' is used to define the surviving sample and directly supports the abstract statement that f ≤ 0.02. However, no effective number of degrees of freedom or confidence level is given for this cut. With the B-physics, HiggsSignals, DD, and relic-density terms in Eq. (5), the effective DOF is plausibly much larger than 6, making the cut far more restrictive than a 95% region. A looser threshold could admit points with larger f. Please report the DOF, the implied p-value, or a stability scan of the f upper bound as a function of the χ²_tot threshold.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (4)] All soft masses other than μ, M1, A_T, and tanβ are fixed to 3 TeV. This includes M2 and the first/second-generation squark masses, which enter the spin-independent cross section through squark exchange. The text states that the strong LZ limit is the main driver of the f upper bound, but the LZ constraint depends on these fixed masses. The central conclusion that f ≤ 0.02 'necessarily' holds is therefore conditional on the 3 TeV prior, not a general property of the natural-SUSY parameter space. Please either scan the relevant masses or provide an argument—e.g., a conservative upper limit—that heavier squarks or a different M2 cannot increase the maximum f above 0.02.
  3. [Section III, MCMC description] The paper states that an MCMC scan based on the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm is used, but no details are given: chain length, burn-in, proposal widths, number of chains, or convergence diagnostics. Without evidence that the sampling has converged and covers the full allowed parameter region, the f≤0.02 upper bound could be an artifact of incomplete exploration. Please provide convergence diagnostics (e.g., Gelman-Rubin statistics), effective sample sizes, or at least a plot showing the sampled points in the (μ, M1) plane with marginal densities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption and Section IV text] The caption refers to 'LZ (2015) experiments [23]' and the text says 'LZ (2015) experiments', but Ref. [23] is the 2025 LZ result. The text elsewhere correctly says 'LZ (2025)'. Please correct the figure caption and the first mention in Section IV.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (7)] The conversion of the 90% C.L. upper limit to a 1σ uncertainty by dividing by 1.64 assumes a one-sided Gaussian. Since the LZ limit is not exactly Gaussian, please state this approximation or use the full likelihood.
  3. [Section IV, muon g-2 paragraph] The numerical values are quoted with mixed powers of ten: a_exp = 1165920715(145)×10^-12 while a_SM = 116592033(62)×10^-11. Please use consistent units and verify the central values; the text says 'no significant discrepancy' and then gives a difference of 38(63)×10^-11, which appears inconsistent with the quoted numbers.
  4. [General] Minor language issues: 'choosen' should be 'chosen' (Section III); 'the as the sum' should be 'defined as the sum' (Section III); 'frepresent' should be 'f represents' (Fig. 1 caption); 'part of the parameter space remains viable' could be clarified as 'viable under the subdominant-DM prior'.
  5. [Section V, Conclusion] The conclusion says 'after imposing constraints from ... the observed relic density', but the analysis does not impose the relic density as a constraint; it sets χ²_Ω=0 for predictions below the Planck value. Please rephrase to avoid implying that the observed relic density was fitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: f≤0.02 is driven by external LZ-2025, Planck, B-physics and LHC constraints; self-citations are minor and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim—that in the scanned natural-SUSY parameter space the light bino–higgsino LSP is always a subdominant DM component with f≤0.02—is an output of a scan constrained by external data, not a parameter fit. The likelihood (Eq. 5) combines Planck relic density, B-physics, LZ-2025 DD and HiggsSignals terms computed with independent public codes (MicroMEGAS, SuperIso, HiggsTools, CheckMATE). The f-distribution in Fig. 2 is not an input; no parameter is adjusted to reproduce it. The choices that could be mistaken for circularity are (i) setting χ²_Ωh²=0 for Ωh² below the Planck central value and (ii) the Gaussian null-detection χ²_DD formula (Eq. 7, citing ref [39]). Both are explicit modeling choices: (i) declares underdense DM acceptable—it selects the subdominant-DM class but does not by itself impose the 2% upper bound, which comes from LZ 2025 and other constraints; (ii) is a transparent one-sided-limit Gaussian approximation whose inputs are the LZ 90% limits, and the formula is reproducible without relying on the authors' prior work. The self-citations [21,22,39] provide interpretation ('blind spot') and a likelihood convention, but the central result is not an identity or a fitted prediction. Differences between the abstract's 'necessarily below' wording and the scan's acceptance rule are an overstatement, not a circular reduction. The χ²_tot<6 cut, fixed 3 TeV non-μ/M1 soft masses, and missing MCMC convergence diagnostics are robustness/correctness concerns outside the circularity definition. I therefore find no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation step; score 2 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard MSSM structure, the Δ_EW<30 naturalness criterion, the decision to accept subdominant neutralinos as viable DM, and a scan simplification fixing all non-μ/M1 soft masses to 3 TeV. The listed free parameters are prior choices rather than fitted outputs; they determine the exact f≤0.02 bound.

free parameters (8)
  • μ (higgsino mass) = [100,350] GeV
    Scanned; range fixed by Δ_EW<30 and LEP chargino limit.
  • M1 (bino mass) = [10,350] GeV
    Scanned; target of the study; surviving points cluster near the Z-funnel.
  • tanβ = [5,50]
    Scanned; affects B-physics and Higgs constraints.
  • A_T = |A_T| ≤ 4000 GeV
    Scanned; affects stop mixing and Higgs mass.
  • Other MSSM soft masses = 3 TeV
    Fixed by hand; limits possible extra annihilation/scattering channels.
  • Theory uncertainty σ_theo = 0.1 × μ_t
    Assumed in χ² for relic density and B-physics; affects sample survival.
  • χ²_tot survival threshold = 6
    Ad hoc cut selecting all shown samples; no d.o.f. or p-value stated.
  • LHC signal K-factor = 1.5
    Fixed NLO rescaling; affects LHC exclusion/projection contours.
axioms (7)
  • standard math MSSM neutralino mass matrix and mixing in Eq. (1).
    Standard MSSM input; the paper diagonalizes this matrix but does not derive it.
  • domain assumption Electroweak symmetry-breaking relation Eq. (2) and Δ_EW definition Eq. (3) with Δ_EW<30.
    Assumed measure of naturalness; imposes |μ|≲350 GeV and defines the scanned region.
  • domain assumption R-parity conservation with the neutralino as LSP.
    Required for the neutralino to be a stable DM candidate.
  • domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out calculation of relic density.
    Relic density via MicroMEGAS under standard cosmology; no non-thermal production.
  • ad hoc to paper Subdominant neutralino DM is treated as viable (χ²_Ω=0 below Planck value).
    Defines 'viable' surviving points; if full relic density were required, the scenario would be excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper All MSSM soft masses other than μ, M1, A_T, tanβ are fixed to 3 TeV.
    Simplifies the scan and suppresses sfermion contributions to annihilation and direct detection.
  • domain assumption LZ-2025 direct-detection limits are correct and applicable.
    External experimental benchmark used in χ²_DD.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 7331 in / 21988 out tokens · 184875 ms · 2026-08-02T23:18:58.691907+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Given recent advancements in dark matter (DM) search experiments, particularly the latest LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) direct detection (DD) results, we systematically investigate the light bino--higgsino DM scenario within the natural supersymmetric framework. Requiring the electroweak fine-tuning parameter $\Delta_{\mathrm{EW}} < 30$ fixes the higgsino mass parameter in the range of $|\mu| \in [100, 350]$~GeV, while we extend the bino mass to $M_1 \in [10, 350]$~GeV. Incorporating constraints from Higgs physics, rare $B$ decays, LEP limits, and DD experiments, we find that part of the parameter space remains viable. However, the relic density of neutralino DM necessarily lies below the observed Planck value, contributing at most $\sim$2\% of the total DM abundance. Some of the surviving parameter space is already excluded by current 1\mbox{3 TeV LHC sear}ches, while the future 14 TeV HL-LHC with 3000 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity will probe the remaining region of the considered parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14088 by Murat Abdughani, Xintian Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spin-independent/dependent DM-nucleon cross sections. All samples satisfy the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Complementary probes of Bilinear RPV SUSY models with a wino-like LSP via Neutrino Oscillation and LHC

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    MCMC scan of bilinear RPV SUSY parameters constrained by neutrino data yields branching ratios that set LHC exclusions of wino-like χ̃1±/χ̃10 up to 565 GeV now and 950 GeV at HL-LHC for the best-fit point.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    S. P. Martin, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18, 1 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Physics Reports267, 195 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, H. Lv, W. Su, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D105, 115029 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Sengupta, S. Salam, and K. Sinha, The European Physical Journal Special Topics229, 3085–3141 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    K¨ ohler,Various Phenomenological Aspects of the R-parity Violating MSSM, Ph.D

    D. K¨ ohler,Various Phenomenological Aspects of the R-parity Violating MSSM, Ph.D. thesis, U. Bonn (main) (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Nangia, Towards Model-independent Predictions for R-parity Violating Supersymmetry, Ph.D

    S. Nangia, Towards Model-independent Predictions for R-parity Violating Supersymmetry, Ph.D. thesis, U. Bonn (main) (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Papucci, J

    M. Papucci, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Weiler, JHEP09, 035 (2012), arXiv:1110.6926

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, and A. Mustafayev, Phys. Rev. D85, 075010 (2012), arXiv:1202.4038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    Boehm, A

    C. Boehm, A. Djouadi, and Y. Mambrini, Phys. Rev. D61, 095005 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9907428

    arXiv 2000

  13. [13]

    Kitano and Y

    R. Kitano and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D73, 095004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  14. [14]

    L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, JHEP04, 131 (2012), arXiv:1112.2703

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B741, 108 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0601041

    arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D111, 075004 (2025), arXiv:2412.08958 [hep-ph]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Cahill-Rowley, J

    M. Cahill-Rowley, J. L. Hewett, A. Ismail, and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D86, 075015 (2012), arXiv:1206.5800

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    C. Han, K. Hikasa, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and Y. Zhang, JHEP10, 216 (2013), arXiv:1308.5307

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Huang, J

    W. Huang, J. M. Yang, and Y. Zhang, JHEP08, 157 (2014), arXiv:1405.6838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, and M. Savoy, Phys. Rev. D93, 035016 (2016), arXiv:1511.01020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Abdughani, L

    M. Abdughani, L. Wu, and J. M. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 4 (2018), arXiv:1705.09164 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Abdughani and L

    M. Abdughani and L. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 233 (2020), arXiv:1908.11350 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Arnowitt and P

    R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D46, 3981 (1992)

    1992

  25. [25]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, D. Mickelson, A. Mustafayev, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D87, 115028 (2013), arXiv:1212.2655 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D58, 096004 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9710473

    arXiv 1998

  27. [27]

    N. K. Das, R. Dey, S. Chakraborty, P. K. Panigrahi, I. Meglinski, and N. Ghosh, Laser Physics Letters15, 035601 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    G. G. Ross, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and F. Staub, Physics Letters B759, 110–114 (2016)

    2016

  29. [29]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, and D. Mickelson, Physics Letters B726, 330–336 (2013)

    2013

  30. [30]

    Tata, Eur

    X. Tata, Eur. Phys. J. ST229, 3061 (2020), arXiv:2002.04429 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP), Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2463 (2013), arXiv:1301.6065 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    B´ elanger, F

    G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, P. Brun, A. Pukhov, S. Rosier-Lees, P. Salati, and A. Semenov, Computer Physics Communications182, 842–856 (2011)

    2011

  33. [33]

    Mahmoudi, Comput

    F. Mahmoudi, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 1579 (2009), arXiv:0808.3144 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  34. [34]

    H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, Comput. Phys. Commun.291, 108803 (2023), arXiv:2210.09332 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Bechtle, D

    P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1211 (2020), arXiv:2006.06007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 145 (2021), arXiv:2012.09197 [hep-ph]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    F. U. Bernlochner et al. (GAMBIT Flavour Workgroup), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 786 (2017), arXiv:1705.07933 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Abdughani, Y.-Z

    M. Abdughani, Y.-Z. Fan, C.-T. Lu, T.-P. Tang, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, JHEP07, 127 (2022), arXiv:2111.02946 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D97, 112001 (2018), arXiv:1712.02332 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 995 (2018), arXiv:1803.02762 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 123 (2020), arXiv:1908.08215 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D101, 052005 (2020), arXiv:1911.12606 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 515 (2023), arXiv:2204.13072 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Search for Supersymmetry at the high luminosity LHC with the ATLAS experiment, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2014) all figures including auxiliary figures are available at https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB- 2014-010

    2014

  46. [46]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Pres- tel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun.191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Sel- vaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [50]

    Dercks, N

    D. Dercks, N. Desai, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall, and T. Weber, Computer Physics Communications221, 383–418 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 101802 (2025), arXiv:2506.03069 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Aliberti et al., Phys

    R. Aliberti et al., Phys. Rept.1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025