arxiv: 2604.13270 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Constraints on Vector-Like Top Dipole Interactions from Top-Associated Photon Measurements at the LHC

Mohammad Sahraei , Yasaman Hosseini , Mojtaba Mohammadi Najafabadi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords vector-like quarksdipole operatorstop photon productioneffective field theoryLHC constraintsradiative decaystt gammatt gamma gamma

0 comments

The pith

Reinterpreting LHC measurements of top quarks with photons constrains electromagnetic and chromomagnetic dipole couplings of vector-like top partners.

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

The paper shows that precision data on top quarks produced with photons can limit the strength of dipole interactions for a vector-like top partner quark. These interactions would let the heavy quark decay into a top plus a photon or gluon, subtly changing the rates and shapes of standard top-photon events. The authors use existing unfolded differential cross sections from CMS for tt gamma and the fiducial cross section from ATLAS for tt gamma gamma to set bounds in an effective field theory. A reader would care because this method probes new physics indirectly, even when the heavy quark is too heavy for direct reconstruction or when its decays are mostly radiative. The bounds reach couplings around 0.005 per TeV at 500 GeV and weaken to order one per TeV at 2 TeV, with the two datasets giving complementary information.

Core claim

Within an effective field theory, dipole operators for the vector-like T quark with charge +2/3 contribute to tt gamma and tt gamma gamma production at the LHC. Using the unfolded differential tt gamma cross sections measured by CMS and the fiducial tt gamma gamma cross section reported by ATLAS, the analysis derives limits on the effective couplings c_t gamma and c_t g for T masses from 500 GeV to 2 TeV. In the gluon-dominated scenario with branching fraction to photon of 0.1, the electromagnetic coupling reaches sensitivity of about 0.005 TeV inverse at 500 GeV, degrading to O(1) TeV inverse at 2 TeV. The two measurements together probe different regions of parameter space and resolve some

What carries the argument

Effective field theory dipole operators for electromagnetic and chromomagnetic interactions of the vector-like top quark that induce contributions to top-associated photon production processes.

If this is right

The tt gamma differential distributions and tt gamma gamma fiducial rate together exclude portions of the c_t gamma and c_t g parameter space for each mass value.
Limits are obtained on the branching fractions BR(T to t gamma) and BR(T to t g) as functions of the dipole couplings.
The single-photon and double-photon channels provide complementary sensitivity that lifts degeneracies between electromagnetic and chromomagnetic contributions.
The approach yields useful constraints even when direct resonance searches lose sensitivity due to mass or branching ratio.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Higher-luminosity LHC data could extend the sensitivity to smaller couplings or higher masses by improving the precision of the input cross sections.
The same reinterpretation technique could be applied to other top-associated final states to constrain additional operators in similar effective theories.
Models predicting vector-like tops with radiative decays would need to satisfy these indirect bounds in addition to direct search limits.

Load-bearing premise

The effective field theory with dipole operators as the dominant new physics effects remains valid across the 500 GeV to 2 TeV mass range without significant interference from other operators.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the tt gamma differential cross section in kinematic regions sensitive to high photon transverse momentum that shows no deviation from Standard Model expectations beyond what is allowed by c_t gamma below 0.005 TeV inverse at 500 GeV would falsify the reach of the derived constraint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13270 by Mohammad Sahraei, Mojtaba Mohammadi Najafabadi, Yasaman Hosseini.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams illustrating the production and decay of the vector-like top partner T in the presence of dipole interactions. (a) Pair production via gluon fusion, gg → T T¯, dominated by standard QCD interactions. (b) Gluon-initiated production involving a t-channel exchange with insertions of the chromomagnetic dipole operator ctg, leading to additional contributions beyond pure QCD. (c… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Differential fiducial ttγ¯ cross sections at particle level as functions of the photon transverse momentum p γ T (left) and the dilepton azimuthal separation ∆ϕℓℓ (right). Data points represent unfolded measurements with statistical (inner bars) and total (outer bars) uncertainties. SM predictions obtained with MadGraph5 aMC@NLO interfaced with Pythia 8 (solid black lines) and Herwig 7 (solid blue lines… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Exclusion contours at 95% CL in the (ctγ, ctg) plane for benchmark masses ranging from 500 to 2000 GeV. Left: constraints derived from the ttγ¯ measurement using 138 fb−1 . Right: constraints derived from the ttγγ ¯ measurement using 140 fb−1 . The dashed gray lines indicate constant values of Bγ = BR(T → tγ), shown for Bγ = 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9, assuming BR(T → tγ) + BR(T → tg) = 1. The ttγ¯ channel provides… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Expected 95% CL upper limits on the effective dipole couplings as functions of the vector-like toppartner mass mT , derived along fixed benchmark directions in the (ctγ, ctg) plane. The figure shows the 95% CL limits on the effective couplings ctγ (solid lines) and ctg (dashed lines) as a function of the vector-like top partner mass mT . Results are presented for a benchmark branching-ratio scenario, Bγ ≡… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Vector-like top partners with electric charge $+2/3$ are predicted in many extensions of the Standard Model and are actively searched for at the LHC through their electroweak decays $T\to Wb$, $Zt$, and $Ht$. More general scenarios, however, allow dipole interactions that induce radiative decays $T\to t\gamma$ and $T\to tg$. We reinterpret precision measurements of top-associated photon production to constrain such dipole operators. This approach provides a complementary probe to traditional resonance searches, which rely on direct reconstruction of heavy states, by instead exploiting distortions in precision observables. Using unfolded differential cross sections for $t\bar{t}\gamma$ production measured by CMS and the fiducial $t\bar{t}\gamma\gamma$ cross section reported by ATLAS, we derive constraints on the electromagnetic and chromomagnetic dipole couplings of a vector like $T$ quark within an effective field theory framework. We present limits in terms of the effective couplings $c_{t\gamma}$ and $c_{tg}$, as well as the corresponding branching fractions $BR(T \to t\gamma)$ and $BR(T \to tg)$, for masses in the range $500~GeV \le m_T \le 2.0~TeV$. For $m_T = 500~GeV$, the analysis reaches sensitivity to the electromagnetic dipole coupling as small as $c_{t\gamma} \simeq 0.005~TeV^{-1}$ in the gluon dominated scenario $B_{\gamma} = 0.1$, while the sensitivity degrades to $O(1)~TeV^{-1}$ at $m_T = 2.0~TeV$. We find that the $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}\gamma\gamma$ measurements provide complementary sensitivity, probing different regions of parameter space and lifting degeneracies between electromagnetic and chromomagnetic dipole interactions. These results demonstrate that precision measurements of top-associated photon final states provide a powerful and complementary probe of vector-like quarks in scenarios where radiative decays dominate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This reinterprets existing ttγ and ttγγ data to limit vector-like top dipoles, with solid low-mass results but unreliable high-mass claims due to EFT breakdown.

read the letter

This paper reinterprets unfolded ttγ and ttγγ data from CMS and ATLAS to bound the dipole operators for a vector-like top partner T. The new element is applying these precision measurements to the radiative decay channels that are often overlooked in direct searches. They do a clean job of adding the dipole contributions to the SM predictions and extracting limits on c_tγ and c_tg for masses from 500 GeV to 2 TeV. The fact that they use real unfolded data rather than their own simulations keeps the results independent. They also demonstrate that the single-photon and diphoton channels probe different parts of the parameter space and help resolve degeneracies between the two couplings. Presenting the results both as couplings and as branching ratios makes it easy to compare with other work. The main weakness is the EFT validity across the full mass range. At the high end, m_T = 2 TeV, the bounds are only O(1) TeV^{-1}, so the implied cutoff is around or below 1 TeV. That puts the heavy quark mass outside the regime where the dim-5 operators are the leading new physics terms. The low-mass limits are more trustworthy. The paper assumes no significant interference from other operators, which is reasonable but worth noting as a caveat. This is aimed at theorists and phenomenologists working on vector-like quarks or top EFTs. Anyone looking for ways to use precision LHC measurements beyond the usual resonance hunts will find it relevant. The approach is solid enough that it deserves a serious referee to check the matching and uncertainty treatment. I recommend sending it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reinterprets unfolded differential cross sections for ttγ production from CMS and the fiducial ttγγ cross section from ATLAS to derive constraints on the electromagnetic (c_tγ) and chromomagnetic (c_tg) dipole couplings of a vector-like top partner T (charge +2/3) in an EFT framework. Limits are presented for m_T from 500 GeV to 2 TeV, including corresponding branching fractions BR(T→tγ) and BR(T→tg), with best reach c_tγ ≃ 0.005 TeV^{-1} at 500 GeV in a gluon-dominated scenario (B_γ=0.1) and degradation to O(1) TeV^{-1} at 2 TeV; the ttγ and ttγγ channels are shown to provide complementary sensitivity.

Significance. If the EFT assumptions hold, the work provides a valuable complementary probe to direct resonance searches for vector-like quarks by exploiting distortions in precision top-associated photon observables rather than requiring reconstruction of heavy resonances. The use of existing unfolded public data makes the limits independent of the authors' prior modeling choices and demonstrates how precision measurements can constrain radiative decay modes when they dominate.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and results section] Abstract and § on results (mass range 500 GeV to 2 TeV): the quoted sensitivity at m_T=2 TeV reaching O(1) TeV^{-1} for |c_tγ| or |c_tg| implies an effective cutoff Λ≈1/|c| ≲ 1 TeV. Since this is below m_T, the vector-like quark cannot be integrated out consistently and the dim-5 dipole operators are no longer the leading terms; the EFT expansion parameter is O(1) or larger. This is load-bearing for the central claim that limits are derived across the full quoted mass range.
[EFT framework] EFT framework discussion: the assumption that dipole operators dominate with no significant interference from other operators or higher-dimensional terms for the entire mass range requires explicit validation or a quantitative assessment of the validity regime, especially as sensitivity degrades at high m_T.

minor comments (1)

[Results] Clarify in the text how the gluon-dominated scenario (B_γ=0.1) is defined and whether it affects the quoted limits symmetrically for both c_tγ and c_tg.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for raising important points about the validity of the EFT framework. We address each major comment below and agree that additional discussion and qualifications are needed to ensure the results are presented accurately.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and results section] Abstract and § on results (mass range 500 GeV to 2 TeV): the quoted sensitivity at m_T=2 TeV reaching O(1) TeV^{-1} for |c_tγ| or |c_tg| implies an effective cutoff Λ≈1/|c| ≲ 1 TeV. Since this is below m_T, the vector-like quark cannot be integrated out consistently and the dim-5 dipole operators are no longer the leading terms; the EFT expansion parameter is O(1) or larger. This is load-bearing for the central claim that limits are derived across the full quoted mass range.

Authors: We agree that this is a substantive concern. When our limits reach |c| ∼ O(1) TeV^{-1} at m_T = 2 TeV, the implied cutoff lies below the particle mass, violating the assumption that the dim-5 operators are the leading terms in a consistent EFT. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the results section (and a corresponding qualification in the abstract) stating that for m_T ≳ 1 TeV the quoted limits apply only in the regime where |c| ≪ 1/m_T; we will also emphasize the branching-fraction limits, which remain physically meaningful even when the EFT description is marginal. These changes will ensure the central claim is not overstated. revision: yes
Referee: [EFT framework] EFT framework discussion: the assumption that dipole operators dominate with no significant interference from other operators or higher-dimensional terms for the entire mass range requires explicit validation or a quantitative assessment of the validity regime, especially as sensitivity degrades at high m_T.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit validation. Our analysis assumes dipole dominance in a minimal scenario with no additional operators contributing at the same order. In the revision we will insert a new subsection titled “Validity of the EFT Approach” that (i) evaluates the expansion parameter m_T |c| at the boundary of each limit, (ii) notes that values O(1) indicate potential relevance of higher-dimensional terms, and (iii) states that interference with other operators is assumed subdominant but would require a global fit beyond the present scope. This provides the quantitative assessment requested. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: external data reinterpretation with independent EFT modeling

full rationale

The paper reinterprets published CMS unfolded differential ttγ cross sections and ATLAS fiducial ttγγ cross sections by adding dipole-operator contributions (electromagnetic and chromomagnetic) to SM predictions within an EFT framework, then extracts limits on c_tγ and c_tg for given m_T. No step reduces by construction to a self-fit, self-citation, or renamed input; the central limits are obtained by direct comparison to independent experimental measurements. The stated EFT-validity assumption for 500 GeV–2 TeV is an external modeling choice, not a definitional loop. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The constraints rest on the validity of the dimension-5 dipole operators in an EFT valid up to the TeV scale and on the assumption that no other new-physics contributions interfere with the ttγ and ttγγ final states.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Effective field theory description of dipole interactions remains valid for m_T between 500 GeV and 2 TeV
Invoked when translating measured cross sections into limits on c_tγ and c_tg

invented entities (1)

Vector-like top partner T with electric charge +2/3 no independent evidence
purpose: Hypothetical particle whose dipole couplings are being constrained
Introduced as the target of the search; no independent evidence provided in the paper

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5690 in / 1441 out tokens · 32354 ms · 2026-05-10T14:16:36.697332+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B136, 187-190 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91178-X

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91178-x 1984
[2]

Contino, Y

R. Contino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B671, 148-174 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.08.027 [arXiv:hep-ph/0306259 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.08.027 2003
[3]

Vignaroli, JHEP07, 158 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)158 [arXiv:1204.0468 [hep- ph]]

N. Vignaroli, JHEP07, 158 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)158 [arXiv:1204.0468 [hep- ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2012)158 2012
[4]

A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3370-3373 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370 [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221 [hep-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.3370 1999
[5]

Antoniadis, Phys

I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B246, 377-384 (1990) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90617-F

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90617-f 1990
[6]

Arkani-Hamed, S

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B429, 263-272 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00466-3 1998
[7]

Schmaltz and D

M. Schmaltz and D. Tucker-Smith, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55, 229-270 (2005) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151502 [arXiv:hep-ph/0502182 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151502 2005
[8]

S. P. Martin, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18, 1-98 (1998) doi:10.1142/9789812839657 0001 [arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1142/9789812839657 1998
[9]

M. L. Xiao and J. H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D90, no.1, 014007 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.014007 [arXiv:1404.0681 [hep-ph]]. 13

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.014007 2014
[10]

Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP11, 104 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)104 [arXiv:1409.5500 [hep-ex]]

G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP11, 104 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)104 [arXiv:1409.5500 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2014)104 2014
[11]

Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur

G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C76, no.8, 442 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016- 4281-8 [arXiv:1602.05606 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016- 2016
[12]

Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Phys

M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D98, no.11, 112010 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.112010 [arXiv:1806.10555 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.112010 2018
[13]

Khachatryanet al.[CMS], Phys

V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B771, 80-105 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.019 [arXiv:1612.00999 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.019 2017
[14]

A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP04, 136 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)136 [arXiv:1612.05336 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2017)136 2017
[15]

A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B781, 574-600 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.04.036 [arXiv:1708.01062 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.04.036 2018
[16]

Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Phys

M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.21, 211801 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.211801 [arXiv:1808.02343 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.211801 2018
[17]

Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2510.25874 [hep-ex]]

A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2510.25874 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv
[18]

Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP12, 012 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2025)012 [arXiv:2506.15515 [hep-ex]]

G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP12, 012 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2025)012 [arXiv:2506.15515 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2025)012 2025
[19]

Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07, 089 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)089 [arXiv:1803.09678 [hep-ex]]

M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07, 089 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)089 [arXiv:1803.09678 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2018)089 2018
[20]

A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B779, 82-106 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.077 [arXiv:1710.01539 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.077 2018
[21]

S. Tong, J. Corcoran, M. Fieg, M. Fenton and D. Whiteson, JHEP02, 057 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)057 [arXiv:2311.00121 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2024)057 2024
[22]

J. H. Kim and I. M. Lewis, JHEP05, 095 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)095 [arXiv:1803.06351 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2018)095 2018
[23]

Alhazmi, J

H. Alhazmi, J. H. Kim, K. Kong and I. M. Lewis, JHEP01, 139 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)139 [arXiv:1808.03649 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2019)139 2019
[24]

G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, JHEP06, 045 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/045 [arXiv:hep-ph/0703164 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/045 2007
[25]

Panico and A

G. Panico and A. Wulzer, Lect. Notes Phys.913, pp.1-316 (2016) Springer, 2016, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22617-0 [arXiv:1506.01961 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22617-0 2016
[27]

A. Atre, G. Azuelos, M. Carena, T. Han, E. Ozcan, J. Santiago and G. Unel, JHEP08, 080 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2011)080 [arXiv:1102.1987 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2011)080 2011
[28]

Model independent framework for searches of top partners

M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea and L. Panizzi, Nucl. Phys. B876, 376-417 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.08.010 [arXiv:1305.4172 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.08.010 2013
[29]

Matsedonskyi, G

O. Matsedonskyi, G. Panico and A. Wulzer, JHEP12, 097 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)097 [arXiv:1409.0100 [hep-ph]]. 14

work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2014)097 2014
[30]

Cacciapaglia, A

G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, L. Panizzi, N. Gaur, D. Harada and Y. Okada, JHEP03, 070 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2012)070 [arXiv:1108.6329 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2012)070 2012
[31]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer and M. P´ erez-Victoria, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.9, 094010 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094010 [arXiv:1306.0572 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.094010 2013
[32]

Tumasyanet al.[CMS], JHEP05, 091 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)091 [arXiv:2201.07301 [hep-ex]]

A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], JHEP05, 091 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)091 [arXiv:2201.07301 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2022)091 2022
[33]

Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B874, 140195 (2026) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140195 [arXiv:2506.05018 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140195 2026
[34]

Isidori, Y

G. Isidori, Y. Nir and G. Perez, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 355 (2010) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104534 [arXiv:1002.0900 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104534 2010
[35]

Alwall, M

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, JHEP06, 128 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128 [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2011)128 2011
[36]

Alloul, N

A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250-2300 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012 [arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012 2014
[37]

Degrande, C

C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1201-1214 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022 [arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022 2012
[38]

R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, C. S. Deans, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N. P. Hartland, J. I. Latorre and J. Rojo,et al.Nucl. Phys. B867, 244-289 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003 [arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003 2013
[39]

Mangano, M

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP05, 026 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2006/05/026 [arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126- 2006
[40]

Cacciari, G.P

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 [arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012
[41]

A. V. Manohar, doi:10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0002 [arXiv:1804.05863 [hep-ph]]. 15

work page doi:10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0002