Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Existing LHC searches already carve into the parameter space preferred by the Plan B model's flavour fit, and the HL-LHC should push sensitivity to Z′ masses around 2500 GeV.

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

2026-08-01 15:28 UTC pith:U2N6VNW3

load-bearing objection A careful, transparent recasting of LHC searches for the Plan B Z', with the full 95% preferred region covered; the main caveat is the acknowledged neglect of kinetic mixing, which could shift bounds in part of the parameter space. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18411 v1 pith:U2N6VNW3 submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph hep-ex

The Plan B Model: Z^(prime) collider phenomenology and discovery prospects

Ben Allanach , Hannah Banks , Jon Butterworth This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords Plan B ModelZ′ bosonb→s anomaliesLHC searchesdi-lepton resonanceskinetic mixinghigh-luminosity LHCbeyond Standard Model
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 maps the TeV-scale Z′ boson of the Plan B model — an extension of the Standard Model built to explain anomalies in b→s quark transitions — onto existing LHC data. It reinterprets several direct resonance searches and a broad set of differential cross-section measurements to see which combinations of Z′ mass and coupling are still allowed. The central result is that a significant fraction of the 95% confidence region preferred by flavour fits is already excluded by Run II data, and that the high-luminosity LHC should extend sensitivity to Z′ masses of about 2500 GeV or more. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that the model is not merely compatible with collider data but is actively being cornered by it.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: within the 95% CL preferred region of the (M_Z′, g_Z′) plane identified by the global flavour fit, a significant fraction is already excluded by existing LHC Z′ searches, and the HL-LHC is expected to have sensitivity up to around M_Z′ ≥ 2500 GeV. The di-muon channel provides the strongest direct constraints, and the b-veto signal region outperforms the b-tag region because of top-quark background. Differential cross-section measurements, although covering many final states, exclude only low masses (below about 2.8 TeV) and are weaker than the direct searches in the high-mass tail.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by the ratio μ = B_exp / σ_theory for each search: the 95% CL experimental upper bound divided by the Monte Carlo prediction of the same observable in the model. The contour μ = 1 delimits exclusion, and the HL-LHC projection uses √L scaling. Production is dominated by b bbar → Z′, with associated b Z′ production included, and the model's branching ratios are fixed by its U(1)_X charges; the predicted double-b-tag fraction interpolates the experimental limits from the di-muon-plus-b-jets search.

Load-bearing premise

The whole map assumes that the new force boson does not mix with the Standard Model's hypercharge gauge boson; if the product of the coupling and the logarithm of the cutoff exceeds about 0.6, all the exclusion and sensitivity contours would need to be recomputed.

What would settle it

If a future HL-LHC run with 3000 fb⁻¹ finds no resonance in the di-muon-plus-b-jet channel and places a 95% CL limit that cuts through the currently allowed region below 2500 GeV, the paper's central projection would be falsified. Conversely, observing a Z′ in the b-veto channel with a rate incompatible with the predicted branching ratios would falsify the model's coupling structure.

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

If this is right

  • A significant portion of the 95% CL preferred region is already ruled out by Run II LHC data, so the model is not unconstrained.
  • The HL-LHC should cover Z′ masses up to about 2500 GeV, meaning most of the surviving preferred region will be tested within the next major run.
  • The di-muon channel is consistently the most sensitive, with b-veto selections beating b-tag selections because of top backgrounds.
  • Differential cross-section measurements provide weaker but complementary constraints, mainly from Drell-Yan data at low Z′ masses.
  • Because the model predicts relative rates across several channels, measuring more than one final state would test its coupling structure, not just its existence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Including kinetic mixing between the new U(1)_X boson and hypercharge could shift the exclusion and sensitivity contours; the paper leaves that calculation to future work, so the present map should be read as conditional on mixing being small.
  • If the flavon is treated as a propagating field rather than integrated out, constraints from differential cross-section measurements could strengthen, particularly through Higgs-flavon mixing affecting Higgs observables.
  • As HL-LHC luminosity grows without a large increase in collision energy, precision differential measurements may become a more powerful and durable constraint than bump-hunt searches alone.
  • The relative rates across di-electron, di-muon, b-tag, and b-veto channels are predicted at each parameter point, so a future multi-channel measurement could distinguish the Plan B model from other Z′ explanations of the b→s anomalies.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the LHC phenomenology of the Plan B Model, a U(1)_X extension of the Standard Model proposed to address b→sℓ+ℓ− anomalies. Using a public UFO implementation, the authors simulate Z′ production and decay, recast several ATLAS/CMS Run II searches (dilepton, dilepton with b-tags/vetoes, and dimuon-plus-b-jets), and cross-check with Contur against a range of differential cross-section measurements. They derive 95% CL exclusion contours in the (M_Z′, g_Z′) plane and estimate HL-LHC discovery prospects using a √L scaling of sensitivities. The central reported results are that a significant fraction of the 95% preferred region from the global fit is already excluded by Run II data, and that the HL-LHC should be sensitive to M_Z′ ≳ 2500 GeV, under the explicit assumption of negligible kinetic mixing between U(1)_X and hypercharge.

Significance. If the central results hold, this is a useful and methodologically transparent contribution: it extends the earlier best-fit-only analysis to the full 95% preferred region, systematically compares several complementary search channels, and provides an openly documented recasting pipeline (UFO file, MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes, Contur). The use of external experimental data as the constraining input is a strength, as is the explicit discussion of the model’s limitations. However, the headline exclusion and discovery map is computed at zero kinetic mixing, and the paper’s own estimates indicate that this assumption is violated in non-negligible parts of the preferred parameter region. The HL-LHC projection also relies on a luminosity-scaling approximation that the cited literature suggests may be optimistic. These issues affect the generality of the title-level claims, though they are potentially addressable within the manuscript’s scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (2.8), (2.14), Fig. 2] The central claim that "a significant fraction" of the 95% preferred region is excluded, and the HL-LHC projection, are computed with kinetic mixing χ=0. Eq. (2.14) gives χ=0.018 g_Z′ log(Λ/M_Z′), and the authors state that for g_Z′ log(Λ/M_Z′)>0.6 the bounds must be recalculated. Inside the preferred wedge of Eq. (2.8), for M_Z′≈2–3 TeV and the upper edge of g_Z′, g_Z′ log(Λ/M_Z′) reaches ~0.7–2.1 for Λ/M_Z′=10–100. Hence a non-negligible part of the parameter region being claimed as constrained violates the stated validity condition. Since χ≠0 introduces u,d-initiated Drell-Yan production and shifts total width and branching ratios, the recast exclusions and projections in Fig. 2 are not yet established for the full Plan B Model. The authors should either include kinetic mixing in the recasting or explicitly restrict the abstract-level claim to a χ=0 slice, with a quantitative indicati
  2. [§3 and §5, HL-LHC projection] The projected reach M_Z′≳2500 GeV is obtained by scaling expected limits as √(3000/L_0). The text calls this "very conservative" and cites Ref. [55], but the cited paper argues that naive √L scaling can be misleading for HL-LHC projections, in particular when systematic uncertainties are included. The only stated conservative ingredient is the fixed 13 TeV centre-of-mass energy. Since the discovery-prospect conclusion rests on this scaling, the numerical reach claim is not robust as presented. The projection should either be based on a more complete treatment or be presented as an order-of-magnitude estimate with a clearer caveat, and the citation should be reconciled with the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.5] The phrase "with smaller g′_Z" should read "with smaller g_Z′" (the prime is on the coupling, not on the subscript).
  2. [§4] The sentence "the only region excluded is below around 2.8 TeV" is ambiguous; it should read "the only excluded region is at M_Z′ below about 2.8 TeV."
  3. [§3] The discussion of the omitted K-factor is brief. While the real-emission contribution is present in the MLM-matched sample, the absence of virtual and other NLO corrections means the quoted cross sections may be systematically low; the authors could note this as a source of uncertainty in the exclusion contours.
  4. [§2.2] The branching ratios in Table 2 are stated in the "massless unmixed fermion approximation." It would be helpful to state explicitly that the quoted BRs do not include the small θ_sb corrections used elsewhere in the paper, so the reader can gauge the approximation.
  5. [§5] The discussion of the 3B_3−L and B_3−L_2 models in the final section is interesting but telegraphic; a brief definition or reference to the charge assignments would make the comparison more accessible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the LHC exclusion and HL-LHC sensitivity maps are computed from the model's couplings against external ATLAS/CMS/Contur data, not re-statements of the model's fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: take the Plan B model and its 95% CL fit region from the self-cited Ref. [1] (Eqs. 2.7-2.8), implement it in a UFO from the self-cited Ref. [18], simulate pp -> Z' production with MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes, and compare the predicted observables to published LHC limits and Rivet/Contur measurements. The central claim—that a significant fraction of the preferred region is already excluded and that HL-LHC can reach M_Z' ~ 2500 GeV—is a prediction against external experimental data, not a fit to those data. The self-citations provide the model definition, the fitted couplings, and the simulation file; these are inputs to the calculation, not outputs that the LHC data are being used to derive. The paper itself flags the main limitation in Sec. 2.3: it assumes negligible kinetic mixing (chi = 0), gives the one-loop estimate chi = 0.018 g_Z' log(Lambda/M_Z') (Eq. 2.14), and states that for g_Z' log(Lambda/M_Z') > 0.6 the bounds would need to be recalculated including kinetic mixing. That is an explicit scope restriction, not a circular step: it narrows the validity of the chi=0 slice without making the exclusion contour identical to any fitted parameter or self-cited theorem. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to an input, and no 'prediction' is the renaming of a fitted quantity. The circularity score is therefore 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper relies on the Plan B Model's definition and preferred parameter ranges from self-cited prior work. The free parameters are the model's couplings and masses, fitted to flavour data in earlier fits. The key ad hoc assumption is the neglect of kinetic mixing, which the authors themselves flag as limiting the analysis's validity. No new entities are introduced by this paper beyond those already in the model.

free parameters (3)
  • g_Z′ = 0.03–0.15 × M_Z′/TeV (95% CL range from global fit)
    The U(1)_X gauge coupling is fitted to B-anomaly and LEP2 data in Ref. [1]; this paper scans over it.
  • θ_sb = -0.0406 (best fit)
    The sb mixing angle is fitted to flavour data in Ref. [1] and fixed to the best-fit value in the recasts, justified by the production cross-section insensitivity.
  • M_Z′ = scanned (TeV)
    The Z′ mass is a model parameter scanned over; constraints are presented as functions of it.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Anomaly cancellation of U(1)_X with the charge assignments in Table 1.
    The model assumes these charges (from Ref. [1]) are anomaly-free; required for consistency of the gauge theory.
  • domain assumption The Z′ mass is g_Z′ ⟨θ⟩, with the flavon VEV at the TeV scale (Eq. 1.2).
    This defines the mass generation mechanism; the paper does not derive it from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption SMEFT validity for the global fit requires M_Z′ > 400 GeV.
    The preferred-fit region is displayed only for M_Z′ ≥ 400 GeV, as stated in §1.
  • ad hoc to paper Kinetic mixing χ between U(1)_X and hypercharge is negligible.
    Assumed to simplify the analysis; the authors note this holds only if Λ is not too far above M_Z′ and leave a full treatment to future work (§2.3).
  • domain assumption The UFO file from Ref. [18] correctly implements the Plan B Model couplings.
    All simulation results depend on this implementation, which is not independently validated in the present paper.
  • domain assumption The 5-flavour scheme with massless b-quark is adequate for the simulations.
    The b-quark is treated as massless in the PDFs and matrix elements, as stated in §3.
invented entities (2)
  • Z′ boson independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates new contributions to b→sℓ+ℓ− transitions and produces LHC resonance signals.
    The paper's entire analysis is a search for this particle; LHC data provide a falsifiable handle. Not introduced in this paper but central to it.
  • Flavon θ no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar field whose VEV breaks U(1)_X and gives the Z′ mass.
    Mentioned as part of the model; its phenomenology is not studied here, and no direct search for it is recast.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19522 in / 9942 out tokens · 86665 ms · 2026-08-01T15:28:23.909924+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Plan B Model was proposed by Allanach et al. (2023) and explains some gross features of the fermion mass spectrum. It also affects the predictions of various observables involving the $b \rightarrow s$ quark-flavour transition. The model predicts a new TeV-scale $Z^{\prime}$ which decays into various different final states. We constrain the viable parameter space of the model by re-casting several LHC direct searches for the $Z^{\prime}$ in addition to using Contur to test the model against unfolded measurements of various differential cross sections that are predicted to be non-zero in the Standard Model. We delineate the regions of parameter space that are excluded by current LHC data, and estimate the projected reach of the high luminosity LHC.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Allanach and A

    B. Allanach and A. Mullin,Plan B: new Z’ models for b→sℓ +ℓ− anomalies,JHEP09(2023) 173 [2306.08669]. [2]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet. al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1–29 [1207.7214]. [3]CMSCollaboration, S. Chatrchyanet. al.,Observation of a New...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [4]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov and I. Yavin,Neutrino Trident Production: A Powerful Probe of New Physics with Neutrino Beams,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 091801 [1406.2332]. [5]LHCbCollaboration, R. Aaijet. al.,Branching Fraction Measurements of the Rare B0 s →ϕµ +µ− andB 0 s →f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021), no. 15 151801 [2105.140...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  3. [12]

    Bobeth, M

    C. Bobeth, M. Chrzaszcz, D. van Dyk and J. Virto,Long-distance effects inB→K ∗ℓℓfrom analyticity,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018), no. 6 451 [1707.07305]. [13]HPQCDCollaboration, W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard and C. T. H. Davies,Standard Model predictions for B→Kℓ+ℓ-, B→Kℓ1-ℓ2+ and B→Kνν¯using form factors from Nf=2+1+1 lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 1 014511...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [14]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini and M. Valli,Constraints on lepton universality violation from rare B decays,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 5 055036 [2212.10516]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [15]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto,Improved theory predictions and global analysis of exclusiveb→sµ +µ− processes,JHEP09(2022) 133 [2206.03797]. [16]LHCbCollaboration, R. Aaijet. al.,Measurement of lepton universality parameters in B+ →K +ℓ+ℓ− andB 0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays,Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 3 032002 [2212.09153]. [17]LHCbCollaboration, R....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [18]

    Allanach,LHC di-lepton searches for Z’ bosons which explain measurements ofb→l +l− transitions,Phys

    B. Allanach,LHC di-lepton searches for Z’ bosons which explain measurements ofb→l +l− transitions,Phys. Lett. B858(2024) 139055 [2404.14748]. [19]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet. al.,Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 ofppcollision data collected at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Phys. Lett. B796 (2019) 68–87 [1903.06248]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [20]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085 [1008.4884]. [21]CMSCollaboration, A. Hayrapetyanet. al.,Search for a high-mass dimuon resonance produced in association with b quark jets at √s= 13 TeV,JHEP10(2023) 043 [2307.08708]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [22]

    J. M. Butterworth, D. Grellscheid, M. Kr¨ amer, B. Sarrazin and D. Yallup,Constraining new physics with collider measurements of Standard Model signatures,JHEP03(2017) 078 [1606.05296]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [23]

    Buckleyet

    A. Buckleyet. al.,Testing new physics models with global comparisons to collider measurements: the Contur toolkit,SciPost Phys. Core4(2021) 013 [2102.04377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [24]

    Dodelson and L

    S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow,Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.72(1994) 17–20 [hep-ph/9303287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  11. [25]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45–47. [26]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, R. L. Workmanet. al.,Review of Particle Physics, PTEP2022(2022) 083C01

    1986

  12. [27]

    Holdom,Twou(1)’s andϵcharge shifts,Phys

    B. Holdom,Twou(1)’s andϵcharge shifts,Phys. Lett. B166(1986), no. 2 196–198. – 20 –

    1986

  13. [28]

    Allanach and N

    B. Allanach and N. Gubernari,MalaphoricZ ′ models forb→sℓ +ℓ− anomalies,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 2 [2409.06804]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [29]

    Allanach,Constraints on the malaphoricB 3 −L 2 model from di-lepton resonance searches at the LHC,Eur

    B. Allanach,Constraints on the malaphoricB 3 −L 2 model from di-lepton resonance searches at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 3 297 [2412.01956]. [30]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet. al.,Search for new resonances in mass distributions of jet pairs using 139 fb −1 ofppcollisions at √s= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector,JHEP03(2020) 145 [1910.08447]. [31]CMSC...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [33]

    B. C. Allanach and H. Banks,Hide and seek with the third family hypercharge model’sZ ′ at the large hadron collider,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 3 279 [2111.06691]. [34]CMSCollaboration, A. Tumasyanet. al.,Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,JHEP11 (2021) 15...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [35]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output,Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 1201–1214 [1108.2040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [36]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079 [1405.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [37]

    R. D. Ballet. al.,Parton distributions with LHC data,Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244–289 [1207.1303]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [38]

    Bierlichet

    C. Bierlichet. al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8 [2203.11601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [39]

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and M. Treccani,Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,JHEP01(2007) 013 [hep-ph/0611129]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  21. [40]

    Alwallet

    J. Alwallet. al.,Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions,Eur. Phys. J. C53(2008) 473–500 [0706.2569]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [41]

    B. Fuks, M. Klasen, F. Ledroit, Q. Li and J. Morel,Precision predictions forZ ′ - production at the CERN LHC: QCD matrix elements, parton showers, and joint resummation,Nucl. Phys. B 797(2008) 322–339 [0711.0749]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [42]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen and P. Z. Skands,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,Comput. Phys. Commun. 191(2015) 159–177 [1410.3012]. [43]DELPHES 3Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, – 21 – V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens and M. Selvaggi,DELPHES 3, A m...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [44]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896 [1111.6097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [45]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm,JHEP04(2008) 063 [0802.1189]. [46]A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboudet. al.,Electron reconstruction and identification in the ATLAS experiment using the 2015 and 2016 LHC proton-proton collision data at √s= 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 8 639 [1902.04655]. [47]A TLASCollaborati...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [49]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, L. Lonnblad, J. Monk, H. Schulz and F. Siegert,Rivet user manual,Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) 2803–2819 [1003.0694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [50]

    J. Bellmet. al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016), no. 4 196 [1512.01178]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [51]

    Bierlich, A

    C. Bierlich, A. Buckley, J. M. Butterworth, C. Gutschow, L. Lonnblad, T. Procter, P. Richardson and Y. Yeh,Robust independent validation of experiment and theory: Rivet version 4 release note,SciPost Phys. Codeb.36(2024) 1 [2404.15984]. [52]CONTURCollaboration, A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, J. Egan, C. Gutschow, S. Jeon, M. Habedank, T. Procter, P. Wang, Y....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [53]

    Junk,Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics,Nucl

    T. Junk,Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A434(1999) 435–443 [hep-ex/9902006]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  30. [54]

    A. L. Read,Presentation of search results: TheCL s technique,J. Phys. G28(2002) 2693–2704

    2002

  31. [55]

    Belvedere, C

    A. Belvedere, C. Englert, R. Kogler and M. Spannowsky,Dispelling the √ Lmyth for the High-Luminosity LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 7 715 [2402.07985]. [56]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet. al.,Measurements of jet cross-section ratios in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with ATLAS,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 7 072019 [2405.20206]. [57]A TLASCollaboration, M....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [71]

    Greljo, J

    A. Greljo, J. Salko, A. Smolkoviˇ c and P. Stangl,Rare b decays meet high-mass Drell-Yan,JHEP 05(2023) 087 [2212.10497]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [72]

    Amrith, J

    S. Amrith, J. M. Butterworth, F. F. Deppisch, W. Liu, A. Varma and D. Yallup,LHC Constraints on aB−LGauge Model using Contur,JHEP05(2019) 154 [1811.11452]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [73]

    Butterworth, M

    J. Butterworth, M. Cullingworth, J. Egan, F. Esser, V. Sanz and M. Ubiali,Probing the coupling of axions to tops and gluons with LHC measurements,JHEP02(2026) 073 [2508.21660]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [74]

    Allanach and E

    B. Allanach and E. Loisa,Flavonstrahlung in the B 3−L 2Z’ model at current and future colliders,JHEP03(2023) 253 [2212.07440]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023