Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:2608.18506 v1 · submitted 19 Aug 2026 · 34 references

Axion-like particle at the 10 GeV scale: Higgs decays to wide jets and photons

Bogdan A. Dobrescu, Subhojit Roy

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“If axion-like particles (ALPs) exist, they may have renormalizable couplings only to the Higgs boson (h0) or to fields beyond the Standard Model.”

more of the abstract

An ALP Ah lighter than about 60 GeV would allow the h0 → AhAh decay, with a branching fraction determined by the explicit global symmetry breaking responsible for the main contributions to the Ah mass (MA). New heavy fields that carry color and electric charge, such as squarks, can mediate Ah decays at one loop mostly into gluons, but also into photons. Exploring LHC sensitivity to Ah, we show that the h0 → AhAh → (gg)(γγ) channel leads to a diphoton resonance at MA whose production rate is consistent with a 3.5σ excess reported by a CMS search at MA ≈ 13.6 GeV. For MA of order 10 GeV, the h0 → AhAh → 4g cascade decay leads to two wide jets (each with 2-prong substructure) that form a resonance at 125 GeV.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 27 Aug 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A plausible ALP explanation of the CMS 13.6 GeV excess with a new wide-jet Higgs decay, undercut by an unvalidated detector simulation that could break the rate claim. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 5 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 34 references say.

The paper says, at Sec. 3.2.1, Table 1

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

The acceptance-efficiency values A*epsilon = 12.7% (CMS) and 11.9% (ATLAS) are the backbone of the rate comparison in Figure 5, yet the simulation deliberately disables photon isolation by setting PTRatioMax large and emulates the CMS neural-network selection with a flat pT(gamma gamma) > 50 GeV cut.

more of objection 1

The paper itself characterizes these choices as "an approximation" rather than a detailed implementation. No uncertainty is quoted on A*epsilon, and no closure test against the public CMS or ATLAS selection efficiencies is provided. If the true efficiencies are lower by a factor of two, the required Br(h0 -> A_h A_h) to match the CMS 1-sigma band rises from ~10% to ~20%, which exceeds the 12% ATLAS bound under |kappa_V| <= 1 quoted in Sec. 3.2.2 and would invalidate the central explanation. This is a load-bearing point, not a presentation issue.

The paper says, at Sec. 3.2.2, Figure 5

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

The overlap of the CMS and ATLAS 1-sigma bands in Figure 5 is claimed to show that the two experiments are consistent with the model, but the vertical position of every band inherits the simulated A*epsilon linearly. Because the ATLAS bound Br(h0 -> undetected) < 12% is only a short distance above the central value Br(h0 -> A_h A_h) ~ 10% required to match the CMS excess, the apparent consistency is fragile.

more of objection 2

The paper should propagate a realistic systematic uncertainty on A*epsilon (including isolation, photon reconstruction, and trigger turn-on) and show how the allowed region in Figure 5 changes; without that, the rate agreement is not established.

The paper says, at Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.19)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The model contains several free parameters (mu_Hphi/v_phi, Lambda_H, m_R/v_H, Lambda_tilde_u/M_tilde_u, mu_tilde_uphi/mu_Hphi, plus the colored-scalar masses and mixing parameters), and Eq. (2.19) is a parameter relation, not a prediction. This is acceptable for a phenomenological model, but the paper should state more explicitly which combinations are constrained by naturalness and which are simply chosen to place M_A at 13.6 GeV and Br(h0 -> A_h A_h) near 10%.

more of objection 3

In particular, the choice mu_Hphi/v_phi ~ 10^-2 that yields Br(h0 -> A_h A_h) ~ 10% is close to the experimental upper limit, so the paper should discuss the sensitivity of the conclusion to variations of this parameter within its natural range.

5 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract and Sec. 1

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 5

The phrase "an ALPA h lighter" in the abstract and the introduction reads as a typo; it should be "an ALP A_h lighter."

The paper says, at Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.3)

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 5

The estimate Delta R ~ 0.32 for M_A = 10 GeV is stated as an order-of-magnitude guide, but the following sentence about the CMS and ATLAS separation cuts could benefit from a reference to the actual photon-reconstruction separation limits in the two experiments, since the 0.3 cut is close to the peak of the Delta R distribution.

show 3 more

The paper says, at Sec. 3.2.3, Fig. 6

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 5

The right-hand panel of Figure 6 shows a broad M_gamma gamma Jgg peak near 125 GeV, but the caption does not specify the selection efficiency after requiring the 11 GeV < m_gamma gamma < 16 GeV window and Delta R(Jgg, gamma) > 0.8; reporting this efficiency would help the reader judge the usefulness of the Higgs-mass reconstruction for background suppression.

The paper says, at Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.17)

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 5

The statement that the ratio (2.17) is independent of the spin of the particles in the loop is not justified in the text; for scalar and fermion loops the functional dependence on the mass ratio can differ, even though the leading charge/color factors may be similar. A brief comment on the loop-function cancellation would avoid confusion.

The paper says, at Sec. 3.2.1

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 5

The paper states that varying the pT(gamma gamma) threshold between 40 and 60 GeV changes the efficiency only slightly, but no quantitative result is shown. This claim is relevant to the robustness of the central A*epsilon value, so a small table or plot would be more convincing.

What would settle it

One check: rerun the exact DELPHES setup of §3.2.1 with default photon isolation (physical PTRatioMax for the CMS and ATLAS cards, track isolation, and photon-ID efficiency maps) instead of the disabled isolation, keeping all other cuts and the same event sample; recompute the final row of Table 1. If the CMS A×ε falls below ~0.064, or equivalently the required Br(h0→AhAh) for the CMS 1σ band exceeds 0.12, the Fig. 5 overlap is an artifact of the emulation and the central claim fails at the rate-comparison level. A stronger version of the same check is to run a Rivet/MadAnalysis5 recast of the published CMS [10] and ATLAS [11] analyses, or to use the collaborations' public efficiency maps, on the same UFO/PYTHIA8 events.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 27 Aug 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic agrees 1 min 47 s · 14,420 tokens read, 9,890 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 42 s · 15,429 tokens read, 4,097 written
  4. Referee major revision: 3 major objections, 5 minor 25 s · 14,922 tokens read, 2,412 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The paper does something genuinely new: it interprets the CMS 13.6 GeV diphoton excess as h0→AA→(γγ)(gg) with A an ALP from a Higgs-portal complex scalar, and points out that the same model gives h0→AA→4g as two wide 2-prong jets. The field theory is standard but cleanly presented: the ALP mass from explicit and spontaneous U(1) breaking, loop decays via TeV-scale colored scalars, and the γγ/gg branching ratio around 0.15%. I see no load-bearing error in the analytic part. The authors are also straight about what is approximate and what is tuned.

The strength is the physics case for the mixed γγ+gg channel and the explicit suggestion to search for Higgs decays into wide jets. That is a well-motivated, possibly important signature, independent of the current excess.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader puts it. The claimed consistency with CMS and ATLAS in Fig. 5 depends on an acceptance-efficiency of 12.7% from a DELPHES emulation that (i) replaces the CMS neural-network selection by a pT(γγ)>50 GeV cut, (ii) sets PTRatioMax so isolation rejects nothing, and (iii) approximates photon ID by a ΔRγγ cut. No uncertainty is quoted, and no closure tests or public artifacts are provided. Because the needed Br(h→AA) sits just under the ATLAS |κV|≤1 bound of 12%, a factor-two drop in efficiency would push the central explanation above the bound. That is a real problem, not a minor quibble. I also think the paper underplays the local vs global significance of the 3.5σ excess; in the 10–70 GeV range, the look-elsewhere effect is substantial, and the mass is chosen after the fact.

That said, the paper is not sloppy. The authors are transparent about their approximations. The wide-jet signature is a concrete, new target that could be useful even if the CMS excess evaporates.

Bottom line: send it to referees. It deserves careful review, and the efficiency question is exactly what a referee should push on. If the simulation cannot be made more realistic or conservative, the excess interpretation should be softened to a possible explanation; the wide-jet proposal stands on its own.

The strongest objection

The central quantitative step is §3.2.2/Fig. 5, where the claimed consistency with the CMS 3.5σ excess and the compatibility with ATLAS are read off from a predicted vertical band B(h0→AhAh→γγgg) = 2 B(h0→AhAh) B(Ah→γγ) B(Ah→gg), scaled by an acceptance-efficiency of 12.7% (CMS) and 11.9% (ATLAS) from Table 1. Every point in Fig. 5 inherits these numbers linearly. The simulation in §3.2.1 deliberately (i) emulates the CMS neural-network selection by a flat pT(γγ)>50 GeV cut, (ii) sets PTRatioMax large so calorimeter isolation rejects nothing, and (iii) approximates photon identification by a ΔRγγ cut only. No uncertainty is quoted on A×ε. The CMS NN was trained on shower-shape, isolation, and vertex variables; a flat pT cut cannot reproduce its turn-on, and disabling isolation removes a known rejection source for close photon pairs in the 13.6 GeV signal, where ΔRγγ distributions peak near the 0.3 isolation-cone boundary. If the true CMS+ATLAS efficiency is lower by as little as a factor of two (e.g., 12.7%→6.4%), the Br(h0→AhAh) required to match the 1σ CMS band increases from ~10% to ≳20%, above the 12% ATLAS |κV|≤1 bound quoted in §3.2.2, and the central explanation breaks. Since no public analysis artifacts or closure tests validate the emulation, the rate agreement is not yet established.

Good-faith reading: the paper is a candidate explanation, not a discovery claim; the model is self-consistent and the hand-derived cross sections and branching-fraction ratios (Eqs. 2.8, 2.16, 2.17, 3.9) are not the weak point. The point that makes or breaks the paper is whether the h0→AhAh→(γγ)(gg) rate is actually at the observed CMS/ATLAS level. The theoretical inputs to Eq. (3.9) are parameter-free relations (α, αs) plus the Higgs branching-fraction formula; the weak point is the conversion of a generated sample into an experimental signal yield. Section 3.2.1 replaces the CMS multivariate selection with a single pT cut and disables photon isolation, and Table 1 provides no systematic uncertainty on A×ε. A factor-of-two efficiency error is not extreme for fast simulation of nonstandard, collimated low-mass diphotons: the CMS NN score is dominated by isolation and shower-shape variables that DELPHES cannot reproduce, and the signal photons sit near the isolation-cone boundary at ΔRγγ~0.3-0.4. Because Fig. 5 and the entire phenomenological conclusion are linear in A×ε, a drop to ~6% moves the required Br(h0→AhAh) past the |κV|≤1 bound. The local-vs-global significance issue is real but secondary: a 3.5σ local excess can still be used as a candidate benchmark, provided the rate comparison is credible, and it cannot be made credible until the detector emulation is validated. Hence the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is the right one, and no verdict change is needed.

The referee's report

If the rate comparison is correct, the paper offers a concrete and falsifiable interpretation of the CMS 13.6 GeV diphoton excess as arising from Higgs decays to ALPs, and it identifies a genuinely new search channel (Higgs to two wide jets) that has not been experimentally explored. The model-building part is economical and internally consistent: the width formulas (2.8), (2.16), and (2.17) follow standard loop computations, and the parametric relation (2.19) is a reasonable way to locate M_A at the 10 GeV scale. The central quantitative step, however, rests on a simplified detector simulation whose acceptance-efficiency is not validated against the public CMS and ATLAS analyses; this is where the main risk lies. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or released analysis code, but the analytic widths are simple enough to be independently checked.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

This paper proposes that a 3.5σ excess in low-mass diphoton data at 13.6 GeV is not a single new particle produced alone, but an axion-like particle (ALP) that is produced in pairs from the decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson. The model gives the ALP a mass of order 10 GeV through explicit breaking of a global symmetry, and loop effects from new colored, electrically charged scalars make it decay almost always to two gluons, with a much smaller but observable branch to two photons. When one ALP decays to two photons and the other to two gluons, the photon pair is automatically boosted, which is why the signal passes the tight kinematics of existing low-mass diphoton searches. With a Higgs branching fraction into ALP pairs of about 10%, the predicted rate matches the 13.6 GeV excess and stays compatible with the milder excess and limits from the other search, while remaining under the 12% bound on undetected Higgs decays. Independently of that excess, the same cascade gives a Higgs decay into four gluons, which would appear as two wide jets with two-prong substructure forming a 125 GeV resonance, a signature no current search has looked for.

What carries the argument. The load-bearing object is the axion-like particle $A_h$, a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson whose mass near 10 GeV arises from three contributions to $M_A^2$: a tree-level Higgs-portal term, a quadratically divergent one-loop term regulated at an effective cut-off near 1 TeV, and a logarithmically divergent term from the new colored scalars. What carries the argument is the pair decay $h^0\to A_h A_h$ followed by the one-loop decays $A_h\to gg$ and $A_h\to\gamma\gamma$, whose relative rate is fixed by the loop-particle charges through $\Gamma(A_h\to\gamma\gamma)/\Gamma(A_h\to gg)=8\alpha^2/(9\alpha_s^2)\simeq1.5\times10^{-3}$. Because each $A_h$ is boosted with $\gamma_{A_h}\simeq6.3\,(10\,\mathrm{GeV}/M_A)$, the two photons from one ALP remain separated enough to pass low-mass diphoton triggers, while the two gluons from the other merge into a single wide jet with 2-prong substructure; this kinematic split is the mechanism that links the diphoton excess to the new wide-jet signature.

Core claim. On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a light ALP $A_h$ with the Higgs-portal coupling of Eq. (2.6) and the loop-induced couplings of Eq. (2.15) is a viable explanation of the observed 13.6 GeV diphoton excess: for $M_A\approx13.6$ GeV and $Br(h^0\to A_h A_h)\approx10\%$, the $h^0\to A_h A_h\to(\gamma\gamma)(gg)$ cascade yields a boosted diphoton resonance at $M_A$ with an acceptance times efficiency of 12.7% under one experiment's selection and 11.9% under the other's, putting the predicted rate inside the 1σ bands of both searches. The same model predicts a hadronic cascade $h^0\to A_h A_h\to 4g$ with branching fraction of order 10%, in which the two gluons from each ALP merge into a wide jet with 2-prong substructure and the jet pair reconstructs a 125 GeV Higgs; this is a new, unsearched nonstandard Higgs decay.

The premise it rests on. The argument's quantitative anchor is the assumption that the simplified emulation of the two collider event selections, which replaces the multivariate selection by the single requirement that the photon-pair transverse momentum exceed 50 GeV and turns off photon isolation, correctly predicts that about 12.7% of signal events pass; if the true acceptance is even a factor of two lower, the required Higgs branching fraction into ALPs exceeds the 12% upper bound on undetected Higgs decays, and the explanation fails.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

The 13.6 GeV excess, if real, is evidence for the nonstandard Higgs decay $h^0\to A_h A_h$ rather than for a singly produced ALP, so the apparent tension between the two collider diphoton searches is resolved by the presence of the hadronic branch.

Combining the diphoton with the wide jet from the second ALP should produce a second resonance near 125 GeV, giving a nearly background-free confirmation channel for the explanation.

The model predicts $h^0\to A_h A_h\to 4g$ at the percent level, visible as two wide 2-prong jets; a dedicated search for a 125 GeV resonance in this topology could discover it or exclude the mechanism.

Improving the measurement of undetected Higgs branching fractions beyond the current 12% bound will directly probe the required $Br(h^0\to A_h A_h)\sim10\%$, so near-future Higgs coupling measurements can confirm or rule out this parameter region.

Run 3 and High-Luminosity collider data multiply the number of Higgs bosons by a factor of a few, making both the photonic and fully hadronic $A_h$ cascade searches statistically sensitive at the relevant branching fractions.

If the excess is confirmed as $h^0\to A_h A_h\to(\gamma\gamma)(gg)$, the companion all-hadronic decay $h^0\to A_h A_h\to 4g$ has a much larger rate, so a future wide-jet search that finds nothing at 125 GeV would pressure the same parameter space even if the diphoton signal is reproduced.

Because the ratio $Br(A_h\to\gamma\gamma)/Br(A_h\to gg)=8\alpha^2/(9\alpha_s^2)$ is independent of the loop particles' spin and weak representation, the same ALP could be searched for in other production modes, and the 13.6 GeV excess may imply additional signals at masses and rates the paper does not compute.

The model's consistency argument assumes the $|\kappa_V|\le1$ constraint on the Higgs couplings to W and Z; if future global fits allow larger values, the required $A_h$ branching could be accommodated more easily, making the explanation harder to falsify.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

If axion-like particles (ALPs) exist, they may have renormalizable couplings only to the Higgs boson (h0) or to fields beyond the Standard Model. An ALP Ah lighter than about 60 GeV would allow the h0 → AhAh decay, with a branching fraction determined by the explicit global symmetry breaking responsible for the main contributions to the Ah mass (MA). New heavy fields that carry color and electric charge, such as squarks, can mediate Ah decays at one loop mostly into gluons, but also into photons. Exploring LHC sensitivity to Ah, we show that the h0 → AhAh → (gg)(γγ) channel leads to a diphoton resonance at MA whose production rate is consistent with a 3.5σ excess reported by a CMS search at MA ≈ 13.6 GeV. For MA of order 10 GeV, the h0 → AhAh → 4g cascade decay leads to two wide jets (each with 2-prong substructure) that form a resonance at 125 GeV.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.92

“Exploring LHC sensitivity to $A_h$, we show that the $h^0 \to A_h A_h \to (gg)(\gamma\gamma)$ channel leads to a diphoton resonance at $M_A$ whose production rate is consistent with a $3.5\sigma$ excess reported by a CMS search at $M_A \approx 13.6$ GeV.”

How the main claim is stated: hedged possibility 0.52

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.17 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.96 · compares with prior results 0.88 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
If axion-like particles (ALPs) exist, they may have renormalizable couplings only to the Higgs boson ($h^0$) or to fields beyond the Standard Model. background 1.00 0.05 0.03 hedged possibility 1.00
An ALP $A_h$ lighter than about 60 GeV would allow the $h^0 \to A_h A_h$ decay, with a branching fraction determined by the explicit global symmetry breaking responsible for the main contributions to the $A_h$ mass ($M_A$). background 0.92 0.18 0.06 hedged possibility 0.59
New heavy fields that carry color and electric charge, such as squarks, can mediate $A_h$ decays at one loop mostly into gluons, but also into photons. background 0.89 0.13 0.03 asserted 0.55
Exploring LHC sensitivity to $A_h$, we show that the $h^0 \to A_h A_h \to (gg)(\gamma\gamma)$ channel leads to a diphoton resonance at $M_A$ whose production rate is consistent with a $3.5\sigma$ excess reported by a CMS search at $M_A \approx 13.6$ GeV. result 0.89 0.76 0.41 hedged possibility 0.52
For $M_A$ of order 10 GeV, the $h^0 \to A_h A_h \to 4g$ cascade decay leads to two wide jets (each with 2-prong substructure) that form a resonance at 125 GeV. result 0.96 0.73 0.28 asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.84 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.48

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,660 input tokens.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (6)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. Quadratically divergent contribution to the squared-mass of the ALP
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. One-loop consequences of the interaction (2.11), depicted as
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. Nonstandard decay of the Higgs boson via a pair of
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. SM Higgs production through gluon fusion (left diagram) or associated pro
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. Combined branching fraction for the Higgs (
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. Kinematics of the pp → h 0 → AhAh → (γγ)(gg) signal for MA = 13.6 GeV and √ s = 13 TeV. Left: normalized parton-level distribution of the angular separation ∆Rgg between the two gluons; for values to the left of the dashed line the two gluons form a single wide jet. Right: normalized reconstructed invariant-mass distribution MγγJgg , obtained by combining the two leading reconstructed photons with the groomed leading wide jet (R = 0.8) after requiring ∆R(Jgg, γ1,2) > 0.8 and 11 GeV < mγγ < 16 GeV; the peak near 125 GeV reconstructs the Higgs boson. 3.2.3 Additional features of the…

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (34)
  1. [1] M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm, “Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,” JHEP12, 044 (2017) [arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]]. S. Knapen, S. Kumar and D. Redigolo, “Searching for axionlike particles with data scouting at ATLAS and CMS,” Phys. Rev. D105, no.11, 115012 (2022) [ar... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS], “Search for narrow resonances in dijet final states at√s= 8 TeV with the novel CMS technique of data scouting,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.3, 031802 (2016) [arXiv:1604.08907 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], “Enriching the physics program of the CMS ex- periment via data scouting and data parking,” Phys. Rept.1115, 678-772 (2025) [arXiv:2403.16134 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] B. A. Dobrescu, G. L. Landsberg and K. T. Matchev, “Higgs boson decays to CP odd scalars at the Tevatron and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D63, 075003 (2001) [arXiv:hep- ph/0005308] on PitharXiv
  5. [5] A. Martin, “Higgs cascade decays to gamma gamma + jet jet at the LHC,” [arXiv:hep-ph/0703247] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] CMS Collaboration, report PAS-EXO-24-025, July 2025. A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], “Search for exotic Higgs boson decaysH→AAwith AA→γγin events with a semi-merged topology in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” [arXiv:2601.00183 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], “Search for short- and long-lived axion-like particles inH→ aa→4γdecays with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.7, 742 (2024) [arXiv:2312.03306 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] S. Chang, P. J. Fox and N. Weiner, “Visible cascade higgs decays to four photons at hadron colliders,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 111802 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0608310] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] I. Brivio, S. Meoni and D. Pagani, “ALP pair production at the LHC,” [arXiv:2607.21712 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], “Search for a narrow resonance with a mass between 10 and 70 GeV decaying to a pair of photons in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” [arXiv:2603.03250 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], “Search for boosted diphoton resonances in the 10 to 70 GeV mass range using 138 fb −1 of 13 TeVppcollisions,” JHEP07, 155 (2023) [arXiv:2211.04172 [hep-ex]]. 22 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [12] B. A. Dobrescu, “Minimal composite Higgs model with light bosons,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 015004 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/9908391] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [13] B. A. Dobrescu and K. T. Matchev, “Light axion within the next-to-minimal super- symmetric standard model,” JHEP09, 031 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0008192] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [14] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, “The NMSSM close to the R-symmetry limit and naturalness inh→aadecays form a <2m b,” Phys. Rev. D75, 075019 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0611142] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [15] A. Datta, M. Guchait, A. Roy and S. Roy, “Hunting ewinos and a light scalar of Z3-NMSSM with a bino-like dark matter in top squark decays at the LHC,” JHEP 11, 081 (2023) [arXiv:2211.05905 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] E. Bernreuther and B. A. Dobrescu, “Vectorlike leptons and long-lived bosons at the LHC,” JHEP07, 079 (2023) [arXiv:2304.08509 [hep-ph]]. M. R. Buckley, D. Shih and I. R. Wang, “Hiding in the shadow of the Upsilon: ditaus from a light pseudoscalar,” [arXiv:2605.29289 [hep-ph]]... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [17] G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], “Search for decays of the Higgs boson into a pair of pseu- doscalar particles decaying intobbτ +τ− using pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.5, 052013 (2024) [arXiv:2407.01335 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], “Search for low-mass resonances decaying toττand measurement of the Υ→ττdecay in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13.6 TeV,” [arXiv:2605.25103 [hep-ex]]. A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], “Search for the decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light pseudoscal... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024) 23 on Pith
  20. [20] A. Djouadi, “Squark effects on Higgs boson production and decay at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B435, 101-108 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9806315 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 14 more
  1. [21] C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, T. Gehrmann, F. Herzog, A. Lazopoulos and B. Mistlberger, “High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC,” JHEP05, 058 (2016) [arXiv:1602.00695 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, “FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,” Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250-2300 (2014) [arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] L. Darm´ e, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, M. Goodsell, G. Heinrich, V. Hirschi, S. H¨ oche, M. H¨ ofer and J. Isaacson, “UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,” Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.7, 631 [arXiv:2304.09883 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [24] J. Alwallet al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP 07, 079 (2014) [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] R. D. Ballet al.[NNPDF], “Parton distributions with QED corrections,” Nucl. Phys. B877, 290-320 (2013) [arXiv:1308.0598 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008), 852-867 [arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] J. de Favereauet al.[DELPHES 3], “DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” JHEP02(2014), 057 [arXiv:1307.6346] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] R. Brun and F. Rademakers, “ROOT — An object oriented data analysis frame- work,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A389, no.1-2, 81-86 (1997) on Pith
  9. [29] B. A. Dobrescu and J. D. Lykken, “Coupling spans of the Higgs-like boson,” JHEP 02, 073 (2013) [arXiv:1210.3342 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the AT- LAS experiment ten years after the discovery,” Nature607, no.7917, 52-59 (2022) [erratum: Nature612, no.7941, E24 (2022)] [arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]]. 24 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], “Combined measurements and interpretations of Higgs boson production and decay in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” [arXiv:2602.18611 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,” JHEP 04, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [33] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez and J. Thaler, “Soft Drop,” JHEP05, 146 (2014) [arXiv:1402.2657 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], “Search for Higgs boson decays into pairs of light (pseudo)scalar particles in theγγjjfinal state inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B782, 750-767 (2018) [arXiv:1803.11145 [hep-ex]]. 25 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

What it cites · 35 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 10 papers
Uses data or values from 3 papers
Compares with 1 paper
Cites as support 1 paper
Cites as background 4 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment