Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Probing torsion field with Einstein-Cartan theory at the HL-LHC: an angular distribution case study

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Collins-Soper angular distribution of high-mass dimuons can expose the Einstein-Cartan torsion portal, with expected HL-LHC exclusions excluding torsion masses from roughly 1.4 to 7 TeV.

desk verdict A clean MC study undone by a spin-2 template applied to a spin-1 vector, so the quoted exclusion ranges don't hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.20406 v4 pith:4OFA2KME submitted 2026-01-28 hep-ph

S. Elgammal This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Einstein-CartangravitytorsionportaldarkgaugebosonCollins-SoperframeangulardistributiondimuonfinalstateHL-LHCCLslimit
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the angular distribution of muon pairs in the Collins-Soper frame can separate a simplified Einstein-Cartan gravity signal from Standard Model backgrounds at the High-Luminosity LHC. The signal is produced via quark-antiquark annihilation through a heavy torsion field into a dark neutral gauge boson $A'$ that decays to muons plus missing energy from dark matter. According to the simulation, the signal has a symmetric, spin-2-like $\cos\theta_{CS}$ distribution, in contrast to the forward-backward asymmetric Drell-Yan background. Using this shape difference, the analysis reports expected 95% CL upper limits that exclude torsion-field masses between roughly 1.4 and 7 TeV, depending on the $A'$ mass. The result matters because it gives the HL-LHC a concrete angular-distribution signature for a torsion portal that would otherwise hide in the dimuon-plus-missing-energy final state.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Collins-Soper variable $\cos\theta_{CS}$ combined with the spin-2 angular template $f(\cos\theta_{CS})=\mathrm{par}[0](1-\cos^4\theta_{CS})$. The Collins-Soper frame is used to reconstruct the angle in a way that reduces distortions from the transverse momenta of the incoming partons, while the template supplies the expected signal shape. The analysis is built on the contrast between this symmetric distribution and the asymmetric Drell-Yan background, and it uses a set of five tight cuts on the azimuthal separation between the dimuon and missing transverse energy, the relative transverse-energy difference, the three-dimensional opening angle, the jet multiplicity, and the dimuon mass window. A profile-likelihood test using the $CL_s$ construction then converts the shape difference into the reported upper limits.

What would settle it

Generate the same $q\bar q\to S\to A'\to\mu^+\mu^-$ events without imposing any template, fit the resulting $\cos\theta_{CS}$ histogram against both $\mathrm{par}[0](1-\cos^4\theta_{CS})$ and a spin-1 shape such as $1+\cos^2\theta_{CS}$, and check which template the Monte Carlo truth prefers; a preference for the spin-1 shape would overturn the mass exclusions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the simplified Einstein-Cartan portal model, the angular distribution of the decay muons is symmetric around $\cos\theta_{CS}=0$ and follows the same template used for spin-2 graviton decays into dileptons, namely $\mathrm{par}[0](1-\cos^4\theta_{CS})$. This symmetric shape provides a discriminating handle against the Standard Model Drell-Yan process, which has a sizable forward-backward asymmetry. The paper further claims that with 3000 fb$^{-1}$ at 14 TeV and optimized selection cuts on missing energy and dimuon kinematics, this shape-based analysis yields expected 95% CL exclusion intervals for the torsion field mass $M_{TS}$: 1396--5545 GeV for $M_{A'}=200$ GeV, 1402--6310 GeV for $M_{A'}=300$ GeV, 1537--7026 GeV for $M_{A'}=400$ GeV, and 1677--6927 GeV for $M_{A'}=500$ GeV, at the benchmark couplings $g_\eta=0.125$, $g_D=1.0$, and dark matter mass $M_\chi=500$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the $A'$-signal angular distribution follows the spin-2 template $\mathrm{par}[0](1-\cos^4\theta_{CS})$, even though the $A'_\mu$ is a vector field with spin-1 coupling; if the true distribution has a different shape, the background discrimination and the resulting mass exclusions would be invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 5 sigma discovery of the $A'\to\mu^+\mu^-$ plus missing-energy signal becomes reachable with 160 fb$^{-1}$ for $M_{A'}=400$ GeV and $M_{TS}=4000$ GeV, and with 500 fb$^{-1}$ for $M_{A'}=200$ GeV.
  • No signal in the excluded $M_{TS}$ windows would constrain the Einstein-Cartan portal at the benchmark couplings $g_\eta=0.125$, $g_D=1.0$, and $M_\chi=500$ GeV.
  • The symmetric signal shape, if confirmed, would distinguish the torsion portal from spin-1 alternatives such as $Z'$ models in the same dimuon plus missing-energy final state.
  • For $M_{A'}>500$ GeV the background after the final selection is too small for a meaningful statistical analysis, so the method's reach in $A'$ mass is limited at this benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate test of the weakest assumption is to fit the generated $A'$ events with a spin-1 template such as $1+\cos^2\theta_{CS}$; if that fit is preferred, the exclusion intervals reported here would need to be recomputed.
  • The same shape-versus-shape logic could be applied to the $e^+e^-$ channel or to early HL-LHC data, where the forward-backward asymmetry of Drell-Yan is already measured, making the template comparison a model-independent spin test.
  • The reported limits come from private simulation with an ad-hoc flat 10% systematic uncertainty; a fuller experimental systematic treatment could shift the boundary masses by an amount the paper does not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Monte Carlo study of high-mass dimuon angular distributions at the HL-LHC (14 TeV, 3000 fb^-1) in a simplified Einstein-Cartan model [15]. The process is pp -> S -> chi chi followed by chi -> A' chi and A' -> mu+ mu-, with a heavy torsion field S mediating the production. The author generates signal and Standard Model backgrounds with MadGraph/Pythia/Delphos, applies a preselection and a tighter MET-based selection, shows cos(theta_CS) distributions in several mass windows, estimates luminosities needed for 5-sigma discovery, and uses CLs in the asymptotic approximation to derive expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma x Br(A' -> mu+ mu-) as a function of the torsion mass M_TS. The paper concludes that the A' signal has a spin-2 angular distribution and quotes excluded M_TS intervals such as 1396-5545 GeV for M_A' = 200 GeV.

Significance. The question is timely: angular distributions in the Collins-Soper frame can in principle distinguish spin hypotheses for new dilepton resonances at the HL-LHC, and the paper uses standard public tools with an explicit cross-section table and expected CLs limits. These are useful ingredients for a projection study if the signal shape is modeled correctly. However, the central physics claim, that the A' signal has the spin-2 shape par[0](1 - cos^4 theta_CS), contradicts the model definition in Sec. II where A'_mu is a spin-1 vector gauge boson. Because that shape drives the shape-based discrimination and the quoted exclusion intervals, the main result as presented is not supported. The manuscript also has limited reproducibility: no generator cards, no fit-quality statistics, and no derivation of the systematic uncertainty. The strength of the paper is its clear layout and the explicit use of a published model, but the internal spin inconsistency is load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Sec. VII, Eq. (2)] The analysis's discriminating variable and the resulting exclusion intervals are built on an unsupported spin hypothesis. The model Lagrangian in Sec. II defines A'_mu as a spin-1 vector gauge boson through D_mu = partial_mu + i g_eta gamma_5 S_mu + i g_D A'_mu. Yet Eq. (2) fits the A' -> mu+ mu- Monte Carlo shape with par[0] (1 - cos^4 theta_CS), the form used for a spin-2 Randall-Sundrum graviton, and the abstract and Sec. VIII label A' a 'spin-2 dark neutral gauge boson.' A vector boson produced through fermion annihilation and decaying to muons has a tree-level Collins-Soper distribution with at most 1 + cos^2 theta_CS and cos theta_CS terms; it does not contain cos^4 theta_CS. Since cos theta_CS is described in Sec. VII.A as the key discriminator, and since the CLs limits in Figs. 9 are computed from these shapes, the quoted M_TS exclusions, for example 1396-5545 GeV for M_A' = 200 GeV, are conditioned on the wrong spin assignment. The MC histograms in Figs. 2 and 3 should be compared with the matrix-element prediction for spin-1 production and decay; as written, this is an internal inconsistency, not merely a matter of interpretation.
  2. [Sec. VII.A] The treatment of systematic uncertainties is not adequate for the central limits. The text states: 'An ad-hoc flat 10% uncertainty is applied to cover all possible systematic effects.' No source, correlation structure, or dependence on the fitted variable is given. With an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb^-1 and the tight final selection, the background yields in the cos theta_CS bins in Fig. 7 are at the level of tens to hundreds of events, so the CLs limits can be sensitive to the assumed systematic uncertainty. The author should either derive the systematic covariance from the detector simulation and background modeling or show explicitly that the 10% choice does not change the exclusion intervals beyond the quoted precision.
  3. [Sec. VIII, Fig. 9] The translation from the expected upper-limit curves to the mass exclusions is not described. In Fig. 9, the solid black curves are theory predictions and the vertical red dotted lines are said to indicate 'limit values,' but the text does not state the algorithm used to obtain the intervals quoted in Sec. VIII. For example, it is not specified whether each interval is the set of M_TS for which the theory sigma x Br exceeds the expected 95% CL upper limit, nor how interpolation between the discrete M_TS points of Table II is performed. This step is load-bearing for the final claim and should be specified precisely.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II] The sentence 'The model includes several free parameters: the masses of the torsion field, dark gauge boson, and dark matter' is misleading because g_eta and g_D are fixed and only M_TS and M_A' are scanned; clarify that M_chi is also fixed at 500 GeV.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The phrase 'for different tensor scalar masses (M_TS)' should read 'for different torsion-field masses (M_TS).'
  3. [Table IV] The dash for (M_A' = 200 GeV, M_TS = 5000 GeV) is unexplained; the text in Sec. VIII quotes 'exceeding 2000 fb^-1,' so either enter the value or state explicitly that it exceeds the plotted range.
  4. [Figs. 5 and 6] Several axis labels and legends are garbled in the compiled version, for example 'Events (scaled to one)' and the pT axes, making it difficult to inspect the cut efficiencies; please regenerate the figures with clear labels.
  5. [Fig. 3 and Eq. (2)] No goodness-of-fit statistic is reported for the fit of par[0](1 - cos^4 theta_CS) to the Monte Carlo distribution; a chi^2/ndf or similar quantity would help the reader assess the claimed spin-2 shape.
  6. [Sec. V] The manuscript does not provide the MadGraph run cards, Pythia settings, or Delphes configuration used for the private samples, so the generated signal shapes are not reproducible from the information given; a short reproducibility statement would strengthen the study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: limits come from Monte Carlo samples and CLs statistics, not from a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central results, the 95% CL exclusion ranges on MTS, are obtained from standard Monte Carlo generation (MadGraph5 aMC@NLO + Pythia 8 + Delphes) using the UFO of the Einstein-Cartan model from ref. [15], followed by event selection and a profile-likelihood CLs procedure. No parameter is fitted to the final exclusion claim: the normalization parameter par[0] in Eq. (2) is used only to display the fitted shape of the cos(theta_CS) distribution in Fig. 3, and the exclusion limits use the full simulated cos(theta_CS) distributions and the cross sections of Table II, not the analytic template. The spin-2 template (1 - cos^4 theta_CS) is imported from an external CMS note [50] and used to characterize the signal shape; this is an externally published, independent template, not an assumption derived from the present paper's own output. The model [15] is independently published and its author is not an author of this paper, so the reliance on it is not self-citation. The reader's skeptic concern that A'_mu is a vector field while the paper calls it spin-2 is a physics-consistency/correctness issue, not a circularity: the paper does not define its signal in terms of its conclusion, nor does it fit a parameter and then rename that fit as a prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity; any error would lie in model interpretation rather than circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the external model [15], the spin-2 template [50], DELPHES simulation, and several hand-picked parameters; no new particles are invented, but the spin-2 template assumption is ad hoc and load-bearing.

free parameters (4)
  • gη (torsion-fermion coupling) = 0.125
    Fixed to 0.125, stated to emerge from [15]; used for all cross-section and limit calculations.
  • gD (dark gauge coupling) = 1.0
    Set to 1.0 following the LHC Dark Matter Working Group recommendation [41].
  • Mχ (dark matter mass) = 500 GeV
    Chosen from [39,40] within the 100-10000 GeV range; not varied.
  • flat_systematic = 10%
    Ad-hoc flat 10% uncertainty applied to cover all systematic effects in the profile likelihood and CLs limit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The simplified Einstein-Cartan model from [15] and its UFO implementation accurately describe the process.
    Section II trusts the model Lagrangian, couplings, and generator implementation from the cited paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The signal cosθCS shape is the spin-2 Randall-Sundrum template par[0](1-cos^4 θ_CS)/4.
    Eq. (2) and Figure 3 adopt this template from [50] without deriving it from the A' vector model.
  • domain assumption DELPHES fast simulation approximates the CMS HL-LHC response well enough for the quoted limits.
    Section V uses DELPHES without validation against full simulation or data.
  • domain assumption The SM background estimate is complete, including the assertion that W+jets and QCD multijet events are negligible.
    Section V.B dismisses W+jets and QCD without data-driven estimates or explicit event counts after pre-selection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing torsion field with Einstein-Cartan theory at the HL-LHC: an angular distribution case study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4OFA2KME

@misc{pith2026260120406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing torsion field with Einstein-Cartan theory at the HL-LHC: an angular distribution case study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4OFA2KME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.20406}
}
abstract

This analysis utilizes simulated data privately generated based on the High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC) configuration to investigate the angular distribution of high-mass dimuon pairs produced during the foreseen proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 14 TeV. The study focuses on the cos$\theta_{CS}$ variable, which is defined in the Collins-Soper frame. In the Standard Model, the production of high-mass dimuon pairs is primarily governed by the Drell-Yan process, which demonstrates a significant forward-backward asymmetry. However, scenarios beyond the Standard Model suggest different shapes for the angular distribution (cos$\theta_{CS}$). By observing excess events not predicted by the Standard Model, the angular distribution can help differentiate among these alternative models. Furthermore, we used a simplified Einstein-Cartan model to analyze the simulated data. This analysis established upper limits at the 95\% confidence level regarding the masses of various particles within the model, including a spin-2 dark neutral gauge boson and the torsion field.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    JHEP 07 (2021) 208

    The CMS Collaboration, Search for resonant and nonres- onant new phenomena in high mass dilepton final states at√s = 13 TeV. JHEP 07 (2021) 208

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    This value must be greater than 2.5 radians

    We calculate the azimuthal angle difference ∆ϕµ+µ−,⃗Emiss T , which represents the difference between the azimuthal angles of the dimuon and the missing transverse energy (|ϕµ+µ− −ϕmiss|). This value must be greater than 2.5 radians

    work page

  3. [2]

    This difference is set to be less than 0.4, defined by the condition |Eµ+µ− T − Emiss T |/Eµ+µ− T < 0.4

    We evaluate the relative difference between the transverse energy of the dimuon ( Eµ+µ− T ) and the miss- ing transverse energy ( Emiss T ). This difference is set to be less than 0.4, defined by the condition |Eµ+µ− T − Emiss T |/Eµ+µ− T < 0.4

    work page

  4. [3]

    We impose a constraint on the cosine of the 3D angle between the missing energy vector and the dimuon system vector to ensure they are oriented back-to-back, requiring that cos(angle 3D)<−0.75

    work page

  5. [4]

    Lastly, we limit the invariant mass of the dimuon to a range centered around the mass of the neutral gauge bo- sonA′

    The number of jets ( Njets) with pj T > 20 GeV and |ηj|< 2.5 should be less than 1. Lastly, we limit the invariant mass of the dimuon to a range centered around the mass of the neutral gauge bo- sonA′. Specifically, we require thatMA′−40<M µ+µ− < MA′ + 40. In Figure 5, we present the distributions of several variables for dimuon events, where each muon me...

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    Eichten et al., Supercollider physics

    E. Eichten et al., Supercollider physics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 56(4):579707, 1984

    1984

  7. [6]

    [pb] + μ - μ → Br (A' × ) χ χ A' → (pp σ 95% CL 95% CL upper limit Median expected σ 1±expected σ 2±expected = 300 GeV A': MEC Theory (14 TeV) -13000 fb (HL-LHC) Delphes simulationχ χ A'→ TS → pp ) −μ+μDark gauge boson: A'( = 500 GeV χ = 1.0, MD = 0.125, gηg (b) 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 [GeV] TSM6 −105 −104 −10...

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    [pb] + μ - μ → Br (A' × ) χ χ A' → (pp σ 95% CL 95% CL upper limit Median expected σ 1±expected σ 2±expected = 400 GeV A': MEC Theory (14 TeV) -13000 fb (HL-LHC) Delphes simulationχ χ A'→ TS → pp ) −μ+μDark gauge boson: A'( = 500 GeV χ = 1.0, MD = 0.125, gηg (c) 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 [GeV] TSM6 −105 −104 −10...

    work page 2000

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    The black solid curves represent the model based on Einstein-Cartan gravity at fixed dark matter mass ( Mχ = 500 GeV), gη = 0.125, gD = 1.0, and different values of A′ mass

    [pb] + μ - μ → Br (A' × ) χ χ A' → (pp σ 95% CL 95% CL upper limit Median expected σ 1±expected σ 2±expected = 500 GeV A': MEC Theory (14 TeV) -13000 fb (HL-LHC) Delphes simulationχ χ A'→ TS → pp ) −μ+μDark gauge boson: A'( = 500 GeV χ = 1.0, MD = 0.125, gηg (d) Figure 9 95% C...

    2000

  2. [9]

    Quarks And Leptons: An Introductory Course In Modern Particle Physics

    F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, (1984), “Quarks And Leptons: An Introductory Course In Modern Particle Physics.” isbn: 0471887412, 9780471887416

    1984

  3. [10]

    [pb] + μ - μ → Br (A' × ) χ χ A' → (pp σ 95% CL 95% CL upper limit Median expected σ 1±expected σ 2±expected = 200 GeV A': MEC Theory (14 TeV) -13000 fb (HL-LHC) Delphes simulationχ χ A'→ TS → pp ) −μ+μDark gauge boson: A'( = 500 GeV χ = 1.0, MD = 0.125, gηg (a) 1000 1500 2000...

    2000

  4. [11]

    Langacker, The Physics of Heavy Z ′ Gauge Bosons

    P. Langacker, The Physics of Heavy Z ′ Gauge Bosons. Rev. Mod. Phys, 81:1199–1228, 2008

    2008

  5. [12]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:3370–3373, 1999

    1999

  6. [13]

    Eichten, E

    Lane K. Eichten, E. and M. Peskin, New Tests for Quark and Lepton Substructure. Phys. Rev. Lett., 50(11):811814, 1983

    1983

  7. [14]

    Arkani Hamed, N

    Dimopoulos S. Arkani Hamed, N. and G. Dvali, Phe- nomenology, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Theories with Sub-Millimeter Dimensions and TeV Scale Quan- tum Gravity. Phys. Rev. D., 59(8), 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Physical Review D 92 (2015) 035007 [arXiv:1504.01386] [hep-ph]

    Marcelo Autran, Kevin Bauer, Tongyan Lin, and Daniel Whiteson, Searches for dark matter in events with a res- onance and missing transverse energy. Physical Review D 92 (2015) 035007 [arXiv:1504.01386] [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gupta, R

    A. Gupta, R. Primulando, P. Saraswat, A new probe of dark sector dynamics at the LHC. JHEP 09, 079 (2015). [arXiv:1504.01385] [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    CMS Collaboration, Forward-backward asymmetry of Drell-Yan lepton pairs in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 325

    2016

  11. [19]

    JHEP 08 (2016) 159

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the angular coef- ficients in Z-boson events using electron and muon pairs from data taken at√s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detec- tor. JHEP 08 (2016) 159

    2016

  12. [20]

    JHEP 08 (2022) 063

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the Drell-Yan forward-backward asymmetry at high dilepton masses in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV. JHEP 08 (2022) 063

    2022

  13. [21]

    Br¨ uning and L

    O. Br¨ uning and L. Rossi, The High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider: New Machine for Illuminating the Mys- teries of the Universe, edited by T. Dumont and L. Rossi (2024), pp. 1-53

    2024

  14. [22]

    Vidal, et al., Beyond the Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC

    X. Vidal, et al., Beyond the Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC. CERN-LPCC-2018- 05.arXiv:1812.07831v4 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nam, Probing dark gauge boson via Einstein- Cartan portal

    Cao H. Nam, Probing dark gauge boson via Einstein- Cartan portal. Phys. Rev. D 105, 075015 (2022) [arXiv:2112.10446] [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    T.W. B. Kibble, Lorentz Invariance and the Gravita- tional Field. Journal of Mathematical Physics. 2 (2): 212–221 (1961)

    1961

  17. [25]

    W., The Physical Structure of General Rela- tivity

    Sciama, D. W., The Physical Structure of General Rela- tivity. Reviews of Modern Physics. 36 (1): 463–469 (1964- 01-01)

    1964

  18. [26]

    David; Nester, James M

    Hehl, Friedrich W.; von der Heyde, Paul; Kerlick, G. David; Nester, James M. General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects. Reviews of Modern Physics. 48 (3): 393–416

  19. [27]

    Dimitri Tsoubelis, Gravitational Field of a Spin- Polarized Cylinder in the Einstein-Cartan Theory of Gravitation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 2235 (1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    Shaposhnikov, A

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, Einstein-Cartan gravity, matter, and scale-invariant gen- eralization, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2020) 177

    2020

  21. [29]

    Shaposhnikov, A

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, Einstein-Cartan Portal to Dark Matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 161301 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Planck Collaboration, Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmo- logical parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A13 [arXiv:1502.01589] [iNSPIRE-HEP]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, VI. Cosmological parameters. A&A 641, A6 (2020) arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Farrar, The bullet cluster is not a cosmological anomaly, JCAP, vol

    Craig Lage and Glennys R. Farrar, The bullet cluster is not a cosmological anomaly, JCAP, vol. 2015, no. 2, 038

    2015

  25. [33]

    Scherrer and Michael S

    Robert J. Scherrer and Michael S. Turner, On the relic, cosmic abundance of stable, weakly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 1585

    1986

  26. [34]

    Maverick dark matter at colliders

    M. Beltran et al., “Maverick dark matter at colliders”, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)037

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    CMS Collaboration, Dark sector searches with the CMS experiment. Phys. Rept. 1115 (2025) 448

    2025

  28. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Exploration at the high-energy frontier: ATLAS Run 2 searches investigating the ex- otic jungle beyond the Standard Model. Phys. Rep. 1116 (2025) 301-385

    2025

  29. [37]

    JHEP 10 (2018) 026 [arXiv:1807.07972] [hep-ph]

    Krovi AniruDF, Low Ian and Zhang Yue, Broadening dark matter searches at the LHC: mono-X versus dark- onium channels. JHEP 10 (2018) 026 [arXiv:1807.07972] [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for new physics in final states with an energetic jet or a hadronically decay- ing W or Z boson and transverse momentum imbal- ance at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 092005. [arXiv:1712.02345] [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for dark matter in events with a hadronically decaying vector boson and miss- ing transverse momentum in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 10 (2018) 180 [arXiv:1807.11471] [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for dark matter produced in association with a leptonically decaying Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 13; Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 333

    2021

  33. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for associated production 12 of a Z boson with an invisibly decaying Higgs boson or dark matter candidates at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137066

    2022

  34. [42]

    10 (2017) 073, [arXiv:1706.03794v2] [hep-ex]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for new physics in the monophoton final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP. 10 (2017) 073, [arXiv:1706.03794v2] [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for dark matter in associ- ation with an energetic photon in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 02 (2021) 226, [arXiv:2011.05259v2] [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for dark matter particles produced in association with a Higgs boson in proton- proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 03 (2020) 025, [arXiv:1908.01713v2] [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for dark matter pro- duced in association with a Standard Model Higgs boson decaying into b-quarks using the full Run 2 dataset from the ATLAS detector, JHEP 11 (2021) 209, [arXiv:2108.13391v2] [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for dark matter in events with missing transverse momentum and a Higgs boson decaying into two photons in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 10 (2021) 13, [arXiv:2104.13240v2] [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. K. Leane, T. R. Slatyer, J. F. Beacom, and K. C. Ng, GeV-scale thermal WIMPs: Not even slightly ruled out, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 2 023016, [arXiv:1805.10305]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    224-231 (2017)

    Jan Conrad and Olaf Reimer, Indirect dark matter searches in Gamma- and Cosmic Rays, Nature Physics, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp. 224-231 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Boveia et al., Recommendations on presenting LHC searches for missing transverse energy signals using sim- plifed s-channel models of dark matter, Phys

    A. Boveia et al., Recommendations on presenting LHC searches for missing transverse energy signals using sim- plifed s-channel models of dark matter, Phys. Dark Univ. 27 (2020) 100365 [arXiv:1603.04156] [INSPIRE]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Collins and D

    J. Collins and D. Soper, Angular distribution of dilep- tons in high-energy hadron collisions. Phys. Rev. D., 16(7):2219–2225, 1977

    1977

  43. [51]

    CMS Collaboration, J. Instrum. 3 (2008) S08004

    2008

  44. [52]

    G. L. Bayatian, J. Phys. G 34 (2007) CERN-LHCC- 2006-021; CMS-TDR-008-2; FERMILAB-CONF-07-831- CMS

    2007

  45. [53]

    MadGraph 5 : Going Be- yond

    Johan Alwall, Michel Herquet, Fabio Maltoni, Olivier Mattelaer, and Tim Stelzer. MadGraph 5 : Going Be- yond. JHEP, 06:128, 2011

    2011

  46. [54]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C.O. Rasmussen, P.Z. Skands. An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, M. Selvaggi, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic col- lider experiment, JHEP 1402 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final state at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2021) 208 [arXiv:2103.02708v2] [hep- ex]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Physics Letters B, Volume 698, Is- sue 3, 11 April 2011, Pages 196-218

    CMS Collaboration, Search for Supersymmetry in pp Collisions at 7 TeV in Events with Jets and Missing Transverse Energy. Physics Letters B, Volume 698, Is- sue 3, 11 April 2011, Pages 196-218

    2011

  50. [58]

    Belotelov et al., Search for Randall-Sundrum Graviton Decay into Muon Pairs

    I. Belotelov et al., Search for Randall-Sundrum Graviton Decay into Muon Pairs. CERN-CMS-NOTE-2006-104. https://inspirehep.net/files/dc81d6f41ea2c97c81ba0ef78bfb0677

    2006

  51. [59]

    Osland, A

    P. Osland, A. A. Pankov, A. V. Tsytrinov and N. Paver, Spin identification of the Randall-Sundrum resonance in lepton-pair production at the CERN LHC. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 78, 035008 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    JHEP 11 (2006) 007

    Daniel Feldman, Zuowei Liu and Pran Nath, The Stueck- elberg Z prime at the LHC: discovery potential, signature spaces and model discrimination. JHEP 11 (2006) 007

    2006

  53. [61]

    A. L. Read, Presentation of search results: the CLs technique, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part.Phys. 28 (2002) 2693, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313

    2002 doi

  54. [62]

    T. Junk, Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 434, Issues 2–3, 1999, Pages 435-443, ISSN 0168- 9002, htt...

    1999 doi

  55. [63]

    Cowan et al., Asymptotic formulae for likelihood- based tests of new physics, Eur

    G. Cowan et al., Asymptotic formulae for likelihood- based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011), p. 1554, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv: 1007.1727 [physics.data-an], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2501

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.