Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Collider signatures of fermionic scotogenic dark matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The LHC and charged lepton flavor violation searches complement each other to cover the fermionic scotogenic dark matter parameter space, with the HL-LHC reaching triplet fermion masses near 1.15 TeV.

desk verdict Solid, benchmark-dependent LHC contours for fermionic scotogenic DM; the cLFV complementarity story is plausible but the reach would shrink for smaller mixing parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05270 v2 pith:O5KQN46C submitted 2025-02-07 hep-ph

Victor Martin Lozano , G. Sanchez Garcia , J. W. F. Valle This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d14.60.Pq13.35.Bv12.60.-i
keywords scotogenicmodelfermionicdarkmatterradiativeneutrinomasschargedleptonflavorviolationLHCcollidersearchessinglet-tripletsectormutoegammaHL-LHCprospects
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 in the singlet-triplet scotogenic model, where a WIMP dark-matter fermion mediates loop-level neutrino mass generation, the LHC and its high-luminosity upgrade can probe the dark sector in ways that are strongly complementary to charged lepton flavor violation (cLFV) and relic-density studies. The authors simulate pair production of the new fermions and scalars at 13 TeV LHC and find that searches for leptons plus missing energy, and for a Higgs boson decaying to two photons, exclude significant regions of the mass parameter space. The degenerate-mass corner where the two neutral dark fermions are nearly equal in mass is hard for colliders, but is precisely the region most constrained by the $\mu \to e \gamma$ bound. If the picture is right, the HL-LHC alone could reach triplet fermion masses up to about 1150 GeV in the light dark sector scenario, with cLFV covering the rest.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is a $Z_2$-odd dark sector containing a singlet fermion $F$ and a triplet fermion $\Sigma$ that mix after electroweak symmetry breaking through the term $Y_\Omega\langle\Omega\rangle F$, giving two neutral Majorana states $\chi^0_1, \chi^0_2$ and a charged state $\chi^\pm$; the same Yukawa couplings that generate the one-loop neutrino mass also drive the cLFV rates. The mixing matrix $m_{\chi^0} = \begin{pmatrix} M_\Sigma & v_\Omega Y_\Omega \\ v_\Omega Y_\Omega & M_F \end{pmatrix}$ controls how much of the triplet component the LSP retains, which in turn sets the pair-production cross section at the LHC and the strength of the $\mu \to e \gamma$ signal. Collider reach and cLFV thus trace back to the same two parameters through this matrix.

What would settle it

Re-run the exclusion scans with $Y_\Omega = 0.2$ and $v_\Omega = 0.5$ GeV (still consistent with neutrino masses) and compare the 95% C.L. contours with the cLFV bound; if no LHC exclusion survives outside the cLFV region, the complementarity claim is an artifact of the chosen benchmark couplings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LHC searches for the lightest scotogenic particle are not redundant with, but complementary to, low-energy flavor probes and dark matter studies. In the model, the lightest neutral fermion (the LSP) is stable under a $Z_2$ symmetry and serves as WIMP dark matter, while its heavier partners and the dark scalar doublet are produced in pairs through gauge couplings. The paper shows, for three benchmark spectra, that existing 13 TeV searches already exclude large regions of the $M_\Sigma$--$M_F$ and $M_\Sigma$--$m_\eta$ planes, and that the strongest exclusions come from multilepton-plus-MET and Higgs-to-diphoton-plus-lepton-plus-MET channels. In the mass-degenerate region where collider decay products are soft, the $\mu \to e \gamma$ limit from MEG II takes over, so the two search strategies cover different parts of parameter space. Projecting to 3000 fb$^{-1}$, the HL-LHC is expected to extend the reach to $M_\Sigma \sim 1150$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark scans fix the dark fermion mixing couplings ($Y_\Omega = 2$ and $v_\Omega = 1.5$--$4$ GeV) at large values specifically to boost the collider signal; if those couplings are smaller, the LHC reach shrinks and the claimed complementarity with $\mu \to e \gamma$ weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the HL-LHC's 3000 fb$^{-1}$ dataset should probe triplet fermion masses up to about 1150 GeV in the light dark sector scenario, roughly doubling the current 13 TeV reach.
  • The $\mu \to e \gamma$ bound (and its projected sensitivity) supplies the leading constraint in the $M_F \approx M_\Sigma$ corner, where collider products are too soft to trigger standard lepton-plus-MET searches.
  • In the heavy-triplet benchmark, where the light degrees of freedom are the scalar doublet and the singlet fermion, LHC coverage is weak and relic-density plus cLFV constraints dominate.
  • A discovery at the LHC in the $h \to \gamma\gamma$ + lepton + MET channel would imply a correlated prediction for the $\mu \to e \gamma$ rate, testable by MEG II.
  • The complementarity persists across benchmark spectra, making the model distinguishable from SUSY frameworks where such flavor-collider connections are typically weaker.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the same pair-production-plus-cLFV complementarity should apply to other radiative neutrino mass models whose dark fermion mixing is controlled by a single VEV times a Yukawa coupling, so the qualitative map of which probe wins where may be generic.
  • Editorial: future muon-to-electron conversion experiments, which in the paper's framework are analogous to the MEG II bound, could extend the flavor coverage beyond the degenerate region studied here.
  • Editorial: a dedicated compressed-spectrum search targeting small mass splittings would likely close the gap where both LHC and current cLFV limits are weak at intermediate masses.
  • Editorial: a scan with $Y_\Omega$ reduced to 0.2 would quantify how much of the claimed reach is tied to the chosen mixing enhancement and would test the robustness of the complementarity claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the collider phenomenology of the singlet-triplet (revamped) scotogenic model with a fermionic dark matter candidate, focusing on LHC and HL-LHC signatures and their interplay with charged lepton flavor violation (cLFV) and dark matter constraints. The model contains Z2-odd singlet and triplet fermions together with a scalar doublet and a scalar triplet; neutrino masses are generated radiatively through the exchange of these dark states. The authors impose theoretical, neutrino oscillation, cLFV, electroweak precision, and relic density constraints, and then study three benchmark mass hierarchies: heavy dark scalar doublet (Figs. 4-5), heavy dark triplet fermion (Fig. 6), and a light dark sector (Figs. 7-9). The analysis chain uses SPheno, MadGraph_aMC@NLO, Pythia, Delphes, and CheckMATE, with the conservative r prescription of Eq. (29). The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusions, is that LHC and HL-LHC searches are strongly complementary to cLFV probes and dark matter studies, with HL-LHC reaching M_Sigma ~ 1150 GeV in the light dark sector scenario.

Significance. If the central claim held as stated, this would be a useful result: it maps the fermionic scotogenic model onto existing electroweakino and slepton searches, and it identifies a concrete complementarity between cLFV and LHC coverage, especially in the nearly degenerate fermion-mass region. The paper makes good use of public simulation and reinterpretation tools, and the conservative r prescription is a genuine strength. However, the headline conclusion is conditional on benchmark choices that are explicitly chosen to maximize the collider signal: Y_Omega = 2 and v_Omega = 1.5-4 GeV (footnote 6 and Table II). The paper does not quantify how the exclusion contours and the HL-LHC projection scale with these couplings, so the broad complementarity statement is stronger than what the presented benchmarks demonstrate. The missing specification of the Casas-Ibarra angle and of the resulting Y_Sigma,F matrices also makes the cLFV contours and the claimed complementarity difficult to reproduce. These issues are fixable, but they directly affect the paper's main claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Table II and footnote 6] The LHC exclusion contours are computed for Y_Omega = 2 and v_Omega = 1.5-4 GeV, values that the footnote explicitly adopts 'to enhance neutral dark fermion mixing, hence increasing the collider signal'. Since the singlet-triplet mixing is controlled by Y_Omega v_Omega in Eqs. (19)-(20), the decay chi0_2 -> h chi0_1 that feeds the h -> gamma gamma + lepton + E_T^miss search (ATLAS 2004.10894) is suppressed or becomes displaced for smaller Y_Omega or v_Omega, and the chi+- chi0_2 production rate changes with the triplet fraction. The paper does not quantify how the contours in Figs. 4-7 and the HL-LHC projection in Fig. 9 scale with Y_Omega and v_Omega, so the abstract's 'strongly complementary' claim is conditional on a benchmark corner rather than demonstrated for the model as a whole. Please scan over Y_Omega/v_Omega, provide a parametric scaling, or restrict the conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Sec. IV, Tables II-V and Eq. (26)] The benchmark tables specify the mass parameters, mu_1,2, v_Omega, the quartic couplings, and Y_Omega, but they do not specify the Casas-Ibarra angle omega or any explicit choice for the matrices Y_Sigma,F. The cLFV contours (magenta regions in Figs. 4-7) and the overlap regions that underlie the complementarity argument are computed from Y_Sigma,F reconstructed via Eq. (26), so they depend directly on omega and on the neutrino oscillation inputs. Without stating the value(s) of omega used, or the scan range over omega, the cLFV constraints and the complementarity plots are not reproducible and cannot be independently checked.
  3. [Sec. IV C and Fig. 9] The HL-LHC projection is presented as a single dashed black line with no documentation of the extrapolation procedure. The text does not explain how the r variable of Eq. (29) is scaled to L = 3000 fb^-1, how systematic uncertainties are treated at high luminosity, or whether pileup and detector performance changes are included. As written, the projected reach 'up to M_Sigma ~ 1150 GeV' cannot be assessed, yet it is used in the conclusions to argue that the HL-LHC will likely discover the dark scotogenic sector. Please document the projection method or present it as a rough luminosity-scaling illustration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The expression for the charged Higgs mass has the wrong dimension: the right-hand side has mass dimension 2, so the left side should be m_H+-^2 rather than m_H+-.
  2. [Eq. (25)] The diagonal matrix F entries are both written as I1/(32 pi^2); since Eq. (21)-(22) distinguish n = 1 and n = 2, the second entry should be I2/(32 pi^2). This typo makes Eq. (25) inconsistent with the preceding formulas if read literally.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption says the 13 TeV limit is shown as a 'full line and gray area', while the text says the current limit is shown as a red area; the figure legend and text should be reconciled.
  4. [Sec. III (Colliders)] The sentence 'we take the limit to charged particles to be m_H+-, eta+-, chi+- >= 100 GeV' is ambiguous; it should say 'we impose the lower bound' or 'we adopt this lower limit from LEP searches'.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected in a revision, including 'dominnant' (Sec. IV A), 'becnhmark' (Sec. IV A), 'annhiliation' (Appendix A), and 'is is' (Sec. IV B).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the collider reach and complementarity claims are computed against external LHC, cLFV, and DM constraints; self-citations are contextual, and the benchmark choices are a disclosed scope limitation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external data. Neutrino Yukawas are reconstructed from the oscillation fit via Eq. (26) using the Casas-Ibarra parameterization; this is a disclosed parameterization of the model, not a prediction, and the cLFV rates are then computed with FlavorKit and compared with MEG and SINDRUM bounds. The relic density is computed with MicrOmegas and compared with the Planck value, and the LHC exclusions are obtained by simulating production and decay with MadGraph/Pythia and recasting ATLAS and CMS analyses with CheckMATE; none of these quantities is fitted to the quantity it is used to predict. The paper cites prior work by the authors for the model's origin [24], scalar-sector consistency [30, 32], and fermionic-DM viability [31], but the Lagrangian, mass matrices, and constraints are re-derived or re-computed here, so those self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing. The explicit note that 'The choices of YOmega and vOmega are made to enhance neutral dark fermion mixing, hence increasing the collider signal' (footnote 6, Sec. IV A) is a benchmark-scope caveat: the reach contours are conditional on those parameters and their scaling is not quantified, but this does not turn the LHC limit into a renamed fit or reduce any prediction to an input by construction. The complementarity conclusion is a qualitative property of the computed contours, namely that LHC searches exclude non-degenerate mass regions while cLFV probes cover the degenerate region, and is not definitionally built into the constraints. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, so no circular step is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central results depend on several benchmark parameters chosen by hand (Y_Omega, v_Omega, mu_1, mu_2, lambda_5, lambda_a) and on the fitted neutrino Yukawa matrix via Casas-Ibarra. The masses MF, M_Sigma, m_eta are scanned, not predicted. The model's new particles and Z2 symmetry are inherited from Ref. [24], with no independent evidence beyond the generic collider signatures described here.

free parameters (8)
  • lambda_5 = 4e-7 (A1/A2), 3.5e-8 (A3), 2e-8 (B/C)
    Sets the eta_R/eta_I mass splitting and controls the neutrino mass scale through Eq. (21). Chosen to fit oscillation data and evade cLFV bounds; no first-principles derivation.
  • mu_1 = 1.1 GeV (A1), 137.6 GeV (A2), 54 GeV (A3/B/C)
    Controls the masses of H and H+/-; chosen so the SM-like Higgs is at 125 GeV and the extra Higgs states are either light or heavy.
  • mu_2 = 400 GeV
    Contributes to the eta scalar masses; fixed to keep the scalar doublet in the scanned mass range.
  • v_Omega = 1.5 GeV (A1/A2), 4 GeV (A3/B/C)
    Triplet VEV; bounded by the rho parameter. Chosen to control dark fermion mixing and enhance LHC signal.
  • Y_Omega = 2
    Singlet-triplet fermion mixing Yukawa; set to maximize chi+/- and chi0_2 production, as stated in Sec. IV A.
  • lambda_a (lambda_2, lambda_3, lambda_4, lambda_2^Omega, lambda_eta^Omega) = 0.5 (lambda_1 = 0.26)
    Quartic scalar couplings; assigned perturbative values satisfying boundedness conditions.
  • omega (Casas-Ibarra angle) = not reported (scanned/fitted)
    Complex angle in Eq. (27) used to build the neutrino Yukawa matrix from oscillation data; value not listed in the benchmark tables.
  • Mass parameters MF, M_Sigma, m_eta = scanned: MF in [10,500] GeV, M_Sigma in [100,1000] GeV, m_eta in [100,1000] GeV
    These are scanned over grids, not predicted; they define the axes of the exclusion plots.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Z2 symmetry under which F, Sigma, and eta are odd
    Postulated to make the lightest dark fermion stable and to forbid tree-level neutrino masses (Sec. II, Table I). No independent evidence.
  • domain assumption Normal neutrino mass ordering (NO)
    The analysis assumes NO and fixes the oscillation parameters to the best-fit values of Ref. [25] (Sec. III). If the ordering were inverted, the Casas-Ibarra construction would change.
  • domain assumption No CP violation in the dark fermion sector
    The paper states 'Assuming CP-conservation in the fermionic scotogenic sector' (Sec. II B). This simplifies the mass matrix but is not experimentally required.
  • domain assumption Perturbativity of quartic and Yukawa couplings
    Quartic couplings are taken <= sqrt(4 pi) and Yukawa couplings <= sqrt(4 pi) (Sec. III). Standard but restricts the parameter space.
  • domain assumption The LSP is a single-component thermal WIMP accounting for Omega h^2 <= 0.12
    Relic density is computed with micrOMEGAs and regions with Omega h^2 > 0.12 are excluded; regions below are treated as viable only with extra DM components such as the axion (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption The lightest neutrino is massless
    A consequence of the two-dark-fermion structure, used explicitly in the Casas-Ibarra parametrization of Eq. (26).
invented entities (4)
  • Singlet fermion F (Z2-odd)
    purpose: Provides the dark matter candidate (lightest state chi0_1) and, with Sigma and eta, generates neutrino mass radiatively.
    No unique mass prediction; the paper scans its mass. Its collider signatures are searched but existence is not established independently.
  • Triplet fermion Sigma (Z2-odd)
    purpose: Generates neutrino mass and enhances LHC production via chi+/- and chi0_2 states.
    Mass scanned from 100-1000 GeV; no independent handle beyond the model's predicted signatures.
  • Scalar doublet eta (Z2-odd)
    purpose: Radiatively generates neutrino mass and produces dilepton/monolepton signatures at the LHC.
    Mass scanned; the paper does not provide an independent falsifiable prediction for the eta mass.
  • Scalar triplet Omega (Z2-even)
    purpose: Acquires a small VEV that mixes the dark fermions and modifies the Higgs sector; contributes to W mass.
    Its VEV is constrained by the rho parameter but its existence is not separately evidenced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collider signatures of fermionic scotogenic dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5KQN46C

@misc{pith2026250205270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collider signatures of fermionic scotogenic dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5KQN46C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05270}
}
read the original abstract

Weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) constitute a paradigm in the search for particle dark matter. In contrast to supersymmetry (SUSY), we explore the possibility that WIMP dark-matter acts as mediator of neutrino mass generation. We examine in detail the phenomenology of fermionic dark matter in the revamped (or singlet-triplet) scotogenic model and study its collider implications. Unlike SUSY WIMP dark-matter, collider searches for the Lightest Scotogenic Particle (LSP) at LHC/LHC-HL are strongly complementary to charged lepton flavor violation probes and dark matter studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DM searches diagram. Here we consider the phenomenology of the simplest generalization of the scotogenic model. Such revamped model, also called singlet-triplet scotogenic model, was first introduced in Ref. [24] and explored in many subsequent works. This generalized setup requires the presence of a triplet scalar, along with a triplet fermion, absent in the original model [4, 5]. Altogether, this revamped scheme h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radiative neutrino mass generation in the revamped or singlet-triplet scotogenic model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relevant diagrams of the production and subsequent decay of the scotogenic particles at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 95% C.L. excluded regions in the MΣ − MF plane for vΩ = 1.5 GeV. The panels have µ1 = 1.1 GeV (left) and µ1 = 137.6 GeV (right). Dashed magenta curves indicate cLFV limits. Notice that the yellow search region is absent from the right panel, due to the parameter choice…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Excluded regions at a 95% C.L. in the plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excluded regions at a 95% C.L. in the plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Excluded regions at a 95% C.L. in the plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relevant diagrams of the production and subsequent decay of the scotogenic particles at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Excluded regions at a 95% C.L. in the plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Diagrams contributing to the annihilation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Diagrams contributing to the fermion-fermion co-annihilation. First two rows depict the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Diagrams contributing to the scalar-fermion co-annihilation. First row shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Feasibility to probe the dynamical scotogenic model at the LHC

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the dynamical scotogenic model, Drell-Yan production of fermionic dark matter could be probed at the HL-LHC for masses 100-220 GeV; scalar DM and VBF channels are unlikely to be observable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [37]

    Consistency of WIMP Dark Matter as radiative neutrino mass messenger,

    A. Merle, M. Platscher, N. Rojas, J. W. F. Valle, and A. Vicente, “Consistency of WIMP Dark Matter as radiative neutrino mass messenger,” JHEP 07 (2016) 013, arXiv:1603.05685 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Indeed, for this scenario the branching fraction into taus and neutrinos is about BR( H ± → τ ±ντ ) ∼ 0.73

    ∼ 1. Indeed, for this scenario the branching fraction into taus and neutrinos is about BR( H ± → τ ±ντ ) ∼ 0.73. Hence in this region we have χ±χ∓ pair production leading to χ±χ∓ → τ ±τ ∓ντ ¯ντ χ0 1χ0 1 as indicated in diagram (c) of Fig. 1, so we have two tau leptons and Emiss T in the final state. This search constrains masses up to MΣ ∼ 600 GeV and MF ...

    2004

  3. [3]

    The parameters used in this scenario are listed in Tab. IV. Fig. 6 shows the results of the LHC searches for this benchmark scenario displayed in themη −MF plane. As in the previous plots the dark gray area with up-right hatching correspond to the LEP limit on charged particles [48–51], while the light gray area with down-right hatching is where χ0 1 is n...

  4. [4]

    ≃ 0.64, the most sensitive search in this scenario is the one looking for two taus plus Emiss T [84] in the final state (yellow area) . This search is able to constrain only two small regions between mη = (140 − 165) 20 100 150 200 250 300 mη [GeV] 20 40 60 80 100 120 140MF [GeV] vΩ = 4 GeV m χ 0 > m η ± LEP µ→ eγ MEG atlas 1911 06660 atlas 1908 08215 BR(...

    1911

  5. [5]

    European Union- NextGenerationEU/PRTR

    Since MΣ > mη + MF the relevant decays are 22 χ± → η±ν and χ0 2 → η±ℓ∓ followed by the subsequent decay of the scalar doublet, η± → ℓ±χ0 1 (see Fig 8). In this case, the main signal would be 2-3 leptons plus Emiss T , including also tau leptons in the final state, and reaching masses up to MΣ ∼ 600 GeV. However, when MΣ reaches the threshold value MΣ ≃ mη...

    2004

  6. [6]

    Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,

    T. Kajita, “Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 no. 3, (2016) 030501

    2016

  7. [7]

    Nobel lecture: The sudbury neutrino observatory: Observation of flavor change for solar neutrinos,

    A. B. McDonald, “Nobel lecture: The sudbury neutrino observatory: Observation of flavor change for solar neutrinos,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (Jul, 2016) 030502. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.030502. 28

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.030502 2016

  8. [8]

    History of dark matter,

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, “History of dark matter,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (Oct, 2018) 045002. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.045002 2018

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,

    Z.-j. Tao, “Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,” Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 5693–5697, arXiv:hep-ph/9603309

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,

    E. Ma, “Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 077301, arXiv:hep-ph/0601225

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cold Dark Matter, Radiative Neutrino Mass, µ → eγ, and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,

    J. Kubo, E. Ma, and D. Suematsu, “Cold Dark Matter, Radiative Neutrino Mass, µ → eγ, and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,” Phys. Lett. B 642 (2006) 18–23, arXiv:hep-ph/0604114

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fermion Triplet Dark Matter and Radiative Neutrino Mass,

    E. Ma and D. Suematsu, “Fermion Triplet Dark Matter and Radiative Neutrino Mass,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24 (2009) 583–589, arXiv:0809.0942 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dark matter, LFV and neutrino magnetic moment in the radiative seesaw model with fermion triplet,

    W. Chao, “Dark matter, LFV and neutrino magnetic moment in the radiative seesaw model with fermion triplet,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 no. 01, (2015) 1550007, arXiv:1202.6394 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dirac neutrino mass generation from dark matter,

    Y. Farzan and E. Ma, “Dirac neutrino mass generation from dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 033007, arXiv:1204.4890 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lepton Flavor Violation in the Scotogenic Model,

    T. Toma and A. Vicente, “Lepton Flavor Violation in the Scotogenic Model,” JHEP 01 (2014) 160, arXiv:1312.2840 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Scotogenic Inverse Seesaw Model of Neutrino Mass,

    S. Fraser, E. Ma, and O. Popov, “Scotogenic Inverse Seesaw Model of Neutrino Mass,” Phys. Lett. B 737 (2014) 280–282, arXiv:1408.4785 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Running of radiative neutrino masses: the scotogenic model — revisited,

    A. Merle and M. Platscher, “Running of radiative neutrino masses: the scotogenic model — revisited,” JHEP 11 (2015) 148, arXiv:1507.06314 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fermionic WIMPs and vacuum stability in the scotogenic model,

    M. Lindner, M. Platscher, C. E. Yaguna, and A. Merle, “Fermionic WIMPs and vacuum stability in the scotogenic model,” Phys. Rev. D 94 no. 11, (2016) 115027, arXiv:1608.00577 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pathways to Naturally Small Dirac Neutrino Masses,

    E. Ma and O. Popov, “Pathways to Naturally Small Dirac Neutrino Masses,” Phys. Lett. B 764 (2017) 142–144, arXiv:1609.02538 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The Scale-Invariant Scotogenic Model,

    A. Ahriche, K. L. McDonald, and S. Nasri, “The Scale-Invariant Scotogenic Model,” JHEP 06 (2016) 182, arXiv:1604.05569 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The B − L Scotogenic Models for Dirac Neutrino Masses,

    W. Wang, R. Wang, Z.-L. Han, and J.-Z. Han, “The B − L Scotogenic Models for Dirac Neutrino Masses,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 no. 12, (2017) 889, arXiv:1705.00414 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    TeV scale leptogenesis, inflaton dark matter and neutrino mass in a scotogenic model,

    D. Borah, P. S. B. Dev, and A. Kumar, “TeV scale leptogenesis, inflaton dark matter and neutrino mass in a scotogenic model,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 5, (2019) 055012, arXiv:1810.03645 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Right-handed neutrino dark matter with radiative neutrino mass in gauged B −L model,

    D. Borah, D. Nanda, N. Narendra, and N. Sahu, “Right-handed neutrino dark matter with radiative neutrino mass in gauged B −L model,” Nucl. Phys. B 950 (2020) 114841, arXiv:1810.12920 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,

    K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, S. Jana, and A. Thapa, “Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,” JHEP 03 (2020) 006, arXiv:1907.09498 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Generalizing the Scotogenic model,

    P. Escribano, M. Reig, and A. Vicente, “Generalizing the Scotogenic model,” JHEP 07 (2020) 097, arXiv:2004.05172 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Phenomenology of fermion dark matter as neutrino mass mediator with gauged B-L,

    C. Alvarado, C. Bonilla, J. Leite, and J. W. F. Valle, “Phenomenology of fermion dark matter as neutrino mass mediator with gauged B-L,” Phys. Lett. B 817 (2021) 136292, arXiv:2102.07216 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cutting the scotogenic loop: adding flavor to dark matter,

    R. Kumar, N. Nath, and R. Srivastava, “Cutting the scotogenic loop: adding flavor to dark matter,” 29 JHEP 12 (2024) 036, arXiv:2406.00188 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Scotogenic dark matter from gauged B − L,

    Y. Garnica, A. Morales, and C. A. Vaquera-Araujo, “Scotogenic dark matter from gauged B − L,” arXiv:2411.13756 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    WIMP dark matter as radiative neutrino mass messenger,

    M. Hirsch, R. A. Lineros, S. Morisi, J. Palacio, N. Rojas, and J. W. F. Valle, “WIMP dark matter as radiative neutrino mass messenger,” JHEP 10 (2013) 149, arXiv:1307.8134 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,” JHEP 02 (2021) 071, arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  24. [32]

    Simplest Scoto-Seesaw Mechanism,

    N. Rojas, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “Simplest Scoto-Seesaw Mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019) 132–136, arXiv:1807.11447 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Combining texture zeros with a remnant CP symmetry in the minimal type-I seesaw,

    D. M. Barreiros, R. G. Felipe, and F. R. Joaquim, “Combining texture zeros with a remnant CP symmetry in the minimal type-I seesaw,” JHEP 01 (2019) 223, arXiv:1810.05454 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The simplest scoto-seesaw model: WIMP dark matter phenomenology and Higgs vacuum stability,

    S. Mandal, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “The simplest scoto-seesaw model: WIMP dark matter phenomenology and Higgs vacuum stability,” Phys. Lett. B 819 (2021) 136458, arXiv:2104.13401 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Phenomenology of scotogenic scalar dark matter,

    I. M. ´Avila, V. De Romeri, L. Duarte, and J. W. F. Valle, “Phenomenology of scotogenic scalar dark matter,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80 no. 10, (2020) 908, arXiv:1910.08422 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Phenomenological profile of scotogenic fermionic dark matter,

    A. Karan, S. Sadhukhan, and J. W. F. Valle, “Phenomenological profile of scotogenic fermionic dark matter,” JHEP 12 (2023) 185, arXiv:2308.09135 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Heavy Higgs Boson Production at Colliders in the Singlet-Triplet Scotogenic Dark Matter Model,

    M. A. D ´ ıaz, N. Rojas, S. Urrutia-Quiroga, and J. W. F. Valle, “Heavy Higgs Boson Production at Colliders in the Singlet-Triplet Scotogenic Dark Matter Model,” JHEP 08 (2017) 017, arXiv:1612.06569 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Higgs triplets in the standard model,

    J. F. Gunion, R. Vega, and J. Wudka, “Higgs triplets in the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 1673–1691

    1990

  31. [40]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide , vol. 80. 2000

    2000

  32. [41]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980) 135–157

    1980

  33. [42]

    Singlet-Triplet Fermionic Dark Matter and LHC Phenomenology,

    S. Choubey, S. Khan, M. Mitra, and S. Mondal, “Singlet-Triplet Fermionic Dark Matter and LHC Phenomenology,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 no. 4, (2018) 302, arXiv:1711.08888 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Phenomenological consistency of the singlet-triplet scotogenic model,

    D. Restrepo and A. Rivera, “Phenomenological consistency of the singlet-triplet scotogenic model,” JHEP 04 (2020) 134, arXiv:1907.11938 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Oscillating neutrinos and µ → e, γ,

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, “Oscillating neutrinos and µ → e, γ,” Nucl. Phys. B 618 (2001) 171–204, arXiv:hep-ph/0103065

    2001 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Lepton Flavor Violation in the singlet-triplet scotogenic model,

    P. Rocha-Moran and A. Vicente, “Lepton Flavor Violation in the singlet-triplet scotogenic model,” JHEP 07 (2016) 078, arXiv:1605.01915 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [46]

    New limit on the µ+->e+γ decay with the MEG II experiment,

    MEG II Collaboration, K. Afanaciev et al. , “New limit on the µ+->e+γ decay with the MEG II experiment,” arXiv:2504.15711 [hep-ex]. 30

    arXiv

  38. [47]

    Search for the Decay µ+ → e+e+e−,

    SINDRUM Collaboration, U. Bellgardt et al. , “Search for the Decay µ+ → e+e+e−,” Nucl. Phys. B 299 (1988) 1–6

    1988

  39. [48]

    A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold,

    SINDRUM II Collaboration, W. H. Bertl et al. , “A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold,” Eur. Phys. J. C 47 (2006) 337–346

    2006

  40. [49]

    The Review of Particle Physics,

    S. N. et al., “The Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 03000

    2024

  41. [50]

    Electric dipole moments in the minimal scotogenic model,

    A. Abada and T. Toma, “Electric dipole moments in the minimal scotogenic model,” JHEP 04 (2018) 030, arXiv:1802.00007 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 04, 060 (2021)]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    micrOMEGAs5.0 : Freeze-in,

    G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Goudelis, A. Pukhov, and B. Zaldivar, “micrOMEGAs5.0 : Freeze-in,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 231 (2018) 173–186, arXiv:1801.03509 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al. , “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Search for scalar leptons in e+ e- collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209-GeV,

    ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al. , “Search for scalar leptons in e+ e- collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209-GeV,” Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 206–220, arXiv:hep-ex/0112011

    2002 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+ e- collisions up to 208-GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM,

    DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al. , “Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+ e- collisions up to 208-GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM,” Eur. Phys. J. C 31 (2003) 421–479, arXiv:hep-ex/0311019

    2003 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Search for scalar leptons and scalar quarks at LEP,

    L3 Collaboration, P. Achard et al. , “Search for scalar leptons and scalar quarks at LEP,” Phys. Lett. B 580 (2004) 37–49, arXiv:hep-ex/0310007

    2004 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Search for anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in e+ e- collisions at s**(1/2) = 183-Gev to 209-GeV,

    OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al. , “Search for anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in e+ e- collisions at s**(1/2) = 183-Gev to 209-GeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C 32 (2004) 453–473, arXiv:hep-ex/0309014

    2004 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Search for charginos nearly mass degenerate with the lightest neutralino in e+ e- collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209-GeV,

    ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al. , “Search for charginos nearly mass degenerate with the lightest neutralino in e+ e- collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209-GeV,” Phys. Lett. B 533 (2002) 223–236, arXiv:hep-ex/0203020

    2002 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+e- collisions up to 208 GeV, and interpretation of the results within the MSSM,

    J. Abdallah et al. , “Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+e- collisions up to 208 GeV, and interpretation of the results within the MSSM,”

  50. [59]

    Search for charginos with a small mass difference with the lightest supersymmetric particle at √ S = 189-GeV,

    L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al. , “Search for charginos with a small mass difference with the lightest supersymmetric particle at √ S = 189-GeV,” Phys. Lett. B 482 (2000) 31–42, arXiv:hep-ex/0002043

    2000 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Search for chargino and neutralino production at √s = 170-GeV and 172-GeV at LEP,

    OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al. , “Search for chargino and neutralino production at √s = 170-GeV and 172-GeV at LEP,” Eur. Phys. J. C 2 (1998) 213–236, arXiv:hep-ex/9708018

    1998 arXiv

  52. [61]

    CheckMATE 2: From the model to the limit,

    D. Dercks, N. Desai, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall, and T. Weber, “CheckMATE 2: From the model to the limit,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 221 (2017) 383–418, arXiv:1611.09856 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [62]

    HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals,

    H. Bahl, T. Biek ¨otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, “HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023) 108803, arXiv:2210.09332 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [63]

    HiggsSignals : Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, “HiggsSignals : Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74 no. 2, (2014) 2711, arXiv:1305.1933 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Constraining extended Higgs sectors with HiggsSignals,

    O. St ˚ al and T. Stefaniak, “Constraining extended Higgs sectors with HiggsSignals,”PoS 31 EPS-HEP2013 (2013) 314, arXiv:1310.4039 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Probing the Standard Model with Higgs signal rates from the Tevatron, the LHC and a future ILC,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, “Probing the Standard Model with Higgs signal rates from the Tevatron, the LHC and a future ILC,” JHEP 11 (2014) 039, arXiv:1403.1582 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [66]

    HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, “HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 no. 2, (2021) 145, arXiv:2012.09197 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [67]

    HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, “HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 138–167, arXiv:0811.4169 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  59. [68]

    HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, “HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2605–2631, arXiv:1102.1898 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Recent Developments in HiggsBounds and a Preview of HiggsSignals,

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and K. Williams, “Recent Developments in HiggsBounds and a Preview of HiggsSignals,” PoS CHARGED2012 (2012) 024, arXiv:1301.2345 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [70]

    HiggsBounds − 4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC,

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, “HiggsBounds − 4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74 no. 3, (2014) 2693, arXiv:1311.0055 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Applying Exclusion Likelihoods from LHC Searches to Extended Higgs Sectors,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, “Applying Exclusion Likelihoods from LHC Searches to Extended Higgs Sectors,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75 no. 9, (2015) 421, arXiv:1507.06706 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [72]

    HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era,

    P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, “HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80 no. 12, (2020) 1211, arXiv:2006.06007 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Testing exotic scalars with HiggsBounds,

    H. Bahl, V. M. Lozano, T. Stefaniak, and J. Wittbrodt, “Testing exotic scalars with HiggsBounds,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82 no. 7, (2022) 584, arXiv:2109.10366 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [74]

    SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders,

    W. Porod, “SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 153 (2003) 275–315, arXiv:hep-ph/0301101

    2003 arXiv

  66. [75]

    SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM,

    W. Porod and F. Staub, “SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2458–2469, arXiv:1104.1573 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [76]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    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,” JHEP ...

    2014 arXiv

  68. [77]

    The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao, and M. Zaro, “The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,” JHEP 07 (2018) 185, arXiv:1804.10017 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [78]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlich et al. , “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3” SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]. 32

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    FastJet User Manual,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [80]

    DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,

    DELPHES 3 Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, “DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” JHEP 02 (2014) 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Probing the Electroweakino Sector of General Gauge Mediation at the LHC,

    J. S. Kim, M. E. Krauss, and V. Martin-Lozano, “Probing the Electroweakino Sector of General Gauge Mediation at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 783 (2018) 150–157, arXiv:1705.06497 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Confronting the neutralino and chargino sector of the NMSSM with the multilepton searches at the LHC,

    F. Domingo, J. S. Kim, V. M. Lozano, P. Martin-Ramiro, and R. Ruiz de Austri, “Confronting the neutralino and chargino sector of the NMSSM with the multilepton searches at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 7, (2020) 075010, arXiv:1812.05186 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Illuminating stealth scenarios at the LHC,

    J. S. Kim, M. E. Krauss, V. Mart ´ ın Lozano, and F. Staub, “Illuminating stealth scenarios at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 3, (2020) 035033, arXiv:1812.09346 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Aad et al

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Search for direct production of electroweakinos in final states with missing transverse momentum and a Higgs boson decaying into photons in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” JHEP 10 (2020) 005, arXiv:2004.10894 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [85]

    ATLAS-CONF-2016-096

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for direct production of electroweakinos in final states with missing transverse momentum and a Higgs boson decaying into photons in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” . ATLAS-CONF-2016-096

    2016

  77. [86]

    Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in multilepton final states in pp collision data at √s = 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in multilepton final states in pp collision data at √s = 13 TeV,” . CMS-PAS-SUS-16-039

  78. [87]

    Aad et al

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Search for electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two leptons and missing transverse momentum in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions using the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80 no. 2, (2020) 123, arXiv:190...

    2020 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Search for new physics in the compressed mass spectra scenario using events with two soft opposite-sign leptons and missing transverse momentum at √s = 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in the compressed mass spectra scenario using events with two soft opposite-sign leptons and missing transverse momentum at √s = 13 TeV,” . CMS-PAS-SUS-16-025

  80. [89]

    Search for direct stau production in events with two hadronic τ -leptons in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Search for direct stau production in events with two hadronic τ -leptons in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 3, (2020) 032009, arXiv:1911.06660 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [90]

    A Flavor Kit for BSM models,

    W. Porod, F. Staub, and A. Vicente, “A Flavor Kit for BSM models,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74 no. 8, (2014) 2992, arXiv:1405.1434 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.