Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 34 references

The 28 GeV Dimuon Excess in Lepton Specific 2HDM

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lepton-specific two-Higgs-doublet model with a 28 GeV CP-odd Higgs boson can account for the observed dimuon excess while evading rare B-decay constraints.

desk verdict Solid 2HDM mass-spectrum scan undercuts its quantitative claim: the abstract quotes 1.5σ and 2σ excess significances that the text never derives. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02588 v2 pith:7OZE4WQP submitted 2019-09-05 hep-ph

Ali Cici , Shaaban Khalil , Busra Nis , Cem Salih Un This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords twoHiggsdoubletmodellepton-specific2HDM28GeVdimuonexcessCP-oddbosontanbetaenhancementrareBmesondecaysLHCsearcheslightspectrum
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 tries to show that a lepton-specific two-Higgs-doublet model—one doublet coupling only to quarks, the other only to leptons—can explain the observed excess of dimuon events at an invariant mass near 28 GeV. The explanation runs through the CP-odd Higgs boson $A$: produced in association with bottom quarks and decaying to $\mu^+\mu^-$, it adds a small resonance to the dimuon spectrum. The authors find a consistent spectrum with $m_A\sim 28$ GeV and $\tan\beta\sim12$, where the rare-decay constraints $\mathrm{Br}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ and $\mathrm{Br}(b\to s\gamma)$ stay within their measured ranges, and they quote the resulting excess as about $1.5\sigma$ at 8 TeV and $2\sigma$ at 13 TeV. If true, this is the simplest way to turn a modest collider bump into a specific prediction about the Higgs sector.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the lepton-specific Yukawa structure imposed by the $Z_2$ symmetry: quarks receive mass only from $\Phi_2$ and leptons only from $\Phi_1$, so the CP-odd Higgs couplings are $\cot\beta$ to quarks and $\tan\beta$ to leptons. This ratio suppresses the dangerous contributions to $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$ (which grows like $(\tan\beta)^6/m_A^4$) while keeping $A\to\mu^+\mu^-$ sizeable. The analysis also relies on the tree-level mass relation $m_A^2=m_3^2/(\sin\beta\cos\beta)-\lambda_5 v^2$, which ties $m_A$ to the other Higgs masses, and on a parameter scan plus parton-level event generation using the selection cuts of the 28 GeV dimuon search. The signal rate is estimated through $\sigma(pp\to A\to\mu^+\mu^-)\approx\sigma(pp\to A)\,\mathrm{Br}(A\to\mu^+\mu^-)$, with the full process $pp\to b\bar b A\to b\bar b\mu^+\mu^-$ checked against the dominant Drell-Yan and top backgrounds.

What would settle it

Plot the measured $b\bar b\mu^+\mu^-$ invariant-mass spectrum around 28 GeV from the 13 TeV dataset with the same cuts; if the data show no excess above the simulated background at the level the model predicts, the claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that a lepton-specific 2HDM (LS-2HDM) can accommodate a CP-odd Higgs boson of about 28 GeV that is produced through $pp\to b\bar b A$ and decays to muons, producing a small bump in the dimuon invariant-mass distribution that matches the reported excess at $m_{\mu\mu}\sim28$ GeV. Because the quarks couple to $A$ with strength $\cot\beta$ while leptons couple with strength $\tan\beta$, the state has suppressed production but enhanced leptonic decays; at $\tan\beta\sim12$ the balance is enough to give a visible signal without violating the constraints from $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$, $b\to s\gamma$, and the 125 GeV Higgs measurements. The paper also demonstrates that a consistent spectrum can contain a CP-odd state as light as about 10 GeV, while the lightest CP-even Higgs boson cannot be lighter than about 55 GeV in the region $m_A\sim28$ GeV. Two benchmark points are given, one with the CP-odd state at 28 GeV and one with a light CP-even state at 28 GeV; both are shown to produce similar excesses in the associated-production channel.

Load-bearing premise

The central excess claim rests on the assumption that the simulated collision events and the selection cuts match the real LHC dimuon search closely enough to produce 1.5 and 2 sigma significances, but the paper does not show the data points or the background uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 28 GeV excess is a real CP-odd Higgs, the same state should appear in the $b\bar b\tau^+\tau^-$ channel, and the existing $\tau\tau$ limits already restrict which $\tan\beta$ values remain viable.
  • The benchmark point with $m_A\simeq28$ GeV and $m_{h_1}\simeq125$ GeV predicts the heavier CP-even and charged Higgs bosons around 180 GeV and 174 GeV, well within reach of direct LHC searches.
  • At a 100 TeV collider the $A$ production cross section reaches roughly 5000 pb and $A\to\mu^+\mu^-$ roughly 10 pb, so the scenario is either confirmed or excluded early in the future program.
  • The parameter region $m_A\sim28$ GeV with $h_1$ SM-like forces $m_{h_2}\lesssim350$ GeV, making the model's extra scalars testable rather than decoupled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct comparison of the model curves to the published data points around $m_{\mu\mu}=28$ GeV, including systematic uncertainties, would convert the quoted $1.5$ and $2\sigma$ values into a testable significance; the paper itself does not display the data.
  • The same $A\to\mu^+\mu^-$ resonance could be searched for in $\tau^+\tau^-$ and $e^+e^-$ final states; measuring the ratio of leptonic branching fractions would distinguish the CP-odd Higgs explanation from a $Z'$, dark photon, or another resonance at the same mass.
  • Because $A$ couples to quarks through $\cot\beta$, any measurement that shifts $\tan\beta$ away from about 12—for example from $b\to s\gamma$—changes the predicted significance, so the model is tightly predictive in other observables.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the Higgs mass spectrum in the lepton-specific two-Higgs-doublet model (LS-2HDM), where one doublet couples only to quarks and the other only to leptons. Using a SPheno/SARAH scan, the authors apply constraints from the 125 GeV Higgs mass, LEP, B_s to mu+ mu- and b to s gamma, and find that a CP-odd Higgs boson as light as about 10 GeV can be consistent with these constraints. They present two benchmark points: Point 1 with m_A = 27.9 GeV and h_1 SM-like at 125.3 GeV, and Point 2 with m_h1 = 27.3 GeV and h_2 SM-like at 123.4 GeV. They then compute pp -> b bbar phi -> b bbar mu+ mu- event distributions with MadGraph, compare them with the SM background, and claim that the model can explain the CMS 28 GeV dimuon excess, quoting significances of about 1.5 sigma at 8 TeV and 2 sigma at 13 TeV for tan beta about 12.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the paper would provide a concrete and economic new-physics interpretation of the 28 GeV dimuon excess, and the mass-spectrum result that m_A can be as low as about 10 GeV while evading B-physics and Higgs constraints is independently interesting. The use of standard public tools (SPheno, SARAH, MadGraph) and the inclusion of the B_s to mu+ mu- and b to s gamma constraints are strengths. However, the headline quantitative claim is not verifiable from the manuscript as written, and several internal inconsistencies in the model definition and mass-spectrum summary must be resolved before the results can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 / Abstract] The 1.5 sigma and 2 sigma significances stated in the abstract are not derivable from the presented analysis. Section 4 says only that the authors 'follow similar analyses represented in [9]' and lists a few kinematic cuts; it gives no integrated luminosity, no data points, no background normalization, no systematic uncertainties, and no statistical procedure. Figure 5 shows only model and background curves without data or uncertainty bands. Without these elements, the significance numbers cannot be reproduced or checked, leaving the paper's main quantitative conclusion unsupported.
  2. [Section 3 / Abstract / Table 2] The abstract states that when h1 is the SM-like Higgs boson, 'the heavier CP-even (h2) and charged Higgs bosons (H+) become above 600 GeV.' This contradicts Section 3, which finds that the light-m_A region yields m_h2 less than about 350 GeV, and Point 1 in Table 2 has m_h2 = 178.6 GeV and m_H+ = 173.8 GeV. The mass-spectrum summary in the abstract is inconsistent with the results in the body and must be corrected.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (2) / Table 2] The scalar potential written in Eq. (2) omits the lambda4 (Phi1^dagger Phi2)(Phi2^dagger Phi1) term, yet Table 2 lists nonzero lambda4 values for both benchmark points, and the mass formulas in Eq. (5) do not include lambda4. If the numerical scan uses a model with lambda4, the text is incomplete and the mass formulas are missing a term; if lambda4 is supposed to be zero, the table entries are incorrect. This ambiguity directly affects the computed mass spectrum, decay branching ratios, and all derived constraints.
  4. [Table 2 / Reproducibility] The benchmark points are under-specified: tan beta, quoted as about 12 in the abstract, is not listed in Table 2, nor is the CP-even mixing angle alpha. In addition, the centre-of-mass energy at which the cross-sections in Table 2 are evaluated is not identified; Section 3 refers to 14 TeV LHC energies, while the abstract cites 8 and 13 TeV. Without tan beta, alpha, and the collision energy, the benchmark points cannot be reproduced or independently checked.
  5. [Abstract] Use of the word 'predict' is too strong for the role the model actually plays. In Point 1, m_A = 27.9 GeV is an input parameter chosen to match the 28 GeV excess, so the model accommodates the excess rather than independently predicting it. The paper should state transparently that the benchmark is tuned to the observed mass, and that the scan is not a fit to the dimuon data.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 1] The introduction contains two broken cross-references: 'we consider a case in which the CP-odd Higgs boson of mass about 28 GeV can yield an excess ... while we also consider the possibility for a CP-even Higgs boson leading to excess in Section ??.' The placeholder 'Section ??' should be replaced with the correct section number.
  2. [Section 4 / Figure 5] The text references the wrong panel in Figure 5: it says the A-boson signal 'is shown in the right panel' and 'The left panel of Figure 5 shows that Point 2', but the caption labels Point 1 as left and Point 2 as right. The panel references should be corrected or the caption changed.
  3. [Table 2 caption] The caption states 'The hyphens in sigma(A to mu+ mu-) of Point 1 and sigma(h1 to mu+ mu-) of Point 2 mean the branching ratios ... are lower than about 10^-5.' This is reversed: for Point 1 the hyphen appears in sigma(h1 to mu+ mu-), and for Point 2 it appears in sigma(A to mu+ mu-).
  4. [Section 4, cut list] The pseudorapidity cut on the b-jet is written as '|eta_mu1| < 2.4'; this should be the pseudorapidity of the b-jet, not of a muon. Also, the symbols '&' and 'less-than-or-similar' are used where 'greater than' and 'less than' are meant, which should be clarified.
  5. [Section 3] The text refers to 'the current LHC experiments with 14 TeV COM energy', but Run 2 of the LHC operates at 13 TeV; 14 TeV is the design energy. This should be corrected to avoid ambiguity about the cross-section predictions.
  6. [Eq. (6)] The constraint '123 <= m_hi <= 127 GeV' with i = 1,2 cannot hold for both CP-even states simultaneously. The text later clarifies that only the SM-like state is constrained, so the notation should be modified to indicate that the bound applies to the SM-like CP-even Higgs boson only.
  7. [Footnote 1 / Ref. [34]] The 1% accuracy of the approximation in Eq. (7) is attributed to Ref. [34], which is an unrelated manuscript 'in preparation' about gluino searches. A published source or a direct calculation should be cited instead.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 28 GeV dimuon bump is fitted by choosing mA≈28 GeV; the abstract's 'prediction' of the excess location reduces to that input benchmark, while the quoted significances are not derivable from the manuscript.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, benchmark points discussion preceding Table 2; abstract]
    "The points are chosen as to yield the greatest production cross-sections when mA≃28 GeV (Point 1), or mh1≃28 GeV (Point 2)."

    The benchmark Point 1 fixes mA=27.9 GeV (Table 2). Since the A boson decays to a muon pair with invariant mass approximately mA, the red signal curve in Figure 5 necessarily peaks near 28 GeV. The abstract's statement that 'LS-THDM can predict such an excess' is therefore just a restatement of the chosen input mA≈28 GeV: the location of the excess is fitted by the benchmark selection, not derived from the model's independent structure. The cross-section magnitude and the B-decay constraints are computed rather than fitted, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The mass-spectrum scan in Section 3 is genuinely independent: SARAH/SPheno scans plus constraints from Bs→μ+μ−, b→sγ, LEP, and the 125 GeV Higgs measurements produce an allowed region with mA≲50 GeV, so the existence of a light CP-odd state is not assumed. The circular element is the identification of the 28 GeV bump: the benchmark Point 1 is deliberately chosen with mA=27.9 GeV, so the Figure 5 peak at 28 GeV is built in; calling this a 'prediction' renames the fitted input. The claimed 1.5σ and 2σ significances are not supported by the text: Section 4 only says 'we follow similar analyses represented in [9]', lists kinematical cuts, and shows MC curves without data points, luminosity, uncertainties, or a statistical procedure. That is a missing-evidence issue rather than a circular reduction, but it compounds the concern about the central quantitative claim. Self-citations are not load-bearing here; Ref. [34] is an in-preparation reference for a small approximation error, not for the excess claim itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper builds on the standard 2HDM potential with a lepton-specific Z2 symmetry. Its phenomenological conclusion rests on assuming the excess is scalar-induced and on an undocumented simulation and statistical pipeline. The 28 GeV mass is an input, so the excess location is accommodated rather than predicted. The benchmark parameters are free choices from the scan.

free parameters (8)
  • mA (CP-odd Higgs mass, Point 1) = 27.9 GeV
    Set to sit at the 28 GeV dimuon excess; the resonance location is an input, not a prediction.
  • tan beta = ~12
    Chosen from the scan; the abstract associates the maximum excess with this value.
  • lambda1 = 0.67 (Point 1), 0.24 (Point 2)
    Scanned quartic coupling of the first Higgs doublet.
  • lambda2 = 0.26 (Point 1), 0.02 (Point 2)
    Scanned quartic coupling of the second Higgs doublet.
  • lambda3 = 0.54 (Point 1), -0.43 (Point 2)
    Scanned Higgs-higgs quartic coupling affecting the CP-even spectrum.
  • lambda5 = 0.15 (Point 1), -0.26 (Point 2)
    Scanned quartic coupling contributing to the A and charged Higgs masses.
  • lambda4 = -0.82 (Point 1), 0.08 (Point 2)
    Listed in Table 2 despite the text and Eq. (2) setting lambda4 = 0; this is an inconsistent addition that would affect scalar masses.
  • m3 (soft Z2-breaking mass) = 313.6 (Point 1), 1376 (Point 2) GeV
    Soft term in Eq. (2) that controls CP-even mixing and relates to mA through Eq. (4).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard 2HDM tree-level mass and mixing relations in Eqs. (2)-(5) are valid.
    The paper uses standard 2HDM potential and mass relations from Gunion-Haber [24] and Branco et al. [25]; loop corrections are delegated to SPheno/SARAH.
  • domain assumption The Z2 symmetry and CP conservation define the lepton-specific 2HDM Yukawa structure.
    Section 2 imposes Phi1 -> -Phi1 and eR -> -eR to force quark-only and lepton-only couplings.
  • domain assumption The 28 GeV dimuon excess is a real signal caused by a scalar state.
    Section 1 says 'we assume the dimuon excess arises from the presence of a scalar state'; if it is a statistical fluctuation, the central signal claim is moot.
  • domain assumption MadGraph leading-order simulation with the stated cuts reproduces the CMS analysis [9] closely enough to quote significances.
    Section 4 states 'we follow similar analyses represented in [9]' with no matching, k-factors, b-tagging efficiencies, or validation against public data.
  • domain assumption The factorization sigma(pp->A->mu mu) ~ sigma(pp->A) x BR(A->mu mu) has an error of at most about 1%.
    Footnote 1 invokes an unpublished reference [34] for the error estimate; no independent validation is shown.
  • domain assumption The parameter scan covers the relevant model space with sufficient density for the reported bounds.
    Section 3 describes varying m3, tan beta, and lambda_i without stating ranges or numbers of points.
  • ad hoc to paper Choosing benchmark points to maximize production cross-section is representative of the LS-2HDM explanation for the excess.
    Table 2 says the points 'are chosen as to yield the greatest production cross-sections'; the quoted excess is therefore a best-case scenario, not a typical prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The 28 GeV Dimuon Excess in Lepton Specific 2HDM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7OZE4WQP

@misc{pith2026190902588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The 28 GeV Dimuon Excess in Lepton Specific 2HDM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7OZE4WQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02588}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the Higgs mass spectrum in a class of Two Higgs Doublet Models (THDMs) in which a scalar SU(2)_L doublet interacts only with quarks, while the second one interacts only with leptons. The spectrum includes two CP-even Higgs bosons, either of which can account for the SM-like Higgs boson, and the spectra involving light Higgs bosons receive strong impacts from the LEP results and the current collider analyses. We find that a consistent spectrum can involve a CP-odd Higgs boson as light as about 10 GeV, while the lightest CP-even Higgs boson cannot be lighter than about 55 GeV when m_A ~ 28 GeV. These analyses can rather bound the low tan beta region which can also accommodate an observed excess in dimuon events at m_mumu ~ 28 GeV. A lepton-specific class of THDMs (LS-THDM) can predict such an excess through A -> mu mu decays, while the solutions can be constrained by the A -> tau tau mode. After constraining the solutions with the consistent ranges of sigma(pp -> bbA -> bb tau tau), a largest excess at about 1.5 sigma at 8 TeV center of mass (COM) energy and 2 sigma at 13 TeV COM is observed for tan beta ~ 12 and m_A ~ 28 GeV in the sigma(pp -> bbA -> bb mu mu) events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots in the mA − mh1 and mA − mh2 planes. All points are consistent with the electroweak symmetry breaking and observed fermion masses. Green points are consistent with the constraints from rare B−meson decays and the Higgs boson masses as 123 ≤ mh1 ≤ 127 GeV, and mH± & 80 GeV. We first consider the solutions in which the lightest CP-even Higgs boson (h1) is required to satisfy the SM-like Higgs boson properties, w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panels represent the CP-odd Higgs boson production in a correlation with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plots in the mA − mh2 and mh1 − mh2 planes. All points are consistent with the electroweak symmetry breaking and observed fermion masses. Green points are consistent with the constraints from rare B−meson decays and the Higgs bosons as 123 ≤ mh2 ≤ 127 GeV and mH± & 80 GeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panels represent the lightest CP-even Higgs boson production in a correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Collider analyses for Point 1 (left) and Point 2 (right). Magenta curve represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1811, 161 (2018) [arXiv:1808.01890 [hep-ex]]; A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1711, 010 (2017) [arXiv:1707.07283 [hep-ex]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012) [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]. S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012) [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2017-046; A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1711, 047 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047 [arXiv:1706.09936 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2019-004. 10

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2018-002

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1510, 144 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)144 [arXiv:1504.00936 [hep-ex]]; G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 1, 012006 (2015) [arXiv:1412.2641 [hep-ex]]; G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1508, 137 (2015) [arXiv:1506.06641 [hep-ex]]; S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JH...

    arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 7, 071802 (2018) [arXiv:1709.05543 [hep-ex]]; The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2017-047; The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS- CONF-2018-004

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no. 12, 121801 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121801 [arXiv:1808.08242 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Aad et al

    See, for instance, G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1907.02749 [hep-ex]; The ATLAS collab- oration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2019-010; CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS-HIG-17-033; CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS-HIG-18-023; A. M. ...

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    P. Ko, J. Li and C. Yu, arXiv:1610.07526 [hep-ph]; K. Lane and L. Pritchett, arXiv:1701.07376 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. I. Godunov, V. A. Novikov, M. I. Vysotsky and E. V. Zhemchugov, arXiv:1808.02431 [hep-ph]; K. Lane and L. Pritchett, arXiv:1701.07376 [hep-ph]; P. Ko, J. Li and C. Yu, arXiv:1610.07526 [hep-ph]; J. Bernon, J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang and S. Kraml, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 7, 075019 ...

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bhattacharyya and D

    For recent reviews, see G. Bhattacharyya and D. Das, Pramana 87, no. 3, 40 (2016) [arXiv:1507.06424 [hep- ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aggleton, D

    R. Aggleton, D. Barducci, N. E. Bomark, S. Moretti and C. Shepherd-Themistocleous, JHEP 1702, 035 (2017) [arXiv:1609.06089 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    E. J. Chun, S. Dwivedi, T. Mondal, B. Mukhopadhyaya and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 7, 075008 (2018) [arXiv:1807.05379 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Mahmoudi, S

    See, for instance, F. Mahmoudi, S. Neshatpour and J. Orloff, JHEP 1208, 092 (2012) [arXiv:1205.1845 [hep-ph]]; A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, F. Mahmoudi and D. Martnez Santos, Phys. Rev. 11 D 87, no. 3, 035026 (2013) [arXiv:1212.4887 [hep-ph]]; B. Nis, A. Cici, Z. Kirca and C. S. Un,...

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bobeth, M

    C. Bobeth, M. Gorbahn, T. Hermann, M. Misiak, E. Stamou and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101801 (2014) [arXiv:1311.0903 [hep-ph]]; C. Bobeth, M. Gor- bahn and E. Stamou, Phys. Rev. D89, no. 3, 034023 (2014) [arXiv:1311.1348 [hep-ph]]; T. Hermann, M. Misiak and M. Stei...

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 2, 021801 (2013) [arXiv:1211.2674 [hep-ex]]; Y. Amhis et al. [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group Collabo- ration], arXiv:1207.1158 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P. Ko, Y. Omura and C. Yu, Phys. Lett. B717, 202 (2012) [arXiv:1204.4588 [hep-ph]]; T. Nomura and P. Sanyal, arXiv:1907.02718 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 8, 1226 (1973). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226

    1973 doi

  12. [20]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977); R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    Turok and J

    N. Turok and J. Zadrozny, Nucl. Phys. B 358 (1991) 471; M. Joyce, T. Prokopec, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 2958 [hep-ph/9410282]; K. Funakubo, A. Kakuto, and K. Takenaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 91 (1994) 341 [hep-ph/9310267]; A. T. Davies, C. D. Froggatt, G. Jenkins, and ...

    1991 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. R. Choudhury and N. Gaur, Phys. Lett. B 451, 86 (1999) [hep-ph/9810307]; K. S. Babu and C. F. Kolda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 228 (2000) [hep-ph/9909476]

    1999 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996) [hep-ph/9512380]

    1996 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 67, 075019 (2003) [hep-ph/0207010]

    2003 arXiv

  17. [25]

    See, for instance, G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. 516, 1 (2012) [arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]]; R. A. Diaz, hep- ph/0212237; I. Chakraborty and A. Kundu, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 9, 095023 (2015) [arXiv:1508.00702 [hep-ph]]...

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K. A. Olive et al. [Particle Data Group], Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014). doi:10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001 12

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Porod, W. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2003, 153, 275

    2003

  20. [28]

    and Staub, F

    Porod, W. and Staub, F. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2012 183, 2458

    2012

  21. [29]

    2008, Preprint arXiv:0806.0538

    Staub, F. 2008, Preprint arXiv:0806.0538

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Staub, F. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2011 182, 808

    2011

  23. [31]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106, 128 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128 [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 793, 320 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.064 [arXiv:1811.08459 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    For an incomplete list, see P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, H. E. Haber and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 87, 055009 (2013) [arXiv:1211.3131 [hep-ph]]; T. Han, T. Li, S. Su and L. T. Wang, JHEP 1311, 053 (2013) [arXiv:1306.3229 [hep-ph]]; J. Ke, H. Luo, M. x. Luo, K. Wang, L. Wang and ...

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gluino Search with Stop and Top in NUGM at LHC and Future Colliders

    Zafer Altın, Ali C ¸ i¸ ci, Zerrin Kırca, Qaisar Shafi and Cem Salih ¨Un, “Gluino Search with Stop and Top in NUGM at LHC and Future Colliders” (in preparation). 13

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.