Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 39 references

Unveiling the Invisible: ALPs and Sterile Neutrinos at the LHC and HL-LHC

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 LHC's mono-Higgs plus large missing-energy search can place 95% confidence-level bounds on both the ALP-Higgs coupling $C_{aH}/\Lambda^2$ and the sterile neutrino-Higgs coupling $\lambda_3/M_*$ for particle…

desk verdict Solid 13 TeV recast of ATLAS mono-Higgs data to ALP and sterile neutrino couplings; HL-LHC projections rest on an unvalidated background rescaling, and the new limits are weaker than existing invisible Higgs bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08212 v2 pith:OJMVOLD5 submitted 2024-12-11 hep-ph hep-ex

Kingman Cheung , C.J. Ouseph , Sin Kyu Kang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords axion-likeparticlesterileneutrinomono-HiggsmissingtransverseenergyeffectivefieldtheoryLHCHL-LHCHiggsportal
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

The paper argues that the mono-Higgs plus large missing transverse energy signature, where the Higgs decays to $b\bar b$, can be used to constrain two beyond-Standard-Model couplings: the ALP-Higgs coupling $C_{aH}/\Lambda^2$ from a dimension-six operator and the sterile neutrino-Higgs coupling $\lambda_3/M_*$ from a dimension-five operator. Using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV LHC data on mono-Higgs events, it derives 95% confidence-level exclusion bounds for particle masses from 1 to 60 GeV, with the tightest constraints in the missing transverse energy range $200 < M_{ET} \le 350$ GeV. If correct, the mono-Higgs search is a valid probe of both operators, and the quoted exclusion curves represent actual limits from the LHC data. The paper also projects what sensitivities the HL-LHC with 3000 fb$^{-1}$ at 14 TeV would reach.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two effective operators: the dimension-six ALP-Higgs interaction $(\partial_\mu a)(\partial^\mu a)\phi^\dagger\phi$ with coefficient $C_{aH}/\Lambda^2$, and the dimension-five sterile neutrino-Higgs interaction $\phi^\dagger\phi N N$ with coefficient $\lambda_3/M_*$, where the ALP $a$ and sterile neutrino $N$ are assumed to escape the detector as missing energy. The search topology is $pp\to h a a$ or $pp\to h N N$ with $h\to b\bar b$, selected by the resolved-region cuts of the 13 TeV mono-Higgs search: $M_{ET}>150$ GeV, lepton veto, $\Delta\phi(\mathrm{jet}_{123},M_{ET})>20^\circ$, at least two $b$-tagged jets, a Higgs transverse-momentum threshold that depends on $M_{ET}$, $b$-jet transverse mass cuts, a jet multiplicity restriction, and a $50 < m_{b\bar b} < 280$ GeV invariant-mass window. The argument then uses the scaling of signal event counts as $(C_{aH}/\Lambda^2)^2$ and $(\lambda_3/M_*)^2$ to convert the measured cross-section limits, or the projected significance from the background-rescaling formula, into coupling exclusions.

What would settle it

Compute the $t\bar t$, $W$+heavy-flavor, and $Z$+heavy-flavor backgrounds at 14 TeV with the full parton-level and detector simulation of the resolved-region selection, and compare the resulting per-bin event counts with the rescaled values in Table II; if the missing-energy distributions shift with center-of-mass energy, the projected coupling limits would move accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the existing mono-Higgs search data can be reinterpreted to constrain two hidden-sector models with a single event topology: $pp \to h a a$ for an axion-like particle and $pp \to h N N$ for a sterile neutrino, each followed by $h \to b\bar b$ while the invisible particles escape as missing transverse energy. The strongest 95% C.L. bound on both couplings appears in the $200 < M_{ET} \le 350$ GeV bin of the resolved region, giving for the ALP coupling values around $3.8\times10^{-6}$ GeV$^{-2}$ at $m_a = 1$ GeV rising to about $1\times10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ at 60 GeV, and for the sterile neutrino coupling $1.5\times10^{-4}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at $m_N = 1$ GeV rising to about $10^{-3}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at 60 GeV. At the HL-LHC, the projected sensitivities improve across all missing-energy bins, with the ALP model remaining more sensitive than the sterile neutrino model at equivalent masses, especially below about 10 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The HL-LHC projections assume that the numbers of background events in each missing-energy bin scale from 13 to 14 TeV by the ratios of the total $t\bar t$, $W$+heavy-flavor, and $Z$+heavy-flavor production cross sections, which presumes the missing-energy shapes and selection efficiencies are unchanged between the two energies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 13 TeV mono-Higgs data already exclude ALP-Higgs couplings down to about $3.8\times10^{-6}$ GeV$^{-2}$ at $m_a=1$ GeV and sterile neutrino-Higgs couplings down to about $1.5\times10^{-4}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at $m_N=1$ GeV in the $200 < M_{ET} \le 350$ GeV bin.
  • At the HL-LHC the same search improves the reach in every missing-energy bin; without systematic uncertainty the best projected ALP bound is about $1.8\times10^{-6}$ GeV$^{-2}$ in the $200$--$350$ GeV bin, while with a 20% systematic the $350$--$500$ GeV bin becomes the strongest.
  • The ALP model is probed more strongly than the sterile neutrino model at all equivalent masses, and the gap widens at low mass, so a null result in mono-Higgs would translate into a stronger exclusion for ALP-Higgs couplings than for sterile neutrino-Higgs couplings.
  • Because both operators also induce invisible Higgs decay, the existing bound $B(H\to \text{invisible})<0.16$ gives comparable limits at $m=1$ GeV, meaning the mono-Higgs search complements rather than replaces the invisible-width constraint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not develop is to combine the mono-Higgs bin information with the invisible-Higgs branching-fraction bound in a global fit, which would likely sharpen the low-mass region of both exclusion plots.
  • Because the production cross section drops sharply once the invisible particle mass exceeds $m_H/2$, the bounds are limited to the sub-60 GeV range; a dedicated analysis of the off-shell Higgs region could extend the reach to higher masses.
  • If the ALP's dimension-five couplings are switched on even at small strength, the final state becomes $b\bar b$ plus two photons, gluons, or fermion pairs rather than missing energy, so a search for $b\bar b+\gamma\gamma$ would be a directly testable way to probe the same $C_{aH}$ coupling.
  • The background rescaling used for the 14 TeV projection could be validated before 3000 fb$^{-1}$ of data exist by comparing the rescaled 13 TeV predictions against observed 14 TeV event counts in early HL-LHC running, providing an early check on the projected limits.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper recasts the ATLAS mono-Higgs plus missing transverse energy search (Ref. [8]) to constrain two effective operators: the dimension-six ALP-Higgs interaction CaH/Λ^2 (∂a)^2 H†H, probed via pp→haa with h→bb, and the dimension-five sterile-neutrino-Higgs interaction λ3/M* H†H NN, probed via pp→hNN with h→bb. For the 13 TeV, 139 fb^-1 LHC dataset, the authors follow the ATLAS resolved-region selection and apply model-independent upper limits on the visible cross section to derive 95% C.L. excluded regions on the two couplings as functions of the invisible-particle mass (1–60 GeV) in three MET bins. For the HL-LHC at 14 TeV and 3000 fb^-1, they use Eq. (11) to rescale the ATLAS background event counts by inclusive cross-section ratios, and Eq. (13) to define expected sensitivities with and without a 20% systematic uncertainty. The main results are the exclusion and projection curves in Figs. 7–10, with the strongest 13 TeV constraint reported in the 200<MET≤350 GeV bin.

Significance. If the 13 TeV recasting is correct, the paper provides new, but not record-setting, constraints on two specific effective operators from a public ATLAS search. The cut-flow tables and explicit use of ATLAS selection criteria make the 13 TeV part reasonably reproducible, which is a strength. However, two factors limit the significance: the HL-LHC projections rely on an unvalidated background-rescaling assumption that is central to a large fraction of the presented results, and the authors themselves acknowledge in Sec. V that the simpler observable h→invisible already gives stronger bounds on both couplings (CaH/Λ^2<8.1e-7 GeV^-2 and λ3/M*<3.6e-5 GeV^-1 at 1 GeV). The mono-Higgs channel is therefore complementary rather than competitive, and the paper's claim that it is a 'robust probe' should be tempered. The 13 TeV limits alone are a modest but useful recasting contribution; the HL-LHC projections, as currently derived, are not a reliable basis for quantitative conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.A.2, Eq. (11), Table II, Figs. 7-10] The HL-LHC sensitivity projections are built on Eq. (11), which rescales the ATLAS 13 TeV background event counts in each MET bin by the ratio of inclusive 14 TeV to 13 TeV production cross sections for t-tbar, W+HF, and Z+HF. This assumes that the MET shape, the acceptance of the resolved-region selection (lepton vetoes, Delta-phi>20 deg, Higgs pT thresholds, mTb cuts, Njets, and the mbb window), and the bin-to-bin migration are identical at 13 and 14 TeV. No 14 TeV background simulation is presented to test this assumption, and the inclusive cross-section ratios (about 1.1-1.2) do not by themselves validate per-bin yields. Because the signal is fully simulated at 14 TeV while the backgrounds are only rescaled, the projection is asymmetric; any change in the MET spectrum with sqrt(s) would directly shift the per-bin background counts and hence the excluded values of CaH/Lambda^2 and lambda3/M*. Since all HL-LHC curves in Figs. 7-10 and the corresponding conclusions depend on this rescaling, the assumption is load-bearing and should be validated with a 14 TeV background simulation or at least a generator-level shape comparison.
  2. [V (Conclusions)] The authors state that the existing bound B(H->invisible)<0.16 yields CaH/Lambda^2<8.1e-7 GeV^-2 (ma=1 GeV) and lambda3/M*<3.6e-5 GeV^-1 (mN=1 GeV), which are stronger than the mono-Higgs limits obtained in this work (3.8e-6 GeV^-2 and 1.5e-4 GeV^-1, respectively). Given this acknowledged hierarchy, the abstract and conclusions overstate the significance by calling the mono-Higgs signature 'a robust probe' and saying the results 'establish bounds' without noting that the same operators are already more strongly constrained by a simpler observable. The paper should either present the mono-Higgs results as complementary probes of the MET distribution or explicitly frame the constraints as weaker than existing bounds.
minor comments (7)
  1. [II.A (heading)] The heading 'Axion-like Particke' should read 'Axion-like Particle'.
  2. [III.A] The sentence 'The signal cross section sigma(pp -> haa, h->bb) is shown in FIG. 9' refers to Fig. 9 in the appendix; the cross section is shown in Fig. 2.
  3. [Abstract] The text uses 'M_ET' for missing transverse energy; it should use MET or E_T^miss consistently.
  4. [Table IX caption] The caption says 'but in the resolved region with MET > 500 GeV'; this table is for the merged region and should be labeled accordingly.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'invisble', 'sensitivites', 'across across', 'sing' (for 'using'), and 'Cah' (for 'CaH') in the conclusions.
  6. [II.B.1] The text refers to the 'coupling lambda3/M2*' but the parameter is lambda3/M*; the superscript appears to be a typo.
  7. [IV.A] For reproducibility, the paper should list the ATLAS model-independent upper-limit values used in the 13 TeV exclusions, for example by citing the specific tables of Ref. [8], since the conversion from these limits to coupling exclusions is otherwise opaque.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: standard external-data recasting; the HL-LHC background rescaling is an unvalidated modeling assumption but not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a standard recasting of an external ATLAS mono-Higgs plus missing transverse energy search. Signal cross sections for pp -> h a a and pp -> h N N are computed from the effective Lagrangians of Eqs. (4) and (8) with fixed benchmark couplings (CaH=1, Lambda=1000 GeV; lambda3=1, M*=10^5 GeV), and the number of signal events is obtained by applying the ATLAS selection cuts to Delphes-simulated events via Eq. (10). The 13 TeV exclusions are obtained by comparing these signal yields to the ATLAS model-independent upper limits from Ref. [8], which are independent experimental inputs. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, and no inference uses the paper's own results as evidence for itself. The HL-LHC projections use Eq. (13) with background counts obtained from Eq. (11), a rescaling of the 13 TeV ATLAS backgrounds by MadGraph total cross-section ratios. That rescaling assumes unchanged MET shapes, acceptances, and cut efficiencies between 13 and 14 TeV; this is an unvalidated modeling assumption and the main correctness risk, but it is not circular: it does not redefine a fitted quantity as a prediction, nor does it reduce a claimed result to its own inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness arguments from the authors' prior work appear. All substantive bounds are anchored to external ATLAS data and independent Monte Carlo simulation, so the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters beyond the couplings being constrained; the benchmark choices CaH=1, Lambda=1000 GeV, lambda3=1, M*=1e5 GeV are just scaling conventions. The analysis relies heavily on two model assumptions (ALP stability and sterile neutrino long lifetime) and a crude background rescaling for the HL-LHC projection. No new particles or entities are invented.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The ALP is assumed to be stable on detector scales because all couplings except CaH are set to zero.
    Section II.A.2: this assumption ensures the final state is mono-Higgs plus MET, but if other ALP couplings are present the signal changes and the limits do not apply.
  • ad hoc to paper The sterile neutrino is assumed to be long-lived because the mixing parameter lambda2 is below 1e-7.
    Section II.B: this suppresses decays inside the detector and identifies the mass eigenstate with the interaction eigenstate.
  • ad hoc to paper HL-LHC background event counts are obtained by rescaling 13 TeV ATLAS counts by total cross-section ratios.
    Equation (11): assumes MET-bin acceptances and shapes are unchanged between 13 and 14 TeV, which is not validated.
  • domain assumption The dimension-six and dimension-five operators are the only new physics and the EFT is valid at LHC energies.
    Throughout the analysis; no unitarity or cut-off check is performed for the derived coupling values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Invisible: ALPs and Sterile Neutrinos at the LHC and HL-LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJMVOLD5

@misc{pith2026241208212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Invisible: ALPs and Sterile Neutrinos at the LHC and HL-LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJMVOLD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08212}
}
abstract

We investigate the potential of using the signature of mono-Higgs plus large missing energies to constrain on two new physics models, namely the model of an axion-like particle (ALP) and the model of sterile neutrinos. We focus on the Higgs-ALP interactions starting at dimension-six and the Higgs-sterile neutrino interactions starting at dimension-five, via the processes $pp \to h a a$ for ALP production and $pp \to h N N$ for sterile neutrinos at the LHC and High Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC), followed by the Higgs decay $h \to b \bar{b}$. We establish bounds on the ALP-Higgs coupling $\frac{C_{aH}}{\Lambda^2}$ and sterile neutrino-Higgs coupling $\frac{\lambda_3}{M_*}$, respectively, for ALP and sterile-neutrino mass ranging from 1 to 60 GeV, using the recent ATLAS data on mono-Higgs plus missing energies at the LHC $(\sqrt{s} = 13\;{\rm TeV}\; {\rm and}\; \mathcal{L} = 139\; {\rm fb}^{-1})$. The most stringent constraint occurs in the missing transverse energy $M_{ET}$ range $200 < M_{ET} \leq 350$ GeV. We also estimate the sensitivities that we can achieve at the HL-LHC ($\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV and $\mathcal{L} = 3000$ fb$^{-1}$). We obtain improved sensitivities across various missing energy regions. The ALP model exhibits better sensitivities, particularly at lower mass range, compared to the sterile neutrino model, which shows weaker sensitivities across similar mass and energy ranges. Our results underscore the potential of the mono-Higgs signature as a robust probe for physics beyond the Standard Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Relevant Feynman diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: ALP production cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Decay length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Sterile neutrino production cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Invariant mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Invariant mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Exclusion regions (above each solid curve) at 95% confidence level (C.L.) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Exclusion regions (above each solid curve) at 95% confidence level (C.L.) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Sensitivity regions (above each curve) at 95% C.L. for the ALP-Higgs coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Same as in FIG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    As in the earlier ALP analysis, we adopt the signal event analysis framework from the ATLAS paper

    Sterile Neutrino signal and Backgrounds at the HL-LHC This section presents the production of sterile neutrinos at the HL-LHC ( √s = 14 TeV, L = 3000 fb−1). As in the earlier ALP analysis, we adopt the signal event analysis framework from the ATLAS paper. Table V shows the sterile neutrino signal event analysis at the HL- LHC (√s = 14 TeV, L = 3000 fb−1)....

    work page

  2. [1]

    The relevant Feynman diagrams for the process pp → haa are shown in FIG

    Production of Invisible Axion-Like Particles with a Mono-Higgs Signature Our focus is to explore the CaH Λ2 coupling by studying the mono-Higgs signature produced alongside the ALPs in the process pp → haa at the LHC with √s = 13 TeV and at the HL-LHC with √s = 14 TeV. The relevant Feynman diagrams for the process pp → haa are shown in FIG. 1. We used Mad...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Decay length of the Axion-like Particle In this analysis, we simply assume that the ALP is stable on the collider scale, i.e., its decay length is longer than the typical size O(10) m of a detector. In reality, the ALP may afford tiny values of the ALP-gauge and ALP-fermion couplings such that it still decays 6 20 40 60 80 100 ma [GeV] 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3...

    work page

  4. [3]

    We set the ALP-gauge boson couplings to unity, i.e., Cγγ = CGG = 1 and Cf = 0

    In the first scenario, we sum the partial widths of the decay channels a → γγ and a → gg, assuming that the ALP couplings to electrons and muons are zero. We set the ALP-gauge boson couplings to unity, i.e., Cγγ = CGG = 1 and Cf = 0. The corresponding decay length is represented by the orange line in Fig. 3. For this case, we find that Λ ∼ 1011 GeV for γc...

    work page

  5. [4]

    For this case, we find that Λ ∼ 107 GeV for γcτ ∼ O(10) meters

    In the second scenario, we sum the partial widths of the decay channels a → e+e− and a → µ+µ−, assuming that the ALP couplings to photons and gluons are zero while setting the ALP-fermion coupling to unity, i.e., Cγγ = CGG = 0 and Cf = 1. For this case, we find that Λ ∼ 107 GeV for γcτ ∼ O(10) meters. For lighter ALPs, the decay length increases as the ma...

    work page

  6. [5]

    The Feynman diagrams relevant to this process pp → hN Nshares the same topology as the previous ALP process and thus sim- ilar to those in FIG 1

    Production of Invisible Sterile Neutrino with a Mono-Higgs Signature Our objective is to study the λ3 M 2∗ coupling by analyzing the mono-Higgs signature gener- ated in association with invisible sterile neutrinos in the processpp → hN Nat the LHC with √s = 13 TeV and at the HL-LHC with √s = 14 TeV. The Feynman diagrams relevant to this process pp → hN Ns...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Event selection For event selection we adhere to the cuts defined in the resolved region outlined in Ref. [8]. This region selects events with MET < 500 GeV and requires at least two b-tagged small-R jets, with the two highest pT jets forming the Higgs boson candidate. The resolved region retains a reasonable number of signal events after selection. The A...

    work page

  8. [7]

    ALP Signal and Backgrounds at HL-LHC For the generation of signal events at the LHC with √s = 14 TeV and event selection, we followed the same formalism discussed in Sec. III A 1. However, the upper bounds on the model-independent cross sections from [8] cannot be used to estimate the ALP-Higgs cou- pling that one can achieve at the HL-LHC. Instead, we ap...

    work page

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), (2024), arXiv:2404.05498 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Heo, D.-W

    Y. Heo, D.-W. Jung, and J. S. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 110, 013003 (2024), arXiv:2402.02822 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek, (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605188

    2006 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Djouadi, O

    A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini, and J. Quevillon, Phys. Lett. B 709, 65 (2012), arXiv:1112.3299 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Arcadi, A

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Raidal, Phys. Rept. 842, 1 (2020), arXiv:1903.03616 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 11, 209 (2021), arXiv:2108.13391 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall, Phys. Lett. B 169, 73 (1986)

    1986

  10. [18]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Heiles, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 74 (2019), arXiv:1808.10323 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 06, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Brivio, M

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey, and V. Sanz, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 572 (2017), arXiv:1701.05379 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hirschi and O

    V. Hirschi and O. Mattelaer, JHEP 10, 146 (2015), arXiv:1507.00020 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, JHEP 03, 015 (2013), arXiv:1212.3460 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. L. Graesser, Phys. Rev. D 76, 075006 (2007), arXiv:0704.0438 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. L. Graesser, (2007), arXiv:0705.2190 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Degrande, O

    C. Degrande, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz, and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 94, 053002 (2016), arXiv:1602.06957 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pascoli, R

    S. Pascoli, R. Ruiz, and C. Weiland, JHEP 06, 049 (2019), arXiv:1812.08750 [hep-ph]. 27

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, K. Fuyuto, E. Mereghetti, and R. Ruiz, JHEP 08, 103 (2021), arXiv:2105.11462 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. Alva, T. Han, and R. Ruiz, JHEP 02, 072 (2015), arXiv:1411.7305 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli, and B. Zhang, JHEP 05, 030 (2009), arXiv:0901.3589 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    (2015), 10.5170/CERN-2015-005

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008), arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Sel- vaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cacciari, G

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

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063 (2008), arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    uproot5: Root i/o in pure python and numpy,

    J. Pivarski, P. Das, et al., “uproot5: Root i/o in pure python and numpy,” https://github. com/scikit-hep/uproot5 (2024), accessed: 2024-07-17

    2024

  29. [37]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 970 (2019), arXiv:1907.05120 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R. D. Cousins, J. T. Linnemann, and J. Tucker, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 595, 480 (2008), arXiv:physics/0702156

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Nature 607, 60 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]. 28 pp → t¯t pp → W + HF pp → Z + HF σ(√s = 13 TeV) (pb) 833.9 361.1 1014 σ(√s = 14 TeV) (pb) 985.7 395 1143 2-btag Nb(√s = 13 TeV) : 150 ≤ MET < 200 GeV 4680 1590 6470 Nb...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.