Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 48 references

Can Effective $4-$Quark Operators Describe Signals of a Supersymmetric Diquark Model at the LHC?

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that four-quark SMEFT operators cannot describe the LHC-visible signals of an R-parity-violating sbottom diquark model.

desk verdict A concrete, well-executed counterexample showing SMEFT 4-quark operators fail for an LHC-detectable RPV sbottom model; the main caveat is the fine-tuned spectrum, not the EFT-vs-UV comparison itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13500 v1 pith:KDIXUN7F submitted 2025-06-16 hep-ph hep-ex

Manuel Drees , Cong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords SMEFTR-parityviolation4-quarkoperatorstoppairproductionsbottomdiquarkeffectivefieldtheoryvalidityLHCconstraintsunitaritybound
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 asks whether four-quark operators of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) can stand in for a concrete weakly coupled new-physics model when deriving bounds from LHC top-pair data. The model is a supersymmetric one with baryon-number violation, in which a right-handed sbottom acts like a diquark coupling a down quark to a top quark. Matching the sbottom out at tree level gives two dimension-six four-quark operators, but the paper finds that their predictions deviate from the full model precisely where the LHC is sensitive: on-shell sbottom production contributes through $t\bar t+$ jet channels the EFT omits, and the point-like approximation overestimates the $t$-channel exchange in the high-energy tails. Agreement between the EFT and the full model is reached only for sbottom masses around 5 TeV or above, where the effects are below collider sensitivity for couplings allowed by perturbative unitarity. The paper concludes that present or near-future LHC bounds on this RPV model cannot be obtained from SMEFT analyses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tree-level matching of the sbottom to two four-quark operators, $O^{(1)}_{td}$ and $O^{(8)}_{td}$, with $C_1^{td}=|\lambda''_{313}|^2/(3M_{\tilde b}^2)$ and $C_8^{td}=-|\lambda''_{313}|^2/M_{\tilde b}^2$; this is equivalent to replacing the sbottom propagator $1/(q^2-M_{\tilde b}^2)$ by $-1/M_{\tilde b}^2$. The argument then runs through a detailed comparison of the full RPV model, with Breit-Wigner propagators for possibly on-shell sbottoms in $t\bar t j$ and $t\bar t jj$ channels, and the SMEFT implementation, keeping only the leading order in the two operators, for the distributions measured by the LHC experiments. The failure of the EFT is driven by two mechanisms: the neglect of momentum flow through the $t$-channel propagator, which overestimates the BSM contribution in the tails, and the omission of on-shell sbottom production, which produces a resonance in the top+jet invariant mass and a Jacobian peak at $p_T\sim M_{\tilde b}/2$.

What would settle it

Measurable check: at 13 TeV, measure the parton-level $p_T(t_{\rm high})$ distribution in $t\bar t+$ jet events with enough statistics to resolve the Jacobian peak at $p_T\simeq M_{\tilde b}/2$ for $M_{\tilde b}\simeq 1.5$ TeV and $\lambda''_{313}=1$; the full RPV model predicts this peak while the SMEFT cannot produce it. Conversely, if a SMEFT fit using only the two matched operators, with $C_1^{td}=-C_8^{td}/3>0$, reproduces the full RPV exclusion curves for $M_{\tilde b}<3$ TeV within the experimental uncertainties of the LHC differential distributions used here, the paper's central claim would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Integrating out the right-handed sbottom generates exactly two dimension-six operators at tree level, the color singlet $O^{(1)}_{td}$ and color octet $O^{(8)}_{td}$, with related Wilson coefficients $C_1^{td}=-C_8^{td}/3>0$. The paper tests whether this SMEFT implementation reproduces the full RPV model by comparing parton-level predictions for inclusive $t\bar t$ production against the LHC differential measurements of top transverse momenta, the top-pair invariant mass, the top-pair transverse momentum, and the top-pair charge asymmetry. It finds that for sbottom masses up to 3 TeV the SMEFT overestimates the exclusive $t\bar t$ contribution, sometimes by an order of magnitude or with the wrong sign in high-$p_T$ and high-$m_{t\bar t}$ bins, while the $t\bar t j$ channel with an on-shell sbottom, which dominates the strongest constraints, cannot be described by the dimension-six operators at all. Only when $M_{\tilde b}\gtrsim 5$ TeV do the two descriptions agree to within roughly 20%, but then the effects are below LHC sensitivity for any coupling satisfying the unitarity bound. The stated conclusion is that no region of parameter space simultaneously gives measurable LHC effects and a reliable SMEFT description.

Load-bearing premise

The scenario assumes the right-handed sbottom is much lighter than all other superpartners and that the RPV coupling $\lambda''_{313}$ is the only sizable new coupling, so every other supersymmetric contribution decouples; the authors admit this is not very natural and that renormalization-group running tends to destroy the hierarchy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SMEFT-based bounds on this RPV model from top-pair data are not reliable for sbottom masses up to at least 3 TeV.
  • The observables that give the strongest constraints, $p_T(t_{\rm high})$, $p_T(t_h)$ and $p_T(t\bar t)$, are dominated by single on-shell sbottom production, which the dimension-six operators do not describe, so the EFT limits cannot be read off as model limits.
  • Even restricting to the exclusive $t\bar t$ channel, the SMEFT overestimates the new-physics contribution by factors of two or more in the high-$p_T$ and high-$m_{t\bar t}$ bins for $M_{\tilde b}<3$ TeV, so the problem is not only missing channels.
  • If the high-scale unitarity bound $\lambda''_{313}<1.12$ is imposed, current data exclude the model only for $M_{\tilde b}<1.9$ TeV, precisely where the SMEFT implementation fails; for heavier sbottoms the model is beyond LHC reach.
  • The large difference between linear and quadratic SMEFT fits to the same distributions indicates that the expansion in inverse powers of the new-physics scale does not converge for this model at LHC energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same failure pattern, tail overestimation plus missing on-shell production, should apply to any weakly coupled $t$-channel mediator coupling a light quark to a top quark, because the EFT breaks down whenever the momentum transfer approaches the mediator mass, $|q^2|\sim M^2$.
  • A practical consequence the authors leave implicit is that recasting LHC top-pair data into bounds on such models should use dedicated searches for $t\bar t+$ jet resonances and Jacobian peaks in top-$p_T$, rather than global SMEFT fits, and the high-luminosity LHC will be better positioned for that search.
  • One could extend the comparison quantitatively to future LHC runs: as luminosity grows, the measurable region extends toward heavier sbottom masses, and the paper's numbers suggest that SMEFT and full-model predictions will still differ well above 3 TeV, so a forecast of where direct searches overtake SMEFT limits would be a concrete next step.
  • A model with more than one light superpartner would introduce additional on-shell production channels that the EFT misses entirely, so the numerical failure found here is likely a lower bound on the SMEFT discrepancy for less fine-tuned spectra.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper asks whether dimension-six four-quark SMEFT operators can faithfully reproduce the LHC top-pair signals of a simplified R-parity-violating supersymmetric model in which only the right-handed sbottom is light and couples through λ''_313. The authors perform tree-level matching to obtain the two Warsaw-basis operators (Eq. 2.7), simulate the full RPV model including on-shell single-sbottom and sbottom-pair production, and compare differential distributions (p_T of top quarks, m_tt, p_T(tt), charge asymmetry) against CMS and ATLAS parton-level data using the experimental covariance matrices. They derive 95% CL limits both in the full RPV model and in its SMEFT implementation, and they find that the SMEFT describes the RPV model only for sbottom masses above roughly 5 TeV, where the effects are far below LHC sensitivity. For all masses and couplings with observable effects, the SMEFT misses the on-shell t-tbar-j resonance contributions and overestimates the off-shell exchange in the high-p_T tails. The paper concludes that there is no parameter region of this RPV model that is simultaneously measurable at the LHC and well described by the SMEFT, and it uses the strong sensitivity of the fits to the quadratic d=6 terms to question the convergence of the SMEFT expansion.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable cautionary case study for the common practice of translating LHC top-quark measurements into SMEFT bounds and then into constraints on specific UV models. The strengths of the paper are the clean tree-level matching, the direct use of public parton-level distributions with full covariance information, the inclusion of on-shell mediator production in the 'full' model, and the unusually transparent discussion of the model's approximations and unnaturalness. The no-overlap conclusion is supported by several independent observables and by explicit comparisons in tables and figures, so it is likely to be robust within the stated benchmark. The main limitation is that the demonstration concerns one deliberately SMEFT-friendly, fine-tuned slice of parameter space; the broader statement that the SMEFT 'does not reproduce the LHC signals of any perturbative model' is an extrapolation beyond the evidence presented.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 5 and Footnote 7] The concluding sentence that the SMEFT 'is model independent only in the sense that it does not reproduce the LHC signals of any perturbative model' is stronger than the analysis supports: the paper studies a single scenario, and the authors themselves note that the assumed one-light-sbottom spectrum is unnatural and tends to be destroyed by RG running. The stress-test concern about this point lands as a scope limitation rather than as an error: the pointwise RPV-versus-SMEFT comparison is valid for the defined benchmark, but the phrase 'any perturbative model' should be tempered to something like 'the class of single-mediator, SMEFT-friendly scenarios considered here,' or a short RGE/UV-completion discussion should be added to justify the stability of the hierarchy.
  2. [Sec. 4.7 and Conclusions] The statement that the large difference between the O(Λ^-2) and O(Λ^-4) fits 'shows that the expansion in inverse powers of Λ does not converge' is not strictly established by that comparison alone, because a linear-plus-quadratic d=6 fit is not a complete O(Λ^-4) calculation: d=8 interference terms, which are also O(Λ^-4), are omitted and could in principle cancel part of the quadratic term. The direct RPV-versus-SMEFT comparisons do support the failure of the EFT in the sensitive region, so the conclusion is likely correct, but the convergence claim should be rephrased as, for example, 'the large difference is inconsistent with a rapidly convergent expansion at the energy scales probed.'
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 4.7] The exclusion curves in Figs. 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 15 extend to λ''=4 even though the text states that the constant-width Breit-Wigner approximation is questionable for λ''>3 and that the LO calculation cannot be trusted for λ''>4. The central conclusion is unaffected because the unitarity bound λ''<1.12 covers the main argument, but the displayed curves above λ''≈3 should be shaded or marked as indicative only.
  4. [Sec. 4.4] There is a duplicated article in 'yields the the upper bounds' in the second paragraph of Sec. 4.4; this should be corrected.
  5. [Tables 1 and 2] The 'total' column in Tables 1 and 2 can be negative because the positive t-tbar-j contribution and the negative exclusive-t-tbar interference cancel; the captions should explicitly note that negative values mean the overall BSM contribution changes sign in that bin and should not be read as a physically meaningful positive ratio.
  6. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 5] The quantitative exclusion limits are derived from leading-order matrix elements for the BSM signal while the SM background is treated at NNLO. The paper cites K-factors near unity for the EFT operators, but a sentence quantifying the expected NLO uncertainty on the full RPV contributions, especially the on-shell t-tbar-j channel, would strengthen the reliability of the numerical bounds and of the no-overlap claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SMEFT validity test compares the full RPV amplitudes with the independently matched 4-quark EFT; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular. The SMEFT implementation is defined by tree-level matching in eq. (2.7), C1_td = |lambda''_313|^2/(3 M_b^2) and C8_td = -|lambda''_313|^2/M_b^2, which are derived from the UV Lagrangian, not from the data or from the EFT. The RPV predictions are computed separately from the full theory, including t-channel sbottom propagators with momentum dependence and on-shell single- and pair-production diagrams with Breit-Wigner widths. The conclusion that the SMEFT fails for sbottom masses up to 3 TeV follows from the mismatch between these independent computations, e.g. the resonance peak in m(t+jet), the ttj and ttjj channels absent from the d=6 operator set, and the overestimate of high-pT tails due to replacing 1/(q^2-M^2) by -1/M^2. No Wilson coefficient or model parameter is fitted to the data and then presented as a prediction. The exclusion limits in Sec. 4.7 are derived for comparison and use the model parameters as inputs; the SMEFT bounds from ref. [31] are external and not used to define the RPV model. The self-citations (refs. [38,39] and the code reference [60] including an author) are contextual or technical, not load-bearing. The acknowledged 'not very natural' one-light-sbottom assumption limits the generality of the no-overlap conclusion, but that is a scope caveat, not circularity. No derivation step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the model definition (single light sbottom, only lambda''_313), the unitarity bound from the literature, the constant-width approximation, and the parton-level comparison. No free parameters are fitted to data: M_sbottom and lambda'' are scanned model parameters, and the Wilson coefficients are derived by matching. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The RPV superpotential term lambda''_313 U D D is the only sizable B-violating coupling; all other superpartners are heavier than the sbottom and decouple.
    Introduced in Sec. 2 and footnote 7; defines the model being tested. Admitted to be unnatural but SMEFT-friendly, making the negative result conservative.
  • standard math Perturbative unitarity up to the GUT scale implies lambda''_313(1 TeV) < 1.12 (eq. 2.4).
    Taken from ref [40]; used to define the theoretically allowed parameter space and to argue that heavy sbottom effects are unobservable.
  • domain assumption Breit-Wigner propagator with constant width (eq. 2.5) is used for on-shell sbottom diagrams.
    Sec. 4; acknowledged to be poor for lambda'' > 3, but the main conclusion uses lambda'' < 1.12 where the width is small.
  • domain assumption Parton-level CMS/ATLAS distributions can be compared directly to LO parton-level simulations; BSM effects do not alter the unfolding.
    Footnote 6 in Sec. 5; needed for the quantitative comparison.
  • domain assumption NNPDF23 NLO PDF set and the specified scale choice are adequate; SM NNLO predictions are taken from the experiments.
    Sec. 4.1; standard treatment, affects the absolute normalization of the SM background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Effective $4-$Quark Operators Describe Signals of a Supersymmetric Diquark Model at the LHC?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDIXUN7F

@misc{pith2026250613500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Effective $4-$Quark Operators Describe Signals of a Supersymmetric Diquark Model at the LHC?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDIXUN7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13500}
}
abstract

The Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) is constrained by current LHC data. Supposedly extensions of the Standard Model (SM) involving heavy particles can be constrained by matching onto the SMEFT. However, the reliability of these indirect constraints compared to those derived directly from the UV model remains an open question. In this paper, we investigate whether $4-$quark operators can accurately capture the effects of an $R-$parity-violating (RPV) supersymmetric model on the production of pairs of top quarks, for parameters that satisfy all known constraints and lead to measurable effects. We assume that the sbottom is the lightest supersymmetric particle and focus on its interaction with a light quark and a top quark; the sbottom thus acts like a specific diquark. The $4-$quark operators arise by integrating out the sbottom at tree level. We analyze measurements of inclusive top pair production by the CMS and ATLAS collaborations. We find that the $4-$quark operators can accurately describe the RPV model's effects only for very heavy sbottom squarks, where the effects are well below the sensitivity of LHC experiments for all values of the RPV coupling that satisfy unitarity constraints. Therefore present or near-future bounds on this RPV model can not be derived from SMEFT analyses.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Drees, R

    M. Drees, R. Godbole and P. Roy,Theory and phenomenology of sparticles: An account of four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetry in high energy physics(2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Baer and X

    H. Baer and X. Tata,Weak scale supersymmetry: From superfields to scattering events, Cambridge University Press (5, 2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Antoniadis, N

    I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G.R. Dvali,New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,Phys. Lett. B436(1998) 257 [hep-ph/9804398]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum,A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 3370 [hep-ph/9905221]

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Buchalla, A.J

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

    arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Ross,Grand Unified Theories(1985)

    G.G. Ross,Grand Unified Theories(1985)

    work page 1985

  7. [7]

    Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 1566

    1979

  8. [8]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621

    1986

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085 [1008.4884]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,Phys. Rept.793 (2019) 1 [1706.08945]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Buckley, C

    A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D.J. Miller, L. Moore, K. N¨ ordstrom et al.,Results from TopFitter,PoSCKM2016(2016) 127 [1612.02294]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Buckley, C

    A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D.J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell et al.,Constraining top quark effective theory in the LHC Run II era,JHEP04(2016) 015 [1512.03360]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hartland, F

    N.P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou et al.,A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector, JHEP04(2019) 100 [1901.05965]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou et al.,O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector,JHEP02(2020) 131 [1910.03606]. – 30 –

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz and T. You,Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP04(2021) 279 [2012.02779]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bißmann, C

    S. Bißmann, C. Grunwald, G. Hiller and K. Kr¨ oninger,Top and Beauty synergies in SMEFT-fits at present and future colliders,JHEP06(2021) 010 [2012.10456]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Biek¨ otter, T

    A. Biek¨ otter, T. Corbett and T. Plehn,The Gauge-Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run II,SciPost Phys.6(2019) 064 [1812.07587]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ellis, C.W

    J. Ellis, C.W. Murphy, V. Sanz and T. You,Updated Global SMEFT Fit to Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Data,JHEP06(2018) 146 [1803.03252]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    da Silva Almeida, A

    E. da Silva Almeida, A. Alves, N. Rosa Agostinho, O.J.P. ´Eboli and M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Electroweak Sector Under Scrutiny: A Combined Analysis of LHC and Electroweak Precision Data,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 033001 [1812.01009]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson, S. Homiller, S.D. Lane and I.M. Lewis,Validity of standard model EFT studies of VH and VV production at NLO,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 115004 [2003.07862]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alioli, W

    S. Alioli, W. Dekens, M. Girard and E. Mereghetti,NLO QCD corrections to SM-EFT dilepton and electroweak Higgs boson production, matched to parton shower in POWHEG, JHEP08(2018) 205 [1804.07407]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ethier, R

    J.J. Ethier, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Magni and J. Rojo,SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and diboson data from the LHC Run II,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 560 [2101.03180]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Greljo and D

    A. Greljo and D. Marzocca,High-p T dilepton tails and flavor physics,Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 548 [1704.09015]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gomez-Ambrosio,Studies of Dimension-Six EFT effects in Vector Boson Scattering,Eur

    R. Gomez-Ambrosio,Studies of Dimension-Six EFT effects in Vector Boson Scattering,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 389 [1809.04189]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dedes, P

    A. Dedes, P. Koz´ ow and M. Szleper,Standard model EFT effects in vector-boson scattering at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 013003 [2011.07367]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Aebischer, J

    J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, P. Stangl and D.M. Straub,A Global Likelihood for Precision Constraints and Flavour Anomalies,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 509 [1810.07698]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso and Z. Tabrizi,Reactor neutrino oscillations as constraints on Effective Field Theory,JHEP05(2019) 173 [1901.04553]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso and K. Mimouni,Compilation of low-energy constraints on 4-fermion operators in the SMEFT,JHEP08(2017) 123 [1706.03783]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bruggisser, R

    S. Bruggisser, R. Sch¨ afer, D. van Dyk and S. Westhoff,The Flavor of UV Physics,JHEP05 (2021) 257 [2101.07273]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D’Ambrosio, G.F

    G. D’Ambrosio, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia,Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach,Nucl. Phys. B645(2002) 155 [hep-ph/0207036]. [31]SMEFiTcollaboration,Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,JHEP11(2021...

    2002 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Lessa and V

    A. Lessa and V. Sanz,Going beyond Top EFT,JHEP04(2024) 107 [2312.00670]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Drozd, J

    A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon and T. You,Comparing EFT and Exact One-Loop Analyses of Non-Degenerate Stops,JHEP06(2015) 028 [1504.02409]. – 31 –

    2015 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Bai, P.J

    Y. Bai, P.J. Fox and R. Harnik,The Tevatron at the Frontier of Dark Matter Direct Detection,JHEP12(2010) 048 [1005.3797]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Beltran, D

    M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E.W. Kolb, Z.A.C. Krusberg and T.M.P. Tait,Maverick dark matter at colliders,JHEP09(2010) 037 [1002.4137]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [36]

    P.J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai,Missing Energy Signatures of Dark Matter at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 056011 [1109.4398]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Goodman and W

    J. Goodman and W. Shepherd,LHC Bounds on UV-Complete Models of Dark Matter, 1111.2359

    arXiv

  29. [38]

    Belwal, M

    S. Belwal, M. Drees and J.S. Kim,Analysis of the Bounds on Dark Matter Models from Monojet Searches at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 055017 [1709.08545]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Drees and Z

    M. Drees and Z. Zhang,LHC constraints on a mediator coupled to heavy quarks,Phys. Lett. B797(2019) 134832 [1903.00496]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Barbier et al.,R-parity violating supersymmetry,Phys

    R. Barbier et al.,R-parity violating supersymmetry,Phys. Rept.420(2005) 1 [hep-ph/0406039]. [41]ATLAScollaboration,Search for R-parity-violating supersymmetry in a final state containing leptons and many jets with the ATLAS experiment using √s= 13TeV proton–proton collision da...

    2005 arXiv

  32. [53]

    Allanach and S.A

    B.C. Allanach and S.A. Renner,Large Hadron Collider constraints on a light baryon number violating sbottom coupling to a top and a light quark,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2707 [1310.6016]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [54]

    Calibbi, G

    L. Calibbi, G. Ferretti, D. Milstead, C. Petersson and R. P¨ ottgen,Baryon number violation in supersymmetry: Neutron-antineutron oscillations as a probe beyond the lhc, 2017. [55]CMScollaboration,Search for pair production of heavy particles decaying to a top quark and a gluo...

    2018 arXiv

  34. [60]

    Degrande, G

    C. Degrande, G. Durieux, F. Maltoni, K. Mimasu, E. Vryonidou and C. Zhang,Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 096024 [2008.11743]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [61]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079 [1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [62]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.S. Shao and M. Zaro,The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,JHEP07(2018) 185 [1804.10017]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [63]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit and J. Mazzitelli,Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO,JHEP07(2019) 100 [1906.06535]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [64]

    Allanach, A

    B.C. Allanach, A. Dedes and H.K. Dreiner,Two loop supersymmetric renormalization group equations including R-parity violation and aspects of unification,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 056002 [hep-ph/9902251]

    1999 arXiv

  39. [65]

    Czakon, D

    M. Czakon, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos and M. Zaro,Top-quark charge asymmetry at the LHC and Tevatron through NNLO QCD and NLO EW,Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 014003 [1711.03945]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [66]

    Czakon, Z

    M. Czakon, Z. Kassabov, A. Mitov, R. Poncelet and A. Popescu,HighTEA: high energy theory event analyser,J. Phys. G51(2024) 115002 [2304.05993]. – 33 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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