Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Analyzing $t\bar{t}Z$-couplings at the future $e^-p$ collider

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A future electron-proton collider could measure the top quark's axial coupling to the Z boson to about 8% precision using the azimuthal angle difference between the scattered electron and the charged lepton.

desk verdict A clean LHeC sensitivity projection for top-Z couplings whose headline precision numbers are internally inconsistent and whose 8% C1A claim rests on untested parton-level shape information, but the method is transparent and the four-coupling simultaneous fit is a real increment. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02267 v3 pith:MQNP6UGL submitted 2025-07-03 hep-ph

Katlego Machethe , Pramod Sharma , Mukesh Kumar , Rafiqul Rahaman , Bruce Mellado This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords topquarkZbosoncouplingsLHeCelectron-protoncollidereffectivefieldtheoryazimuthalangledistributionttbarproductionsemileptonicdecay
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 claims that the proposed LHeC, an electron-proton collider at $\sqrt{s}\approx 1.3$ TeV, can measure the top quark's neutral-current couplings to the $Z$ boson much more precisely with a differential distribution than with the inclusive cross section alone. Using the semileptonic $e^-p \to e^- t\bar{t}$ final state and the azimuthal angle difference $\Delta\phi$ between the scattered electron and the charged lepton from the top decay, the paper projects 95% C.L. constraints that tighten by roughly 46% relative to the inclusive analysis. At 1000 fb$^{-1}$, the one-parameter multi-bin fit gives $C_{1A} = 0.500^{+0.039}_{-0.042}$ and $C_{1V} = 0.192^{+0.125}_{-0.137}$, about 8% and 68% precision relative to their Standard Model values. The same method constrains the anomalous weak magnetic and electric dipole couplings $C_{2V}$ and $C_{2A}$ at the $10^{-1}$ level, and the paper shows these projections are competitive with or better than several current LHC bounds. If correct, these results would make the LHeC a useful complementary probe of top--$Z$ couplings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the un-normalized $\Delta\phi$ distribution between the scattered electron and the charged lepton from the leptonic top decay, binned into $n=30$ intervals. The $\chi^2$ in Eq. (11) compares the BSM-predicted bin cross sections, modeled as a quadratic function of the couplings with linear and quadratic coefficients, against the SM expectation, summing the $e^-\ell^+$ and $e^-\ell^-$ channels. The shape information from these bins is what lifts the degeneracy that leaves the single-bin inclusive analysis without a unique global minimum.

What would settle it

A detector-level simulation of $e^-p \to e^- t\bar{t}$ at $\sqrt{s}=1.3$ TeV that includes showering, hadronization, a 70% b-tagging efficiency, and a realistic bin-to-bin correlated systematic; if the 95% C.L. interval on $C_{1A}$ at 1000 fb$^{-1}$ widens substantially beyond $^{+0.039}_{-0.042}$, or if the multi-bin fit no longer beats the inclusive fit, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $\Delta\phi_{e^-\ell^\pm}$ distribution carries shape information that breaks the degeneracies visible in the inclusive cross section. In the one-parameter analysis, the multi-bin $\chi^2$ over 30 un-normalized bins yields well-defined minima for $\Delta C_{1V}$ and $\Delta C_{1A}$, where the inclusive analysis shows bifurcated or degenerate solutions. At 1000 fb$^{-1}$ and with a flat 5% systematic, the paper quotes $C_{1V} = 0.192^{+0.125}_{-0.137}$ and $C_{1A} = 0.500^{+0.039}_{-0.042}$, and bounds on $C_{2V}$ and $C_{2A}$ at the $10^{-1}$ level. The differential analysis tightens the allowed region by 46.7% for $\Delta C_{1V}$ and 45.7% for $\Delta C_{1A}$ compared with the inclusive analysis at 50 fb$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume parton-level events with no hadronization, showering, or detector simulation, and a flat 5% systematic uncertainty in every bin of the $\Delta\phi$ distribution; if detector resolution or correlated systematics degrade the shape information, the quoted constraints would be weaker.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Going from 50 fb$^{-1}$ to 1000 fb$^{-1}$ shrinks the 95% C.L. intervals by about 78.5% for $\Delta C_{1V}$ and 78.9% for $\Delta C_{1A}$.
  • The differential $\Delta\phi$ analysis outperforms the inclusive cross-section analysis for the vector and axial couplings across the full luminosity range, while the inclusive analysis is competitive for $C_{2V}$ and $C_{2A}$ at low luminosity.
  • Two-parameter and MCMC fits broaden the allowed regions because of correlations: $\Delta C_{1V}$ and $\Delta C_{1A}$ are strongly anti-correlated, while $C_{2V}$ and $C_{2A}$ are correlated at about 77%.
  • Projected 95% C.L. bounds on $c_{\phi t}$ and $c^-_{\phi Q}$ at 1000 fb$^{-1}$ are stronger than the corresponding CMS 138 fb$^{-1}$ limits, while $c_{tZ}$ and $c^I_{tZ}$ projections are comparable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A detector-level re-analysis would test whether the projected 46% tightening from the shape analysis survives hadronization and realistic bin-to-bin correlated systematics; this is the natural next step and is not performed in the paper.
  • Because the paper's bounds are quoted per coupling with others fixed, the strong anti-correlation between $\Delta C_{1V}$ and $\Delta C_{1A}$ suggests that a simultaneous fit with a second observable, such as the $Z$-boson transverse momentum, could break the remaining degeneracy more efficiently than the single $\Delta\phi$ distribution alone.
  • The same $\chi^2$ pipeline with the quadratic model of Eq. (13) can be reinterpreted for any EFT Wilson coefficients mapped through Eq. (5), so the projected sensitivities apply beyond the four specific couplings studied here.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a projection study of the sensitivity of the proposed LHeC (√s ≈ 1.3 TeV) to the top-quark neutral-current couplings to the Z boson. Using parton-level MadGraph simulations of e^-p → e^- t tbar in the semileptonic channel, the authors construct the azimuthal-angle difference Δφ between the scattered electron and the charged lepton and perform single-bin (inclusive), multi-bin differential, two-parameter, and MCMC analyses. At 1000 fb^-1 and 95% CL they report C1V = 0.192^{+0.125}_{-0.137} and C1A = 0.500^{+0.039}_{-0.042}, corresponding to about 68% and 8% precision relative to the SM values. The paper also translates these bounds into constraints on the Wilson coefficients c_ϕt/Λ², c^-_ϕQ/Λ², c_tZ/Λ², and c^I_tZ/Λ², and compares them with existing LHC limits.

Significance. If the projected sensitivities are realized, the LHeC would provide complementary and, for some coefficients, competitive constraints on tbar-t-Z couplings relative to the LHC and ILC, particularly through the Δφ shape. The paper's methodology is largely transparent: the χ² formalism, the cutflow, the signal and background cross sections, and the inclusive-versus-differential comparison are clearly documented. The main limitations are that the analysis is parton-level with no hadronization, showering, or detector response, and that the per-bin systematic uncertainty is treated as an independent 5% in every bin; the quoted precision is therefore conditional on these assumptions. The differential analysis and the luminosity-scaling plots provide a useful baseline for future experimental studies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section V, Table III] The abstract as provided (and the arXiv metadata) reports 'approximately 50% and 6% precision relative to their SM values', while the full-text abstract and Section V report approximately 8% for C1A and 68% for C1V, based on the bounds in Table III (C1V = 0.192^{+0.125}_{-0.137}, C1A = 0.500^{+0.039}_{-0.042}). The abstract also claims that both couplings improve to O(10^-2) at 1000 fb^-1, but Table III shows ΔC1V remains O(10^-1). These inconsistencies should be corrected so that the headline precision numbers are stable across the abstract and the body.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (12)] The multi-bin analysis uses 30 parton-level bins of Δφ and assumes a per-bin systematic uncertainty of δs = 5% in Eq. (12), treated independently in each bin. No hadronization, showering, or detector response is applied. The claimed ~8% precision on C1A at 1000 fb^-1 relies on bin-by-bin shape differences that could be smoothed by detector resolution and final-state radiation, and on the absence of correlated systematics. The authors should either include a realistic detector smearing or quantify how resolution and correlated systematic uncertainties degrade the sensitivity; without this, the headline precision is not fully supported.
  3. [Section IV.B] The text states that 'using the linear and quadratic coefficients extracted from the one-parameter fits of eq. (13), we determine the off-diagonal EFT quadratic coefficients B_ij for i≠j'. This is not sufficient, because one-parameter fits only constrain the diagonal B_ii and the linear coefficients A_i; they cannot determine B_ij. The two-parameter and MCMC results in Figures 6–8 and Tables III–IV depend on these off-diagonal coefficients. The procedure for extracting them (e.g., from dedicated two-parameter simulations) should be described explicitly.
  4. [Section IV.C] The MCMC analysis uses the GetDist package to obtain marginalized posteriors, but the paper does not specify the likelihood function or the prior distributions on the couplings. The 95% credible intervals in Table IV depend on these choices. The authors should state whether the posterior is proportional to exp(-χ²/2) and what priors were used, so that the MCMC results are reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption reads 'with one t¯tZ coupling set to = 0.5'; this should read 'set to 0.5'.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption refers to 'web-blue' and 'web-gray' colors; this should be clarified or replaced with a legend description.
  3. [Section V] The notation 'C1V = 0.192+0.125 −0.137' is unconventional; please use 'C1V = 0.192^{+0.125}_{-0.137}'.
  4. [References] Several references are missing years or journal information (e.g., Refs. [2,3]); please complete them.
  5. [Section IV.A] For one degree of freedom the 95% CL threshold is χ² = 3.84; the text uses 'χ² ≈ 4', which is acceptable but should be made precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Self-contained sensitivity projection; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is a self-contained Monte Carlo sensitivity forecast. Equation (11) defines a chi-squared comparing BSM cross sections to the SM expectation, with sigma^exp_k = sigma^SM_k explicitly stated, so the quoted central values (C1A = 0.500, C1V = 0.192) are assumed SM inputs by construction and the quoted intervals are projected 95% C.L. sensitivities, not empirical measurements fitted to external data. The quadratic parametrization in Eq. (13) is extracted from the same MadGraph simulations used to build the chi-squared, so the constraints are an inversion of the simulated cross-section dependence rather than a fit to a hidden input. The paper does cite prior work sharing authors, notably Ref. [37] for the significance formula Eq. (10) and the one-bin versus multi-bin strategy, and Refs. [22,25,26,30] for the Delta-phi observable, but these citations are not load-bearing: the present paper re-derives the sensitivity with its own event samples, and the cited formulas are standard statistical definitions rather than external results that force the conclusion. The main caveats are methodological rather than circular: the analysis is at parton level with no showering or detector simulation, and the flat 5% systematic in each bin of Eq. (12) is an assumption, not a fitted quantity. There is also an internal reporting inconsistency between the abstract's '50% and 6%' and the body's '68% and 8%' relative precisions, but this is a presentation error, not a circular step. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by definition, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

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

The central projection rests on the assumed beam parameters, parton-level simulation, flat systematics, and the restriction to a small set of EFT operators; these are the main assumptions the reader is not given independent evidence for.

free parameters (5)
  • Flat systematic uncertainty delta_s = 5%
    Assumed for all bins and luminosities; directly sets the uncertainty in Eq. (12) and therefore the width of the 95% CL intervals.
  • b-tagging efficiency = 70%
    Applied uniformly to signal and backgrounds; detector assumption that changes the signal/background yields in Table II.
  • Charm and light mistag rates = epsilon_c = 0.1, epsilon_j = 0.01
    Used to suppress reducible backgrounds; chosen by hand and not derived from detector studies.
  • Electron beam polarization = -80%
    Design parameter of the LHeC assumed in the simulation; affects cross sections and the Delta-phi shapes.
  • Quadratic coefficients A_i and B_ij in Eq. (13) = Fitted to MadGraph outputs
    The cross-section dependence on each coupling is parametrized by a quadratic function whose coefficients are extracted from simulation; any error in this parametrization propagates into the limits. Cross-coupling coefficients for the two-parameter scans are not derived in detail.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SM Lagrangian plus the dimension-six operators defined in Eqs. (2)-(5) is the correct low-energy description; no additional operators are relevant.
    The sensitivity study is restricted to four couplings in the ttbarZ vertex; other EFT operators that could affect the e-p to e- t tbar process are omitted.
  • domain assumption Parton-level simulation with generator-level cuts and simple b-tagging approximates the LHeC detector response.
    No showering, hadronization, or detector simulation is performed (Section III).
  • ad hoc to paper A flat 5% systematic uncertainty per bin is representative of the LHeC performance.
    Chosen by hand and applied uniformly; no derivation from detector or theory systematics.
  • domain assumption The EFT description is valid at sqrt(s)=1.3 TeV, with dipole terms normalized by mZ and Wilson coefficient limits quoted at Lambda=1 TeV.
    The paper uses mZ as the dipole normalization and converts couplings to WCs with Lambda=1 TeV, Eqs. (5)-(9).
  • standard math Chi-square statistics with Gaussian uncertainties, and the Hessian/correlation method, are applicable.
    Standard statistical tools used in Eqs. (11), (14), (15) for extracting confidence intervals and correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyzing $t\bar{t}Z$-couplings at the future $e^-p$ collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQNP6UGL

@misc{pith2026250702267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyzing $t\bartZ$-couplings at the future $e^-p$ collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQNP6UGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02267}
}
abstract

The proposed Large Hadron Electron Collider (LHeC), with center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}\approx 1.3$ TeV, provides a clean and sensitive environment to probe the top quark's neutral current interactions with the $Z$ boson via the process $e^- p \to e^- t \bar{t}$. We investigate the precision with which the Standard Model (SM) $t\bar{t}Z$ couplings-the vector and axial-vector components ($\Delta C_{1V}$, $\Delta C_{1A}$)-can be measured, along with possible new physics effects parameterized by higher-dimensional operators inducing weak electric and magnetic dipole-like interactions ($C_{2V}$, $C_{2A}$). Focusing on the semileptonic decay channel, where either the top quark or anti-top decays leptonically to a positively charged lepton ($\ell^+ = e^+, \mu^+$), we utilize the azimuthal angle difference $\Delta \phi$ between the scattered electron and the charged lepton as the key observable. Using a one-parameter multi-bin $\chi^2$-analysis of this differential distribution, we find that constraints on $\Delta C_{1V}$ and $\Delta C_{1A}$ improve from order $10^{-1}$ at 50 fb$^{-1}$ to order $10^{-2}$ at 1000 fb$^{-1}$, corresponding to approximately 50% and 6% precision relative to their SM values. The anomalous tensor couplings $C_{2V}$ and $C_{2A}$ are constrained at the $10^{-1}$ level even at low luminosity and improve moderately with high luminosity. While the two-parameter analysis broadens the allowed regions due to parameter correlations, it retains competitive sensitivity, particularly for SM-like couplings. A systematic uncertainty of 5% is assumed throughout. These results highlight the LHeC's potential to provide complementary and competitive sensitivity to top-$Z$ couplings compared to current and future hadron and lepton collider capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Total cross section for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Normalized differential distributions of the azimuthal angle difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Projected 95% C.L. constraints on the individual BSM couplings as a function of the integrated luminosity, ranging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Allowed parameter space at 95% C.L. from the two-parameter fit, based on a multi-bin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Correlations between BSM couplings in the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Marginalised one-dimensional and two-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: At an integrated luminosity of 50 fb−1 , the projected bounds on ctZ and c I tZ at the LHeC are gen￾erally weaker than current LHC results, which benefit from higher statistics and global fits involving multiple channels. Interestingly, we find that the CMS constraints…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Mosala, P

    K. Mosala, P. Sharma, M. Kumar, and A. Goyal, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 44 (2024), arXiv:2307.00394 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B812, 181 (2009), arXiv:0811.3842 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  3. [2]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, M. C. N. Fiolhais, and A. Onofre, JHEP07, 180, arXiv:1206.1033 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Röntsch and M

    R. Röntsch and M. Schulze, JHEP07, 091, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 132 (2015)], arXiv:1404.1005 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    Röntsch and M

    R. Röntsch and M. Schulze, JHEP08, 044, arXiv:1501.05939 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Measurement of the $t\bar{t}Z$ and $t\bar{t}W$ cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D99, 072009 (2019), arXiv:1901.03584 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP03, 056, arXiv:1907.11270 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 1907

  8. [7]

    Search for new physics using effective field theory in 13 TeV pp collision events that contain a top quark pair and a boosted Z or Higgs boson

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D108, 032008 (2023), arXiv:2208.12837 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 163, arXiv:2312.04450 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 163, arXiv:2312.04450 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP02, 107, arXiv:2111.02860 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP02, 107, arXiv:2111.02860 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  3. [10]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP02, 177, arXiv:2410.23475 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP02, 177, arXiv:2410.23475 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pit- tau, and P. Torrielli, Phys. Lett. B701, 427 (2011), arXiv:1104.5613 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Lazopoulos, T

    A. Lazopoulos, T. McElmurry, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, Phys. Lett. B666, 62 (2008), arXiv:0804.2220 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Campbell, R

    J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and R. Röntsch, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114006 (2013), arXiv:1302.3856 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Buckley, C

    A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell, and C. D. White, JHEP04, 015, arXiv:1512.03360 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    G. e. a. Durieux, JHEP10, 168

  9. [16]

    Q.-H. Cao, B. Yan, C. P. Yuan, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D102, 055010 (2020), arXiv:2004.02031 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Cao and B

    Q.-H. Cao and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. D92, 094018 (2015), arXiv:1507.06204 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Zhang and S

    C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D83, 034006 (2011), arXiv:1008.3869 [hep-ph]. 13

    2011 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J. L. Abelleira Fernandezet al.(LHeC Study Group), J. Phys. G39, 075001 (2012), arXiv:1206.2913 [physics.acc- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ahmadovaet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.17727 [hep-ex]

    F. Ahmadovaet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.17727 [hep-ex]

    2025

  14. [21]

    Klein (LHeC, FCC-eh Study Groups), PoS ICHEP2024, 094 (2025)

    U. Klein (LHeC, FCC-eh Study Groups), PoS ICHEP2024, 094 (2025)

    2025

  15. [22]

    Dutta, A

    S. Dutta, A. Goyal, M. Kumar, and B. Mellado, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 577 (2015), arXiv:1307.1688 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Behera, R

    S. Behera, R. Islam, M. Kumar, P. Poulose, and R. Rahaman, Phys. Rev. D100, 015006 (2019), arXiv:1811.04681 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Britzger, M

    D. Britzger, M. Klein, and H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 831 (2020), arXiv:2007.11799 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    S. S. Biswal, R. M. Godbole, B. Mellado, and S. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 261801 (2012), arXiv:1203.6285 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kumar, X

    M. Kumar, X. Ruan, R. Islam, A. S. Cornell, M. Klein, U. Klein, and B. Mellado, Phys. Lett. B764, 247 (2017), arXiv:1509.04016 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Kumar, X

    M. Kumar, X. Ruan, A. S. Cornell, R. Islam, and B. Mel- lado, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.623, 012017 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    K. D. J. Andréet al., Eur. Phys. J. C82, 40 (2022), arXiv:2201.02436 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Mosomane, M

    C. Mosomane, M. Kumar, A. S. Cornell, and B. Mellado, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.889, 012004 (2017), arXiv:1707.05997 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Coleppa, M

    B. Coleppa, M. Kumar, S. Kumar, and B. Mellado, Phys. Lett. B770, 335 (2017), arXiv:1702.03426 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085, arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Rahaman, JHEP02, 077, arXiv:2204.12152 [hep-ph]

    R. Rahaman, JHEP02, 077, arXiv:2204.12152 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    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

  27. [34]

    Bessidskaia Bylund, F

    O. Bessidskaia Bylund, F. Maltoni, I. Tsinikos, E. Vry- onidou, and C. Zhang, JHEP05, 052, arXiv:1601.08193 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [35]

    Barducciet al., (2018), arXiv:1802.07237 [hep-ph]

    D. Barducciet al., (2018), arXiv:1802.07237 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP06, 128, arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ma, Phys

    K. Ma, Phys. Rev. D96, 071501 (2017), arXiv:1706.01492 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Phys. Rev. D88, 094007 (2013), arXiv:1308.5634 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Phys. Rev. D105, 115002 (2022), arXiv:2111.04723 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Rahaman and R

    R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh, JHEP04, 075, arXiv:1911.03111 [hep-ph]

    1911 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ravina, E

    B. Ravina, E. Simpson, and J. Howarth, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 809 (2021), arXiv:2106.09690 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D65, 014011 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0008191

    2001 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. Stump, R. Brock, D. Casey, J. Huston, J. Kalk, H. L. Lai, and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D65, 014013 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101032

    2001 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Easther, A

    R. Easther, A. H. Guth, and A. Masoumi, (2016), arXiv:1612.05224 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mammen Abraham and D

    R. Mammen Abraham and D. Gonçalves, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 965 (2023), arXiv:2208.05986 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.