Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Optimizing $pp\to A\to Z^{*}h\to \ell^+\ell^- b\bar b$ Searches at the LHC in the 2HDM Type-I with Inverted Hierarchy

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Switching the dilepton window to 20-50 GeV raises an LHC Higgs-signal significance from roughly 1 to 12 sigma.

desk verdict A clear proof-of-principle that low-mass cuts open the off-shell Z* regime for 2HDM Type-I IH, but the headline significances rest on a background count of 9 events with no systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21385 v1 pith:6NFSTDCO submitted 2025-08-29 hep-ph

S. Alanazi , S. Moretti , A.G. Akeroyd This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords 2HDMType-Iinvertedhierarchyoff-shellZ*A->Zhdecaydileptoninvariant-masscutsLHCHiggssearchMonteCarlobackgroundestimationsignalsignificance
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 the LHC can see the process pp -> A -> Z* h -> l+l- bb in the 2HDM Type-I inverted hierarchy, where the 125 GeV Higgs is the heavier CP-even state and a lighter scalar h exists. Existing searches cut the dilepton mass around the Z peak, because they assume an on-shell Z; for mA between 145 and 150 GeV the Z is off-shell, so that cut discards the signal. The paper shows that replacing it with 20 GeV < m_ll < 50 GeV plus m_bb < 100 GeV keeps most of the signal while reducing the combined DY and top-pair background from 13,924 events to 9 at 35.9 fb-1. If correct, the previously unconstrained off-shell-Z region becomes accessible with discovery-level significance at the LHC.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the low dilepton-mass window combined with an upper bound on the di-jet mass: 20 GeV < m_ll < 50 GeV and m_bb < 100 GeV. Because mA - mh = 70-82 GeV is below the Z mass, the Z* produces dileptons at low invariant mass, whereas Drell-Yan peaks at m_ll = mZ and top-pair production populates m_bb around 100 GeV. The cut pair therefore separates the signal from both dominant backgrounds while retaining roughly 86% of signal events.

What would settle it

Run the proposed 20 GeV < m_ll < 50 GeV and m_bb < 100 GeV selection on the 35.9 fb-1 dataset with a full background estimate including W+jets, single top, diboson, and QCD multijet, and with systematic uncertainties; if the expected background in the 145-150 GeV m_llbb bin rises from nine events by even a few events, the quoted S2 of 9.5-12 would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the kinematic mismatch between the CMS-inspired baseline selection and the off-shell decay kinematics is the reason the signal is invisible, and that a simple change of invariant-mass windows fixes it. For two benchmark points in the 2HDM Type-I inverted hierarchy (mA = 150, mh = 68 GeV and mA = 145, mh = 75 GeV), the paper reports that moving from 70 GeV < m_ll < 110 GeV with no m_bb cut to 20 GeV < m_ll < 50 GeV with m_bb < 100 GeV retains 153 of 178 and 100 of 116 signal events while the Drell-Yan and top-pair backgrounds drop to 9 total events. The signal-to-noise ratio S1 = S/sqrt(B) rises from about 1.5 and 0.9 to 43 and 28, while S2 = S/sqrt(S+B) rises from a

Load-bearing premise

The claimed significances rest on the assumption that Drell-Yan and top-pair production, normalized by qualitative agreement with one published search and with no systematic uncertainties, are the only backgrounds that matter in the new low-mass window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A CMS-like search that adopts the low-mll window and mbb upper bound should become sensitive in the off-shell region mA - mh < mZ, for which no limits are currently set.
  • Extrapolating to the full Run-2 luminosity of about 140 fb-1, the quoted S1 and S2 values would grow by roughly a factor of two, giving significances above 20 in the S1 definition.
  • Because the cuts are illustrative rather than formally optimized, a scan over mll and mbb thresholds could improve the significance further.
  • The same final state with a light h decaying to bb and an off-shell Z* is a generic feature of inverted-hierarchy 2HDM-like scenarios, so the optimized selection applies beyond the two benchmark points.
  • The paper's statement that the search would afford discovery possibilities rests on the background model staying at nine events after the new cuts; the signal simulation itself is the less fragile part.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cut logic is largely kinematic and model-independent: any new-physics process producing a low-mass dilepton pair plus a light bb pair could reuse the same 20-50 GeV mll window and mbb < 100 GeV selection.
  • An implication not drawn by the paper is that the quoted significance is likely a ceiling, since W+jets, single top, diboson, and QCD multijet backgrounds plus systematic uncertainties were not included in the nine background events.
  • A testable extension would be to run the optimized selection on recorded LHC data at 35.9 fb-1; observing a handful of extra events in the 145-150 GeV window would confirm the predicted background suppression, while a large excess would hint at new physics.
  • The fact that the backgrounds are normalized by qualitative agreement with a published search, rather than by a detailed closure test, suggests the next step should be a data-driven background estimate in the low-mll, low-mbb control regions.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes alternative invariant-mass selection cuts for the LHC process pp -> A -> Z* h -> l+l- bb in the 2HDM Type-I with inverted hierarchy, where the discovered 125 GeV state is the heavier CP-even H and h is lighter. The authors use MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, Pythia, Delphes, and MadAnalysis5 to emulate the signal for two benchmark points (mA,mh) = (150,68) and (145,75) GeV, and to reproduce the dominant DY and ttbar backgrounds following the CMS H->ZA search [3]. They compare the CMS baseline dilepton window 70 GeV < m_ll < 110 GeV with a new selection 20 GeV < m_ll < 50 GeV together with m_bb < 100 GeV, and report that the background drops from 13,924 to 9 events, raising the significance from about 0.9-1.5 to S1 ~ 9.5-43 and S2 ~ 9.5-12. The paper concludes that a CMS-like search in the off-shell Z* regime, currently unconstrained, would become viable.

Significance. If the quantitative claims held, the paper would identify a simple, useful extension of an existing CMS search into a kinematical region (mA - mh < mZ) for which no dedicated experimental limit exists, and it would motivate a concrete search strategy for a scenario that is otherwise difficult to probe. The authors are appropriately careful in some respects: the benchmark points are checked against HiggsTools and SuperISO, the simulation chain follows the CMS methodology, and the paper explicitly states that the chosen cuts are illustrative and not formally optimized. However, the central quantitative result is built on a single background estimate of 9 events after the new cuts, and the manuscript does not provide the completeness, systematic, or numerical consistency checks needed to establish that number. The qualitative message (a dedicated search motivated) is credible; the precise significance values in Table I are not.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.A, II.B, III, Table I]
  2. [Table I]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Sec. III]
  2. [Sec. II.B]
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3]
  4. [General]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Table I significances are direct Monte-Carlo event counts; cuts are disclosed as illustrative, and self-citations are secondary.

full rationale

The central quantitative result is self-contained: signal and background event counts in Table I are obtained from explicit event generation (MadGraph5aMC@NLO, PYTHIA, Delphes) with stated kinematic cuts, and the significances S1 = S/sqrt(B) and S2 = S/sqrt(S+B) are applied as conventional definitions. No parameter is fitted to the signal region, and the alternative cuts (20 GeV < m_ll < 50 GeV, m_bb < 100 GeV) are explicitly disclosed as hand-picked and 'illustrative rather than final' (Sec. III), so the significance gain is not a fitted prediction. The reproduction of CMS background shapes is a validation exercise, not a fit. The paper itself flags the main limitations: only DY and ttbar backgrounds are simulated, no formal optimization is performed, and no systematic uncertainties are assigned; these affect the robustness of B = 9 but do not constitute circularity. The only self-citation of note is the concluding extrapolation to 'a sizable region' of parameter space based on Refs [4-6], but this statement is not needed for Table I and is a secondary remark. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

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

The central results rest on an assumed model (2HDM Type-I with IH), a specific MC chain, and a restricted background set. No new particles or forces are introduced. The hand-picked cuts and benchmark points are disclosed as illustrative, but they are free parameters of the analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • Dilepton mass window (20-50 GeV) = 20 GeV < m_ll < 50 GeV
    Chosen by hand after inspecting simulated m_ll distributions of signal and backgrounds; no optimization scan was performed (Sec. III).
  • b-pair mass upper cut (100 GeV) = m_bb < 100 GeV
    Chosen by hand based on the low h mass (68-75 GeV) and the observed m_bb distributions (Sec. III).
  • Benchmark point masses = BP1: mA = 150 GeV, mh = 68 GeV; BP2: mA = 145 GeV, mh = 75 GeV
    Illustrative points in the 2HDM Type-I IH parameter space, not derived from a scan (Sec. II.B).
  • tan beta = 3.9 (BP1), 4 (BP2)
    Picked within the stated range 2.5 < tan beta < 10 after constraint checks; not scanned (Sec. II.B).
  • cos(beta-alpha) = 1 exactly
    Fixed for the IH scenario; this choice maximizes certain h couplings and is not varied (Sec. II).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2HDM Type-I with Z2 symmetry and only soft breaking (m12 nonzero, lambda6,7 = 0) is the correct effective model.
    Assumed in Sec. I-II; the paper does not derive this model choice.
  • domain assumption H with mH = 125 GeV is the SM-like observed Higgs in the IH scenario.
    Required by the inverted hierarchy setup in Sec. I-II; sets the production and decay couplings.
  • domain assumption DY and ttbar are the only non-negligible backgrounds for this final state.
    Stated in Sec. II.A; other backgrounds are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The MadGraph5_aMC@NLO FxFx + Pythia + Delphes CMS-card chain reproduces the CMS background distributions used in Ref. [3].
    The validation is qualitative ('agree very well', Sec. III), with no quantitative comparison shown.
  • domain assumption mHpm = mA is imposed to comply with electroweak precision observables.
    Used to fix the charged Higgs mass in Sec. II; no derivation is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing $pp\to A\to Z^{*}h\to \ell^+\ell^- b\bar b$ Searches at the LHC in the 2HDM Type-I with Inverted Hierarchy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NFSTDCO

@misc{pith2026250821385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing $pp\to A\to Z^*h\to \ell^+\ell^- b\bar b$ Searches at the LHC in the 2HDM Type-I with Inverted Hierarchy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NFSTDCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21385}
}
abstract

In this study, we investigate the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) search for the signal process $pp\to A \to Z^{*}h \to \ell^{+} \ell^{-} b \bar{b}$ ($\ell=e,\mu$) within the framework of the 2-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) Type-I, considering an Inverted Hierarchy (IH) scenario wherein the Standard Model (SM)-like Higgs boson $H$ is heavier than $h$ (i.e., $m_h < m_H=125$ GeV). We reproduce the dominant background distributions from a CMS analysis of $pp\to H \to Z A \to \ell^{+} \ell^{-} b \bar{b}$ (for a on-shell $Z$), which we do for validation purposes, so that we can explore different invariant mass selection criteria to enhance the signal significance of our target process. Specifically, we compare the CMS baseline cuts ($70$ GeV $ < m_{\ell^+\ell^-} < 110$ GeV, no $m_{b\bar b}$ restriction) with the alternative selections $20~{\rm GeV}~< m_{\ell^+\ell^-} < 50$ GeV with $m_{b\bar b} < 100$ GeV. The latter cuts are enforced to account for the off-shellness of the $Z^*$ boson and the low mass Higgs state in our case. We show that these modifications reduce drastically the dominant Drell-Yan (DY) and top-(anti)quark pair backgrounds, leading to a significant excess from the analysis of the reconstructed $m_{\ell^+\ell^-b\bar b}$ invariant mass in the illustrative ranges 145 GeV $<m_{A}<$ 150 GeV and 68 GeV $<m_{h}<$ 75 GeV. Our results demonstrate that such cuts enable effective signal discrimination, suggesting an optimized strategy in future searches for an established topology but in a new kinematical regime, which is of particular relevance to the 2HDM Type-I with IH in its mass spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21385 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Representative Feynman diagrams for DY production at LO and in presence of QCD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Representative Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Signal and the background processes as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The background processes as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Signal rates as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Signal and background processes as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Probing the decay $A^0\to h^0 Z^{(*)}$ in Two-Higgs-Doublet Models in the inverted hierarchy scenario at the Large Hadron Collider

    A. G. Akeroyd, S. Alanazi and S. Moretti, “Probing the decay A0 → h0Z(∗) in Two-Higgs- Doublet Models in the inverted hierarchy scenario at the LHC,” [arXiv:2408.08314 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [3]

    is carried out with LHC Run 2pp collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35 .9 fb −1, which was collected by the CMS experiment. We computed the signal pp → A → Z ∗h → ℓ+ℓ−b¯b for two Benchmark Points (BPs) within the framework of the 2HDM Type-I, considering the IH scenario with mH = 125 GeV, mh < 125 GeV and mA chosen in the range 145...

    work page

  3. [1]

    The- ory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, “The- ory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,” Phys. Rept. 516, 1–102 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002 [arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [2]

    Mapping pp → A → ZH → l+l−b¯b and pp → H → ZA → l+l−b¯b current and future searches onto 2HDM parameter spaces,

    S. Semlali, H. Day-Hall, S. Moretti and R. Benbrik, “Mapping pp → A → ZH → l+l−b¯b and pp → H → ZA → l+l−b¯b current and future searches onto 2HDM parameter spaces,” Phys. Lett. B 810, 135819 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135819 [arXiv:2006.05177 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Search for new neutral Higgs bosons through the H $\to$ ZA $\to$ $\ell^{+}\ell^{-} \mathrm{b\bar{b}}$ process in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Search for new neutral Higgs bosons through the H → ZA → ℓ+ℓ−b¯b process in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” JHEP 03, 055 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)055 [arXiv:1911.03781 [hep-ex]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    The decay $A^0\to h^0 Z^{(*)}$ in the inverted hierarchy scenario and its detection prospects at the Large Hadron Collider

    A. G. Akeroyd, S. Alanazi and S. Moretti, “The decay A0 → h0Z∗ in the inverted hierar- chy scenario and its detection prospects at the LHC,” J. Phys. G 50, no.9, 095001 (2023) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ace3e1 [arXiv:2301.00728 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    The Process $gg\to h^0 Z^{*}$ in the Inverted Hierarchy Scenario of the 2HDM Type-I at the LHC

    A. G. Akeroyd, S. Alanazi and S. Moretti, “The process gg → h0Z∗ in the inverted hier- archy scenario of the 2HDM type-I at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.11, 1172 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13548-1 [arXiv:2405.18990 [hep-ph]]. 9

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Below-threshold CP-odd Higgs boson search via A → Z∗h at the LHC,

    E. Accomando, M. Chapman, A. Maury and S. Moretti, “Below-threshold CP-odd Higgs boson search via A → Z∗h at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 818, 136342 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136342 [arXiv:2002.07038 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Search for a heavy pseudoscalar boson decay- ing to a Z and a Higgs boson at √s = 13 TeV,

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Search for a heavy pseudoscalar boson decay- ing to a Z and a Higgs boson at √s = 13 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.7, 564 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7058-x [arXiv:1903.00941 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Search for Higgs boson decays A → Zh in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    [ATLAS Collaboration], “Search for Higgs boson decays A → Zh in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Lett. B 744, 163–183 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.054

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Search for a heavy Higgs boson decaying into a Z boson and another heavy Higgs boson in the ℓℓbb and ℓℓW Wfinal states in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    [ATLAS Collaboration], “Search for a heavy Higgs boson decaying into a Z boson and another heavy Higgs boson in the ℓℓbb and ℓℓW Wfinal states in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.5, 396 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09117-5 [ar...

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of Drell- Yan lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of Drell- Yan lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” arXiv:1912.02844 [hep-ex] (2020). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02844

    1912 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Measurement of double-differential charged-current Drell-Yan cross- sections at high transverse masses in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of double-differential charged-current Drell-Yan cross- sections at high transverse masses in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” JHEP 07 (2025) 026. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP07(2025)026

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    First measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 .6 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, “First measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 .6 TeV,” JHEP 08 (2023) 204. DOI: 10.1007/ JHEP08(2023)204

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hig- gsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals,

    H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein, J. Wittbrodt, “Hig- gsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023) 108803. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108803

    2023

  8. [16]

    SuperIso v2.3: A Program for calculating flavor physics observables in Super- symmetry,

    F. Mahmoudi, “SuperIso v2.3: A Program for calculating flavor physics observables in Super- symmetry,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1579–1613. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    arXiv:0808.3144 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

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

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.S. Shao, T. Stelzer, 10 P. Torrielli, M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP 07 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Parton distributions for the LHC Run II,

    R. D. Ball et al.[NNPDF], “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II,” JHEP 04, 040 (2015), arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Merging meets matching in MC@NLO,

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO,” JHEP 12 (2012) 061. DOI: 10.1007/jhep12(2012)061

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C.O. Rasmussen, P. Skands, “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024. arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Frame- work for Collider Phenomenology,

    E. Conte, B. Fuks and G. Serret, “MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Frame- work for Collider Phenomenology,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222-256 (2013), doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.009, arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    DELPHES 3: A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experi- ment,

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens and M. Sel- vaggi, “DELPHES 3: A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experi- ment,” JHEP 02, 057 (2014), doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    New Developments for Fast Detector Simulation in ATLAS,

    A. Mertens, “New Developments for Fast Detector Simulation in ATLAS,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 608, no.1, 012045 (2015), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/608/1/012045

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    FastJet user manual,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]. 11 FIG. 3: Signal and the background processes as a function of mℓ+ℓ−b¯b for 70 GeV < mℓ+ℓ− < 110 GeV. 12 FIG. 4: The ba...

    2012 arXiv

  18. [79]

    arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    DOI: 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079. arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.