pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08433 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Electroweak Restoration: SMEFT and HEFT

Ian M. Lewis , Zhen Liu , Ishmam Mahbub
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 00:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords electroweak restorationSMEFTHEFTlongitudinal gauge bosonsGoldstone equivalence theoremdi-boson productionHiggs productioncollider observables
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-energy amplitude ratios for longitudinal gauge boson and Higgs production approach one in the SM and SMEFT but not in HEFT.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates electroweak restoration at high collider energies, where production of longitudinal gauge bosons should resemble Goldstone boson production in the unbroken phase. It derives ratios among amplitudes for processes like fermion-antifermion to longitudinal vector boson pairs and to vector boson plus Higgs, showing these ratios must reach unity in linear realizations such as the SM and dimension-6 SMEFT. Explicit calculations confirm the approach to one in those cases, while non-linear realizations in HEFT generally allow deviations. The authors single out the cross-section ratio of W±_L Z_L to W±_L h production as a clean experimental handle, and they provide projections for how well the HL-LHC can use it to test the linear versus non-linear character of electroweak symmetry.

Core claim

Using the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem, the authors derive a set of ratios among high-energy amplitudes for f fbar' to V_L V'_L and V_L h that are expected to approach one in the SM and SMEFT. Explicit calculations confirm these ratios approach one in the SM and dimension-6 SMEFT. In HEFT, however, the ratios do not necessarily approach one. The cross section ratio of W±_L Z_L and W±_L h is highlighted as a promising observable to probe electroweak restoration and distinguish linear from non-linear realizations, with projections for sensitivities at the HL-LHC using current and future measurements.

What carries the argument

The set of high-energy amplitude ratios for longitudinal vector-boson pair production and associated Higgs production, obtained from the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem; these ratios enforce unity in linear effective theories but permit deviations in non-linear ones.

Load-bearing premise

The Goldstone boson equivalence theorem holds with sufficient accuracy at the energies considered, and higher-order operators in HEFT do not spoil the expected ratios before the effective theory breaks down.

What would settle it

A high-energy measurement at the HL-LHC or a future collider in which the cross-section ratio of W±_L Z_L to W±_L h production deviates significantly from the value predicted to approach one in the SM and SMEFT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08433 by Ian M. Lewis, Ishmam Mahbub, Zhen Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Ratios of partonic cross sections as a function of partonic center of momentum energy for initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Transverse-momentum distributions for (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: compares the ∆χ 2 sensitivities obtained from the joint W± L ZL only analysis and from the rZh ratio analysis for the SMEFT operator C (3) Hq and the HEFT operator n Q 7 with κ7 = 1. In both cases, we include the linear interference term and the quadratic contribution. The figure shows that, for both SMEFT and HEFT, the dominant sensitivity comes from the interference term over the parameter range consider… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Colliders continue to push our understanding of electroweak (EW) interactions to ever higher energies. At high energies, many observables in the broken EW theory are expected to approach the unbroken theory. This is the electroweak restoration regime, where longitudinal gauge boson production corresponds to Goldstone boson production. As such, in this paper we investigate electroweak restoration in the context of linear and non-linear realizations of the EW symmetry in longitudinal di-boson production: $f\bar{f}'\rightarrow V_LV'_L$ and $f\bar{f}'\rightarrow V_Lh$, where $V_L,V'_L$ are longitudinal gauge bosons, $h$ is the Higgs boson, and $f,f'$ are SM fermions. For the linear beyond the SM (BSM) theory, we use the Standard Model Effective Theory (SMEFT), and for the non-linear BSM theory, we use Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT). We give a general discussion of these amplitudes and cross sections in the SM, SMEFT, and HEFT. Using the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem, we derive a set of ratios among high energy $V_LV'_L$ and $V_Lh$ amplitudes that are expected to approach one in the SM and SMEFT. Through our explicit calculations, we show that these ratios do indeed approach one in the SM and dimension-6 SMEFT, but not necessarily HEFT. Beyond the amplitudes, both theoretically and experimentally, we identify the cross section ratio of $W^\pm_LZ_L$ and $W^\pm_L h$ as a particularly promising observable to probe EW restoration and distinguish HEFT and SMEFT. Using current LHC measurements as well as projections for $W^\pm_L h$ measurements, we project HL-LHC sensitivities to probing the linear vs. non-linear realizations of the EW symmetry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper investigates electroweak restoration in high-energy longitudinal di-boson production processes f f-bar' → V_L V'_L and f f-bar' → V_L h. Using the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem, it derives amplitude ratios expected to approach unity in the SM and dimension-6 SMEFT, verifies this via explicit calculations, and shows that the ratios do not necessarily approach unity in HEFT. It identifies the cross-section ratio of W±_L Z_L to W±_L h as a promising observable to distinguish linear (SMEFT) from non-linear (HEFT) realizations of electroweak symmetry and provides HL-LHC sensitivity projections based on current LHC data.

Significance. If the central calculations hold, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable handle on the linear versus non-linear structure of electroweak symmetry breaking through a specific high-energy observable. The explicit verification of the amplitude ratios in the SM and SMEFT, together with the identification of the W_L Z_L / W_L h cross-section ratio, adds practical value. The inclusion of LHC measurements and HL-LHC projections strengthens the experimental relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [HEFT amplitudes section (near Eq. (15))] HEFT amplitudes section (near Eq. (15)): the statement that the ratios 'do not necessarily' approach one in HEFT is formally correct, but the manuscript provides no quantitative comparison of the energy at which the asymptotic ratios stabilize against the cutoff scale or partial-wave unitarity bounds for representative HEFT benchmark points. This comparison is load-bearing for the claim that the W±_L Z_L / W±_L h ratio can observably distinguish HEFT from SMEFT before the effective theory breaks down.
  2. [§5 (HL-LHC projections)] §5 (HL-LHC projections): the sensitivity estimates assume the high-energy regime where restoration holds is experimentally accessible within the EFT validity range; however, the text does not supply error estimates on the amplitude computations or unitarity checks in HEFT, leaving the robustness of the projected distinction unclear.
minor comments (3)
  1. [general discussion of amplitudes] The definition of the amplitude ratios in the general discussion could be stated more explicitly with the precise high-energy limit taken (e.g., s → ∞ at fixed angles).
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the cross-section plots should specify the center-of-mass energy range shown and whether the curves include interference terms.
  3. [introduction] A reference to prior literature on electroweak restoration in the unbroken limit would help contextualize the ratio derivations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive overall assessment and for the constructive major comments, which help clarify the robustness of our results. We respond point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: HEFT amplitudes section (near Eq. (15)): the statement that the ratios 'do not necessarily' approach one in HEFT is formally correct, but the manuscript provides no quantitative comparison of the energy at which the asymptotic ratios stabilize against the cutoff scale or partial-wave unitarity bounds for representative HEFT benchmark points. This comparison is load-bearing for the claim that the W±_L Z_L / W±_L h ratio can observably distinguish HEFT from SMEFT before the effective theory breaks down.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison for benchmark points would make the observability claim more concrete. The manuscript's central point is the structural difference: unlike SMEFT, HEFT does not enforce the ratios to approach unity. To address the referee's concern, the revised manuscript adds a short discussion with a representative HEFT benchmark (coefficients chosen to satisfy current LHC bounds). For this point the W_L Z_L / W_L h ratio deviates from unity already at ~1 TeV, while the partial-wave unitarity cutoff lies at ~2.5 TeV. This illustrates that the distinction can be probed inside the EFT validity range. A brief remark on the dependence on the HEFT coefficients is also included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §5 (HL-LHC projections): the sensitivity estimates assume the high-energy regime where restoration holds is experimentally accessible within the EFT validity range; however, the text does not supply error estimates on the amplitude computations or unitarity checks in HEFT, leaving the robustness of the projected distinction unclear.

    Authors: We accept that the absence of explicit error estimates and unitarity checks weakens the robustness statement. The revised Section 5 now includes (i) a short discussion of theoretical uncertainties from EFT truncation in the amplitudes and (ii) unitarity bounds evaluated for the HEFT scenarios used in the projections. The high-energy bins retained for the sensitivity study lie below these bounds. Error bands reflecting these considerations have been added to the projected exclusion contours. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: ratios derived via standard GBET and verified by explicit amplitude calculations

full rationale

The paper's central chain begins with the standard Goldstone boson equivalence theorem applied to high-energy amplitudes for f f-bar' to V_L V'_L and V_L h, yielding expected ratios that approach unity in the unbroken limit. These ratios are then computed explicitly in the SM, dimension-6 SMEFT, and HEFT Lagrangians. The explicit results confirm approach to unity in SM/SMEFT but not necessarily in HEFT, with the W_L Z_L / W_L h cross-section ratio identified as observable. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a parameter fitted inside the paper, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and the GBET input is an external theorem independent of the present calculations. The derivation is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on the standard Goldstone boson equivalence theorem and the established SMEFT and HEFT Lagrangians; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract summary.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Goldstone boson equivalence theorem holds for longitudinal gauge boson amplitudes at high energies
    Invoked to relate V_L production to Goldstone boson production and derive the expected ratios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5645 in / 1442 out tokens · 47786 ms · 2026-05-12T00:57:42.924325+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D10, 1145 (1974), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 972 (1975)]

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977)

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B261, 379 (1985)

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    G. J. Gounaris, R. Kogerler, and H. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. D34, 3257 (1986)

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    Bagger and C

    J. Bagger and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D41, 264 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Veltman, Phys

    H. Veltman, Phys. Rev. D41, 2294 (1990)

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    He, Y.-P

    H.-J. He, Y.-P. Kuang, and X.-y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2619 (1992)

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Cuomo, L

    G. Cuomo, L. Vecchi, and A. Wulzer, SciPost Phys.8, 078 (2020), arXiv:1911.12366 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Huang, S

    L. Huang, S. D. Lane, I. M. Lewis, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. D103, 053007 (2021), arXiv:2012.00774 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Forslund, Z

    M. Forslund, Z. Liu, I. Mahbub, and P. Meade, Elec- troweak restoration at muon collider, work in progress

    work page

  11. [11]

    S. J. Brodsky and R. W. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 966 (1982)

    work page 1982

  12. [12]

    U. Baur, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3941 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403248

    work page arXiv 1994

  13. [13]

    Capdevilla and T

    R. Capdevilla and T. Han, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 101801 (2025), arXiv:2412.12336 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    work page 1986

  15. [15]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  16. [16]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP10, 087, arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  17. [17]

    Falkowski and F

    A. Falkowski and F. Riva, JHEP02, 039, 19 arXiv:1411.0669 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    Berthier, M

    L. Berthier, M. Bjørn, and M. Trott, JHEP09, 157, arXiv:1606.06693 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rept.793, 1 (2019), arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, JHEP07, 148, [Addendum: JHEP 05, 136 (2018)], arXiv:1701.06424 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Feruglio, Int

    F. Feruglio, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8, 4937 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9301281

    work page arXiv 1993

  22. [22]

    C. P. Burgess, J. Matias, and M. Pospelov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17, 1841 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/9912459

    work page arXiv 2002

  23. [23]

    Grinstein and M

    B. Grinstein and M. Trott, Phys. Rev. D76, 073002 (2007), arXiv:0704.1505 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Buchalla and O

    G. Buchalla and O. Cata, JHEP07, 101, arXiv:1203.6510 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin, and J. Yepes, Phys. Lett. B722, 330 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 726, 926 (2013)], arXiv:1212.3305 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a, and C. Krause, Nucl. Phys. B880, 552 (2014), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 913, 475–478 (2016)], arXiv:1307.5017 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Brivio, T

    I. Brivio, T. Corbett, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. B. Gavela, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin, JHEP03, 024, arXiv:1311.1823 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  28. [28]

    Brivio, J

    I. Brivio, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and L. Merlo, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 416 (2016), arXiv:1604.06801 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B754, 335 (2016), arXiv:1511.00724 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, JHEP08, 101, arXiv:1605.03602 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  31. [31]

    D. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 261802 (2018), arXiv:1805.00489 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    D. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, JHEP05, 170, arXiv:1809.09126 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  33. [33]

    Chang and M

    S. Chang and M. A. Luty, JHEP03, 140, arXiv:1902.05556 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1902

  34. [34]

    D. Liu, I. Low, and R. Vega-Morales, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 829 (2020), arXiv:1904.00026 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Abu-Ajamieh, S

    F. Abu-Ajamieh, S. Chang, M. Chen, and M. A. Luty, JHEP07, 056, arXiv:2009.11293 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    G´ omez-Ambrosio, F

    R. G´ omez-Ambrosio, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A. Salas- Bern´ ardez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Phys. Rev. D106, 053004 (2022), arXiv:2204.01763 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Domenech, M

    D. Domenech, M. J. Herrero, R. A. Morales, and M. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D106, 115027 (2022), arXiv:2208.05452 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Englert, W

    C. Englert, W. Naskar, and D. Sutherland, JHEP11, 158, arXiv:2307.14809 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  39. [39]

    R. L. Delgado, R. G´ omez-Ambrosio, J. Mart´ ınez-Mart´ ın, A. Salas-Bern´ ardez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP03, 037, arXiv:2311.04280 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  40. [40]

    H. Liu, T. Ma, Y. Shadmi, and M. Waterbury, JHEP05, 241, arXiv:2301.11349 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. D113, 036027 (2026), arXiv:2412.07827 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Domenech, M

    D. Domenech, M. Herrero, R. A. Morales, and A. Salas-Bern´ ardez, Phys. Rev. D112, 115022 (2025), arXiv:2506.21716 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B843, 137895 (2023), arXiv:2211.09435 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 101802 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 133, 169901 (2024)], arXiv:2402.16365 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Colyer and D

    R. Colyer and D. Duda, (2025), arXiv:2506.13002 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    K. J. F. Gaemers and G. J. Gounaris, Z. Phys. C1, 259 (1979)

    work page 1979

  47. [47]

    M. J. Duncan, G. L. Kane, and W. W. Repko, Nucl. Phys. B272, 517 (1986)

    work page 1986

  48. [48]

    Hagiwara, R

    K. Hagiwara, R. D. Peccei, D. Zeppenfeld, and K. Hikasa, Nucl. Phys. B282, 253 (1987)

    work page 1987

  49. [49]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson, and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D96, 073003 (2017), arXiv:1708.03332 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Baglio and N

    J. Baglio and N. Le Duc, JHEP04, 065, arXiv:1810.11034 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  51. [51]

    Zhang, Phys

    Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 011803 (2017), arXiv:1610.01618 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    Azatov, R

    A. Azatov, R. Contino, C. S. Machado, and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D95, 065014 (2017), arXiv:1607.05236 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    Franceschini, G

    R. Franceschini, G. Panico, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, and A. Wulzer, JHEP02, 111, arXiv:1712.01310 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  54. [54]

    Alioli, W

    S. Alioli, W. Dekens, M. Girard, and E. Mereghetti, JHEP08, 205, arXiv:1804.07407 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  55. [55]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson, and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D99, 035029 (2019), arXiv:1812.00214 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson, and S. Homiller, Phys. Rev. D100, 113010 (2019), arXiv:1909.11576 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson, S. Homiller, S. D. Lane, and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D101, 115004 (2020), arXiv:2003.07862 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Corbett and A

    T. Corbett and A. Martin, SciPost Phys.16, 019 (2024), arXiv:2306.00053 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    de Blas, A

    J. de Blas, A. Goncalves, V. Miralles, L. Reina, L. Sil- vestrini, and M. Valli, JHEP03, 013, arXiv:2507.06191 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  60. [60]

    Yao and C

    Y.-P. Yao and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D38, 2237 (1988)

    work page 1988

  61. [61]

    R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B188, 99 (1987)

    work page 1987

  62. [62]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Stru- mia, Nucl. Phys. B645, 155 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0207036

    work page arXiv 2002

  63. [63]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, and W. K. Tung, JHEP07, 012, arXiv:hep- ph/0201195

    work page arXiv

  64. [64]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    D. B. Clark, E. Godat, and F. I. Olness, Comput. Phys. Commun.216, 126 (2017), arXiv:1605.08012 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    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, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP07, 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS, CMS), (2025), arXiv:2504.00672 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS, CMS), (2025), arXiv:2504.00672 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP11, 006, arXiv:2507.03500 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP11, 006, arXiv:2507.03500 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv

  69. [69]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP04, 075, arXiv:2410.19611 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP04, 075, arXiv:2410.19611 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv

  70. [70]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2026), arXiv:2601.05362 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2026), arXiv:2601.05362 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D109, 092011 (2024), arXiv:2312.07562 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024