pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10287 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Phenomenology of electroweak spin-1 resonances

R. Caliri , J. Hadlik , M. Kunkel , W. Porod , Ch. Verollet
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 05:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Composite HiggsSpin-1 resonancesLHC phenomenologyElectroweak resonancesComposite modelsBeyond the Standard ModelFermionic UV completion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Composite Higgs models with SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R symmetry allow spin-1 resonances down to 1.5 TeV masses consistent with LHC data.

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

This paper studies composite Higgs models that feature a fermionic completion of the ultraviolet physics and preserve an SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R global symmetry in the strong sector. Such models necessarily produce two neutral and one charged spin-1 bound states that mix with the W and Z bosons of the standard model. Because of this mixing the new states can be produced singly in proton collisions rather than only in pairs. The authors map out the allowed parameter space and find regions where these resonances have masses near 1.5 TeV while satisfying all current experimental limits from the LHC.

Core claim

Composite Higgs models with a fermionic UV completion that contain SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R as part of the unbroken global subgroup predict two neutral and one charged spin-1 resonances. These resonances mix sizably with the SM vector bosons and can therefore be singly produced at the LHC. Viable scenarios exist that are consistent with existing LHC data and in which the masses of these states are as low as about 1.5 TeV.

What carries the argument

The sizable mixing of the predicted spin-1 resonances with standard model electroweak gauge bosons, which enables single production at hadron colliders.

If this is right

  • Single production cross sections become large enough for direct searches in the 1-2 TeV mass range.
  • Decay modes are dominated by channels involving W and Z bosons due to the mixing.
  • Existing LHC analyses in diboson and dilepton final states already constrain but do not exclude the lightest allowed masses.
  • Future runs with higher integrated luminosity will have sensitivity to these states if they exist at the lower end of the viable range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar mixing patterns could appear in other composite models and might be testable through precision measurements of vector boson scattering.
  • Discovery of such a resonance would provide direct evidence for the strong sector dynamics underlying electroweak symmetry breaking.
  • Model builders could use the 1.5 TeV benchmark to design targeted search strategies that exploit the specific production and decay signatures.

Load-bearing premise

That the unbroken SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R symmetry in the strong sector produces spin-1 resonances with sizable mixing to the standard model gauge bosons.

What would settle it

A dedicated LHC search for singly produced spin-1 particles in the mass window 1.4-1.6 TeV that sets an upper limit below the predicted production rate in the viable parameter space would rule out the low-mass scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10287 by Ch. Verollet, J. Hadlik, M. Kunkel, R. Caliri, W. Porod.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Contour lines for the masses of 𝑉 + 1𝜇 , 𝑉 0 1𝜇 and 𝑉 0 2𝜇 in the 𝑀𝑉 -𝑔˜ plane. The results look nearly identical for each coset SU(4)/Sp(4), SU(5)/SO(5) and SU(4) × SU(4)/SU(4). 3. Relevant phenomenological aspects The states, which mix with the SM electroweak bosons even in the limit sin 𝜃 → 0, can be singly produced with a sizeable cross section at the LHC as we will see below. They are denoted as 𝑉 + 1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Partial decay widths of selected spin-1 resonances for the SU(5)/SO(5) coset. We have set 𝑀𝑉 = 3000 GeV and 𝑀𝜋 = 700 GeV. pNGB, 𝑊+𝑊− , 𝐻𝑍, 𝑊+𝑍 and 𝐻𝑊+ channels: the solid lines of the correspond to 𝑔𝑉 𝜋 𝜋 = 4 and the dashed lines correspond to 𝑔𝑉 𝜋 𝜋 = 0. Top quark channels: the solid lines correspond to 𝑔𝑡 = 1 and the dashed lines to SM-like couplings. These also represent the partial widths for the SU(4)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Drell-Yan production of heavy vectors. To the left: typical Feynman diagrams. To the right: production cross sections at √ 𝑠 = 13 TeV of the heavy vector states in the 𝑀𝑉 -𝑔˜-plane for a small 𝑔𝑉 𝜋 𝜋 coupling and nearly SM-like couplings to top-quarks. The cross sections are the same for both cosets, SU(5)/SO(5) and SU(4)/Sp(4). We have recast searches for final states with two bosons as they are not cover… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bounds on the single production of heavy spin-1 resonances in the SU(5)/SO(5) coset for a pNGB mass of 700 GeV. In the scenarios, “SM 𝑡” means the couplings of the V0 /V± to 𝑡𝑡/𝑡𝑏 are given as in eq. 11 whereas for “PC 𝑡” they are set to the values in eq. 12. In case of pNGBs, “weak” and “strong 𝜋” refers to 𝑔𝑉 𝜋 𝜋 = 0 and 𝑔𝑉 𝜋 𝜋 = 4, respectively. In plots (a)-(d) the upper limits on the cross sections ar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: bounds on the single production of heavy vectors in the SU(5)/SO(5) coset. For each scenario we show the envelope of the bounds from the individual channels shown in fig. 4, i.e. the strongest bound at every point. The solid lines correspond to the fermiophilic, the dotted lines to the fermiophobic model, both with 𝑀𝜋 = 700 GeV. Right: corresponding bounds for the SU(4)/Sp(4) coset for a pNGB masses … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Composite Higgs models with a fermionic UV completion predict the existence of various bound states. We investigate models containing SU(2)$_L\times$SU(2)$_R$ as part of the unbroken global subgroup in the new strong sector. These models predict that there are two neutral and one charged spin-1 resonances mixing seizable with the SM vector bosons. These can be singly produced at the LHC. We explore their LHC phenomenology and demonstrate that there are still viable scenarios consistent with existing LHC data where the masses of these states can be as low as about 1.5 TeV.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper investigates composite Higgs models with fermionic UV completions in which SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R forms part of the unbroken global symmetry. It predicts two neutral and one charged spin-1 resonances that mix sizably with the SM W and Z bosons, enabling single production at the LHC, and claims that viable parameter choices exist allowing masses as low as ~1.5 TeV while remaining consistent with existing LHC data.

Significance. If the explicit rate calculations confirm an open window at 1.5 TeV, the result would be useful for guiding targeted LHC searches in diboson and dilepton channels within this class of models and for clarifying the reach of current exclusions on light vector resonances in strong dynamics.

major comments (1)
  1. [LHC phenomenology and viable scenarios sections] The central viability claim (abstract and concluding sections) that m_V ≈ 1.5 TeV remains allowed requires an explicit mapping from the mixing angle, g_ρ, and decay widths to observable σ × BR values, followed by direct comparison against ATLAS/CMS 95% CL limits in WZ → ℓνjj, WW, and dilepton channels. Without these calculations shown for the benchmark points, the assertion that sizable mixing still yields rates below exclusions is not demonstrated and is load-bearing for the main result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying a point that will strengthen the presentation of our results. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [LHC phenomenology and viable scenarios sections] The central viability claim (abstract and concluding sections) that m_V ≈ 1.5 TeV remains allowed requires an explicit mapping from the mixing angle, g_ρ, and decay widths to observable σ × BR values, followed by direct comparison against ATLAS/CMS 95% CL limits in WZ → ℓνjj, WW, and dilepton channels. Without these calculations shown for the benchmark points, the assertion that sizable mixing still yields rates below exclusions is not demonstrated and is load-bearing for the main result.

    Authors: We agree that making the comparison to LHC limits fully explicit will improve the clarity of the viability claim. The current manuscript reports the mixing angles, g_ρ values, and partial widths for the benchmark points with m_V ≈ 1.5 TeV in the viable scenarios section, which determine the production rates and branching fractions. To address the referee's concern directly, we will add explicit calculations of σ × BR in the relevant channels (WZ → ℓνjj, WW, and dilepton) for these benchmarks, together with a direct overlay against the published ATLAS and CMS 95% CL upper limits. These results will be presented in a new table or subsection within the LHC phenomenology section. The addition will confirm that the predicted rates remain below the exclusions for the chosen parameter choices, without changing the overall conclusions of the paper. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; standard phenomenological parameter scan.

full rationale

The paper performs a standard exploration of parameter space in composite Higgs models with SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R resonances, computing mixing angles, production cross sections, and branching ratios from the Lagrangian and comparing them to existing LHC limits. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, nor does any load-bearing claim rest on a self-citation chain that itself assumes the target result. The viability statement at 1.5 TeV is an existence claim within the scanned region, not a tautological output of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard assumptions of composite Higgs models with fermionic UV completion and the chosen global symmetry subgroup; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are specified in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Composite Higgs models with fermionic UV completion predict various bound states including spin-1 resonances.
    Basis stated in the abstract for the models under study.
  • domain assumption SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R forms part of the unbroken global subgroup in the new strong sector.
    Specific model choice that leads to the predicted resonances and mixing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5403 in / 1340 out tokens · 64936 ms · 2026-05-12T05:14:12.385340+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B136(1984), 183-186

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B136(1984), 187-190

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Contino, Y

    R. Contino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B671(2003), 148-174 [arXiv:hep- ph/0306259 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Agashe, R

    K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B719(2005), 165-187 [arXiv:hep- ph/0412089 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Gallowayet al.,JHEP10(2010), 086 [arXiv:1001.1361 [hep-ph]]

    J. Gallowayet al.,JHEP10(2010), 086 [arXiv:1001.1361 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Cacciapaglia and F

    G. Cacciapaglia and F. Sannino, JHEP04(2014), 111 [arXiv:1402.0233 [hep-ph]]. 11 Phenomenology of electroweak spin-1 resonancesW. Porod

    work page arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B365(1991), 259-278

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Ferretti and D

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev, JHEP03(2014), 077 [arXiv:1312.5330 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Ferretti, JHEP06(2016), 107 [arXiv:1604.06467 [hep-ph]]

    G. Ferretti, JHEP06(2016), 107 [arXiv:1604.06467 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Belyaevet al.,JHEP01(2017), 094 [erratum: JHEP12(2017), 088] [arXiv:1610.06591 [hep-ph]]

    A. Belyaevet al.,JHEP01(2017), 094 [erratum: JHEP12(2017), 088] [arXiv:1610.06591 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Agugliaroet al.,JHEP02(2019), 089 [arXiv:1808.10175 [hep-ph]]

    A. Agugliaroet al.,JHEP02(2019), 089 [arXiv:1808.10175 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP12(2022), 087 [arXiv:2210.01826 [hep-ph]]

    G. Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP12(2022), 087 [arXiv:2210.01826 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Flackeet al.,JHEP11(2023), 009 [arXiv:2304.09195 [hep-ph]]

    T. Flackeet al.,JHEP11(2023), 009 [arXiv:2304.09195 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP11(2015), 201 [arXiv:1507.02283 [hep-ph]]

    G. Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP11(2015), 201 [arXiv:1507.02283 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP05(2020), 027 [arXiv:2002.01474 [hep-ph]]

    G. Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP05(2020), 027 [arXiv:2002.01474 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Flackeet al.,JHEP02(2026), 028 [arXiv:2506.04318 [hep-ph]]

    T. Flackeet al.,JHEP02(2026), 028 [arXiv:2506.04318 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Bizot, G

    N. Bizot, G. Cacciapaglia and T. Flacke, JHEP06(2018), 065 [arXiv:1803.00021 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    K. P. Xie, G. Cacciapaglia and T. Flacke, JHEP10(2019), 134 [arXiv:1907.05894 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Cacciapagliaet al.,Phys

    G. Cacciapagliaet al.,Phys. Lett. B798(2019), 135015 [arXiv:1908.07524 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Banerjee, D

    A. Banerjee, D. B. Franzosi and G. Ferretti, JHEP03(2022), 200 [arXiv:2202.00037 [hep- ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Banerjeeet al.,SciPost Phys

    A. Banerjeeet al.,SciPost Phys. Core7(2024), 079 [arXiv:2406.09193 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP02(2022), 208 [arXiv:2112.00019 [hep-ph]]

    G. Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP02(2022), 208 [arXiv:2112.00019 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Composite top partners in exotic colour representations

    G. Cacciapagliaet al.,[arXiv:2605.04143 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Buarque Franzosiet al.,JHEP11(2016), 076 [arXiv:1605.01363 [hep-ph]]

    D. Buarque Franzosiet al.,JHEP11(2016), 076 [arXiv:1605.01363 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Caliriet al.,JHEP04(2025), 160 [arXiv:2412.08720 [hep-ph]]

    R. Caliriet al.,JHEP04(2025), 160 [arXiv:2412.08720 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP06(2024), 092 [arXiv:2404.02198 [hep-ph]]

    G. Cacciapagliaet al.,JHEP06(2024), 092 [arXiv:2404.02198 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Ayyaret al.,Phys

    V. Ayyaret al.,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.7, 074505 [arXiv:1710.00806 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Ayyaret al.,Phys

    V. Ayyaret al.,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.9, 094502 [arXiv:1812.02727 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Ayyaret al.,Phys

    V. Ayyaret al.,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.11, 114502 [arXiv:1802.09644 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Ayyaret al.,Phys

    V. Ayyaret al.,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.11, 114505 [arXiv:1801.05809 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Ayyaret al.,Phys

    V. Ayyaret al.,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.9, 094504 [arXiv:1903.02535 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Hasenfratzet al.,Phys

    A. Hasenfratzet al.,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.11, 114504 [arXiv:2304.11729 [hep-lat]]. 12 Phenomenology of electroweak spin-1 resonancesW. Porod

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Bennettet al.,JHEP03(2018), 185 [arXiv:1712.04220 [hep-lat]]

    E. Bennettet al.,JHEP03(2018), 185 [arXiv:1712.04220 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Bennettet al.,Phys

    E. Bennettet al.,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.7, 074516 [arXiv:1912.06505 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Bennettet al.,JHEP12(2019), 053 [arXiv:1909.12662 [hep-lat]]

    E. Bennettet al.,JHEP12(2019), 053 [arXiv:1909.12662 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Bennettet al.,Phys

    E. Bennettet al.,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.1, 014501 [arXiv:2202.05516 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Kulkarniet al.,SciPost Phys.14(2023) no.3, 044 [arXiv:2202.05191 [hep-ph]]

    S. Kulkarniet al.,SciPost Phys.14(2023) no.3, 044 [arXiv:2202.05191 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Bennettet al.,Phys

    E. Bennettet al.,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.9, 094512 [arXiv:2311.14663 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Bennettet al.,Phys

    E. Bennettet al.,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.9, 094517 [arXiv:2312.08465 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Bennettet al.,Phys

    E. Bennettet al.,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.7, 074511 [arXiv:2412.01170 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Erdmengeret al.,Phys

    J. Erdmengeret al.,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) no.7, 071602 [arXiv:2009.10737 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Erdmengeret al.,JHEP02(2021), 058 [arXiv:2010.10279 [hep-ph]]

    J. Erdmengeret al.,JHEP02(2021), 058 [arXiv:2010.10279 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Elanderet al.,JHEP03(2021), 182 [arXiv:2011.03003 [hep-ph]]

    D. Elanderet al.,JHEP03(2021), 182 [arXiv:2011.03003 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Elanderet al.,JHEP05(2022), 066 [arXiv:2112.14740 [hep-ph]]

    D. Elanderet al.,JHEP05(2022), 066 [arXiv:2112.14740 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Erdmengeret al.,Universe9(2023) no.6, 289 [arXiv:2304.09190 [hep-th]]

    J. Erdmengeret al.,Universe9(2023) no.6, 289 [arXiv:2304.09190 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Erdmengeret al.,JHEP07(2024), 169 [arXiv:2404.14480 [hep-ph]]

    J. Erdmengeret al.,JHEP07(2024), 169 [arXiv:2404.14480 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B796(2019), 68-87 [arXiv:1903.06248 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP10(2020), 061 [arXiv:2005.05138 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP10(2020), 061 [arXiv:2005.05138 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.5, 052013 [arXiv:1906.05609 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP12(2023), 073 [arXiv:2308.08521 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP12(2023), 073 [arXiv:2308.08521 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    A.Allouletal.,Comput.Phys.Commun.185(2014),2250-2300[arXiv:1310.1921[hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output

    C. Degrandeet al., Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012), 1201-1214 [arXiv:1108.2040 [hep- ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

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

    J. Alwallet al., JHEP07(2014), 079 [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    R. D. Ballet al., Nucl. Phys. B867(2013), 244-289 [arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  55. [55]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era

    A. Buckleyet al., Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015), 132 [arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    T.Sjöstrandetal.,Comput.Phys.Commun.191(2015),159-177[arXiv:1410.3012[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Dobbs and J

    M. Dobbs and J. B. Hansen, Comput. Phys. Commun.134(2001), 41-46

    work page 2001

  58. [58]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013), 222-256 [arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]]. 13 Phenomenology of electroweak spin-1 resonancesW. Porod

    work page arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    Conteet al., Eur

    E. Conteet al., Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) no.10, 3103 [arXiv:1405.3982 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    Dumontet al., Eur

    B. Dumontet al., Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) no.2, 56 [arXiv:1407.3278 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    Conte and B

    E. Conte and B. Fuks, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33(2018) no.28, 18300270 [arXiv:1808.00480 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Dreeset al., Comput

    M. Dreeset al., Comput. Phys. Commun.187(2015), 227-265 [arXiv:1312.2591 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    D.Dercksetal.,Comput.Phys.Commun.221(2017),383-418[arXiv:1611.09856[hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    The anti-k_t jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP04(2008), 063 [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    FastJet user manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012), 1896 [arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2012

  66. [66]

    DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment

    J. de Favereauet al.[DELPHES 3], JHEP02(2014), 057 [arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  67. [67]

    A. L. Read, J. Phys. G28(2002), 2693-2704

    work page 2002

  68. [68]

    Bierlich et al.,Robust Independent Validation of Experiment and Theory: Rivet version 3, SciPost Phys.8(2020) 026, [1912.05451]

    C. Bierlichet al.SciPost Phys.8(2020), 026 [arXiv:1912.05451 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    A.Buckleyetal.[CONTUR],SciPostPhys.Core4(2021),013[arXiv:2102.04377[hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    M.Aaboudetal.[ATLAS],Phys.Rev.D97(2018)no.9,092006[arXiv:1802.03158[hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no.7, 600 [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) no.10, 956] [arXiv:2101.01629 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no.11, 1023 [arXiv:2106.09609 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    CMS coll., JHEP10(2019), 244 [arXiv:1908.04722 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.3, 032003 [arXiv:1704.07781 [hep- ex]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP03(2018), 166 [arXiv:1709.05406 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    CMS coll., CMS-PAS-SUS-19-006

    work page

  77. [77]

    Mrowietz, S

    M. Mrowietz, S. Bein and J. Sonneveld, Mod. Phys. Lett. A36(2021) no.01, 2141007

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    CMS coll., CMS-PAS-EXO-19-002

    work page

  79. [79]

    Conte and R

    E. Conte and R. Ducrocq, Mod. Phys. Lett. A36(2021) no.01, 2141012

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) no.4, 041803 [arXiv:1910.01185 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.