pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27613 · v1 · pith:TPUYM4EMnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

t bar{t} production as a window to invisible new physics

Rodrigo Capucha , Jo\~ao Lopes , Jo\~ao Bravo Martins , Ant\'onio Onofre , Rui Santos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 01:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords ttbar productiondark matter mediatorsspin-1 mediatorsLHC phenomenologyangular observablesCP propertiesinvisible particlesdileptonic decays
0
0 comments X

The pith

ttbar production at the LHC can detect light invisible spin-1 mediators and distinguish their spin and parity via angular observables.

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

The paper examines the use of top-antitop pair production at the LHC to search for invisible dark matter mediators. It extends earlier scalar-mediator studies to spin-1 vector and axial-vector cases with the mediator mass set at 5 GeV. Signal events are generated in a simplified model for the process pp to ttbar plus mediator, restricted to dileptonic ttbar decays, and reconstructed with a kinematic fit that does not explicitly reconstruct the mediator. Standard Model backgrounds are included, and the study tests several exclusion scenarios. The results show sensitivity to the light spin-1 mediators and demonstrate that CP-sensitive angular observables can separate vector, axial-vector, scalar, and pseudoscalar hypotheses.

Core claim

The analysis of pp to ttbar Y_i (i=0,1) in dileptonic final states is sensitive to light spin-1 mediators. CP-sensitive angular observables provide discrimination power between vector, axial-vector, scalar and pseudoscalar scenarios. These results highlight the potential of ttbar final states not only to search for invisible particles, but also to characterize their spin and parity properties in case of discovery.

What carries the argument

CP-sensitive angular observables applied to dileptonic ttbar events reconstructed by kinematic fit without explicit mediator reconstruction.

If this is right

  • The LHC can exclude or discover light spin-1 mediators produced with ttbar pairs.
  • Angular observables allow separation of pure vector or axial-vector mediators from scalar or pseudoscalar alternatives.
  • ttbar final states can be used to characterize the spin and parity of any discovered invisible particle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same angular observables could be applied to other ttbar-related searches for new physics beyond the simplified DM model.
  • Combining this channel with other LHC final states might improve overall constraints on light mediators.
  • The kinematic-fit approach without mediator reconstruction could be tested in real data to assess its robustness against detector effects.

Load-bearing premise

The mediator mass is fixed at 5 GeV, only dileptonic ttbar decays are used, and the study relies on simplified DM model samples without explicit mediator reconstruction.

What would settle it

A measurement of the angular observables in dileptonic ttbar events at the LHC that matches Standard Model expectations within the projected uncertainties would show that the claimed sensitivity and discrimination power are absent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27613 by Ant\'onio Onofre, Jo\~ao Bravo Martins, Jo\~ao Lopes, Rodrigo Capucha, Rui Santos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Total cross section for pp → ttY¯ 1, followed by tt¯ → bℓ+νℓ ¯bℓ−ν¯ℓ, as a function of the mediator mass, for a pure vector (red line) and a pure axial-vector (blue lines) mediators. While in the lighter blue line we set g A u33 = 0.25, in the darker one we set g A u33 = p π/2 mY1 /mt, the upper bound from perturbative unitarity (see Eq. 2.7). The cross sections were computed with MadGraph5 aMC@NLO [44] at… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Wrong combination rejection vs correct combination acceptance (ROC curve) for different multivariate methods trained from parton-level ttY¯ 1− events with mY1− = 0.1 GeV (3a) and ttY¯ 1+ events with mY1+ = 5 GeV (3c); distribution of the BDTG discriminant for the “Signal” and “Background” in training and test samples from parton-level ttY¯ 1− events with mY1− = 0.1 GeV (3b) and ttY¯ 1+ events with mY1+ = 5… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: parton level pT (Y1) distributions with NLO corrections and shower effects (NLO+Shower), for a pure vector (red line) and a pure axial-vector (blue line) mediators with mY1 = 5 GeV. Right: missing transverse energy (ET ) distributions of the expected number of events for vector and axial-vector signals with dileptonic final states (dashed curves) together with the SM background processes (full lines)… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-Dimensional distributions of ttY¯ 1− signal events with mY1− = 5 GeV: parton-level transverse momentum (NLO+Shower) versus reconstructed transverse momentum (kinematic reconstruction) for several particles (neutrino, top left; t, top right; tt system, bottom left; W+ boson, bottom right). 5 Results and Discussion In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions of the expected number of SM background (full lines), ttY¯ 1− (brown dashed line) and ttY¯ 1+ (orange dashed line) events, after event selection and kinematic reconstruction (using the vector mediator analysis), for a reference integrated luminosity of 100 fb−1 . The DM mediator mass is mY1 = 5 GeV. The ttY¯ 1− signal distribution was scaled by ×47 for convenience… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions of the expected number of SM background (full lines), ttY¯ 0+ (brown dashed line) and ttY¯ 0− (orange dashed line) events after event selection and kinematic reconstruction (using the vector mediator analysis), for a reference integrated luminosity of 100 fb−1 . The DM mediator mass is mY0 = 5 GeV. The ttY¯ 0+ and ttY¯ 0− signal distributions were respectively sca… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g A u33 /gA SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and axial-vector DM mediators with mY1 = 5 GeV and g V /A SM = 0.25 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated luminosity of L = 200 fb−1 . 13 [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g A u33 /gA SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and axial-vector DM mediators with mY1 = 5 GeV and g V /A SM = 0.25 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated luminosity of L = 3000 fb−1 . The resulti… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g A u33 /gA SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and axial-vector DM mediators with mY1 = 5 GeV and g V /A SM = 0.25 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated luminosit… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g A u33 /gA SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and axial-vector DM mediators with mY1 = 5 GeV and g V /A SM = 0.25 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated luminosit… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g S u33 /gS SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and scalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g V SM = 0.25 and g S SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated luminos… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g S u33 /gS SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and scalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g V SM = 0.25 and g S SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated luminos… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g P u33 /gP SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and pseudoscalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g V SM = 0.25 and g P SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated l… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g V u33 /gV SM and g P u33 /gP SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure vector and pseudoscalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g V SM = 0.25 and g P SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integrated l… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g A u33 /(g A SM √ λr) and g V u33 /gV SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure axial-vector and vector DM mediators with mY1 = 5 GeV and g V /A SM = 0.25 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure axial-vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integr… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g A u33 /(g A SM √ λr) and g V u33 /gV SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure axial-vector and vector DM mediators with mY1 = 5 GeV and g V /A SM = 0.25 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure axial-vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for an integr… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g A u33 /(g A SM √ λr) and g S u33 /gS SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure axial-vector and scalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g A SM = 0.25 and g S SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure axial-vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for a… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g A u33 /(g A SM √ λr) and g S u33 /gS SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure axial-vector and scalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g A SM = 0.25 and g S SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure axial-vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions, for a… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g A u33 /(g A SM √ λr) and g P u33 /gP SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure axial-vector and pseudoscalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g A SM = 0.25 and g P SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure axial-vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions,… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Contour plots of the expected CLs on g A u33 /(g A SM √ λr) and g P u33 /gP SM for the exclusion of the SM plus a combination of pure axial-vector and pseudoscalar DM mediators with mY = 5 GeV, g A SM = 0.25 and g P SM = 1 as the alternative hypothesis, assuming the SM plus a pure axial-vector DM mediator as the null hypothesis. The limits are obtained using the ∆ϕℓ+ℓ− (left) and b4 (right) distributions,… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Feynman diagram for the h → Y1Y1 decay. The decay width for h → Y1Y1, in the limit of a massless mediator, is given by Γ(h → Y1Y1) = 1 512π 5 (g V u33 ) 4 (y t 33mtNc) 2 mh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_22.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a phenomenological study where we probe the sensitivity to invisible dark matter (DM) mediators produced in association with a $t\bar{t}$ pair at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Building on previous work focused on scalar mediators, we extend the analysis to include spin-1 mediators, $Y_1$, with both vector and axial-vector couplings to top quarks. The mediator mass is fixed to 5 GeV. Signal samples of $pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}Y_i$ ($i = 0, 1$) are generated using a MadGraph5_aMC@NLO simplified DM model. Only dileptonic final states of the $t\bar{t}$ system are considered, and the reconstruction is performed through a kinematic fit without explicitly reconstructing the invisible mediator. All relevant Standard Model backgrounds are included. We consider several exclusion scenarios to assess the sensitivity to the presence of a spin-1 mediator, as well as the ability to distinguish a pure vector or axial-vector mediator from alternative hypotheses with different spin and CP properties. We find that the analysis is sensitive to light spin-1 mediators and that CP-sensitive angular observables provide discrimination power between vector, axial-vector, scalar and pseudoscalar scenarios. These results highlight the potential of $t\bar{t}$ final states not only to search for invisible particles, but also to characterize their spin and parity properties in case of discovery.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs a phenomenological study of pp → tt̄Y production at the LHC (Y invisible mediator, m_Y fixed at 5 GeV) in a simplified DM model, restricting to dileptonic tt̄ decays. Signal and SM backgrounds are generated in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO; the tt̄ system is reconstructed via a kinematic fit that does not account for Y; several angular observables (including CP-sensitive ones) are used to claim sensitivity to light spin-1 mediators and discrimination power among vector, axial-vector, scalar, and pseudoscalar hypotheses.

Significance. If the reconstruction and discrimination results are robust, the work would show that tt̄ + invisible final states can both discover and characterize the spin/CP properties of light mediators. Credit is due for extending scalar-mediator studies to spin-1 cases, generating full background samples, and examining multiple coupling scenarios in a single framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / reconstruction procedure] Abstract and reconstruction description: the kinematic fit solves only for the two neutrinos under standard dileptonic tt̄ kinematics and does not incorporate the additional invisible momentum carried by the light (5 GeV) mediator Y. Because the mediator p_T spectrum overlaps the neutrino p_T range, the fit can return biased neutrino momenta, which directly affects the lepton and top angular distributions used for spin/CP discrimination. This bias is load-bearing for the central claim that the observables retain discrimination power; it must be quantified (e.g., by comparing reconstructed distributions with and without Y or by reporting fit success rates and pull distributions).
  2. [Results on angular observables] Results section on discrimination: the claimed separation between vector/axial-vector and scalar/pseudoscalar scenarios relies on the post-fit angular observables. Without a demonstration that the mediator-induced bias does not erode the separation (for example, via ROC curves or significance values computed on biased versus unbiased samples), the discrimination statement cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Simulation setup] The fixed mediator mass of 5 GeV is stated without exploring nearby values; a brief scan or justification would strengthen the robustness statement.
  2. [Introduction / model definition] Notation for the mediator (Y_1, Y_i) and coupling scenarios should be defined once in a dedicated paragraph rather than introduced piecemeal.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested quantifications into a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / reconstruction procedure] Abstract and reconstruction description: the kinematic fit solves only for the two neutrinos under standard dileptonic tt̄ kinematics and does not incorporate the additional invisible momentum carried by the light (5 GeV) mediator Y. Because the mediator p_T spectrum overlaps the neutrino p_T range, the fit can return biased neutrino momenta, which directly affects the lepton and top angular distributions used for spin/CP discrimination. This bias is load-bearing for the central claim that the observables retain discrimination power; it must be quantified (e.g., by comparing reconstructed distributions with and without Y or by reporting fit success rates and pull distributions).

    Authors: We acknowledge that the kinematic fit is performed under standard dileptonic tt̄ assumptions and does not explicitly include the additional invisible momentum from the light mediator Y. While the mediator mass is only 5 GeV, its p_T spectrum can overlap with the neutrinos and introduce biases in the reconstructed angular observables. To address this concern, we will add a dedicated subsection quantifying the effect: we will compare key angular distributions reconstructed with and without the mediator contribution, report fit success rates, and show pull distributions for the neutrino momenta. This will allow readers to assess the robustness of the claimed discrimination power. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on angular observables] Results section on discrimination: the claimed separation between vector/axial-vector and scalar/pseudoscalar scenarios relies on the post-fit angular observables. Without a demonstration that the mediator-induced bias does not erode the separation (for example, via ROC curves or significance values computed on biased versus unbiased samples), the discrimination statement cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the discrimination claims require explicit validation against reconstruction bias. In the revised manuscript we will add ROC curves and significance estimates computed on both the reconstructed (post-fit) samples and the corresponding truth-level (unbiased) samples for the vector/axial-vector versus scalar/pseudoscalar hypotheses. This will directly demonstrate whether the separation power is preserved after the kinematic fit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulation of simplified model with standard reconstruction

full rationale

The paper generates signal samples in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO for pp → ttbar Y (Y invisible, m=5 GeV) in a simplified DM model, includes SM backgrounds, applies a kinematic fit to dileptonic ttbar events without reconstructing the mediator, and evaluates sensitivity plus CP-sensitive angular observables. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a quantity fitted from the same dataset, no self-definitional relations (e.g., X defined via Y then Y predicted from X), and no load-bearing self-citations that justify the central result. The derivation chain consists of standard Monte Carlo event generation, reconstruction, and statistical comparison against backgrounds; it is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatze from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Central claim rests on validity of the simplified DM model implementation, fixed mediator mass, and standard LHC simulation assumptions; no independent evidence supplied for the mediator itself.

free parameters (1)
  • mediator mass = 5 GeV
    Explicitly fixed to 5 GeV in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Simplified DM model in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO accurately represents the signal process
    Used to generate all signal samples for sensitivity studies.
  • domain assumption Dileptonic ttbar final states with kinematic fit suffice to probe invisible mediator without direct reconstruction
    Stated as the reconstruction strategy in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • spin-1 mediator Y1 with vector and axial-vector couplings no independent evidence
    purpose: Invisible DM mediator produced in association with ttbar
    Postulated in the simplified model to test sensitivity and spin/parity discrimination.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5798 in / 1431 out tokens · 44252 ms · 2026-06-29T01:18:50.645849+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

57 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    L. J. Rosenberg and K. A. van Bibber, Phys. Rept.325, 1 (2000). 24

    2000

  2. [2]

    Schumann, J

    M. Schumann, J. Phys. G46, 103003 (2019), 1903.03026

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Azevedoet al., JHEP11, 125 (2023), 2308.00819

    D. Azevedoet al., JHEP11, 125 (2023), 2308.00819

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    ATLAS, Rept. Prog. Phys.89, 057801 (2026)

    2026

  5. [5]

    Hayrapetyanet al., Rept

    CMS, A. Hayrapetyanet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 087801 (2025), 2503.22382

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Flackeet al., (2025), 2512.03220

    T. Flackeet al., (2025), 2512.03220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Backovi´ cet al., Eur

    M. Backovi´ cet al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 482 (2015), 1508.05327

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Boveiaet al., Phys

    A. Boveiaet al., Phys. Dark Univ.27, 100365 (2020), 1603.04156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Bernreuther and A

    W. Bernreuther and A. Brandenburg, Phys. Rev. D49, 4481 (1994), hep-ph/9312210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  10. [10]

    J. F. Gunion and X.-G. He, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 4468 (1996), hep-ph/9602226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  11. [11]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev, A. Djouadi, R. M. Godbole, M. M. Muhlleitner, and S. D. Rindani, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 051801 (2008), 0707.2878

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Frederixet al., Phys

    R. Frederixet al., Phys. Lett. B701, 427 (2011), 1104.5613

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. S. Hwang, K. Sakurai, and M. Takeuchi, JHEP04, 004 (2014), 1312.5736

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Khatibi and M

    S. Khatibi and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, Phys. Rev. D90, 074014 (2014), 1409.6553

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Demartin, F

    F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, B. Page, and M. Zaro, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3065 (2014), 1407.5089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Kobakhidze, L

    A. Kobakhidze, L. Wu, and J. Yue, JHEP10, 100 (2014), 1406.1961

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Bramante, A

    J. Bramante, A. Delgado, and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D89, 093006 (2014), 1402.5985

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Boudjema, R

    F. Boudjema, R. M. Godbole, D. Guadagnoli, and K. A. Mohan, Phys. Rev.D92, 015019 (2015), 1501.03157

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    He, G.-N

    X.-G. He, G.-N. Li, and Y.-J. Zheng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30, 1550156 (2015), 1501.00012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    S. P. Amor dos Santoset al., Phys. Rev.D92, 034021 (2015), 1503.07787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    A. V. Gritsan, R. Roentsch, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev.D94, 055023 (2016), 1606.03107

    arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    M. J. Dolan, M. Spannowsky, Q. Wang, and Z.-H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D94, 015025 (2016), 1606.00019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Goncalves and D

    D. Goncalves and D. Lopez-Val, Phys. Rev. D94, 095005 (2016), 1607.08614

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    M. R. Buckley and D. Goncalves, Phys. Rev. D93, 034003 (2016), 1511.06451

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Mileo, K

    N. Mileo, K. Kiers, A. Szynkman, D. Crane, and E. Gegner, JHEP07, 056 (2016), 1603.03632

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    M. R. Buckley and D. Goncalves, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 091801 (2016), 1507.07926. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Amor Dos Santoset al., Phys

    S. Amor Dos Santoset al., Phys. Rev.D96, 013004 (2017), 1704.03565

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Gon¸ calves, K

    D. Gon¸ calves, K. Kong, and J. H. Kim, JHEP06, 079 (2018), 1804.05874

    arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Azevedo, A

    D. Azevedo, A. Onofre, F. Filthaut, and R. Gon¸ calo, Phys. Rev.D98, 033004 (2018), 1711.05292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Li, Z.-g

    J. Li, Z.-g. Si, L. Wu, and J. Yue, Phys. Lett. B779, 72 (2018), 1701.00224

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Ferroglia, M

    A. Ferroglia, M. C. N. Fiolhais, E. Gouveia, and A. Onofre, Phys. Rev.D100, 075034 (2019), 1909.00490

    arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    D. A. Faroughy, J. F. Kamenik, N. Koˇ snik, and A. Smolkoviˇ c, JHEP02, 085 (2020), 1909.00007

    arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Azevedo, R

    D. Azevedo, R. Capucha, A. Onofre, and R. Santos, JHEP06, 155 (2020), 2003.09043

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Azevedo, R

    D. Azevedo, R. Capucha, E. Gouveia, A. Onofre, and R. Santos, JHEP04, 077 (2021), 2012.10730

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Bortolato, J

    B. Bortolato, J. F. Kamenik, N. Koˇ snik, and A. Smolkoviˇ c, Nucl. Phys. B964, 115328 (2021), 2006.13110

    arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Cao, K.-P

    Q.-H. Cao, K.-P. Xie, H. Zhang, and R. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C45, 023117 (2021), 2008.13442

    arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Gon¸ calves, J

    D. Gon¸ calves, J. H. Kim, K. Kong, and Y. Wu, JHEP01, 158 (2022), 2108.01083

    arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    R. K. Barman, D. Gon¸ calves, and F. Kling, Phys. Rev. D105, 035023 (2022), 2110.07635

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Bahlet al., JHEP11, 127 (2020), 2007.08542

    H. Bahlet al., JHEP11, 127 (2020), 2007.08542

    arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Bahl and S

    H. Bahl and S. Brass, JHEP03, 017 (2022), 2110.10177

    arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Azevedo, R

    D. Azevedo, R. Capucha, A. Onofre, and R. Santos, JHEP09, 246 (2022), 2208.04271

    arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Aadet al., Phys

    ATLAS, G. Aadet al., Phys. Lett. B849, 138469 (2024), 2303.05974

    arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Kahlhoefer, K

    F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, T. Schwetz, and S. Vogl, JHEP02, 016 (2016), 1510.02110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP06, 128 (2011), 1106.0522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Navaset al., Phys

    Particle Data Group, S. Navaset al., Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, JHEP03, 015 (2013), 1212.3460

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP05, 026 (2006), hep-ph/0603175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  48. [48]

    de Favereauet al., JHEP02, 057 (2014), 1307.6346

    DELPHES 3, J. de Favereauet al., JHEP02, 057 (2014), 1307.6346

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    J. L. R. Carreira, Search for a light vector dark matter particle in thet ¯tfinal state at the LHC, 2024. 26

    2024

  50. [50]

    Hoeckeret al., arXiv preprint physics/0703039 (2007)

    A. Hoeckeret al., arXiv preprint physics/0703039 (2007)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    A. L. Read, J. Phys.G28, 2693 (2002), [,11(2002)]

    2002

  52. [52]

    Junk, Nucl

    T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A434, 435 (1999), hep-ex/9902006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [53]

    Albertet al., (2022), 2203.12035

    A. Albertet al., (2022), 2203.12035

    arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Aadet al., Phys

    ATLAS, G. Aadet al., Phys. Lett. B842, 137963 (2023), 2301.10731

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Tumasyanet al., Eur

    CMS, A. Tumasyanet al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 933 (2023), 2303.01214

    arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. Veltman, Nuclear Physics B160, 151 (1979)

    1979

  57. [57]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B311, 255 (1993), hep-ph/9305335. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993