Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Probing dark matter through charged Higgs pair production at future multi-TeV muon colliders: A machine-learning analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Charged Higgs pair production at a future multi-TeV muon collider could reveal the inert doublet model's dark matter candidate with statistical significance above 5σ for several viable benchmark points.

desk verdict A useful ML-based sensitivity study for IDM charged Higgs pair production at muon colliders, undermined by benchmark points whose relic-density viability is asserted but not shown and likely wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06957 v1 pith:F5E5P4I3 submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph

Khiem Hong Phan (EIU) , Quang Hoang-Minh Pham (HCMUS) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords InertDoubletModelchargedHiggspairproductiondarkmattermuoncollidermachinelearningrelicdensityXGBoostfuturesearches
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 asks whether a future multi-TeV muon collider can indirectly detect dark matter through charged Higgs boson pair production in the Inert Doublet Model (IDM), an extension of the Standard Model with a stable Z2-odd scalar as the dark matter candidate. The authors first map the IDM parameter space under theoretical constraints, electroweak precision data, Higgs measurements, and dark matter relic density and direct-detection limits, keeping only points with Ωh² in the observed band. They then simulate three signal channels—μ−μ+ → νμν̄μH±H∓ with the charged Higgs decaying via W± plus the dark scalar—and compare cut-based selection with a machine-learning classifier. They report that for several viable benchmark points, the ML-based statistical significance exceeds 5σ at a 10–14 TeV muon collider with 10–20 ab−1 of data, most strongly in the four-jet plus missing-energy channel. The result matters because it turns a dark matter model into a concrete, testable search strategy for a proposed future collider.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Inert Doublet Model's charged Higgs pair H+H− produced in μ−μ+ collisions through a vector-boson-fusion-like process, with each H± decaying to W± plus the stable dark scalar H. The production rate is controlled in part by the hH±H∓ coupling, which grows with the quartic coupling λ3, and the analysis focuses on the region of parameter space where mH < mH± and λ3 is large because that is where the signal is enhanced while H remains the dark matter candidate. The significance is carried by an XGBoost classifier trained on jet and lepton kinematic observables; a SHAP analysis shows the classifier leans most heavily on the scalar sum of jet transverse momenta H_j^T, dijet invariant masses, and the missing invariant mass M_miss, which reflect the presence of two invisible dark matter particles plus neutrinos.

What would settle it

Recompute the thermal relic density for BP3–BP8 with a full Boltzmann solver; if all six give Ωh² well above 0.143, the simulated signals do not come from a viable dark matter model and the central claim collapses. Conversely, an experimental null result in the four-jet plus missing-energy channel at a 10 TeV muon collider with 10 ab−1, at the BP3 signal rate, would rule out that benchmark's discovery claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the Inert Doublet Model, the paper's central claim is that dark matter can be probed indirectly through charged Higgs pair production at future multi-TeV muon colliders, with statistical significance passing the 5σ discovery threshold for several benchmark points that survive all current constraints. The discovery channel is μ−μ+ → νμν̄μH±H∓, followed by H± → W±H, where H is the stable dark matter scalar and the W bosons decay hadronically, semileptonically, or leptonically. After applying a machine-learning classifier to kinematic distributions, the authors obtain significance as high as Z ≈ 74 at √s = 14 TeV with 20 ab−1 (BP7, semileptonic channel), and Z > 5 for BP6, BP7, BP8 across multiple channels and energies, while BP4 and BP5 generally remain below 5σ. The machine-learning analysis is the key lever: it reduces the Standard Model background so much that marginal cut-based significances become discovery-level.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the six benchmark points behind the 5σ claims are genuinely dark-matter-viable, meaning their thermal relic density falls in the observed band; the paper asserts this without listing the Ωh² values, and those points sit in a low-mass, small-coupling region where IDM freeze-out typically overproduces dark matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a 10 TeV muon collider with 10 ab−1, the four-jet plus missing-energy channel yields Z > 5 for BP3, BP6, BP7, and BP8, while the semileptonic channel does the same for BP3, BP6, BP7, and BP8; BP4 and BP5 fall short.
  • At 14 TeV with 20 ab−1, the four-jet channel reaches Z > 5 for all benchmarks except BP4 and BP5, with Z ≈ 58 for BP3, and the semileptonic and dileptonic channels add discovery-level reach for BP6–BP8.
  • Machine-learning selection is what makes these significances possible: it compresses the background by factors of tens to thousands while retaining a usable fraction of signal.
  • The hH±H∓ coupling λ3 is the phenomenological knob: measurements of these channels would translate into constraints on λ3 and mH± in the low-mass IDM region where the charged Higgs is the key messenger.
  • A null result in these channels at the projected luminosities would exclude the benchmark scenarios with the largest λ3 values, narrowing the IDM dark matter parameter space that remains viable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper only claims the quoted benchmarks are relic-density–viable; a re-derivation of Ωh² for BP3–BP8 would test whether the 5σ region is real, since very small λL in the 56–72 GeV DM mass window is a regime where standard thermal freeze-out in the IDM tends to overproduce dark matter.
  • The SHAP feature ranking suggests a simpler observable—the scalar sum of jet pT together with dijet masses—might capture most of the ML gain; a dedicated cut-based optimization on these variables could provide a cross-check of the quoted significances.
  • The same charged-Higgs pair signature transfers to other scalar extensions with a charged state decaying to W plus a stable neutral, so a null search at a muon collider would bound a broader class of models, not just the IDM.
  • If the IDM dark matter is only a subcomponent of the relic density, the collider reach could be weaker than the 5σ claims, because the signal rate would not track the full dark matter abundance.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies charged Higgs pair production in the Inert Doublet Model (IDM) at future multi-TeV muon colliders. The authors first impose theoretical, electroweak, Higgs, relic-density, and direct-detection constraints to obtain 23 surviving benchmark points, then select six of them (BP3-BP8) for a phenomenological analysis of mu+ mu- -> nu_mu nu_mu-bar H+ H- with subsequent H+- -> W+- H decays. Three final states are considered: 4 jets + missing energy, lepton + 2 jets + missing energy, and dilepton + missing energy. Signal and background events are generated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO at parton level, and significances are computed using both a cut-based selection and an XGBoost classifier with SHAP interpretation. The central claim is that, with ML selection, the charged-Higgs signal can be probed with statistical significance exceeding 5 sigma for several of the selected benchmark points at sqrt(s) = 10-14 TeV with 10-20 ab^-1.

Significance. If the selected benchmark points are genuinely compatible with all imposed constraints, the paper is a useful projection for the IDM charged-Higgs sector at a future muon collider. Its strengths are the use of standard public tools (2HDMC, HiggsSignals/HiggsBounds, anyH3, micrOMEGAs, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO), the explicit treatment of several final states, and the transparent ML/SHAP interpretation. However, the quantitative conclusion depends critically on two points that are currently not established: the relic-density compatibility of BP3-BP8, and the validity of interpreting parton-level, statistical-only significances as discovery projections. The paper would be a solid phenomenological study if these points are resolved, but in its present form the central 'viable benchmark points' claim is not adequately supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 and Sec. 2.2, Eq. (30)] The paper asserts that BP3-BP8 satisfy the relic-density window 0.095 < Omega h^2 < 0.143, but the computed Omega h^2 values are never reported. This omission is load-bearing: for BP3-BP8 the DM mass is mH ~ 57-72 GeV and |lambda_L| is of order 10^-3 (e.g., BP3: lambda_L = 7.8e-4; BP8: lambda_L = -9.8e-4). In this regime HH annihilation through s-channel SM-Higgs exchange into fermions scales as lambda_L^2, the channels HH -> W+W-, ZZ, hh, and hA are either kinematically closed or negligible, and coannihilation with A or H+- is Boltzmann-suppressed by mass splittings of 34 GeV to over 600 GeV (BP3: mA-mH = 34 GeV; BP8: mA-mH ~ 570 GeV). Standard thermal freeze-out in this parameter region generically overcloses the Universe. The authors must list the micrOMEGAs relic-density output for all 23 points in Table 1; if the values are large, the scan must be repeated so that the simulated signals actually correspond to viable DM benchmarks. Without this, the >5 sigma claims for BP4-BP8 are not meaningful.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (33) and Tables 3-13] The quoted significances are purely statistical and are computed from parton-level events with no detector simulation, no reconstruction efficiencies, no beam-induced backgrounds, and no systematic uncertainties on the background or signal rates. Because the central claim is phrased as 'can be probed' at a real muon collider, the paper should explicitly state that the projections are parton-level, statistical-only estimates. The conclusion and abstract should be softened accordingly, or the authors should add a fast detector simulation and a discussion of the dominant systematic uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. 3, Tables 4-13] The machine-learning analysis is not described in a reproducible manner. The paper does not specify the train/validation/test split, cross-validation procedure, XGBoost hyperparameters, or the rule used to select the working point that defines S_ML and B_ML. The implied background rejection is very large in places (e.g., Table 4 gives B_ML/B_base ~ 1.2e-3 for BP3), and without an independent test sample there is a real risk of overtraining. Please document the training protocol and report classifier performance on a held-out data set.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and formatting issues, including 'constrainst' in the Section 2 heading, 'mising energy' in several subsection headings, and 'a t future' in the title.
  2. [Introduction] The organization paragraph states 'In Sect. 3, we briefly review the IDM', but the IDM review appears in Section 2; the section cross-references should be corrected.
  3. [Table 1] The first column is labeled 'PB' instead of 'BP', and several numerical entries appear garbled (for example '0.1 46402', '0.10 7848', '5.13714', and '0.74 521'); the table should be retypeset carefully.
  4. [Figs. 2-4] The figure labels contain broken text such as 'Backgrou d', 'Sig al', 'Nor ali(ed events', and unicode artifacts like '/uni2113'; these should be fixed before publication.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (45)] The missing momentum is defined using 'p_ini', but the initial-state momentum is never defined; please define p_ini explicitly.
  6. [Sec. 2.2 and Table 1] The criterion for selecting BP3-BP8 as 'particularly suitable' is not stated quantitatively; if this choice was made after inspecting the resulting significances, that should be acknowledged so that the sensitivity claims are not presented as a global scan result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 5-sigma significance is computed from externally constrained IDM parameters and SM backgrounds, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) scan IDM parameters under theoretical constraints in Eqs. (16)-(24); (ii) impose EWPO, Higgs-signal, Higgs-self-coupling, and invisible-decay bounds via 2HDMC, HiggsSignals/HiggsBounds, and anyH3; (iii) impose relic-density and direct-detection constraints in Eqs. (29)-(31) using micrOMEGAS and the LZ limit; (iv) select surviving benchmark points in Table 1; and (v) simulate the signal and SM backgrounds with MadGraph, apply cuts and an XGBoost classifier, and evaluate Z with Eq. (33). No step defines its output as its input: the signal cross section is fixed by the benchmark masses and couplings, the backgrounds are pure SM predictions, and the significance follows from the resulting event counts and assumed luminosity. No model parameter is fitted to the significance or to the ML output, so no fitted input is being renamed as a prediction. Choosing BP3-BP8, which have small mH and large lambda3 and hence a large hH+H- coupling, is post-hoc benchmark selection for a sensitivity projection, not a circular construction of the signal from the claimed discovery. The skeptic's concern that the paper does not list the computed Omega h^2 values, and that BP3-BP8 may overproduce dark matter, is a missing-support or external-consistency issue rather than circularity: Eq. (30) is an external constraint and micrOMEGAS is an external code, so the claim is falsifiable by recomputing the relic densities. The cited Ref. [25], used for the scalar potential and significance formula, is not a self-citation by the present authors and carries no uniqueness or ansatz load. Under the stated rubric, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard IDM assumptions, standard thermal cosmology, and the unchecked assumption that the selected benchmarks satisfy the relic density. The 20% theoretical uncertainty on the relic density is a hand-chosen broadening that affects which points survive.

free parameters (1)
  • Relic density theoretical uncertainty (20%) = 20%
    Introduced in Section 2.2 around Eq. (30) as an additional linear uncertainty on Omega h^2, broadening the allowed band to [0.095, 0.143]. The size is chosen by hand and affects which benchmark points survive.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Inert Doublet Model with an exact Z2 symmetry and H as the lightest Z2-odd particle is the framework.
    Section 2.1 defines the model; this is the theoretical context for the entire analysis.
  • domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out cosmology as implemented in micrOMEGAs determines the local DM density.
    Relic density in Eqs. (29)-(30) is calculated with micrOMEGAs_5.0.4, assuming a standard Lambda-CDM thermal history.
  • ad hoc to paper The selected benchmark points satisfy the relic density window [0.095, 0.143].
    Asserted in Section 2.2 but no Omega h^2 values are reported; the tiny lambda_L values make this assumption questionable.
  • ad hoc to paper The parton-level ML significance approximates the sensitivity of a real muon collider detector.
    Section 3 applies MadGraph-level jets and simple acceptance cuts with no detector simulation or systematic uncertainties.
  • ad hoc to paper The background processes listed in Tables 2, 6, and 10 are the complete set of relevant SM backgrounds.
    No validation or comparison with full background sets is provided, and some subdominant processes may be missing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing dark matter through charged Higgs pair production at future multi-TeV muon colliders: A machine-learning analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5E5P4I3

@misc{pith2026260806957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing dark matter through charged Higgs pair production at future multi-TeV muon colliders: A machine-learning analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5E5P4I3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06957}
}
abstract

Probing dark matter (DM) via charged Higgs pair production at future multi-TeV muon colliders is investigated within the Inert Doublet Model (IDM). The viable parameter space of the IDM is first updated by incorporating theoretical constraints and current experimental data. Based on the allowed parameter space, we evaluate DM relic density and compare the results with the latest constraints from direct DM detection experiments. The resulting parameter points consistent with all DM constraints are subsequently employed to study charged Higgs pair production at future multi-TeV muon colliders, including the subsequent decays of the charged Higgs bosons into Standard Model (SM) particles in association with DM candidate. In particular, we study the following production processes: $\mu^- \mu^+ \to \nu_{\mu} \bar{\nu}_{\mu} H^{\pm} H^{\mp} \to \ell^+ \ell^- + \nu_{\mu} \bar{\nu}_{\mu} \nu_{\ell} \bar{\nu}_{\ell} HH$, $\mu^- \mu^+ \to \nu_{\mu} \bar{\nu}_{\mu} H^{\pm} H^{\mp} \to \ell^\pm + 2\,\text{jets} + \nu_{\mu} \bar{\nu}_{\mu} \nu_{\ell} HH$ and $\mu^- \mu^+ \to \nu_{\mu} \bar{\nu}_{\mu} H^{\pm} H^{\mp} \to 4\,\text{jets} + \nu_{\mu} \bar{\nu}_{\mu} HH$ for $\ell =e, \mu$. The signal significance is evaluated against the corresponding SM backgrounds using both cut-based and machine-learning (ML) approaches. We find that ML framework substantially enhances the sensitivity to the signal processes compared with the conventional cut-based analysis. Furthermore, our results indicate that the DM signals through charged Higgs pair production can be indirectly probed with a statistical significance exceeding $5\sigma$ for several viable benchmark points at future multi-TeV muon colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The upper-left panel depicts the correlation among the c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of the most relevant kinematic observables a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of the most relevant observables after app [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the most relevant observables after app [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SHAP values evaluated for all observables considered in ou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SHAP values for a representative signal point (left panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012), 1-29 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012), 30-61 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020), A1 doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201833880 [arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020), A6 [erratum: Astron. Astro- phys. 652 (2021), C4] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Z. j. Tao, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996), 5693-5697 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.5693 [arXiv:hep- ph/9603309 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006), 077301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.077301 [arXiv:hep- ph/0601225 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Ghosh, P

    A. Ghosh, P. Konar and S. Seth, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.11, 115038 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.115038 [arXiv:2111.15236 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Belyaev, G

    A. Belyaev, G. Cacciapaglia, I. P. Ivanov, F. Rojas-Abatte and M. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.3, 035011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.035011 [arXiv:1612.00 511 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.035011 2018

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Dercks and T

    D. Dercks and T. Robens, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.11, 924 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 019-7436-6 [arXiv:1812.07913 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dutta, G

    B. Dutta, G. Palacio, J. D. Ruiz-Alvarez and D. Restrepo, Phys . Rev. D 97 (2018) no.5, 055045 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.055045 [arXiv:1709.09796 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. A. D ´ ıaz, B. Koch and S. Urrutia-Quiroga, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016 (2016), 8278375 doi:10.1155/2016/8278375 [arXiv:1511.04429 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    N. Wan, N. Li, B. Zhang, H. Yang, M. F. Zhao, M. Song, G. Li and J. Y. Guo, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69 (2018) no.5, 617 doi:10.1088/0253-6102/69/5/617

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Poulose, S

    P. Poulose, S. Sahoo and K. Sridhar, Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017), 300-306 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.022 [arXiv:1604.03045 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Datta, N

    A. Datta, N. Ganguly, N. Khan and S. Rakshit, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.1, 015017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.015017 [arXiv:1610.00648 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gustafsson, S

    M. Gustafsson, S. Rydbeck, L. Lopez-Honorez and E. Lunds trom, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 075019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.075019 [arXiv:1206.6316 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    D. He, Y. Zhang, F. Boudjema and H. Sun, JHEP 03 (2025), 157 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2025)157 [arXiv:2402.11506 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. Z. Fan, T. P. Tang, Y. L. S. Tsai and L. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett . 129 (2022) no.9, 091802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.091802 [arXiv:2204.03693 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Klamka [CLIC], SciPost Phys

    J. Klamka [CLIC], SciPost Phys. Proc. 8 (2022), 097 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.8.097 [arXiv:2107.13803 [hep-ex]]. 24

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Klamka et al

    J. Klamka et al. [CLICdp], Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.8, 738 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 022-10615-3 [arXiv:2201.07146 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kalinowski, W

    J. Kalinowski, W. Kotlarski, T. Robens, D. Sokolowska and A. F. Z arnecki, JHEP 12 (2018), 081 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)081 [arXiv:1809.07712 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hashemi, M

    M. Hashemi, M. Krawczyk, S. Najjari and A. F. ˙Zarnecki, JHEP 02 (2016), 187 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)187 [arXiv:1512.01175 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura and H. Yokoya, Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013), 302-309 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.011 [arXiv:1303.6191 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ouhammou, M

    M. Ouhammou, M. Ouali, S. Taj, R. Benbrik and B. Manaut, J. Exp . Theor. Phys. 137 (2023) no.1, 71-79 doi:10.1134/S1063776123070063

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Guo-He, S

    Y. Guo-He, S. Mao, L. Gang, Z. Yu and G. Jian-You, Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) no.10, 103101 doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac1577 [arXiv:2006.06216 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Braathen, M

    J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann, T. Robens and P. Stylianou, JHEP 05 (2025), 055 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)055 [arXiv:2411.13729 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Goudelis, B

    A. Goudelis, B. Herrmann and O. St ˚ al, JHEP09 (2013), 106 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)106 [arXiv:1303.3010 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Arina, J

    C. Arina, J. Heisig, F. Maltoni, D. Massaro and O. Mattelaer, Eur . Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.3, 241 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11377-2 [arXiv:2107.0459 8 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  20. [28]

    Gustafsson, E

    M. Gustafsson, E. Lundstrom, L. Bergstrom and J. Edsjo, P hys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007), 041301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.041301 [arXiv:astro-ph/0703 512 [astro-ph]]

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    Nezri, M

    E. Nezri, M. H. G. Tytgat and G. Vertongen, JCAP 04 (2009), 014 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2009/04/014 [arXiv:0901.2556 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Klasen, C

    M. Klasen, C. E. Yaguna and J. D. Ruiz-Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013), 075025 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.075025 [arXiv:1302.1657 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bhardwaj, P

    A. Bhardwaj, P. Konar, T. Mandal and S. Sadhukhan, Phys. R ev. D 100 (2019) no.5, 055040 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.055040 [arXiv:1905.04195 [hep-ph ]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Eiteneuer, A

    B. Eiteneuer, A. Goudelis and J. Heisig, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.9, 624 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5166-1 [arXiv:1705.01458 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, J. El Falaki and A. Jueid, JHEP 12 (2015), 007 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)007 [arXiv:1507.03630 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik and T. C. Yuan, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014), 2892 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2892-5 [arXiv:1401.6698 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. E. Falaki, Phys. Lett. B 840 (2023), 137879 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137879 [arXiv:2301.13773 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  28. [36]

    Abouabid, A

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, J. El Falaki, B. Gong, W. Xie a nd Q. S. Yan, JHEP 05 (2021), 100 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)100 [arXiv:2009.03250 [hep- ph]]. 25

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Abouabid, A

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, J. E. Falaki, B. Gong, W. Xie and Q. S. Yan , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.1, 015009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.015009 [arXiv:2204.0 5237 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Abouabid, A

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, J. E. Falaki, B. Gong and Q. S. Yan, JHEP 03 (2026), 252 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2026)252 [arXiv:2510.17387 [hep-ph]]

    2026 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Apollinari, I

    G. Apollinari, I. B´ ejar Alonso, O. Br ¨uning, P. Fessia, M. Lamont, L. Rossi and L. Tavian, doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-004

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. [FCC], Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019) no.2, 261-623 doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019- 900045-4

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Accettura et al

    C. Accettura et al. [International Muon Collider], [arXiv:2504.21417 [physics.acc-ph]]

  34. [42]

    Abouabid, A

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, A. Hmissou and L. Rahili, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.6, 632 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13014-y [arXiv:2302.03767 [hep-ph ]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Abouabid, A

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, A. Hmissou and L. Rahili, Springer Proc. P hys. 425 (2025), 123-127 doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88933-2 21

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    M. Aiko, J. Braathen and S. Kanemura, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.5, 489 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14184-z [arXiv:2307.14976 [hep-ph ]]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    I. F. Ginzburg, K. A. Kanishev, M. Krawczyk and D. Sokolowska , Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 123533 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.123533 [arXiv:1009.4593 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kanemura, T

    S. Kanemura, T. Kasai and Y. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 471 (1999), 182-190 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01351-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9903289 [hep -ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kanemura, T

    S. Kanemura, T. Kubota and E. Takasugi, Phys. Lett. B 313 (1993), 155-160 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91205-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/9303263 [hep- ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. G. Akeroyd, A. Arhrib and E. M. Naimi, Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000), 119-124 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00962-X [arXiv:hep-ph/0006035 [hep -ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lundstrom, M

    E. Lundstrom, M. Gustafsson and J. Edsjo, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 035013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.035013 [arXiv:0810.3924 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Swiezewska and M

    B. Swiezewska and M. Krawczyk, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.3, 035019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.035019 [arXiv:1212.4100 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik and N. Gaur, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 095021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.095021 [arXiv:1201.2644 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Pierce and J

    A. Pierce and J. Thaler, JHEP 08 (2007), 026 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/026 [arXiv:hep-ph/0703056 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hessenberger and W

    S. Hessenberger and W. Hollik, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.3, 178 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4734-8 [arXiv:1607.04610 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Eriksson, J

    D. Eriksson, J. Rathsman and O. Stal, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010), 189-205 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.011 [arXiv:0902.0851 [hep-ph]]. 26

    2010 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. Bahl, T. Biek ¨otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein and J. Wittbrodt , Com- put. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023), 108803 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108803 [arXiv:2210.09332 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  48. [56]

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J . C 83 (2023) no.12, 1156 [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.5, 498] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12173-8 [arXiv:2305.03015 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 843 (2023), 137745 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137745 [arXiv:2211.01216 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  50. [58]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025), 139210 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139210 [arXiv:2407.13554 [hep-ex]]

    2025

  51. [59]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no.10, 101801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.101801 [arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023), 137963 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137963 [arXiv:2301.10731 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  53. [61]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty and H. Sun, Phys . Rev. D 104 (2021), 075002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.075002 [arXiv:2101.02165 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput . Phys. Commun. 149 (2002), 103-120 doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00596-9 [arXiv:hep -ph/0112278 [hep-ph]]

    2002

  55. [63]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput . Phys. Commun. 174 (2006), 577-604 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2005.12.005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405 253 [hep-ph]]

    2006 doi

  56. [64]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput . Phys. Commun. 176 (2007), 367-382 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2006.11.008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607 059 [hep-ph]]

    2007 doi

  57. [65]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput . Phys. Commun. 185 (2014), 960-985 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2013.10.016 [arXiv:1305.0237 [hep -ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [66]

    B´ elanger, F

    G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Goudelis, A. Pukhov and B. Zaldiv ar, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 231 (2018), 173-186 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.04.027 [arXiv:1801.03509 [he p-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, G. Chalons and H . Sun, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.9, 095024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.095024 [arXiv:1906.1 1269 [hep-ph]]

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. [LZ], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.4, 041002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 [arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Matte laer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro, JHEP 07 (2014), 079 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079 [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  63. [71]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, KDD ’16, ACM, New York, NY, U.S.A. (201 6), p. 785 [arXiv:1603.02754] [IN SPIRE]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Shapley, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, U.S.A

    L.S. Shapley, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, U.S.A. (1951 ). 27

    1951

  65. [73]

    Grojean, A

    C. Grojean, A. Paul and Z. Qian, JHEP 04 (2021), 139 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)139 [arXiv:2011.13945 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Alasfar, R

    L. Alasfar, R. Gr ¨ober, C. Grojean, A. Paul and Z. Qian, JHEP 11 (2022), 045 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2022)045 [arXiv:2207.04157 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Grojean, A

    C. Grojean, A. Paul, Z. Qian and I. Str ¨umke, Nature Rev. Phys. 4 (2022) no.5, 284-286 doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00456-0 [arXiv:2203.08021 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    H. Bahl, E. Fuchs, M. Hannig and M. Menen, SciPost Phys. Core 8 (2025), 006 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.8.1.006 [arXiv:2309.03146 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Lundberg et al., Nature Machine Intel

    S.M. Lundberg et al., Nature Machine Intel. 2 (2020) 56. 28

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.