Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Top-quark Partial Compositeness beyond the effective field theory paradigm

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If the top quark is partially composite, energy-dependent form factors would produce a wiggle in top-pair production and suppress heavy top-partner signals, beyond what any effective-field-theory truncation predicts.

desk verdict A transparent form-factor benchmark for top compositeness: the qq->ttbar wiggle is the real payoff, but the gg->TT suppression claim rests on an untested ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06996 v1 pith:A26EVTMK submitted 2019-08-19 hep-ph

Diogo Buarque Franzosi , Alberto Tonero This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords topquarkpartialcompositenessformfactorscompositeHiggspartnersearchesLHCphenomenologychromomagneticdipolemomentapproximation
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 argues that partial compositeness of the top quark can show up at colliders through energy-dependent form factors, not just through the leading effective-field-theory operators. In a simplified model in which the composite top partner's gluon interactions are written with chromo-Dirac and chromo-Pauli form factors borrowed from proton electromagnetism, the light top quark inherits modified couplings through the partial-compositeness mixing. The paper finds that in $q\bar q\to t\bar t$ the full form factors produce a wiggle in the top-pair invariant-mass distribution that no EFT truncation or resonance description predicts, and that composite top-partner pair production is suppressed relative to the point-like state used as the standard LHC benchmark. If correct, this gives colliders a new observable for top compositeness and implies that current top-partner search strategies may be assuming too large a signal.

What carries the argument

The central object is a pair of chromo form factors, $F_1(q^2)=1+(q^2/M^2)f_1(q^2)$ and $F_2(q^2)$, for the fully composite top partner, modeled on the proton's Dirac and Pauli form factors and parametrized with the dipole form $(1-q^2/M_D^2)^{-2}$ together with a magnetic-moment normalization $\kappa_g$ and an absorptive phase $\eta$. Partial-compositeness mixing with angles $s_L$ and $s_R$ induces the corresponding top-quark form factors $F_1^{tg}$ and $F_2^{tg}$, which carry the energy dependence that the leading EFT expansion misses. For gluon-initiated processes, the paper additionally multiplies the bare amplitude by an overall form factor $F(t,u,s)$ with scale $\Lambda_T$, taken from the proton-exchange model of $\gamma\gamma\to p\bar p$, to preserve gauge invariance and crossing symmetry. The energy dependence of these form factors, not their Taylor coefficients, is what produces the wiggle and the suppression.

What would settle it

A high-luminosity measurement of the $m_{t\bar t}$ spectrum in quark-initiated production would settle the benchmark: the paper predicts an energy-growing excess, about 4% for $m_{t\bar t}>1$ TeV, with a wiggle near $\sqrt{s}\sim M_D$. Finding neither, while top-partner searches observe rates matching the point-like prediction, would falsify the model. The form-factor ansatz itself could also be checked by a first-principles calculation of the top-partner's gluon form factor in a concrete composite model; if that calculation is not dipole-like, the phenomenological conclusions would need to be revisited.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that when the compositeness scale $\Lambda_c$ lies below the mass of the new resonances $M_\rho$, the top-gluon interaction cannot be summarized by a small set of EFT coefficients: the vertex is an energy-dependent form factor, and its full shape matters in the intermediate window $\Lambda_c< E < M_\rho$. Modeling the heavy composite top partner as a nucleon-like object with chromo-Dirac and chromo-Pauli form factors in the dipole approximation, and rotating to mass eigenstates with mixing angles $s_L$ and $s_R$, the authors derive the modified top-quark current and compute quark- and gluon-initiated pair production. The central results are a wiggle in the $q\bar q\to t\bar t$ invariant-mass distribution that is absent in both EFT and resonance parametrizations, and a sizable suppression of top-partner pair production relative to a point-like top partner, which the authors state should be taken into account in future LHC searches.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dipole form factor used for the proton, applied to the composite top partner and as an overall factor in the two-gluon amplitudes, accurately describes the energy dependence of the new strong dynamics; if the true form factors have a different shape, the wiggle and the suppression will move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A differential measurement of the $m_{t\bar t}$ distribution in quark-initiated top-pair production could search for a wiggle near the form-factor scale; in the benchmark, the total cross section rises by about 1%, and by about 4% when $m_{t\bar t}>1$ TeV.
  • LHC searches for heavy top partners that compare data with a point-like production benchmark will overestimate the expected signal if the top partner is composite; the suppression is energy-growing for a purely composite state and saturates to a constant for a partially composite one.
  • The $gg\to t\bar t$ channel is a less sensitive probe of top compositeness than $q\bar q\to t\bar t$, because the Dirac form factor does not contribute at tree level and the Pauli term is doubly suppressed by mixing angles and by the need to flip helicity.
  • Existing EFT bounds on anomalous top-gluon couplings may be conservative, because the full form factors can exceed the leading EFT terms in the intermediate energy window and may not be captured by a few Wilson coefficients.
  • The form-factor interactions also generate single-top-partner channels $pp\to t\bar T$ and $pp\to T\bar t$ at higher momenta, which the paper identifies as a new QCD production mechanism worth investigating.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit is to compute $F_1(q^2)$ and $F_2(q^2)$ in a specific composite model, such as the lattice theory used for the benchmark masses; a measured wiggle position could then be converted into a direct determination of the compositeness scale.
  • The overall form factor used for $gg$-initiated amplitudes is an ansatz taken from proton-photon scattering, and the paper explicitly neglects resonance and handbag contributions; whether the predicted suppression survives in a given UV model should be treated as open.
  • The same form-factor logic could be applied to the top's electroweak interactions with $Z$ and $W$ bosons, where single-top and associated production would provide complementary energy-dependent probes of the same compositeness.
  • Because the $f_1$ operator is related by the equations of motion to four-fermion interactions that do not feed $gg\to t\bar t$ at tree level, the quark-initiated differential shape is arguably the most direct experimental window onto the Dirac form factor.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a simplified phenomenological model of top-quark partial compositeness in which the composite top partner T' has gluonic interactions described by Dirac and Pauli form factors (dipole approximation), and the light top quark inherits energy-dependent form factors through mixing. The paper derives explicit cross-section formulas for qqbar -> TT and qqbar -> ttbar (Eqs. (33)-(36)) and extends the prescription to gg -> TT and gg -> ttbar by multiplying the bare amplitudes with an overall form factor F(t,u,s) taken from the proton-photon model of Ref. [34]. Using a benchmark with f = 0.6 TeV, M = 9f, M_D = 5f, kappa_g = 2, lambda = 3 and Lambda_T = 11f, the paper claims that (i) the qqbar -> ttbar invariant mass distribution develops a 'wiggle' beyond the EFT and resonance descriptions, and (ii) composite top partner production is strongly suppressed relative to point-like benchmarks, so that current LHC top-partner searches may overestimate the expected signal. It also argues that gg -> ttbar corrections remain small.

Significance. If the two-gluon form-factor ansatz were either derived or shown to be robust, the paper would be a valuable contribution: it provides explicit amplitudes and cross sections, makes falsifiable predictions (the wiggle in m_ttbar, the suppression of composite top partner production), and connects to existing EFT constraints from Refs. [26,27]. The qqbar -> ttbar analysis in particular is a useful proof-of-principle for going beyond leading EFT operators. However, the significance of the paper's central phenomenological conclusions is currently limited because the two-gluon predictions are imposed by an ad hoc overall form factor, not derived from the composite dynamics, and no robustness checks are provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV A, Eqs. (37)-(39), Fig. 5] The suppression of gg -> TT with respect to the point-like case in Fig. 5 is not a derived consequence of partial compositeness; it is imposed by the overall form factor F(t,u,s) borrowed from the proton-photon model of Ref. [34] together with the choice Lambda_T = 11f. For the benchmark mT ~ 5.7 TeV, the threshold value sqrt(s) ~ 2mT gives s ~ 130 TeV^2, which is already of order 2 Lambda_T^2 ~ 87 TeV^2, so the exponential factors in Eqs. (38)-(39) dominate the cross section. The assertion in §IV B that 'the particular form of this parametrization does not change our conclusions' is not supported by any variation of Lambda_T or of the functional form, nor by a derivation of F from the composite sector. Because Fig. 5 is the basis for the conclusion that point-like LHC top-partner benchmarks overestimate the expected signal, this is a load-bearing gap that needs to be addressed with a concrete sensitivity study.
  2. [§IV A and §IV B, Eqs. (41) and (43), Fig. 6] The neglect of the resonance and handbag contributions, which are essential ingredients of the proton-photon model in Ref. [34], is asserted rather than argued. In the composite-Higgs context the spectrum contains hypermesons, including a state with m_rho ~ 6f cited from the lattice, so a resonance near or above threshold could plausibly alter the time-like amplitude. The paper gives no quantitative estimate of the energy scale at which the handbag mechanism becomes relevant for the top sector. Since Eq. (43) and the smallness of the gg -> ttbar corrections in Fig. 6 rely on the same neglect, the robustness of the 'small corrections' claim is not established. A concrete test would be to include a simple resonance pole or a handbag-like term and verify that the ratio in Fig. 6 and the conclusions of Section V are unchanged.
  3. [§V, Conclusion] The concluding statement that 'the production of a composite top partner is expected to be suppressed compared to a point-like state' is too strong given the analysis presented. The suppression in the gg-initiated channel is a consequence of the specific form factor F(t,u,s) and the chosen Lambda_T = 11f; without a robustness analysis the paper can only claim this within the adopted benchmark model. The same caveat applies to the statement that the gg -> ttbar corrections remain small, since those corrections are also governed by the same ansatz.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 2, 5, 6] The horizontal axes are labeled 's [TeV]' in several figures, but the arrow positions (e.g., 2mT ~ 11.4 TeV in Fig. 2 and threshold values in Fig. 5) indicate that the axis actually shows sqrt(s) in TeV, not s in TeV^2. Please relabel the axes consistently.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos, including 'namlely' in §III A, 'analougously' in §IV B, 'subsequentially' in Appendix C, and 'offshellness' in Appendix C. These should be corrected.
  3. [Reference [32]] Reference [32] for the ATLAS charge asymmetry measurement is incomplete; it should include the arXiv number or journal reference so that readers can locate the result.
  4. [§III A, Eq. (23)] The dipole parametrization in Eq. (23) contains an explicit pole at q^2 = 4M^2; the paper notes it is unphysical and expected to be removed by other contributions, but it would be helpful to state explicitly that the numerical results in the physical region are not affected by this pole for the chosen benchmark.
  5. [§III D] The statement that the total qqbar -> ttbar cross section is enhanced by ~1% at the LHC and ~4% with an m(ttbar) > 1 TeV cut is based on CTEQ5 PDFs; using a modern PDF set would be more appropriate, although this does not affect the qualitative conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are model consequences of an admittedly arbitrary ansatz, not fits to the predicted data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained model calculations: one-gluon form factors are defined through a current ansatz (Eqs. 10, 13, 23), the partial-compositeness mixing algebra is done explicitly (Section II A), and the resulting qq->ttbar and gg->TT cross sections are computed from the resulting Feynman rules. The 'wiggle' in qq->ttbar and the suppression of gg->TT are consequences of the assumed energy-dependent form-factor shapes and parameter choices, not quantities fitted to the same data being predicted. The two-gluon amplitude form factor F(t,u,s) is imported from the independent proton-photon model of Ref. [34], and the authors explicitly flag its arbitrariness ('Despite its arbitrariness...'), which is a robustness/correctness concern rather than a circular reduction: changing the ansatz would change the numerical conclusions, but that is true of any phenomenological model and does not make the derivation equivalent to its output. The cited EFT bounds in Eqs. (31)-(32) come from earlier published fits ([26], [27]) and are used as external constraints on parameter choices, not as inputs that are then renamed as predictions. No step in the paper defines an input in terms of the claimed output, fits a parameter to a subset and predicts the same quantity, or relies on a self-citation to supply an otherwise missing premise. The derivation chain is therefore not circular, even though its phenomenological assumptions are strong and the robustness of the two-gluon ansatz is not demonstrated.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a phenomenological parametrization with seven hand-picked parameters (f, M, lambda, M_D, kappa_g, eta, Lambda_T), an assumed dipole Ansatz, and an ad hoc overall form factor for two-gluon processes. There are no machine-checked proofs or external data sets. The qualitative conclusion that form factors matter beyond EFT is defensible, but the quantitative predictions are highly model dependent.

free parameters (7)
  • f (decay constant) = 0.6 TeV (chosen)
    Sets the composite sector scale; all other mass parameters are proportional to f. The value is chosen by hand as a benchmark, although the paper notes constraints favor f > 1 TeV.
  • M (top partner mass parameter) = 9f = 5.4 TeV
    Mass of the composite top partner T', inspired by the lattice SU(4) spectrum [20]. Chosen by hand.
  • lambda (mixing parameter) = 3
    Determines the mixing angles sL=0.091 and sR=0.313 through Eq. (7). Chosen by hand for a representative scenario.
  • M_D (dipole mass) = 5f = 3 TeV
    Mass scale in the dipole form factor parametrization (Eq. 23). Chosen by hand, with the paper noting MD < M.
  • kappa_g (anomalous chromomagnetic moment) = 2
    Value of F2(q^2) at zero momentum transfer (Eq. 12). Chosen by hand, with O(1) expected for a composite object.
  • eta (absorptive phase) = pi/6 or pi/4
    Phase in the time-like dipole parameterization (Eqs. 19, 23). Two values are considered; the results are mildly sensitive to it.
  • Lambda_T (two-gluon form factor scale) = 11f = 6.6 TeV
    Scale in the overall form factor F(t,u,s) for gg-initiated processes (Eq. 39), motivated by the proton case where Lambda_p ~ m_p (Appendix C). Chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The simplified mixing Lagrangian (Eq. 3) with one vector-like composite partner T' captures the relevant partial-compositeness dynamics.
    This is the benchmark simplified model; real UV completions such as those in [2-5] have more structure. The authors adopt a model-independent parametrization.
  • domain assumption The gluon interaction of the composite T' takes the Dirac/Pauli form of Eq. (10), with form factors F1(q^2) and F2(q^2), and form factors depend only on q^2, not on the fermion masses (Eq. A12).
    Motivated by the Lorentz/Ward identity derivation in Appendix A, but the mass-independence assumption is heuristic, as the paper admits in Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper The dipole approximation of Eq. (23), with asymptotic q^-4 and q^-6 behavior, describes the composite top form factors below the resonance scale.
    Borrowed from proton electromagnetic form factors [14-16]; there is no first-principles derivation for the hypercolor theory, and the paper notes different composite structures could change the parametrization.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-gluon amplitudes are obtained by multiplying the bare amplitude by the overall form factor F(t,u,s) of Eqs. (37)-(39), and resonance and handbag contributions are neglected.
    Explicitly an ansatz taken from [34] to enforce gauge invariance and crossing symmetry. The authors acknowledge arbitrariness but assert conclusions are robust without proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The benchmark parameters f=0.6 TeV, M=9f, M_D=5f, kappa_g=2, Lambda_T=11f are representative of a viable partial-compositeness scenario.
    Chosen by hand using lattice and proton guidance. Changing these parameters can shift the numerical predictions, as the paper itself notes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Top-quark Partial Compositeness beyond the effective field theory paradigm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A26EVTMK

@misc{pith2026190806996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Top-quark Partial Compositeness beyond the effective field theory paradigm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A26EVTMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06996}
}
read the original abstract

In theories of Partial Compositeness the top quark is a mixture of a composite and an elementary state, and as a consequence its interactions with gauge bosons are expected to deviate from those of a point-like object. At sufficiently large energies, such deviations cannot be parametrized by the leading effective field theory operators and form factors (i.e. energy dependent interactions) must be introduced. In this work, we argue that such effects might appear at relatively low energies with interesting phenomenological consequences. In analogy to the proton electromagnetic interactions, we devise a simplified phenomenological model that parametrizes the top-quark interactions with gluons in terms of two form factors. We study the implications of these interactions in top-quark and heavy top-partner pair production at a hadron collider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Relevant scales and thresholds for the simplified partially composite top quark scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Energy dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows |Gef f | 2 as a function of the center of mass energy for two values of the absorptive phase η = π/6 and η = π/4 and the other parameters fixed as in Fig. (2), i.e. MD = 5f, M = 9f, κg = 2. The mixing angles are fixed by choosing λ = 3, corresponding to sL = 0.091 and sR = 0.313. The mixing angles lead to a large suppression of the Wilson coefficients. The first arrow from the left in fig. 3 indicates the valu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Mixing angle dependence of the form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    +igsfa a3a4f′ 1(p2 34) [ Vg 1 (a,µ 4,p 4)(p3 + 2p4)µ3 −Vg 1 (a,µ 3,p 3)(p4 + 2p3)µ4 ] +Vgg 2 F2(p2 34) +igsfa a3a4F′ 2(p2 34) [ Vg 2 (a,µ 4,p 4)(p3 + 2p4)µ3−Vg 2 (a,µ 3,p 3)(p4 + 2p3)µ4 ] +... (B9) 24 where Vgg 1 = g2 s M 2fa a3a4Ta [ γµ3(p4 + 2p3)µ4−γµ4(p3 + 2p4)µ3−ηµ3µ4(/p3− /p4)(s2 LPL +s2 RPR) ] (B10) Vgg 2 =− g2 s 4MsLsRfa a3a4Ta(γµ3γµ4−γµ4γµ3) (B11)...

    work page 1972

  2. [1]

    The proton case Before discussing the top quark, it is useful to reconsider first the nucleon case and introduce the well known Sachs electric and magnetic form factors GE and GM which are defined as follows GN E (q2) = FN 1 (q2) + q2 4M 2 p FN 2 (q2), (16) GN M(q2) = FN 1 (q2) +FN 2 (q2). (17) Data from several proton scattering experiments are well fitted ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    (4) Let t and T be the mass eigenstates such that (t′ R T′ R ) = (−cR sR sR cR )(tR TR ) and (t′ L T′ L ) = ( cL sL −sL cL )(tL TL ) (5) 4 where cR,L = cosθR,L and sR,L = sinθR,L

    we can identify the following mass mixing terms −L mass = (¯t′L ¯T′L) ( 0 yυ√ 2 λf M )(t′ R T′ R ) + h.c. (4) Let t and T be the mass eigenstates such that (t′ R T′ R ) = (−cR sR sR cR )(tR TR ) and (t′ L T′ L ) = ( cL sL −sL cL )(tL TL ) (5) 4 where cR,L = cosθR,L and sR,L = sinθR,L. To achieve a diagonal matrix we get tan(2θL) = √ 2Myv M 2− y2v2 2 +λ2f ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    The top-quark case In complete analogy to the proton case, see eq. (22), we parametrize the gluonic form factors of the heavy T′ using the dipole approximation as follows F1(q2) = ( 1− q2 M 2 D eiηΘ(q2) )−2( 1 + κg 1− 4M 2/q2 ) F2(q2) = ( 1− q2 M 2 D eiηΘ(q2) )−2( κg 1−q2/(4M 2) ) . (23) We note that these forms might be different than the proton case depe...

    work page

  5. [4]

    (33) would also behave as point-like

    Similarly, if there is no mixing, namely sL,sR→ 0, the top-pair production cross section of eq. (33) would also behave as point-like. Fig. 3 shows |Geff|2 as a function of the center of mass energy for two values of the absorptive phase η = π/6 and η = π/4 and the other parameters fixed as in Fig. (2), i.e. MD = 5f, M = 9f, κg = 2. The mixing angles are fix...

    work page arXiv 1950

  6. [5]

    +Vg 2 (a3,µ 3,p 3)F2(p2

    work page

  7. [6]

    (B8) The Feynman rules for the four point function are t1 ¯t2g3g4 : Vgg 1 f1(p2

    (B6) where Vg 1 (a3,µ 3,p 3) =i gs M 2Ta3(γµ3p2 3−pµ 3/p3)(s2 LPL +s2 RPR) (B7) Vg 2 (a3,µ 3,p 3) =− gs 2MsLsRTa3σµ3νp3ν. (B8) The Feynman rules for the four point function are t1 ¯t2g3g4 : Vgg 1 f1(p2

    work page

  8. [7]

    M. J. Dugan, H. Georgi, and D. B. Kaplan, Anatomy of a Composite Higgs Model , Nucl. Phys. B254 (1985) 299–326

    work page 1985

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    D. B. Kaplan, Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses, Nucl. Phys. B365 (1991) 259–278

    1991

  2. [9]

    Ferretti, Gauge theories of Partial Compositeness: Scenarios for Run-II of the LHC , JHEP 06 (2016) 107, [ arXiv:1604.06467]

    G. Ferretti, Gauge theories of Partial Compositeness: Scenarios for Run-II of the LHC , JHEP 06 (2016) 107, [ arXiv:1604.06467]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ferretti and D

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev, Fermionic UV completions of Composite Higgs models , JHEP 03 (2014) 077, [ arXiv:1312.5330]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Ferretti, UV Completions of Partial Compositeness: The Case for a SU(4) Gauge Group , JHEP 06 (2014) 142, [ arXiv:1404.7137]

    G. Ferretti, UV Completions of Partial Compositeness: The Case for a SU(4) Gauge Group , JHEP 06 (2014) 142, [ arXiv:1404.7137]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Buarque Franzosi and G

    D. Buarque Franzosi and G. Ferretti, Anomalous dimensions of potential top-partners , arXiv:1905.08273

    1905 arXiv

  6. [13]

    L. L. Foldy, The Electron-Neutron Interaction, Phys. Rev. 87 (1952) 693–696

    1952

  7. [14]

    Iachello, A

    F. Iachello, A. D. Jackson, and A. Lande, Semiphenomenological fits to nucleon electromagnetic form-factors, Phys. Lett. 43B (1973) 191–196

    1973

  8. [15]

    Vecchi, A dangerous irrelevant UV-completion of the composite Higgs , JHEP 02 (2017) 094, [arXiv:1506.00623]

    L. Vecchi, A dangerous irrelevant UV-completion of the composite Higgs , JHEP 02 (2017) 094, [arXiv:1506.00623]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Sannino, A

    F. Sannino, A. Strumia, A. Tesi, and E. Vigiani, Fundamental partial compositeness, JHEP 11 (2016) 029, [ arXiv:1607.01659]. 27

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala, D. M. Straub, and A. Tesi, A 125 GeV composite Higgs boson versus flavour and electroweak precision tests , JHEP 05 (2013) 069, [arXiv:1211.5085]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Grojean, O

    C. Grojean, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Panico, Light top partners and precision physics , JHEP 10 (2013) 160, [ arXiv:1306.4655]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Arbey, G

    A. Arbey, G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea, S. Le Corre, and F. Sannino, Fundamental Composite Electroweak Dynamics: Status at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D95 (2017), no. 1 015028, [arXiv:1502.04718]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Buarque Franzosi, G

    D. Buarque Franzosi, G. Cacciapaglia, and A. Deandrea, Sigma-assisted natural composite Higgs, arXiv:1809.09146

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Englert, A

    C. Englert, A. Freitas, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Constraining the Intrinsic Structure of Top-Quarks, Phys. Lett. B721 (2013) 261–268, [ arXiv:1210.2570]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Iachello and Q

    F. Iachello and Q. Wan, Structure of the nucleon from electromagnetic timelike form factors , Phys. Rev. C69 (2004) 055204

    2004

  16. [23]

    Bijker and F

    R. Bijker and F. Iachello, Re-analysis of the nucleon space- and time-like electromagnetic form-factors in a two-component model , Phys. Rev. C69 (2004) 068201, [ nucl-th/0405028]

    2004 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model , Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 189–212

    1984

  18. [25]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. R. Farrar, Scaling Laws at Large Transverse Momentum , Phys. Rev. Lett. 31 (1973) 1153–1156

    1973

  19. [26]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2157

    1980

  20. [27]

    Ayyar, T

    V. Ayyar, T. Degrand, D. C. Hackett, W. I. Jay, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir, and B. Svetitsky, Baryon spectrum of SU(4) composite Higgs theory with two distinct fermion representations , Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 11 114505, [ arXiv:1801.05809]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Buchkremer, G

    M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and L. Panizzi, Model Independent Framework for Searches of Top Partners , Nucl. Phys. B876 (2013) 376–417, [arXiv:1305.4172]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Englert, D

    C. Englert, D. Goncalves, and M. Spannowsky, Nonstandard top substructure, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 7 074038, [ arXiv:1401.1502]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Fabbrichesi, M

    M. Fabbrichesi, M. Pinamonti, and A. Tonero, Stringent limits on top-quark compositeness fromt¯t production at the Tevatron and the LHC , Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 7 074028, 28 [arXiv:1307.5750]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bernreuther and Z.-G

    W. Bernreuther and Z.-G. Si, Top quark spin correlations and polarization at the LHC: standard model predictions and effects of anomalous top chromo moments , Phys. Lett. B725 (2013) 115–122, [ arXiv:1305.2066]. [Erratum: Phys. Lett.B744,413(2015)]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Durieux and O

    G. Durieux and O. Matsedonskyi, The top-quark window on compositeness at future lepton colliders, JHEP 01 (2019) 072, [ arXiv:1807.10273]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Buarque Franzosi and C

    D. Buarque Franzosi and C. Zhang, Probing the top-quark chromomagnetic dipole moment at next-to-leading order in QCD , Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 11 114010, [ arXiv:1503.08841]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Barducci, M

    D. Barducci, M. Fabbrichesi, and A. Tonero, Constraints on top quark nonstandard interactions from Higgs and t¯t production cross sections, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 7 075022, [arXiv:1704.05478]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, and M. P´ erez-Victoria, Handbook of vectorlike quarks: Mixing and single production , Phys. Rev. D88 (2013), no. 9 094010, [arXiv:1306.0572]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Benbrik et al., Signatures of vector-like top partners decaying into new neutral scalar or pseudoscalar bosons, arXiv:1907.05929

    R. Benbrik et al., Signatures of vector-like top partners decaying into new neutral scalar or pseudoscalar bosons, arXiv:1907.05929

    1907 arXiv

  30. [38]

    CTEQ Collaboration, H. L. Lai, J. Huston, S. Kuhlmann, J. Morfin, F. I. Olness, J. F. Owens, J. Pumplin, and W. K. Tung, Global QCD analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton distributions , Eur. Phys. J. C12 (2000) 375–392, [hep-ph/9903282]

    2000 arXiv

  31. [39]

    ATLAS Collaboration, T. A. collaboration, Inclusive and differential measurement of the charge asymmetry in t¯t events at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector ,

  32. [40]

    Poppe, Exclusive Hadron Production in Two Photon Reactions , Int

    M. Poppe, Exclusive Hadron Production in Two Photon Reactions , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A1 (1986) 545–668

    1986

  33. [41]

    K lusek-Gawenda, P

    M. K lusek-Gawenda, P. Lebiedowicz, O. Nachtmann, and A. Szczurek, From the γγ→p¯p reaction to the production of p¯p pairs in ultraperipheral ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 9 094029, [ arXiv:1708.09836]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431, [ hep-ph/0012260]. 29

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hahn, Automatic loop calculations with FeynArts, FormCalc, and LoopTools , Nucl

    T. Hahn, Automatic loop calculations with FeynArts, FormCalc, and LoopTools , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 89 (2000) 231–236, [ hep-ph/0005029]

    2000 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hippchen, J

    T. Hippchen, J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, and V. Mull, Meson - baryon dynamics in the nucleon - anti-nucleon system. 1. The Nucleon - anti-nucleon interaction , Phys. Rev. C44 (1991) 1323–1336

    1991

  37. [45]

    Mergell, U

    P. Mergell, U. G. Meissner, and D. Drechsel, Dispersion theoretical analysis of the nucleon electromagnetic form-factors, Nucl. Phys. A596 (1996) 367–396, [ hep-ph/9506375]

    1996 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. A. Belushkin, H. W. Hammer, and U. G. Meissner, Dispersion analysis of the nucleon form-factors including meson continua , Phys. Rev. C75 (2007) 035202, [ hep-ph/0608337]

    2007 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. M. Alarc´ on and C. Weiss,Nucleon form factors in dispersively improved Chiral Effective Field Theory II: Electromagnetic form factors , arXiv:1710.06430

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bauer, J

    T. Bauer, J. C. Bernauer, and S. Scherer, Electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C86 (2012) 065206, [ arXiv:1209.3872]. 30

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.