Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Constraining the top quark effective field theory using the top quark pair production in association with a jet at future lepton colliders

T0 review · 5 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 Top-quark pair production with an associated jet at future electron-positron colliders can constrain top-quark new-physics operator coefficients down to 10^-4.

desk verdict A useful but methodologically under-documented SMEFT sensitivity study for e+e- -> ttbar+jet; the limits are plausible but the missing statistical procedure and the MVA extrapolation from c=0.1 to c~1e-4 need to be addressed before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00592 v2 pith:A7TU6TW4 submitted 2019-09-02 hep-ph

Reza Jafari , Parvin Eslami , Mojtaba Mohammadi Najafabadi , Hamzeh Khanpour This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords topquarkpairproductionwithajetSMEFTSILHbasisWilsoncoefficientsfutureleptoncollidersdileptonicfinalstatemultivariateanalysis
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 $e^-e^+ \to t\bar{t}+\text{jet}$ at future electron-positron colliders can measure the effective field theory of top-quark couplings with greater sensitivity than $t\bar{t}$ production alone. Working in the SILH operator basis, the authors study the dimension-six operators that modify the $t\bar{t}\gamma$, $t\bar{t}Z$, and $t\bar{t}g$ vertices and simulate the dileptonic final state at center-of-mass energies of 500 GeV and 3 TeV, including detector response and the main backgrounds. They find that the momentum-dependent dipole operators $O_{uW}$ and $O_{uB}$ produce large energy-growing enhancements of the cross section, and they project 95% CL limits on normalized Wilson coefficients down to $10^{-3}$ at 3 TeV and $10^{-4}$ at 500 GeV in the most favorable scenarios. If these projections hold, future lepton colliders would be able to probe new physics coupled to the top quark at scales well above the collision energy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of dimension-six, CP-conserving operators in the SILH basis that involve the top quark, especially the dipole operators $O_{uW}$ and $O_{uB}$, with normalized coefficients $\bar{c}_i = c_i v^2/\Lambda^2$. Their vertices grow with the momentum flowing through the virtual photon or $Z$, which is why the high-energy cross-section ratio rises by factors of 20-40. On the analysis side, the sensitivity comes from merging 0- and 1-parton matrix elements, simulating an ILD-like detector response, reconstructing jets with the anti-$k_T$ algorithm, requiring two opposite-sign leptons and two $b$-tagged jets, and feeding kinematic variables such as $H_T$, the $b$-jet invariant mass, and lepton and jet pseudorapidities into a gradient-boosted decision tree.

What would settle it

Recompute the analysis with next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to $e^-e^+ \to t\bar{t}+\text{jet}$ and compare the predicted dileptonic cross sections and BDT output distributions at 500 GeV and 3 TeV with the leading-order predictions. If the shifts exceed the assumed 10% uncertainty band, the projected $10^{-4}$ limits would move correspondingly, and a measurement at a future collider that deviated by more than that band would directly invalidate the bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding a resolved jet to top-quark pair production turns $e^-e^+ \to t\bar{t}+\text{jet}$ into a sensitive probe of the electroweak dipole operators $O_{uW}$ and $O_{uB}$, because the virtual photon and $Z$ boson can carry momentum up to the full center-of-mass energy. At 3 TeV with normalized coefficients $\bar{c}_{uW}=\bar{c}_{uB}=0.03$, the merged $t\bar{t}/t\bar{t}+\text{jet}$ cross section is enhanced by factors of roughly 20 and 40 respectively, while $O_{uG}$ at the same value adds only about a factor of two. The paper projects 95% CL bounds reaching the $10^{-3}$ level for $\bar{c}_{uW}$ and $\bar{c}_{uB}$ with 3 ab$^{-1}$ at 3 TeV and the $10^{-4}$ level at 500 GeV in the best scenarios, with the same limits translating to a new-physics scale $\Lambda \gtrsim 17$ TeV for $c_X=1$ and a bound $M \gtrsim 7$ TeV in the strongly interacting Higgs regime $g_* = 4\pi$. Operators $O_{HQ}$, $O'_{HQ}$, and $O_{Hu}$ have little effect on the rate and are constrained only weakly.

Load-bearing premise

The entire projection depends on the leading-order matrix-element simulation with parton-shower merging and an ILD-like detector response predicting the true signal and background rates and shapes at 500 GeV and 3 TeV, with only an ad hoc 10% systematic uncertainty covering missing higher-order and modeling effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Projected 95% CL bounds on $\bar{c}_{uW}$ and $\bar{c}_{uB}$ would improve on the current percent-level limits from $t\bar{t}Z$ and $t\bar{t}W$ measurements and on the global-fit ranges quoted in the paper.
  • The implied scales $\Lambda \gtrsim 17$ TeV (for $c_X=1$) and $M \gtrsim 7$ TeV (strongly interacting Higgs, $g_*=4\pi$) mean the process remains a discovery channel even if new particles are too heavy for direct production.
  • At 3 TeV with 3 ab$^{-1}$, the projected reach on $\bar{c}_{uG}$ is about $|\bar{c}_{uG}| \lesssim 0.03$-$0.04$, which would tighten the current global-fit range for the gluon-dipole coefficient.
  • Operators that modify the top-quark coupling through four-quark or Higgs-current terms ($O_{HQ}$, $O'_{HQ}$, $O_{Hu}$) are barely constrained by this channel, so other observables are still needed for them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The energy-growing behavior suggests that a simultaneous fit to 500 GeV and 3 TeV data could separate $O_{uW}$ from $O_{uB}$ through their different scaling with $\sqrt{s}$, a handle the paper does not explicitly exploit.
  • The $10^{-4}$ projection comes from one-sided intervals that extend to values near zero; adding next-to-leading-order QCD corrections and more realistic systematic uncertainties would test how stable that reach is.
  • Extending the same selection to the semileptonic $t\bar{t}$ channel and to beam-polarization setups, which the paper mentions as possible improvements, could turn the projected limits into a more complete top-coupling fit.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Monte Carlo projection of the sensitivity of e+e- -> t tbar + jet production at sqrt(s) = 500 GeV and 3 TeV to six CP-conserving dimension-six SMEFT operators in the SILH basis. The analysis uses MadGraph5 leading-order matrix elements with MLM merging, PYTHIA for showering and hadronization, Delphes with an ILD-like detector simulation, and a gradient-boosted decision tree in the dileptonic t tbar final state. Expected 95% CL limits are reported for cbar_uW, cbar_uB, cbar_uG, cbar_Hu, cbar_HQ, and cbar'_HQ at two energies and several integrated luminosities, with the strongest claims being sensitivity to cbar_uW and cbar_uB at the 10^-3 to 10^-4 level. The paper argues that adding the t tbar + jet process to t tbar improves the reach of future e+e- colliders to top-quark electroweak couplings.

Significance. If the projected limits are reliable, the paper would provide a useful cross-check of SMEFT top-quark coupling constraints at future lepton colliders, especially for the electroweak dipole operators O_uW and O_uB. The simulation chain is realistic in several respects: it uses a full detector response via Delphes/ILD, includes the dominant backgrounds, applies MLM merging, and considers two center-of-mass energies with different luminosity scenarios. However, the central quantitative claims rest on an incompletely specified statistical procedure and on a multivariate classifier trained at large Wilson coefficients, so the numerical limits should be treated with caution. The paper does not provide machine-checked derivations or reproducible code; its value is as an indicative phenomenological projection rather than a definitive sensitivity statement.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Table 2] The paper never specifies the statistical procedure used to convert simulated event counts into the quoted 95% CL intervals. No likelihood, chi-square, Bayesian, CL_s, or profile-likelihood construction is given, and it is unclear whether the contours in Figs. 6 and 7 are simultaneous two-dimensional limits or one-dimensional projections, or how the 'marginalised limits over all contributing operators' mentioned in the text are computed. Because the limits are the central quantitative result, this omission prevents the reader from reproducing or interpreting the numbers.
  2. [Section 3, Figs. 4-5 and Table 1] The gradient BDT is trained and its optimum cut is chosen on benchmark signals with Wilson coefficients set to 0.1 (e.g., cbar_uB = cbar_uW = 0.1), where the post-MVA signal is 247.5 fb against 3.6 fb of SM t tbar + jet background at 500 GeV. The claimed reach in Table 2 extends to c ~ 2e-4, where the full SMEFT signal sample is nearly indistinguishable from the SM t tbar + jet background by construction, and where c = 0.1 is outside the global-fit interval of Eq. (5) for cbar_uW. The paper does not document whether the BDT is retrained for each coefficient value or whether the cut is re-optimized as a function of c; if a fixed c = 0.1 benchmark is applied, the signal efficiency at small c is not established. This is load-bearing because the reach claim is an extrapolation over three orders of magnitude in the Wilson coefficient.
  3. [Sections 3 and 4] The projected limits rely on leading-order matrix elements, as stated in Section 3, and on an ad hoc 10% systematic uncertainty on background rates and signal efficiency in Section 4. There is no scale variation, no xqcut/qcut variation, no estimate of NLO or electroweak corrections, and no derivation of the 10% number. At sqrt(s) = 3 TeV, where limits near 10^-3 are claimed, even moderate corrections to the signal acceptance or background normalization can shift the contours by an amount comparable to the quoted reach. The dependence of the limits on these choices should be quantified, for example by varying the merging scales and by applying NLO k-factors or scale-uncertainty bands.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4] The claim that adding e+e- -> t tbar + jet to e+e- -> t tbar improves the sensitivity is not demonstrated by the presented analysis. The paper compares its t tbar + jet limits with the t tbar -only results of Ref. [75] only in words, stating that the results are comparable and that a combination would improve, but it does not perform a t tbar -only analysis with the same generator, detector simulation, and statistical treatment. The improvement claim therefore lacks a direct quantitative basis.
  5. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract's statement that the Wilson coefficients 'could be probed down to 10^-4' overstates the tabulated results. Table 2 gives cbar_uW in [-0.011, 0.0002] and cbar_uB in [-0.017, 0.0003] at sqrt(s) = 500 GeV with 4 ab^-1, so the best upper edges are 2e-4 and 3e-4, while at 500 fb^-1 the corresponding edges are 6e-4 and 9e-4. Unless the 10^-4 quote is intended only as an order-of-magnitude statement, it should be made precise and consistent with the table.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The acronym 'CPEC' appears to be a typo for 'CEPC' (Circular Electron Positron Collider); please correct it.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption should state explicitly that the quoted 'Signal' cross sections include the full SMEFT cross section, i.e., the SM piece plus the EFT contribution, not only the EFT-induced excess; this is essential for interpreting the small-c extrapolation.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence 'the results from this analysis derives comparable bounds' should be rephrased for grammar; more substantively, the comparison with Ref. [75] should state what luminosity, polarization, and statistical procedure are being assumed for the quoted t tbar -only limits.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The sentence 'Some plots are magnified for better clarity' does not identify which panels are magnified; please indicate the magnified panels or remove the statement.
  5. [Section 3] The requirement of 'exactly two same flavour opposite sign isolated charged leptons' should clarify whether e±mu∓ events are excluded; the dileptonic t tbar decay yields e+e-, mu+mu-, and e±mu∓ final states, so the same-flavour requirement removes one of the three categories and this choice should be justified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected EFT limits are derived from a self-contained simulation chain and reduce to no fitted input.

full rationale

The paper derives 95% CL bounds on Wilson coefficients by generating SMEFT signal and SM background samples with MadGraph5, PYTHIA, and Delphes, applying preselection and a BDTG, and extracting limits from post-MVA cross sections at fixed luminosities (Secs. 3-4). The coefficients are scanned, not fitted to the simulated data, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Existing constraints from CMS (Eq. 4) and global fits (Eq. 5) are quoted only for comparison, not used to normalize or force the projected limits. Self-citations such as Refs. [36-38,55] appear inside broad literature lists [26-66] and do not carry any load-bearing argument; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptical concern that the BDT is trained at c=0.1 while the claimed reach is c ~ 1e-4 is a legitimate question about extrapolated MVA performance and statistical sensitivity, but it is not a circularity: the limit does not reduce by construction to the training point. Accordingly, no circular step satisfying the quoted-equation standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the SMEFT operator basis, the Monte Carlo generation chain, and the assumed statistical procedure; no new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Signal benchmark Wilson coefficients = 0.1 for each considered cbar_i
    Signal samples for BDT training are generated with cbar_i = 0.1; the projected limits at 10^-3 to 10^-4 assume signal kinematics and BDT performance do not change significantly from these benchmark points.
  • Systematic uncertainty on background rates and signal efficiency = 10%
    Added by hand in Section 4; loosens limits by about 15%, so the central limits depend on this arbitrary choice.
  • MLM merging scales = xqcut=20 GeV, qcut=30 GeV
    Chosen to ensure smooth merging; affects the ttbar+jet cross section used for signal and background, and no uncertainty is assigned.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption SMEFT with dimension-six operators only, in the SILH basis, with CP conservation and flavour universality, is a valid description of new physics contributions.
    Used throughout Section 2; higher-dimensional operators and other bases are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The FeynRules/UFO implementation of the effective operators correctly reproduces the SMEFT Lagrangian.
    The study relies on this implementation in MadGraph without independent validation.
  • domain assumption Leading-order matrix elements with MLM merging and PYTHIA parton shower accurately model ttbar+jet cross sections and distributions at 500 GeV and 3 TeV.
    Section 3; no NLO QCD or electroweak corrections are included.
  • domain assumption Delphes 3.4.1 with an ILD-like detector card gives a realistic detector response for future e+e- colliders.
    Section 3; actual detector performance may differ.
  • domain assumption The listed background processes (ttbar+jet, tWj, WWV+ZZV, VVV'V') are the only relevant backgrounds after selection.
    Section 3; other backgrounds, such as four-fermion production, are not considered.
  • domain assumption SMEFT operator effects on background processes other than tWj are negligible at the level of 10^-4 to 10^-5 fb.
    Section 3; only the tWj background is corrected for operator effects.
  • ad hoc to paper A 95% CL limit can be derived from the simulated event counts using an unspecified statistical procedure.
    Section 4; the likelihood and treatment of uncertainties are not given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the top quark effective field theory using the top quark pair production in association with a jet at future lepton colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7TU6TW4

@misc{pith2026190900592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the top quark effective field theory using the top quark pair production in association with a jet at future lepton colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7TU6TW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00592}
}
abstract

Our main aim in this paper is to constrain the effective field theory describing the top quark couplings through the $e^{-} e^{+} \rightarrow t \bar{t}+$jet process. The analysis is carried out considering two different center-of-mass energies of 500 and 3000 GeV including a realistic simulation of the detector response and the main sources of background processes. The expected limits at 95\% CL are derived on the new physics couplings such as $t \bar t \gamma$, $t \bar t Z$, and $t \bar t g$ for each benchmark scenario using the dileptonic $t \bar{t}$ final state. We show that the 95\% CL limits on dimensionless Wilson coefficients $\bar{c}_i$ considered in this analysis could be probed down to $10^{-4}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative Feynman diagrams for the tt¯ and tt¯ production in association with a jet in electron-positron collisions in the SMEFT. In the current study, we restrict ourselves to effective operators contributing to e −e + → tt¯+ jet process involving at least one top quark. Although other effective operators can affect the tt¯+ jet process via for example Zee or γee vertices, they have tightly constrained by the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The leading order cross section for the production of e −e + → tt¯+ ttj¯ (merged using MLM) versus the center-of-mass energy. The results are shown for the SM and for the signal scenarios in bar notation ¯cX = cXv 2/Λ 2 with the assumptions of ¯cuG = 0.03, ¯cuW = 0.03, and ¯cuB = 0.03. The cross sections have been calculated with a minimum cut of pT ≥ 20 GeV on the gluon. The small plot in the bottom shows the cross… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ratio of tt¯+jet production cross section in the SMEFT to the SM in electron-positron collisions versus the Wilson coefficients. The rates are calculated at leading-order at √ s = 500 GeV for the ¯cuG, c¯uW , ¯cuB, ¯cHQ, ¯c 0 HQ, and ¯cHu. A minimum cut of 20 GeV has been applied on the transverse momentum of additional jet. The generated samples are passed through the PYTHIA 6 [88,89] for parton shower, hadroniza￾t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The normalised distributions of some of the input variables to the multivariate analysis. The plots show distributions of HT (top left), invariant mass of b-jets (top right) pseudorapidity of leading b-jet (bottom left) and leading lepton (bottom right) at √ s = 3000 G…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of the gradient BDT output for the signal with cuB = cuG = 0.1 and for the SM backgrounds at the the center-of-mass energy of 3000 GeV. √ s = 3000 GeV Couplings Signal tt¯+jet tW j WW V + ZZV V V V 0V 0 MVA (¯cuW , c¯uB) 4.42 0.0021 0.0041 0.0005 0.000…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contours of 95% CL at center-of-mass energy of 3000 GeV with the integrated luminosities of 300 and 3000 fb−1 . The contours of 95% CL considering an uncertainty of 10% on the background rates and 10% uncertainty on the signal efficiency with 3000 fb−1 . From [PITH_FU…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contours of 95% confidence level at center-of-mass energy of 500 GeV with the integrated luminosities of 500 fb−1 and 4000 fb−1 . Some plots are magnified for better clarity. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [75]

    Top quark electroweak couplings at future lepton colliders,

    C. Englert and M. Russell, “Top quark electroweak couplings at future lepton colliders,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 8, 535 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5095-z [arXiv:1704.01782 [hep-ph]]. 18

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [3]

    Working Group Report: Higgs Boson,

    S. Dawson et al. , “Working Group Report: Higgs Boson,” arXiv:1310.8361 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,

    D. de Florian et al. [LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group], “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,” doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002 arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties,

    S. Heinemeyer et al. [LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group], “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties,” doi:10.5170/CERN-2013-004 arXiv:1307.1347 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Observation of top quark production in ¯ pp collisions,

    F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], “Observation of top quark production in ¯ pp collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626 [hep-ex/9503002]

    arXiv 1995

  8. [7]

    Search for high mass top quark production inp¯p collisions at√s = 1.8 TeV,

    S. Abachi et al. [D0 Collaboration], “Search for high mass top quark production inp¯p collisions at√s = 1.8 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2422 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2422 [hep- ex/9411001]

    arXiv 1995

Show all 96 references
  1. [8]

    Possible Futures of Electroweak Precision: ILC, FCC-ee, and CEPC,

    J. Fan, M. Reece and L. T. Wang, “Possible Futures of Electroweak Precision: ILC, FCC-ee, and CEPC,” JHEP 1509, 196 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)196 [arXiv:1411.1054 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Physics at the e+ e- Linear Collider,

    G. Moortgat-Pick et al., “Physics at the e+ e- Linear Collider,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 8, 371 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3511-9 [arXiv:1504.01726 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Physics Case for the International Linear Collider,

    K. Fujii et al. , “Physics Case for the International Linear Collider,” arXiv:1506.05992 [hep- ex]

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    The Compact Linear Col- lider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,

    P. N. Burrows et al. [CLICdp and CLIC Collaborations], “The Compact Linear Col- lider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,” CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 1802, 1 (2018) doi:10.23731/CYRM-2018-002 [arXiv:1812.06018 [physics.acc-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    The Compact Linear e +e− Collider (CLIC): Physics Potential,

    P. Roloff et al. [CLIC and CLICdp Collaborations], “The Compact Linear e +e− Collider (CLIC): Physics Potential,” arXiv:1812.07986 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - Project Implementation Plan,

    M. Aicheler et al. [CLIC accelerator Collaboration], “The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - Project Implementation Plan,” doi:10.23731/CYRM-2018-004 arXiv:1903.08655 [physics.acc- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    The International Linear Collider. A Global Project,

    H. Aihara et al. [ILC Collaboration], “The International Linear Collider. A Global Project,” arXiv:1901.09829 [hep-ex]

    1901 arXiv

  8. [15]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics,

    H. Baer et al. , “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics,” arXiv:1306.6352 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,

    T. Behnke et al. , “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,” arXiv:1306.6327 [physics.acc-ph]. 14

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and Detector,

    M. Ahmad et al. , “CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and Detector,” IHEP-CEPC-DR-2015-01, IHEP-TH-2015-01, IHEP-EP-2015-01

    2015

  11. [18]

    CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 2. Accel- erator,

    CEPC-SPPC Study Group, “CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 2. Accel- erator,” IHEP-CEPC-DR-2015-01, IHEP-AC-2015-01

    2015

  12. [20]

    First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP,

    M. Bicer et al. [TLEP Design Study Working Group], “First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP,” JHEP 1401, 164 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)164 [arXiv:1308.6176 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    FCC Physics Opportunities : Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1,

    A. Abada et al. [FCC Collaboration], “FCC Physics Opportunities : Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no. 6, 474 (2019). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider : Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,

    A. Abada et al. [FCC Collaboration], “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider : Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, no. 2, 261 (2019). doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,

    P. Azzi et al. [HL-LHC Collaboration and HE-LHC Working Group], “Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,” arXiv:1902.04070 [hep-ph]

    1902 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report,

    J. Beacham et al., “Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report,” arXiv:1901.09966 [hep-ex]

    1901 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Beyond the Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,

    X. Cid Vidal et al. [Working Group 3], “Beyond the Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,” arXiv:1812.07831 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Top-quark electroweak interactions at high energy,

    F. Maltoni, L. Mantani and K. Mimasu, “Top-quark electroweak interactions at high energy,” arXiv:1904.05637 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Statistical approach to Higgs boson couplings in the standard model ef- fective field theory,

    C. W. Murphy, “Statistical approach to Higgs boson couplings in the standard model ef- fective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 1, 015007 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.015007 [arXiv:1710.02008 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Probing top-quark couplings indirectly at Higgs factories,

    G. Durieux, J. Gu, E. Vryonidou and C. Zhang, “Probing top-quark couplings indirectly at Higgs factories,” Chin. Phys. C 42, no. 12, 123107 (2018) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/42/12/123107 [arXiv:1809.03520 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [30]

    The electro-weak couplings of the top and bottom quarks – global fit and future prospects,

    G. Durieux, A. Irles, V. Miralles, A. Penuelas, R. Poschl, M. Perello and M. Vos, “The electro-weak couplings of the top and bottom quarks – global fit and future prospects,” arXiv:1907.10619 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Constraining four-fermion operators using rare top decays,

    M. Chala, J. Santiago and M. Spannowsky, “Constraining four-fermion operators using rare top decays,” JHEP 1904, 014 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)014 [arXiv:1809.09624 [hep- ph]]. 15

    2019 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard- model effective field theory,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al. , “Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard- model effective field theory,” arXiv:1802.07237 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [34]

    The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, “The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rept. 793, 1 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.11.002 [arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [35]

    The Higgs width in the SMEFT,

    I. Brivio, T. Corbett and M. Trott, “The Higgs width in the SMEFT,” arXiv:1906.06949 [hep-ph]

    1906 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Constraining Higgs boson effec- tive couplings at electron-positron colliders,

    H. Khanpour and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “Constraining Higgs boson effec- tive couplings at electron-positron colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 5, 055026 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.055026 [arXiv:1702.00951 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [37]

    Study of Higgs Effec- tive Couplings at Electron-Proton Colliders,

    H. Hesari, H. Khanpour and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “Study of Higgs Effec- tive Couplings at Electron-Proton Colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 9, 095041 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.095041 [arXiv:1805.04697 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Probing Higgs boson couplings in H+γ production at the LHC,

    H. Khanpour, S. Khatibi and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “Probing Higgs boson couplings in H+γ production at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 773, 462 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.005 [arXiv:1702.05753 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Sensitivities of Prospective Future e+e- Colliders to Decoupled New Physics,

    J. Ellis and T. You, “Sensitivities of Prospective Future e+e- Colliders to Decoupled New Physics,” JHEP 1603, 089 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)089 [arXiv:1510.04561 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Probing 6D operators at future e?e+ colliders,

    W. H. Chiu, S. C. Leung, T. Liu, K. F. Lyu and L. T. Wang, “Probing 6D operators at future e?e+ colliders,” JHEP 1805, 081 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)081 [arXiv:1711.04046 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Dimension-6 Operator Analysis of the CLIC Sensitiv- ity to New Physics,

    J. Ellis, P. Roloff, V. Sanz and T. You, “Dimension-6 Operator Analysis of the CLIC Sensitiv- ity to New Physics,” JHEP 1705, 096 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)096 [arXiv:1701.04804 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV colliders - new physics working group report,

    G. Brooijmans et al. , “Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV colliders - new physics working group report,” arXiv:1605.02684 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Probing top-Z dipole moments at the LHC and ILC,

    R. Rontsch and M. Schulze, “Probing top-Z dipole moments at the LHC and ILC,” JHEP 1508, 044 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)044 [arXiv:1501.05939 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Constraining couplings of top quarks to the Z boson in tt + Z production at the LHC,

    R. Rontsch and M. Schulze, “Constraining couplings of top quarks to the Z boson in tt + Z production at the LHC,” JHEP 1407, 091 (2014) Erratum: [JHEP 1509, 132 (2015)] doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)132, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)091 [arXiv:1404.1005 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [45]

    The leptonic future of the Higgs,

    G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu and K. Wang, “The leptonic future of the Higgs,” JHEP 1709, 014 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2017)014 [arXiv:1704.02333 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Constraining top quark effective theory in the LHC Run II era,

    A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell and C. D. White, “Constraining top quark effective theory in the LHC Run II era,” JHEP 1604, 015 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)015 [arXiv:1512.03360 [hep-ph]]. 16

    2016 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Global fit of top quark effective theory to data,

    A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell and C. D. White, “Global fit of top quark effective theory to data,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 9, 091501 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.091501 [arXiv:1506.08845 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [48]

    A precise determination of top quark electro-weak couplings at the ILC operating at√s = 500 GeV,

    M. S. Amjad et al., “A precise determination of top quark electro-weak couplings at the ILC operating at√s = 500 GeV,” arXiv:1307.8102 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  39. [49]

    The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC,

    M. Baak et al. [Gfitter Group], “The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3046 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3046-5 [arXiv:1407.3792 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [50]

    The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools,

    I. Brivio, Y. Jiang and M. Trott, “The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools,” JHEP 1712, 070 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2017)070 [arXiv:1709.06492 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [51]

    New physics in double Higgs production at future e +e? colliders,

    A. Vasquez, C. Degrande, A. Tonero and R. Rosenfeld, “New physics in double Higgs production at future e +e? colliders,” JHEP 1905, 020 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)020 [arXiv:1901.05979 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [52]

    CP violation in top physics,

    D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam and A. Soni, “CP violation in top physics,” Phys. Rept. 347, 1 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00112-5 [hep-ph/0006032]

    2001 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Precision Measurements of Higgs Couplings: Implications for New Physics Scales,

    C. Englert, A. Freitas, M. M. Muhlleitner, T. Plehn, M. Rauch, M. Spira and K. Walz, “Precision Measurements of Higgs Couplings: Implications for New Physics Scales,” J. Phys. G 41, 113001 (2014), [arXiv:1403.7191 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Pinning down top dipole moments with ultra-boosted tops,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, B. Fuks and M. L. Mangano, “Pinning down top dipole moments with ultra-boosted tops,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 094021 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094021 [arXiv:1412.6654 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Probing of Wtb Anomalous Couplings via the tW Chan- nel of Single Top Production,

    M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “Probing of Wtb Anomalous Couplings via the tW Chan- nel of Single Top Production,” JHEP 0803, 024 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/024 [arXiv:0801.1939 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [56]

    The Effective Standard Model after LHC Run I,

    J. Ellis, V. Sanz and T. You, “The Effective Standard Model after LHC Run I,” JHEP 1503, 157 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2015)157 [arXiv:1410.7703 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Higgs coupling measurements at the LHC,

    C. Englert, R. Kogler, H. Schulz and M. Spannowsky, “Higgs coupling measurements at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 7, 393 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4227-1 [arXiv:1511.05170 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Complete Higgs Sector Constraints on Dimension-6 Operators,

    J. Ellis, V. Sanz and T. You, “Complete Higgs Sector Constraints on Dimension-6 Operators,” JHEP 1407, 036 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)036 [arXiv:1404.3667 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Constraints on Higgs effective couplings in Hν ¯ν production of CLIC at 380 GeV,

    H. Denizli and A. Senol, “Constraints on Higgs effective couplings in Hν ¯ν production of CLIC at 380 GeV,” Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 1627051 (2018) doi:10.1155/2018/1627051 [arXiv:1707.03890 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Testing for observability of Higgs effective couplings in triphoton production at FCC-hh,

    H. Denizli, K. Y. Oyulmaz and A. Senol, “Testing for observability of Higgs effective couplings in triphoton production at FCC-hh,” arXiv:1901.04784 [hep-ph]

    1901 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Probing Higgs boson couplings in t¯tb¯b production at the LHC,

    H. Hesari, “Probing Higgs boson couplings in t¯tb¯b production at the LHC,” arXiv:1807.04306 [hep-ph]. 17

    arXiv

  52. [62]

    Strong tW Scattering at the LHC,

    J. A. Dror, M. Farina, E. Salvioni and J. Serra, “Strong tW Scattering at the LHC,” JHEP 1601, 071 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)071 [arXiv:1511.03674 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [63]

    The Z decay width in the SMEFT: yt andλ cor- rections at one loop,

    C. Hartmann, W. Shepherd and M. Trott, “The Z decay width in the SMEFT: yt andλ cor- rections at one loop,” JHEP 1703, 060 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)060 [arXiv:1611.09879 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Sharpening the shape analysis for higher-dimensional operator searches,

    S. Fichet, A. Tonero and P. Rebello Teles, “Sharpening the shape analysis for higher-dimensional operator searches,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 3, 036003 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.036003 [arXiv:1611.01165 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Consistent constraints on the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

    L. Berthier and M. Trott, “Consistent constraints on the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 1602, 069 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)069 [arXiv:1508.05060 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Global and optimal probes for the top-quark effective field theory at future lepton colliders,

    G. Durieux, M. Perell´ o, M. Vos and C. Zhang, “Global and optimal probes for the top-quark effective field theory at future lepton colliders,” JHEP 1810, 168 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)168 [arXiv:1807.02121 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [67]

    A framework for Higgs characterisation,

    P. Artoisenet et al. , “A framework for Higgs characterisation,” JHEP 1311, 043 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)043 [arXiv:1306.6464 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Phenomenology of the Higgs Effective Lagrangian via FEYNRULES,

    A. Alloul, B. Fuks and V. Sanz, “Phenomenology of the Higgs Effective Lagrangian via FEYNRULES,” JHEP 1404, 110 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)110 [arXiv:1310.5150 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B 268, 621 (1986). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90262-2

    1986 doi

  60. [70]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP 1010, 085 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)085 [arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Low-energy effects of new interactions in the electroweak boson sector,

    K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, R. Szalapski and D. Zeppenfeld, “Low-energy effects of new interactions in the electroweak boson sector,” Phys. Rev. D 48, 2182 (1993). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.2182

    1993 doi

  62. [72]

    A Systematic Approach to the SILH Lagrangian,

    G. Buchalla, O. Cata and C. Krause, “A Systematic Approach to the SILH Lagrangian,” Nucl. Phys. B 894, 602 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.03.024 [arXiv:1412.6356 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Note on Anomalous Higgs-Boson Couplings in Effective Field Theory,

    G. Buchalla, O. Cata, A. Celis and C. Krause, “Note on Anomalous Higgs-Boson Couplings in Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 750, 298 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.027 [arXiv:1504.01707 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Effective La- grangian for a light Higgs-like scalar,

    R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, “Effective La- grangian for a light Higgs-like scalar,” JHEP 1307, 035 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)035 [arXiv:1303.3876 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  65. [76]

    Measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” JHEP 1808, 011 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)011 [arXiv:1711.02547 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [77]

    Measurement of top quark pair production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    [CMS Collaboration], “Measurement of top quark pair production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” arXiv:1907.11270 [hep-ex]

    1907 arXiv

  67. [78]

    A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector,

    N. P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou and C. Zhang, “A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector,” JHEP 1904, 100 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)100 [arXiv:1901.05965 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [79]

    O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector,

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou, S. Westhoff and C. Zhang, “O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector,” arXiv:1910.03606 [hep-ph]

    1910 arXiv

  69. [80]

    Ellis, C

    J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz and T. You, JHEP 1806, 146 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)146 [arXiv:1803.03252 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [81]

    MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, “MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,” JHEP 1106, 128 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128 [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  71. [82]

    Computing decay rates for new physics theories with FeynRules and MadGraph 5 aMC@NLO,

    J. Alwall, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, O. Mattelaer, D. G. Ozturk and C. H. Shen, “Computing decay rates for new physics theories with FeynRules and MadGraph 5 aMC@NLO,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 197, 312 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.08.031 [arXiv:1402.1178 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [83]

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

    J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differen- tial cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP 1407, 079 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079 [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [84]

    FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, “FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012 [arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [85]

    UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output,

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter, “UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022 [arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  75. [86]

    Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,” JHEP 0701, 013 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013 [hep-ph/0611129]

    2007 arXiv

  76. [87]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 030001 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    2018 doi

  77. [88]

    An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,

    T. Sjostrand et al. , “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 [arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  78. [89]

    A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036 [arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  79. [90]

    DELPHES 3, A modular frame- work for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,

    J. de Favereau et al. [DELPHES 3 Collaboration], “DELPHES 3, A modular frame- work for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” JHEP 1402, 057 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057 [arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]]. 19

    2014 arXiv

  80. [91]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors,

    T. Behnke et al. , “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors,” arXiv:1306.6329 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  81. [92]

    The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, “The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm,” JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063 [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  82. [93]

    FastJet User Manual,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 [arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  83. [94]

    TMVA - Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis,

    A. Hocker et al. , “TMVA - Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis,” PoS ACAT , 040 (2007) [physics/0703039 [PHYSICS]]

    2007 arXiv

  84. [95]

    Current developments in TMVA: An outlook to TMVA4,

    J. Stelzer, A. Hocker, P. Speckmayer and H. Voss, “Current developments in TMVA: An outlook to TMVA4,” PoS ACAT 08, 063 (2008)

    2008

  85. [96]

    TMVA: Toolkit for multivariate data analysis,

    J. Therhaag [TMVA Core Developer Team Collaboration], “TMVA: Toolkit for multivariate data analysis,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1504, 1013 (2009)

    2009

  86. [97]

    The toolkit for multivariate data analysis, TMVA 4,

    P. Speckmayer, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer and H. Voss, “The toolkit for multivariate data analysis, TMVA 4,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 219, 032057 (2010)

    2010

  87. [98]

    TMVA Toolkit for multivariate data analysis in ROOT,

    J. Therhaag, “TMVA Toolkit for multivariate data analysis in ROOT,” PoS ICHEP 2010, 510 (2010)

    2010

  88. [99]

    The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs,

    G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, “The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs,” JHEP 0706, 045 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/045 [hep-ph/0703164]. 20

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

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