Novel Multilepton Signatures from the Fermionic Portal to Vector Dark Matter

Alexander Belyaev; Chang-Yuan Yao; Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous; Manimala Chakraborti

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 23 references

The paper shows that six-muon cascades from pair-produced heavy vector-like muons are an essentially background-free signature at the HL-LHC, and that a dedicated reconstruction can probe vector-like muon masses up to about 1.9 TeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 03:24 UTC pith:EX36H4IS

load-bearing objection A well-executed, transparent collider study whose headline 1.9 TeV reach is likely optimistic because the detector simulation does not handle collimated dimuons from light dark vectors. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23166 v1 pith:EX36H4IS submitted 2026-07-25 hep-ph

Novel Multilepton Signatures from the Fermionic Portal to Vector Dark Matter

Alexander Belyaev , Manimala Chakraborti , Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous , Chang-Yuan Yao This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords vector-like leptonsfermionic portal dark mattersix-muon final statemultilepton searchesHL-LHCdark vector bosoncascade decay reconstructionheavy-flavour backgrounds

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper identifies the six-muon final state as the most powerful collider signature of a class of dark-matter models in which heavy vector-like muons are the fermionic portal to a dark gauge sector. The claim is that this channel is simultaneously generic, remaining sizeable across a broad region of the dark-sector mass plane, and exceptionally clean, because after a topology-based reconstruction the Standard Model background is negligible. The paper develops an explicit reconstruction that assigns reconstructed muons to the two cascade branches using repeated dimuon and trimuon resonance structures, and shows that a dedicated search at the High-Luminosity LHC could probe vector-like muon masses up to about 1.9 TeV for favourable spectra. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns an exotic multilepton signature into a concrete, nearly background-free search target that carries measurable information about the dark sector.

Core claim

In the muonic realisation of the fermionic portal to vector dark matter, Drell–Yan pair production of the heavy vector-like muon μ' is followed by cascade decays through the dark vector V' and the dark scalar H_D, producing final states with four, six, eight, or ten visible muons. The paper's central claim is that the six-muon channel is the best target: it combines a sizeable branching fraction over a broad region of the (m_V', m_H_D) plane, a very clean experimental signature, and enough internal resonance structure to reconstruct the intermediate states and the parent heavy lepton. Six muons arise from either the symmetric (3+3)μ topology, in which each μ' chain yields three muons, or the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the decay chain μ' → μV' or μH_D with V' → μ⁺μ⁻, H_D → μ⁺μ⁻, and H_D → V'V' → 4μ, whose combinatorics produce the repeated dimuon, trimuon, and five-muon resonance patterns. The machinery that carries the argument is the topology-based reconstruction: a χ² assignment procedure using logarithmic mass-difference compatibility terms that pairs the six muons into two charge-compatible trimuon systems (Category 1) or into one five-muon system with a single isolated muon on the other branch (Category 2), followed by a ±20% parent-mass window. The classification of single-chain probabilities P1, P3, P5 with the multiplicity branching fractions B_2μ = P1², B_4μ = 2P1P3,

Load-bearing premise

The entire sensitivity estimate rests on the Monte Carlo repeated-decay procedure correctly predicting extremely rare heavy-flavour muon rates — in particular, that a top-quark-pair event supplies four additional isolated muons with a probability of 3×10⁻¹¹; if the true rate were orders of magnitude larger, the 'negligible background' conclusion would break.

What would settle it

Run an independent Monte Carlo simulation, or a top-pair control region in existing LHC data, to measure the probability that a top-quark-pair event passes the six-muon selection with four additional isolated muons (p_T > 10 GeV, |η| < 2.5, isolation). If that efficiency times the top-pair cross section exceeds about 10⁻⁵ fb — more than roughly 0.03 expected events at 3000 fb⁻¹ — the background-free premise fails and the 1.9 TeV reach estimate would need recomputation. A secondary check: a dedicated six-muon search should show a clustered trimuon invariant-mass peak at the parent mass; a flat

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

A dedicated six-muon search at the HL-LHC can probe vector-like muon masses up to about 1.9 TeV for favourable spectra, substantially extending the low-mass region already constrained by generic Run-2 multilepton searches.
Because the analysis is effectively background-free, the excluded cross section scales roughly as 1/L, so increases in luminosity translate directly into mass reach without needing tighter event selections.
The fully visible (3+3)μ topology means the search must stay inclusive in missing transverse momentum; an E/T requirement would discard precisely the events in which both cascade branches can be reconstructed.
If a signal is observed, the reconstructed dimuon, trimuon, and five-muon masses measure the dark-sector spectrum — the masses of V', H_D, and the parent μ' — turning the signature into a spectroscopy tool rather than a counting excess.
The same reconstruction logic applies to any pair-produced vector-like fermion that decays through resonant two-body steps, so six-lepton cascade topologies become reconstructable targets beyond this specific model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Extending the topology-based strategy to tau or electron final states would test whether the fermionic portal is flavour-universal; a six-tau channel trades rate for a harder background but carries the same repeated-resonance structure.
The Category-1 reconstruction assumes equal dimuon masses on the two branches — a choice the paper flags as conservative — so a third category allowing different intermediate masses on each chain would likely recover lost events and push the reach beyond 1.9 TeV.
A data-driven cross-check of the heavy-flavour background, such as counting top-pair events with four additional isolated muons in existing data, is the most direct way to test the 3×10⁻¹¹ efficiency on which the background-free premise rests.
The model predicts correlated signatures across regimes: the six-muon channel studied here, the two-muon plus missing-energy regime of earlier work, and displaced-vertex signatures at smaller coupling; observing one and not the others would constrain the μ'–μ_D mass splitting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

A well-executed, transparent collider study whose headline 1.9 TeV reach is likely optimistic because the detector simulation does not handle collimated dimuons from light dark vectors.

read the letter

Worth reading, with one caveat that matters. The paper identifies the six-muon final state as the most promising channel in the MPVDM model and builds an explicit topology-based reconstruction (Category 1 for 3+3, Category 2 for 1+5) that is genuinely new and sensible. It ships code and model files, uses a CheckMATE recast for current constraints, and is honest about LO cross sections, the indicative mass window, and the conservative treatment of unequal dimuon masses. That is good practice.

The soft spot that bothers me most is the signal efficiency for light V'. For BP1 (mV'=1 GeV) and BP2 (mV'=10 GeV), the muons from V'->mu+mu- have DeltaR around 0.003–0.017. Real LHC muon systems cannot resolve pairs separated by much less than a few hundredths, and the isolation requirement alone would make each muon fail when the other sits inside its cone. Delphes 3.5 does not model track merging, yet Table IV quotes N_mu>=6 efficiencies of 0.85–0.9 for these benchmarks, and Fig. 18 shows a flat high efficiency down to small mV'. That is physically implausible. Since the HL-LHC reach curves in Fig. 17 include mV'=10 GeV points, the 1.9 TeV claim is probably inflated. The authors should either apply a realistic DeltaR separation or isolation treatment, restrict the reach claim to mediator masses where the dimuons are resolved, or show that the maximal-yield curve is driven by points without this problem.

The heavy-flavour background filter in Appendix A is indeed unvalidated, but I agree with the stress-test note that it is not load-bearing: Table VI shows the irreducible 6mu and ZZW+W processes dominate the post-selection background, so even a large error in the ttZ/4t efficiencies would not overturn the background-free conclusion. LO cross sections with no scale/PDF uncertainties are a real but minor concern — they could shift the mass reach by maybe ten to thirty percent, which matters but does not change the qualitative message. The novelty claim that the six-lepton signature has never been explored at the LHC is also stated too strongly without a systematic literature survey.

For whom: phenomenologists working on vector-like leptons or dark portals, and experimental colleagues thinking about high-multiplicity muon searches. It deserves a serious referee: the method is explicit, the code is available, and the topology-based reconstruction is a useful template. But the referee should ask for a realistic treatment of collimated muons before the reach claim is taken at face value.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies six-muon final states from pp → μ'+μ'− production in the Muonic Portal to Vector Dark Matter (MPVDM) model. After fixing the model parameters to benchmark points and adopting the relation g_D = 10 m_V'/m_μ' from the authors' earlier relic-density study, the authors compute branching fractions for the 4μ, 6μ, 8μ and 10μ channels, identify the 6μ final state as the most promising target, and develop a topology-based reconstruction with two exclusive categories: a symmetric (3+3)μ category and an asymmetric (1+5)μ category. Signal and SM backgrounds are simulated with CalcHEP/MG5_aMC + Pythia + Delphes, including a dedicated repeated-decay filter for rare heavy-flavour muons. A CheckMATE recast of CMS-SUS-16-039 is used to estimate current Run-2 constraints, and an HL-LHC projection at 3000 fb−1 is made using a background-free N_sig=3 criterion, giving a reach up to about 1.9 TeV for favourable spectra. The central claims are that the 6μ channel is essentially background-free after topology reconstruction and that a dedicated search substantially extends the existing Run-2 coverage.

Significance. If the efficiency and background estimates are reliable, this is a useful and original contribution. The paper identifies a six-lepton cascade topology from vector-like lepton pair production that has not been systematically exploited, proposes an explicit assignment-based reconstruction rather than a black-box classifier, and provides public model implementation and supplementary code. The heavy-flavour filtering procedure is a thoughtful attempt to address a difficult Monte Carlo problem. The main value is in demonstrating a concrete, reconstructable multilepton target with a quantitative LHC projection. However, the central reach claim depends on detector-level muon reconstruction efficiencies that are likely overestimated for light mediators, and the LO cross-section treatment lacks the systematic uncertainties needed to support a precise mass reach.

major comments (2)

[IV.C, IV.D, Table IV, Fig. 18] The six-muon reconstruction efficiencies for light dark vectors are not physical. For BP1/BP2 with mV'=1,10 GeV at mμ'=1200 GeV, the two muons from V'→μ+μ− have ΔR ~ mV'/p_T(V') ~ 0.003–0.017 (Fig. 9, left). Delphes 3.5 does not simulate track merging or isolation-cone overlap, yet Table IV quotes N_mu≥6 efficiencies of 0.906 and 0.863 and Fig. 18 shows ~80–90% efficiency flat down to mV'~0.1 GeV. In a real muon system these pairs would be merged into a single track or each muon would fail isolation because the other lies inside its isolation cone. Since the reach is defined by N_sig=3 after these efficiencies (Eq. 4.15) and the 'favourable spectra' in Fig. 17 include mV'=10 GeV, the 1.9 TeV projection for light-mediator scenarios is overestimated. Please re-evaluate with a track-merge veto (e.g. ΔR>0.02) or an equivalent detector-level overlap treatment and show how the reach changes.
[IV.A, Fig. 5, Eq. 4.15] All signal and background cross sections are leading order, with the scale fixed to Q=m_μ' and no PDF/scale uncertainties or K-factors. The Drell–Yan signal cross section falls steeply with mμ', and the exclusion criterion is a three-event threshold. A typical DY NLO K-factor of ~1.2–1.3, or even the PDF uncertainty alone, changes the event count by tens of percent and therefore shifts the derived 1.9 TeV reach noticeably. The paper should either include NLO signal cross sections with scale/PDF uncertainties, or present the reach as a band with an explicit statement of the LO-induced systematic uncertainty.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix A, Eqs. (A9)–(A14)] The heavy-flavour filtering efficiencies (e.g. ϵ_HF(t-tbar)=3.0×10−11) are quoted without statistical uncertainties and without validation against an independent generator or data. This is not load-bearing for the background-free conclusion because Table VI shows the post-reconstruction background is dominated by irreducible 6μ and ZZWW, with heavy-flavour contributions below ~10−7 events, but the procedure should still be documented with uncertainties for reproducibility.
[IV.E] The 'corrected CMS Delphes card' used for the CheckMATE recast is not described in detail. Please specify the correction and, if possible, validate it against a published CMS efficiency or resolution curve.
[Fig. 17] The 'Maximal Signal Yield' curve is not clearly defined in the text. If it is the pointwise maximum over the (mV',mHD) plane, the authors should state which parameter values produce it, particularly because some of the light-mediator points are affected by the track-merging issue in Major Comment 1.
[Abstract and Introduction] The claim that the six-lepton signature from vector-like-lepton pair production 'has not previously been explored at the LHC' should be supported by explicit references to recent ATLAS/CMS multilepton searches and existing VLL phenomenology, so the novelty statement is checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the six-muon signature and reach are computed from the model after stated parameter inputs; self-citations define the model but are not used as the predicted result.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. Branching fractions are computed from the Lagrangian decay modes (Sec. III A, Eqs. 3.13-3.16), the six-muon cross section is the product of the CalcHEP Drell-Yan cross section and B6mu (Eq. 3.23), and the detector-level efficiencies are obtained by explicit simulation. The only model inputs from earlier work are the MPVDM construction and the benchmark relation g_D = 10 m_V'/m_mu' (Sec. III B, citing Ref. [7]); these are parameter and benchmark choices, not quantities fitted to the six-muon data, and the paper states benchmarks are 'used to test the performance of the reconstruction strategy', not to define the model. The reconstruction uses m_target_mu' set to the generated mass in the benchmark validation, but the paper explicitly says an experimental search would scan this mass, so this is standard sensitivity evaluation rather than a hidden fit. The background estimate rests on Monte Carlo assumptions (Appendix A), which are limitations on accuracy, not circularity: no background yield is fed back into the model or branching-fraction calculation. The paper itself flags several limitations, including the conservative equal-dimuon-mass assumption in Category 1, the representative nature of the CheckMATE recast, and the indicative rather than optimised choice of the 20% mass window. I find no equation in the paper that is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 4 invented entities

The paper imports the complete model and its parameter relations from the authors' earlier work (Refs. [2,3,7]); no free parameter is fitted to data in this paper, but the benchmark choices (g_D = 10 m_V'/m_μ', m_μD = 0.9 m_μ') are hand-picked to maximize the six-muon channel. The central sensitivity projection therefore inherits model-building assumptions that are not independently tested here. All invented entities are model postulates without external evidence, although the predicted collider signatures are the point of the paper.

free parameters (5)

g_D (dark gauge coupling) = Benchmark: g_D = 10 m_V'/m_μ' (e.g., 0.00833 to 2.5 in Table II)
Free parameter of the model; in the search scan it is fixed by the relic-density-compatible relation from Ref. [7], not fitted to data in this paper.
m_V' (dark vector mass) = Scanned 1–1000 GeV in Figs. 6–7; benchmarks 1, 10, 100, 300 GeV
Free parameter controlling the dimuon resonance and collimation; chosen by hand for benchmarks.
m_H_D (dark scalar mass) = Scanned 10–1000 GeV; benchmarks 2.2, 22, 30, 100, 500 GeV
Free parameter controlling the trimuon and five-muon chains; chosen by hand for benchmarks.
m_μD (Z2-odd fermion mass) = Benchmark: m_μD = 0.9 m_μ' = 1080 GeV
Free parameter; the 10% splitting is a deliberate choice to keep μ' decays prompt and the fermionic portal perturbative.
m_μ' (heavy vector-like muon mass) = Benchmarks 1200 GeV; reach scan 1200–1900 GeV
Free parameter and the main mass reach variable; cross section falls steeply with m_μ'.

axioms (5)

domain assumption The dark sector has an SU(2)_D gauge symmetry with a Z2 parity that stabilizes the lightest dark vector state V_D as dark matter.
Inherited from Refs. [2,3,7] (Sec. II); defines the MPVDM model and the existence of V' and H_D.
domain assumption The scalar portal coupling λ_HD is set to zero at tree level, so the SM-like Higgs does not mix with H_D.
Sec. II, after Eq. (2.2); isolates the fermionic portal and simplifies the scalar sector.
domain assumption The relation g_D = 10 m_V'/m_μ' matches the 'relic-density-compatible pattern' of Ref. [7].
Sec. III B, Eq. (3.25); this choice fixes the dark azimuthal scale and requires cosmological relic-density calculations from prior work.
domain assumption Leading-order Drell–Yan cross sections with scale Q = m_μ' adequately describe the production rate; no NLO K-factors or PDF uncertainties are applied.
Sec. III B, Eq. (3.22); the reach estimate depends on this LO normalization.
domain assumption Delphes with an ATLAS-based detector card (and a corrected CMS card for the recast) models the detector response well enough for a background-free sensitivity projection.
Sec. IV A; the six-muon efficiency and isolation are taken from Delphes without experimental validation.

invented entities (4)

μ′ (heavy vector-like muon partner) no independent evidence
purpose: Connects the SM muon to the dark sector; produced by Drell–Yan and cascades to multiple muons.
Predicted by the MPVDM model; not observed and no external measurement is cited in this paper.
V′ (neutral, Z2-even dark vector boson) no independent evidence
purpose: Intermediate resonance decaying to μ+μ−; creates the dimuon mass peaks used in reconstruction.
Introduced by the model; the collider signature is the only proposed handle, within this paper itself.
H_D (dark scalar) no independent evidence
purpose: Intermediate scalar decaying to μ+μ− or to V′V′; produces trimuon and five-muon chains.
Model construct; no independent evidence outside the paper.
V_D (stable Z2-odd dark vector, the dark matter candidate) no independent evidence
purpose: The dark matter particle; appears as missing transverse momentum in the asymmetric topology.
Dark matter's existence is established, but this specific vector state is not; no direct or indirect detection evidence is provided in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25821 in / 12159 out tokens · 120105 ms · 2026-08-01T03:24:32.339845+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

We perform a collider study of a novel multilepton signature arising from pair production of heavy vector-like leptons followed by cascade decays through a dark sector. In the muonic realisation of the Fermionic Portal to Vector Dark Matter, this process can lead to final states with four, six, eight, or ten visible muons, depending on the dark-sector spectrum and branching pattern. We identify the six-muon channel as the most powerful target: it remains sizeable over a broad region of parameter space, while being less rate-suppressed than the higher-multiplicity channels and much cleaner and more reconstructable than the four-muon final state. The signal arises from Drell--Yan pair production of vector-like muons, $pp\to\mu'^{+}\mu'^{-}$, followed by decays through the dark vector $V'$ and the dark scalar $H_D$. The six-muon final state receives contributions from symmetric decay topologies in which each $\mu'$ yields three visible muons, and from the asymmetric topology in which one chain yields one muon and the other yields five. The six-lepton signature from vector-like-lepton pair production has not previously been explored at the LHC. We therefore develop a topology-based reconstruction which exploits the repeated dimuon, trimuon, and five-muon resonance structure of the signal. We simulate signal and Standard Model backgrounds at detector level, including a dedicated treatment of rare heavy-flavour muons. The resulting background after the six-muon selection and topology reconstruction is negligible. Existing Run-2 multilepton searches already constrain part of the low-mass parameter space, but they do not exploit the repeated resonance structure of the signal. A dedicated six-muon search can substantially extend the reach. At the HL-LHC, the proposed analysis can probe vector-like muon masses up to about $1.9$ TeV for favourable spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23166 by Alexander Belyaev, Chang-Yuan Yao, Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous, Manimala Chakraborti.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Representative Feynman diagrams leading to six visible muons. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Representative Feynman diagrams leading to eight visible muons. These topologies involve one three-muon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Representative Feynman diagram leading to ten visible muons. This final state is extremely clean but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: LO production cross section for pp → µ ′+µ ′− at √ s = 13, 13.6 and 14 TeV, shown as a function of mµ′ . The calculation is performed with CalcHEP, using the NNPDF40_lo_as_01180 PDF set through LHAPDF6 and the scale choice Q = mµ′ . The production is dominated by the Drell–Yan γ/Z channel and is therefore mainly controlled by the vector-like muon mass. The sharp fall of the production cross section sets th… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Branching fractions, equivalently relative rates at fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cross sections for representative six-muon final-state topologies and the width-to-mass ratio of the dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Normalised kinematic distributions for the five signal benchmarks and the dominant SM backgrounds. Top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Resonant substructure of the signal cascades. Left: minimum angular separation between opposite-sign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Category-1 reconstruction variables for the benchmark signals and SM backgrounds. From left to right: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Invariant masses selected by the Category-1 assignment. Left: reconstructed dimuon resonance mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Category-2 reconstruction variables for the benchmark signals and SM backgrounds. From left to right: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Invariant masses selected by the Category-2 assignment. Left: reconstructed dimuon resonance mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Observed 95% CL exclusion contours obtained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Comparison between the expected dedicated Category 1 six-muon sensitivity (solid curves) and the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Expected exclusion contours for the high-mass region at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Expected signal yield at 3000 fb−1 as a function of mµ′ for representative mediator masses. The top panel shows the sensitivity of Category 1, while the bottom panel shows the sensitivity of Category 2. The horizontal line marks the three-event exclusion threshold, and the “maximal signal” curve gives the largest yield found in each mµ′ slice. The displayed range starts at mµ′ = 1.2 TeV, matching the high… view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Efficiency for 6 muon reconstruction in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Efficiency for Category 1 signal selection in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Efficiency for Category 2 signal selection in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_20.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith

[1]

Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[2]

Belyaev, A

A. Belyaev, A. Deandrea, S. Moretti, L. Panizzi, D. A. Ross, and N. Thongyoi, Phys. Rev. D108, 095001 (2023), arXiv:2204.03510 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[3]

Belyaev, A

A. Belyaev, A. Deandrea, S. Moretti, L. Panizzi, D. A. Ross, and N. Thongyoi, Front. in Phys.12, 1339886 (2024), arXiv:2203.04681 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[4]

Falkowski, D

A. Falkowski, D. M. Straub, and A. Vicente, JHEP05, 092 (2014), arXiv:1312.5329 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[5]

Bißmann, G

S. Bißmann, G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, and D. F. Litim, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 101 (2021), arXiv:2011.12964 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[6]

Dermisek, J

R. Dermisek, J. Kawamura, E. Lunghi, N. McGinnis, and S. Shin, JHEP10, 138 (2022), arXiv:2204.13272 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[7]

Belyaev, L

A. Belyaev, L. Panizzi, N. Thongyoi, and F. Wilhelm, JHEP06, 240 (2026), arXiv:2510.18564 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[8]

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

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[9]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D101, 052005 (2020), arXiv:1911.12606 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[10]

A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP01, 122 (2019), arXiv:1806.10905 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[11]

Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D110, 012004 (2024), arXiv:2402.18658 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[12]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 118 (2023), arXiv:2303.05441 [hep-ex]

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 118 (2023), arXiv:2303.05441 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[13]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 605 (2023), arXiv:2211.07505 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[14]

Belyaev, N

A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 1729 (2013), arXiv:1207.6082 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[15]

Buckley, J

A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[16]

R. D. Ballet al.(NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 428 (2022), arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[17]

Alwall, R

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

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[18]

Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys

C. Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[19]

de Favereau, C

J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[20]

Drees, H

M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and J. S. Kim, Comput. Phys. Commun.187, 227 (2015), arXiv:1312.2591 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[21]

J. S. Kim, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and K. Rolbiecki, Comput. Phys. Commun.196, 535 (2015), arXiv:1503.01123 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[22]

Dercks, N

D. Dercks, N. Desai, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall, and T. Weber, Comput. Phys. Commun.221, 383 (2017), arXiv:1611.09856 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[23]

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

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

[1] [1]

Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

Belyaev, A

A. Belyaev, A. Deandrea, S. Moretti, L. Panizzi, D. A. Ross, and N. Thongyoi, Phys. Rev. D108, 095001 (2023), arXiv:2204.03510 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Belyaev, A

A. Belyaev, A. Deandrea, S. Moretti, L. Panizzi, D. A. Ross, and N. Thongyoi, Front. in Phys.12, 1339886 (2024), arXiv:2203.04681 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Falkowski, D

A. Falkowski, D. M. Straub, and A. Vicente, JHEP05, 092 (2014), arXiv:1312.5329 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

Bißmann, G

S. Bißmann, G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, and D. F. Litim, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 101 (2021), arXiv:2011.12964 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Dermisek, J

R. Dermisek, J. Kawamura, E. Lunghi, N. McGinnis, and S. Shin, JHEP10, 138 (2022), arXiv:2204.13272 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Belyaev, L

A. Belyaev, L. Panizzi, N. Thongyoi, and F. Wilhelm, JHEP06, 240 (2026), arXiv:2510.18564 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[8] [8]

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

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[9] [9]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D101, 052005 (2020), arXiv:1911.12606 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[10] [10]

A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP01, 122 (2019), arXiv:1806.10905 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[11] [11]

Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D110, 012004 (2024), arXiv:2402.18658 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[12] [12]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 118 (2023), arXiv:2303.05441 [hep-ex]

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 118 (2023), arXiv:2303.05441 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[13] [13]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 605 (2023), arXiv:2211.07505 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[14] [14]

Belyaev, N

A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 1729 (2013), arXiv:1207.6082 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

[15] [15]

Buckley, J

A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

[16] [16]

R. D. Ballet al.(NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 428 (2022), arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[17] [17]

Alwall, R

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

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[18] [18]

Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys

C. Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[19] [19]

de Favereau, C

J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[20] [20]

Drees, H

M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and J. S. Kim, Comput. Phys. Commun.187, 227 (2015), arXiv:1312.2591 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

[21] [21]

J. S. Kim, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and K. Rolbiecki, Comput. Phys. Commun.196, 535 (2015), arXiv:1503.01123 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

[22] [22]

Dercks, N

D. Dercks, N. Desai, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall, and T. Weber, Comput. Phys. Commun.221, 383 (2017), arXiv:1611.09856 [hep-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[23] [23]

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

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013