Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 114 references

The LHC sensitivity to weak gauginos in light of the latest muon $g-2$ and dark matter results

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simultaneously explaining the muon g-2 anomaly and dark matter requires bino-like neutralino dark matter in the MSSM.

desk verdict Solid but incremental MSSM scan; the bino-only conclusion is conditional on unstated thermal/no-axion assumptions, and the HE-LHC 'most' claim oversells the body's own numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03722 v1 pith:NDLB3VR6 submitted 2025-05-06 hep-ph

Shuang Liang , Kun Wang , Jun Zhao , Jingya Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords muong-2anomalyMSSMneutralinodarkmatterbino-likeLSPwinocoannihilationsleptonHL-LHCHE-LHC
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

The paper asks which supersymmetric dark matter candidates can simultaneously explain the 5.2 sigma muon g-2 anomaly and the observed dark matter relic density, and how well the LHC could detect them. It claims that in the MSSM with standard thermal freeze-out, the lightest neutralino must be bino-like, because wino- and higgsino-like neutralinos that give the right relic density need TeV-scale masses and then contribute too little to g-2. Two viable configurations survive: a bino-like LSP coannihilating with a light wino, with LSP mass below about 580 GeV, and a bino-like LSP coannihilating with nearly degenerate sleptons, with LSP mass below about 430 GeV. The paper shows that the high-luminosity LHC probes only part of this parameter space, while a 27 TeV high-energy LHC covers most of it. This matters because it tells experimenters exactly which chargino, neutralino, and slepton mass patterns to look for next.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the MSSM neutralino mass matrix, whose parameters $M_1$ (bino soft mass), $M_2$ (wino soft mass), and $\mu$ (higgsino mass) determine how much of each gauge eigenstate composes the lightest neutralino. Two formulas carry the quantitative work: the one-loop supersymmetric contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, dominated by chargino-sneutrino and neutralino-smuon loops and approximated by $\delta a_\mu^{\rm SUSY} \simeq 14\tan\beta\,(100\,\mathrm{GeV}/M_{\rm SUSY})^2 \times10^{-10}$, and the thermal freeze-out relic density, which for a nearly pure bino is too large unless coannihilation with a slightly heavier wino or slepton depletes it. The paper's scans use these to identify two compressed-spectrum benchmark classes, LWo and HWo, and then simulate their LHC signals using missing transverse energy and dilepton invariant mass cuts.

What would settle it

A confirmed detection of a wino-like or higgsino-like neutralino with mass below roughly a TeV whose thermal relic density matches Planck, or evidence that most dark matter is non-thermal (for example a definitive axion signal carrying the measured abundance), would contradict the paper's central dichotomy and reopen the wino and higgsino windows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a dichotomy: within the MSSM, no wino-like or higgsino-like neutralino can be both the thermal dark matter and the source of the muon g-2 anomaly. Such candidates annihilate too efficiently, so matching the Planck relic density pushes them to TeV masses, which suppresses their supersymmetric contribution to the muon's anomalous magnetic moment below the observed value of $(2.49\pm0.48)\times10^{-9}$. Direct detection also disfavors light higgsinos, which scatter strongly with nucleons through bino-higgsino mixing. The surviving dark matter is therefore a bino-like LSP whose relic density is set by coannihilation either with a nearby wino (the light-wino scenario) or with nearly mass-degenerate sleptons (the heavy-wino scenario). The paper maps these two viable regions and finds that current LHC searches already exclude light-wino points with LSP masses below about 265 GeV, while the HL-LHC could see only a fraction of the remaining points and the HE-LHC at 27 TeV with 15 inverse femtobarns could cover most of them.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that dark matter must be bino-like assumes the observed relic density is produced entirely by standard thermal freeze-out of the neutralino, with no extra non-supersymmetric component such as an axion; allow such a component and light winos or higgsinos re-enter as viable candidates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the muon g-2 anomaly is real and dark matter is thermal, the MSSM LSP must be bino-like, with the LSP mass below roughly 580 GeV in the light-wino scenario and below roughly 430 GeV in the heavy-wino scenario.
  • The high-luminosity LHC will probe only part of this viable parameter space, so null results there would not rule out these explanations of g-2.
  • A 27 TeV high-energy LHC would cover most of the surviving parameter space, especially heavy-wino points with the wino-like second neutralino below about 2 TeV.
  • The two scenarios have distinct kinematic signatures: light-wino signals concentrate at low dilepton invariant mass, while heavy-wino signals prefer higher invariant masses and larger missing energy, so tailored search strategies are needed.
  • Direct detection experiments will test only a small fraction of the bino-like parameter space, making the LHC the primary probe of these scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if non-thermal dark matter production or an additional component such as an axion contributes to the relic density, the central dichotomy breaks and light wino- or higgsino-like dark matter becomes viable again, so collider searches for those states remain worth pursuing.
  • Beyond the paper: the compressed spectra predicted here could also be tested with monojet, initial-state-radiation, and soft-lepton searches that the paper's cut-based analysis does not fully exploit.
  • Beyond the paper: the mass ordering required by these scenarios implies specific slepton and sneutrino mass relations that a future precision muon collider could measure, providing an independent cross-check of the g-2 explanation.
  • Beyond the paper: if the 27 TeV HE-LHC runs and finds nothing, the surviving parameter space would be pushed into the most compressed corners, where dedicated searches for small mass splittings would become the decisive test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper examines the LHC sensitivity to weak gauginos in the MSSM under the combined constraints from the muon g-2 anomaly, dark matter relic abundance, direct detection, and current LHC searches. The authors argue that, if the neutralino is to explain both g-2 and the full relic density via standard thermal freeze-out, the LSP must be bino-like. They define two scenarios: a light-wino (LWo) scenario with a bino LSP nearly degenerate with a wino-like second neutralino, and a heavy-wino (HWo) scenario with a bino LSP coannihilating with sleptons. Using standard tools (SuSpect, MicrOMEGAs, GM2Calc, SModelS, MadGraph, Pythia, Delphes, CheckMATE), they scan the MSSM parameter space, identify surviving points, and estimate the reach of the HL-LHC and a 27 TeV HE-LHC through cut-based analyses. They conclude that the HL-LHC probes only a fraction of the viable region, while the HE-LHC covers most of it.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful, up-to-date phenomenological map of MSSM parameter space consistent with the current g-2 and dark matter constraints, and it quantifies the future collider reach. Its strengths include the use of validated public tools, internally consistent cutflow tables, and a clear separation of the two wino-mass hierarchies. The main limitation is that the headline statements, especially 'the DM candidate must be bino-like' and 'HE-LHC covers most of the parameter space', are stated more strongly than the assumptions and the quantitative analysis warrant. The paper would be a solid JHEP contribution after the reach definition and the scope of the assumptions are made precise.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 2] The abstract's claim that 'the DM candidate in the MSSM must be bino-like' is stronger than the premise used in Sec. 2, where the argument is made 'without invoking additional non-SUSY components such as axions.' The conclusion that wino- or higgsino-like LSPs need TeV masses to avoid underabundance, and hence cannot explain the g-2 anomaly, holds only if the neutralino is required to saturate the Planck relic density through standard thermal freeze-out. If a subdominant neutralino component or non-thermal production is admitted, light wino-like or higgsino-like states with light sleptons can give a large Δa_mu while Ωχ h^2 < ΩDM h^2. Since the parameter-space selection in Sec. 3 and the mass windows quoted from Fig. 2 are derived under this assumption, the bino-only conclusion should be explicitly qualified as conditional on pure thermal neutralino dark matter in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.1), Tables 1-2, Fig. 7] The paper never states the significance threshold that defines 'probed', 'covered', or 'discovery potential' at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC. This matters because the quoted benchmark cutflows, when combined with Eq. (4.1) and β=10%, give Z≈2.4 for the LWo benchmark (Table 1: 0.95 fb signal vs 3.96 fb total background at 15 ab^-1) and Z≈3.8 for the HWo benchmark (Table 2: 106.1 ab vs 272.6 ab). If the abstract's 'covering most of the parameter space' claim is based on a 2σ or 3σ criterion, that should be stated explicitly; if it is meant as a 5σ discovery, the two benchmark points themselves do not reach that level. Please specify the threshold and, if needed, revise the reach statements accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 4, Figs. 6-7] The description of how the projected significances in Fig. 7 are obtained for the full set of surviving parameter points is incomplete. The text presents cutflows for one benchmark point per scenario (Tables 1 and 2), but does not state whether the same cut efficiencies are applied to all other points, whether the signal cross sections are recomputed per point, or whether a reweighting procedure is used. Without this information, the coverage claim is not reproducible; please document the method used to translate the benchmark cutflows into significances for all points in Fig. 7.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4] The sentence beginning 'For parameter points not excluded by SModelS, we evaluate their discovery potential...' appears twice verbatim (p.9-10); please remove the duplicate.
  2. [Eq. (3.1)] The relation M1 ≃ M2 in the LWo scenario is not defined quantitatively; please specify how the scan samples the near-degeneracy, e.g., a fixed mass difference or a log-random split around equality.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.6)] The metastability condition in Eq. (3.6) refers to M_Q3L and M_tR, but the scan ranges for these parameters are only given implicitly through 'all other soft masses fixed at 5 TeV'; please state the exact numerical values used for these parameters.
  4. [Sec. 4] The terminology alternates between 'discovery potential', 'sensitivity', and 'probed/covered' without specifying whether these correspond to discovery, exclusion, or a particular significance; please harmonize the wording after fixing the threshold definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, externally benchmarked, and does not recycle fitted inputs as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The 'bino-like LSP' conclusion follows from imposing external constraints—the muon g−2 deviation of Eq. (3.7), the Planck relic density requirement in constraint (4), direct detection bounds in constraint (6), and LHC simplified-model limits via SModelS—on a parameter scan over M1, M2, µ, slepton masses, tanβ, and trilinear couplings. The mass windows (580 GeV for LWo and 430 GeV for HWo) are outputs of that scan, not fitted constants relabeled as predictions. The collider reach is computed from independent MadGraph5, Pythia, Delphes, and CheckMATE simulations with explicit SM backgrounds and a stated systematic uncertainty. The statement that wino- or higgsino-like neutralinos require TeV-scale masses is supported by cited external work (refs. [63,64]) and is explicitly conditional on 'without invoking additional non-SUSY components such as axions'; this is a stated scope assumption, not a definitional rewriting of the conclusion. Self-citations appear only as contextual background or related-scenario references and are not load-bearing for the central scan or reach estimates. No equation is equivalent by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is presented as a predicted quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or entities: all states are standard MSSM particles. The central claim rests on model parameters scanned by hand, standard MSSM formulas, the thermal freeze-out assumption, and the assumed size of the muon g-2 anomaly. The most important assumptions are the thermal DM production mechanism and the 5.2 sigma anomaly value, both of which are load-bearing for the bino-like LSP conclusion.

free parameters (8)
  • M1 (bino soft mass) = scanned 0-1 TeV
    Model input scanned; the viable LSP mass windows and LHC reach are sensitive to it.
  • M2 (wino soft mass) = LWo 0-1 TeV, HWo 1-5 TeV
    Defines the light-wino and heavy-wino scenarios; the HE-LHC reach below about 2 TeV is the main conclusion.
  • mu (higgsino mass) = 3-5 TeV
    Heavy higgsinos assumed to suppress direct detection; this is a scenario choice, not derived from data.
  • MLl = MEl (slepton soft masses) = 200-800 GeV
    Light sleptons are needed for the g-2 contribution; the upper bound shapes the viable range.
  • tan beta = 1-50
    Scanned range; the g-2 contribution grows with tan beta.
  • At, Ab, Atau = -5 to 5 TeV
    Scanned trilinear couplings; affect the Higgs mass constraint.
  • systematic uncertainty beta in Eq (4.1) = 0.10
    Chosen by hand as a conservative estimate; directly suppresses the projected significances.
  • other soft SUSY-breaking masses = 5 TeV
    All unlisted soft masses are fixed at 5 TeV, an ad hoc decoupling assumption that simplifies the spectrum.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard MSSM neutralino and chargino mass matrices and the one-loop muon g-2 formulas from refs. [20,30] are correct.
    Used in Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.1)-(2.11); not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Thermal freeze-out with standard cosmology and no non-thermal production or additional dark matter components.
    Sec. 2: 'without invoking additional non-SUSY components such as axions'; underpins the claim that a bino-like LSP is required.
  • domain assumption The muon g-2 anomaly is real and given by (2.49 +/- 0.48) x 10^-9.
    Sec. 1, Eq. (1.1); the entire scan and benchmark selection target this value.
  • ad hoc to paper All unlisted soft SUSY-breaking masses are fixed at 5 TeV, decoupling them from low-energy observables.
    Sec. 3 scan setup; simplifies the g-2 calculation and assumes no significant contributions from other sparticles.
  • domain assumption SModelS simplified-model reinterpretation of LHC bounds is valid for the scanned points.
    Sec. 3, constraint (7); used to exclude points but depends on simplified model topologies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The LHC sensitivity to weak gauginos in light of the latest muon $g-2$ and dark matter results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDLB3VR6

@misc{pith2026250503722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The LHC sensitivity to weak gauginos in light of the latest muon $g-2$ and dark matter results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDLB3VR6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03722}
}
abstract

Among the electroweakinos, the weak gauginos have the largest production rate at the LHC and should therefore be the primary focus of searches. In this work, we examine the LHC sensitivity to weak gauginos in light of the latest constraints from the muon $g-2$ anomaly and dark matter (DM) observations. To simultaneously account for the observed $5\sigma$ deviation in muon $g-2$ and the correct DM relic abundance, the DM candidate in the MSSM must be bino-like: wino- or higgsino-like neutralinos require TeV-scale masses to avoid underabundance, rendering the electroweakino spectrum too heavy to yield a sizable $g-2$ contribution. Moreover, tight direct detection limits disfavor light higgsinos, which can induce sizable DM-nucleon scattering via bino-higgsino mixing. We thus focus on scenarios with a bino-like LSP and relatively heavy higgsinos. Two classes of wino spectra are considered: a light-wino scenario (LWo) with $m_{\tilde{W}} \lesssim 1$~TeV, and a heavy-wino scenario (HWo) with $m_{\tilde{W}} \gtrsim 1$~TeV. For each, we delineate the viable parameter space under current constraints and assess the discovery potential at future LHC stages. We find that while the high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) can probe a portion of the parameter space, the high-energy 27~TeV LHC (HE-LHC) is capable of covering most of it.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [58]

    Testing electroweak SUSY for muon $g-2$ and dark matter at the LHC and beyond

    M. Abdughani, K.-I. Hikasa, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and J. Zhao, Testing electroweak SUSY for muon g− 2 and dark matter at the LHC and beyond , JHEP 11 (2019) 095 [ 1909.07792]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Muon g-2 collaboration, Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 141801 [ 2104.03281]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    Muon g-2 collaboration, Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 072003 [ hep-ex/0602035]

    arXiv 2006

  4. [3]

    Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model , Phys

    T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model , Phys. Rept. 887 (2020) 1 [ 2006.04822]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    RBC, UKQCD collaboration, Calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 022003 [1801.07224]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    Muon g-2 collaboration, Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 161802 [ 2308.06230]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Muon g-2 collaboration, Detailed report on the measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 032009 [ 2402.15410]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Arcadi, , P

    G. Arcadi, , P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre et al., The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 203 [1703.07364]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 114 references
  1. [8]

    Chakraborti, S

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha, SUSY Dark Matter Direct Detection Prospects Based on (g − 2)µ, Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull. 77 (2022) 116 [ 2201.03390]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Chakraborti, S

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha, Improved (g− 2)µ measurements and wino/higgsino dark matter , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1069 [ 2103.13403]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    P. Cox, C. Han and T.T. Yanagida, Muon g− 2 and dark matter in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 055015 [ 1805.02802]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    T.-P. Tang, M. Abdughani, L. Feng, Y.-L.S. Tsai, J. Wu and Y.-Z. Fan, NMSSM neutralino dark matter for CDF II W-boson mass and muon g − 2 and the promising prospect of direct detection, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 (2023) 239512 [ 2204.04356]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    J. Cao, Y. He, L. Shang, Y. Zhang and P. Zhu, Current status of a natural NMSSM in light of LHC 13 TeV data and XENON-1T results , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 075020 [1810.09143]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    J. Cao, X. Jia, L. Meng, Y. Yue and D. Zhang, Status of the singlino-dominated dark matter in general Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model , JHEP 03 (2023) 198 [2210.08769]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Barman, G

    R.K. Barman, G. B´ elanger, B. Bhattacherjee, R.M. Godbole and R. Sengupta, Is Light Neutralino Thermal Dark Matter in the Phenomenological Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model Ruled Out?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 011802 [ 2207.06238]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    K. Wang, J. Zhu and Q. Jie, Higgsino Asymmetry and Direct-Detection Constraints of Light Dark Matter in the NMSSM with Non-Universal Higgs Masses , Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 041003 [ 2011.12848]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Wang and J

    K. Wang and J. Zhu, Funnel annihilations of light dark matter and the invisible decay of the Higgs boson, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 095028 [ 2003.01662]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    W. Li, H. Qiao, K. Wang and J. Zhu, Light dark matter confronted with the 95 GeV diphoton excess, 2312.17599. – 15 –

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    Wang and J

    K. Wang and J. Zhu, Investigating higgsino dark matter in the semi-constrained NMSSM* , Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) 113101 [ 2406.15939]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Chakraborti, L

    M. Chakraborti, L. Roszkowski and S. Trojanowski, GUT-constrained supersymmetry and dark matter in light of the new (g− 2)µ determination, JHEP 05 (2021) 252 [ 2104.04458]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Haber and G.L

    H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, The Search for Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 117 (1985) 75

    1985

  14. [21]

    Martin, A Supersymmetry primer , Adv

    S.P. Martin, A Supersymmetry primer , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18 (1998) 1 [hep-ph/9709356]

    1998 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

    A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model, Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1 [ hep-ph/0503173]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [23]

    J. Cao, Z. Heng, D. Li and J.M. Yang, Current experimental constraints on the lightest Higgs boson mass in the constrained MSSM , Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 665 [ 1112.4391]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [24]

    F. Wang, K. Wang, J.M. Yang and J. Zhu, Solving the muon g-2 anomaly in CMSSM extension with non-universal gaugino masses , JHEP 12 (2018) 041 [ 1808.10851]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, S. Salam, D. Sengupta and K. Sinha, Status of weak scale supersymmetry after LHC Run 2 and ton-scale noble liquid WIMP searches , Eur. Phys. J. ST 229 (2020) 3085 [ 2002.03013]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    J.M. Yang, P. Zhu and R. Zhu, A brief survey of low energy supersymmetry under current experiments, PoS LHCP2022 (2022) 069 [ 2211.06686]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    F. Wang, W. Wang, J. Yang, Y. Zhang and B. Zhu, Low Energy Supersymmetry Confronted with Current Experiments: An Overview , Universe 8 (2022) 178 [ 2201.00156]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Y. Dong, K. Wang, H. Yuan, J. Zhu and P. Zhu, Revisiting CMSSM with non-universal gaugino masses under current constraints , JHEP 03 (2025) 207 [ 2412.20003]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Moroi, The Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, Phys

    T. Moroi, The Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6565 [ hep-ph/9512396]

    1996 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Martin and J.D

    S.P. Martin and J.D. Wells, Muon Anomalous Magnetic Dipole Moment in Supersymmetric Theories, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 035003 [ hep-ph/0103067]

    2001 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Stockinger, The Muon Magnetic Moment and Supersymmetry , J

    D. Stockinger, The Muon Magnetic Moment and Supersymmetry , J. Phys. G 34 (2007) R45 [hep-ph/0609168]

    2007 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Athron, M

    P. Athron, M. Bach, H.G. Fargnoli, C. Gnendiger, R. Greifenhagen, J.-h. Park et al., GM2Calc: Precise MSSM prediction for (g− 2) of the muon , Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 62 [1510.08071]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Chakraborti, S

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha, Improved (g− 2)µ Measurements and Supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 984 [ 2006.15157]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    MUON G-2

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha, The new “MUON G-2” result and supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1114 [ 2104.03287]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Chakraborti, S

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha, Improved (g− 2)µ Measurements and Supersymmetry : Implications for e+e− colliders, in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders, 5, 2021 [ 2105.06408]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    MUON G-2

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha, SUSY in the light of the new “MUON G-2” Result, PoS EPS-HEP2021 (2022) 694 [ 2111.00322]. – 16 –

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Chakraborti, S

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, I. Saha and C. Schappacher, ( g− 2)µ and SUSY dark matter: direct detection and collider search complementarity , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 483 [2112.01389]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Athron, , D.H.J

    P. Athron, , D.H.J. Jacob and W. Kotlarski, New physics explanations of a µ in light of the FNAL muon g-2 measurement , JHEP 09 (2021) 080 [ 2104.03691]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    F. Wang, L. Wu, Y. Xiao, J.M. Yang and Y. Zhang, GUT-scale constrained SUSY in light of new muon g-2 measurement , Nucl. Phys. B 970 (2021) 115486 [ 2104.03262]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Ning and F

    X. Ning and F. Wang, Solving the muon g-2 anomaly within the NMSSM from generalized deflected AMSB, JHEP 08 (2017) 089 [ 1704.05079]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Abdughani, Y.-Z

    M. Abdughani, Y.-Z. Fan, L. Feng, Y.-L.S. Tsai, L. Wu and Q. Yuan, A common origin of muon g-2 anomaly, Galaxy Center GeV excess and AMS-02 anti-proton excess in the NMSSM, Sci. Bull. 66 (2021) 2170 [ 2104.03274]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [42]

    J. Cao, J. Lian, Y. Pan, D. Zhang and P. Zhu, Improved (g− 2)µ measurement and singlino dark matter in µ-term extended Z3-NMSSM, JHEP 09 (2021) 175 [ 2104.03284]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Wang and J

    K. Wang and J. Zhu, Smuon in the NMSSM confronted with the muon g–2 anomaly and SUSY searches*, Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023) 013107 [ 2112.14576]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    J. Cao, F. Li, J. Lian, Y. Pan and D. Zhang, Impact of LHC probes of SUSY and recent measurement of (g− 2)µ on Z3-NMSSM, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65 (2022) 291012 [2204.04710]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    J. Cao, J. Lian, Y. Pan, Y. Yue and D. Zhang, Impact of recent (g− 2)µ measurement on the light CP-even Higgs scenario in general Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, JHEP 03 (2022) 203 [ 2201.11490]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Zhao, L.-H

    S.-M. Zhao, L.-H. Su, X.-X. Dong, T.-T. Wang and T.-F. Feng, Study muon g − 2 at two-loop level in the U(1) XSSM, JHEP 03 (2022) 101 [ 2107.03571]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Yang, H.-B

    J.-L. Yang, H.-B. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, X.-X. Dong and T.-F. Feng, Muon (g− 2) in the B-LSSM, JHEP 08 (2021) 086 [ 2104.03542]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H.-B. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, J.-L. Yang and T.-F. Feng, Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in the µ νSSM *, Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 093107 [ 2104.03489]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    K. Wang, F. Wang, J. Zhu and Q. Jie, The semi-constrained NMSSM in light of muon g-2, LHC, and dark matter constraints , Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 103109 [ 1811.04435]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [50]

    W. Li, H. Qiao, K. Wang and J. Zhu, Smuon contribution to muon g-2 in Grand Unified supersymmetric theories, 2312.17523

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    J. Cao, J. Lian, L. Meng, Y. Yue and P. Zhu, Anomalous muon magnetic moment in the inverse seesaw extended next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 095009 [ 1912.10225]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    J. Cao, Y. He, J. Lian, D. Zhang and P. Zhu, Electron and muon anomalous magnetic moments in the inverse seesaw extended NMSSM , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 055009 [2102.11355]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Wang, X.-X

    X. Wang, X.-X. Long, Y.-T. Wang, T.-T. Wang, H.-B. Zhang, T.-F. Feng et al., Study on muon MDM and lepton EDM in BLMSSM via the mass insertion approximation , J. Phys. G 51 (2024) 015004 [ 2211.10848]. – 17 –

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    T. Li, J. Pei and W. Zhang, Muon anomalous magnetic moment and Higgs potential stability in the 331 model from SU(6) , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 671 [ 2104.03334]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Aboubrahim, P

    A. Aboubrahim, P. Nath and R.M. Syed, Yukawa coupling unification in an SO(10) model consistent with Fermilab (g − 2)µ result, JHEP 06 (2021) 002 [ 2104.10114]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [56]

    G.-C. Cho, K. Hagiwara, Y. Matsumoto and D. Nomura, The MSSM confronts the precision electroweak data and the muon g-2 , JHEP 11 (2011) 068 [ 1104.1769]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [57]

    M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto and T. Yoshinaga, Muon g-2 vs LHC in Supersymmetric Models, JHEP 01 (2014) 123 [ 1303.4256]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ajaib, B

    M.A. Ajaib, B. Dutta, T. Ghosh, I. Gogoladze and Q. Shafi, Neutralinos and sleptons at the LHC in light of muon (g− 2)µ, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075033 [ 1505.05896]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Badziak, Z

    M. Badziak, Z. Lalak, M. Lewicki, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, Upper bounds on sparticle masses from muon g − 2 and the Higgs mass and the complementarity of future colliders, JHEP 03 (2015) 003 [ 1411.1450]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Sabatta, A.S

    D. Sabatta, A.S. Cornell, A. Goyal, M. Kumar, B. Mellado and X. Ruan, Connecting muon anomalous magnetic moment and multi-lepton anomalies at LHC , Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 063103 [1909.03969]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. Zhao, J. Zhu, P. Zhu and R. Zhu, Light Higgsino scenario confronted with the muon g-2 , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 055030 [ 2211.14587]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado and G.F. Giudice, The Well-tempered neutralino, Nucl. Phys. B 741 (2006) 108 [ hep-ph/0601041]

    2006 arXiv

  56. [64]

    C. Han, A. Kobakhidze, N. Liu, A. Saavedra, L. Wu and J.M. Yang, Probing Light Higgsinos in Natural SUSY from Monojet Signals at the LHC , JHEP 02 (2014) 049 [1310.4274]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Djouadi, M.M

    A. Djouadi, M.M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Decays of supersymmetric particles: The Program SUSY-HIT (SUspect-SdecaY-Hdecay-InTerface), Acta Phys. Polon. B 38 (2007) 635 [hep-ph/0609292]

    2007 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Djouadi, J.-L

    A. Djouadi, J.-L. Kneur and G. Moultaka, SuSpect: A Fortran code for the supersymmetric and Higgs particle spectrum in the MSSM , Comput. Phys. Commun. 176 (2007) 426 [hep-ph/0211331]

    2007 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension , Comput. Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 56 [hep-ph/9704448]

    1998 arXiv

  60. [68]

    HDECAY collaboration, HDECAY: Twenty++ years after, Comput. Phys. Commun. 238 (2019) 214 [ 1801.09506]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Muhlleitner, A

    M. Muhlleitner, A. Djouadi and Y. Mambrini, SDECAY: A Fortran code for the decays of the supersymmetric particles in the MSSM , Comput. Phys. Commun. 168 (2005) 46 [hep-ph/0311167]

    2005 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, P. Brun, A. Pukhov, S. Rosier-Lees, P. Salati et al., Indirect search for dark matter with micrOMEGAs2.4 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 842 [1004.1092]. – 18 –

    2011 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Cherchiglia, D.H.J. Jacob, D. Stoeckinger, H. Stoeckinger-Kim et al., GM2Calc - 2 for the 2HDM , PoS CompT ools2021(2022) 009 [ 2207.09039]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Altakach, S

    M.M. Altakach, S. Kraml, A. Lessa and S. Narasimha, SModelS v3: going beyond Z2 topologies, JHEP 11 (2024) 074 [ 2409.12942]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Kraml, S

    S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, W. Magerl, D. Proschofsky-Spindler et al., SModelS: a tool for interpreting simplified-model results from the LHC and its application to supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2868 [ 1312.4175]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ambrogi, S

    F. Ambrogi, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, V. Magerl et al., SModelS v1.1 user manual: Improving simplified model constraints with efficiency maps , Comput. Phys. Commun. 227 (2018) 72 [ 1701.06586]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ambrogi et al., SModelS v1.2: long-lived particles, combination of signal regions, and other novelties, Comput

    F. Ambrogi et al., SModelS v1.2: long-lived particles, combination of signal regions, and other novelties, Comput. Phys. Commun. 251 (2020) 106848 [ 1811.10624]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Alguero, J

    G. Alguero, J. Heisig, C.K. Khosa, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, A. Lessa et al., Constraining new physics with SModelS version 2 , JHEP 08 (2022) 068 [ 2112.00769]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era , Eur

    P. Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1211 [ 2006.06007]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds− 4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC , Eur

    P. Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds− 4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2693 [1311.0055]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron , Comput

    P. Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron , Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2605 [ 1102.1898]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron , Comput

    P. Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron , Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 138 [ 0811.4169]

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Bahl et al., HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals, Comput

    H. Bahl et al., HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023) 108803 [ 2210.09332]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Bechtle et al., HiggsSignals : Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC , Eur

    P. Bechtle et al., HiggsSignals : Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2711 [ 1305.1933]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Bechtle et al., HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era , Eur

    P. Bechtle et al., HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 145 [ 2012.09197]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Chowdhury, R.M

    D. Chowdhury, R.M. Godbole, K.A. Mohan and S.K. Vempati, Charge and Color Breaking Constraints in MSSM after the Higgs Discovery at LHC , JHEP 02 (2014) 110 [ 1310.1932]

    2014 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    XENON collaboration, First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 041003 [ 2303.14729]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    PandaX collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne ·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 011805 [ 2408.00664]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    LZ collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment , 2410.17036. – 19 –

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    PandaX collaboration, Constraints on the axial-vector and pseudo-scalar mediated WIMP-nucleus interactions from PandaX-4T experiment , Phys. Lett. B 834 (2022) 137487 [2208.03626]

    2022 arXiv

  82. [90]

    LZ collaboration, Projected WIMP sensitivity of the LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter experiment , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 052002 [ 1802.06039]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    XENON collaboration, Projected WIMP sensitivity of the XENONnT dark matter experiment, JCAP 11 (2020) 031 [ 2007.08796]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    China Phys

    PANDA-X, PandaX collaboration, PandaX-xT—A deep underground multi-ten-tonne liquid xenon observatory , Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68 (2025) 221011 [ 2402.03596]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 023524 [1307.5458]

    2014 arXiv

  86. [94]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for chargino–neutralino pair production in final states with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1118 [ 2106.01676]

    2021 arXiv

  87. [95]

    ATLAS collaboration, Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with compressed mass spectra in√s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 052005 [ 1911.12606]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    CMS collaboration, Combined search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 03 (2018) 160 [1801.03957]

    2018 arXiv

  89. [97]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with two or three leptons at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 995 [ 1803.02762]

    2018 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [ 1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 [ 1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  92. [100]

    DELPHES 3 collaboration, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment , JHEP 02 (2014) 057 [ 1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Drees, H

    M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall and J.S. Kim, CheckMATE: Confronting your Favourite New Physics Model with LHC Data , Comput. Phys. Commun. 187 (2015) 227 [1312.2591]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    J.S. Kim, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall and K. Rolbiecki, A framework to create customised LHC analyses within CheckMATE , Comput. Phys. Commun. 196 (2015) 535 [ 1503.01123]

    2015 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Dercks, N

    D. Dercks, N. Desai, J.S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall and T. Weber, CheckMATE 2: From the model to the limit , Comput. Phys. Commun. 221 (2017) 383 [ 1611.09856]

    2017 arXiv

  96. [104]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two leptons and missing transverse momentum in √s = 13 TeVpp collisions using the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 123 [ 1908.08215]

    2020 arXiv

  97. [105]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric states in – 20 – scenarios with compressed mass spectra at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 052010 [ 1712.08119]

    2018 arXiv

  98. [106]

    ATLAS collaboration, Object-based missing transverse momentum significance in the ATLAS detector,

  99. [107]

    Lester and D.J

    C.G. Lester and D.J. Summers, Measuring masses of semiinvisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 99 [ hep-ph/9906349]

    1999 arXiv

  100. [108]

    A. Barr, C. Lester and P. Stephens, m(T2): The Truth behind the glamour , J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 2343 [ hep-ph/0304226]

    2003 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Lester and A

    C. Lester and A. Barr, MTGEN: Mass scale measurements in pair-production at colliders , JHEP 12 (2007) 102 [ 0708.1028]

    2007 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Abdughani, J

    M. Abdughani, J. Ren, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and J. Zhao, Supervised deep learning in high energy phenomenology: a mini review , Commun. Theor. Phys. 71 (2019) 955 [ 1905.06047]

    2019 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Caron, J.S

    S. Caron, J.S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, R. Ruiz de Austri and B. Stienen, The BSM-AI project: SUSY-AI–generalizing LHC limits on supersymmetry with machine learning , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 257 [ 1605.02797]

    2017 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Y.-C. Guo, F. Feng, A. Di, S.-Q. Lu and J.-C. Yang, MLAnalysis: An open-source program for high energy physics analyses , Comput. Phys. Commun. 294 (2024) 108957 [2305.00964]

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    J. Ren, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and J. Zhao, Exploring supersymmetry with machine learning , Nucl. Phys. B 943 (2019) 114613 [ 1708.06615]

    2019 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Abdughani, D

    M. Abdughani, D. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and J. Zhao, Probing the triple Higgs boson coupling with machine learning at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 056003 [ 2005.11086]. – 21 –

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.