Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

TooLQit: Leptoquark Models and Limits

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents TooLQit, an open-source toolkit with model files for all twelve leptoquark types and a calculator that tests S1 and U1 points against LHC dilepton limits.

desk verdict Useful, honest LQ software paper whose central claim—CaLQ reproduces LHC limits—is not yet validated; referees should ask for a benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19729 v2 pith:PEBXCZNI submitted 2024-12-27 hep-ph

Arvind Bhaskar , Yash Chaurasia , Arijit Das , Atirek Kumar , Tanumoy Mandal , Subhadip Mitra , Cyrin Neeraj , Rachit Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords leptoquarksLHCphenomenologydileptontailschi-squaredlimitestimationS1scalarleptoquarkU1vectorbeyondtheStandardModelMonteCarloeventgeneration
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

TooLQit is an open-source toolkit for studying leptoquarks—hypothetical particles that couple quarks to leptons—at the LHC. The paper's central claim is that the toolkit supplies computer-ready leading-order model files for all twelve renormalizable leptoquark types, including their electroweak gauge interactions, and a calculator, CaLQ, that tells a user whether a chosen mass and set of leptoquark–quark–lepton couplings is still allowed by the high-mass dilepton data. CaLQ works on a chi-squared method: it compares measured event counts in electron, muon, and tau-pair channels with predictions built from stored cross-sections and cut efficiencies, minimises over the active couplings, and returns yes or no at the requested significance. The paper offers the toolkit as a proof-of-principle of a unified, modular platform for leptoquark phenomenology. If it works as described, model-builders can screen large parameter spaces and simulate leptoquark signals without rebuilding models or rederiving constraints from scratch.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the chi-squared limit calculator built on a factorised parametrisation of BSM event counts. For each dilepton channel and bin, CaLQ writes the predicted number of events as the Standard Model background plus three leptoquark contributions—pair production, single production, and t-channel exchange interfering with the Drell-Yan background—and expresses the coupling dependence of the non-resonant piece through terms proportional to $\lambda_i^2$ and $\lambda_i^2 \lambda_j^2$ with precomputed cross-sections and efficiencies. It then minimises the total chi-squared in the space of the chosen couplings (taken real, varied between $-3.5$ and $3.5$, with multiple starting points) and decides allowed or excluded by comparing the input point's $\Delta\chi^2$ with the $1\sigma$ or $2\sigma$ threshold. A second piece of machinery is the model-file infrastructure itself: a systematic naming and coupling convention, plus auxiliary fields, that lets electroweak gauge vertices be grafted onto every leptoquark representation for event generation.

What would settle it

Take a set of coupling-mass points that the LHC experiments have already excluded at 95% confidence in their public dilepton contours, run each through CaLQ, and count how many return 'yes'. If a sizable fraction are flagged as allowed, or if regenerating the stored event samples at an off-grid mass shifts binned predictions beyond the quoted uncertainties, the calculator's claim to estimate the indirect limits is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that all twelve renormalizable leptoquark models—six scalars and six vectors—can be packaged into standard computer-readable model files that include the electroweak gauge interactions, not just the QCD ones, and that the two singlet cases S1 and U1 can be fed into an automated calculator which turns the LHC's published high-mass dilepton distributions into exclusion statements. That calculator, CaLQ, is an automation of the chi-squared limit-setting technique from the authors' earlier work: for a fixed mass it reads stored cross-sections and bin-by-bin efficiencies for pair, single, and indirect production, interpolates them between mass points, forms the predicted event count in each dilepton bin, minimises the chi-squared over the active couplings, and accepts or rejects the input point by the resulting $\Delta\chi^2$. The paper demonstrates the workflow with one- and two-coupling scans for the U1 vector leptoquark and describes the release as a proof-of-principle of a unified, modular leptoquark framework.

Load-bearing premise

The calculator's yes/no answers rest on the stored leading-order event samples, the 500 GeV interpolation grid, a default 10% systematic uncertainty, and the assumption that these reproduce the true experimental limits; the paper does not compare CaLQ output with published exclusion contours or with an independent calculator, so that fidelity is unverified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model-builder can test an S1 or U1 parameter point against electron, muon, and tau-pair tails in minutes, for any mass from 1 to 5 TeV, instead of rerunning the full simulation chain.
  • The model files make it straightforward to generate leading-order signals for any of the twelve leptoquarks, including processes with photon/Z-gluon-LQ-LQ vertices that are often omitted but can matter at high electric charge.
  • Because CaLQ is modular and the chi-squared procedure is generic, the same stored-data approach can be extended to other leptoquark representations, mixed-flavour final states, and lepton-plus-missing-energy data.
  • The non-interactive mode allows whole grids of parameter points to be screened, so points allowed by flavour or dark-matter constraints can be checked against LHC dilepton bounds in one pass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The default 10% systematic uncertainty and the 500 GeV interpolation grid are likely to dominate the error budget; a user who tests a point at neighbouring masses or with the systematic error set to 5% and 15% will get a sense of how robust the yes/no boundary actually is.
  • The same machinery transfers naturally to any BSM scenario that alters dilepton tails, such as effective-field-theory Wilson coefficients; the paper notes this possibility but does not implement it.
  • Because the parametrisation assumes real couplings, points with complex phases may be misclassified; the paper argues the LHC data are largely insensitive to this, so the practical effect is probably small.
  • The planned inclusion of NLO-QCD models and direct-search limits would change the reach substantially; until then, leading-order cross-sections with a flat k-factor for scalar pair production are the main approximation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. TooLQit is an open-source toolkit with two components. The first is a set of leading-order FeynRules/UFO model files for all twelve renormalizable scalar and vector leptoquark representations, including their electroweak gauge interactions and a systematic naming convention (Section II). The second is CaLQ, a Python calculator implementing the chi-squared method of Refs. [34, 43, 46] to judge whether a given leptoquark mass and Yukawa-coupling point is allowed by LHC dilepton data (Section III). CaLQ currently supports the singlet scalar S1 and the singlet vector U1 for masses between 1 and 5 TeV, using binned dilepton data from an ATLAS tau-tau search [56] and a CMS ee/mu-mu search [57], with stored LO MadGraph5/Pythia8/Delphes event grids interpolated in 500 GeV steps, a default 10% systematic uncertainty, and an option to ignore resonant contributions. The paper is a manual: it documents model conventions, usage in interactive and non-interactive modes, the chi-squared workflow, and illustrative one- and two-coupling exclusion scans for U1 (Figs. 8-9).

Significance. If the toolkit performs as claimed, it addresses a real community need: it provides, in one open-source framework, FeynRules models for all leptoquark types with the standard electroweak structure (including the photon/Z-gluon-LQ-LQ vertex) and an automated estimator of indirect LHC dilepton limits. The strengths of the paper are the completeness of the model set, the consistent notation, the public repository, the modular design of CaLQ, and the explicit documentation of editable inputs (systematic uncertainty, NLO k-factor, anomalous coupling kappa). The main gap is that the central claim, namely that CaLQ returns correct allow/exclude verdicts, is not established by any comparison with published experimental limits or with an independent calculator. For a tools paper of this type, validation is not an optional extra: users can only trust the output if the stored simulation grids, mimicked cuts, and systematic model have been shown to reproduce known exclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (9)-(11), Figs. 8-9] The central usability claim, that CaLQ returns correct allow/exclude verdicts for LQ parameter points, is not validated anywhere in the paper. The stored event samples are generated at LO with MadGraph5, showered with Pythia8, passed through Delphes, and filtered with selection criteria described only as 'mimicked' from Refs. [56, 57]; cross-sections and efficiencies are interpolated from grids spaced by 500 GeV, and a default systematic uncertainty delta = 0.1 enters Eq. (9). No comparison is shown with the published ATLAS/CMS exclusion contours for S1 or U1, with the authors' own published U1 limits in Ref. [43], or with an independent calculator such as HighPT [58, 59]. Because the purpose of the tool is precisely to decide whether a parameter point is excluded, the absence of a closure test leaves the abstract's claim that CaLQ 'can calculate the LHC limits' unsupported. I recommend adding a validation section that reproduces at least the U1 limits of Ref. [43] and the experimental contours for a few benchmark masses, and ideally compares CaLQ output with HighPT for the overlapping masses.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (10)] The origin of the SM background N_b_SM in Eq. (10) is not stated. The chi-squared in Eq. (9) compares N_b_Theory = N_b_LQ + N_b_SM with the observed N_b_Data, and every verdict depends on what N_b_SM contains (e.g., the HepData background columns versus an independent simulation) and on whether its uncertainty is included in Delta-N. The manuscript should specify the source of N_b_SM, describe how it is retrieved and stored, and state whether the 10% systematic is intended to cover its normalization uncertainty; as written, the definition is incomplete and the results cannot be reproduced without inspecting the code in the repository.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (9) and Section III.B] The default systematic model, Delta-N_b_syst = delta * N_b_Data with delta = 0.1 treated as uncorrelated across bins, is a free input whose impact on the limits is not quantified. The yes/no verdicts shown in Figs. 8-9 will shift with delta, and the paper offers neither a delta-dependence study nor external evidence that 0.1 is the right value for these particular analyses. I ask the authors to show the effect of varying delta on at least one representative limit curve, or to absorb this sensitivity check into the validation section requested above. Without such a check, the robustness of the calculator's exclusion boundaries is unknown.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table I] Table I omits the barred scalar and vector states S-bar_1 and U-bar_1, even though they appear in Eq. (1) and Table II; the authors should either add their Yukawa interaction terms or explicitly state that the table excludes them.
  2. [Table II and Section II.A] The Monte Carlo code assigned to the scalar S-bar_1 is '4210212', whose third digit (1) denotes a vector in the scheme stated in Section II.A; to follow the stated convention consistently, the code should be '4200212'.
  3. [Section II.A] In the naming-convention bullet, the text 'r (for R2 and eR1)' should read 'eR2'.
  4. [Section II] In the sentence listing the six scalar LQs, the second 'S1' (the charge -2/3 state) loses its bar in the typesetting; the bar should be visible so that the list agrees with Eq. (1).
  5. [Section III.A] The directory path 'TooLQit/CaLQ/Version_X.Y.Z' is a placeholder; the manuscript should cite the concrete version of the code (or the repository state) used to produce Figs. 8-9.
  6. [Figure 8] At least one panel of Fig. 8 should be overlaid with the corresponding published exclusion limit or the limit from Ref. [43] so that the reader can judge the scale of CaLQ's grey regions; without any reference curve, the displayed exclusions cannot be assessed.
  7. [Section III.C] The sentence referring to 'the scipy.optimize() function' should name the actual routine used (e.g., scipy.optimize.minimize) and state whether the minimization is constrained to the [-3.5, 3.5] interval used for the coupling evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CaLQ's yes/no outputs are chi-square comparisons with external LHC data; self-citations to the underlying method are not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central deliverable is a code (CaLQ) that tests whether LQ parameter points are allowed by dilepton tail data. The decision variable is the chi-square in Eq. (9), built from measured event counts N_b^Data taken from HepData records of ATLAS and CMS dilepton searches (Refs. [56,57]) and from theory counts N_b^Theory assembled from simulated pair, single, and indirect production contributions. The yes/no output is therefore a comparison against external data, not a quantity defined by the calculator's own inputs. Eq. (11) factorizes the coupling dependence of the BSM contributions using precomputed cross-sections and efficiencies; this is a standard limit-setting procedure, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The authors' reliance on Refs. [34] and [43] for the chi-square method is self-citation, but it is credit for a previously published technique rather than a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that forces the result; the method's assumptions do not include the target output. The demonstration scans in Figs. 8-9 are illustrative runs of the code, not independent validation, and the paper's 'alpha stage' caveat and 'mimicked' cuts are honest limitations. Lack of comparison with published ATLAS/CMS exclusion contours or with HighPT is a validation gap and a correctness risk, not circularity: nothing in the derivation defines the LHC limit as the output of the authors' own previous calculation. The FeynRules models are standard LO Lagrangians with electroweak gauge interactions and do not derive from the limits they are used to compute. Overall, no step exhibits the definitional equivalence, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain that would constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard LHC simulation tools, public dilepton data, and the authors' published chi-squared method. The main burden is not new physics entities but pragmatic choices: the 10 percent systematic error, the 1.5 k-factor, zero kappa, real couplings, and stored LO cross-section and efficiency grids. These choices determine the yes/no outputs and are not independently validated in the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • Systematic uncertainty delta = 0.1 (default)
    Default 10 percent systematic error in Eq. (9) is chosen by hand; changing it rescales all chi-squared values and therefore the exclusion contours.
  • S1 pair-production k_NLO factor = 1.5 (editable)
    Average NLO QCD k-factor applied only to S1 pair production, selected from Refs. [64-68]; affects S1 limits.
  • Vector LQ anomalous coupling kappa = 0 (assumed)
    The g chi chi coupling in Eq. (4) is set to zero for U1; a nonzero kappa would change U1 pair production and the derived limits.
  • Coupling scan range = [-3.5, 3.5]
    CaLQ scans couplings in this interval to locate the chi-squared minimum; parameter points outside this range are not tested.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption No diquark interaction terms are included
    Eqs. (3) and (5) omit diquark couplings; if present in a UV completion, they would affect LQ decays and branching ratios.
  • domain assumption CKM mixing is either up-aligned or down-aligned
    Table I presents two alignment scenarios for left-handed quark mixing; the true flavor structure could be a mixture not covered by the models.
  • domain assumption Yukawa couplings are treated as real
    Section III states that LHC dilepton data is largely insensitive to complex phases; complex couplings would change interference terms in Eq. (11).
  • domain assumption LO signal simulation with a fixed k-factor is adequate
    Section III uses MadGraph5 at LO with NNPDF2.3LO and a single average k_NLO factor for S1 pair production only; NLO or electroweak corrections could shift the predicted bin counts.
  • domain assumption The default 10 percent systematic error model approximates ATLAS and CMS uncertainties
    Eq. (9) sets Delta_N_syst = 0.1 N_data; real bin-by-bin systematics differ and would change the allowed regions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TooLQit: Leptoquark Models and Limits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEBXCZNI

@misc{pith2026241219729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TooLQit: Leptoquark Models and Limits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEBXCZNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19729}
}
abstract

We introduce the leptoquark (LQ) toolkit, TooLQit, which includes leading-order FeynRules models for all types of LQs and a Python-based calculator, named CaLQ, to test if a set of parameter points are allowed by the LHC dilepton searches. The models include electroweak gauge interactions of the LQs and follow a set of intuitive notations. Currently, CaLQ can calculate the LHC limits on LQ ($S_1$ and $U_1$) couplings (one or more simultaneously) for any mass between $1$ and $5$ TeV using a $\chi^2$ method. In this manual for TooLQit, we describe the FeynRules models and discuss the techniques used in CaLQ. We outline the workflow to check parameter spaces of LQ models with an example. We show some illustrative scans for one- and multi-coupling scenarios for the $U_1$ vector LQ. The TooLQit code is available at https://github.com/rsrchtsm/TooLQit

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Three-body single production of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Drell-Yan via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Screenshot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Non-interactive inputs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Illustrative one-coupling scans for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Illustrative two-coupling scans for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Right-handed neutrino production through first-generation leptoquarks

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    At the HL-LHC, first-generation leptoquarks decaying to right-handed neutrinos are discovered most efficiently through indirect t-channel production, reaching leptoquark masses of roughly 3 to 10 TeV when the new coup...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [56]

    Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector usingpp col- lisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    Georges Aad et al. (ATLAS), “Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector usingpp col- lisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 051801 (2020), HEPData link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1782650., arXiv:2002.12223 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [57]

    Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at√s = 13 TeV,

    Albert M Sirunyanet al. (CMS), “Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at√s = 13 TeV,” (2021), HEPData link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1849964., arXiv:2103.02708 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [43]

    Precise limits on the charge-2/3 U1 vector lepto- quark,

    Arvind Bhaskar, Diganta Das, Tanumoy Mandal, Subhadip Mitra, and Cyrin Neeraj, “Precise limits on the charge-2/3 U1 vector lepto- quark,” Phys. Rev. D104, 035016 (2021), arXiv:2101.12069 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [1]

    Unified Lepton-Hadron Symmetry and a Gauge Theory of the Basic Interactions,

    Jogesh C. Pati and Abdus Salam, “Unified Lepton-Hadron Symmetry and a Gauge Theory of the Basic Interactions,” Phys. Rev. D8, 1240–1251 (1973)

    1973

  5. [2]

    Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,

    Jogesh C. Pati and Abdus Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,” Phys. Rev. D10, 275–289 (1974), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D11,703(1975)]

    1974

  6. [3]

    Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 438–441 (1974)

    1974

  7. [4]

    Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,

    Harald Fritzsch and Peter Minkowski, “Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,” Annals Phys.93, 193–266 (1975)

    work page 1975

  8. [5]

    Light Leptoquarks,

    Barbara Schrempp and Fridger Schrempp, “Light Leptoquarks,” Phys. Lett.B153, 101–107 (1985)

    work page 1985

Show all 83 references
  1. [6]

    Composite Leptoquarks at the LHC,

    Ben Gripaios, “Composite Leptoquarks at the LHC,” JHEP02, 045 (2010), arXiv:0910.1789 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Lepton number violation at the LHC with leptoquark and diquark,

    Masaya Kohda, Hiroaki Sugiyama, and Koji Tsumura, “Lepton number violation at the LHC with leptoquark and diquark,” Phys. Lett. B718, 1436–1440 (2013), arXiv:1210.5622 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Mass Without Scalars,

    Savas Dimopoulos and Leonard Susskind, “Mass Without Scalars,” Nucl. Phys. B155, 237–252 (1979)

    1979

  4. [9]

    Technicolor,

    Edward Farhi and Leonard Susskind, “Technicolor,” Phys. Rept.74, 277 (1981)

    1981

  5. [10]

    R-parity violating supersymmetry,

    R. Barbier et al., “R-parity violating supersymmetry,” Phys. Rept.420, 1–202 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406039 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Leptoquarks in Lepton - Quark Collisions,

    W. Buchmuller, R. Ruckl, and D. Wyler, “Leptoquarks in Lepton - Quark Collisions,” Phys. Lett.B191, 442–448 (1987), [Erratum: Phys. Lett.B448,320(1999)]

    1987

  7. [12]

    Leptoquarkpairproductionat ep colliders,

    JohannesBlumlein, EdwardBoos, andAlexanderPukhov,“Leptoquarkpairproductionat ep colliders,”Mod.Phys.Lett. A9,3007–3022 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9404321 [hep-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Leptoquark pair production in hadronic interactions,

    Johannes Blumlein, Edward Boos, and Alexander Kryukov, “Leptoquark pair production in hadronic interactions,” Z. Phys.C76, 137– 153 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610408 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders,

    I. Dor˘sner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik, and N. Ko˘snik, “Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders,” Phys. Rept.641, 1–68 (2016), arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]. 2 Though not directly related to LQs, we note thatCaLQ can be easily expanded ...

    2016 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Averages ofb-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of 2023,

    Sw. Banerjee et al. (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLAV)), “Averages ofb-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of 2023,” (2024), arXiv:2411.18639 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [16]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,

    T. Aoyama et al. , “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rept. 887, 1–166 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [17]

    New ways to TeV scale leptogenesis,

    Chee Sheng Fong, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Enrico Nardi, and Eduardo Peinado, “New ways to TeV scale leptogenesis,” JHEP08, 104 (2013), arXiv:1305.6312 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Probingsterileneutrinosintheframeworkofinverseseesaw mechanism through leptoquark productions,

    DebottamDas, KirtimanGhosh, ManimalaMitra, andSubhadeepMondal,“Probingsterileneutrinosintheframeworkofinverseseesaw mechanism through leptoquark productions,” Phys. Rev.D97, 015024 (2018), arXiv:1708.06206 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Right-handed neutrino pair production via second-generation leptoquarks,

    Arvind Bhaskar, Yash Chaurasia, Kuldeep Deka, Tanumoy Mandal, Subhadip Mitra, and Ananya Mukherjee, “Right-handed neutrino pair production via second-generation leptoquarks,” Phys. Lett. B843, 138039 (2023), arXiv:2301.11889 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Mutually elusive: Vectorlike antileptons and leptoquarks,

    Innes Bigaran, Bogdan A. Dobrescu, and Alessandro Russo, “Mutually elusive: Vectorlike antileptons and leptoquarks,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 055033 (2024), arXiv:2312.09189 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Leptoquark induced rare decay amplitudesh → τ ∓µ ± and τ → µγ,

    Kingman Cheung, Wai-Yee Keung, and Po-Yan Tseng, “Leptoquark induced rare decay amplitudesh → τ ∓µ ± and τ → µγ,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 015010 (2016), arXiv:1508.01897 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Enhancing scalar productions with leptoquarks at the LHC,

    Arvind Bhaskar, Debottam Das, Bibhabasu De, and Subhadip Mitra, “Enhancing scalar productions with leptoquarks at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D102, 035002 (2020), arXiv:2002.12571 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Leptoquark-assisted singlet- mediated di-Higgs production at the LHC,

    Arvind Bhaskar, Debottam Das, Bibhabasu De, Subhadip Mitra, Aruna Kumar Nayak, and Cyrin Neeraj, “Leptoquark-assisted singlet- mediated di-Higgs production at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B833, 137341 (2022), arXiv:2205.12210 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Lepto-Quark Portal Dark Matter,

    Soo-Min Choi, Yoo-Jin Kang, Hyun Min Lee, and Tae-Gyu Ro, “Lepto-Quark Portal Dark Matter,” JHEP 10, 104 (2018), arXiv:1807.06547 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Fermionic dark matter in leptoquark portal,

    Rusa Mandal, “Fermionic dark matter in leptoquark portal,” Eur. Phys. J.C78, 726 (2018), arXiv:1808.07844 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Vacuum stability in an extended standard model with a leptoquark,

    Priyotosh Bandyopadhyay and Rusa Mandal, “Vacuum stability in an extended standard model with a leptoquark,” Phys. Rev.D95, 035007 (2017), arXiv:1609.03561 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Gravitational wave signals from leptoquark-induced first-order electroweak phase transitions,

    Bowen Fu and Stephen F. King, “Gravitational wave signals from leptoquark-induced first-order electroweak phase transitions,” JCAP 05, 055 (2023), arXiv:2209.14605 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Overview of CMS leptoquark searches,

    CMS Collaboration, “Overview of CMS leptoquark searches,” https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/CMSPublic/ SummaryPlotsEXO13TeV/barplot_EQ_MUQ_TAUQ_NUQ_v5.pdf (2023)

    2023

  24. [29]

    Leptoquark summary plot for scalar or vector models,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Leptoquark summary plot for scalar or vector models,”https://cds.cern.ch/record/2903898 (2024), [ATL- PHYS-PUB-2024-012]

    2024

  25. [30]

    The leptoquark Hunter’s guide: Pair production,

    Bastian Diaz, Martin Schmaltz, and Yi-Ming Zhong, “The leptoquark Hunter’s guide: Pair production,” JHEP 10, 097 (2017), arXiv:1706.05033 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [31]

    The leptoquark Hunter’s guide: large coupling,

    Martin Schmaltz and Yi-Ming Zhong, “The leptoquark Hunter’s guide: large coupling,” JHEP01, 132 (2019), arXiv:1810.10017 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [32]

    Leptoquark single and pair production at LHC with CalcHEP/CompHEP in the complete model,

    Alexander Belyaev, Claude Leroy, Rashid Mehdiyev, and Alexander Pukhov, “Leptoquark single and pair production at LHC with CalcHEP/CompHEP in the complete model,” JHEP09, 005 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502067

    2005 arXiv

  28. [33]

    Single Productions of Colored Particles at the LHC: An Example with Scalar Leptoquarks,

    Tanumoy Mandal, Subhadip Mitra, and Satyajit Seth, “Single Productions of Colored Particles at the LHC: An Example with Scalar Leptoquarks,” JHEP07, 028 (2015), arXiv:1503.04689 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [34]

    RD(∗) motivated S1 leptoquarkscenarios: Impactofinterferenceontheexclusion limits from LHC data,

    TanumoyMandal, SubhadipMitra, andSwapnilRaz,“ RD(∗) motivated S1 leptoquarkscenarios: Impactofinterferenceontheexclusion limits from LHC data,” Phys. Rev.D99, 055028 (2019), arXiv:1811.03561 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Confronting lepton flavor universality violation in B decays with high-pT tau lepton searches at LHC,

    Darius A. Faroughy, Admir Greljo, and Jernej F. Kamenik, “Confronting lepton flavor universality violation in B decays with high-pT tau lepton searches at LHC,” Phys. Lett. B764, 126–134 (2017), arXiv:1609.07138 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [36]

    High-pT dilepton tails and flavor physics,

    Admir Greljo and David Marzocca, “High-pT dilepton tails and flavor physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 548 (2017), arXiv:1704.09015 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Mono-τ Signatures at the LHC Constrain Explanations ofB-decay Anomalies,

    Admir Greljo, Jorge Martin Camalich, and José David Ruiz-Álvarez, “Mono-τ Signatures at the LHC Constrain Explanations ofB-decay Anomalies,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 131803 (2019), arXiv:1811.07920 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [38]

    High-pT signatures in vector–leptoquark models,

    Michael J. Baker, Javier Fuentes-Martín, Gino Isidori, and Matthias König, “High-pT signatures in vector–leptoquark models,” Eur. Phys. J. C79, 334 (2019), arXiv:1901.10480 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [39]

    Addressing theRD(∗) anomalies with anS1 leptoquark from SO(10) grand unification,

    Ufuk Aydemir, Tanumoy Mandal, and Subhadip Mitra, “Addressing theRD(∗) anomalies with anS1 leptoquark from SO(10) grand unification,” Phys. Rev.D101, 015011 (2020), arXiv:1902.08108 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [40]

    Hunting for scalar leptoquarks with boosted tops and light leptons,

    Kushagra Chandak, Tanumoy Mandal, and Subhadip Mitra, “Hunting for scalar leptoquarks with boosted tops and light leptons,” Phys. Rev.D100, 075019 (2019), arXiv:1907.11194 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [41]

    Lepton Flavor Violation and Dilepton Tails at the LHC,

    Andrei Angelescu, Darius A. Faroughy, and Olcyr Sumensari, “Lepton Flavor Violation and Dilepton Tails at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 641 (2020), arXiv:2002.05684 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [42]

    Boosting vector leptoquark searches with boosted tops,

    Arvind Bhaskar, Tanumoy Mandal, and Subhadip Mitra, “Boosting vector leptoquark searches with boosted tops,” Phys. Rev. D101, 115015 (2020), arXiv:2004.01096 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Improvingthird-generationleptoquarksearcheswithcombined signals and boosted top quarks,

    ArvindBhaskar,TanumoyMandal,SubhadipMitra, andMohitSharma,“Improvingthird-generationleptoquarksearcheswithcombined signals and boosted top quarks,” Phys. Rev. D104, 075037 (2021), arXiv:2106.07605 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [45]

    An economical model forB-flavour and aµ anomalies from SO(10) grand unification,

    Ufuk Aydemir, Tanumoy Mandal, Subhadip Mitra, and Shoaib Munir, “An economical model forB-flavour and aµ anomalies from SO(10) grand unification,” (2022), arXiv:2209.04705 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [46]

    AfreshlookattheLHClimitsonscalarleptoquarks,

    ArvindBhaskar,ArijitDas,TanumoyMandal,SubhadipMitra, andRachitSharma,“AfreshlookattheLHClimitsonscalarleptoquarks,” (2023), arXiv:2312.09855 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Vector leptoquark contributions to lepton dipole moments,

    Arvind Bhaskar, Diganta Das, Soumyadip Kundu, Anirudhan A. Madathil, Tanumoy Mandal, and Subhadip Mitra, “Vector leptoquark contributions to lepton dipole moments,” (2024), arXiv:2408.11798 [hep-ph]. 17

    2024 arXiv

  42. [48]

    AutomaticevaluationofUVandR2termsforbeyondtheStandardModelLagrangians: aproof-of-principle,

    CelineDegrande,“AutomaticevaluationofUVandR2termsforbeyondtheStandardModelLagrangians: aproof-of-principle,”Comput. Phys. Commun.197, 239–262 (2015), arXiv:1406.3030 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Automated event generation for loop-induced processes,

    Valentin Hirschi and Olivier Mattelaer, “Automated event generation for loop-induced processes,” JHEP 10, 146 (2015), arXiv:1507.00020 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory,

    Céline Degrande, Gauthier Durieux, Fabio Maltoni, Ken Mimasu, Eleni Vryonidou, and Cen Zhang, “Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D103, 096024 (2021), arXiv:2008.11743 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Pair Production of Scalar Leptoquarks at the LHC to NLO Parton Shower Accuracy,

    Tanumoy Mandal, Subhadip Mitra, and Satyajit Seth, “Pair Production of Scalar Leptoquarks at the LHC to NLO Parton Shower Accuracy,” Phys. Rev. D93, 035018 (2016), arXiv:1506.07369 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Leptoquark toolbox for precision collider studies,

    Ilja Doršner and Admir Greljo, “Leptoquark toolbox for precision collider studies,” JHEP05, 126 (2018), arXiv:1801.07641 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Resonant leptoquark at NLO with POWHEG,

    LucaBuonocore, AdmirGreljo, PeterKrack, PaoloNason, NudzeimSelimovic, FrancescoTramontano, andGiuliaZanderighi,“Resonant leptoquark at NLO with POWHEG,” JHEP11, 129 (2022), arXiv:2209.02599 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Third-family lepton-quark fusion,

    Arman Korajac, Peter Krack, and Nudzeim Selimovic, “Third-family lepton-quark fusion,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 304 (2024), arXiv:2311.13635 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [55]

    FeynRules2.0-Acompletetoolboxfortree-level phenomenology,

    AdamAlloul, NeilD.Christensen, CélineDegrande, ClaudeDuhr, andBenjaminFuks,“FeynRules2.0-Acompletetoolboxfortree-level phenomenology,” Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250–2300 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Drell-Yan tails beyond the Standard Model,

    Lukas Allwicher, Darius A. Faroughy, Florentin Jaffredo, Olcyr Sumensari, and Felix Wilsch, “Drell-Yan tails beyond the Standard Model,” JHEP03, 064 (2023), arXiv:2207.10714 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    HighPT: A tool for high-pT Drell-Yan tails beyond the standard model,

    Lukas Allwicher, Darius. A. Faroughy, Florentin Jaffredo, Olcyr Sumensari, and Felix Wilsch, “HighPT: A tool for high-pT Drell-Yan tails beyond the standard model,” Comput. Phys. Commun.289, 108749 (2023), arXiv:2207.10756 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    UFO-TheUniversalFeynRules Output,

    CelineDegrande,ClaudeDuhr,BenjaminFuks,DavidGrellscheid,OlivierMattelaer, andThomasReiter,“UFO-TheUniversalFeynRules Output,” Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1201–1214 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  53. [61]

    UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,

    Luc Darmé et al., “UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 631 (2023), arXiv:2304.09883 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

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

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP ...

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Leptoquark pair production cross-sections at hadron colliders,

    Johannes Blumlein, Edward Boos, and Alexander Kryukov, “Leptoquark pair production cross-sections at hadron colliders,” (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9811271

    1998 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the CERN LHC,

    M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, “Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the CERN LHC,” Phys. Rev. D71, 057503 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411038

    2005 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Scalar leptoquark pair production at hadron collid- ers,

    Christoph Borschensky, Benjamin Fuks, Anna Kulesza, and Daniel Schwartländer, “Scalar leptoquark pair production at hadron collid- ers,” Phys. Rev. D101, 115017 (2020), arXiv:2002.08971 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Scalar leptoquark pair production at the LHC: precision predictions in the era of flavour anomalies,

    Christoph Borschensky, Benjamin Fuks, Anna Kulesza, and Daniel Schwartländer, “Scalar leptoquark pair production at the LHC: precision predictions in the era of flavour anomalies,” JHEP02, 157 (2022), arXiv:2108.11404 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Precision predictions for scalar leptoquark pair production at the LHC,

    Christoph Borschensky, Benjamin Fuks, Anna Kulesza, and Daniel Schwartländer, “Precision predictions for scalar leptoquark pair production at the LHC,” PoSEPS-HEP2021, 637 (2022), arXiv:2110.15324 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Scalar leptoquarks at the LHC and flavour anomalies: a com- parison of pair-production modes at NLO-QCD,

    Christoph Borschensky, Benjamin Fuks, Adil Jueid, and Anna Kulesza, “Scalar leptoquarks at the LHC and flavour anomalies: a com- parison of pair-production modes at NLO-QCD,” JHEP11, 006 (2022), arXiv:2207.02879 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Parton distributions with LHC data,

    Richard D. Ballet al., “Parton distributions with LHC data,” Nucl. Phys.B867, 244–289 (2013), arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,

    Christian Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,” (2022), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

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

    Michelangelo L. Mangano, Mauro Moretti, Fulvio Piccinini, and Michele Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,” JHEP01, 013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611129 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Match- ing parton showers and matrix elements,

    StefanHoeche,FrankKrauss,NilsLavesson,LeifLonnblad,MichelangeloMangano,AndreasSchalicke, andSteffenSchumann,“Match- ing parton showers and matrix elements,” inHERA and the LHC: A Workshop on the implications of HERA for LHC physics: Proceedings Part A (2006) arXiv:hep-ph/06020...

    2006 arXiv

  65. [73]

    DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), “DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” JHEP02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,

    Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,” JHEP04, 063 (2008), arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  67. [75]

    FastJetUserManual,

    MatteoCacciari, GavinP.Salam, andGregorySoyez,“FastJetUserManual,”Eur.Phys.J. C72,1896(2012),arXiv:1111.6097[hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    LeptoquarksearchattheForwardPhysicsFacility,

    KingmanCheung, ThongT.Q.Nguyen, andC.J.Ouseph,“LeptoquarksearchattheForwardPhysicsFacility,”Phys.Rev.D 108,036014 (2023), arXiv:2302.05461 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Leptoquark mechanism of neutrino masses within the grand unification framework,

    Ilja Doršner, Svjetlana Fajfer, and Nejc Košnik, “Leptoquark mechanism of neutrino masses within the grand unification framework,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 417 (2017), arXiv:1701.08322 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Phenomenology of scalar leptoquarks at the LHC in explaining the radiative neutrino masses, muon g-2, and lepton flavor violating observables,

    Snehashis Parashar, Anirban Karan, Avnish, Priyotosh Bandyopadhyay, and Kirtiman Ghosh, “Phenomenology of scalar leptoquarks at the LHC in explaining the radiative neutrino masses, muon g-2, and lepton flavor violating observables,” Phys. Rev. D106, 095040 (2022), arXiv:2209.0...

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay from Scalar Lepto- quarks: Interplay with Neutrino Mass and Flavor Physics,

    P. S. Bhupal Dev, Srubabati Goswami, Chayan Majumdar, and Debashis Pachhar, “Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay from Scalar Lepto- quarks: Interplay with Neutrino Mass and Flavor Physics,” (2024), arXiv:2407.04670 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Combined explanation of W-mass, muon g-2, RK(*) 18 and RD(*) anomalies in a singlet-triplet scalar leptoquark model,

    Arvind Bhaskar, Anirudhan A. Madathil, Tanumoy Mandal, and Subhadip Mitra, “Combined explanation of W-mass, muon g-2, RK(*) 18 and RD(*) anomalies in a singlet-triplet scalar leptoquark model,” Phys. Rev. D106, 115009 (2022), arXiv:2204.09031 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Search for new physics in theτ lepton plus missing transverse momentum final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), “Search for new physics in theτ lepton plus missing transverse momentum final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,” JHEP09, 051 (2023), arXiv:2212.12604 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Search for high-mass resonances in final states with aτ-lepton and missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector,

    Georges Aad et al. (ATLAS), “Search for high-mass resonances in final states with aτ-lepton and missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. D109, 112008 (2024), arXiv:2402.16576 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Search for heavy resonances and quantum black holes in eµ, eτ, and µτ final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,

    Armen Tumasyan et al. (CMS), “Search for heavy resonances and quantum black holes in eµ, eτ, and µτ final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,” JHEP05, 227 (2023), arXiv:2205.06709 [hep-ex]. 19

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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