pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00984 · v1 · pith:QL2556XGnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · ✦ hep-ph

The Quantum Statistical Approach to Parton Distributions upgraded with recent experimental data

Claude Bourrely This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 09:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords quantum statistical parton modelparton distributionsMarathon experimentSeaQuest experimententropythermodynamical potentialsprotonneutron
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Quantum Statistical Parton Model is upgraded to incorporate Marathon and SeaQuest data while entropy variations clarify the role of its thermodynamical potentials.

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

The paper updates the Quantum Statistical Parton Model to include new constraints from the Marathon and SeaQuest experiments. This step is taken so the model can continue to account for its earlier successes with unpolarized and polarized data. The authors also track how proton and neutron entropy change as the model's thermodynamical potentials vary. A reader would care because parton distributions inside protons and neutrons govern the outcomes of high-energy scattering experiments. If the upgrade holds, the statistical description remains usable without altering its basic framework.

Core claim

The Quantum Statistical Parton Model has been successful over the years explaining a great set of unpolarized and polarized experimental data. With the advent of the Marathon and SeaQuest experiments an upgraded version is required to maintain the validity of the model. Moreover, in order to clarify the role of the thermodynamical potentials, the main parameters of the model, we examine the variation of the proton and the neutron entropy with the potentials.

What carries the argument

The quantum statistical approach to parton distributions, with thermodynamical potentials as the central parameters whose effects are diagnosed through entropy changes in the proton and neutron.

If this is right

  • The upgraded model continues to describe existing unpolarized and polarized data sets.
  • Entropy variation with the potentials directly identifies the influence of the main parameters.
  • The statistical framework remains applicable to proton and neutron parton distributions after the update.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The entropy diagnostic could be applied to other hadrons to test whether the same parameter roles appear.
  • Predictions from the upgraded model for quantities not yet measured could be checked in upcoming collider runs.
  • The thermodynamic language might suggest links to statistical mechanics treatments of other QCD observables.

Load-bearing premise

Prior successes with unpolarized and polarized data can be retained after adding Marathon and SeaQuest constraints without changing the underlying statistical framework.

What would settle it

A fit to the new data that produces large deviations from previously successful descriptions of unpolarized and polarized observables would falsify the claim that an upgraded version maintains validity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00984 by Claude Bourrely.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Plot of the ratio F2n(x, Q2 )/F2p(x, Q2 ) for each couple (x, Q2 ) defined by the MARATHON data [11], blue circles, the red squares are the fitted values. Right: the fitted cross section ratio σpd/2σpp. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Plot of the unpolarized PDFs Rigth: Plot of th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Plot of the polarized structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: [ ¯d/u¯] , Right: [ ¯d − u¯] , blue circles SeaQuest data. red squares statistical model. section, the statistical model gives an excellent description of the Sea-Quest experimental data. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Plot of the inequalities between polarized a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The measured helicity asymmetries AL for charged-lepton production at BNL-RHIC from STAR [14], through production and decay of W±-bosons versus ηe the charged-lepton rapidity. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Entropy at Q2 = 10GeV2 as a function of x for the states |2u + d >, |u + d + s >, |2¯u + ¯d > and |2∆u + ∆d >, calculated with the experimental parameters. The optimal solutions of the entropy correspond to circles for |2u + d >, and squares for |u + d + s >. One can envisage also to compute the entropy of a polarized state |2∆u + ∆d >, in this case there is a the difficulty which comes from the fact that … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Quantum Statistical Parton Model has been successful over the years explain a great set of unpolarized and polarized experimental data. to With the advent of the Marathon and SeaQuest experiments an upgraded version is required to maintain the validity of the model. Moreover, in order to clarify the role of the thermodynamical potentials, the main parameters of the model, we examine the variation of the proton and the neutron entropy with the potentials.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript asserts that the Quantum Statistical Parton Model, previously successful for unpolarized and polarized data, requires an upgrade to remain valid in light of new constraints from the Marathon and SeaQuest experiments; it further states that examining the variation of proton and neutron entropy with the model's thermodynamical potentials will clarify the role of those parameters.

Significance. If the upgrade were shown to preserve the statistical framework while incorporating the new data, and if explicit entropy calculations were provided, the work could help refine statistical approaches to PDFs. However, the manuscript supplies no functional forms, fit results, entropy expressions, or validation, so no positive significance can be assigned.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The entire manuscript consists solely of the abstract-level assertion that an 'upgraded version is required' and that entropy variation 'clarifies the role' of the potentials, with no equations, no explicit parton distributions (Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein factors), no numerical constraints from Marathon/SeaQuest, and no entropy expressions S(μ,T). This absence is load-bearing for both central claims.
  2. No comparison is shown between prior fits and any new fit that retains the statistical ansatz while satisfying the new experiments; without this, it is impossible to test the weakest assumption that the prior framework can be retained unchanged.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Grammatical and typographical errors in the abstract: 'explain a great set' should read 'explaining a great set'; 'to With the advent' is garbled.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed report. The submitted manuscript is indeed a concise statement outlining the motivation for upgrading the Quantum Statistical Parton Model with Marathon and SeaQuest data and for examining entropy dependence on the thermodynamical potentials. We address the specific comments below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The entire manuscript consists solely of the abstract-level assertion that an 'upgraded version is required' and that entropy variation 'clarifies the role' of the potentials, with no equations, no explicit parton distributions (Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein factors), no numerical constraints from Marathon/SeaQuest, and no entropy expressions S(μ,T). This absence is load-bearing for both central claims.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript contains only the abstract and lacks the explicit functional forms, numerical constraints, and entropy expressions. The text was intended as a brief announcement of the planned upgrade and analysis. In revision we will add the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions used in the model, the updated constraints from the Marathon and SeaQuest experiments, and the explicit entropy expressions S(μ,T) for the proton and neutron. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [—] No comparison is shown between prior fits and any new fit that retains the statistical ansatz while satisfying the new experiments; without this, it is impossible to test the weakest assumption that the prior framework can be retained unchanged.

    Authors: The manuscript does not contain such a comparison because it is limited to the abstract-level statement. We concur that demonstrating retention of the statistical framework while accommodating the new data is necessary. The revised version will include a direct comparison of the previous fits with the upgraded fits that incorporate the Marathon and SeaQuest constraints. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain or equations present; circularity cannot be assessed

full rationale

The provided manuscript text consists only of the abstract, which makes high-level assertions about prior model success and the need for an upgrade based on new data but supplies no equations, functional forms for parton distributions, entropy expressions, fit procedures, or self-citations. Absent any explicit derivation steps or load-bearing claims that could reduce to inputs by construction, no circular patterns from the enumerated list can be identified. The text is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for the purpose of this analysis, as there is no derivation to inspect.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the continued validity of the quantum statistical framework for parton distributions and on the assumption that new data can be accommodated by adjusting the thermodynamical potentials; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • thermodynamical potentials
    Identified in the abstract as the main parameters of the model whose variation is examined to clarify their role.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5582 in / 1234 out tokens · 35545 ms · 2026-07-02T09:46:30.501464+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    = AqX h 0qxbq exp[(x − X h 0q)/ ¯x] + 1 + ˜Aqx˜bq exp(x/ ¯x) + 1 , (1) x¯qh(x, Q 2

    work page

  2. [2]

    We note that the diffractive term is absent in the polarized quark helicity distributions ∆ q = qh=+ − qh=− and also in the quark valence contribution q − ¯q

    = ¯Aq(X − h 0q )− 1x¯bq exp[(x + X − h 0q )/ ¯x] + 1 + ˜Aqx ˜bq exp(x/ ¯x) + 1 , (2) 2 defined at the input energy scale Q2 0 = 1GeV 2. We note that the diffractive term is absent in the polarized quark helicity distributions ∆ q = qh=+ − qh=− and also in the quark valence contribution q − ¯q. In Eq. (1) the multiplicative factors X h 0q in the numerator an...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In our earlier work [2] we were assuming th at, at the input energy scale, the polarized gluon distribution vanishes, so it was set to x∆ G(x, Q 2

    = AGxbG exp(x/ ¯x) − 1 , (3) a quasi Bose-Einstein function, with bG being the only free parameter, since AG is determined by the momentum sum rule. In our earlier work [2] we were assuming th at, at the input energy scale, the polarized gluon distribution vanishes, so it was set to x∆ G(x, Q 2

    work page

  4. [4]

    (4) 3 However, as a result of the present analysis of a much larger set of very accurate unpolarized and polarized DIS data, one must give up this simple form

    = 0 . (4) 3 However, as a result of the present analysis of a much larger set of very accurate unpolarized and polarized DIS data, one must give up this simple form. A new expre ssion is assumed: x∆ G(x, Q 2

    work page

  5. [5]

    (5) It is clear that we don’t have a serious justification of the functiona l form of Eq

    = ˜AGx ˜bG (1 + cGxdG) · 1 exp(x/ ¯x − 1) . (5) It is clear that we don’t have a serious justification of the functiona l form of Eq. 5. The above expression shows that it is strongly related to G(x, Q 2

    work page

  6. [6]

    Actually since ∆ G(x, Q 2

    and therefore constructed by means of a Bose-Einstein distribution with zero potential. Actually since ∆ G(x, Q 2

    work page

  7. [7]

    Als o to insure that positivity is satisfied we must have |P (x)| ≤ 1, which is automatically fullfilled by construction

    = P (x)G(x, Q 2 0) a simpler expression would be P (x) = Axb, but an additional term in the denominator is needed in order to get a reasonable fit of the polarized DIS data. Als o to insure that positivity is satisfied we must have |P (x)| ≤ 1, which is automatically fullfilled by construction. An other justification of the polarized gluon expression is given...

    work page

  8. [8]

    In the above results the quark distributions are the essential source of information to obtain an optimum such a property should b e reflected in the quarks themselves. One may consider that a true optimization is obtained when all the par ameters are free to participate to the calculations of the optimization, here only the the rmodybamical potentials are...

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Bhalerao, Phys

    R.S. Bhalerao, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 1

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    Bourrely, F

    C. Bourrely, F. Buccella and J. Soffer, A statistical appro ach for polarized parton distributions, Eur. Phys. J. C23 (2002) 187

    work page 2002

  11. [11]

    Bourrely, F

    C. Bourrely, F. Buccella, J. Soffer, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 (2006) 143

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Bourrely and J

    New developments in the statistical approach of parton d istributions: tests and predictions up to LHC energies; C. Bourrely and J. Soffer, Nucl. Phys. A941 (2015) 307

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Relativistic Thermodynamics: Transverse Momentum Distributions in High-Energy Physics

    J. Cleymans and D. Worku, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 160 (2012), arXiv:1203.4343 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Peng et al

    FNAL E866 Collaboration, J.C. Peng et al . , Phys. Rev. 58 (1998) 092004, R.S. Towell et al . , Phys. Rev. 64 2001) 052002

    work page 1998

  15. [15]

    Dove et al

    FNAL E906 SeaQuest collaboration, J. Dove et al . , Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) 035202 15

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    A Higher Order Perturbative Parton Evolution Toolkit (HOPPET)

    G.P. Salam and J. Rojo, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 120 (2009) (arXiv:0804.3755 [hep-ph])

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  17. [17]

    Johnson, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index

    S.G. Johnson, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index. php/NLopt

    work page

  18. [18]

    Bourrely, F

    C. Bourrely, F. Buccella, W. C. Chang, D. Di Bario, P. H. F rampton, J. C. Peng, Nuc. Phys. A 1067 (2026) 123300

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    Abrams et al

    MARATHON experiment, D. Abrams et al . , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 132003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Bourely , J

    C. Bourely , J. Soffer, Phys. Lett. B 740 (2015) 168

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, W. V ogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11 3 (2014) 012001

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Adam et al., Phys

    J. Adam et al., Phys. Rev.D 99 (2019) 051102

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Adamczyk et al., Phys

    L. Adamczyk et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 072501

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Y ang et al., CCFR/NuT eV Collaboration, Phys

    U.K. Y ang et al., CCFR/NuT eV Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (200 1)251802

    work page

  25. [25]

    Tzanov et al

    M. Tzanov et al . (NuT eV Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 74, 012008 (2006)

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    Onengut et al

    G. Onengut et al . (CHORUS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 632, 65 (2006)

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    Adams et al

    R. Adams et al . (E665 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 54, 3006 (1996)

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    Chekanov et al

    S. Chekanov et al . (ZEUS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 443 (2001)

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Aaron et al

    F.D. Aaron et al . (H1 Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 561 (2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [31]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al . (NMC Collaboration) Nucl. Phys. B483, 3 (1997)

    work page 1997

  31. [32]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al . (NMC Collaboration), Nuc. Phys. B 487, 3 (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [33]

    Amaudruz et al

    P . Amaudruz et al . (NMC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2712 (1991)

    work page 1991

  33. [34]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al . (NMC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 50, R1 (1994)

    work page 1994

  34. [35]

    Aaron et al

    F.D. Aaron et al . (H1 and ZEUS Collaborations), JHEP 1001, 109 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [36]

    Aaron et al

    F.D. Aaron et al . (H1 Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1579 (2011)

    work page 2011

  36. [37]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al . (HERMES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 71, 012003 (2005)

    work page 2005

  37. [38]

    (SLAC E155 Collaboration), Phys

    P .L Anthony et al . (SLAC E155 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 493, 19 (2000)

    work page 2000

  38. [39]

    Adeva et al

    B. Adeva et al . (SMC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 58, 112001 (1998)

    work page 1998

  39. [40]

    P . L. Anthony et al . (SLAC E142 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 54, 6620 (1996)

    work page 1996

  40. [41]

    Ashman et al

    J. Ashman et al . (EMC Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 206, 364 (1988)

    work page 1988

  41. [42]

    Ashman et al

    J. Ashman et al . (EMC Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 328, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989

  42. [43]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al . (SLAC E143 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 58, 112003 (1998)

    work page 1998

  43. [44]

    Alekseev et al

    M.G. Alekseev et al . (COMP ASS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 690, 466 (2010) 16

    work page 2010

  44. [45]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al . (SLAC E154 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 26 (1997)

    work page 1997

  45. [46]

    Zheng et al

    X. Zheng et al . (Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 70, 065207 (2004)

    work page 2004

  46. [47]

    Parno et al

    D.S. Parno et al . , Phys. Rev. C 91, 045506 (2015) arXiv:1406.1207 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2015

  47. [48]

    Dharmawardane et al

    K.V. Dharmawardane et al . (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 641, 11 (2006)

    work page 2006

  48. [49]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al . (HERMES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 75, 012007 (2007)

    work page 2007

  49. [50]

    Alexakhin et al

    V.Y u. Alexakhin et al . (COMP ASS Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B 647, 8 (2007)

    work page 2007

  50. [51]

    Anthony et al

    P .L. Anthony et al . (SLAC E155 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 463, 339 (1999)

    work page 1999

  51. [52]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, CERN Program Library Long W riteup D506 (1994)

    work page 1994

  52. [53]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Bl¨ umlein and S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054009 (2012) and refe r- ences therein

    work page 2012

  53. [54]

    Martin, W

    A.D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. W att, Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 189 (2009)

    work page 2009

  54. [55]

    Thorne, Phys

    R.S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054017 (2012)

    work page 2012

  55. [56]

    Olive et al

    K.A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group) Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  56. [57]

    Dove (Sea Quest Experiment), PoS

    J. Dove (Sea Quest Experiment), PoS. DIS2019 (2019) 011

    work page 2019

  57. [58]

    Dove et al

    J. Dove et al. (Sea Quest Experiment), Phys. Rev. C108 (2023) 035202

    work page 2023

  58. [59]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 75, 012007 (2007) and Erratum ibid., D 76, 039901 (2007)

    work page 2007

  59. [60]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES Collaboration), JHEP 1008, 130 (2010)

    work page 2010

  60. [61]

    Stolarski (COMP ASS Collaboration), preliminary results presented at DIS 2014

    M. Stolarski (COMP ASS Collaboration), preliminary results presented at DIS 2014

    work page 2014

  61. [62]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES Collaboration), JHEP 1105, 125 (2011)

    work page 2011

  62. [63]

    Aubert et al

    J.J. Aubert et al. (EMC Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 259, 189 (1985)

    work page 1985

  63. [64]

    Benvenuti et al

    A.C. Benvenuti et al. (BCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 223, 485 (1989)

    work page 1989

  64. [65]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al. (NMC Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 371, 3 (1992)

    work page 1992

  65. [66]

    Baillie et al

    N. Baillie et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 142001 (2012), Erratum-ibid 108, 199902 (2012)

    work page 2012

  66. [67]

    Chekanov et al

    S. Chekanov et al. (ZEUS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 682, 8 (2009)

    work page 2009

  67. [68]

    Andreev et al

    V. Andreev et al . (H1 Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2814 (2014)

    work page 2014

  68. [69]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 052014 (2013) 17

    work page 2013

  69. [70]

    Aaron et al

    F.D. Aaron et al . (H1 Collaboration), JHEP 1209, 061 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [71]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ST AR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 252001 (2006); see also T. Sakuma, MIT Thesis (2009)

    work page 2006

  71. [72]

    Precision Measurement of the Longitudinal Double-spin Asymmetry for Inclusive Jet Production in Polarized Proton Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV

    L. Adamczyk et al. (ST AR Collaboration), arXiv:1405.5134 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [73]

    Abazov etal

    V.M. Abazov etal. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 85, 052006 (2012)

    work page 2012

  73. [74]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 722, 262 (2013)

    work page 2013

  74. [75]

    Measurement of the inclusive jet cross-section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV using 4.5 fb$^{-1}$ of data with the ATLAS detector

    G. Aad et al. (A TLAS Collaboration), arXiv:1410.8857 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [76]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al . (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 112002 (2013); Erratum-ibid, 119902

    work page 2013

  76. [77]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (ST AR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 072301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  77. [78]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 181801 (2009)

    work page 2009

  78. [79]

    Abazov et al

    V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 151803 (2014)

    work page 2014

  79. [80]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (A TLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. 85, 072004 (2012)

    work page 2012

  80. [81]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al . (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 90, 032004 (2014)

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.