Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Mono-b events from single stop production at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Single-stop electroweak production could reveal supersymmetric stops up to 1.6 TeV at a 27 TeV LHC.

desk verdict A solid, standard phenomenological reach study for a complementary stop search channel; the reach numbers are real but the headline 5σ claim depends on systematics the paper never quantifies. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02325 v3 pith:UNRTVVTM submitted 2019-09-05 hep-ph

Tian-Peng Tang , Ning Liu , Hang Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords supersymmetrystopsquarksingleelectroweakproductionmono-beventsnaturalnesshiggsinoHL-LHCHE-LHC
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 argues that a distinctive 'mono-b' signature—one b-jet plus large missing transverse momentum—from electroweak single-top-squark production can serve as a discovery and identification channel for supersymmetry at future LHC runs. In a simplified MSSM with only higgsinos and a right-handed stop, the process $pp \to \tilde t_1 \tilde\chi^-_1 \to b + \not E_T$ is shown to be observable. At the HE-LHC (27 TeV, 15 ab$^{-1}$) the authors find a $5\sigma$ reach up to a stop mass of about 1.6 TeV and a higgsino mass of about 550 GeV, provided systematic uncertainties are controlled at the few-percent level. This matters because conventional stop-pair searches rely on $t\bar t$ plus missing energy, a signature shared by other new-physics models; the mono-b channel would help confirm that a discovered signal is really a stop.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the electroweak production of a single stop in association with a chargino, $g b \to \tilde t_1 \tilde\chi^-_1$, which proceeds through $s$-channel bottom-quark exchange and $t$-channel stop exchange. The effective coupling entering the amplitudes is controlled by $\tan\theta_{\mathrm{eff}}$, which mixes the bottom-Yukawa and electroweakino-stop couplings. In the simplified MSSM used here only the right-handed stop and higgsino-like electroweakinos are light; the lighter chargino $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$ is assumed nearly degenerate with the neutralino LSP, so its decay products are undetectably soft and it counts as missing transverse energy. Event selection requires one boosted b-jet, large $\not E_T$, small $H_{T3}$, and a minimum azimuthal separation between jets and missing momentum; the signal-to-background discrimination then drives the quoted mass reach.

What would settle it

If an independent measurement established that the chargino and the lightest neutralino are split by more than a few GeV, the chargino would decay to visible jets or leptons, and the mono-b final state assumed here would not be the signature; that single observation would falsify the reach estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the single-stop electroweak production process $pp \to \tilde t_1 \tilde\chi^-_1$, followed by $\tilde t_1 \to b \tilde\chi^+_1$ and invisible chargino decay, yields a clean mono-b signature whose rate and kinematics allow the underlying stop and higgsino masses to be probed at future hadron colliders. Concretely, with the simplified natural-SUSY spectrum (right-handed stop, higgsino-like electroweakinos), the analysis reports $2\sigma$ exclusion of stop masses up to about 1.25 TeV at the HL-LHC and 1.9 TeV at the HE-LHC, and a $5\sigma$ discovery reach of about 1.6 TeV for the stop and 550 GeV for the higgsino mass parameter $\mu$ at the HE-LHC with 15 ab$^{-1}$. The authors emphasize that the single-stop rate falls more slowly with mass than stop-pair production, so for heavy stops (beyond roughly 2.2 TeV at 14 TeV and 3.3 TeV at 27 TeV) the electroweak channel can outproduce the pair channel.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the chargino $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$ and the lightest neutralino are nearly degenerate, so the chargino's decay products are too soft to register and it behaves as missing transverse energy; if that mass splitting is sizeable, the mono-b signature would acquire extra jets or leptons and the quoted reaches would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the HE-LHC, a $5\sigma$ discovery of a 1.6 TeV stop and a 550 GeV higgsino is claimed in the mono-b channel, provided systematics stay at the few-percent level.
  • Without an excess, the mono-b search would exclude stops up to about 1.25 TeV at the HL-LHC and 1.9 TeV at the HE-LHC at $2\sigma$.
  • For stops heavier than about 2.2 TeV (14 TeV) or 3.3 TeV (27 TeV), single-stop production has a larger cross section than stop-pair production, so the mono-b channel becomes the more sensitive probe of very heavy stops.
  • Observation of mono-b events together with the conventional $t\bar t + \not E_T$ signal would discriminate a stop from top-partner models such as T-odd top partners, which produce the same pair-production signature but not the same single-stop rate.
  • A future precision measurement of the single-stop cross section could distinguish higgsino-like from wino-like chargino scenarios, and right-handed from left-handed stops.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the chargino-neutralino mass splitting is not small, the chargino would decay to visible leptons or jets; a combined mono-b plus soft-lepton search could extend coverage to larger splittings, a direction the paper does not quantify.
  • The few-percent systematic assumption could be tested with Z+jets control regions at the HL-LHC; if mistag rates are underestimated, the quoted reach would degrade.
  • The mono-b and mono-t channels probe the same production process through different stop decays; combining them should improve the overall sensitivity to natural SUSY beyond either channel alone.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the mono-b-jet signature from electroweak single-stop production, pp -> t~1 chi~1- -> b + ETmiss, in a simplified MSSM with only a right-handed stop and higgsinos. The authors compute leading-order cross sections with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, apply an NLO K-factor of 1.4, and simulate the signal against the dominant SM backgrounds (Z+jets and ttbar) using Pythia and Delphes within CheckMATE2. After a set of cuts requiring a leading b-jet with pT above 500 (550) GeV at the 14 (27) TeV collider, ETmiss above 450 (500) GeV, HT3 below 100 (150) GeV, and a minimum azimuthal separation between jets and the missing momentum, the statistical significance S/sqrt(B) is evaluated. The main results are that the HL-LHC can exclude stop masses up to about 1.25 TeV at 2 sigma, and the HE-LHC can probe stop masses up to about 1.6 TeV and higgsino masses up to 550 GeV at 5 sigma with 15 ab^-1, provided systematic uncertainties are controlled at the few-percent level. The paper also discusses the role of this channel in confirming a stop discovered in pair production.

Significance. If the quoted reach is robust, the paper demonstrates a useful complementary probe of natural SUSY that is qualitatively distinct from conventional stop pair searches. The analysis is self-contained, uses standard tools, and does not rely on fitting any output; the simplified model is motivated by natural SUSY and the mass ranges considered are consistent with current constraints. The main limitation is that the quantitative reach contours depend on an unquantified 'few-percent' systematic budget and on a background simulation that omits several potentially relevant SM processes. These issues do not invalidate the qualitative conclusion that the mono-b channel is interesting, but they do mean that the headline 5 sigma numbers should be regarded as optimistic upper bounds rather than robust projections.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 5] The significance is computed purely as S/sqrt(B), and the text acknowledges only qualitatively that systematics will degrade it ('a few percent level'). Because S/B is small for the 5 sigma contour, a 5% background normalization uncertainty reduces the significance to roughly S/sqrt(B + (0.05B)^2), which for B of order 10^3 turns a nominal 5 sigma into approximately 2.7 sigma; even a 2% uncertainty gives about 4 sigma. The paper does not report S and B in the signal region, so the actual robustness of the 1.6 TeV stop-mass claim cannot be checked. Please provide the event yields and a significance calculation that includes a systematic uncertainty model (or, at minimum, an explicit budget showing what level of precision is required). The abstract and the conclusion should then state the reach as conditional on that budget.
  2. [Sec. III (event selection)] The simulation includes only Z+jets and ttbar. The text claims these are the largest and subdominant backgrounds, but gives no quantitative argument that W+jets, single top, diboson, and QCD multijet production are negligible after the tight pT(b1), ETmiss, and Delta phi cuts. Since the discovery significance is based on small S/B, an additional background at half the ttbar level would shift the contours in Fig. 5 noticeably. Please either add these backgrounds to the simulation or provide a generator-level estimate (e.g., with cross-section reweighting) showing they are negligible.
  3. [Sec. III (no cutflow)] No cutflow or final event counts are provided anywhere in the paper; Fig. 5 is not reproducible from the text. For the benchmark point (m_t~1 = 1000 GeV, mu = 200 GeV) and for the 5 sigma contour points, please provide a cutflow table with signal, Z+jets, and ttbar yields after each selection step, as well as the total expected background and S/B. This is necessary both for the reader to assess the reach and to quantify the systematics sensitivity raised above.
  4. [Sec. III, before Eq. (16)] The signal signature relies on treating the chargino chi~1+/- as invisible because its mass splitting with the LSP neutralino is 'small.' The paper never specifies the mass splitting for the parameter points shown in Fig. 5 (e.g., tan beta, M1, M2), nor does it check that the chargino decay products are in fact too soft to pass the lepton veto and jet selection. Please report the chargino-neutralino mass splitting across the displayed mu range and demonstrate that the decay products are negligible, or restrict the reach to parameters where this holds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract states the 5 sigma reach without the systematic caveat, whereas the conclusion says 'If the systematic uncertainty can be reduced to a few percent level.' Please align the abstract with the conditional wording in the conclusion.
  2. [Sec. II (cross sections)] The sentence 'The NLO QCD corrected cross sections of the process pp -> t~1 t~*1 with the Prospino [60]' is missing a verb; it should read 'are obtained with Prospino.'
  3. [Sec. II] The scale choice mu_R = mu_F = m_Z for a TeV-scale process is not standard; please justify it or document the scale dependence.
  4. [Sec. III, Figs. 3 and 4] The cut values used in the analysis are not indicated on the distribution plots; adding vertical lines for pT(b1), ETmiss, and HT3 would help the reader assess the signal-background separation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 5σ reach is computed from an explicit MSSM cross-section calculation and detector-level simulation, not from a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against its own model assumptions. In Sec. II, the single-stop cross section is computed from the MSSM Lagrangian (Eqs. 3-15), with spectra from SUSYHIT, CTEQ6L PDFs, and an NLO K-factor taken from independent references [56-60]; no parameter is tuned so that the final reach is reproduced. In Sec. III, signal and backgrounds are generated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, Pythia, and Delphes, and the cuts are defined independently of the claimed reach. The 2σ and 5σ contours in Fig. 5 are outputs of the statistical ratio S/√B, not inputs of the model. Self-citations such as Ref. [33] for mono-t sensitivity and Ref. [34] for model-discrimination comparisons are contextual and not load-bearing: removing them does not change any equation or cut. The explicit caveat that systematic uncertainties must be kept at the few-percent level is a limitation of the projection, not a circular inversion, and the treatment of the chargino as invisible missing energy is an openly stated simplified-model assumption rather than a hidden restatement of the result. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the framework uses existing MSSM states. Free parameters are limited to hand-chosen analysis inputs. The key axioms are the simplified model, the invisible chargino, the restricted background list, and the systematic uncertainty assumption.

free parameters (2)
  • b-jet tagging efficiency = 80% (mistag 0.2%)
    Assumed in Delphes simulation; controls signal acceptance and background rejection. Changing these values would directly shift the significance and reach.
  • NLO K factor for single-stop production = 1.4
    Multiplicative correction applied to the LO cross section, taken from external NLO calculations. Scales the signal rate; the reach scales roughly with sqrt(K).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The simplified MSSM framework with only higgsinos and a right-handed stop as sparticles is realized.
    Sec. II; this sets the branching ratios and the chargino/neutralino mass spectrum, and is the model in which the reach is quoted.
  • domain assumption The chargino is effectively invisible because it is nearly degenerate with the LSP neutralino.
    Sec. III; if this degeneracy is not very tight, chargino decay products would be detectable and the mono-b selection would not be clean.
  • domain assumption Z+jets and ttbar are the only relevant Standard Model backgrounds.
    Sec. III; W+jets, single top, and diboson processes are not simulated, so the background model may be incomplete.
  • ad hoc to paper Systematic uncertainties can be controlled at the few-percent level.
    Sec. III, final paragraph; the statistical significance S/sqrt(B) degrades with systematics; the stated 5 sigma reach relies on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mono-b events from single stop production at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UNRTVVTM

@misc{pith2026190902325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mono-b events from single stop production at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UNRTVVTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02325}
}
abstract

Top-squarks (stop) play an important role in SUSY naturalness. The stop pair production is considered as the most effective way to search for stop at the LHC. However, the collider signature of stop pair production is usually characterized by $t\bar{t}$ plus missing transverse energy, which is also predicted in many other non-supersymmetric models. On the other hand, the single stop production via the electroweak interaction can provide some distinctive signatures, and thus will help to confirm the existence of the stop. In this paper, we investigate the observability of the mono-$b$ events from the single stop production process $pp \to \tilde t_1 \tilde{\chi}^-_1 \to b+ E\!\!\!\!/_T$ in a simplified MSSM framework where the higgsinos and stops are the only sparticles at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC. We find that the stop mass and the higgsino mass may be probed up to about 1.6 TeV and 550 GeV at $5\sigma$ level at the HE-LHC with the integrated luminosity ${\cal L} = 15~\text{ab}^{-1}$. We also present the $2\sigma$ exclusion limits of the stop mass at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams of the single stop production process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The hadronic cross sections of the stop pair production process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The normalized distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig. 3, but for the HE-LHC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The statistical significance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The sensitivity of the hadronic and leptonic mono-t events has been studied at the HL-LHC in Ref. [33]. We will focus on the mono-b analysis and explore its observability at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we calculate the cross section of the single 3 stop electroweak production processpp→ ˜t1 ˜χ−

    work page

  2. [2]

    III, we perform Monte Carlo study of the mono-b signature from this single stop production at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC

    Then in Sec. III, we perform Monte Carlo study of the mono-b signature from this single stop production at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC. Finally in Sec. IV, we draw our conclusions. II. CALCULA TION OF SINGLE STOP PRODUCTION In the MSSM, the kinetic terms of top-squark are given by L = ∑ ˜t (∂µ˜t∗ L∂µ˜t∗ R)  ∂µ ˜tL ∂µ ˜tR  − (˜t∗ L ˜t∗ R)M 2 ˜t   ˜tL ˜tR ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The majority ofZ +jets and t¯t background events are distributed in the region of /ET ≲ 350 GeV andpT (b1) ≲ 400 GeV

    The signal events have a largerpT (b1) because theb-jet from the stop decay is boosted. The majority ofZ +jets and t¯t background events are distributed in the region of /ET ≲ 350 GeV andpT (b1) ≲ 400 GeV. Besides, theZ+jets events have the leastb-jets 8 101 102 103 ⁄ET [GeV] 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 1 N dN d⁄ET [GeV−1] (m˜t1 , µ ) = (1000, 200)[GeV]...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B710, 49 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Chatrachyan et al

    S. Chatrachyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B710, 26 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Arnowitt and P

    R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 46, 3981 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Baer, et al., Phys

    H. Baer, et al., Phys. Rev. D87, 115028 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B306, 63 (1988)

    1988

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    C. Han, A. Kobakhidze, N. Liu, A. Saavedra, L. Wu and J. M. Yang, JHEP1402, 049 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, A. Mustafayev and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 161802 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    L. J. Hall, D. Pinner and J. T. Ruderman, JHEP1204, 131 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Papucci, J

    M. Papucci, J. T. Ruderman and A. Weiler, JHEP1209, 035 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Brust, A

    C. Brust, A. Katz, S. Lawrence and R. Sundrum, JHEP1203, 103 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    J. Cao, C. Han, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, JHEP1211, 039 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Belanger, D

    G. Belanger, D. Ghosh, R. Godbole and S. Kulkarni, JHEP1509, 214 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    C. Han, K. Hikasa, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, JHEP1310, 216 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Backovic, A

    M. Backovic, A. Mariotti and M. Spannowsky, JHEP1506, 122 (2015) 12

    2015

  10. [18]

    Kobakhidze, N

    A. Kobakhidze, N. Liu, L. Wu and J. M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D92, 075008 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Dutta et al., Phys

    B. Dutta et al., Phys. Rev. D90, 095022 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    J. Fan, R. Krall, D. Pinner, M. Reece and J. T. Ruderman, JHEP1607, 016 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Schlaffer, M

    M. Schlaffer, M. Spannowsky and A. Weiler, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 457 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Goncalves, K

    D. Goncalves, K. Sakurai and M. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D94, 075009 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Goncalves, K

    D. Goncalves, K. Sakurai and M. Takeuchi, arXiv:1610.06179 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Wu and H

    L. Wu and H. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B794, 96 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Abdughani, J

    M. Abdughani, J. Ren, L. Wu and J. M. Yang, arXiv:1807.09088 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    G. H. Duan, L. Wu and R. Zheng, JHEP1709, 037 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    C. Han, J. Ren, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and M. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no. 2, 93 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    J. L. Diaz-Cruz, H. J. He and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B530, 179 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP1712, 085 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP2002, 015 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Meade and M

    P. Meade and M. Reece, Phys. Rev. D74, 015010 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    T. Han, R. Mahbubani, D. G. E. Walker and L. T. Wang, JHEP0905, 117 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    B. Yang, H. Zhang, B. Hou and N. Liu, Chin. Phys. C42, no. 10, 103102 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Goncalves, D

    D. Goncalves, D. Lopez-Val, K. Mawatari and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D90, 075007 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Ismail, R

    A. Ismail, R. Schwienhorst, J. S. Virzi and D. G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. D91, 074002 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Hikasa, J

    K. Hikasa, J. Li, L. Wu and J. M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D93, 035003 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    G. H. Duan, K. i. Hikasa, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and M. Zhang, JHEP1703, 091 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    G. D. Kribs, A. Martin and A. Menon, Phys. Rev. D88, 035025 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Kowalska and E

    K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, Phys. Rev. D88, 075001 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Kobakhidze, N

    A. Kobakhidze, N. Liu, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B755, 76 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Drees and J

    M. Drees and J. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. D93, 095005 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, N. Nagata and M. Savoy, Phys. Rev. D95, no. 5, 055012 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Abdughani and L

    M. Abdughani and L. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.3, 233 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Abdughani, K

    M. Abdughani, K. Hikasa, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and J. Zhao, JHEP11, 095 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Abdughani, L

    M. Abdughani, L. Wu and J. M. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.1, 4 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Liu and L

    N. Liu and L. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.12, 868 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Kobakhidze, M

    A. Kobakhidze, M. Talia and L. Wu, Phys. Rev. D95, no.5, 055023 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    C. Han, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, M. Zhang and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D91, 055030 (2015) 13

    2015

  41. [49]

    J. Cao, C. Han, L. Wu, P. Wu and J. M. Yang, JHEP05, 056 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    B. S. Acharya, G. Kane and E. Kuflik, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29, 1450073 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Moroi and L

    T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B570, 455 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    G. B. Gelmini and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D74, 023510 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    B. S. Acharya, K. Bobkov, G. L. Kane, P. Kumar and J. Shao, Phys. Rev. D76, 126010 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    B. S. Acharya, K. Bobkov, G. L. Kane, J. Shao and P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D78, 065038 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    K. Y. Choi, J. E. Kim, H. M. Lee and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D77, 123501 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    H. Baer, A. Lessa, S. Rajagopalan and W. Sreethawong, JCAP1106, 031 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    H. Baer, A. Lessa and W. Sreethawong, JCAP1201, 036 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Nucl. Phys. B272, 1 (1986)

    1986

  51. [59]

    Alwall et al., JHEP 1407, 079 (2014)

    J. Alwall et al., JHEP 1407, 079 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    L. G. Jin, C. S. Li and J. J. Liu, Phys. Lett. B561, 135 (2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    L. G. Jin, C. S. Li and J. J. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C30, 77 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    Goncalves, D

    D. Goncalves, D. Lopez-Val, K. Mawatari and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D90, no. 7, 075007 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Beenakker, R

    W. Beenakker, R. Hopker and M. Spira, hep-ph/9611232

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Athron et al

    P. Athron et al. [GAMBIT Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C79, no. 5, 395 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Acta Phys. Polon. B38, 635 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP0605, 026 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    de Favereauet al

    J. de Favereauet al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), JHEP1402, 057 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

    Dercks, N

    D. Dercks, N. Desai, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall and T. Weber, Comput. Phys. Commun. 221 (2017) 383

    2017

  61. [69]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP0804, 063 (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP1711 (2017) 195

    2017

  63. [71]

    Albertsson et al., J

    K. Albertsson et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1085, 022008 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Abdughani, J

    M. Abdughani, J. Ren, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and J. Zhao, Commun. Theor. Phys.71, 955 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    J. Ren, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and J. Zhao, Nucl. Phys. B943, 114613 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Caron, J

    S. Caron, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, R. Ruiz de Austri and B. Stienen, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 257 (2017) 14

    2017

Pith tools

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