Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Search for Vector-mediated Dark Matter at the LHC with Forward Proton Tagging

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Forward-tagged photon collisions at the LHC could exclude a vector dark-matter mediator up to about 1.4 TeV, and a dark-matter mass above about 550 GeV.

desk verdict A clean parton-level feasibility study whose headline reach is conditional on an untested pileup-suppression assumption; the mixed-scenario curves are new, but the phenomenological window is already closed by dijet searches. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06357 v2 pith:YKXKBLF3 submitted 2019-08-18 hep-ph hep-ex

Gi-Chol Cho , Kimiko Yamashita , Miki Yonemura This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords darkmatterforwardprotontaggingsimplifiedmodelsleptophobicvectormediatorphoton-inducedproductionmissingtransverseenergyLHCZ'
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that dark matter produced in photon-induced proton collisions, with one intact proton recorded in forward detectors, gives a new LHC search channel for simplified dark matter models with a leptophobic spin-1 mediator. At 14 TeV and 3000 inverse femtobarns, it projects 95% confidence exclusions of mediator masses up to about 1.4 TeV and a dark-matter mass bound of about 550 GeV for a 1.2 TeV mediator in the vector-coupling scenario. The channel's power comes from tagging the intact proton and cutting on its momentum loss, which suppresses the dominant jet-plus-neutrino background. If the projections hold, they add a photon-initiated, detector-tagged route to constraining the dark-matter sector at the LHC.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is forward proton tagging through the momentum fraction loss $\xi$, the fractional momentum carried away from the intact proton, with detector acceptance $0.015<\xi<0.15$ and an analysis cut $0.05<\xi<0.15$. The signal's $\xi$ distribution shifts to larger values as $m_{Z'}$ grows, while the dominant background $pp\to p\gamma p\to pj\nu\bar{\nu}X$ peaks at low $\xi$, so the cut suppresses that background to about 28% of its original rate while keeping about 48% of the benchmark signal. The photon flux is modeled by the equivalent photon approximation with survival probability $S^2=0.7$, and the mediator interactions are implemented with benchmark spin-1 couplings.

What would settle it

A measurement of the rate of jet-plus-missing-energy events that carry a forward proton from pileup, under Run-III conditions with the same $0.05<\xi<0.15$ cut, would settle the claim: if that rate exceeds the 2305 background events assumed in the 95% confidence calculation, the projected 1.4 TeV mediator exclusion does not survive, and if it can be suppressed below that level, the channel is viable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper studies the simplified model in which a leptophobic spin-1 mediator $Z'$ couples to quarks and to a Dirac fermion dark matter candidate $\chi$, and considers the photon-induced process $pp\to p\gamma p\to pj\chi\bar{\chi}X$, where the photon-emitting proton stays intact and is tagged by a forward proton detector while the central detector sees a jet and missing transverse energy. The irreducible background is $pp\to p\gamma p\to pj\nu\bar{\nu}X$ with neutrinos summed over three flavors. Using parton-level event generation, jet cuts $p_T^j>200$ GeV and $|\eta^j|<3.0$, the forward-proton cut $0.05<\xi<0.15$, and a 95% confidence requirement $N_S/\sqrt{N_B}>1.96$ at 14 TeV with 3000 fb$^{-1}$, the paper claims that mediator masses below about 1.4 TeV are excluded for all three coupling scenarios, with lower dark-matter mass bounds of about 550 GeV at $m_{Z'}=1.2$ TeV in the vector scenario, 400 GeV at 1.1 TeV in the axial-vector scenario, and 500 GeV at 1.1 TeV in the mixed scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The limits stand or fall on the assumption that pileup-produced forward protons can be separated from the signal's own forward proton, even though ordinary jet-plus-missing-energy events with a pileup proton are roughly a thousand times more common and the paper does not specify how the separation would be done.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A null result in the forward-tagged channel at 14 TeV with 3000 inverse femtobarns excludes mediator masses below about 1.4 TeV at 95% confidence in all three coupling scenarios when the dark matter is light.
  • In the vector scenario the channel sets a dark-matter mass bound of about 550 GeV at a 1.2 TeV mediator, slightly stronger than the compared energetic-jet analysis for mediator masses below about 1.2 TeV.
  • The mixed vector-plus-axial scenario, not covered by the cited energetic-jet searches, receives a projected dark-matter mass bound of about 500 GeV at a 1.1 TeV mediator.
  • Cutting the intact proton's momentum loss to the 0.05-0.15 window reduces the main background to about 28% of its original rate while keeping about 48% of the benchmark signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same momentum-loss tagging logic could be applied to other invisible or semi-invisible new-physics channels, since the background suppression is kinematic rather than model-specific.
  • A pileup-aware detector-level study using timing or vertex matching is the natural next step: it would convert these parton-level projections into a search strategy, or show that the assumed suppression is not achievable.
  • Given the strong dijet limits on the mediator, the practical window for this channel is likely the lower-mediator-mass, higher-dark-matter-mass corner where resonance searches are weaker; the paper notes the dijet bound but does not quantify the overlap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a parton-level feasibility study of fermionic dark-matter pair production through photon-induced interactions at the LHC, pp -> p gamma p -> p j chi chi-bar X, with a leptophobic spin-1 mediator Z' and one intact proton tagged by forward proton detectors such as AFP and CT-PPS. Signal and irreducible Standard Model background (pp -> p gamma p -> p j nu nu-bar X) are simulated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO using the DMsimp model and NNPDF2.3, with the selections pT(j) > 200 GeV, |eta(j)| < 3.0, and 0.05 < xi < 0.15. Exclusion limits are derived with the criterion N_S / sqrt(N_B) > 1.96 at 95% C.L. for sqrt(s) = 14 TeV and L_int = 3000 fb^-1, and the paper claims sensitivity to m_Z' up to about 1.4 TeV and, in the vector scenario, a lower bound m_chi > about 550 GeV at m_Z' = 1.2 TeV. The analysis explicitly omits pileup, single-diffractive, and other QCD backgrounds, and the pileup suppression needed for the central claim is left to future work.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity can be made realistic, the forward-proton-tagged photon-induced channel would be a useful complement to monojet and dijet searches, potentially covering a mixed vector-axial mediator scenario that the energetic-jet analyses have not presented. The paper has clear strengths: the benchmark couplings follow LHC Dark Matter Working Group recommendations, the cut flow in Table 1 is explicit, the comparison with the ATLAS energetic-jet limits in Fig. 5 is informative, and the parton-level computation is internally consistent. The caveat is that the headline exclusion contours are computed with only the irreducible background and therefore depend on an unquantified assumption that pileup-generated forward protons can be rejected. Because that assumption is load-bearing, the published claims need either a quantitative treatment of the pileup background or a prominently qualified statement of what is being assumed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, pileup paragraph; Section 4 and Fig. 5] This is the central issue. The paper states that pp -> j + /ET + X with an accidental forward proton from pileup has a rate about 1000 times larger than the tagged photon-induced process and that 'unless the pileup events are controlled well enough, the process pp -> j/ET X with one final forward proton from pileup events overwhelmingly dominates over our process.' It then explicitly says that the suppression mechanism is left to future work. Since N_B in the significance calculation includes only the irreducible photon-induced background, the 95% C.L. contours in Fig. 5, and the abstract's m_Z' < about 1.4 TeV and m_chi > about 550 GeV claims, rely on an unquantified assumption of essentially perfect rejection of accidental forward protons. The authors should include a quantitative estimate of the accidental tagging rate for HL-LHC pileup conditions (with timing and vertex-matching information for AFP and CT-PPS), add this component to the background in the N_S/sqrt(N_B) calculation, or present all sensitivity numbers as explicitly conditional on a stated pileup-rejection performance. A corresponding qualifier in the abstract is also needed.
  2. [Section 4, dijet comparison paragraph] The paper acknowledges that the combined dijet invariant-mass search excludes m_Z' above about 5 TeV for the benchmark quark couplings, which is much stronger than the forward-proton channel's claimed sensitivity of m_Z' < about 1.4 TeV. Because the exclusion contours in Fig. 5 lie almost entirely in parameter space already excluded by dijet searches, the statement that this production channel is 'sensitive' to the simplified model is potentially misleading. The authors should either identify a parameter region or observable that is not already covered by dijet bounds (for example, the DM mass reach at a fixed, still-allowed m_Z', or a smaller g_q scenario that evades dijet limits), or present the paper explicitly as a detector-feasibility and method study rather than as a new competitive constraint. This is a framing issue, but it directly affects the significance of the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract should carry the same caveat as Section 3 about the pileup background, since the present wording presents the sensitivity numbers as unconditional.
  2. [Section 3, background sentence] The sentence 'this cross section is about 2000 times smaller' should specify that it is about 2000 times smaller than the leading background cross section, to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4 captions] The axis labels in the figure captions are garbled (for example, 'Entries/GeV -1: 3000 fbint=14 TeV, Ls...') and should be cleaned up; the y-axis unit also appears to be 'Entries' in Fig. 4 but 'Entries/GeV' in Fig. 3.
  4. [References [40] and [88]] References [40] and [88] are left as placeholders with 'Non-standard form, no INSPIRE lookup performed' and must be replaced with full bibliographic entries.
  5. [Section 3, background discussion] The treatment of single-diffractive and QCD processes is only a one-sentence assertion; a quantitative statement of why these backgrounds are negligible in the chosen 0.05 < xi < 0.15 window would strengthen the background model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected sensitivity bounds are the output of an independent parton-level simulation with benchmark couplings, and the explicit pileup caveat is an unverified assumption rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim--that forward-proton-tagged photon-induced production can exclude mZ' up to about 1.4 TeV and mchi above about 550 GeV at mZ' = 1.2 TeV in the vector scenario--is obtained by generating parton-level signal and background events with MadGraph using the DMsimp simplified-model implementation, with benchmark couplings adopted from the LHC Dark Matter Working Group (Eqs. 6-8). No quantity in the exclusion contours is fitted to the data being predicted; the 95% C.L. contours follow from the stated NS/sqrt(NB) > 1.96 criterion applied to independently computed cross sections. The self-citations in the paper (Ref. [30] on spin-2 mediator searches and Ref. [74] on forward-proton pileup backgrounds) support methodology and background-discussion ideas, not the sensitivity result itself, so they are not load-bearing. The paper explicitly acknowledges that 'we assume that the pileup events are sufficiently suppressed, and we leave an investigation of the suppression mechanism to the future work'; this is a genuine missing-support caveat that conditions the projection, but it does not make the derivation circular because the claim is explicitly stated under that assumption and is not obtained by assuming the conclusion. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The honest finding is that the derivation chain is self-contained for what it claims, with the pileup-suppression assumption identified as future work.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study introduces no new physical entities; it inherits the Z' and chi from the LHC Dark Matter Working Group simplified model benchmarks. The numbers the central claim depends on are the fixed benchmark couplings, the constant survival probability S2, and the hand-chosen analysis cuts. The single most consequential assumption is that pileup can be suppressed; it appears only as a paragraph in Section 3 and is not included in the limits.

free parameters (9)
  • gV_chi (vector scenario) = 1.0
    Benchmark DM-vector coupling from LHC DM Working Group [5]; sets the signal normalization and is not fitted to data.
  • gV_q (vector scenario) = 0.25
    Generation-independent quark vector coupling; benchmark value from [5]. The exclusion reach scales with this coupling.
  • gA_chi (axial scenario) = 1.0
    Benchmark DM axial coupling from [5].
  • gA_q (axial scenario) = 0.25
    Benchmark quark axial coupling from [5].
  • Mixed scenario couplings = gV_chi = gA_chi = 1/sqrt(2), gV_q = gA_q = 1/(4 sqrt(2))
    Arbitrary 50/50 combination of the vector and axial benchmarks, chosen by the authors to define a third scenario.
  • Survival probability S2 = 0.7
    Probability that the intact proton survives photon emission, taken from Ref [65]; multiplies all signal and background rates, so limits scale linearly with it. No uncertainty is assigned.
  • Jet pT cut = 200 GeV
    Minimal selection equivalent to ETmiss > 200 GeV at parton level; affects signal acceptance.
  • Jet pseudorapidity cut = |eta| < 3.0
    Central detector acceptance for the jet.
  • xi selection window = 0.05 < xi < 0.15
    Lower bound chosen by hand to suppress the SM background peaking at low xi; upper bound set by forward proton detector acceptance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Leptophobic Z' simplified model with interactions of Eq. (5)
    The entire study is a test of this model; the model is not derived from more fundamental physics.
  • domain assumption Equivalent photon approximation accurately describes photon emission from protons in MadGraph
    The flux of quasi-real photons and fully elastic contributions are implemented in MadGraph; the validity of EPA in this kinematic regime is taken from Ref [89].
  • domain assumption Survival probability S2 is a constant 0.7
    Taken from Ref [65]; in reality S2 depends on kinematics and process, and the paper does not propagate its uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper Pileup events can be suppressed sufficiently for the signal to be observable
    Stated explicitly in Section 3; the suppression mechanism is not studied and is left to future work. If false, the projected limits are not realized.
  • domain assumption Dark matter chi is stable and escapes the detector, providing missing transverse energy
    Required by the simplified dark matter model; if chi decays visibly, the signal changes.
  • domain assumption The SM background is dominated by pp to p gamma p to p j nu nubar X
    The paper argues single diffractive and QCD processes are small for xi > 0.05 and that the diboson background is about 2000 times smaller, but it does not quantify all possible electroweak backgrounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for Vector-mediated Dark Matter at the LHC with Forward Proton Tagging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKXKBLF3

@misc{pith2026190806357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for Vector-mediated Dark Matter at the LHC with Forward Proton Tagging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKXKBLF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06357}
}
abstract

We investigate the production of fermionic dark matter $\chi$ via $pp \to p\gamma p \to p j \chi \bar{\chi}X$ mediated by a leptophobic spin-1 particle, where one of the protons remains intact and is tagged by forward proton detectors. We find that the masses of $\chi$ and the mediator $Z'$ are severely constrained when $Z'$ interacts with $\chi$ and quarks through the vector couplings. We show that dark matter searches in this production channel are sensitive to a mediator mass $m_{Z'} \lesssim 1.4~\mathrm{TeV}$ at 14 TeV at the LHC with an integrated luminosity $L_{\rm{int}} = 3000~\rm{fb}^{-1}$. The lower mass bound on the dark matter is $m_\chi \simeq 550~\mathrm{GeV}$ at the mediator mass $m_{Z'}=1.2~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The DM pair production process (left) and the SM background process (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Parton-level Feynman diagrams for the signal (a) and SM background (b). Here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The p j T distributions of pp → pγp → pjχχX¯ at √ s = 14 TeV and Lint = 3000 fb−1 for (a) the vector scenario, (b) the axial-vector scenario, and (c) the mixed scenario. The vector and axial-vector couplings of Z 0 for panels (a)–(c) are given in Eqs. (6)–(8). The three lines in each panel correspond to (mZ0, mχ) = (500 GeV, 200 GeV) (solid), (1 TeV, 200 GeV) (dashed), and (1 TeV, 400 GeV) (dotted), respectively. Th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ξ distribution of the signal process pp → pγp → pjχχX¯ at √ s = 14 TeV and Lint = 3000 fb−1 . The parameter sets in panels (a), (b), and (c) are the same in Figs. 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c). In panel (d), the same values of couplings as in panel (a) are used, and the thr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 95 % C.L. exclusion limits in the mZ0-mχ plane. The solid, dotted, and dashed lines correspond to the vector scenario (6), the axial-vector scenario (7), and the mixed scenario (8), respectively. The red thick curves are for our photon-induced processes using forwa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [65]

    Dark Matter Searches in Jet plus Missing Energy in $\rm \gamma p$ collision at CERN LHC

    H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 3, 035018 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.035018 [arXiv:1407.5356 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    Alves et al

    D. Alves et al. [LHC New Physics Working Group], J. Phys. G 39, 105005 (2012) doi:10.1088/0954- 3899/39/10/105005 [arXiv:1105.2838 [hep-ph]]. 12

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    Abdallah et al

    J. Abdallah et al. , Phys. Dark Univ. 9-10, 8 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2015.08.001 [arXiv:1506.03116 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Boveia et al., Phys

    A. Boveia et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 27, 100365 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2019.100365 [arXiv:1603.04156 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Albert et al., Phys

    A. Albert et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 26, 100377 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2019.100377 [arXiv:1703.05703 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Abe et al

    T. Abe et al. [LHC Dark Matter Working Group], Phys. Dark Univ. 27, 100351 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2019.100351 [arXiv:1810.09420 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1612, 083 (2016) Erratum: [JHEP 1708, 035 (2017)] doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)083, 10.1007/JHEP08(2017)035 [arXiv:1607.05764 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS-EXO-16-037

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 9, 092005 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092005 [arXiv:1712.02345 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 4, 291 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5740-1 [arXiv:1711.00431 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 12, 845 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5317-4 [arXiv:1706.02581 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 3, 032009 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.032009 [arXiv:1711.00752 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1905, 142 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)142 [arXiv:1903.01400 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1806, 108 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)108 [arXiv:1711.11520 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C78, no. 1, 18 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 017-5486-1 [arXiv:1710.11412 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1606, 059 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)059 [arXiv:1604.01306 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 3, 032005 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.032005 [arXiv:1604.07773 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 763, 251 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.042 [arXiv:1608.02372 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 765, 11 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.11.035 [arXiv:1609.04572 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 769, 520 (2017) Erratum: [Phys. Lett. B 772, 882 (2017)] doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.029, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.012 [arXiv:1611.03568 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS-EXO-16-038

  14. [22]

    CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS-EXO-16-039

  15. [23]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1707, 014 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)014 [arXiv:1703.01651 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 11, 765 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5315-6 [arXiv:1707.03263 [hep-ex]]. 13

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1801, 126 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)126 [arXiv:1711.03301 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    H. M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2715 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2715-8 [arXiv:1306.4107 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H. M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, JHEP 1405, 063 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)063 [arXiv:1401.5301 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. Han, H. M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, Phys. Lett. B 755, 371 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.02.040 [arXiv:1512.06376 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    B. M. Dillon, C. Han, H. M. Lee and M. Park, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, no. 33, 1745006 (2017) doi:10.1142/S0217751X17450063 [arXiv:1606.07171 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kraml, U

    S. Kraml, U. Laa, K. Mawatari and K. Yamashita, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 5, 326 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4871-0 [arXiv:1701.07008 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Carrillo-Monteverde, Y

    A. Carrillo-Monteverde, Y. J. Kang, H. M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, JHEP 1806, 037 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)037 [arXiv:1803.02144 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Carrillo-Monteverde, Y

    A. Carrillo-Monteverde, Y. J. Kang, H. M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, PoS ICHEP 2018, 351 (2019) doi:10.22323/1.340.0351 [arXiv:1811.02789 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. , CERN-LHCC-2015-009, ATLAS-TDR-024

    2015

  26. [34]

    Albrow et al

    M. Albrow et al. [CMS and TOTEM Collaborations], CERN-LHCC-2014-021, TOTEM-TDR-003, CMS-TDR-13

    2014

  27. [35]

    Schul and K

    N. Schul and K. Piotrzkowski, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 179-180, 289 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.07.036 [arXiv:0806.1097 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, V. A. Khoze, M. G. Ryskin and M. Tasevsky, JHEP 1904, 010 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)010 [arXiv:1812.04886 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P. A. Erland [ATLAS Collaboration], PoS VERTEX 2018, 007 (2019). doi:10.22323/1.348.0007

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    M. G. Albrow [CMS and TOTEM Collaborations], PoS DIS 2015, 064 (2015). doi:10.22323/1.247.0064

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Baldenegro, S

    C. Baldenegro, S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff and C. Royon, JHEP 1806, 131 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)131 [arXiv:1803.10835 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [41]

    I. F. Ginzburg and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev. D 60, 075016 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.075016 [hep-ph/9903314]

    1999 arXiv

  33. [42]

    V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C23, 311 (2002) doi:10.1007/s100520100884 [hep-ph/0111078]

    2002 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Kepka and C

    O. Kepka and C. Royon, Phys. Rev. D 78, 073005 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.073005 [arXiv:0808.0322 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Dougall and S

    T. Dougall and S. D. Wick, Eur. Phys. J. A 39, 213 (2009) doi:10.1140/epja/i2008-10701-8 [arXiv:0706.1042 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Chaichian, P

    M. Chaichian, P. Hoyer, K. Huitu, V. A. Khoze and A. D. Pilkington, JHEP 0905, 011 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/011 [arXiv:0901.3746 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Sahin and S

    I. Sahin and S. C. Inan, JHEP 0909, 069 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/069 [arXiv:0907.3290 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Chapon, C

    E. Chapon, C. Royon and O. Kepka, Phys. Rev. D 81, 074003 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.074003 [arXiv:0912.5161 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Piotrzkowski and N

    K. Piotrzkowski and N. Schul, AIP Conf. Proc. 1200, no. 1, 434 (2010) doi:10.1063/1.3327609 [arXiv:0910.0202 [hep-ph]]. 14

    2010 arXiv

  40. [49]

    S. C. Inan, Phys. Rev. D 81, 115002 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.115002 [arXiv:1005.3432 [hep- ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [50]

    S. Atag, S. C. Inan and I. Sahin, JHEP 1009, 042 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)042 [arXiv:1005.4792 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [51]

    V. P. Goncalves and W. K. Sauter, Phys. Rev. D 82, 056009 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.056009 [arXiv:1007.5487 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Sahin and M

    I. Sahin and M. Koksal, JHEP 1103, 100 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2011)100 [arXiv:1010.3434 [hep- ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Sahin and A

    I. Sahin and A. A. Billur, Phys. Rev. D 83, 035011 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.035011 [arXiv:1101.4998 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  45. [54]

    R. S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014006 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.014006 [arXiv:1111.3354 [hep- ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [55]

    L. N. Epele, H. Fanchiotti, C. A. G. Canal, V. A. Mitsou and V. Vento, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 127, 60 (2012) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2012-12060-8 [arXiv:1205.6120 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Sahin and A

    B. Sahin and A. A. Billur, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074026 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.074026 [arXiv:1210.3235 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Sahin, A

    I. Sahin, A. A. Billur, S. C. Inan, B. Sahin, M. Koksal, P. Tektas, E. Alici and R. Yildirim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 095016 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.095016 [arXiv:1304.5737 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Koksal and S

    M. Koksal and S. C. Inan, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2014, 935840 (2014) doi:10.1155/2014/935840 [arXiv:1305.7096 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Lebiedowicz, R

    P. Lebiedowicz, R. Pasechnik and A. Szczurek, Nucl. Phys. B 881, 288 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.02.008 [arXiv:1309.7300 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Fichet and G

    S. Fichet and G. von Gersdorff, JHEP 1403, 102 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2014)102 [arXiv:1311.6815 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Fichet, G

    S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff, O. Kepka, B. Lenzi, C. Royon and M. Saimpert, Phys. Rev. D 89, 114004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.114004 [arXiv:1312.5153 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Sun and C

    H. Sun and C. X. Yue, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2823 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2823-5 [arXiv:1401.0250 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Sun, Nucl

    H. Sun, Nucl. Phys. B 886, 691 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.07.012 [arXiv:1402.1817 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Sun, Eur

    H. Sun, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 8, 2977 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2977-1 [arXiv:1406.3897 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Sahin, M

    I. Sahin, M. Koksal, S. C. Inan, A. A. Billur, B. Sahin, P. Tektas, E. Alici and R. Yildirim, Phys. Rev. D 91, 035017 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.035017 [arXiv:1409.1796 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [67]

    S. C. Inan, Nucl. Phys. B 897, 289 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.05.028 [arXiv:1410.3609 [hep- ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Senol and M

    A. Senol and M. Koksal, Phys. Lett. B 742, 143 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.022 [arXiv:1410.3648 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [69]

    D. Alva, T. Han and R. Ruiz, JHEP 1502, 072 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)072 [arXiv:1411.7305 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Fichet, G

    S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff, B. Lenzi, C. Royon and M. Saimpert, JHEP 1502, 165 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)165 [arXiv:1411.6629 [hep-ph]]. 15

    2015 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Fayazbakhsh, S

    S. Fayazbakhsh, S. T. Monfared and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 1, 014006 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.014006 [arXiv:1504.06695 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  62. [72]

    R. E. Ruiz, arXiv:1509.06375 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  63. [73]

    Fichet, Acta Phys

    S. Fichet, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 8, 811 (2015) doi:10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.8.811 [arXiv:1510.01004 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [74]

    G. C. Cho, T. Kono, K. Mawatari and K. Yamashita, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 11, 115015 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.115015 [arXiv:1503.05678 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  65. [75]

    Fichet, JHEP 1704, 088 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)088 [arXiv:1609.01762 [hep-ph]]

    S. Fichet, JHEP 1704, 088 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)088 [arXiv:1609.01762 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Fichet, G

    S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff and C. Royon, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 7, 075031 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.075031 [arXiv:1512.05751 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [77]

    Koksal, S

    M. Koksal, S. C. Inan, A. A. Billur, Y. Ozguven and M. K. Bahar, Phys. Lett. B 783, 375 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.018 [arXiv:1711.02405 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [78]

    S. C. Inan and A. V. Kisselev, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 9, 729 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6210-5 [arXiv:1805.01441 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Sahin, S

    I. Sahin, S. Spor, D. Yilmaz and G. Akkaya Selcin, arXiv:1901.05434 [hep-ph]

    1901 arXiv

  70. [80]

    Heinemeyer, V

    S. Heinemeyer, V. A. Khoze, M. G. Ryskin, W. J. Stirling, M. Tasevsky and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 231 (2008) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0449-6 [arXiv:0708.3052 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  71. [81]

    Tasevsky, Int

    M. Tasevsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1446012 (2014) doi:10.1142/S0217751X14460129 [arXiv:1407.8332 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [82]

    Das and N

    A. Das and N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 3, 033003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.033003 [arXiv:1510.04790 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [83]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1710, 182 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)182 [arXiv:1707.02424 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [84]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1806, 120 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)120 [arXiv:1803.06292 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [85]

    Backovic, M

    M. Backovic, M. Kramer, F. Maltoni, A. Martini, K. Mawatari and M. Pellen, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 10, 482 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3700-6 [arXiv:1508.05327 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  76. [86]

    Alwall et al

    J. Alwall et al. , JHEP 1407, 079 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079 [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  77. [87]

    R. D. Ball et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 867, 244 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003 [arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  78. [88]

    *** Non-standard form, no INSPIRE lookup performed ***

  79. [89]

    V. M. Budnev, I. F. Ginzburg, G. V. Meledin and V. G. Serbo, Phys. Rept. 15, 181 (1975). doi:10.1016/0370-1573(75)90009-5

    1975 doi

  80. [90]

    S. P. Jones, A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin and T. Teubner, JHEP 1311, 085 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)085 [arXiv:1307.7099 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [91]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.009 [arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [92]

    CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS-EXO-16-048

  83. [93]

    Bagnaschi et al

    E. Bagnaschi et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no. 11, 895 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7382-3 [arXiv:1905.00892 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [94]

    D’Eramo, B

    F. D’Eramo, B. J. Kavanagh and P. Panci, JHEP 1608, 111 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)111 [arXiv:1605.04917 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  85. [95]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn and P. Tunney, arXiv:1807.02503 [hep-ph]. 16

    arXiv

Pith tools

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