- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Collider fingerprints of freeze-in dark matter produced during the fast expansion phase of Universe

Anupam Ghosh1,2,*, Partha Konar1,†, and Sudipta Show3,‡

  • *Contact author: anupamg@rnd.iitg.ac.in
  • †Contact author: konar@prl.res.in
  • ‡Contact author: sudiptas@iitk.ac.in
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 055012 – Published 8 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/pj7s-zhcr

Abstract

We examine a simple dark sector extension where the observed dark matter (DM) abundance arises from a freeze-in process through the decay of heavy vectorlike quarks into a scalar dark matter candidate. The detection prospects of such DM are challenging due to the feeble nature of the interactions, but these vectorlike quarks can be produced copiously at the LHC, where they decay to standard model quarks along with DM. Depending on the decay rate, this scenario is typically probed through long-lived particle or displaced vertex signatures, assuming a radiation-dominated cosmological background. An alternative hypothesis suggests that the Universe may have experienced a rapid expansion phase instead of the standard radiation-dominated one during freeze-in. This would significantly alter the dark matter phenomenology, requiring a substantial increase in the interaction rate to match the observed relic density, resulting in the rapid decay of the parent particle. As a result, much of the parameter space for this scenario is beyond the reach of traditional long-lived particle and displaced vertex searches. Due to this nonstandard cosmic evolution, existing constraints do not cover the expanded dark matter parameter space. We propose a complementary search strategy to explore this scenario, offering additional limits alongside searches for long-lived particles and displaced vertices. In our search, we investigate the feebly interacting massive particle (FIMP) dark matter model at the LHC using boosted fatjets and significant missing transverse momentum. To improve precision, we include one-loop QCD corrections for LHC production processes and employ a boosted decision tree multivariate analysis, leveraging jet substructure variables to explore a vast parameter space for this minimally extended FIMP dark matter model at the 14 TeV LHC.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (132)

  1. Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Rotation curves of spiral galaxies, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39, 137 (2001).
  2. D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones and D. Zaritsky, A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 648, L109 (2006).
  3. G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley et al., Nine-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: Cosmological parameter results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 208, 19 (2013).
  4. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020).
  5. M. Drees, Dark matter theory, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2018 (2019) 730 [arXiv:1811.06406].
  6. E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe (Taylor and Francis, 1990), Vol. 69.
  7. G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 203 (2018).
  8. A. Ghosh, P. Konar, and S. Seth, Precise probing of the inert Higgs-doublet model at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 105, 115038 (2022).
  9. A. Ghosh and P. Konar, Unveiling desert region in inert doublet model assisted by Peccei-Quinn symmetry, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2024) 104.
  10. A. Ghosh, P. Konar, and R. Roshan, Top-philic dark matter in a hybrid KSVZ axion framework, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2022) 167.
  11. A. Ghosh and P. Konar, Precision prediction of a democratic up-family philic KSVZ axion model at the LHC, Phys. Dark Universe 47, 101746 (2025).
  12. A. M. Green, Effect of halo modeling on WIMP exclusion limits, Phys. Rev. D 66, 083003 (2002).
  13. K. J. Bae, H. Baer, A. Lessa, and H. Serce, Coupled Boltzmann computation of mixed axion neutralino dark matter in the SUSY DFSZ axion model, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2014) 082.
  14. C.-F. Chang, X.-G. He, and J. Tandean, Two-Higgs-doublet-portal dark-matter models in light of direct search and LHC data, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2017) 107.
  15. A. Ghosh, Unveiling a natural multicomponent dark sector: An inert doublet guided by Peccei–Quinn, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140, 688 (2025).
  16. T. Srivastava, J. Das, A. Ghosh, and A. Chaudhuri, Electroweak phase transition, gravitational waves and collider probes in multi-scalar dark matter scenarios, arXiv:2507.05917.
  17. L. Visinelli, (Non-)thermal production of WIMPs during kination, Symmetry 10, 546 (2018).
  18. G. Arcadi, M. Lindner, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, and S. Vogl, Pseudoscalar mediators: A WIMP model at the neutrino floor, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2018) 042.
  19. A. Reinert and M. W. Winkler, A precision search for WIMPs with charged cosmic rays, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2018) 055.
  20. J. A. Evans, S. Gori, and J. Shelton, Looking for the WIMP next door, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2018) 100.
  21. M. Garny, J. Heisig, M. Hufnagel, and B. Lülf, Top-philic dark matter within and beyond the WIMP paradigm, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075002 (2018).
  22. C. Blanco, M. Escudero, D. Hooper, and S. J. Witte, Z’ mediated WIMPs: Dead, dying, or soon to be detected?, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2019) 024.
  23. A. Bhardwaj, A. Das, P. Konar, and A. Thalapillil, Looking for minimal inverse seesaw scenarios at the LHC with jet substructure techniques, J. Phys. G 47, 075002 (2020).
  24. A. Bhardwaj, P. Konar, T. Mandal, and S. Sadhukhan, Probing the inert doublet model using jet substructure with a multivariate analysis, Phys. Rev. D 100, 055040 (2019).
  25. P. Konar, A. Mukherjee, A. K. Saha, and S. Show, Linking pseudo-Dirac dark matter to radiative neutrino masses in a singlet-doublet scenario, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015024 (2020).
  26. P. Konar, A. Mukherjee, A. K. Saha, and S. Show, A dark clue to seesaw and leptogenesis in a pseudo-Dirac singlet doublet scenario with (non)standard cosmology, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2021) 044.
  27. L. Heurtier and H. Partouche, Spontaneous freeze out of dark matter from an early thermal phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043527 (2020).
  28. M. Habermehl, M. Berggren, and J. List, WIMP dark matter at the international linear collider, Phys. Rev. D 101, 075053 (2020).
  29. C.-Y. Xing and S.-H. Zhu, Dark matter freeze-out via catalyzed annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 061101 (2021).
  30. D. Borah, S. Jyoti Das, A. K. Saha, and R. Samanta, Probing WIMP dark matter via gravitational waves’ spectral shapes, Phys. Rev. D 106, L011701 (2022).
  31. G. Belanger, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, WIMP and FIMP dark matter in the inert doublet plus singlet model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095019 (2022).
  32. N. Bernal and Y. Xu, WIMPs during reheating, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2022) 017.
  33. S. Kundu, A. Guha, P. K. Das, and P. S. B. Dev, EFT analysis of leptophilic dark matter at future electron-positron colliders in the mono-photon and mono-Z channels, Phys. Rev. D 107, 015003 (2023).
  34. A. D. Medina, N. I. Mileo, A. Szynkman, and S. A. Tanco, Elusive muonic WIMP, Phys. Rev. D 106, 075018 (2022).
  35. B. Tallman, A. Boone, A. Vijayakumar, F. Lopez, S. Apata, J. Martinez et al., Potential for definitive discovery of a 70 GeV dark matter WIMP with only second-order gauge couplings, Lett. High Energy Phys. 2023, 342 (2023).
  36. S. Kang, A. Kar, and S. Scopel, Halo-independent bounds on the non-relativistic effective theory of WIMP-nucleon scattering from direct detection and neutrino observations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2023) 011.
  37. K. Dutta, A. Ghosh, A. Kar, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, MeV to multi-TeV thermal WIMPs are all observationally allowed, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2023) 071.
  38. N. Bernal, P. Konar, and S. Show, Unitarity bound on dark matter in low-temperature reheating scenarios, Phys. Rev. D 109, 035018 (2024).
  39. N. Bernal, K. Deka, and M. Losada, Thermal dark matter with low-temperature reheating, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 024.
  40. J. Silva-Malpartida, N. Bernal, J. Jones-Pérez, and R. A. Lineros, From WIMPs to FIMPs: Impact of early matter domination, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2025) 003.
  41. D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX Collaboration), Results from a search for dark matter in the complete LUX exposure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021303 (2017).
  42. X. Cui et al. (PandaX-II Collaboration), Dark matter results from 54-ton-day exposure of PandaX-II experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181302 (2017).
  43. H. Zhang et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Dark matter direct search sensitivity of the PandaX-4T experiment, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 31011 (2019).
  44. E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018).
  45. MAGIC Collaborations, Limits to dark matter annihilation cross-section from a combined analysis of MAGIC and Fermi-LAT observations of dwarf satellite galaxies, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2016) 039.
  46. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012).
  47. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012).
  48. ATLAS Collaboration, Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2020-052, 2020.
  49. L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, Freeze-in production of FIMP dark matter, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2010) 080.
  50. R. T. Co, F. D’Eramo, L. J. Hall, and D. Pappadopulo, Freeze-in dark matter with displaced signatures at colliders, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2015) 024.
  51. A. G. Hessler, A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro, and S. Vogl, Probing the scotogenic FIMP at the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2017) 100.
  52. A. Ghosh, T. Mondal, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Heavy stable charged tracks as signatures of non-thermal dark matter at the LHC: A study in some non-supersymmetric scenarios, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2017) 136.
  53. J. M. No, P. Tunney, and B. Zaldivar, Probing dark matter freeze-in with long-lived particle signatures: MATHUSLA, HL-LHC and FCC-hh, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2020) 022.
  54. P. Konar, R. Roshan, and S. Show, Freeze-in dark matter through forbidden channel in U(1)B−L, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2022) 021.
  55. P. Ghosh, P. Konar, A. K. Saha, and S. Show, Self-interacting freeze-in dark matter in a singlet doublet scenario, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2022) 017.
  56. V. De Romeri, D. Karamitros, O. Lebedev, and T. Toma, Neutrino dark matter and the Higgs portal: Improved freeze-in analysis, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2020) 137.
  57. J. Kim and J. McDonald, Clockwork Higgs portal model for freeze-in dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 98, 023533 (2018).
  58. J. Kim and J. Mcdonald, Freeze-in dark matter from a sub-Higgs mass clockwork sector via the Higgs portal, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123503 (2018).
  59. S. H. Im and K. S. Jeong, Freeze-in axion-like dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 799, 135044 (2019).
  60. T. Hambye, M. H. G. Tytgat, J. Vandecasteele, and L. Vanderheyden, Dark matter direct detection is testing freeze-in, Phys. Rev. D 98, 075017 (2018).
  61. A. Banerjee, G. Bhattacharyya, D. Chowdhury, and Y. Mambrini, Dark matter seeping through dynamic gauge kinetic mixing, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2019) 009.
  62. M. Dutra, M. Lindner, S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, and C. Siqueira, MeV dark matter complementarity and the dark photon portal, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2018) 037.
  63. X. Chu, T. Hambye, and M. H. G. Tytgat, The four basic ways of creating dark matter through a portal, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2012) 034.
  64. B. Shakya, Sterile neutrino dark matter from freeze-in, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 31, 1630005 (2016).
  65. R. Coy and M. A. Schmidt, Freeze-in and freeze-out of sterile neutrino dark matter, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2022) 070.
  66. N. Chakrabarty, P. Konar, R. Roshan, and S. Show, Thermally corrected masses and freeze-in dark matter: A case study, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035021 (2023).
  67. C. Cheung, G. Elor, and L. J. Hall, The cosmological axino problem, Phys. Rev. D 85, 015008 (2012).
  68. A. D. Medina, Higgsino-like dark matter from sneutrino late decays, Phys. Lett. B 770, 161 (2017).
  69. N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen, and V. Vaskonen, The dawn of FIMP dark matter: A review of models and constraints, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1730023 (2017).
  70. D. Chowdhury and A. Hait, Thermalization in the presence of a time-dependent dissipation and its impact on dark matter production, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 085.
  71. A. Banerjee, D. Chowdhury, A. Hait, and M. S. Islam, Dark matter cooling during early matter-domination boosts sub-earth halos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2025) 030.
  72. B. Barman, D. Borah, and R. Roshan, Effective theory of freeze-in dark matter, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2020) 021.
  73. B. Barman and A. Ghoshal, Probing pre-BBN era with scale invariant FIMP, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2022) 082.
  74. B. Barman, A. Das, and S. Mandal, Dark matter-electron scattering and freeze-in scenarios in the light of Z’ mediation, Phys. Rev. D 110, 055029 (2024).
  75. K. Freese, G. Montefalcone, and B. Shams Es Haghi, Dark matter production during warm inflation via freeze-in, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211001 (2024).
  76. K. Sakurai and W. Yin, Stimulated emission of dark matter via thermal scattering: Novel limits for freeze-in and eV cold dark matter, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2025) 202.
  77. B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, D. Pradhan, and A. Sarkar, Lepton collider as a window to reheating, arXiv:2406.11963.
  78. B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, D. Pradhan, and A. Sarkar, Lepton collider as a window to reheating: II, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2025) 157.
  79. P. K. Das, P. Konar, S. Kundu, and S. Show, Jet substructure probe to unfold singlet-doublet dark matter in the presence of non-standard cosmology, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2023) 198.
  80. F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez, and S. Profumo, When the universe expands too fast: Relentless dark matter, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2017) 012.
  81. F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez, and S. Profumo, Dark matter freeze-in production in fast-expanding universes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2018) 046.
  82. M. Viel, G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton, and M. G. Haehnelt, Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman-α forest data, Phys. Rev. D 88, 043502 (2013).
  83. C. Yèche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, J. Baur, and H. du Mas des Bourboux, Constraints on neutrino masses from Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum with BOSS and XQ-100, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2017) 047.
  84. V. Iršič et al., New constraints on the free-streaming of warm dark matter from intermediate and small scale Lyman-α forest data, Phys. Rev. D 96, 023522 (2017).
  85. G. Bélanger et al., LHC-friendly minimal freeze-in models, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2019) 186.
  86. A. Ghosh, P. Konar, D. Saha, and S. Seth, Precise probing and discrimination of third-generation scalar leptoquarks, Phys. Rev. D 108, 035030 (2023).
  87. A. Ghosh, P. Konar, T. Samui, and R. K. Singh, Jet substructure probe on scalar leptoquark models via top polarization, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2025) 145.
  88. A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, feynrules 2.0—A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014).
  89. C. Degrande, Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: A proof-of-principle, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197, 239 (2015).
  90. 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, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2014) 079.
  91. M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2007) 013.
  92. S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, N. Lavesson, L. Lonnblad, M. Mangano, A. Schalicke et al., Matching parton showers and matrix elements, in HERA and the LHC: A Workshop on the Implications of HERA for LHC Physics: CERN—DESY Workshop 2004/2005 (Midterm Meeting, CERN, 2004; Final Meeting, DESY, 2005) (2005), pp. 288–289, arXiv:hep-ph/0602031.
  93. T. Sjostrand, L. Lonnblad, and S. Mrenna, PYTHIA 6.2: Physics and manual, arXiv:hep-ph/0108264.
  94. T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to pythia 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015).
  95. R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF Collaboration), Parton distributions for the LHC run II, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 040.
  96. J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens and M. Selvaggi (delphes 3 Collaboration), delphes 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2014) 057.
  97. M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 063.
  98. M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, fastjet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012).
  99. Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, Better jet clustering algorithms, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (1997) 001.
  100. A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Soft drop, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2014) 146.
  101. B. P. Roe, H.-J. Yang, J. Zhu, Y. Liu, I. Stancu, and G. McGregor, Boosted decision trees, an alternative to artificial neural networks, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 543, 577 (2005).
  102. Y. Freund, Boosting a weak learning algorithm by majority, Inf. Comput. 121, 256 (1995).
  103. Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire, A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 119 (1997).
  104. A. Hocker et al., TMVA—toolkit for multivariate data analysis, arXiv:physics/0703039.
  105. C. Muselli, M. Bonvini, S. Forte, S. Marzani, and G. Ridolfi, Top quark pair production beyond NNLO, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2015) 076.
  106. N. Kidonakis, Theoretical results for electroweak-boson and single-top production, Proc. Sci. DIS2015 (2015) 170 [arXiv:1506.04072].
  107. J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, Vector boson pair production at the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2011) 018.
  108. S. Catani, L. Cieri, G. Ferrera, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, Vector boson production at hadron colliders: A fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 082001 (2009).
  109. G. Balossini, G. Montagna, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Moretti, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini, M. Treccani, and A. Vicini, Combination of electroweak and QCD corrections to single W production at the Fermilab tevatron and the CERN LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2010) 013.
  110. J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, Identifying boosted objects with N-subjettiness, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2011) 015.
  111. S. Lloyd, Least squares quantization in PCM, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 28, 129 (1982).
  112. A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill, and J. Thaler, Jet shapes with the broadening axis, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 017.
  113. D. Bertolini, T. Chan, and J. Thaler, Jet observables without jet algorithms, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 013.
  114. I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, J. Thaler, C. K. Vermilion, and T. F. Wilkason, XCone: N-jettiness as an exclusive cone jet algorithm, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2015) 072.
  115. J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, Maximizing boosted top identification by minimizing N-subjettiness, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2012) 093.
  116. CMS Collaboration, Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment, J. Instrum. 8, P04013 (2013).
  117. L. Calibbi, L. Lopez-Honorez, S. Lowette, and A. Mariotti, Singlet-doublet dark matter freeze-in: LHC displaced signatures versus cosmology, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2018) 037.
  118. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for new phenomena with top quark pairs in final states with one lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at s=13  TeV with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 174.
  119. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for new phenomena with top-quark pairs and large missing transverse momentum using 140  fb1 of pp collision data at s=13  TeV with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2024) 139.
  120. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Search for direct top squark pair production in events with one lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum at 13 TeV with the CMS experiment, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2020) 032.
  121. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Search for top squark pair production using dilepton final states in pp collision data collected at s=13  TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 3 (2021).
  122. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Combined searches for the production of supersymmetric top quark partners in proton–proton collisions at s=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 970 (2021).
  123. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for a scalar partner of the top quark in the all-hadronic tt¯ plus missing transverse momentum final state at s=13  TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 737 (2020).
  124. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Search for top squark production in fully-hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, Phys. Rev. D 104, 052001 (2021).
  125. M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and J. S. Kim, CheckMATE: Confronting your favourite new physics model with LHC data, Comput. Phys. Commun. 187, 227 (2015).
  126. J. S. Kim, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and K. Rolbiecki, A framework to create customised LHC analyses within CheckMATE, Comput. Phys. Commun. 196, 535 (2015).
  127. D. Dercks, N. Desai, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall, and T. Weber, CheckMATE2: From the model to the limit, Comput. Phys. Commun. 221, 383 (2017).
  128. M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and L. Panizzi, Model independent framework for searches of top partners, Nucl. Phys. B876, 376 (2013).
  129. A. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, S. Mitra, T. Samui, and R. K. Singh, Improving sensitivity of vector-like top partner searches with jet substructure, arXiv:2507.03199.
  130. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for new particles in final states with a boosted top quark and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 263.
  131. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Search for a vector-like quark T′→tH via the diphoton decay mode of the Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 057.
  132. A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Search for production of a single vectorlike quark decaying to tH or tZ in the all-hadronic final state in pp collisions at s=13  TeV, Phys. Rev. D 110, 072012 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 055012– Published 8 September, 2025
  • Received 23 March 2025
  • Accepted 7 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation