Two new subatomic particles discovered at CERN

Yes. It's somewhat shameful that we physicists still call these constructs 'particles' as to the lay person this still implies some sort of fundamental nature. They are actually predicted constructs of still smaller particles that only appear momentarily at sufficiently high energy.

That said, it is important, interesting research because if there are important deviations from the standard model, it is likely to be hinted at by the actual mass values among other things.

Physicists often DO add the arxiv reference to the published version in citations. Moreover, people know to search the arXiv, so I wouldn't discount the possibility that people find this version.

/Not a physicist in any way but;

The approach seems to be we observe a lot of behaviour, then build up models to explain that behaviour. If particles need to be made up to balance an equation then they get made up.

You project that model into some scenario to say "If this model is right, the following ... will happen" and observe. If you're right then work goes on for further evaluate "What about this scenario" and finally a big machine gets built to directly work out, from all that's prior, if a particle that needs X,Y,Z properties really does exist is should be seen in the measurements that are supposed create it.

So to answer your question; Both?

E.g You could take the model, put it in a computer. Simulate what the LHC does and look at that graph of kind of particles it makes. Then you build the LHC, actually smash some things together. Same graph?

The Standard Model is a list of fundamental particles (electron, muon, tau, their corresponding neutrinos, and 6 flavors of quarks: up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom) as well as their interactions (electroweak force & strong nuclear force). The input to the SM are around 20 numbers controlling the masses of these particles and the strengths of the interactions, as well as a few Higgs parameters. After that, everything is fixed, so that the SM makes definite predictions about where to look to find new baryons and mesons (things made out of quarks). It's not quite so simple as "add up the masses of the constituent quarks" because the strong interactions translate into mass (essentially via E=mc^2)---exactly how big an effect the strong force has requires calculation.

So the SM is a map telling you where to look, but a very sneaky kind of map. In the sector where the strong force matters, it's as if someone encrypted a map, and for every new destination you want to find out about, you have to expend computational resources to decrypt it. In principle, you have all the information, but in practice it is hard to extract predictions from the theory. That is a very peculiar situation for scientists to be in: to have a definite, precise theory, and the opportunity to do experiments, but to struggle to compare the two!

Anyway, these particles are predicted by the SM, where "predicted by" means after expending a lot of computation to understand the strong dynamics one finds out that these particles (which are quarks held together by gluons) should be there.

According to the preprint linked above they are hybrid equivalents of the proton or neutron. Protons and neutrons are made of up and down quarks. Protons are uud, neutrons are ddu. (d have charge -1/3, u +2/3, so neutrons have no net charge, protons +1).

There are three "generations" of quarks, each one heavier than the last but otherwise identical in properties. These are charm and strange followed by top and bottom. These new particles are a mix of generations: bds (bottom, down, strange). They are predicted by the Standard Model, but their detailed properties (particularly their branching ratios to various decays into other particles) will be slightly different in theories of "physics beyond the Standard Model", so by looking at them in detail, including a precision measurement of their masses, it may be possible to kill off some alternative theories.

I don't see a subscript-b in Unicode anywhere.