Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Excited heavy quarkonium production in Higgs boson decays

T0 review · 2 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 Excited quarkonium Fock states contribute sizably to Higgs decays, summing to 25.10 keV for Bc-like mesons, 3.23 keV for charmonium, and 2.36 keV for bottomonium.

desk verdict A useful but imperfect extension of the authors' own ground-state NRQCD calculations; the excited-state contributions are plausibly sizable, but the headline numbers are compromised by a table inconsistency and an unstated upper-bound assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01274 v2 pith:HM7MGYC4 submitted 2019-08-04 hep-ph

Qi-Li Liao , Jun Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Bx14.40.Gx14.80.Bn
keywords HiggsbosondecaysheavyquarkoniumNRQCDexcitedFockstatesB_cmesoncharmoniumbottomoniumHE-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 asks whether Higgs boson decays into a heavy quark pair produce quarkonium mesons mostly in the ground state or also in excited nS and nP Fock states. Using the NRQCD factorization framework, it computes the semi-exclusive decay channels $H^0\to |(Q\bar{Q}')[n]\rangle + \bar{Q}Q'$ for $Q=c$ or $b$ and finds that the excited states contribute tens of percent of the ground-state width: for charmonium, the $2S$, $3S$, $4S$, $1P$, $2P$, $3P$, and $4P$ states add up to about 47%, 32%, 25%, 24%, 12%, 15%, and 16% respectively. Summing all states and assuming they cascade to the ground $1\,^1S_0$ state, the total widths are 25.10 keV for $(b\bar{c})$, 3.23 keV for $(c\bar{c})$, and 2.36 keV for $(b\bar{b})$, with uncertainties from five potential models. If correct, these sizable excited-state contributions mean future Higgs factories and the 27 TeV LHC should search for quarkonia in these channels and include the excited states in coupling measurements.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is NRQCD factorization, which splits each decay width into a perturbative short-distance coefficient $\hat\Gamma(H^0 \to |(Q\bar{Q}')[n]\rangle + \bar{Q}Q')$ and a non-perturbative vacuum matrix element; the color-singlet matrix elements are identified with the radial wave function at the origin for $nS$ states and its first derivative at the origin for $nP$ states. To handle the lengthy amplitudes for massive final-state particles, especially the $P$-wave projectors, the paper uses the 'improved trace technology,' which manipulates Dirac traces at the amplitude level, and it evaluates the wave-function inputs under five potential models (BT, Richardson, Igi-Ono, Chen-Kuang, and Cornell) to quantify theoretical uncertainty.

What would settle it

Measure the inclusive $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ yields from Higgs decays at a high-luminosity Higgs factory; if the observed yield is substantially below the predicted summed widths of 3.23 keV (charmonium) and 2.36 keV (bottomonium), the cascade assumption would fail. The same test could be sharpened by measuring the cascade branching fractions of the $2S$, $3S$, $4S$, $1P$, $2P$, $3P$, and $4P$ states into the ground $1S$ state: a product well below unity would directly invalidate the summed-width claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the NRQCD factorization framework, the paper computes the semi-exclusive Higgs decay channels $H^0 \to |(Q\bar{Q}')[n]\rangle + \bar{Q}Q'$ for $Q^{(\prime)}=c$ or $b$ and for quarkonium Fock states $n\,^{1}S_0$, $n\,^{3}S_1$, $n\,^{1}P_1$, and $n\,^{3}P_J$ with $n=1,2,3,4$. It finds that the high excited $nS$ and $nP$ states contribute sizably relative to the ground $1S$ state: for charmonium, for example, the $2S$, $3S$, $4S$, $1P$, $2P$, $3P$, and $4P$ widths are about 47%, 32%, 25%, 24%, 12%, 15%, and 16% of the $1S$ width, and similar or larger ratios hold for bottomonium. Summing all these Fock states and assuming they cascade to the ground spin-singlet state through electromagnetic or hadronic interactions, the total decay widths are $25.10^{+11.6\%}_{-51.6\%}$ keV for $|(b\bar{c})[n]\rangle$, $3.23^{+0\%}_{-62.2\%}$ keV for $|(c\bar{c})[n]\rangle$, and $2.36^{+0\%}_{-57.1\%}$ keV for $|(b\bar{b})[n]\rangle$, with uncertainties from five non-perturbative potential models. The paper concludes that the high excited Fock states should be taken seriously in Higgs-to-quarkonium studies and estimates that at the HE-LHC ($\sqrt{s}=27$ TeV, 15 ab$^{-1}$) about $1.4\times10^7$ $(b\bar{c})$, $1.7\times10^6$ $(c\bar{c})$, and $1.3\times10^6$ $(b\bar{b})$ quarkonium events could be produced through Higgs decays.

Load-bearing premise

The headline summed widths assume that almost all high excited quarkonium Fock states decay, electromagnetically or hadronically, all the way down to the ground spin-singlet $|(Q\bar{Q}')[1\,^1S_0]\rangle$ state; if that cascade efficiency is noticeably below one, the summed numbers are upper limits rather than predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Excited $nS$ and $nP$ Fock states should be included in NRQCD predictions for quarkonium production in Higgs decays; their contributions are tens of percent of the ground-state width, not negligible.
  • Adding all states that cascade to the ground $1\,^1S_0$ state gives total widths of 25.10 keV for $(b\bar{c})$, 3.23 keV for $(c\bar{c})$, and 2.36 keV for $(b\bar{b})$.
  • Event-rate estimates at the HE-LHC (27 TeV, 15 ab$^{-1}$) yield about $1.4\times10^7$, $1.7\times10^6$, and $1.3\times10^6$ events for $(b\bar{c})$, $(c\bar{c})$, and $(b\bar{b})$ quarkonia from Higgs decays, making these channels experimentally searchable.
  • The differential distributions $d\Gamma/ds_1$, $d\Gamma/ds_2$, $d\Gamma/d\cos\theta_{12}$, and $d\Gamma/d\cos\theta_{23}$ show the excited states contribute throughout the phase space, so kinematic cuts for background rejection will not remove their contribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cascade assumption is confirmed, the charmonium channel could provide a comparatively clean probe of the Higgs-charm Yukawa coupling, since the quarkonium-plus-two-jets final state is more distinctive than inclusive $H\to c\bar c$.
  • The same excited-state summation could be applied to other rare Higgs decays, such as $H\to Z+$ quarkonium or $H\to\gamma+$ quarkonium, where higher Fock states may also boost the predicted rates.
  • The 50–60% spread across potential models suggests that lattice-QCD determinations of the relevant radial wave functions and derivatives would be the most direct way to sharpen these predictions.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a leading-order NRQCD calculation of the semi-exclusive Higgs decay channels H^0 -> |(Q Qbar')[n]> + Qbar Q' for Q,Q' = c,b, considering nS and nP Fock states with n = 1,...,4 and all relevant spin and total-angular-momentum configurations. The authors compute partial widths for |(b cbar)[n]>, |(c cbar)[n]>, and |(b bbar)[n]> production, provide differential distributions in invariant masses and angles, and investigate the sensitivity of the summed widths to five non-perturbative potential models. Their headline results, assuming that all excited Fock states cascade to the ground spin-singlet 1S state, are 25.10 keV for |(b cbar)[n]>, 3.23 keV for |(c cbar)[n]>, and 2.36 keV for |(b bbar)[n]>, with corresponding event-rate estimates at the HE-LHC. The main claim is that high excited Fock states contribute sizably and should be included in studies of Higgs couplings to heavy quarks.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a useful systematic extension of NRQCD calculations for Higgs semi-exclusive decays to excited quarkonia, complementing direct searches such as H -> J/psi gamma and H -> Upsilon(nS) gamma. The inclusion of excited nS and nP states and the differential distributions are valuable for future Higgs factories and high-energy LHC studies. The paper is transparent in separating perturbative short-distance coefficients from non-perturbative matrix elements, and it compares five potential models. The independent qualitative point that excited quarkonium Fock states are produced at rates comparable to the 1S state is plausible and not affected by the concerns below. However, the numerical inconsistency in the central table and the implicit 100% cascade assumption must be resolved before the quantitative claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.B, Tables I and IV] There is an internal numerical inconsistency in the central results for the |(b cbar)[n]> channel. Table I gives Gamma(H -> |(b cbar)[1S0]> + cbar b) = 5.736 keV and Gamma(H -> |(b cbar)[3S1]> + cbar b) = 7.857 keV, so the [1S] sum is 13.593 keV; the corresponding [1P] sum from Table I is 0.2761 + 0.1838 + 0.6706 + 0.3521 = 1.483 keV. Table IV, however, lists [1S] = 14.16 keV and [1P] = 2.207 keV. The other n entries in Table IV match Table I, so this is not a rounding issue. Consequently, the sum of the Table I entries is 23.81 keV, not the 25.10 keV quoted in Eq. (27), Table IV, the uncertainty range, and the event-rate estimate of 1.4e7 events in Sections III.B and IV. The authors must reconcile Table I with Table IV and recompute all quantities that depend on the summed width.
  2. [III.B (Eqs. (27)-(29)) and IV] The sums in Eqs. (27)-(29) implicitly assign a 100% branching fraction for each excited nS and nP state to decay to the ground spin-singlet state |(Q Qbar')[1 1S0]>. This assumption is stated conditionally in the abstract and conclusions, but the widths and the event rates quoted in Section III.B and IV are presented without the caveat. For charmonium and bottomonium the assumption is strongly violated: states such as psi(4040), psi(4415), and Upsilon(4S) are above open-flavor threshold and decay predominantly to D/Dbar or B/Bbar, while even psi(2S) and Upsilon(2S) have ground-state branching fractions well below unity. The quoted 25.10 keV, 3.23 keV, and 2.36 keV numbers, and the corresponding event estimates of 1.4e7, 1.7e6, and 1.3e6, are therefore upper bounds rather than predictions for observable ground-state quarkonium production. The qualitative statement that excited states are produced at sizable rates is unaffected, but the paper should either compute or model realistic cascade efficiencies, or explicitly relabel the summed widths and event rates as upper bounds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the phrase "non-perturbative hadronic non-perturbative matrix elements" with a duplicated word, and the sentence beginning "In addition to the lower-level Fock states ... continent" has an apparent typo (“continent” should likely be “contributions”).
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption for Fig. 4 lists the lines as “|(b cbar)[2S]>” while the figure shows bottomonium states; this should read “|(b bbar)[2S]>”.
  3. [III.C and IV] There are minor typographical errors: “charmonium” appears as “charmonim” in Section III.C, and “proposed” appears as “purposed” in the Conclusions.
  4. [II and III.A] The notation [n] is overloaded: in Tables I-III it denotes individual spin states, while in Tables IV-VI and Eqs. (27)-(29) it denotes sums over all nS and nP states. The text defines this usage, but a more explicit notation such as [nS] and [nP] would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's widths are NRQCD evaluations with independent potential-model wavefunctions, and the cascade-to-ground-state condition is an explicit assumption, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is not circular. The widths in Tables I-III and the totals in Eqs. (27)-(29) are obtained from the NRQCD factorization formula (Eq. (1)), where the short-distance coefficients are computed from the Feynman amplitudes in Section II and the non-perturbative matrix elements are related, by the standard relations (Eqs. (25)-(26)), to Schrodinger wavefunctions at the origin (and first derivatives for P-waves) taken from the authors' earlier potential-model paper [35] and from five external potential models (BT, Richardson, Igi-Ono, Chen-Kuang, Cornell). Those wavefunctions were not fitted to Higgs decay data, and the paper does not tune any input to reproduce its results, so the 'prediction' is not statistically forced. The summed numbers in Eqs. (27)-(29) are explicitly conditional: they assume all excited Fock states decay to the ground spin-singlet state, an assumption flagged in the Abstract and Conclusions. That assumption may be physically optimistic, and the resulting numbers are best read as upper bounds, but a questionable assumption is not circularity. Self-citations occur, but the load-bearing input (potential-model wavefunctions) is an independent calculation with stated assumptions that do not include the target result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to forbid alternatives. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or mediators. Its predictions rest on NRQCD factorization, potential-model wave functions inherited from the authors' earlier paper [35], and the explicit cascade-to-ground-state scenario used for the headline widths and event counts.

free parameters (3)
  • Radial wave functions R(0) and R'(0) for quarkonium states = Five sets from Ref. [35]: BT, R, IO, CK, Cornell
    The non-perturbative NRQCD matrix elements are set equal to these potential-model wave functions via Eq. (25). The spread across the five models drives the quoted asymmetric uncertainties.
  • Running strong coupling alpha_s = 0.26 for (c cbar) and (b cbar), 0.18 for (b bbar)
    Chosen per channel in Section III.A with no scale variation, so its contribution to the uncertainty is not propagated.
  • Constituent quark masses = m_c = 1.45 GeV, m_b = 4.85 GeV
    Used in kinematics, projectors, and the quarkonium mass m_QQbar' = m_Q + m_Q'. The text names masses as an uncertainty source but does not vary them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization for color-singlet Fock states
    Eq. (1) writes the total width as a sum of non-perturbative matrix elements times short-distance coefficients, following Refs. [28,29]. The factorization is assumed to hold for all excited nS and nP states.
  • domain assumption Color-singlet matrix elements equal to |psi(0)|^2 or |psi'(0)|^2
    Eqs. (25)-(26) relate the NRQCD matrix elements to Schrodinger wave functions at the origin and first derivatives, with spin-splitting neglected at the same level. This is a standard potential-model approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Quarkonium mass set to m_Q + m_Q' for gauge invariance
    Section III.A states: 'To ensure the gauge invariance of the hard amplitude, we set the |(Q Qbar')[n]> quarkonium mass m_QQbar' to be m_Q + m_Q'.' This choice ignores binding energy and physical meson masses.
  • ad hoc to paper All excited Fock states decay to the ground spin-singlet 1S0 state
    Eqs. (27)-(29) and the Conclusions sum the production widths of all nS and nP states under the scenario that they cascade electromagnetically or hadronically to the ground state. No cascade branching fractions are computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Excited heavy quarkonium production in Higgs boson decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HM7MGYC4

@misc{pith2026190801274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Excited heavy quarkonium production in Higgs boson decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HM7MGYC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01274}
}
abstract

The rare decay channels of Higgs boson to heavy quarkonium offer vital opportunities to explore the coupling of Higgs to heavy quarks. We study the semi-exclusive decay channels of Higgs boson to heavy quarkonia, i.e., $H^0\to |(Q\bar{Q^{\prime}})[n]\rangle+\bar{Q}Q^{\prime}$ ($Q^{(\prime)}=c~\text{or}~b$ quark) within the NRQCD framework. In addition to the lower-level Fock states $|(Q\bar{Q'})[1S]\rangle$ continent, contributions of high excited states $|(Q\bar{Q'})[2S]\rangle$, $|(Q\bar{Q'})[3S]\rangle$, $|(Q\bar{Q'})[4S]\rangle$, $|(Q\bar{Q'})[1P]\rangle$, $|(Q\bar{Q'})[2P]\rangle$, $|(Q\bar{Q'})[3P]\rangle$ and $|(Q\bar{Q'})[4P]\rangle$ are also studied. According to our study, the contributions of high excited Fock states should be considered seriously. Differential distributions of total decay width with respect to invariant-mass and angles, as well as uncertainties caused by non-perturbative hadronic non-perturbative matrix elements are discussed. If all excited heavy quarkonium states decay to the ground spin-singlet state through electromagnetic or hadronic interactions, we obtain the decay widths for $|(Q\bar{Q'})\rangle$ quarkonium production through $H^0$ semi-exclusive decays: $25.10^{+11.6\%}_{-51.6\%}$ keV for $|(b\bar{c})[n]\rangle$ meson, $3.23^{+0\%}_{-62.2\%}$ keV for $|(c\bar{c})[n]\rangle$ and $2.36^{+0\%}_{-57.1\%}$ keV for $|(b\bar{b})[n]\rangle$, where uncertainties are caused by adopting different non-perturbative potential models. At future high energy LHC ($\sqrt{s}=27$ TeV), numerical results show that sizable amounts of events for those high excited states can be produced, which implies that one could also consider exploring the coupling properties of Higgs to heavy quarks in these high excited states channels, especially for the charmonium and bottomonium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01274 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (color online). Feynman diagrams for processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (color online). Differential decay widths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (color online). Differential decay widths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (color online). Differential decay widths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (color online). Differential decay widths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (color online). Differential decay widths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (color online). Differential decay widths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Q. L. Liao, X. G. Wu, J. Jiang, Z. Yang, Z. Y. Fang and J. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014031 (2012)

    2012

  2. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 726, 120 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 8, 081803 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Higgs boson measurements at the LHC

    G. Unal [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], arXiv:1811.10215 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [6]

    Cepeda et al

    M. Cepeda et al. [HL/HE WG2 group], arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1902

  8. [7]

    Gao, Int

    J. Gao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, no. 34, 1746003 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Baer et al

    H. Baer et al. , arXiv:1306.6352 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], JHEP 1608, 045 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 23, 231801 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 784, 173 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1712, 024 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 780, 501 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 21, 211802 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 5, 051802 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 744, 184 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, no. 12, 121801 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 786, 134 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 753, 341 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    N. N. Achasov and V. K. Besprozvannykh, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 55, 1072 (1992), [Yad. Fiz. 55, 1934 (1992)]

    1992

  14. [21]

    C. F. Qiao, F. Yuan and K. T. Chao, J. Phys. G 24, 1219 (1998)

    1998

  15. [22]

    G. T. Bodwin, F. Petriello, S. Stoynev and M. Velasco, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 5, 053003 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, J. H. Ee, J. Lee and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 11, 113010 (2014)

    2014

  17. [24]

    G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, J. H. Ee and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 5, 054018 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, J. H. Ee and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116014 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Koenig and M

    M. Koenig and M. Neubert, JHEP 1508, 012 (2015)

    2015

  20. [27]

    Brambilla, H

    N. Brambilla, H. S. Chung, W. K. Lai, V. Shtabovenko and A. Vairo, arXiv:1907.06473 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  21. [28]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995), Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 55, 5853 (1997)]

    1995

  22. [30]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  23. [31]

    V. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rept. 112, 173 (1984)

    1984

  24. [32]

    Jiang and C

    J. Jiang and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 5, 054031 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    improved trace technology

    are adopted, values are consistent with the leading- order results for 1 S and 1P -wave states of those papers. 5 TABLE I: Decay widths (units: keV ) for the production of high excited states |(b¯c)[n]⟩ quarkonium through Higgs boson decays within the BT-potential model (nf = ...

    2001

  26. [34]

    Q. L. Liao, Y. Deng, Y. Yu, G. C. Wang and G. Y. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 036014 (2018)

    2018

  27. [36]

    Q. L. Liao and G. Y. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 5, 054007 (2014)

    2014

  28. [37]

    Q. L. Liao, Y. Yu, Y. Deng, G. Y. Xie and G. C. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 11, 114030 (2015)

    2015

  29. [38]

    C. H. Chang, J. X. Wang and X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014022 (2008)

    2008

  30. [39]

    L. C. Deng, X. G. Wu, Z. Yang, Z. Y. Fang and Q. L. Liao, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 113 (2010)

    2010

  31. [40]

    Q. L. Liao, X. G. Wu, J. Jiang, Z. Yang and Z. Y. Fang, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014032 (2012)

    2012

  32. [41]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys. B 566, 275 (2000)

    2000

  33. [42]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1423 (2005)

    2005

  34. [43]

    G. T. Bodwin, D. K. Sinclair and S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2376 (1996)

    1996

  35. [44]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 17, 3090 (1978), Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 21, 313 (1980)]

    1978

  36. [45]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 21, 203 (1980)

    1980

  37. [46]

    Eichten and F

    E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2724 (1981)

    1981

  38. [47]

    Buchmuller and S

    W. Buchmuller and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. D 24, 132 (1981)

    1981

  39. [48]

    Martin, Phys

    A. Martin, Phys. Lett. 93B, 338 (1980)

    1980

  40. [49]

    Quigg and J

    C. Quigg and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. 71B, 153 (1977)

    1977

  41. [50]

    Y. Q. Chen and Y. P. Kuang, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1165 (1992), Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 47, 350 (1993)]

    1992

  42. [51]

    Petrelli, M

    A. Petrelli, M. Cacciari, M. Greco, F. Maltoni and M. L. Mangano, Nucl. Phys. B 514, 245 (1998)

    1998

  43. [52]

    Buchmuller, G

    W. Buchmuller, G. Grunberg and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 103 (1980) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 587 (1980)]

    1980

  44. [53]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  45. [54]

    Heinemeyer et al

    S. Heinemeyer et al. [LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration], ”Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections:3. Higgs Properties,” arXiv:1307.1347[hep-ph]

    arXiv

  46. [55]

    J. L. Richardson, Phys. Lett. 82B, 272 (1979)

    1979

  47. [56]

    S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 1771 (2004)

    2004

  48. [57]

    Igi and S

    K. Igi and S. Ono, Phys. Rev. D 33, 3349 (1986)

    1986

  49. [58]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1726 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

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