Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probing the Symmetric Higgs Portal with Di-Higgs Boson Production

T0 review · 1 major / 6 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 At a 100 TeV proton collider, double-Higgs production can test the symmetric Higgs portal coupling down to values around one for dark scalar masses from just above half the Higgs mass to a few hundred GeV.

desk verdict A clean one-loop calculation for the Z2-symmetric Higgs portal in di-Higgs production, with a genuine momentum-dependent result; the reach projections rest on an unvalidated recast of the kappa_lambda precision band, so treat the contours as indicative, not definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10615 v2 pith:ETJGFYYR submitted 2019-08-28 hep-ph hep-ex

Christoph Englert , Joerg Jaeckel This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Higgsportaldi-HiggsproductiondarkscalarZ2symmetryfuturecircularcolliderself-couplingone-loopamplitudesgluonfusion
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 double-Higgs boson production at a future 100 TeV proton collider (FCC-hh) can probe the symmetric Higgs portal — a dark scalar $S$ coupled to the Higgs field through $\lambda S^2|\Phi|^2$ — in the region where the dark scalar is heavier than half the Higgs mass, a region with few experimental handles today. The essential step is to compute the full momentum-dependent one-loop contribution of $S$ to $gg\to HH$, not just the shift of the Higgs self-coupling obtained from the effective potential. With that amplitude, the paper shows that an FCC-hh with $30/\mathrm{ab}$ could reach portal couplings $\lambda$ of order one for dark scalar masses between roughly $m_H/2$ and a few hundred GeV, where the LHC cannot. This matters because such a scalar is one of the simplest gateways to a dark sector and can be a dark-matter candidate, and the shape of the di-Higgs mass spectrum would distinguish the portal from a plain change in the Higgs self-coupling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renormalised one-loop insertion of the portal scalar $S$ into the $gg\to HH$ amplitude, specifically the off-shell Higgs three-point vertex function $\Gamma(s,m_H^2,m_H^2)$ built from the one-loop scalar integrals $A_0$, $B_0$, $C_0$ with on-shell renormalisation of the Higgs mass, wave function, and tadpole counter-term. It enters the $s$-channel amplitude together with a $\delta Z_H$ counter-term contribution that also modifies the box diagrams. What makes this object carry the argument is its explicit dependence on the invariant di-Higgs mass $m_{HH}=\sqrt{s}$: the vertex acquires real and imaginary parts with a threshold turn-on at $\sqrt{s}=2m_S$, so the predicted $m_{HH}$ spectrum has a different shape from a momentum-independent change in the Higgs self-coupling. The paper feeds that spectrum into a binned $\chi^2$ comparison against the projected self-coupling precision to decide which $(m_S,\lambda)$ points can be excluded.

What would settle it

A direct check would be a measurement of the di-Higgs invariant-mass spectrum at a 100 TeV hadron collider with 30/ab: if the data agree with the Standard Model within the projected precision in the mass bins where the paper marks $\lambda\sim1$ regions as excluded, that part of the claimed reach is wrong. On the calculational side, the chief unknown is the size of higher-order electroweak corrections, so computing the full two-loop $gg\to HH$ amplitude in this model would show whether the $O(\lambda^4)$ estimate used here adequately bounds the one-loop result at $\lambda\simeq1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that $gg\to HH$ is a viable indirect probe of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-symmetric Higgs portal scalar in the mass window $m_S \gtrsim m_H/2$ up to a few hundred GeV — precisely the window where on-shell Higgs decays to two scalars are closed and single-Higgs probes are weak. The full renormalised one-loop amplitude, including threshold and absorptive parts and the tadpole-induced counter-term contribution, makes the predicted $m_{HH}$ spectrum deviate from the Standard Model in a momentum-dependent way. Comparing that spectrum with the projected roughly 6% precision on the Higgs self-coupling at a 100 TeV hadron collider with 30/ab of data, the paper finds sensitivity to $\lambda \sim 1$ for $m_S$ up to a few hundred GeV, whereas LHC di-Higgs data can only reach $\lambda$ noticeably above one. At low $m_S$ the threshold effects reduce sensitivity relative to effective-potential estimates, while at larger masses the full calculation gives a stronger reach, and the shape of the deviation is different from a simple rescaling of the trilinear Higgs coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The FCC-hh reach rests on the assumption that the roughly 6 per cent precision projected for a simple rescaling of the Higgs self-coupling can be transferred, bin by bin, to the differently shaped momentum-dependent distortion a portal scalar produces, with the same backgrounds and systematic errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 100 TeV hadron collider with 30/ab of data can test the symmetric Higgs portal for dark scalar masses just above $m_H/2$ up to a few hundred GeV with portal couplings $\lambda$ of order one, a region that the LHC cannot reach with di-Higgs production.
  • The full momentum-dependent amplitude predicts a different $m_{HH}$ spectrum than an effective-potential shift of the Higgs self-coupling, so future shape measurements could distinguish a portal scalar from other modifications of the trilinear Higgs coupling.
  • Di-Higgs constraints at FCC-hh complement lepton-collider Higgs-strahlung precision and missing-energy searches; together they cover more of the $(m_S,\lambda)$ plane than any single probe.
  • If a deviation is seen, the invariant-mass dependence of the di-Higgs spectrum can act as a fingerprint of the portal model rather than just evidence for new physics.
  • The LHC projection alone is not enough to reach this model: detectable couplings at the LHC are large enough that the one-loop perturbative treatment is no longer fully reliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same one-loop machinery could be applied to other Higgs-production modes with different momentum transfers, such as vector-boson fusion or associated $ZH$ production, where the threshold structure of $\Gamma(s,m_H^2,m_H^2)$ would appear at different kinematic scales; the paper does not compute these extensions.
  • Because the amplitude has a threshold at $\sqrt{s}=2m_S$, a high-statistics measurement of the $m_{HH}$ shape could in principle extract the dark scalar mass, not just delineate an excluded region; the paper notes the fingerprinting idea but does not quantify this extraction.
  • If the dark scalar is a thermal relic, the $\lambda\sim1$ region that FCC-hh could test overlaps the parameter space where relic-density and self-interaction constraints are also relevant, so a positive signal would sharpen dark-matter interpretations; this combination is not made in the paper.
  • The lepton-collider comparison is made at fixed centre-of-mass energies around 240–380 GeV; a future collider that scans energies near the $ZH$ maximum could map the momentum dependence of the same vertex more directly, an extrapolation the paper leaves implicit.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the sensitivity of di-Higgs boson production to a real singlet scalar S with an unbroken Z2 symmetry, coupled to the Standard Model through the Higgs portal operator λ S² Φ†Φ. The authors compute the one-loop contribution of S to gg → HH, including the full momentum dependence of the off-shell Higgs three-point function, the relevant box counterterms, and a consistent on-shell renormalization scheme. They find that the momentum-dependent amplitude, with its threshold and absorptive parts, differs significantly from the effective-potential estimate of a modified Higgs self-coupling. Using a binned χ² comparison to the projected κλ = 1 ± 0.06 sensitivity from Ref. [24], they derive exclusion contours in the (mS,λ) plane for the LHC and for a 100 TeV FCC-hh with 30/ab. They conclude that FCC-hh can probe the portal coupling down to λ ∼ 1 for mS above mH/2 up to a few hundred GeV, a region complementary to lepton-collider Higgs-strahlung precision and missing-energy searches.

Significance. The one-loop calculation itself is a useful and clearly presented result: the authors provide explicit expressions for Γvirt, the counterterms, and the UV-finite combination in Eq. (16), and they implement the result in a modified Vbfnlo setup. The comparison of the full momentum dependence with the effective-potential approximation is informative, and the authors' decision to bracket the result with and without the |M_virt|² contribution shows appropriate caution about perturbative control. If the sensitivity projection were validated, the FCC-hh reach would be a valuable guide for the unexplored Z2-symmetric Higgs portal. At present, however, the quantitative exclusion contours rest on an unvalidated transfer of the κλ projection to a momentum-dependent new-physics distortion, so the central reach claim is not yet established to the precision that the figures suggest.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 8] The FCC-hh exclusion contours are derived by the procedure stated in Sec. III: a point (mS,λ) is excluded 'if the binned distribution deviates by more than the band indicated by the self-coupling projection in the sense of a binned χ² test', where the band is the κλ = 1 ± 0.06 envelope from Ref. [24]. That projection was obtained for a momentum-independent rescaling of the Higgs trilinear coupling, under specific background, systematic, and correlation assumptions for the inclusive di-Higgs measurement. Transferring it to the portal model assumes, without test, that the per-bin uncertainties of the mHH distribution are the same as for the κλ fit, that the analysis cannot partially reabsorb the momentum-dependent portal distortion into a fitted κλ, and that the leading-order, QCD-uncorrected shape used in this paper is adequate at the FCC-hh sensitivity. The caveat in Sec. III that the sensitivity 'will obviously depend on the details of the machine' does not quantify the resulting uncertainty in the (mS,λ) exclusion. Because the central quantitative claim of the paper is that FCC-hh can probe λ ≲ 1 for mS up to a few hundred GeV, this unvalidated transfer is load-bearing. I ask the authors to either validate the recast (for example by calibrating the binned χ² on the κλ signal itself and checking that the mHH shape uncertainties and correlations are compatible with Ref. [24]) or to present the contours clearly as an illustrative extrapolation with an explicit error band reflecting the transfer assumptions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The phrase 'massesmS≤mH/2≤ few×100 GeV' in the first paragraph should read 'masses mS ≥ mH/2 and up to a few hundred GeV' to be consistent with the abstract and the rest of the paper.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (19)] The statement that the expansion is 'to O(λ²)' is confusing because M_virt in Eq. (7) contains both O(λ) and O(λ²) pieces; please clarify that the expression is linear in M_virt and that |M_virt|² is included as an estimate of factorizable two-loop effects, or adjust the power-counting labels accordingly.
  3. [Fig. 6 legend] The legend labels 'O(λ²)' and 'O(λ²) + |M_virt|²' should be defined in the caption (order in the cross section vs. order in the amplitude) to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption should explicitly state which solid and dashed lines correspond to the calculations without and with the |M_virt|² term; the current text 'solid (dashed line)' is difficult to parse.
  5. [Section III] The phrase 'a coupling extraction of λSM at the ≲ 6% level' uses λSM for the Higgs self-coupling; since λ is used for the portal coupling, please use a different symbol (e.g., κλ or λHHH) to avoid confusion.
  6. [Fig. 5(b) caption] The expression '√s/2mH/2' appears to contain a typo; please clarify the intended threshold expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the di-Higgs amplitude and sensitivity estimate derive from the model Lagrangian with an external precision benchmark, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The one-loop s-channel and box amplitudes (Eqs. (4)–(18)) are computed from the model Lagrangian of Eq. (1) using standard Passarino–Veltman functions; no parameter of the model is fitted to data. The sensitivity estimate in Sec. III is a comparison of predicted invariant-mass spectra against an external benchmark: 'we compare the impact of virtual portal scalars against that of a (momentum independent) change in the self-coupling ... If the binned distribution deviates by more than the band indicated by the self-coupling projection in the sense of a binned χ2 test, we consider a particular (mS,λ) point to be excludable.' The κλ = 1 ± 0.06 band from Ref. [24] is an assumed machine-performance projection, not a quantity derived from or fitted to the portal model, so the resulting (mS, λ) contour is not equivalent to the input by construction. The paper's self-citations (Refs. [63,64,76]) support ancillary comparisons—ZH associated production and ZZ-channel cancellations—rather than the central di-Higgs reach. The text explicitly flags limitations of the estimate ('the eventual sensitivity yield will obviously depend on the details of the machine itself...' and the higher-order caveat around Fig. 6), which are acknowledged uncertainties rather than circular steps. No load-bearing claim reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters λ and mS are scanned, not fitted; the paper's only external benchmark is the projected self-coupling precision from Ref. [24]. The Z2-symmetric singlet is a standard dark sector construction from the cited literature, so no invented entities are introduced. The main assumptions are the model itself, the neglect of SM electroweak corrections, the transfer of the FCC-hh projection, and the adequacy of the perturbative truncation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Z2-symmetric real scalar S with the portal interaction λ S²(Φ†Φ - v²/2) of Eq. (1) is the model under study.
    The paper probes this model; it does not derive the model or its symmetries from deeper principles. It is a standard dark-sector construction cited from prior literature.
  • domain assumption SM electroweak corrections beyond the S loop are neglected; they are assumed to cancel in ratios at one-loop order.
    Stated in Section II: 'we will neglect the SM electroweak corrections, which are currently unknown, throughout.' The cancellation claim is asserted, not demonstrated for the full mHH distribution.
  • domain assumption The projected ~6% precision on the Higgs self-coupling at FCC-hh from Ref. [24] transfers to the portal model via a binned χ² comparison.
    The exclusion curves in Fig. 8 depend on this transfer; the paper does not validate it with a full detector-level study.
  • domain assumption Truncation of the amplitude at O(λ²) (interference) with the |M_virt|² term used to estimate higher orders is adequate for λ up to ~1.
    The paper acknowledges 'this still includes only part of the higher order corrections and therefore is only an estimate'; this is a load-bearing assumption for the λ ~ 1 sensitivity claims.
  • standard math Standard one-loop renormalization, Passarino-Veltman reduction, and dimensional regularization are valid and correctly applied.
    The computation relies on these unproved standard tools; the UV-finiteness check in Eq. (16) is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Symmetric Higgs Portal with Di-Higgs Boson Production." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETJGFYYR

@misc{pith2026190810615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Symmetric Higgs Portal with Di-Higgs Boson Production},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETJGFYYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10615}
}
abstract

A coupling of a scalar, charged under an unbroken global U(1) symmetry, to the Standard Model via the Higgs portal is one of the simplest gateways to a dark sector. Yet, for masses $m_{S}\geq m_{H}/2$ there are few probes of such an interaction. In this note we evaluate the sensitivity to the Higgs portal coupling of di-Higgs boson production at the LHC as well as at a future high energy hadron collider, FCC-hh, taking into account the full momentum dependence of the process. This significantly impacts the sensitivity compared to estimates of changes in the Higgs-coupling based on the effective potential. We also compare our findings to precision single Higgs boson probes such as the cross section for vector boson associated Higgs production at a future lepton collider, e.g. FCC-ee, as well as searches for missing energy based signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10615 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: One-loop contribution to H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Counter term contribution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Counter term contribution to the box graphs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Comparison of the imaginary and the real part of the three point function Γ for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of the cross section as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Sensitivity projections for the di-Higgs boson pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Phenomenology of a Kinetic Higgs Portal

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A momentum-dependent Higgs portal can hide invisible decays, make four-top production the most sensitive probe, and open a dark-matter region immune to direct detection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    Contino et al., CERN Yellow Rep

    R. Contino et al., CERN Yellow Rep. pp. 255–440 (2017), 1606.09408

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Binoth and J

    T. Binoth and J. J. van der Bij, Z. Phys. C75, 17 (1997), hep-ph/9608245

    arXiv 1997

  3. [2]

    R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D72, 093007 (2005), hep-ph/0509209

    arXiv 2005

  4. [3]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek (2006), hep-ph/0605188

    arXiv 2006

  5. [4]

    Ahlers, J

    M. Ahlers, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D78, 075005 (2008), 0807.4143

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D79, 115008 (2009), 0903.0363

    arXiv 2009

  7. [6]

    Beacham et al

    J. Beacham et al. (2019), 1901.09966

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade, and C.-T. Yu, JHEP11, 127 (2014), 1409.0005

    arXiv 2014

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    Craig, H

    N. Craig, H. K. Lou, M. McCullough, and A. Thalapillil, JHEP 02, 127 (2016), 1412.0258

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Arcadi, A

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Raidal (2019), 1903.03616

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Silveira and A

    V. Silveira and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. 161B, 136 (1985)

    1985

  4. [11]

    McDonald, Phys

    J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091304 (2002), hep- ph/0106249

    2002

  5. [12]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, T. Li, and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B609, 117 (2005), hep-ph/0405097

    2005 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. Ramsey- Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D77, 035005 (2008), 0706.4311

    2008 arXiv

  7. [14]

    V. V. Khoze, C. McCabe, and G. Ro, JHEP 08, 026 (2014), 1403.4953

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    L. Feng, S. Profumo, and L. Ubaldi, JHEP 03, 045 (2015), 1412.1105

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Athron, J

    P. Athron, J. M. Cornell, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Mckay, P. Scott, and S. Wild, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 830 (2018), 1806.11281

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Hardy, JHEP 06, 043 (2018), 1804.06783

    E. Hardy, JHEP 06, 043 (2018), 1804.06783

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bernal, C

    N. Bernal, C. Cosme, T. Tenkanen, and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 30 (2019), 1806.11122

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, J

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, J. Gehrlein, J. Jaeckel, and S. Schenk (2019), 1906.00969

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D76, 076004 (2007), hep-ph/0701145. 7

    2007 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Noble and M

    A. Noble and M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. D78, 063518 (2008), 0711.3018

    2008 arXiv

  15. [22]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D78, 123528 (2008), 0809.3215

    2008 arXiv

  16. [23]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, and F. Riva, Nucl. Phys. B854, 592 (2012), 1107.5441

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Voigt and S

    A. Voigt and S. Westhoff, JHEP 11, 009 (2017), 1708.01614

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    He and S.-h

    S.-P. He and S.-h. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B764, 31 (2017), 1607.04497

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888 (1973)

    1973

  20. [28]

    H. M. Georgi, S. L. Glashow, M. E. Machacek, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 692 (1978)

    1978

  21. [29]

    Dawson, C

    S. Dawson, C. Englert, and T. Plehn, Phys. Rept. 816, 1 (2019), 1808.01324

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979)

    1979

  23. [31]

    Denner, Fortsch

    A. Denner, Fortsch. Phys. 41, 307 (1993), 0709.1075

    1993 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hahn and M

    T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 118, 153 (1999), hep-ph/9807565

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hahn, Nucl

    T. Hahn, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 89, 231 (2000), hep- ph/0005029

    2000

  26. [34]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001), hep- ph/0012260

    2001

  27. [35]

    Arnold et al., Comput

    K. Arnold et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1661 (2009), 0811.4559

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Baglio et al

    J. Baglio et al. (2011), 1107.4038

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Arnold et al

    K. Arnold et al. (2012), 1207.4975

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Baglio et al

    J. Baglio et al. (2014), 1404.3940

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Appelquist and J

    T. Appelquist and J. Carazzone, Phys. Rev. D11, 2856 (1975)

    1975

  32. [40]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), CMS-PAS-FTR-18-019 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D58, 115012 (1998), hep-ph/9805244

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mat- telaer, P. Torrielli, E. Vryonidou, and M. Zaro, Phys. Lett. B732, 142 (2014), 1401.7340

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, JHEP 09, 053 (2015), 1505.07122

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    de Florian, M

    D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, C. Hanga, S. Kallweit, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierh¨ ofer, J. Mazzitelli, and D. Rathlev, JHEP 09, 151 (2016), 1606.09519

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk, U. Schubert, and T. Zirke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 012001 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.117,no.7,079901(2016)], 1604.06447

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk, and T. Zirke, JHEP 10, 107 (2016), 1608.04798

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Luisoni, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP 08, 088 (2017), 1703.09252

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Grazzini, G

    M. Grazzini, G. Heinrich, S. Jones, S. Kallweit, M. Kerner, J. M. Lindert, and J. Mazzitelli, JHEP 05, 059 (2018), 1803.02463

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    De Florian and J

    D. De Florian and J. Mazzitelli, JHEP 08, 156 (2018), 1807.03704

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. Spira, and J. Streicher, Eur. Phys. J.C79, 459 (2019), 1811.05692

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    de Blas et al

    J. de Blas et al. (2019), 1905.03764

    2019

  44. [52]

    Yao, in Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S

    W. Yao, in Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snow- mass on the Mississippi (CSS2013): Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August 6, 2013 (2013), 1308.6302, URL http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C1307292/ docs/submittedArxivFiles/1308.6302.pdf

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. J. Barr, M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, D. E. Ferreira de Lima, and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 02, 016 (2015), 1412.7154

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H.-J. He, J. Ren, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. D93, 015003 (2016), 1506.03302

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Papaefstathiou, Phys

    A. Papaefstathiou, Phys. Rev. D91, 113016 (2015), 1504.04621

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Adhikary, S

    A. Adhikary, S. Banerjee, R. K. Barman, B. Bhattacher- jee, and S. Niyogi, JHEP 07, 116 (2018), 1712.05346

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Banerjee, C

    S. Banerjee, C. Englert, M. L. Mangano, M. Selvaggi, and M. Spannowsky, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 322 (2018), 1802.01607

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Krauss, and M. Spannowsky (2019), 1904.07886

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B309, 282 (1988)

    1988

  52. [60]

    U. Baur, T. Plehn, and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 151801 (2002), hep-ph/0206024

    2002 arXiv

  53. [61]

    U. Baur, T. Plehn, and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev.D67, 033003 (2003), hep-ph/0211224

    2003 arXiv

  54. [62]

    U. Baur, T. Plehn, and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev.D68, 033001 (2003), hep-ph/0304015

    2003 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Englert and M

    C. Englert and M. McCullough, JHEP 07, 168 (2013), 1303.1526

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Craig, C

    N. Craig, C. Englert, and M. McCullough, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 121803 (2013), 1305.5251

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Capozi and G

    M. Capozi and G. Heinrich (2019), 1908.08923

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Craig, M

    N. Craig, M. Farina, M. McCullough, and M. Perelstein, JHEP 03, 146 (2015), 1411.0676

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    M. E. Peskin (2012), 1207.2516

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bicer et al

    M. Bicer et al. (TLEP Design Study Working Group), JHEP 01, 164 (2014), 1308.6176

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Klute, R

    M. Klute, R. Lafaye, T. Plehn, M. Rauch, and D. Zerwas, EPL 101, 51001 (2013), 1301.1322

    2013 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    S. T. Boogert and D. J. Miller, in Linear colliders. Proceedings, International Workshop on physics and ex- periments with future electron-positron linear colliders, LCWS 2002, Seogwipo, Jeju Island, Korea, August 26- 30, 2002 (2002), pp. 509–516, hep-ex/0211021

    2002 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kauer and G

    N. Kauer and G. Passarino, JHEP 08, 116 (2012), 1206.4803

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Caola and K

    F. Caola and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D88, 054024 (2013), 1307.4935

    2013 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Englert and M

    C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D90, 053003 (2014), 1405.0285

    2014 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Englert, Y

    C. Englert, Y. Soreq, and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 05, 145 (2015), 1410.5440

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Englert, G

    C. Englert, G. F. Giudice, A. Greljo, and M. Mccullough, JHEP 09, 041 (2019), 1903.07725

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Englert, T

    C. Englert, T. Plehn, D. Zerwas, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B703, 298 (2011), 1106.3097

    2011 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bertolini and M

    D. Bertolini and M. McCullough, JHEP 12, 118 (2012), 1207.4209

    2012 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Bernaciak, T

    C. Bernaciak, T. Plehn, P. Schichtel, and J. Tattersall, Phys. Rev. D91, 035024 (2015), 1411.7699

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Robens and T

    T. Robens and T. Stefaniak, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 104 (2015), 1501.02234. 8

    2015 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Cepeda et al

    M. Cepeda et al. (HL/HE WG2 group) (2019), 1902.00134

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Franceschini, G

    R. Franceschini, G. Panico, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, and A. Wulzer, JHEP 02, 111 (2018), 1712.01310

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Banerjee, C

    S. Banerjee, C. Englert, R. S. Gupta, and M. Span- nowsky, Phys. Rev. D98, 095012 (2018), 1807.01796

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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