Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Drell-Yan constraints on charged scalars: a weak isospin perspective

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Drell-Yan pair-production cross-section of charged scalars at the LHC depends only on mass, electric charge, and the third component of weak isospin, so existing limits can be converted into model-independent…

desk verdict A useful, mostly sound catalog that converts DY cross-section limits into isospin-dependent branching-ratio bounds; the model-independence claim is real but rests on a footnoted assumption about W-mediated production that the paper does not quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09796 v1 pith:SJXORKM5 submitted 2025-01-16 hep-ph hep-ex

Avik Banerjee , Dipankar Das , Samadrita Mukherjee , Shreya Pandey This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords chargedscalarsDrell-YanproductionweakisospinbranchingratioboundsLHCsearchesdoublyHiggstripletmodelGeorgi-Machacek
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 the Drell-Yan pair-production cross-section of a charged scalar at the LHC is fixed once the scalar's mass, electric charge $Q$, and third weak-isospin component $t_3^{(+Q)}$ are specified. If that is right, every $95\%$ CL upper limit from LEP and LHC searches can be read directly as a bound on the scalar's branching ratio, with no need to simulate a particular model. The authors compile such bounds for singly and doubly charged scalars with $t_3$ values spanning $[-1,1]$ and $[0,1]$, covering same-sign dilepton, $W^+W^+$, $W^+\gamma$, $W^+Z$, and $\tau^+\nu$ final states. They validate the recipe on the Higgs triplet and Georgi-Machacek models and show how it organizes limits for many other extended scalar sectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (2), $K_Z^Q = t_3^{(+Q)} - Q \sin^2\theta_W$, the $Z$-boson coupling of the charged scalar in units of $e/(\sin\theta_W \cos\theta_W)$. This one number fixes the photon-$Z$ interference pattern and therefore the whole Drell-Yan cross-section at a given mass. The second piece is the reinterpretation formula Eq. (4), $\mathrm{BR}(S_Q^+\to F_1) \le \sqrt{\sigma_{95}/\sigma_{\rm prod}}$, which converts measured cross-section limits into branching-ratio bounds. The production cross-sections are evaluated at next-to-leading order in QCD, and the paper treats the narrow-width case so that production and decay factorize.

What would settle it

Measure the Drell-Yan cross-section ratio, at fixed mass, for two charged scalars with the same charge but different $t_3$, for example $t_3=+1$ and $t_3=0$ doubly charged scalars in same-sign dilepton events; Eq. (2) predicts a specific ratio through the photon-$Z$ interference term, and a significant deviation would reveal an extra production mechanism. Alternatively, if a charged scalar with a $|\Delta Q|=1$ partner is discovered, compute the $W$-mediated contribution and check whether the observed cross-section exceeds the photon/$Z$-only prediction by more than the quoted uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that charged-scalar pair production through photon and $Z$ exchange is governed by a single coupling coefficient $K_Z^Q = t_3^{(+Q)} - Q \sin^2\theta_W$, so the production cross-section $\sigma_{\rm prod}(m, Q, t_3)$ carries no other model information. An experimental $95\%$ CL bound $\sigma_{95}$ on $pp \to S_Q^+ S_Q^- \to F_1 \bar F_2$ therefore becomes the branching-ratio constraint $\mathrm{BR}(S_Q^+\to F_1)\,\mathrm{BR}(S_Q^-\to \bar F_2) \le \sigma_{95}/\sigma_{\rm prod}$, which reduces to $\mathrm{BR}(S_Q^+\to F_1) \le \sqrt{\sigma_{95}/\sigma_{\rm prod}}$ when the two decay chains coincide. The same bound then applies to every model whose charged scalar occupies the same $(Q, t_3)$ slot: the doubly charged scalars of the Higgs triplet and Georgi-Machacek models share one constraint, and the right-handed doubly charged scalar of the left-right symmetric model and the Zee-Babu scalar share another. The paper works out these bounds for mass ranges currently probed at LEP and the LHC and demonstrates the translation onto model parameters in the Higgs triplet model.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumed formula for the $Z$ coupling being the complete description of production, with $W$-mediated channels neglected; if a charged scalar receives sizable model-dependent production, the branching-ratio limits would no longer be strictly model-independent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the same experimental limit applies to any model with a charged scalar in the same $(m, Q, t_3)$ slot: the Higgs-triplet and Georgi-Machacek doubly charged scalars ($t_3=1$) share a bound, and the left-right symmetric $H_R^{++}$ and Zee-Babu scalar ($t_3=0$) share another.
  • The $W^+\gamma$ channel is identified as a central search target for singly charged scalars; the recast limits used here already exclude branching ratios above roughly 40% for a 300 GeV scalar.
  • In the Georgi-Machacek model, the $W^+W^+$ channel places a lower mass bound near 320 GeV on the doubly charged scalar, and the $W^+\gamma$ channel bounds the singly charged scalar near 300 GeV.
  • Projected HL-LHC sensitivity in the same-sign dimuon channel could exclude doubly charged scalars with $t_3=1$ up to about 1.5 TeV if they decay predominantly to muons.
  • Even long-lived doubly charged scalars with no visible decay mode receive $t_3$-dependent mass bounds, here derived from Tevatron data, so the classification covers scenarios invisible to prompt searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the same catalog to charges $Q \ge 3$ would require no new formalism, only experimental searches in the corresponding final states; the coupling formula and reinterpretation identity are charge-agnostic.
  • The photon/$Z$-only assumption is the least secure piece at future luminosities: if $W$-mediated pair production becomes observable for models with $|\Delta Q|=1$ partners, the bounds would need an additional parameter, the total isospin and mass splitting.
  • A direct experimental test of the whole classification is the cross-section ratio for $t_3=+1$ versus $t_3=0$ at fixed mass; measuring that ratio in same-sign dilepton events would probe Eq. (2) without any model assumption.
  • The branching-ratio bounds could be compiled as a lookup table for global fits, letting any proposed scalar model be checked against LHC data by table lookup rather than a dedicated simulation.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a model-independent interpretation of LHC and LEP searches for pair-produced charged scalars. Starting from the observation that the Drell-Yan production cross section for a colorless charged scalar depends only on its mass, electric charge Q, and weak-isospin component t3, the authors use Eq. (4), BR ≤ sqrt(σ95/σprod), to convert existing 95% CL upper limits into upper bounds on branching ratios for singly and doubly charged scalars with various t3. They compute NLO QCD DY cross sections with FeynRules and MG5 aMC, apply the method to dilepton, WW, Wγ, WZ, τν, and long-lived searches, and validate against model-specific results for LRSM, GM, HTM, and LEP 2HDM. The paper also discusses mixed-t3 states and gives an HTM application. The central analytic relation is standard and the cross-checks against existing LEP and LRSM limits provide some confidence.

Significance. If the method is valid, it yields a useful catalog that lets experimental limits be reinterpreted for any scalar with given (m, Q, t3) without new simulations. The core relation Eq. (2) is parameter-free for fixed quantum numbers, and the reproduction of the known LEP 2HDM bound and the LRSM limits is a valuable sanity check. The paper is clearly written and addresses a practical need in the phenomenology community. The main caveat, discussed below, is whether the model-independence claim is fully supported given the neglect of W-mediated associated production.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methodology and results (footnote 5; Eqs. (3)-(4))] Footnote 5 dismisses W-mediated associated production by saying that 'current searches have rather weak sensitivity,' but no quantitative evidence is supplied. For the models in Table 1 that contain both S++ and S+ (HTM, GM, LRSM, Zee-type), the process pp → S++S− can populate the same multi-lepton signal regions used in Figs. 2 and 5; if it does, σ95 in Eq. (3) is not a limit on σprod(DY) alone, and the bound from Eq. (4) is a conservative upper bound whose tightness depends on extra parameters that the paper claims to avoid. The authors should either provide a recast or cross-section estimate showing that W-mediated production is negligible in the actual signal regions, or explicitly state and prove that the derived bounds remain valid as conservative upper bounds in the presence of such processes. This is necessary to substantiate the paper's central model-independence claim.
  2. [Isospin dependent limits (Eq. (5) and Fig. 6)] The extension to mixed-t3 states is not reproducible as written. After the rotation in Eq. (5), the Z coupling to a physical state Sj+ is given by the jj element of U^T diag(K0, K1) U, so the DY cross section for Sj+Sj− depends on the mixing angle θ in a way that is not stated. The paper should provide the explicit coupling matrix and the formula used to generate Fig. 6; without this, the mixed-case claim is unsupported and the reader cannot reproduce the lower bounds shown there.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Conclusions] The bullet 'In the case of the GM model, the H++5 decays to Wγ' violates charge conservation: a doubly charged scalar cannot decay to W+γ. This should read H+5 → W+γ, and the same typo appears in the next line of that bullet.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'This approach enables to determine limits' is ungrammatical; it should be reworded as 'This approach enables one to determine limits' or 'This approach allows limits to be determined.'
  3. [Methodology and results] The details of the NLO cross-section calculation (PDF set, factorization and renormalization scales, and the numerical values of σprod) are not provided. A table or short appendix with these inputs would make the catalog reproducible.
  4. [Isospin dependent limits (Fig. 5)] The long-lived doubly charged scalar bound from CDF is included in Fig. 5, but the text does not describe how the production cross-section at the 1.96 TeV p-pbar collider was computed. A brief explanation should be added.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption notes that lines joining discrete t3 values are 'drawn only for clear visual representation'; this is helpful, but it could be stated more prominently in the text to avoid any impression of continuous coverage.
  6. [References] Reference [11] is cited as an arXiv preprint without a journal reference; the authors should update it if it has appeared in a journal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the branching-ratio limits are a direct reinterpretation of external experimental cross-section upper limits divided by parameter-free NLO DY cross-sections, with no fitted parameter fed back into the constrained data.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained and externally anchored. The DY cross-section for pp -> SQ+ SQ- depends on (m, Q, t3) through the standard gamma/Z couplings; Eq. (2), K_Z = t3 - Q sW^2, is adopted from the external reference [8] (del Aguila and Chala), not from the authors' own prior work, so no load-bearing self-citation is present at that step. The production cross-sections are computed independently with FeynRules, UFO, and MG5_aMC at NLO in QCD and are parameter-free for given (m, Q, t3). The 95% CL cross-section limits sigma95 are taken from ATLAS Run 2 data and from the phenomenological recast in Ref. [12]; no data point used to define the limits enters the calculation of sigma_prod. Equation (4), BR <= sqrt(sigma95/sigma_prod), is a one-line inversion of published upper limits and is therefore a reinterpretation, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly states in footnote 5 that W-mediated associated production is neglected because current LHC searches have weak sensitivity to it; this is a stated conservatism assumption that qualifies the strict model-independence claim, but it does not define the output in terms of the input and is not a circular step. The self-citations that do occur ([11], [26], [31], [58], [63]) support auxiliary model-phenomenology statements, such as HTM branching-ratio inputs and GM-model mixing details, and are not used to force the central DY cross-section formula, the t3-dependence, or the inversion of the experimental limits. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked, no ansatz is smuggled in through a self-citation, and the LEP 2HDM comparison is a validation cross-check rather than a circular derivation. The appropriate finding is therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints are derived from external experimental limits divided by NLO DY cross-sections; the only internal free parameter is the mixing angle in the mixed-scalar example. No new particles or entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • mixing angle theta (mixed scalar cases) = scanned, e.g. pi/4 for GM model
    In Eq. (5), the physical charged scalars are admixtures of t3=0 and t3=+1 components; the mixing angle is model-dependent and is scanned to derive mass limits in Fig. 6.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DY pair production cross-section of a colorless charged scalar depends only on its mass, electric charge Q, and t3, with KZ = t3 - Q sW^2
    Adopted from [8], used in Eq. (2) for all production cross-sections; this is the basis for model independence.
  • domain assumption The narrow-width approximation and factorized production times decay interpretation of the 95% CL limits via Eqs. (3)-(4)
    The recast limits are read as sigma times BR products and inverted; assumes narrow width and no interference between production and decay.
  • ad hoc to paper Only photon/Z-mediated s-channel production is considered; W-mediated production with |Delta Q|=1 partners is neglected
    Stated in footnote 5; justified by weak current LHC sensitivity, but the assumption is a scope limitation for model-independence.
  • domain assumption The recast results of [12] and ATLAS limits [9,10,59] are correctly interpreted as sigma95 at 95% CL with the stated final states
    The paper does not reproduce the experimental analyses; it relies on published limits and recasts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Drell-Yan constraints on charged scalars: a weak isospin perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJXORKM5

@misc{pith2026250109796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Drell-Yan constraints on charged scalars: a weak isospin perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJXORKM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09796}
}
read the original abstract

Charged scalars appear in many motivated extensions beyond the Standard Model. We analyze the constraints on charged scalar pair production via the Drell-Yan process at the Large Hadron Collider and interpret them in terms of weak isospin quantum numbers. Leveraging the experimental limits from existing LHC data and phenomenological recast analyses, we place bounds on the branching ratio of the charged scalar, as a function of its mass, electric charge, and isospin. This approach enables to determine limits on the branching ratios directly from experimental data, without appealing to a specific model. We provide a detailed analysis for singly and doubly charged scalars across various weak isospin scenarios, focusing on decays into leptonic and bosonic final states, and validate this approach in extended Higgs sectors such as the Higgs triplet model and Georgi-Machacek model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman diagram contributing to the DY pair production of charged scalars at hadron collider. Here, the arrows denote the direction of the momentum. To make the discussion explicit, let us denote a colorless scalar field with electric charge ±Q as S Q±. The Lagrangian governing the interactions of these scalar fields with a Z boson and a photon can be written in a compact form as5 L = ie QAµ + K Q Z sW cW Z µ !  (∂… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The DY pair production cross-section σ(pp → S ++S −−) at √ s = 13 TeV for doubly charged scalars as a function of its mass mS++ for different isospin quantum numbers, t (+2) 3 = 0 (blue dash-dotted), + 1 2 (green) and +1 (red dashed), are presented. The gray shaded regions in the left panels show the experimental upper bounds on the production cross-section from the ATLAS searches for doubly charged scalars in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Extension of limits on the BR(S + → τ +ν) from the LEP data [7] to different t (+1) 3 values within the range [−1, +1]. Notably, the LEP analysis begins at MS+ ≳ 45 GeV, to prevent a large contribution to the Z-boson decay width due to the presence of the charged scalar, and is limited to MS+ ≲ 95 GeV due to the maximum operational energy of the LEP. searches at the LHC that yield the same final state objects. The a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The DY pair production cross-sections σ(pp → S +S −) at √ s = 13 TeV for singly charged scalars as a function of their mass mS+ for t (+1) 3 ∈ [−1, 1] are presented. The gray shaded regions show the upper bounds on the production cross-section, obtained from the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of lower limits on the masses of doubly (left) and singly (right) charged scalars arising from different t (+Q) 3 components of an isospin multiplet. For the doubly charged scalars the ATLAS constraints from the WW (blue) [10], and ℓ ℓ′ (red) [9] decays ar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Lower limits on the masses of two physical charged scalar mass eigenstates S + 1 (red) and S + 2 (green) as a function of their mixing angle θ, assuming 100% BR into the W+γ channel. The blue dot indicates the GM model, where the two charged scalars H + 3 and H + 5 has…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The branching ratios of H++ to same-sign W-boson (left panel) and to same-sign dimuon (right panel) are shown in the mH++ vs. vt plane for the Higgs triplet model, assuming normal hierarchy for the neutrino masses. The hatched regions are excluded from the ATLAS search…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Low- and high-energy phenomenology of a doubly charged scalar

    A. Crivellin, M. Ghezzi, L. Panizzi, G. M. Pruna and A. Signer, Low- and high-energy phenomenology of a doubly charged scalar , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 035004, [ 1807.10224]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    B. Fuks, M. Nemevˇ sek and R. Ruiz,Doubly Charged Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 075022, [ 1912.08975]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons in e+e- collisions at energies up to sqrt(s) = 209GeV

    ALEPH collaboration, A. Heister et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons in e+e− collisions at energies up to √s = 209-GeV , Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 1–13, [ hep-ex/0207054]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    Abdallah et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP in general two Higgs doublet models , Eur

    DELPHI collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP in general two Higgs doublet models , Eur. Phys. J. C 34 (2004) 399–418, [ hep-ex/0404012]

    arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Search for Charged Higgs Bosons in e+e- Collisions at sqrts(s) = 189-209 GeV

    OPAL collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Search for Charged Higgs Bosons in e+e− Collisions at√s = 189 − 209 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2076, [ 0812.0267]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Search for Charged Higgs Bosons at LEP

    L3 collaboration, P. Achard et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP , Phys. Lett. B 575 (2003) 208–220, [ hep-ex/0309056]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Abbiendi et al., Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data , Eur

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEPcollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2463, [1301.6065]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    del ´Aguila and M

    F. del ´Aguila and M. Chala, LHC bounds on Lepton Number Violation mediated by doubly and singly-charged scalars, JHEP 03 (2014) 027, [ 1311.1510]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Aad et al., Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states using 139 fb −1 of proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states using 139 fb −1 of proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 605, [ 2211.07505]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for doubly and singly charged Higgs bosons decaying into vector bosons in multi-lepton final states with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV , JHEP 06 (2021) 146, [ 2101.11961]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Banerjee et al., Phenomenological aspects of composite Higgs scenarios: exotic scalars and vector-like quarks, 2203.07270

    A. Banerjee et al., Phenomenological aspects of composite Higgs scenarios: exotic scalars and vector-like quarks, 2203.07270

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cacciapaglia, T

    G. Cacciapaglia, T. Flacke, M. Kunkel, W. Porod and L. Schwarze, Exploring extended Higgs sectors via pair production at the LHC , JHEP 12 (2022) 087, [ 2210.01826]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Konetschny and W

    W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons , Phys. Lett. B 70 (1977) 433–435

    1977

  6. [14]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) × U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2860

    1980

  7. [15]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino Masses in SU(2) × U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  8. [16]

    P. Dey, A. Kundu and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Some consequences of a Higgs triplet , J. Phys. G 36 (2009) 025002, [ 0802.2510]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Georgi and M

    H. Georgi and M. Machacek, DOUBLY CHARGED HIGGS BOSONS , Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 463–477. 13

    1985

  10. [18]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912

    1980

  11. [19]

    N. G. Deshpande, J. F. Gunion, B. Kayser and F. I. Olness, Left-right symmetric electroweak models with triplet Higgs , Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 837–858

    1991

  12. [20]

    Zee, Quantum Numbers of Majorana Neutrino Masses , Nucl

    A. Zee, Quantum Numbers of Majorana Neutrino Masses , Nucl. Phys. B 264 (1986) 99–110

    1986

  13. [21]

    K. S. Babu, Model of ’Calculable’ Majorana Neutrino Masses , Phys. Lett. B 203 (1988) 132–136

    1988

  14. [22]

    Grossman, Phenomenology of models with more than two Higgs doublets , Nucl

    Y. Grossman, Phenomenology of models with more than two Higgs doublets , Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 355–384, [ hep-ph/9401311]

    1994 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Melfo, M

    A. Melfo, M. Nemevsek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanovic and Y. Zhang, Type II Seesaw at LHC: The Roadmap, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 055018, [ 1108.4416]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Chabab, G. Moultaka, M. C. Peyranere, L. Rahili et al., The Higgs Potential in the Type II Seesaw Model , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 095005, [ 1105.1925]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kanemura and K

    S. Kanemura and K. Yagyu, Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in the Higgs triplet model and implication with the recent Higgs boson searches , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 115009, [1201.6287]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Das and A

    D. Das and A. Santamaria, Updated scalar sector constraints in the Higgs triplet model , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 015015, [ 1604.08099]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Butterworth, H

    J. Butterworth, H. Debnath, P. Fileviez Perez and F. Mitchell, Custodial symmetry breaking and Higgs boson signatures at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 095014, [ 2309.10027]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy and B. Mellado, Anatomy of the Real Higgs Triplet Model , 2411.18618

  21. [29]

    M. S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, Higgs Boson Triplets With M W = M Z cos θω, Phys. Lett. B 165 (1985) 105–108

    1985

  22. [30]

    J. F. Gunion, R. Vega and J. Wudka, Higgs triplets in the standard model , Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 1673–1691

    1990

  23. [31]

    Chakraborti, D

    M. Chakraborti, D. Das, N. Ghosh, S. Mukherjee and I. Saha, New physics implications of vector boson fusion searches exemplified through the Georgi-Machacek model , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 015016, [ 2308.02384]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zee, A Theory of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, and Oscillation , Phys

    A. Zee, A Theory of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, and Oscillation , Phys. Lett. B 93 (1980) 389

    1980

  25. [33]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models , Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1–102, [ 1106.0034]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bhattacharyya and D

    G. Bhattacharyya and D. Das, Scalar sector of two-Higgs-doublet models: A minireview , Pramana 87 (2016) 40, [ 1507.06424]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. R. Florentino, J. C. Rom˜ ao and J. a. P. Silva, Off diagonal charged scalar couplings with the Z boson: Zee-type models as an example , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1148, [ 2106.08332]. 14

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Herrero-Garcia, M

    J. Herrero-Garcia, M. Nebot, N. Rius and A. Santamaria, The Zee–Babu model revisited in the light of new data , Nucl. Phys. B 885 (2014) 542–570, [ 1402.4491]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy, Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 015018, [ 0811.0393]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Boos and I

    E. Boos and I. Volobuev, Simple Standard Model Extension by Heavy Charged Scalar , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 095014, [ 1801.09080]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, A Natural Left-Right Symmetry , Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2558

    1975

  32. [40]

    Senjanovic and R

    G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Exact Left-Right Symmetry and Spontaneous Violation of Parity, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502

    1975

  33. [41]

    P. Duka, J. Gluza and M. Zralek, Quantization and renormalization of the manifest left-right symmetric model of electroweak interactions , Annals Phys. 280 (2000) 336–408, [hep-ph/9910279]

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Enomoto, S

    K. Enomoto, S. Kanemura and K. Katayama, Probing doubly charged scalar bosons from the doublet at future high-energy colliders , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 035040, [ 2102.12950]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hisano and K

    J. Hisano and K. Tsumura, Higgs boson mixes with an SU(2) septet representation , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 053004, [ 1301.6455]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Alvarado, L

    C. Alvarado, L. Lehman and B. Ostdiek, Surveying the Scope of the SU (2)L Scalar Septet Sector, JHEP 05 (2014) 150, [ 1404.3208]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Harris and H

    M.-J. Harris and H. E. Logan, Constraining the scalar septet model through vector boson scattering, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 095003, [ 1703.03832]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. J. Dugan, H. Georgi and D. B. Kaplan, Anatomy of a Composite Higgs Model , Nucl. Phys. B 254 (1985) 299–326

    1985

  39. [47]

    Ferretti, UV Completions of Partial Compositeness: The Case for a SU(4) Gauge Group , JHEP 06 (2014) 142, [ 1404.7137]

    G. Ferretti, UV Completions of Partial Compositeness: The Case for a SU(4) Gauge Group , JHEP 06 (2014) 142, [ 1404.7137]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ma and G

    T. Ma and G. Cacciapaglia, Fundamental Composite 2HDM: SU(N) with 4 flavours , JHEP 03 (2016) 211, [ 1508.07014]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Y. Wu, T. Ma, B. Zhang and G. Cacciapaglia, Composite Dark Matter and Higgs , JHEP 11 (2017) 058, [ 1703.06903]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ruiz, Doubly charged Higgs boson production at hadron colliders II: a Zee-Babu case study , JHEP 10 (2022) 200, [ 2206.14833]

    R. Ruiz, Doubly charged Higgs boson production at hadron colliders II: a Zee-Babu case study , JHEP 10 (2022) 200, [ 2206.14833]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Alloul, N

    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 (2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 1201–1214, [ 1108.2040]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431, [ hep-ph/0012260]. 15

    2001 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Degrande, Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle , Comput

    C. Degrande, Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle , Comput. Phys. Commun. 197 (2015) 239–262, [ 1406.3030]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Muhlleitner and M

    M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, A Note on doubly charged Higgs pair production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 117701, [ hep-ph/0305288]

    2003 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079, [ 1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Flacke, J

    T. Flacke, J. H. Kim, M. Kunkel, P. Ko, J. S. Pi, W. Porod et al., Uncovering doubly charged scalars with dominant three-body decays using machine learning , JHEP 11 (2023) 009, [2304.09195]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Banerjee, V

    A. Banerjee, V. Ellajosyula and L. Panizzi, Heavy vector-like quarks decaying to exotic scalars: a case study with triplets , JHEP 01 (2024) 187, [ 2311.17877]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Aaboud et al., Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur

    ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 199, [ 1710.09748]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Acosta et al., Search for long-lived doubly-charged Higgs bosons in p¯p collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV, Phys

    CDF collaboration, D. Acosta et al., Search for long-lived doubly-charged Higgs bosons in p¯p collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 071801, [ hep-ex/0503004]

    2005 arXiv

  53. [61]

    H. E. Logan and Y. Wu, Searching for the W γdecay of a charged Higgs boson , JHEP 11 (2018) 121, [1809.09127]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Agugliaro, G

    A. Agugliaro, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea and S. De Curtis, Vacuum misalignment and pattern of scalar masses in the SU(5)/SO(5) composite Higgs model , JHEP 02 (2019) 089, [1808.10175]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Banerjee, D

    A. Banerjee, D. B. Franzosi and G. Ferretti, Modelling vector-like quarks in partial compositeness framework, JHEP 03 (2022) 200, [ 2202.00037]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    CMS collaboration, Prospects for a Search for Doubly Charged Higgs Bosons at the HL-LHC , Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-FTR-22-006, CERN, Geneva, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Ashanujjaman and K

    S. Ashanujjaman and K. Ghosh, Revisiting type-II see-saw: present limits and future prospects at LHC , JHEP 03 (2022) 195, [ 2108.10952]. 16

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.