Top-quark spin correlations as a tool to distinguish pseudoscalar $A \to ZH$ and scalar $H \to ZA$ signatures in $Z t \bar t$ final states at the LHC

Francisco Arco; Georg Weiglein; Panagiotis Stylianou; Thomas Biek\"otter

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Top-quark spin correlations as a tool to distinguish pseudoscalar $A \to ZH$ and scalar $H \to ZA$ signatures in $Z t \bar t$ final states at the LHC

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Angular variables built from top-quark spin correlations can distinguish the A→ZH from the H→ZA cascade even when the two signals have identical total cross sections.

desk verdict A credible, carefully executed phenomenological study showing that c_hel/c_han can separate A->ZH from H->ZA in Z ttbar even at equal rates; the qualitative result holds, but the headline significances are parton-level upper estimates until detector-level reconstruction is tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03443 v2 pith:35RKQOMD submitted 2025-02-05 hep-ph hep-ex

Francisco Arco , Thomas Biekötter , Panagiotis Stylianou , Georg Weiglein This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 12.60.Fr14.65.Ha13.88.+e

keywords top-quarkspincorrelationstwo-Higgs-doubletmodelAtoZHcascadescalarversuspseudoscalardiscriminationZplustop-pairfinalstatehigh-luminosityLHCprojectionsleptonangularobservableselectroweakphasetransition

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

Recent searches at the LHC probe a 'smoking-gun' signature of a heavy new spin-0 particle decaying into a lighter spin-0 particle and a $Z$ boson, with the lighter state decaying into a top-quark pair. When the two possible cascades $A\to ZH$ and $H\to ZA$ predict the same total cross section, those searches cannot tell which CP assignment nature chose, because they use no information from top-quark spin correlations. This paper claims that the angular variables $c_{\rm hel}$ and $c_{\rm han}$, built from the lepton directions in fully leptonic top decays, break that degeneracy. For a representative 600/800 GeV two-Higgs-doublet benchmark, binning the $m_{t\bar t}$ distribution in these angles raises the expected high-luminosity LHC significance from $5.5$–$5.9\sigma$ to $6.4$–$6.5\sigma$ at $3000\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, and places the two signatures in opposite corners of the angle plane. Telling the two channels apart matters because an $A\to ZH$ hierarchy is the one more favourable for electroweak baryogenesis and for a gravitational-wave background that future space-based detectors could reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two angular observables $c_{\rm hel}$ and $c_{\rm han}$, which compress the spin-correlation matrix $C_{ij}$ of the top-quark pair into single numbers readable from the charged leptons. With $\hat{k}$, $\hat{r}$, $\hat{n}$ an orthonormal basis built from the top-quark direction in the zero-momentum frame and the beam axis, and $\cos\theta^{\pm}_{\hat a}$ the angle between a lepton and an axis, they are $c_{\rm hel} = -\sum_a \cos\theta^{+}_{\hat a}\cos\theta^{-}_{\hat a}$ and $c_{\rm han} = \cos\theta^{+}_{\hat k}\cos\theta^{-}_{\hat k} - \cos\theta^{+}_{\hat r}\cos\theta^{-}_{\hat r} - \cos\theta^{+}_{\hat n}\cos\theta^{-}_{\hat n}$. Leptons carry spin-analysing power $\kappa_\ell \approx 1$ at tree level, so these combinations directly probe the production density matrix of the pair. The discriminating power comes from a sign flip: the diagonal spin-correlation coefficients in $t\bar t Z$ production have the opposite sign from those in $t\bar t$, and the two cascade orders $A\to ZH$ and $H\to ZA$ populate opposite corners of the $(c_{\rm hel}, c_{\rm han})$ plane, which the invariant-mass distribution $m_{t\bar t}$ alone cannot resolve.

What would settle it

A detector-level re-run of the same benchmarks would settle it: reconstruct the fully leptonic $Z t\bar t$ events with a kinematic fit imposing $p_T$ conservation and the $W$ and top masses, include jet-lepton combinatorics and all backgrounds, and recompute the combined significances of the $m_{t\bar t}$-binned $c_{\rm hel}$/$c_{\rm han}$ regions. If the reconstructed $c_{\rm hel}$ and $c_{\rm han}$ distributions for $A\to ZH$ and $H\to ZA$ no longer peak in opposite regions, or the separation collapses toward the $m_{t\bar t}$-only value of about $5.5$–$5.9\sigma$, the claimed discrimination is an artefact of truth-level kinematics rather than a measurement the LHC can actually make.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the CP ordering of the two spin-0 resonances in $Z t\bar t$ production is readable from the flight directions of the leptons produced in the decays of the two top quarks. Simulating the CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet benchmarks $\mathrm{BP}_{A\to ZH}$ and $\mathrm{BP}_{H\to ZA}$ with identical total signal cross sections of $0.1$ pb, the authors show that the observables $c_{\rm hel}$ and $c_{\rm han}$ peak at negative values for the $A\to ZH$ cascade and at positive values for $H\to ZA$, while the $m_{t\bar t}$ distribution shows no difference between the two. Binning the $m_{t\bar t}$ spectrum in three regions of each angular variable, or in a $3\times3$ grid of both, raises the combined expected significance at $3000\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ from $5.5$–$5.9\sigma$ (mass alone) to $6.4$–$6.5\sigma$, and the same binning also sharpens signal-versus-background discrimination for both channels.

Load-bearing premise

The separation is computed from Monte-Carlo truth top-quark directions, and the result assumes that reconstructing the top quarks in a fully leptonic final state, with two undetected neutrinos, preserves the opposite-sign angular structure that carries the discrimination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With $3000\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ at the high-luminosity LHC, the two cascades separate at $6.4$–$6.5\sigma$ for the 600/800 GeV benchmarks when the $m_{t\bar t}$ spectrum is also binned in $c_{\rm hel}$ and $c_{\rm han}$, up from $5.5$–$5.9\sigma$ with the mass alone.
The two signals sit in opposite regions of the $(c_{\rm hel}, c_{\rm han})$ plane, so a detected $Z t\bar t$ signal would simultaneously identify whether the heavier state is the CP-odd $A$ or the CP-even $H$.
The angular binning improves background rejection for both signals, so the proposed strategy also buys a moderate gain in overall sensitivity independent of which cascade is realized.
The method applies to the fully leptonic top-quark sample, and the paper argues it can be combined with the semileptonic and hadronic signal regions that the existing searches use, gaining information without discarding theirs.
A measurement pointing to $A\to ZH$ rather than $H\to ZA$ would support the mass hierarchy preferred for a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, tying a collider observation to early-universe baryogenesis and gravitational-wave predictions.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension the paper leaves open: if the two new states are CP mixtures rather than eigenstates, the peaks in $c_{\rm hel}$/$c_{\rm han}$ should shift continuously between the two benchmark corners, so a template fit to the two-dimensional distribution could measure the mixing angle rather than merely choose a side.
Because the sign flip traces to the emission of the spin-one $Z$ boson, I infer the same lepton-angle binning could sharpen discrimination in other $Z$-associated top-pair searches, including non-resonant or off-shell new-physics contributions, as long as the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-$ requirement is preserved.
The equal-cross-section benchmark is a deliberately pessimistic test; for most of the 2HDM parameter space the two cascades also differ in rate, so the angular test could be run as a two-dimensional template fit where rate and shape information reinforce each other.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Arco et al. show that the existing top-spin-correlation observables c_hel and c_han, binned against m_tt, can distinguish A->ZH from H->ZA in the fully leptonic Z ttbar final state even when the two signals have identical total cross sections. That is the genuinely new thing, and it is a useful application: ATLAS and CMS currently treat the two cascades as one signature, and the distinction matters for 2HDM electroweak baryogenesis and for which gravitational-wave parameter space to target. The qualitative separation is credible. The two signal distributions peak in opposite sign regions of c_hel/c_han, and the paper checks that this survives interference with the SM background, box-diagram contributions, and 20-30% smearing of the top momenta. The benchmarks are vetted against LHC limits with HiggsTools, including the recent di-top searches, and the authors flag the residual tension at about 2 sigma. That is honest work. The soft spot is the one the stress-test note names: the 6.4-6.5 sigma projections are computed with MC-truth top quarks. In the fully leptonic final state, two neutrinos escape, and the top rest frames needed for c_hel/c_han must come from an algebraic reconstruction with discrete solutions. The paper applies a 0.9 identification efficiency and Gaussian smearing of top momenta, but Gaussian smearing does not model wrong-branch solutions, which can flip the lepton-direction products that define these observables. A moderate misreconstruction rate would dilute, and could partially invert, the sign separation. The authors acknowledge that they use parton-level events and that a real analysis will have smaller significances; the relative discriminating power, which is the main point, is probably robust. Still, the headline numbers should be read as upper estimates, not as a projection of a detector-level analysis. Other soft spots are minor and standard: LO background shapes with flat K-factors, no systematic uncertainties, and significances from a simple asymptotic formula. None of these undercut the central argument, which is about the existence of discriminating power. Who is this for? LHC phenomenologists and experimentalists planning Zttbar searches. It is a clear, well-written feasibility study, and it deserves a serious referee. The quantitative claims need a detector-level follow-up, and the paper should be read with that caveat, but I would send it to review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to distinguish the two CP-related signal chains A -> ZH -> Z ttbar and H -> ZA -> Z ttbar at the HL-LHC, using the top-quark spin-correlation observables c_hel and c_han defined in Eq. (5). The authors set up two 2HDM benchmark points with equal total signal cross sections of 0.1 pb, simulate signal and SM ttbarZ background at leading order with MadGraph5, apply NNLO K-factors to the signal, include signal-background interference, and estimate significances with a binned log-likelihood formula. They find that binning the m_tt distribution in c_hel or c_han yields combined significances of 6.4-6.5 sigma for the two signals at 3000/fb, compared to 5.5-5.9 sigma using m_tt alone, and that the two signals populate opposite-sign regions of the angular plane, which they interpret as a handle on the CP nature of the resonances.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper offers a concrete way to extract CP information from the "smoking-gun" Z ttbar channel for a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, a channel where current ATLAS and CMS analyses are CP-blind. Strengths of the paper include the use of an established spin-correlation formalism, a clearly documented MC setup with public tools, inclusion of signal-background interference, a cross-check of box-diagram contributions, and a first test of momentum smearing in Appendix B. The qualitative separation between the two signals is credible and does not rely on any fitted parameter; the tan(beta) values are benchmark inputs chosen to equalize cross sections. The main caveats are that the quantitative projections are based on parton-level MC-truth information and that the quoted significances are signal-over-background significances rather than a direct statistical separation between the two signal hypotheses.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3; App. B; Eq. (5)] The quantitative projections rely on MC-truth top-quark momenta and lepton directions. In the fully leptonic Z ttbar final state, the top rest frame needed for Eq. (5) must be reconstructed from algebraic methods with two undetected neutrinos. The paper accounts for reconstruction only through a 0.9 identification efficiency and 20-30% Gaussian smearing of the top momenta (App. B). Gaussian smearing does not model the discrete wrong-branch solutions of a neutrino-weighting or kinematic fit; a wrong branch can change the boost and thus flip the sign of the lepton-direction correlations entering c_hel and c_han. Since the discrimination between A -> ZH and H -> ZA is precisely the opposite sign of these distributions, even a moderate misreconstruction rate can dilute the separation. I therefore regard the 6.4-6.5 sigma projections as upper estimates unless the reconstruction is tested at detector level or at least with an explicit discrete-ambiguity check.
[Sec. 3.2; Figs. 8 and 9; Eq. (12)] The combined significances of 6.4 and 6.5 sigma are computed from Eq. (12) as significances of each signal relative to the SM background in each m_tt and angular bin. They are not significances for distinguishing the A -> ZH and H -> ZA hypotheses from each other. Because the two benchmark signals have equal total cross sections by construction, a direct discrimination test is needed to support the abstract's claim that a distinction is possible with high significance. I suggest reporting a binned log-likelihood ratio between the two signal hypotheses, or an asymmetry in the sign of c_hel/c_han. The current statement that the CP nature can be inferred from the bin with the highest significance is a classification rule, not a statistical separation. In addition, the choices of binning and of which angular variable yields the larger significance were made after inspecting the same MC sample, so a trials-factor discussion should accompany the quoted maximum significances.
[Sec. 3; background normalization] The SM background is simulated as LO pp -> ttbar Z and normalized so that the total equals 139 events at 140/fb, which in the ATLAS analysis is the sum of ttZ and additional backgrounds in two signal regions. The additional backgrounds are therefore assumed to have the same shape as ttZ. Since Eq. (12) depends on the per-bin background counts, the absolute significances are sensitive to this normalization and shape assumption. The paper does acknowledge the absence of systematic uncertainties, but a quantitative variation of the background normalization would be needed before quoting 6.4-6.5 sigma as a robust projection.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 2.2, around Eq. (4)] The sign convention for cos(theta+_a) and cos(theta-_a) should be stated explicitly; as written, the relation cos(theta+_a) = -ell+ . a and cos(theta-_a) = +ell- . a is natural but should be spelled out to avoid ambiguity in the definitions of c_hel and c_han in Eq. (5).
[Sec. 3.1] The choice of 20% Gaussian smearing for the ATLAS-like validation and 10% for the HL-LHC projections should be justified with a reference or a short discussion of expected detector resolutions at the two stages.
[App. B] The smearing of p_x, p_y, p_z without adjusting the energy is not Lorentz-invariant and can move the top quark off its mass shell; please clarify the exact transformation used and whether the on-shell condition is reimposed after smearing.
[Sec. 2.1] The statement that the benchmark points are in tension at about the 2-sigma level with the new di-top searches (Refs. [26,27]) merits a more quantitative treatment, since the quoted HL-LHC projections are for exactly these benchmark points.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the discriminating power comes from external spin-correlation formalism and independent Monte Carlo simulation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the angular observables c_hel and c_han, built from lepton directions in fully leptonic top decays, can separate A->ZH from H->ZA even at equal total cross sections. This claim is not circular. The observables are inherited from established top-quark spin-correlation analyses (Refs. [48,51-53] and LHC searches [25-27]), not defined in terms of the signal identity being tested. The separation itself is obtained from MadGraph matrix-element simulation with an explicit 2HDM Lagrangian, including K-factors, interference subtraction, and benchmark choices. The tan-beta values in Table 1 are chosen to equalize the two signal cross sections as a controlled test condition; they are not fit parameters, and the angular separation is not fitted to the data. The significance numbers in Sec. 4 are projections from these simulations, not outputs of a fit to the discriminants. Self-citations appear in the electroweak-phase-transition motivation (Refs. [7,9]) and in the use of HiggsTools, but the discrimination result does not rest on those citations; the spin-correlation formalism and the SM ttbarZ background behavior are externally established. The main caveat, that the analysis uses MC-truth top quarks rather than a full detector-level neutrino reconstruction, is a robustness limitation acknowledged in Sec. 3 and Appendix B; it concerns whether the predicted discrimination survives experimental reconstruction, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation is self-contained with respect to its stated inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation depends on the standard 2HDM Lagrangian, effective gluon couplings, established spin-correlation formalism, and several analysis assumptions (flat K-factors, LO background shapes, no systematics, 10% smearing). No genuinely new entities are introduced; all parameters are benchmark or analysis choices.

free parameters (7)

tan_beta for BP H -> ZA = 1.14
Chosen so that sigma(pp -> H -> ZA -> Z ttbar) equals 0.1 pb, matching the A -> ZH signal rate; not derived from data.
tan_beta for BP A -> ZH = 1.50
Chosen so that sigma(pp -> A -> ZH -> Z ttbar) equals 0.1 pb.
BSM mass pair m_H, m_A = 600 and 800 GeV, swapped between benchmarks
Representative benchmark masses, not fitted to data; chosen for a light-heavy pair with strong first-order phase transition motivation and HL-LHC reach.
Charged Higgs mass m_H+/- = 800 GeV
Set equal to the heavier BSM state to satisfy electroweak precision constraints.
Soft Z2 breaking scale M = 600 GeV
Set equal to the lighter BSM mass to pass vacuum stability and perturbative unitarity checks; not relevant to the signal signature.
Efficiency factors = 0.7^2 for b-tagging, 0.9 for top reconstruction
Uniformly applied to both signals; based on ATLAS and CMS references, but a free analysis choice that scales the signal yields.
Angular bin edges and m_tt bin width = +/-0.33 for c_hel/c_han; 50 or 80 GeV for m_tt
Chosen to keep enough background events per bin; the combined significances depend on this binning.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Leptonic top decays act as ideal spin analyzers with kappa_l = 1 at tree level.
Invoked in Eq. (3) to translate lepton directions into top spin correlations; higher-order corrections are quoted as about 10^-3 but not included.
domain assumption The c_hel and c_han observables, built from cos theta products in the k, r, n basis, carry the CP information of the parent state.
Taken from prior tt spin-correlation literature; the sign difference between CP-even and CP-odd parents is the basis of the discrimination.
domain assumption CP is conserved and the two BSM resonances are CP eigenstates of opposite parity, so only A -> ZH or H -> ZA are relevant.
Defines the 2HDM scenario; the paper explicitly sets aside CP-mixed states.
domain assumption Effective gg -> A/H couplings are described by the top-quark triangle form factors F_H and F_A in Eqs. (8)-(10), matched to the UFO model.
Standard heavy-top loop approximation used for gluon-fusion production of the two resonances.
ad hoc to paper NNLO K-factors computed with HiggsTools apply as flat multiplicative factors to the LO signal distributions.
The K-factors (2.04 for A, 2.08 for H) are total cross-section ratios; applying them bin-by-bin assumes shape independence.
ad hoc to paper The SM ttZ background shape from LO MadGraph, normalized to 139 events at 140/fb, is adequate for the significance estimate.
The analysis normalizes to ATLAS yields but uses LO shapes without NLO or scale uncertainties.
domain assumption Box-diagram contributions to ZA/ZH production are negligible.
Checked in Appendix A at ttZ parton level and found small, in agreement with Refs. [6,21,22].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Top-quark spin correlations as a tool to distinguish pseudoscalar $A \to ZH$ and scalar $H \to ZA$ signatures in $Z t \bar t$ final states at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35RKQOMD

@misc{pith2026250203443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Top-quark spin correlations as a tool to distinguish pseudoscalar $A \to ZH$ and scalar $H \to ZA$ signatures in $Z t \bar t$ final states at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35RKQOMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03443}
}

abstract

Both ATLAS and CMS have recently performed the first searches for a heavy new spin-0 resonance decaying into a lighter new spin-0 resonance and a $Z$ boson, where the lighter spin-0 resonance subsequently decays into $t \bar t$ pairs. These searches are of particular interest to probe Two Higgs doublet model (2HDM) parameter space regions that predict a strong first-order electroweak phase transition. In the absence of CP violation, the investigated decay is possible if the lighter and the heavier spin-0 particles have opposite CP parities. The analysis techniques employed by ATLAS and CMS do not distinguish between the two possible signatures $A \to ZH$ and $H \to ZA$, where $A$ and $H$ denote CP-odd and CP-even Higgs bosons, respectively, if both signals are predicted to have the same total cross sections. We demonstrate the capability of angular variables that are sensitive to spin correlations of the top quarks to differentiate between $A \to ZH$ and $H \to ZA$ decays, even in scenarios where both signals possess identical total cross sections. Focusing on masses of 600 GeV and 800 GeV as a representative 2HDM benchmark, we find that a distinction between the two possible channels is possible with high significance with the anticipated data from the high-luminosity LHC, if the invariant mass distribution of the $t \bar t$ system is further binned in angular variables defined by the direction of flight of the leptons produced in the top-quark decays. Moreover, we find a moderate gain in experimental sensitivity due to the improved background rejection for both signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03443 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Top: gluon-fusion production cross section at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Two-dimensional distributions in the chel-chan plane for different SM channels. Our process of interest ttZ¯ (left) has a chel value with opposite sign compared to tt¯ (middle) and tth¯ (right). differences in these distributions can be attributed to the emission of a spin-one particle. Unlike ttZ¯ , the emission of a spin-zero boson, such as the Higgs boson, does not induce the same effect. For comparison, the dis… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Histograms for the mtt¯ invariant mass distribution for the A → HZ (left) and the H → AZ process (right). The pure-signal and pure-background contributions are indicated with S and B, respectively, while I denotes the signalbackground interference at leading order. −1…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Two-dimensional distributions for chel and chan for the A → HZ and H → AZ channels, indicating the potential power to discriminate the two signatures if the two observables are utilised in the ttZ¯ final state. through an analysis utilising the chel and chan observabl…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Expected events (upper plot) and ratio to the SM prediction (lower plot) for the di-top invariant mass distribution mtt¯ for an assumed integrated luminosity of 3/ab at the HL-LHC. The SM contribution to ttZ¯ is shown in blue, while the H → AZ (A → HZ) signals are show…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Expected events (upper plots) and ratio to the SM prediction (lower plots) for the di-top invariant mass distribution mtt¯ for different chel (top) and chan (bottom) regions for an assumed integrated luminosity of 3/ab at the HL-LHC. The SM contribution to ttZ¯ is show…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: On the left, the significances that are obtained for the two signals are shown for the analysis splitting the events only according to the angular variable chel. On the right we show the significances for the analysis that utilises only the angular variable chan. tion …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Significances for the approach where a simultaneous binning in both chel and chan is utilised to define different regions. On the left we show the results for A → HZ and on the right for H → AZ for 3/ab with 10% smearing. have accounted for several sources of experimen…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Box diagram resulting in the production of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Distributions for the invariant mass of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Distributions for chel and chan with 0%, 20% and 30% smearing on the momenta of the MC-truth top and anti-top quarks. The ttZ¯ background is shown, as well as the A → HZ and H → AZ channels with the lighter scalar decaying to tt¯. For comparison, we also show distribu…

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

Parton spin correlations and $\mathcal{CP}$ properties in Higgs boson decay at future lepton colliders
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In H→gg at a 240 GeV e+e− collider, the four-point energy-energy correlator with energy weight n=4 gives the strongest sensitivity to gluon spin correlations and, assuming perfect splitting-mode identification in the ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[3]

Kuzmin, V.A

V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov,On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,Phys. Lett. B155 (1985) 36. [4]CMScollaboration,Searches for Higgs boson production through decays of heavy resonances,Phys. Rept.1115 (2025) 368 [2403.16926]

arXiv 1985
[5]

Biek¨ otter, S

T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J.M. No, M.O. Olea and G. Weiglein,Fate of electroweak symmetry in the early Universe: Non-restoration and trapped vacua in the N2HDM,JCAP06(2021) 018 [2103.12707]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Gon¸ calves, A

D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan and Y. Wu,Resonant top pair searches at the LHC: A window to the electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 075040 [2206.08381]

arXiv 2023
[7]

Biek¨ otter, S

T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J.M. No, M.O. Olea-Romacho and G. Weiglein,The trap in the early Universe: impact on the interplay between gravitational waves and LHC physics in the 2HDM,JCAP 03(2023) 031 [2208.14466]

arXiv 2023
[8]

Mammen Abraham and D

R. Mammen Abraham and D. Gon¸ calves,Boosting new physics searches int ¯tZand tZj production with angular moments,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 965 [2208.05986]

arXiv 2023
[9]

Biek¨ otter, S

T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J.M. No, K. Radchenko, M.O. Olea, Romacho and G. Weiglein,First shot of the smoking gun: probing the electroweak phase transition in the 2HDM with novel searches for A→ZH inℓ +ℓ−ttand ννb bfinal states,JHEP01(2024) 107 [2309.17431]

arXiv 2024
[10]

Dorsch, S.J

G.C. Dorsch, S.J. Huber, K. Mimasu and J.M. No,Echoes of the Electroweak Phase Transition: Discovering a second Higgs doublet throughA 0 →ZH 0,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 211802 [1405.5537]

arXiv 2014
[11]

Dorsch, S.J

G.C. Dorsch, S.J. Huber, K. Mimasu and J.M. No, Hierarchical versus degenerate 2HDM: The LHC run 1 legacy at the onset of run 2,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 115033 [1601.04545]

arXiv 2016

Show all 55 references

[12]

Cline and P.-A

J.M. Cline and P.-A. Lemieux,Electroweak phase transition in two Higgs doublet models,Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 3873 [hep-ph/9609240]

1997 arXiv
[13]

Fromme, S.J

L. Fromme, S.J. Huber and M. Seniuch,Baryogenesis in the two-Higgs doublet model,JHEP11(2006) 038 [hep-ph/0605242]

2006 arXiv
[14]

Basler, M

P. Basler, M. Krause, M. Muhlleitner, J. Wittbrodt and A. Wlotzka,Strong First Order Electroweak Phase Transition in the CP-Conserving 2HDM Revisited,JHEP 02(2017) 121 [1612.04086]

2017 arXiv
[15]

Dorsch, S.J

G.C. Dorsch, S.J. Huber, T. Konstandin and J.M. No,A Second Higgs Doublet in the Early Universe: Baryogenesis and Gravitational Waves,JCAP05(2017) 052 [1611.05874]

2017 arXiv
[16]

Gon¸ calves, A

D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan and Y. Wu,Electroweak phase transition in the 2HDM: Collider and gravitational wave complementarity,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 095041 [2108.05356]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Fromme and S.J

L. Fromme and S.J. Huber,Top transport in electroweak baryogenesis,JHEP03(2007) 049 [hep-ph/0604159]

2007 arXiv
[18]

Basler, M

P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner and J. Wittbrodt,The CP-Violating 2HDM in Light of a Strong First Order Electroweak Phase Transition and Implications for Higgs Pair Production,JHEP03(2018) 061 [1711.04097]

2018 arXiv
[19]

Dorsch, S.J

G.C. Dorsch, S.J. Huber, K. Mimasu and J.M. No,The Higgs Vacuum Uplifted: Revisiting the Electroweak Phase Transition with a Second Higgs Doublet,JHEP12(2017) 086 [1705.09186]

2017 arXiv
[20]

W. Su, A.G. Williams and M. Zhang,Strong first order electroweak phase transition in 2HDM confronting future Z & Higgs factories,JHEP04(2021) 219 [2011.04540]. [21]ATLAScollaboration,Search for a CP-odd Higgs boson decaying into a heavy CP-even Higgs boson and a Z boson in the...

2021 arXiv
[23]

Bauer, M

M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm,Analyzing the CP Nature of a New Scalar Particle via S->Zh Decay,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 181801 [1610.00009]. 13 600 700 800 mt¯t [GeV] 0 5 10 15dσ/dmt¯t [fb/GeV] I (HZ box) I (AZ box) S (A → HZ ) 600 700 800 mt¯t [GeV] 0 2 4 6 8dσ/dmt¯t [fb...

2016 arXiv
[28]

Anuar, A

A. Anuar, A. Biek¨ otter, T. Biek¨ otter, A. Grohsjean, S. Heinemeyer, L. Jeppe et al.,ALP-ine quests at the LHC: hunting axion-like particles via peaks and dips int t production,JHEP12(2024) 197 [2404.19014]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Tweedie,Better Hadronic Top Quark Polarimetry, Phys

B. Tweedie,Better Hadronic Top Quark Polarimetry, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 094010 [1401.3021]

2014 arXiv
[30]

Z. Dong, D. Gon¸ calves, K. Kong and A. Navarro, Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boosted tt¯,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 115023 [2305.07075]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Stelzer and S

T. Stelzer and S. Willenbrock,Spin correlation in top quark production at hadron colliders,Phys. Lett. B374 (1996) 169 [hep-ph/9512292]

1996 arXiv
[32]

Lee,A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,Phys

T.D. Lee,A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,Phys. Rev. D8(1973) 1226

1973
[33]

Gerard and M

J.M. Gerard and M. Herquet,A Twisted custodial symmetry in the two-Higgs-doublet model,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98(2007) 251802 [hep-ph/0703051]

2007 arXiv
[34]

H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein et al.,HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals, Comput. Phys. Commun.291(2023) 108803 [2210.09332]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Djouadi, J

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira,HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension,Comput. Phys. Commun. 108(1998) 56 [hep-ph/9704448]. [36]HDECAYcollaboration,HDECAY: Twenty ++ years after,Comput. Phys. Commun.238(2019) 214 ...

1998 arXiv
[37]

Barroso, P.M

A. Barroso, P.M. Ferreira, I.P. Ivanov and R. Santos, Metastability bounds on the two Higgs doublet model, JHEP06(2013) 045 [1303.5098]

2013 arXiv
[38]

Hollik, G

W.G. Hollik, G. Weiglein and J. Wittbrodt,Impact of Vacuum Stability Constraints on the Phenomenology of Supersymmetric Models,JHEP03(2019) 109 [1812.04644]

2019 arXiv
[39]

Cacchio, D

V. Cacchio, D. Chowdhury, O. Eberhardt and C.W. Murphy,Next-to-leading order unitarity fits in Two-Higgs-Doublet models with softZ 2 breaking,JHEP11 (2016) 026 [1609.01290]

2016 arXiv
[40]

Bechtle, O

P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K.E. Williams,HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,Comput. Phys. Commun.181(2010) 138 [0811.4169]

2010 arXiv
[41]

Bechtle, O

P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K.E. Williams,HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,Comput. Phys. Commun.182(2011) 2605 [1102.1898]

2011 arXiv
[42]

Bechtle, O

P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein et al.,HiggsBounds−4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2693 [1311.0055]

2014 arXiv
[43]

Bechtle, D

P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein et al.,HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era,Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 1211 [2006.06007]. [44]CMScollaboration,Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into a top and a bottom quark ...

2020 arXiv
[48]

Bernreuther, D

W. Bernreuther, D. Heisler and Z.-G. Si,A set of top quark spin correlation and polarization observables for the LHC: Standard Model predictions and new physics contributions,JHEP12(2015) 026 [1508.05271]

2015 arXiv
[49]

Czarnecki, M

A. Czarnecki, M. Jezabek and J.H. Kuhn,Lepton Spectra From Decays of Polarized Top Quarks,Nucl. Phys. B351 (1991) 70

1991
[50]

Brandenburg, Z.G

A. Brandenburg, Z.G. Si and P. Uwer,QCD corrected spin analyzing power of jets in decays of polarized top quarks, Phys. Lett. B539(2002) 235 [hep-ph/0205023]

2002 arXiv
[51]

Bernreuther, A

W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z.G. Si and P. Uwer, Top quark pair production and decay at hadron colliders, Nucl. Phys. B690(2004) 81 [hep-ph/0403035]

2004 arXiv
[52]

Aguilar-Saavedra and J.A

J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J.A. Casas,Improved tests of entanglement and Bell inequalities with LHC tops,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 666 [2205.00542]

2022 arXiv
[53]

R¨ ubenach,Search for heavy Higgs bosons in conjunction with neural-network-driven reconstruction and upgrade of the Fast Beam Condition Monitor at the CMS experiment, Ph.D

J. R¨ ubenach,Search for heavy Higgs bosons in conjunction with neural-network-driven reconstruction and upgrade of the Fast Beam Condition Monitor at the CMS experiment, Ph.D. thesis, U. Hamburg (main), Hamburg U., Dept. Math., 2023. 10.3204/pubdb-2023-03126

2023 doi
[54]

Ravina, E

B. Ravina, E. Simpson and J. Howarth,Observingt ¯tZ spin correlations at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 809 [2106.09690]

2021 arXiv
[55]

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, JHEP07(2014) 079 [1405.0301]

2014 arXiv
[56]

Frederix, S

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.S. Shao and M. Zaro,The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,JHEP07(2018) 185 [1804.10017]

2018 arXiv
[57]

Christensen and C

N.D. Christensen and C. Duhr,FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy,Comput. Phys. Commun.180(2009) 1614 [0806.4194]

2009 arXiv
[58]

Alloul, N.D

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 [1310.1921]

2014 arXiv
[59]

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 [1108.2040]

2012 arXiv
[60]

Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,Eur

L. Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 631 [2304.09883]. 15

2023 arXiv
[61]

Spira, A

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P.M. Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC,Nucl. Phys. B453 (1995) 17 [hep-ph/9504378]

1995 arXiv
[62]

Kublbeck, M

J. Kublbeck, M. Bohm and A. Denner,Feyn Arts: Computer Algebraic Generation of Feynman Graphs and Amplitudes,Comput. Phys. Commun.60(1990) 165

1990
[63]

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 [hep-ph/0012260]

2001 arXiv
[64]

Hahn and C

T. Hahn and C. Schappacher,The Implementation of the minimal supersymmetric standard model in FeynArts and FormCalc,Comput. Phys. Commun.143(2002) 54 [hep-ph/0105349]

2002 arXiv
[65]

Harlander, S

R.V. Harlander, S. Liebler and H. Mantler,SusHi: A program for the calculation of Higgs production in gluon fusion and bottom-quark annihilation in the Standard Model and the MSSM,Comput. Phys. Commun.184 (2013) 1605 [1212.3249]

2013 arXiv
[66]

Harlander, S

R.V. Harlander, S. Liebler and H. Mantler,SusHi Bento: Beyond NNLO and the heavy-top limit,Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 239 [1605.03190]

2017 arXiv
[67]

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 [1406.3030]. [68]ATLAScollaboration,Inclusive and differential cross-section measurements oft tZproduction in pp collisions at...

2015 arXiv
[69]

Alwall et al.,A Standard format for Les Houches event files,Comput

J. Alwall et al.,A Standard format for Les Houches event files,Comput. Phys. Commun.176(2007) 300 [hep-ph/0609017]. [70]D0collaboration,Measurement of the top quark mass using dilepton events,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 2063 [hep-ex/9706014]. [71]CMScollaboration,Measurement of D...

2007 arXiv
[73]

Cowan, K

G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554 [1007.1727]. 16

2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Kuzmin, V.A

V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov,On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,Phys. Lett. B155 (1985) 36. [4]CMScollaboration,Searches for Higgs boson production through decays of heavy resonances,Phys. Rept.1115 (2025) 368 [2403.16926]

arXiv 1985

[2] [5]

Biek¨ otter, S

T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J.M. No, M.O. Olea and G. Weiglein,Fate of electroweak symmetry in the early Universe: Non-restoration and trapped vacua in the N2HDM,JCAP06(2021) 018 [2103.12707]

arXiv 2021

[3] [6]

Gon¸ calves, A

D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan and Y. Wu,Resonant top pair searches at the LHC: A window to the electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 075040 [2206.08381]

arXiv 2023

[4] [7]

Biek¨ otter, S

T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J.M. No, M.O. Olea-Romacho and G. Weiglein,The trap in the early Universe: impact on the interplay between gravitational waves and LHC physics in the 2HDM,JCAP 03(2023) 031 [2208.14466]

arXiv 2023

[5] [8]

Mammen Abraham and D

R. Mammen Abraham and D. Gon¸ calves,Boosting new physics searches int ¯tZand tZj production with angular moments,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 965 [2208.05986]

arXiv 2023

[6] [9]

Biek¨ otter, S

T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J.M. No, K. Radchenko, M.O. Olea, Romacho and G. Weiglein,First shot of the smoking gun: probing the electroweak phase transition in the 2HDM with novel searches for A→ZH inℓ +ℓ−ttand ννb bfinal states,JHEP01(2024) 107 [2309.17431]

arXiv 2024

[7] [10]

Dorsch, S.J

G.C. Dorsch, S.J. Huber, K. Mimasu and J.M. No,Echoes of the Electroweak Phase Transition: Discovering a second Higgs doublet throughA 0 →ZH 0,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 211802 [1405.5537]

arXiv 2014

[8] [11]

Dorsch, S.J

G.C. Dorsch, S.J. Huber, K. Mimasu and J.M. No, Hierarchical versus degenerate 2HDM: The LHC run 1 legacy at the onset of run 2,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 115033 [1601.04545]

arXiv 2016