Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Sensitivity to Triple Higgs Couplings via Di-Higgs Production in the RxSM at the (HL-)LHC and future $e^+e^-$ Colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In the real singlet extension of the Standard Model, the heavy Higgs boson that enables a strong first-order electroweak phase transition leaves a broadened, interference-shaped imprint in the di-Higgs mass distribution; the paper argues…

desk verdict A competent RxSM di-Higgs study whose new piece is the full m_hh distributions on a FOEWPT benchmark plane; the central caveat is that the plane is not checked against existing LHC di-Higgs limits, which the authors admit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03878 v1 pith:ZRSM4ZWL submitted 2025-02-06 hep-ph

F. Arco , S. Heinemeyer , M. Mühlleitner , A. Parra Arnay , N. Rivero González , A. Verduras Schaeidt This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords realsingletextensionoftheSMtripleHiggscouplingsdi-Higgsproductionfirst-orderelectroweakphasetransitionresonantheavymhhinvariantmassdistributionILC1000self-coupling
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 studies di-Higgs production in the real singlet extension of the Standard Model (RxSM), the simplest Higgs-sector model that can produce a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, on a benchmark plane where the heavy Higgs mass lies between about 460 and 660 GeV and the light-Higgs trilinear coupling is kappa_lambda = 1.45. Its central claim is that the BSM trilinear coupling lambda_hhH leaves a visible imprint in the m_hh distribution through interference between the resonant heavy-Higgs diagram and the non-resonant box and light-triangle diagrams, even after detector smearing and binning. The paper argues that the pure-resonant signal template used in current LHC searches for resonant di-Higgs production does not represent this RxSM signal, because the full distribution is broadened into a peak-dip structure, so applying those templates can exclude points erroneously or miss real signals. For a 1 TeV e+e- collider (ILC1000) it argues that e+e- -> Zhh can give access to lambda_hhH, with theoretical R-values indicating a visible resonance peak for all eight benchmark points. If true, this would provide a route toward the first measurement of a beyond-Standard-Model triple Higgs coupling, a key step for reconstructing the Higgs potential behind electroweak baryogenesis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the differential di-Higgs invariant-mass distribution d(sigma)/dm_hh computed at leading order with the full set of diagrams: the top-quark box, the light-Higgs triangle (controlled by kappa_lambda), and the heavy-Higgs s-channel triangle (controlled by sin(theta)*lambda_hhH). Interference between the resonant and non-resonant amplitudes produces the characteristic peak-dip structure; the paper's observability measure is the estimator R, defined as the summed bin-by-bin difference between RxSM and SM event counts, normalized by the SM count, restricted to bins where the difference exceeds 20 GeV times the bin size (or a threshold of two events at the ILC). The benchmark plane itself is the second piece of machinery: it is defined by fixing the singlet VEV x and quartic b4 with relations a1*x = -32000, lambda = 0.18, and b3 = -560*sqrt(b4), which guarantees a strong first-order electroweak phase transition and keeps kappa_lambda = 1.45 with m_H between 458 and 660 GeV.

What would settle it

Re-run the current resonant di-Higgs search with the full leading-order RxSM m_hh templates for benchmark points P1-P8 instead of the pure-resonant template; if the exclusion status of the plane is unchanged, the claim that the approximation can lead to erroneous results would be refuted for these points. A complementary check is to compute NLO QCD m_hh distributions with full top-mass dependence for P1, P4, and P7 and see whether the broadened peak-dip structure survives the same smearing and binning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that in the RxSM benchmark plane the process gg -> hh receives a resonant contribution from the heavy Higgs boson H through the coupling lambda_hhH, and that this contribution interferes with the SM-like continuum. The resulting m_hh distribution is not a narrow resonance but a peak-dip structure whose position and shape depend on m_H and on the sign and size of the couplings. After a 15% Gaussian smearing and 50 GeV binning, the dip is largely washed out, but a sizeable excess over the SM remains around m_hh ~ m_H for benchmark points in all three regions defined by the total-cross-section significance; the paper's R estimator ranges from about 230 down to 80 at the HL-LHC. Comparing the full calculation with the resonant-only calculation used by the experimental collaborations, the paper finds that the full distribution is substantially broadened, especially toward lower m_hh, and concludes that the resonant-only approximation may fail to capture the relevant effects and lead to erroneous results. At the ILC1000, the m_hh distribution of e+e- -> Zhh shows a resonance structure whose R value is largest for the smallest lambda_hhH, giving a potential sensitivity to this coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the FOEWPT benchmark plane, which the authors explicitly did not test against existing LHC di-Higgs measurements, is not already excluded; if those data rule out the plane, all the cross-section predictions, m_hh shapes, and the critique of the experimental approximation lose their concrete target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the approximation critique is right, existing LHC exclusion limits for resonant di-Higgs production cannot be applied directly to singlet-extension models; each model needs a full-interference signal template or a reinterpretation of the limits.
  • The HL-LHC can distinguish this RxSM benchmark plane from the SM in the m_hh distribution even when the total cross section shows no significant deviation, because of the broadened excess around the heavy-Higgs mass.
  • The ILC1000 (or any e+e- collider at 1 TeV with 8 ab^-1) could determine lambda_hhH from e+e- -> Zhh; within this benchmark plane the sensitivity is largest for small lambda_hhH and decreases as m_H grows.
  • A first measurement of a BSM triple Higgs coupling would allow the reconstruction of the scalar potential in a model that can explain the baryon asymmetry via a strong first-order electroweak phase transition.
  • Because the plane has kappa_lambda = 1.45 but is not in the alignment limit, the same m_hh analysis indirectly tests the cosmological scenario of electroweak baryogenesis that motivated the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper explicitly does not check against non-resonant di-Higgs data at the LHC; if those data already exclude the kappa_lambda = 1.45, m_H < 660 GeV plane, the claim's concrete target disappears. The authors' own caveat makes this the first thing to test.
  • The same interference-broadening argument likely extends beyond the RxSM to other heavy-scalar models; one direct test would be to recast current resonant di-Higgs exclusions using full-interference templates for a range of singlet and doublet models and see how many excluded points move.
  • The LO m_hh distributions are used with 15% smearing and 50 GeV bins because NLO distributions with full mass dependence are not available; if NLO corrections shift the dip position or smear the peak further, the quantitative R values and the 'visible after binning' conclusion could change. This is an editorial caution, not a paper claim.
  • A natural future extension is to repeat the ILC analysis with polarized beams and a full detector simulation of the 4b+Z final state; the public R values suggest the coupling could be extracted, but only a complete experimental study can confirm the precision.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies di-Higgs production in the real singlet extension of the Standard Model (RxSM) at the HL-LHC and at a future e+e− collider (ILC1000), with the goal of assessing sensitivity to the BSM triple Higgs coupling λhhH. The analysis is anchored to a two-dimensional benchmark plane, taken from Ref. [25], that is designed to feature a strong first-order electroweak phase transition. At the HL-LHC, the authors compute gg→hh cross sections and mhh distributions using a RxSM-adapted version of HPAIR. They find that the full, interference-inclusive mhh distribution is substantially broader than the pure-resonant template used by the ATLAS and CMS resonant di-Higgs searches, and they argue on this basis that the experimental approximation can fail for the RxSM. For the ILC1000, they compute e+e−→Zhh at tree level with MadGraph/SARAH, apply simple acceptance cuts, and use the same R estimator to characterize the visibility of the H resonance. The central qualitative result is that resonant-continuum interference broadens the apparent resonance and can shift the peak-dip structure, so that a pure-resonant template may misrepresent the model's prediction.

Significance. If the benchmark plane survives existing constraints, the paper makes a useful and concrete point: for a well-motivated FOEWPT scenario in the RxSM, the simplified resonant signal models used in current ATLAS/CMS searches are not an adequate description of the full leading-order prediction, because interference with the non-resonant diagrams substantially broadens the mhh structure. This extends earlier 2HDM-based criticism (Ref. [21]) to a model with a strong first-order phase transition, which is a phenomenologically relevant target. The authors are also honest about the limitations of their R estimator, repeatedly stating that it is not an experimental significance. The quantitative claims (R values, 'visibility', and the ILC sensitivity statement) are weaker than the qualitative shape argument, and one load-bearing input, the viability of the benchmark plane against current LHC di-Higgs constraints, is explicitly left unchecked. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or public code, but it uses established public tools (HPAIR, HiggsTools, MadGraph, SARAH, BSMPT) and cross-checks the benchmark points with BSMPTv3.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 2.2 and Conclusions] Section 2.2 explicitly states 'we did not check for constraints arising from di-Higgs measurements at the LHC', yet the benchmark plane has mH in [458, 660] GeV, sinθ in [0.12, 0.18], and κλ ≈ 1.45. These are precisely the parameter ranges probed by current ATLAS and CMS non-resonant and resonant di-Higgs searches. If the plane is excluded by those data, the concrete demonstration in Sect. 3.3.3 loses its target. The Conclusions claim that 'the plane under consideration is in agreement with all theoretical and experimental constraints' is therefore inaccurate. This must be fixed, either by performing a recast or proper reference to existing HH limits for these eight points, or by explicitly reframing the plane as illustrative and not yet confronted with HH data.
  2. [Sect. 3.1 and Sect. 3.3 (Eq. (28), Figs. 9-12)] The quantitative claims about 'visibility' of the resonance and the R values rest on LO mhh distributions with a 15% smearing and 50 GeV bins. The authors justify using LO distributions by concerns about NLO mass effects, but they do not quantify how NLO corrections might shift the peak-dip position or the R values. Since the abstract and conclusions draw on these R values to support the claim that the full signal would be visible or missed by current searches, the analysis needs either an estimate of the associated theory uncertainty or a clear statement that the quantitative R values are illustrative only, with the robust claim being the qualitative shape difference.
  3. [Sect. 4 and Abstract] The abstract concludes 'We demonstrate the potential sensitivity to λhhH via an experimental determination at the ILC1000.' The body, however, uses the theory-level estimator R, explicitly stated not to be a true experimental significance, and applies only parton-level acceptance cuts without background or systematic uncertainties. The ILC analysis therefore does not demonstrate an experimental determination of λhhH; it shows that the mhh distribution has a feature that a future experimental analysis might exploit. The abstract and conclusions should be reworded to reflect this distinction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption says '√s = 14 GeV'; this should be 14 TeV.
  2. [Sect. 4.2, Figs. 15-16] In the text preceding the figures, the green curve is first defined as σNoH, but then it says 'For comparison, the green curve indicates the SM result (σSM)'; these statements are inconsistent and the figure legend should be checked.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Acknoledgements' should be 'Acknowledgements', 'Shakharov' should be 'Sakharov', 'occurence' should be 'occurrence', and 'the the di-Higgs' appears twice in Sect. 2.3.
  4. [Ref. [28]] Reference [28] (Dawson, Dittmaier, Spira) is missing its arXiv number.
  5. [Sect. 4.1, Eq. (30)] The definition of N^C_i for the ILC estimator differs from the HL-LHC definition (non-resonant instead of SM), and this difference is only explained in a footnote; it would help to unify the notation or explain the distinction in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RxSM cross sections and m_{hh} shapes are computed from defined Lagrangian inputs, and the self-cited estimators and benchmark selection are openly stated modeling choices rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: define the RxSM potential (Sect. 2.1), impose theoretical and experimental constraints (Sect. 2.2), adopt a FOEWPT benchmark plane from Ref. [25] (Sect. 2.3), compute gg->hh and e+e- -> Zhh cross sections and m_{hh} distributions with HPAIR/MadGraph (Sects. 3 and 4), and compare full versus resonant-only templates (Sect. 3.3.3). None of these steps fits a parameter to the quantity it later presents as a prediction. The empirical relations in Eqs. (22)-(24) are interpolating fits to eight reference points of Ref. [25]; they define the benchmark plane but are not recycled as output. The central values kappa_lambda ~ 1.45 and lambda_hhH are outputs of that parametrization, and the paper explicitly labels features like the approximately constant product sin(theta)*lambda_hhH and m_H ~ 1/x as artifacts of the plane definition, not as model predictions. The 'ATLAS/CMS approximation may fail' claim is supported by the paper's own comparison of full and resonant-only m_{hh} distributions in Fig. 12, not by a fitted parameter; the citation to Ref. [21] is corroborative rather than load-bearing. The R estimator and the 15% smearing/50 GeV binning are imported from the authors' earlier papers Refs. [20,35,36], but these are openly stated analysis conventions, and the qualitative broadening used for the main claim is shown at the unsmeared theory level. The principal limitation is external, not circular: Sect. 2.2 explicitly states that LHC di-Higgs constraints were not checked, so the benchmark plane's viability remains open; that is a completeness and correctness risk, not a circular derivation. Overall score 2 reflects minor self-citations and a signal-motivated benchmark selection, but no load-bearing reduction of any prediction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation is a standard tree-level/LO computation with no new particles or forces invented. The load-bearing modeling inputs are the FOEWPT benchmark plane, defined by the parameters x and b4 plus the empirical relations fitted to eight Ref [25] points, and the detector-simplification assumptions. The most fragile unverified input is that existing non-resonant di-Higgs data do not exclude the plane, a check the authors explicitly omitted.

free parameters (3)
  • singlet vev x = 33.1-46.3 GeV for the eight benchmark points (plane range 32.9-46.3 GeV)
    Defines one axis of the FOEWPT benchmark plane; chosen from Ref [25] points selected to maximize di-Higgs production (Tab. 1, Sect. 2.3).
  • quartic singlet coupling b4 = 0.00-0.89 for benchmark points; plane range up to about 1
    Second axis of the benchmark plane; controls mH and the THC values via the plane construction (Sect. 2.3, Fig. 2).
  • empirical plane relations a1*x = -32000, lambda = 0.18, b3 = -560*sqrt(b4) = as stated; deviations up to 30% for b3
    Fitted to the eight reference points from Ref [25]; these relations define the plane and therefore the cross sections and sensitivities presented.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The RxSM scalar potential with seven Lagrangian parameters and the minimization conditions correctly describes the Higgs sector.
    Standard model extension; used throughout Sect. 2.1.
  • domain assumption The lighter scalar h is the 125 GeV Higgs boson and the benchmark plane from Ref [25] indeed features a strong first-order electroweak phase transition.
    Assumed in the abstract and Sect. 2.3; the eight points were checked with BSMPTv3.
  • domain assumption NLO QCD corrections rescale all cross sections by a common K-factor of about 2 and do not change the mhh distribution shapes.
    Stated in Sect. 3.1; the paper uses LO distributions because NLO full-mass differential results are unavailable.
  • domain assumption A 15% Gaussian smearing and 50 GeV binning adequately represent the HL-LHC experimental resolution for mhh.
    Taken from Ref [20] and applied in Sect. 3.3.1; no detector simulation is performed.
  • ad hoc to paper Existing LHC non-resonant di-Higgs constraints do not exclude the benchmark plane.
    Explicitly unverified: Sect. 2.2 states 'we did not check for constraints arising from di-Higgs measurements at the LHC'.
  • domain assumption The heavy Higgs H will have been observed at the HL-LHC in single production before the di-Higgs analysis is used.
    Stated in the Introduction; the paper does not analyze single-H discovery.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity to Triple Higgs Couplings via Di-Higgs Production in the RxSM at the (HL-)LHC and future $e^+e^-$ Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRSM4ZWL

@misc{pith2026250203878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity to Triple Higgs Couplings via Di-Higgs Production in the RxSM at the (HL-)LHC and future $e^+e^-$ Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRSM4ZWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03878}
}
abstract

The real Higgs singlet extension of the Standard Model (SM) without $Z_2$ symmetry, the RxSM, is the simplest extension of the SM that features a First Order Electroweak Phase Transition (FOEWPT) in the early universe. The FOEWPT is one of the requirements needed for electroweak baryogenesis to explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe (BAU). Thus, the RxSM is a perfect example to study features related to the FOEWPT at current and future collider experiments. The RxSM has two CP-even Higgs bosons, $h$ and $H$, with masses $m_h < m_H$, where we assume that $h$ corresponds to the Higgs boson discovered at the LHC. Our analysis is based on a benchmark plane that ensures the occurence of a strong FOEWPT, where $m_H > 2 m_h$ is found. In a first step we analyze the di-Higgs production at the (HL-)LHC, $gg \to hh$, with a focus on the impact of the trilinear Higgs couplings (THCs), $\lambda_{hhh}$ and $\lambda_{hhH}$. The interferences of the resonant $H$-exchange diagram involving $\lambda_{hhH}$ and the non-resonant diagrams result in a characteristic peak-dip (or dip-peak) structure in the $m_{hh}$ distribution. We analyze how $\lambda_{hhH}$ can be accessed, taking into account the experimental smearing and binning. We also demonstrate that the approximation used by ATLAS and CMS for the resonant di-Higgs searches may fail to capture the relevant effects and lead to erroneous results. In a second step we analyze the benchmark plane at a future high-energy $e^+e^-$ collider with $\sqrt{s} = 1000$ GeV (ILC1000). We demonstrate the potential sensitivity to $\lambda_{hhH}$ via an experimental determination at the ILC1000.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The benchmark plane with the experimentally excluded region in grey, the allowed region in blue and the points used to define the plane in red (see text). Upper left: the prediction in the plane x-b4. Upper right: the projection of the benchmark plane in the λhhH-κλ plane. Lower plot: the final allowed benchmark plane in the λhhH-κλ projection. In the following we briefly analyze the basic phenomenological features … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The prediction of the heavy Higgs mass mH in our benchmark scenario. Left: in the x-b4 plane, right: in the λhhH-κλ plane. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The prediction of the mixing angle in the second benchmark plane. Left: in the x − b4 plane. Right: in the λhhH − κλ plane. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feynman diagrams entering into the di-Higgs production cross section calculation in the RxSM. Upper left: heavy triangle diagram; upper right: light triangle diagram; down: box diagram. For our analysis we calculate the total production cross section as well as the dif…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The λhhH-κλ benchmark plane. Left: total cross section of the process gg → hh for the HL-LHC in the RxSM. The red mark on the colorbar corresponds to σ RxSM hh = σ SM hh . The red colored points are defined via the right plot (see text). Right: the significance of the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The cross section of the process gg → hh for the HL-LHC in the RxSM only taking into account the heavy Higgs boson triangle diagram, shown in the plane λhhH-κλ. Id mH [GeV] θ x [GeV] b4 λhhH κλ ΓH [GeV] σ RxSM hh [fb] ∆s R P1 459.2 0.178 46.3 0.89 0.36 1.47 3.81 31.1 3…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The λhhH-κλ plane with the eight benchmark points marked. For details, see Tab. 2. resonance of the heavy Higgs boson, mhh = mH ∼ 460 GeV. This peak-dip structure is due to the interference of the heavy Higgs-boson triangle and the two non-resonant diagrams, see the di…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differential cross section of the process pp → hh at the HL-LHC with √ s = 14 GeV as a function of mhh for the point P1, see Tab. 2; black: theoretical curve, blue: smeared curve with 15% of smearing, red: smeared and binned curve with 15% of smearing and a bin size of…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Differential cross section of the process pp → hh at the HL-LHC as a function of mhh for the SM (red dashed line) and for two RxSM benchmark points: P1 (red) and P2 (blue), see Tab. 2. Results are shown for a smearing of 15% and a bin size of 50 GeV. The bins that have…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Differential cross section of the process pp → hh at the HL-LHC as a function of mhh for the SM (red dashed line) and for three RxSM benchmark points in region 2: P3 (orange), P4 (cyan) and P6 (pink) , see Tab. 2. Results are shown for a smearing of 15% and a bin size…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Differential cross section of the process pp → hh at the HL-LHC as a function of mhh for the SM (red dashed line) and for three RxSM benchmark points in region 3: P5 (green), P7 (purple) and P8 (black), see Tab. 2. Results are shown for a smearing of 15% and a bin siz…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Differential cross section of the process pp → hh at the HL-LHC as a function of mhh for the SM (red dashed line), compared to the distributions in P1 (region 1, upper plot), P4 (region 2, middle plot) and P7 (region 3, lower plot), see Tab. 2. Orange (blue) lines sho…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Generic Feynman diagrams contributing to the double Higgs-strahlung process e +e − → Zhh in the RxSM. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: κλ-λhhH plane as a function of the total cross section for the process e +e − → Zhh at the ILC1000 in our benchmark plane. parameter space of the RxSM that was identified to yield a strong FOEWPT and is favorable for the di-Higgs production at the LHC [25] yields poss…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Differential cross section of the process e +e − → Zhh at the ILC1000 as a function of mhh for the SM, for the pure heavy Higgs resonant contribution (blue), for the non-resonant contributions (green), and for the full RxSM calculation (red) for benchmark points P1, P…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: mhh distribution for benchmark points P5 - P8, with the color coding as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Complementarity of gravitational wave analyses and di-Higgs production in the exploration of the Electroweak Phase Transition dynamics in the RxSM

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the real singlet extension of the SM, strong first-order electroweak phase transitions split into singlet-driven transitions (loud in gravitational waves, quiet at colliders) and doublet-driven transitions (visible...

  2. Investigating a strong first-order electroweak phase transition in the RxSM at future linear $e^+e^-$ colliders and LISA

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    In the RxSM, singlet-driven SFOEWPTs yield strong LISA GW signals with SM-like Higgs couplings, while doublet-driven ones yield large κ_λ deviations visible at ILC1000 but weak GWs.

  3. Interference effects in new physics searches

    hep-ph 2026-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    Interference between new-physics resonances and Standard Model backgrounds must be included in collider searches; the review shows it can distort, enhance, or even cancel expected signals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [21]

    Heinemeyer, M

    S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner, K. Radchenko and G. Weiglein, [arXiv:2403.14776 [hep-ph]]. 29

    arXiv

  2. [25]

    H. L. Lin, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, S. Willocq, Phys.Rev.D 100 (2019) 7, 075035 [arXiv:1906.05289 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], JHEP 1608 (2016) 045 [arXiv:1606.02266 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [4]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996), 2887-2890 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605288 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1996

  7. [5]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 155 (1985), 36

    1985

  8. [6]

    Espinosa, M

    J.R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, Lett. B 305 (1993) 98, [hep-ph/9301285]

    arXiv 1993

Show all 83 references
  1. [7]

    Profumo, M.J

    S. Profumo, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, G. Shaughnessy, JHEP08 (2007) 010, [arXiv:0705.2425 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Espinosa, M

    J.R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 076004, [hep-ph/0701145]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Espinosa, T

    S.R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, F. Riva Nucl. Phys. B 854 (2012) 592, [arXiv:1107.5441 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade, C.-T. Yu, JHEP 11 (2014) 127, [arXiv:1409.0005 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Kurup, M

    G. Kurup, M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 015036, [arXiv:1704.03381 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Ham, Y.S

    S.W. Ham, Y.S. Jeong, S.K. Oh, J. Phys. G 31 (2005) 857, [hep-ph/0411352]

    2005 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D 79 (209) 015018, [arXiv:0811.0393 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Shakharov, Pisma Zh

    A.D. Shakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5 (1967) 32

    1967

  9. [15]

    133 (2024) 10, 101801 [arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys.Rev.Lett. 133 (2024) 10, 101801 [arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [16]

    CMS Collaboration, (2024), [CMS-PAS-HIG-20-011]

    2024

  11. [17]

    Abouabid et al., JHEP 09 (2022), 011 [arXiv:2112.12515 [hep-ph]]

    H. Abouabid et al., JHEP 09 (2022), 011 [arXiv:2112.12515 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [18]

    de Blas et al., JHEP 01 (2020), 139 [arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]]

    J. de Blas et al., JHEP 01 (2020), 139 [arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]]

    2020

  13. [19]

    Di Micco, et al

    B. Di Micco, et al. Rev. Phys. 5 (2020), 100045 [arXiv:1910.00012 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [20]

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner and K. Radchenko, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.11, 1019 [arXiv:2212.11242 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 06 (2018), 127 [erratum: JHEP 03 (2019), 128], [arXiv:1804.01939 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    R. N. Lerner, J. McDonald, Phys.Rev.D 80 (2009), 123507, [arXiv:0909.0520]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Costa, M

    R. Costa, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio and R. Santos, JHEP 06 (2016), 034 [arXiv:1512.05355 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Alves, T

    A. Alves, T. Ghosh, H.K. Guo, K. Sinha, D. Vagie, JHEP 04 (2019) 052, [arXiv:1812.09333 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Plehn, M

    T. Plehn, M. Spira, P.M. Zerwas Nucl.Phys.B 479 (1996), 46-64, [erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 531 (1998), 655-655], [arXiv:9603205 [hep-ph]]

    1996

  20. [28]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, M. Spira, Phys.Rev.D 58 (1998), 115012, [arXiv: [hep-ph]]

    1998

  21. [29]

    Bambade et al

    P. Bambade et al. [arXiv:1903.01629 [hep-ex]]

    1903 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. N. Burrows et al. [CLICdp and CLIC] [arXiv:1812.06018 [physics.acc-ph]]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Djouadi, W

    A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 27-43 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903229 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Abramowicz et al., Eur

    H. Abramowicz et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.7, 475 [arXiv:1608.07538 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Strube [ILC Physics and Detector Study], Nucl

    J. Strube [ILC Physics and Detector Study], Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275 (2016), 2463-2465

    2016

  26. [34]

    Roloff et al

    P. Roloff et al. [CLICdp], Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.11, 1010 [arXiv:1901.05897 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer and M. J. Herrero, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.10, 913 [arXiv:2106.11105 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, M. J. Herrero, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 6, 536, [arXiv:2203.12684 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Djouadi, W

    A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and P.M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C.10 (1999), 45 [hep-ph/9904287 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Basler, M

    P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Wittbrodt, JHEP03 (2018), 061 [arXiv:1711.04097 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Basler, M

    P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. M¨ uller, JHEP05 (2020), 016 [arXiv:1912.10477 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhang, H

    W. Zhang, H. L. Li, K. Liu, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Y. Zeng and S. Arunasalam, JHEP 12 (2023), 018 [arXiv:2303.03612 [hep-ph]]. 30

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Palit and S

    P. Palit and S. Shil, J. Phys. G 51 (2024) no.9, 095005 [arXiv:2302.04191 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, J. M. No and M. Zych, JHEP 01 (2023), 093

    2023

  35. [43]

    Niemi and T

    L. Niemi and T. V. I. Tenkanen, [arXiv:2408.15912 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gould and P

    O. Gould and P. Saffin, [arXiv:2411.08951 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Giovanakis, Phys

    A. Giovanakis, Phys. Dark Univ. 46 (2024), 101682 [arXiv:2410.04428 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Xia, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.11, 115016 [arXiv:2405.01191 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and V. Q. Tran, [arXiv:2409.17554 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Feuerstake, E

    F. Feuerstake, E. Fuchs, T. Robens and D. Winterbottom, [arXiv:2409.06651 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    I. M. Lewis, J. Scott, M. A. S. Alcaraz and M. Sullivan, [arXiv:2410.08275 [hep-ph]]

  42. [50]

    Aboudonia, C

    M. Aboudonia, C. Balazs, A. Papaefstathiou and G. White, [arXiv:2410.22700 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gonderinger, Y

    M. Gonderinger, Y. Li, H. Patel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP 01 (2010), 053, [arXiv:0910.3167 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 138 [arXiv:0811.4169 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2605 [arXiv:1102.1898 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein and K. E. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) no.3, 2693 [arXiv:1311.0055 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) no.9, 421 [arXiv:1507.06706 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bechtle, D

    P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein and J. Wit- tbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.12, 1211 [arXiv:2006.06007 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein and J. Wittbrodt, Comput. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023), 108803 [arXiv:2210.09332 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) no.2, 2711 [arXiv:1305.1933 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak and G. Weiglein, JHEP1411 (2014) 039 [arXiv:1403.1582 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein and J. Wittbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.2, 145 [arXiv:2012.09197 [hep-ph]]. 31

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Basler and M

    P. Basler and M. M¨ uhlleitner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 237 (2019), 62-85 [arXiv:1803.02846 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Basler, M

    P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner and J. M¨ uller, Comput. Phys. Commun.269 (2021), 108124 [arXiv:2007.01725 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Basler, L

    P. Basler, L. Biermann, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. M¨ uller, R. Santos and J. Viana, [arXiv:2404.19037 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur.Phys.J.C 81 (2021) 4, 332, [arXiv:2009.14791 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D. T. Nhung, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Streicher and K. Walz, JHEP 11 (2013), 181 [arXiv:1306.3926 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gr¨ ober, M

    R. Gr¨ ober, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. Spira and J. Streicher, JHEP 09 (2015), 092 [arXiv:1504.06577 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Gr¨ ober, M

    R. Gr¨ ober, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. Spira, Nucl.Phys.B925 (2017), 1-27, [arXiv:1705.05314 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk, U. Schubert and T. Zirke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no.1, 012001 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no.7, 079901] [arXiv:1604.06447 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk and T. Zirke, JHEP 10 (2016), 107 [arXiv:1608.04798 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. Spira and J. Streicher, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.6, 459 [arXiv:1811.05692 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca, M. Spira and J. Streicher, JHEP 04 (2020), 181 [arXiv:2003.03227 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.5, 056002 [arXiv:2008.11626 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca, M. Spira, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 9, 826, [arXiv:2303.05409 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca and M. Spira, PoS PANIC2021 (2022), 393

    2022

  67. [75]

    Buchalla, M

    G. Buchalla, M. Capozi, A. Celis, G. Heinrich and L. Scyboz, JHEP 09 (2018), 057 [arXiv:1806.05162 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Cepeda et al

    M. Cepeda et al. CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7, 221-584 (2019) [arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    [ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2022-050

    2022

  70. [78]

    60 [arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]]

    [CMS], Nature 607 (2022), 7917, p. 60 [arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]]. 32

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro, JHEP 07 (2014), 079 [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Staub, Comput

    F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014), 1773-1790 [arXiv:1309.7223 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Baer et al

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

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Moortgat-Pick, H

    G. Moortgat-Pick, H. Baer, M. Battaglia, G. Belanger, K. Fujii, J. Kalinowski, S. Heine- meyer, Y. Kiyo, K. Olive and F. Simon, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no.8, 371 [arXiv:1504.01726 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    C. F. D¨ urig, doi:10.3204/PUBDB-2016-04283 33

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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