REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 112 references
Searching for Di-Higgs Signatures of Light Charged Scalars
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A 130 GeV charged Higgs boson hinted by the ATLAS t→bbc excess can be tested by recasting existing SM di-Higgs searches, and Run-2 data already exclude new G2HDM parameter space.
desk verdict Useful recast idea for exploiting SM di-Higgs 4b searches, but the claimed Run-2 exclusions rest on unvalidated Delphes efficiencies. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the signal-strength ratio $\mu_{4b}$ defined in Eq. (9): the yield of charged-Higgs pair events that survive the 4b selection, normalized to the SM $hh\to4b$ yield. It is built from the loop-level and tree-level production cross sections, the branching ratio $\mathrm{Br}(H^+\to \bar{b}c)$, and four efficiency factors—the $c\to b$ mistag probability $\epsilon_{c\to b}=0.2$, the $b$-tag efficiency $\epsilon_b=0.8$, the production-mode efficiencies $\epsilon_{\rm Loop}\approx0.2$ and $\epsilon_{\rm Tree}=0.4$, and the signal-region efficiency $\epsilon_{SR}\approx1/2$. These factors quantify the overlap between the $bc$ final state and the $bb$ final state that makes the recast possible.
What would settle it
Measure the actual c→b mistag rate and di-jet mass resolution in the 4b signal regions using 13 TeV data; if the product of the mistag rate squared, the signal-region efficiency, and the production-mode efficiencies is more than a factor of two below the simulation-based values, the predicted μ_4b contributions drop below the exclusion limit, eliminating the claimed constraint. A dedicated charm-tagged search that finds no H±→bc events in the B-anomaly-preferred region would directly disprove the discovery claim.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that charged-Higgs pair production in the G2HDM with $m_{H^\pm}=130$ GeV produces a measurable shift in the di-Higgs signal strength $\mu_{4b}$, given by Eq. (9), which depends on the flavor-violating couplings $\rho_{cc}^u$ and $\rho_{tc}^u$. The signal survives in the 4b topology because the $H^\pm\to bc$ decay is reconstructed as two $b$-jets: charm jets fake bottom jets at the $\sim20\%$ level, and the $\approx5$ GeV mass gap between $m_{H^\pm}$ and $m_h$ is smaller than the hadronic di-jet mass resolution. Using the existing limit on nonresonant $hh\to4b$ production, the authors find that Run-2 data already exclude parts of the parameter space where flavour constraints are milder, and they quantify the reach of a future dedicated charm-tagged search.
Load-bearing premise
The constraints stand only if charm jets fake bottom jets in the 4b selection at the roughly 20% rate assumed from fast simulation, and if the signal-region efficiency is about one half as simulated; a factor-of-two drop in either would erase much of the claimed Run-2 reach.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Run-2 data from the nonresonant $hh\to4b$ search already exclude regions of the $(\rho_{cc}^u,\rho_{tc}^u)$ plane that flavour constraints alone leave unconstrained.
- The benchmark points BM1 and BM3 from the G2HDM global fit predict $\mu_{4b}=3.72$ and $2.92$ before efficiency corrections, so the charged-Higgs contribution to 4b events can exceed the SM di-Higgs rate.
- With the ATLAS baseline projection, the HL-LHC will reach $\mu_{4b}\lesssim2.8$, probing the parameter region with $\Delta C_9^U\approx-0.5$ and testing the B-anomaly explanation.
- A dedicated search with charm tagging has roughly three times the efficiency of the $c\to b$ mis-tag channel and, with 300 fb$^{-1}$ of Run-3 data, can cover a large part of the interesting parameter space; with HL-LHC data it covers nearly all of it.
- If the charged Higgs decays to $\bar{b}c$ with branching fraction above about 92% for $\rho_{tc}^u>0.15$, the resulting signal is almost entirely in the 4b channel, making the recast directly applicable.
Reading between the lines
- The same recasting logic should extend to any new scalar whose decay products are two non-identical heavy-flavour jets, as long as the scalar mass lies within the di-jet mass resolution of the SM Higgs; models with $H^\pm$ masses from roughly 125 to 135 GeV would retain most of the sensitivity.
- Because the overlap hinges on the $c\to b$ mistag rate, improvements in flavour tagging that reduce mistags would actually weaken this indirect probe; a dedicated charm-tagging strategy is therefore not just an upgrade but a necessary complement.
- A null result in the 4b channel at the HL-LHC would disfavour the G2HDM interpretation of both the $t\to b\bar{b}c$ excess and the $B$ anomalies, independent of direct charged-Higgs searches, giving this recast a cross-check role beyond its own reach.
- The efficiency constants $\epsilon_{\rm Loop}$, $\epsilon_{\rm Tree}$, and $\epsilon_{SR}$ are taken from fast detector simulation without public validation; a direct measurement of these efficiencies in the actual 4b signal regions would turn the recast from a projection into a firm measurement.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper argues that in the generic two-Higgs-doublet model with a charged Higgs of mass around 130 GeV and dominant decay H+ -> b c, charged-Higgs pair production can mimic the SM di-Higgs 4b final state at the LHC. This happens because charm jets are mistagged as bottom jets with a non-negligible rate and because the dijet mass resolution is comparable to the 5 GeV mass difference between the charged Higgs and the SM Higgs. The authors derive an analytic scaling formula for the signal strength relative to the ATLAS nonresonant hh -> 4b search, calibrate the efficiency parameters with Delphes fast simulation, and recast the ATLAS Run-2 limit to constrain the (rho_cc^u, rho_tc^u) plane of the G2HDM. They also give projections for Run-3 and HL-LHC and estimate the reach of a dedicated charm-tagged search.
Significance. If the efficiency model is reliable, this is a useful and testable connection between a currently discussed LHC excess in t -> b b c, the B-anomaly interpretation, and an existing public di-Higgs search. The paper provides a transparent analytic expression for the signal strength, identifies a parameter region not currently covered by flavor constraints, and makes concrete falsifiable predictions for Run-3 and HL-LHC data. The main limitation is that the central numerical claim depends on a small set of fast-simulation efficiency constants with no uncertainty quantification and no validation against public ATLAS performance maps. The idea is sound, but the strength of the Run-2 exclusion claim is not yet established.
major comments (3)
- [Section III, Eq. (9)] The recast is controlled by the single-number efficiencies epsilon_Loop ~ 0.2, epsilon_Tree = 0.4, epsilon_SR ~ 1/2, and epsilon_c_to_b = 0.2, with no error bars and no comparison to ATLAS's published tagger working points or to the acceptance of the 4b analysis. The claimed Run-2 exclusion in Fig. 2 survives only because the predicted mu4b values in the newly excluded region are a factor of 1.5-3 above the observed limit of 5.4, so a factor-of-two decrease in epsilon_c_to_b or epsilon_SR would remove the constraint. Please validate the fast-simulation efficiencies against public ATLAS information, for example by reproducing the SM hh -> bbbb cutflow and acceptance with the same Delphes setup, and show how the exclusion region changes with the tagger working point and with efficiency uncertainties.
- [Section III, Eq. (9)] The factor (epsilon_c_to_b / epsilon_b)^2 assumes that both charm jets must be mistagged as bottom jets, i.e. that only the four-tag category contributes. The manuscript does not state explicitly whether the three-tag category of the ATLAS analysis in Ref. [95] is included in the signal-region definition. If it is, events with a single charm mistag contribute with a probability proportional to epsilon_c_to_b rather than epsilon_c_to_b squared, which can change the acceptance substantially. Please clarify which tag categories are used and quantify the effect of including or excluding the three-tag category.
- [Footnote 13] The mass-shift correction is described only as 'shifting the ATLAS values to the mean values of our SM simulation.' Because the 5 GeV mass difference between H+ and h is comparable to the dijet mass resolution, the treatment of the signal-region mass window is a load-bearing input. Please specify what shift was applied, how it was derived, whether it was obtained from a SM di-Higgs sample or from a charged-Higgs sample, and how sensitive epsilon_SR is to the assumed jet energy scale and to the details of the mass-plane selection.
minor comments (4)
- [Section II.A, Eq. (3)] The normalization in Eq. (3) appears to contain a typo: the stated expression does not reproduce the quoted best-fit branching ratio of 0.16% for |rho_tt^u| = 0.06. The denominator should be (0.06)^2 = 0.0036 rather than 0.062.
- [Section III and Fig. 2] The labels 'di-jets Run-2' and 'ATLAS Run-2' are used inconsistently between the left and right panels of Fig. 2, and it is not stated whether the displayed Run-2 exclusion uses the observed or the expected limit. Please make the labels and the limit choice explicit.
- [Section III] The text repeatedly uses 'recasted' where 'recast' is the standard adjective; please correct this throughout.
- [Section III] The integrated luminosity of the ATLAS Run-2 dataset used for the recast is not stated in the text; it would be helpful to give it explicitly (140 fb^-1 for Ref. [95]) alongside the quoted limit.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the di-Higgs recast prediction is compared with an external ATLAS limit, and the self-citations used for benchmark couplings are not load-bearing.
full rationale
The paper's central claim is a cross-observable recast: it computes charged-Higgs pair production in the G2HDM, applies H± → bc decays with a c-jet-to-b-jet mistag rate, and compares the resulting signal strength μ4b in Eq. (9) with the observed ATLAS limit μ4b ≤ 5.4 from the SM hh → 4b search. No parameter of this prediction is fitted to the ATLAS di-Higgs data; the couplings ρtc^u and ρcc^u are anchored instead to the t → bH+ excess and to B-anomaly observables, which are independent external inputs. The efficiencies ϵLoop, ϵTree, ϵSR, and ϵc→b are extracted from Delphes simulation, but they are not tuned to the target limit and the final comparison is to a published experimental bound. The self-citations to Refs. [32] and [40] provide benchmark points and prior global-fit results, but the di-Higgs exclusion follows from the external ATLAS measurement and would stand or fall independently of those citations. The concern that the Delphes efficiencies lack validation against ATLAS tagger maps is an accuracy/robustness limitation, not a circularity: changing ϵc→b would change the numerical reach, but it would not make Eq. (9) an identity with the experimental limit. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained for the purpose of testing the model against an external observable.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (6)
- m_H± =
130 GeV
- |rho_tt^u| =
0.06
- rho_tc^u (BM1, BM3) =
0.55, 0.47
- rho_cc^u =
varied, 0 to about 1.2
- rho_tau_tau^ell =
fixed to reproduce R_D and R_D* within 1 sigma
- Efficiency set (epsilon_Loop, epsilon_Tree, epsilon_SR, epsilon_c_to_b, epsilon_b) =
about 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, 0.2, 0.8
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption The G2HDM has a CP-conserving scalar potential and the neutral scalars H and A are heavy enough (mA, mH >= mt + mc) to be irrelevant for the considered final states.
- domain assumption The ATLAS t to bH+ excess and the R_D(*), b to s l+ l- anomalies are real and are explained by a light charged Higgs in the G2HDM.
- domain assumption Delphes with the ATLAS 4b selection reproduces the true c-to-b mistag rate and mass-resolution effects, after the authors' shift of dijet-mass windows.
- standard math MadGraph5 aMC at NLO with NNPDF23 gives reliable H± pair-production and SM hh cross sections.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Searching for Di-Higgs Signatures of Light Charged Scalars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEW6THZS
@misc{pith2026250700121,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Searching for Di-Higgs Signatures of Light Charged Scalars},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEW6THZS}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00121}
}
abstract
The excess in $t\to b\overline{b}c$ observed by ATLAS points towards a charged Higgs boson with a mass around 130$\,$GeV, consistent with the expectations from the $B$ anomalies, i.e.$~R_{D^{(*)}}$ and $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ data. As a non-minimal flavour structure is required for an explanation of these observables, this points towards a two-Higgs-doublet model with generic Yukawa couplings. Such a scenario predicts a sizable cross section for the pair production of the charged Higgs at the Large Hadron Collider, which can be tested by recasting SM di-Higgs searches. While the predicted event rate is even higher than the one of SM Higgs pair production, the smaller efficiency (w.r.t.$~$SM Higgs pair production) reduces the signal yield. Nonetheless, dedicated searches can probe most of the interesting parameter space and lead to a discovery with Run-3 or High-Luminosity LHC data.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[95]
A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the b¯bb¯b final state in pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 5, (2023) 052003, arXiv:2301.03212 [hep-ex]
arXiv 2023
-
[1]
Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,
P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,” Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132–133
1964
-
[2]
Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,
F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 321–323
1964
-
[3]
Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,
P. W. Higgs, “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 508–509
1964
-
[4]
Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles,
G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 585–587
1964
-
[5]
Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,
S. L. Glashow, “Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961) 579–588
1961
-
[6]
A Model of Leptons,
S. Weinberg, “A Model of Leptons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1264–1266
1967
-
[7]
Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions,
A. Salam, “Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions,” Conf. Proc. C680519 (1968) 367–377
1968
Show all 112 references
-
[8]
Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,
A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]
2012 arXiv
-
[9]
Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,
CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 6 716 (2012) 30–61, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]
2012 arXiv
-
[10]
A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery,
CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery,” Nature 607 no. 7917, (2022) 60–68, arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]
2022 arXiv
-
[11]
A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery,
A TLASCollaboration, “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery,” Nature 607 no. 7917, (2022) 52–59, arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]
2022 arXiv
-
[12]
Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV,”
-
[13]
Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,
A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133 no. 10, (2024) 101801, arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]
2024 arXiv
-
[14]
High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider HL-LHC,
G. Apollinari, O. Br¨ uning, T. Nakamoto, and L. Rossi, “High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider HL-LHC,” CERN Yellow Rep.no. 5, (2015) 1–19, arXiv:1705.08830 [physics.acc-ph]
2015 arXiv
-
[15]
Dainese, M
A. Dainese, M. Mangano, A. B. Meyer, A. Nisati, G. Salam, and M. A. Vesterinen, eds., Report on the Physics at the HL-LHC,and Perspectives for the HE-LHC, vol. 7/2019 of CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs. CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019
2019
-
[16]
FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1,
FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., “FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1,” Eur. Phys. J. C79 no. 6, (2019) 474
2019
-
[17]
The CLIC Potential for New Physics,
CLIC Collaboration, J. de Blas et al., “The CLIC Potential for New Physics,” arXiv:1812.02093 [hep-ph]
-
[18]
The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021,
ILC International Development T eam Collaboration, A. Aryshev et al., “The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021,” arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph]
2021
-
[19]
CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,
CEPC Study Group Collaboration, M. Dong et al., “CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,” arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]
-
[20]
Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,
LEP W orking Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP AL Collaboration, R. Barate et al., “Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,” Phys. Lett. B565 (2003) 61–75, arXiv:hep-ex/0306033
2003 arXiv
-
[21]
Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 and 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 and 13 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B793 (2019) 320–347, arXiv:1811.08459 [hep-ex]
2019 arXiv
-
[22]
Searches for additional Higgs bosons and vector leptoquarks in τ τfinal states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, “Searches for additional Higgs bosons and vector leptoquarks in τ τfinal states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,”
-
[23]
Search for a new resonance decaying to two scalars in the final state with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, “Search for a new resonance decaying to two scalars in the final state with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,”
-
[24]
Search for diphoton resonances in the 66 to 110 GeV mass range using 140 fb−1 of 13 TeV pp collisions collected with the ATLAS detector,
A TLASCollaboration, “Search for diphoton resonances in the 66 to 110 GeV mass range using 140 fb−1 of 13 TeV pp collisions collected with the ATLAS detector,”
-
[25]
Accumulating evidence for the associated production of a new Higgs boson at the LHC,
A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, O. Fischer, S. Bhattacharya, M. Kumar, E. Malwa, B. Mellado, N. Rapheeha, X. Ruan, and Q. Sha, “Accumulating evidence for the associated production of a new Higgs boson at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 11, (2023) 115031, arXiv:2109.02650 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[26]
Growing Excesses of New Scalars at the Electroweak Scale,
S. Bhattacharya, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S.-E. Dahbi, Y. Fang, M. Kumar, and B. Mellado, “Growing Excesses of New Scalars at the Electroweak Scale,” arXiv:2306.17209 [hep-ph]
-
[27]
Uncovering new Higgses in the LHC analyses of differential tt cross sections,
S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado, “Uncovering new Higgses in the LHC analyses of differential tt cross sections,” JHEP 01 (2025) 155, arXiv:2308.07953 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[28]
Combined explanation of LHC multilepton, diphoton, and top-quark excesses,
G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado, “Combined explanation of LHC multilepton, diphoton, and top-quark excesses,” Phys. Rev. D110 no. 7, (2024) 073001, arXiv:2312.17314 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[29]
Growing evidence for a Higgs triplet*,
A. Crivellin, S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, “Growing evidence for a Higgs triplet*,” Chin. Phys. C49 no. 5, (2025) 053107, arXiv:2404.14492 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[30]
Anatomy of the real Higgs triplet model,
S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, “Anatomy of the real Higgs triplet model,” JHEP 04 (2025) 003, arXiv:2411.18618 [hep-ph]
2025
-
[31]
Search for a light charged Higgs boson in t → H ±b decays, with H ± → cb, in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
A TLASCollaboration, “Search for a light charged Higgs boson in t → H ±b decays, with H ± → cb, in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” arXiv:2302.11739 [hep-ex]
-
[32]
Accumulating hints for flavor-violating Higgs bosons at the electroweak scale,
A. Crivellin and S. Iguro, “Accumulating hints for flavor-violating Higgs bosons at the electroweak scale,” Phys. Rev. D110 no. 1, (2024) 015014, arXiv:2311.03430 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[33]
Slight excess at 130 GeV in search for a charged Higgs boson decaying to a charm quark and a bottom quark at the Large Hadron Collider,
A. G. Akeroyd, S. Moretti, and M. Song, “Slight excess at 130 GeV in search for a charged Higgs boson decaying to a charm quark and a bottom quark at the Large Hadron Collider,” J. Phys. G49 no. 8, (2022) 085004, arXiv:2202.03522 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[34]
The flavor of a light charged Higgs,
N. Bernal, M. Losada, Y. Nir, and Y. Shpilman, “The flavor of a light charged Higgs,” arXiv:2307.11813 [hep-ph]
-
[35]
Accommodating the LHC charged Higgs boson excess at 130 GeV in the general two-Higgs doublet model,
A. Arhrib, M. Krab, and S. Semlali, “Accommodating the LHC charged Higgs boson excess at 130 GeV in the general two-Higgs doublet model,” J. Phys. G51 no. 11, (2024) 115003, arXiv:2402.03195 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[36]
Review of Semileptonic B Anomalies,
B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, and J. Matias, “Review of Semileptonic B Anomalies,” arXiv:2309.01311 [hep-ph]
-
[37]
Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023,
Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V) Collaboration, S. Banerjee et al., “Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023,” arXiv:2411.18639 [hep-ex]
2023 arXiv
-
[38]
To (b)e or not to (b)e: no electrons at LHCb,
M. Alguer´ o, A. Biswas, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and M. Novoa-Brunet, “To (b)e or not to (b)e: no electrons at LHCb,” Eur. Phys. J. C83 no. 7, (2023) 648, arXiv:2304.07330 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[39]
B anomalies in the post RK(∗) era,
T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, and S. Neshatpour, “ B anomalies in the post RK(∗) era,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 11, (2023) 115037, arXiv:2310.05585 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[40]
Global fit to the 2HDM with generic sources of flavour violation using GAMBIT,
P. Athron, A. Crivellin, T. E. Gonzalo, S. Iguro, and C. Sierra, “Global fit to the 2HDM with generic sources of flavour violation using GAMBIT,” JHEP 11 7 (2024) 133, arXiv:2410.10493 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[41]
Cornering Spontaneous CP Violation with Charged-Higgs-Boson Searches,
U. Nierste, M. Tabet, and R. Ziegler, “Cornering Spontaneous CP Violation with Charged-Higgs-Boson Searches,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125 no. 3, (2020) 031801, arXiv:1912.11501 [hep-ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[42]
Tree level t → ch or h → tc decays,
W.-S. Hou, “Tree level t → ch or h → tc decays,” Phys. Lett. B296 (1992) 179–184
1992
-
[43]
Two loop contributions of flavor changing neutral Higgs bosons to µ → eγ,
D. Chang, W. S. Hou, and W.-Y. Keung, “Two loop contributions of flavor changing neutral Higgs bosons to µ → eγ,” Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 217–224, arXiv:hep-ph/9302267
1993 arXiv
-
[44]
Spontaneous CP Violation in the SU (2)L × U (1)Y Model with Two Higgs Doublets,
J. Liu and L. Wolfenstein, “Spontaneous CP Violation in the SU (2)L × U (1)Y Model with Two Higgs Doublets,” Nucl. Phys. B289 (1987) 1
1987
-
[45]
Mass Matrix Ansatz and Flavor Nonconservation in Models with Multiple Higgs Doublets,
T. P. Cheng and M. Sher, “Mass Matrix Ansatz and Flavor Nonconservation in Models with Multiple Higgs Doublets,” Phys. Rev. D35 (1987) 3484
1987
-
[46]
Constraining flavor changing neutral currents with B → µ+µ−,
M. J. Savage, “Constraining flavor changing neutral currents with B → µ+µ−,” Phys. Lett. B266 (1991) 135–141
1991
-
[47]
Flavor changing interactions mediated by scalars at the weak scale,
A. Antaramian, L. J. Hall, and A. Rasin, “Flavor changing interactions mediated by scalars at the weak scale,” Phys. Rev. Lett.69 (1992) 1871–1873, arXiv:hep-ph/9206205
1992 arXiv
-
[48]
Flavor changing scalar interactions,
L. J. Hall and S. Weinberg, “Flavor changing scalar interactions,” Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) R979–R983, arXiv:hep-ph/9303241
1993 arXiv
-
[49]
Flavor changing neutral currents in the Higgs sector and rare top decays,
M. E. Luke and M. J. Savage, “Flavor changing neutral currents in the Higgs sector and rare top decays,” Phys. Lett. B307 (1993) 387–393, arXiv:hep-ph/9303249
1993 arXiv
-
[50]
Probing flavor changing top - charm - scalar interactions in e+e− collisions,
D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, “Probing flavor changing top - charm - scalar interactions in e+e− collisions,” Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 1199–1201, arXiv:hep-ph/9506243
1996 arXiv
-
[51]
Phenomenology of two Higgs doublet models with flavor changing neutral currents,
D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, “Phenomenology of two Higgs doublet models with flavor changing neutral currents,” Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 3156–3176, arXiv:hep-ph/9609279
1997 arXiv
-
[52]
Flavour Changing Higgs Couplings in a Class of Two Higgs Doublet Models,
F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco, M. Nebot, and M. N. Rebelo, “Flavour Changing Higgs Couplings in a Class of Two Higgs Doublet Models,” Eur. Phys. J. C76 no. 3, (2016) 161, arXiv:1508.05101 [hep-ph]
2016 arXiv
-
[53]
Higgs lepton flavour violation: UV completions and connection to neutrino masses,
J. Herrero-Garcia, N. Rius, and A. Santamaria, “Higgs lepton flavour violation: UV completions and connection to neutrino masses,” JHEP 11 (2016) 084, arXiv:1605.06091 [hep-ph]
2016 arXiv
-
[54]
Explaining B → Dτ ν, B → D∗τ νand B → τ νin a 2HDM of type III,
A. Crivellin, C. Greub, and A. Kokulu, “Explaining B → Dτ ν, B → D∗τ νand B → τ νin a 2HDM of type III,” Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 054014, arXiv:1206.2634 [hep-ph]
2012 arXiv
-
[55]
Flavor-phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models with generic Yukawa structure,
A. Crivellin, A. Kokulu, and C. Greub, “Flavor-phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models with generic Yukawa structure,” Phys. Rev. D87 no. 9, (2013) 094031, arXiv:1303.5877 [hep-ph]
2013 arXiv
-
[56]
Scalar doublet models confront τ and b anomalies,
J. M. Cline, “Scalar doublet models confront τ and b anomalies,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 7, (2016) 075017, arXiv:1512.02210 [hep-ph]
2016 arXiv
-
[57]
A perturbed lepton-specific two-Higgs-doublet model facing experimental hints for physics beyond the Standard Model,
A. Crivellin, J. Heeck, and P. Stoffer, “A perturbed lepton-specific two-Higgs-doublet model facing experimental hints for physics beyond the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116 no. 8, (2016) 081801, arXiv:1507.07567 [hep-ph]
2016 arXiv
-
[58]
B → D(∗)τ ντ in the 2HDM with an anomalous τ coupling,
J.-P. Lee, “ B → D(∗)τ ντ in the 2HDM with an anomalous τ coupling,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 5, (2017) 055005, arXiv:1705.02465 [hep-ph]
2017 arXiv
-
[59]
R(D(∗)) in a general two Higgs doublet model,
S. Iguro and K. Tobe, “ R(D(∗)) in a general two Higgs doublet model,” Nucl. Phys. B925 (2017) 560–606, arXiv:1708.06176 [hep-ph]
2017 arXiv
-
[60]
Beyond R(D(∗)) with the general type-III 2HDM for b → cτ ν,
R. Martinez, C. F. Sierra, and G. Valencia, “Beyond R(D(∗)) with the general type-III 2HDM for b → cτ ν,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 11, (2018) 115012, arXiv:1805.04098 [hep-ph]
2018 arXiv
-
[61]
Towards a viable scalar interpretation of RD(∗) ,
S. Fraser, C. Marzo, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and C. Spethmann, “Towards a viable scalar interpretation of RD(∗) ,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 3, (2018) 035016, arXiv:1805.08189 [hep-ph]
2018 arXiv
-
[62]
Likelihood analysis of the flavour anomalies and g – 2 in the general two Higgs doublet model,
P. Athron, C. Balazs, T. E. Gonzalo, D. Jacob, F. Mahmoudi, and C. Sierra, “Likelihood analysis of the flavour anomalies and g – 2 in the general two Higgs doublet model,” JHEP 01 (2022) 037, arXiv:2111.10464 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[63]
Revival of H − interpretation of RD(∗) anomaly and closing low mass window,
S. Iguro, “Revival of H − interpretation of RD(∗) anomaly and closing low mass window,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 9, (2022) 095011, arXiv:2201.06565 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[64]
Towards ruling out the charged Higgs interpretation of the RD(∗) anomaly,
M. Blanke, S. Iguro, and H. Zhang, “Towards ruling out the charged Higgs interpretation of the RD(∗) anomaly,” JHEP 06 (2022) 043, arXiv:2202.10468 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[65]
Investigating RD and RD∗ anomalies in a Left-Right model with an Inverse Seesaw,
K. Ezzat, G. Faisel, and S. Khalil, “Investigating RD and RD∗ anomalies in a Left-Right model with an Inverse Seesaw,” arXiv:2204.10922 [hep-ph]
-
[66]
Impact of Λb → Λcτ νmeasurement on new physics in b → cℓν transitions,
M. Fedele, M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, U. Nierste, and R. Watanabe, “Impact of Λb → Λcτ νmeasurement on new physics in b → cℓν transitions,” Phys. Rev. D107 no. 5, (2023) 055005, arXiv:2211.14172 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[67]
Revisiting b → cτ νanomalies with charged Higgs boson,
N. Das, A. Adhikary, and R. Dutta, “Revisiting b → cτ νanomalies with charged Higgs boson,” arXiv:2305.17766 [hep-ph]
-
[68]
Status of the semileptonic B decays and muon g − 2 in general 2HDMs with right-handed neutrinos,
S. Iguro and Y. Omura, “Status of the semileptonic B decays and muon g − 2 in general 2HDMs with right-handed neutrinos,” JHEP 05 (2018) 173, arXiv:1802.01732 [hep-ph]
2018 arXiv
-
[69]
Test of the R(D(∗)) anomaly at the LHC,
S. Iguro, Y. Omura, and M. Takeuchi, “Test of the R(D(∗)) anomaly at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 7, (2019) 075013, arXiv:1810.05843 [hep-ph]
2019 arXiv
-
[70]
b → sℓ+ℓ− transitions in two-Higgs-doublet models,
A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller, and C. Wiegand, “b → sℓ+ℓ− transitions in two-Higgs-doublet models,” JHEP 06 (2019) 119, arXiv:1903.10440 [hep-ph]
2019 arXiv
-
[71]
Interplay of the charged Higgs boson effects in RD(∗) , b → sℓ+ℓ−, and W mass,
G. Kumar, “Interplay of the charged Higgs boson effects in RD(∗) , b → sℓ+ℓ−, and W mass,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 7, (2023) 075016, arXiv:2212.07233 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[72]
Conclusive probe of the charged Higgs solution of P ′ 5 and RD(∗) discrepancies,
S. Iguro, “Conclusive probe of the charged Higgs solution of P ′ 5 and RD(∗) discrepancies,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 9, (2023) 095004, arXiv:2302.08935 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[73]
Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model,
S. Davidson and H. E. Haber, “Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model,” Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 035004, arXiv:hep-ph/0504050. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 099902 (2005)]
2005 arXiv
-
[74]
The direct CP violation in a general two Higgs doublet model,
S. Iguro and Y. Omura, “The direct CP violation in a general two Higgs doublet model,” JHEP 08 (2019) 098, arXiv:1905.11778 [hep-ph]
2019 arXiv
-
[75]
Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic 8 Decays,
N. Cabibbo, “Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic 8 Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.10 (1963) 531–533
1963
-
[76]
CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,
M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, “CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652–657
1973
-
[77]
Current status of the muon g − 2 interpretations within two-Higgs-doublet models,
S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, M. S. Lang, and M. Takeuchi, “Current status of the muon g − 2 interpretations within two-Higgs-doublet models,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 11, (2023) 115012, arXiv:2304.09887 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[78]
Search for a charged Higgs boson decaying to charm and bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for a charged Higgs boson decaying to charm and bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV,” JHEP 11 (2018) 115, arXiv:1808.06575 [hep-ex]
2018 arXiv
-
[79]
Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the H ± → cs channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the H ± → cs channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D102 no. 7, (2020) 072001, arXiv:2005.08900 [hep-ex]
2020 arXiv
-
[80]
Search for charged Higgs bosons produced in top-quark decays or in association with top quarks and decaying via H ± → τ ±ντ in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,
A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for charged Higgs bosons produced in top-quark decays or in association with top quarks and decaying via H ± → τ ±ντ in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. D111 no. 7, (2025) 072006, arXiv:2412.17584 [hep-ex]
2025 arXiv
-
[81]
Discriminating B → D∗ℓν form factors via polarization observables and asymmetries,
M. Fedele, M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, U. Nierste, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, “Discriminating B → D∗ℓν form factors via polarization observables and asymmetries,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 5, (2023) 055037, arXiv:2305.15457 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[82]
Optimizing the basis of B → K ∗ℓℓ observables in the full kinematic range,
S. Descotes-Genon, T. Hurth, J. Matias, and J. Virto, “Optimizing the basis of B → K ∗ℓℓ observables in the full kinematic range,” JHEP 05 (2013) 137, arXiv:1303.5794 [hep-ph]
2013 arXiv
-
[83]
Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of B → K (∗)µ+µ− decays,
LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of B → K (∗)µ+µ− decays,” JHEP 06 (2014) 133, arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]
2014 arXiv
-
[84]
Measurements of the S-wave fraction in B0 → K +π−µ+µ− decays and the B0 → K ∗(892)0µ+µ− differential branching fraction,
LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurements of the S-wave fraction in B0 → K +π−µ+µ− decays and the B0 → K ∗(892)0µ+µ− differential branching fraction,” JHEP 11 (2016) 047, arXiv:1606.04731 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: JHEP 04, 142 (2017)]
2016 arXiv
-
[85]
Standard Model predictions for B → Kℓ +ℓ−, B → Kℓ 1ℓ2 and B → Kνν using form factors from Nf=2+1+1 lattice QCD,
HPQCD Collaboration, W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies, “Standard Model predictions for B → Kℓ +ℓ−, B → Kℓ 1ℓ2 and B → Kνν using form factors from Nf=2+1+1 lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 1, (2023) 014511, arXiv:2207.13371 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 1...
2023 arXiv
-
[86]
Branching Fraction Measurements of the Rare B0 s → ϕµ+µ− and B0 s → f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays,
LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Branching Fraction Measurements of the Rare B0 s → ϕµ+µ− and B0 s → f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127 no. 15, (2021) 151801, arXiv:2105.14007 [hep-ex]
2021
-
[87]
B → K and D → K form factors from fully relativistic lattice QCD,
(HPQCD collaboration) §, HPQCD Collaboration, W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies, “ B → K and D → K form factors from fully relativistic lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D107 no. 1, (2023) 014510, arXiv:2207.12468 [hep-lat]
2023 arXiv
-
[88]
Improved theory predictions and global analysis of exclusive b → sµ+µ− processes,
N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk, and J. Virto, “Improved theory predictions and global analysis of exclusive b → sµ+µ− processes,” JHEP 09 (2022) 133, arXiv:2206.03797 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[89]
Semi-inclusive b → s¯ℓℓ transitions at high q2,
G. Isidori, Z. Polonsky, and A. Tinari, “Semi-inclusive b → s¯ℓℓ transitions at high q2,” arXiv:2305.03076 [hep-ph]
-
[90]
Test of lepton universality in b → sℓ+ℓ− decays,
LHCb Collaboration, “Test of lepton universality in b → sℓ+ℓ− decays,” arXiv:2212.09152 [hep-ex]
-
[91]
Angular analysis of B0 → K ∗0e+e− decays,
LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Angular analysis of B0 → K ∗0e+e− decays,” arXiv:2502.10291 [hep-ex]
-
[92]
The Global Fits of New Physics in b → s after RK(∗) 2022 Release,
Q. Wen and F. Xu, “The Global Fits of New Physics in b → s after RK(∗) 2022 Release,” arXiv:2305.19038 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[93]
Model-independent constraints on ∆ F = 2 operators and the scale of new physics,
UTfit Collaboration, M. Bona et al., “Model-independent constraints on ∆ F = 2 operators and the scale of new physics,” JHEP 03 (2008) 049, arXiv:0707.0636 [hep-ph]
2008 arXiv
-
[94]
Diquark Explanation of b → sℓ+ℓ−,
A. Crivellin and M. Kirk, “Diquark Explanation of b → sℓ+ℓ−,” arXiv:2309.07205 [hep-ph]
-
[96]
The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,
J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP ...
2014 arXiv
-
[97]
The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,
R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao, and M. Zaro, “The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,” JHEP 07 (2018) 185, arXiv:1804.10017 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)]
2018 arXiv
-
[98]
Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass Dependence,
S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk, U. Schubert, and T. Zirke, “Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass Dependence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117 no. 1, (2016) 012001, arXiv:1604.06447 [hep-ph]. ...
2016 arXiv
-
[99]
Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects,
M. Grazzini, G. Heinrich, S. Jones, S. Kallweit, M. Kerner, J. M. Lindert, and J. Mazzitelli, “Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects,” JHEP 05 (2018) 059, arXiv:1803.02463 [hep-ph]
2018 arXiv
-
[100]
The general two-higgs-doublet model
C. Duhr, M. Herquet, and C. Degrande, “The general two-higgs-doublet model.” https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac. be/projects/feynrules/wiki/2HDM, 2018
2018
-
[101]
FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,
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, arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]
2014 arXiv
-
[102]
An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2
T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2” Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]
2015 arXiv
-
[103]
DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,
DELPHES 3 Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, “DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” JHEP 02 (2014) 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]
2014 arXiv
-
[104]
The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm,
M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm,” JHEP 04 (2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]
2008 arXiv
-
[105]
FastJet User 9 Manual,
M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User 9 Manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]
2012 arXiv
-
[106]
CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., “Search for direct pair production of supersymmetric partners of τ leptons in the final state with two hadronically decaying τ leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 1, (20...
2023 arXiv
-
[107]
Light lepton portal dark matter meets the LHC,
S. Iguro, S. Okawa, and Y. Omura, “Light lepton portal dark matter meets the LHC,” arXiv:2208.05487 [hep-ph]
-
[108]
and thus the constraint provides the best limit. 5 Br(H+ →bc)=1 ρℓ ττ ≠0 forR D(*) b→sγ Bs-Bs mixing K0 -K 0 mixing ΔC9 U = -0.2 -0.35 -0.5 -0.65 -0.8HL-LHC prospect di--jets Run-2 di--jets Run-3 di--jets 1ab-1 di--jets 3ab-1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6...
-
[109]
The charged Higgs from the Bottom-Up: probing flavor at the LHC,
N. Desai, A. Mariotti, M. Tabet, and R. Ziegler, “The charged Higgs from the Bottom-Up: probing flavor at the LHC,” JHEP 11 (2022) 112, arXiv:2206.01761 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[110]
Attention Is All You Need,
A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention Is All You Need,” in 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 6, 2017. arXiv:1706.03762 [cs.CL]
2017 arXiv
-
[111]
by https://cds.cern.ch/record/2906774/files/ATL-PHYS- SLIDE-2024-335.pdf and https://cds.cern.ch/record/2891112/files/ATL-PHYS- SLIDE-2024-024.pdf
See slides e.g. by https://cds.cern.ch/record/2906774/files/ATL-PHYS- SLIDE-2024-335.pdf and https://cds.cern.ch/record/2891112/files/ATL-PHYS- SLIDE-2024-024.pdf
2024
-
[112]
Run 3 performance and advances in heavy-flavor jet tagging in CMS,
CMS Collaboration, U. Sarkar, “Run 3 performance and advances in heavy-flavor jet tagging in CMS,” PoS ICHEP2024 (2025) 992, arXiv:2412.05863 [hep-ex]
2025 arXiv
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.