Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 128 references

Three-body production can outdo pair production for doubly charged Higgs bosons at e+e- colliders, enabling 5 sigma discovery in the four-lepton channel.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:29 UTC pith:4QUQ34OP

load-bearing objection A useful, competent 2→3 production study for H±± at e+e− colliders; the discovery claim rests on an EWPO mass-splitting assumption that depends entirely on the authors' own earlier calculation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.19866 v2 pith:4QUQ34OP submitted 2026-02-23 hep-ph

Probing Doubly Charged Higgs Bosons with Three-Body Associated Production at Future e^+e^- Colliders

Brahim Ait-Ouazghour , Abdesslam Arhrib , Rachid Benbrik , Mohammed Boukidi , Mohamed Chabab , Khalid Goure , Stefano Moretti This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords doubly charged Higgstype-II seesawtwo-Higgs-doublet modele+e- collidersthree-body productionfour-lepton signatureelectroweak precision observablesmass splitting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that a doubly charged Higgs boson H++ in the type-II seesaw extension of the two-Higgs-doublet model can be discovered at future e+e- colliders through 2-to-3 body associated production, not just through the conventional pair-production channel. The two processes e+e- -> H++ H1- H1- and e+e- -> H++ H1- W- can exceed the usual e+e- -> H++ H-- followed by H++ decay rate over wide regions of the model's allowed parameter space, reaching cross sections up to about 100 fb at center-of-mass energies of 500-1500 GeV. This becomes possible because the model's second doublet relaxes the electroweak precision bound on the mass splitting, so H++ can be much heavier than the lighter singly charged state H1+. A detector-level study of the four-lepton plus missing transverse energy signature shows that 5 sigma discovery is achievable at 1000-1500 GeV with integrated luminosities in the few inverse femtobarn range, even with 10% systematic uncertainties on the background.

Core claim

In the 2HDMcT, the additional doublet's contributions to the oblique parameters relax the conventional minimal-triplet-model bound on the mass splitting between H++ and H1+, allowing H++ to be hundreds of GeV heavier. This opens the decays H++ -> H1+ W+ and H++ -> H1+ H1+ and makes the 2-to-3 processes e+e- -> H++ H1- H1- and e+e- -> H++ H1- W- kinematically accessible. The authors compute the full tree-level cross sections after a scan subject to theoretical consistency and current collider, flavor, and electroweak constraints. They find that these 2-to-3 rates can exceed the conventional e+e- -> H++ H-- followed by decay by more than a factor of two, even when those decays are kinematicall

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two 2-to-3 production channels e+e- -> H++ H1- H1- and e+e- -> H++ H1- W-, which are driven by the trilinear scalar vertex H++ H1- H1- and the gauge-scalar vertex H++ H1- W-. The key enabling condition is a large mass gap m(H++) - m(H1+), made possible by the model's extra contributions to the S and T parameters, which kinematically opens these channels and makes the cascade decays H++ -> H1+ H1+ or H1+ W+ the preferred discovery route. The analysis then uses the four-lepton-plus-missing-transverse-energy signature from leptonic tau and W decays, with sequential cuts (b-jet veto, leading-lepton rapidity and pT, missing energy) to suppress the multiboson and top ba

Load-bearing premise

The whole scenario rests on the claim that the second doublet's contributions to the electroweak precision observables relax the usual bound on the H++ to H1+ mass splitting, allowing H++ to be much heavier than H1+; if that computation is wrong or the true splittings are small, the 2-to-3 channels are kinematically suppressed and the discovery claim collapses.

What would settle it

An independent, publicly checkable one-loop computation of the oblique parameters S and T for the four benchmark points, compared with the current global electroweak fit, would settle whether the large H++ to H1+ mass splittings are actually allowed; the paper leans on a single earlier calculation for this relaxation. Experimentally, if a future e+e- run at 1000-1500 GeV with about 1.5 ab-1 records no excess in the four-lepton plus missing energy final state at the predicted rates, the central claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The 2-to-3 processes e+e- -> H++ H1- H1- and e+e- -> H++ H1- W- can exceed the conventional H++ H-- pair-production-plus-decay rate by more than a factor of two over wide regions of the allowed parameter space, once the H++ -> H1+ H1+ and H++ -> H1+ W+ decays are kinematically open.
  • At 1000 GeV, the H++ H1- H1- channel reaches a discovery significance of about 26 with 500 fb-1 and about 36 with 1.5 ab-1 at 5% systematics; the H++ H1- W- channel reaches roughly 5 to 7 for the same luminosities, so at least one of the two channels is typically above 5 sigma.
  • At 1500 GeV, the H++ H1- H1- channel remains above 9 sigma with 500 fb-1 even with 10% systematics, while the H++ H1- W- channel needs roughly 1.5 ab-1 to exceed 5 sigma.
  • The production cross sections are dominated by gauge couplings, so the conclusion is not tied to the type-X Yukawa choice; the Yukawa texture enters mainly through the decays of the lighter singly charged Higgs.
  • Beam polarization is expected to improve the signal cross sections and thus further enhance the discovery potential, as the authors note.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the production vertices are gauge couplings, the same two 2-to-3 channels should also dominate in other charged-triplet models whose precision constraints permit large mass gaps; the 2HDMcT is used here as an existence proof rather than a unique host.
  • The cut-flow shows that the full 2-to-3 amplitude exceeds the factorized pair-production-times-branching-ratio estimate by more than a factor of two even where H++ -> H1+ H1+ is open, implying that off-shell and interference effects are non-negligible and should be included in any reinterpretation of these rates.
  • A natural extension is to replace the sequential cuts with a multivariate classifier; the kinematic separation shown in the distributions suggests that machine-learning discriminants could lower the luminosity needed for 5 sigma in the weaker H++ H1- W- channel.
  • If the electroweak-precision relaxation of the mass splitting is not robust, the same final states could still be produced at lower rates via off-shell H1+, so an independent computation of S and T would be the fastest way to bound the claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies doubly charged Higgs production in the 2HDMcT at future e+e− colliders, focusing on the 2→3 channels e+e−→H±±H1∓H1∓ and e+e−→H±±H1∓W∓. The authors scan the parameter space under theoretical, EWPO, flavor, LFV, and collider constraints; compute tree-level cross sections with FormCalc; and claim wide regions where the 2→3 rates exceed e+e−→H++H−− pair production followed by H±±→H1±H1± or H±±→H1±W±, reaching O(10^2) fb. They then present a Delphes-level 4ℓ+ETmiss analysis for four benchmark points at √s=1000 and 1500 GeV and report that 5σ discovery is achievable with integrated luminosities in the few ab^-1 range.

Significance. If the underlying model premise is granted, this is an interesting and comparatively unexplored production topology for doubly charged scalars at lepton colliders. The paper uses a standard simulation chain, provides explicit cut-flow tables and a clear significance formula, and considers the dominant multiboson and top backgrounds; these are concrete strengths. The main physics case, however, is conditional on mass splittings m_H++−m_H1± much larger than the HTM bound Δm≲40 GeV, and that relaxation rests on the authors' own earlier EWPO calculation. The manuscript does not independently re-derive or numerically validate that calculation, so the central discovery claim is not fully self-contained.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I and Sec. III (EWPO), Eq. (16)] The proposed 4ℓ+ETmiss signature in Sec. IV.B requires the decays H±±→H1±H1± and H±±→H1±W± to be kinematically open, i.e. m_H++−m_H1± must be large. In the HTM this splitting is bounded by Δm≲40 GeV from EWPOs, and the paper asserts that the extra 2HDMcT states relax this bound, citing only the authors' own Ref. [85]. Equation (16) gives the χ² test but no oblique-parameter computation or independent check of [85]. This is a load-bearing premise: if the EWPO-allowed splittings are actually much smaller, the BPs and the detector-level conclusions lose their kinematic basis. Please include a self-contained derivation or an independent numerical implementation of ΔS, ΔT, ΔU in the 2HDMcT, and show the resulting allowed m_H++−m_H1± distribution for the scan and for the BPs.
  2. [Table IV and Sec. IV.B] The benchmark points used for the detector-level analysis are not fully specified. Table IV lists couplings, angles, tanβ, vt, and σ(fb), but omits the physical masses m_H±±, m_H1±, and m_H2± and hence the mass splittings that control whether H±±→H1±H1± and H±±→H1±W± are open. Without these masses and the relevant branching ratios, the BPs are not reproducible and the threshold conditions behind the 4ℓ signature cannot be verified. Please add the mass spectrum and decay widths/BRs for each BP.
  3. [Figs. 6 and 7] The central quantitative claim—that the 2→3 channels exceed pair production followed by H±± decay—is presented in a way that is difficult to audit. The y-axis is labeled 2×σ(e+e−→H++H1−H1−) while the reference curve is labeled only as e+e−→H++H−−. The text says the comparison is with pair production 'followed by' H±±→H1±H1± or H±±→H1±W±, but the figure legend does not state whether the 2→2 curve is multiplied by the corresponding branching ratio. The factor 2 is also unexplained. Please define all plotted quantities explicitly so that the 2→2 and 2→3 rates are compared on equal footing.
  4. [Abstract and Table XIII] The abstract states that 5σ discovery is achievable 'even in the presence of realistic systematic uncertainties,' but Table XIII shows this is not uniform: for δ=10%, BP1 and BP3 never reach 5σ in the luminosity range shown, while BP2 and BP4 reach it well below 500 fb^-1. Also, the 'underlined results' denoting clear discovery are not defined by a significance threshold. Please specify the threshold (presumably Z≥5), clarify for which δ and which channels the discovery claim holds, and consider stating the reach for a representative allowed parameter-space fraction rather than only for the four favorable BPs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Summary] 'In Fig. XIII' should read 'In Table XIII'.
  2. [Sec. IV.B.c] The bulleted background list omits W+W−γ, although W+W−γ appears in Tables IX–XII and in Figs. 8–9. Either add it to the list or remove it from the tables.
  3. [Sec. IV.B.b] The 4ℓ signature assumes H1±→τ±ν and leptonic τ decays; this is type-X dependent. Please state explicitly that the signal rates rely on H1±→τν dominance and give the assumed branching ratios.
  4. [Sec. IV.A] The four BPs are selected in regions where the 2→3 rates dominate. This is acceptable for a first sensitivity study, but the phrase 'over wide regions' would be stronger if accompanied by a statement of what fraction of the allowed parameter space satisfies Z≥5 at a given luminosity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Cross-section results are first-principles, but the discovery claim depends on load-bearing self-cited EWPO relaxation (Ref. [85]) permitting large m_H++ - m_H1± splittings used in the benchmark and 5σ projections.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. I (Introduction) and Sec. III (EWPO constraints)]
    "In the latter, in fact, the mass splitting ∆m=m_H++ −m_H+ is strongly constrained by EWPOs to satisfy ∆m≲40GeV [33,34,61], which prevents such cascade decays from being kinematically accessible. In contrast, the additional Higgs states of the 2HDMcT yield extra contributions to the oblique parameters, relaxing these restrictions and permitting substantially larger mass splittings."

    The 4ℓ+E_T^miss discovery analysis (Sec. IV.B, Tabs. IX-XIII) relies on BPs with m_H++−m_H1± large enough for H±±→H1±H1± and H±±→H1±W±. In the HTM this is forbidden by Δm≲40 GeV; the paper relaxes the bound solely by citing the authors' own calculation [85], which is not reproduced here. The load-bearing premise 'large splittings are EWPO-allowed' therefore reduces to that self-citation. If [85] were erroneous or inapplicable, the BPs and the quoted 5σ projections lose kinematic support. The cross-section computation itself is not circular, but the parameter-space validity underpinning the headline result is inherited from the authors' own prior work.

full rationale

The core 2→3 cross-section calculations (Figs. 6-7) are tree-level Feynman-diagram computations from the stated 2HDMcT Lagrangian with FormCalc/MadGraph; they do not fit or redefine the quantities they predict. The comparison with e+e−→H++H−−×BR is numerical, and the statement that full 2→3 amplitudes exceed the factorized 2→2×BR narrow-width estimate is a genuine off-shell/interference effect, not an identity. The benchmark points are selected from the allowed scan after inspecting the cross-sections; this is illustrative selection rather than the kind of fitted-input-called-prediction circularity the audit targets. The one genuinely load-bearing external input is the EWPO relaxation allowing large m_H++−m_H1±, justified exclusively by Ref. [85], authored by two of the present authors. That is a self-citation dependency on a premise essential to the signal (H±±→H1±H1±/W± thresholds); the paper neither reproduces the oblique-parameter calculation nor offers an independent check. I therefore score it 4: central claim has independent model content, but the key parameter-space premise is carried by the authors' own prior result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; H±± and the other scalars are part of the pre-existing 2HDMcT framework. The central claim depends mainly on four hand-picked benchmark points, zero Majorana phases, and the authors' earlier EWPO calculation that allows large mass splittings.

free parameters (3)
  • BP1-BP4 benchmark points = Tab. IV
    Hand-selected from the scan where the 2-to-3 channels dominate; all discovery significances are computed only at these four points, so the headline sensitivity inherits these choices.
  • Majorana phases Phi1, Phi2 = 0 (fixed)
    Set to zero in the neutrino mass matrix scan. LFV constraints such as mu->e gamma and mu->3e depend on these phases, so fixing them to zero can relax the allowed parameter space.
  • Systematic uncertainty delta = 5% and 10% assumed
    A flat fractional background uncertainty in Eq. (34); the 'realistic systematic uncertainties' claim depends on this ad hoc choice.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The 2HDMcT Lagrangian, scalar potential, and type-II seesaw relation m_nu = sqrt(2) Y v_delta define the model.
    Eqs. (1)-(8). The entire signal exists only if this scalar-triplet extension is realized in nature.
  • domain assumption The EWPO calculation of Ref. [85] permits mass splittings m_H++ - m_H1+ well above the HTM's ~40 GeV bound.
    Load-bearing premise: large splittings are needed for the 2-to-3 channels to be kinematically relevant. This calculation comes from the authors' own earlier paper and is not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption Type-X Yukawa texture and the assumed H1+ decay pattern into tau plus lepton and W-plus-neutrino.
    The 4-lepton + missing energy signal requires H1+ -> tau nu -> lepton and leptonic W decays. Other Yukawa textures would change the branching ratios and the sensitivity.
  • domain assumption The Delphes ILCgen card approximates the future detector response.
    Section IV.B; real ILC or CLIC detector performance may differ from this default parameterization.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23796 in / 13252 out tokens · 132354 ms · 2026-08-02T21:29:02.608892+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the discovery prospects for a doubly charged Higgs boson $H^{\pm\pm}$ in the 2-Higgs doublet model with type-II seesaw at future $e^+e^-$ colliders. Focusing on the three-body channels $e^+e^- \to H^{\pm\pm}H_1^{\mp}H_1^{\mp}$ and $e^+e^- \to H^{\pm\pm}H_1^{\mp}W^{\mp}$, we scan the model parameter space subject to theoretical consistency as well as current collider, flavor and electroWeak precision observables (EWPOs). We find that these $2\to3$ production modes can exceed the conventional pair-production rate $e^+e^- \to H^{++}H^{--}$, followed by $H^{\pm\pm}\to H_1^{\pm}H_1^{\pm}$ and $H^{\pm}_1W^{\pm}$ decays, over wide regions, particularly above the $H^{\pm\pm}\to H_1^{\pm}H_1^{\pm}$ and $H^{\pm\pm}\to H_1^{\pm}W^{\pm}$ thresholds, reaching cross sections up to ${\cal O}(10^2)$~fb for $\sqrt{s}=500$--$1500$~GeV. A detector-level analysis of the $4\ell + E_T^{\text{miss}}$ signature, including dominant multiboson and top quark backgrounds, shows that discovery sensitivity is achievable for $\sqrt{s}=1000$-$1500$~GeV with integrated luminosities in the few ab$^{-1}$ range, even in the presence of realistic systematic uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19866 by Abdesslam Arhrib, Brahim Ait-Ouazghour, Khalid Goure, Mohamed Chabab, Mohammed Boukidi, Rachid Benbrik, Stefano Moretti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Constraints on the diagonal entries of the neutrino mass matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Constraints on the off-diagonal elements entries of the neutrino mass matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Kinematic distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Kinematic distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 103 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Zwicky, Helv

    F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta6(1933), 110-127 doi:10.1007/s10714-008-0707-4

    doi:10.1007/s10714-008-0707-4 1933

  2. [2]

    After spontaneous EWSB, the Higgs doublets and triplet fields acquire their VEVs denoted by, respectively,v1,v 2 andv t, so that eleven physical Higgs states appear, namely, three CP-even neutral Higgs bosons(h 1, h2, h3), four singly charged Higgs bosons2 (H ± 1 , H± 2 ), two CP-odd neutral Higgs bosons(A1, A2), and, finally, two dou- bly charged Higgs b...

    2023

  3. [3]

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J.159(1970), 379-403 doi:10.1086/150317

    doi:10.1086/150317 1970

  4. [4]

    M.J.G.Veltman, ActaPhys.Polon.B12(1981), 437Print- 80-0851 (MICHIGAN)

    1981

  5. [5]

    A. G. Riesset al.[Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 116(1998),1009-1038doi:10.1086/300499[arXiv:astro- ph/9805201 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Crivellin and B

    A. Crivellin and B. Mellado, Nature Rev. Phys.6 (2024) no.5, 294-309 doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00703-6 [arXiv:2309.03870 [hep-ph]]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Kajita, Rev

    T. Kajita, Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) no.3, 030501

    2016

  8. [8]

    A. B. McDonald, Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) no.3, 030502

    2016

  9. [9]

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li and R. Ruiz, Front. in Phys.6(2018), 40 [arXiv:1711.02180 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979), 1566-1570

    1979

  11. [11]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67(1977), 421-428

    1977

  12. [12]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C 790927(1979), 315-321 [arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  13. [13]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.44 (1980), 912

    1980

  14. [14]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D22(1980), 2227

    1980

  15. [15]

    T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D22(1980), 2860

    1980

  16. [16]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981), 165

    1981

  17. [17]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He and G. C. Joshi, Z. Phys. C44 (1989), 441

    1989

  18. [18]

    T. Han, B. Mukhopadhyaya, Z. Si and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D76, 075013 (2007) [arXiv:0706.0441 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    A. G. Akeroyd, M. Aoki and H. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D77, 075010 (2008) [arXiv:0712.4019 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  20. [20]

    A. G. Akeroyd and C. W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D80(2009), 113010 [arXiv:0909.4419 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    A. G. Akeroyd, C. W. Chiang and N. Gaur, JHEP11(2010), 005 [arXiv:1009.2780 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    F.delAguilaandJ.A.Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl.Phys.B813, 22 (2009) [arXiv:0808.2468 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura and K. Yagyu, Phys. Rev. D85, 055007 (2012) [arXiv:1110.4625 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [24]

    C. -W. Chiang, T. Nomura and K. Tsumura, Phys. Rev. D85, 095023 (2012) [arXiv:1202.2014 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    H.Sugiyama, K.TsumuraandH.Yokoya, Phys.Lett.B717, 229 (2012) [arXiv:1207.0179 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  26. [26]

    A. G. Akeroyd, S. Moretti and H. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D 85(2012), 055026 [arXiv:1201.5047 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    E. J. Chun and P. Sharma, JHEP08(2012), 162 [arXiv:1206.6278 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    del Águila and M

    F. del Águila and M. Chala, JHEP03(2014), 027 [arXiv:1311.1510 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Kanemura, K

    S. Kanemura, K. Yagyu and H. Yokoya, Phys. Lett. B726, 316 (2013) [arXiv:1305.2383 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Kanemura, M

    S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, K. Yagyu and H. Yokoya, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.11, 115018 [arXiv:1407.6547 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Kanemura, M

    S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, H. Yokoya and K. Yagyu, PTEP 2015(2015), 051B02 [arXiv:1412.7603 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    E. J. Chun and P. Sharma, Phys. Lett. B728, 256 (2014) [arXiv:1309.6888 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    A.G.AkeroydandM.Aoki,Phys.Rev.D72,035011(2005) [hep-ph/0506176]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  34. [34]

    Melfo, M

    A. Melfo, M. Nemevsek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanovic and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D85, 055018 (2012) [arXiv:1108.4416 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Chabab, G. Moultaka, M. C. Peyranere, L. Rahili and J. Ramadan, Phys. Rev. D 84(2011), 095005 [arXiv:1105.1925 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    B487(1997), 27-42 [arXiv:hep-ph/9606311 [hep-ph]]

    K.Huitu, J.Maalampi, A.PietilaandM.Raidal, Nucl.Phys. B487(1997), 27-42 [arXiv:hep-ph/9606311 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  37. [37]

    J. F. Gunion, C. Loomis and K. T. Pitts, eConfC960625 (1996), LTH096 [arXiv:hep-ph/9610237 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  38. [38]

    Chakrabarti, D

    S. Chakrabarti, D. Choudhury, R. M. Godbole and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Phys. Lett. B434(1998), 347-353 [arXiv:hep-ph/9804297 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  39. [39]

    Muhlleitner and M

    M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D68(2003), 117701 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305288 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  40. [40]

    E. J. Chun, K. Y. Lee and S. C. Park, Phys. Lett. B566, 142 (2003) [hep-ph/0304069]; A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Chabab, G. Moultaka and L. Rahili, JHEP1204, 136 (2012) [arXiv:1112.5453 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  41. [41]

    A. G. Akeroyd and H. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D84(2011), 035010 [arXiv:1105.2209 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Dutta, R

    B. Dutta, R. Eusebi, Y. Gao, T. Ghosh and T. Kamon, Phys. Rev. D90, 055015 (2014) [arXiv:1404.0685 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Z. Kang, J. Li, T. Li, Y. Liu and G. Z. Ning, Eur. Phys. J. C 75(2015) no.12, 574 [arXiv:1404.5207 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Z. L. Han, R. Ding and Y. Liao, Phys. Rev. D91(2015), 093006 [arXiv:1502.05242 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Z.L.Han, R.DingandY.Liao, Phys.Rev.D92(2015)no.3, 033014 [arXiv:1506.08996 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Mitra, S

    M. Mitra, S. Niyogi and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) no.3, 035042 [arXiv:1611.09594 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    D. K. Ghosh, N. Ghosh, I. Saha and A. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 97(2018) no.11, 115022 [arXiv:1711.06062 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Antusch, O

    S. Antusch, O. Fischer, A. Hammad and C. Scherb, JHEP 02(2019), 157 [arXiv:1811.03476 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and Y. Zhang, JHEP10(2018), 199 [arXiv:1808.00943 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    T. B. de Melo, F. S. Queiroz and Y. Villamizar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A34(2019) no.27, 1950157 [arXiv:1909.07429 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Primulando, J

    R. Primulando, J. Julio and P. Uttayarat, JHEP08(2019), 024 [arXiv:1903.02493 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    E. J. Chun, S. Khan, S. Mandal, M. Mitra and S. Shil, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.7, 075008 [arXiv:1911.00971 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Padhan, D

    R. Padhan, D. Das, M. Mitra and A. Kumar Nayak, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.7, 075050 [arXiv:1909.10495 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    B.Fuks,M.NemevšekandR.Ruiz,Phys.Rev.D101(2020) no.7, 075022 [arXiv:1912.08975 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Cakir, New J

    O. Cakir, New J. Phys.8(2006), 145 [arXiv:hep- ph/0604183 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2006

  56. [56]

    Nomura, H

    T. Nomura, H. Okada and H. Yokoya, Nucl. Phys. B929 (2018), 193-206 [arXiv:1702.03396 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Blunier, G

    S. Blunier, G. Cottin, M. A. Díaz and B. Koch, Phys. Rev. D 95(2017) no.7, 075038 [arXiv:1611.07896 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Ghezzi, L. Panizzi, G. M. Pruna and A. Signer, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.3, 035004 [arXiv:1807.10224 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    P.Agrawal, M.Mitra, S.Niyogi, S.ShilandM.Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.1, 015024 [arXiv:1803.00677 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Ashanujjaman, K

    S. Ashanujjaman, K. Ghosh and K. Huitu, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) no.7, 075028 [arXiv:2205.14983 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    C. W. Chiang, K. Enomoto and M. Y. Liao, [arXiv:2506.17541 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  62. [62]

    Ashanujjaman and K

    S. Ashanujjaman and K. Ghosh, JHEP03(2022), 195 [arXiv:2108.10952 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Ashanujjaman, K

    S. Ashanujjaman, K. Ghosh and R. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.1, 015018 [arXiv:2211.00632 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    P. S. B. Dev, S. Khan, M. Mitra and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D 99(2019) no.11, 115015 [arXiv:1903.01431 [hep-ph]]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    X. H. Yang and Z. J. Yang, Chin. Phys. C46(2022) no.6, 063107 [arXiv:2103.11412 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    F. F. Deppisch, P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, New J. Phys.17(2015) no.7, 075019 [arXiv:1502.06541 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    T. Li, C. Y. Yao and M. Yuan, JHEP03(2023), 137 [arXiv:2301.07274 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    S. P. Maharathy and M. Mitra, Phys. Lett. B844(2023), 138105 [arXiv:2304.08732 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    Jueid, T

    A. Jueid, T. A. Chowdhury, S. Nasri and S. Saad, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.7, 075011[arXiv:2306.01255[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Belfkir, T

    M. Belfkir, T. A. Chowdhury and S. Nasri, Phys. Lett. B852 (2024), 138605 [arXiv:2307.16111 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    J. C. Jia, Z. L. Han, F. Huang, Y. Jin and H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) no.1, 015009 [arXiv:2409.16582 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Eur

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012), 2189 [arXiv:1207.2666 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    Khachatryanet al.[CMS], Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) no.5, 051801 [arXiv:1410.6315 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [74]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev, D. K. Ghosh, N. Okada and I. Saha, JHEP03(2013), 150 [erratum: JHEP05(2013), 049] [arXiv:1301.3453 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012), 2244 [arXiv:1210.5070 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  76. [76]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP03(2015), 041 [arXiv:1412.0237 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP03(2015), 041 [arXiv:1412.0237 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [77]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP08(2015), 138 [arXiv:1411.2921 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP08(2015), 138 [arXiv:1411.2921 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [78]

    Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) no.3, 199 [arXiv:1710.09748 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) no.8, 081801 [arXiv:1709.05822 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP06(2021), 146 [arXiv:2101.11961 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP06(2021), 146 [arXiv:2101.11961 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.