pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04233 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Indications for New Higgs Bosons

Andreas Crivellin , Saiyad Ashanujjaman , Sumit Banik , Siddharth P. Maharathy , Guglielmo Coloretti
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords new Higgs bosons95 GeV scalar152 GeV scalarSU(2) tripletLHC excessestop quark distributionsDrell-Yan productionH± to WZ
0
0 comments X

The pith

LHC excesses point to new Higgs bosons at 95 GeV and 152 GeV, with the heavier one fitting an SU(2) triplet scalar.

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

The paper reviews multiple LHC excesses that together suggest two additional scalar particles at masses near 95 GeV and 152 GeV. These appear most clearly in the diphoton channel but receive support from weaker-than-expected limits in other decay modes. The production signature of the 152 GeV candidate favors Drell-Yan production of an SU(2)_L triplet scalar with zero hypercharge. The same model predicts a top-quark decay t to H± b followed by H± to WZ that aligns with existing data preferences and could contaminate top-quark differential distributions.

Core claim

Current LHC data contains indications for new scalar bosons with masses of approximately 95 GeV and 152 GeV. The 152 GeV state is dominantly produced in association with leptons, b-jets and missing energy, consistent with Drell-Yan production of an SU(2)_L triplet scalar with hypercharge Y=0. This same particle is predicted to decay via H± to WZ after being produced in t to H± b, a channel that current measurements prefer over the Standard Model alone and that may explain tensions in top-quark distributions.

What carries the argument

An SU(2)_L triplet scalar with hypercharge Y=0, produced via Drell-Yan and decaying to WZ after arising from t to H± b.

If this is right

  • The triplet model predicts t to H± b with H± to WZ, a signature that current data already favors over pure Standard Model expectations.
  • This new decay mode can contaminate differential top-quark distributions and account for the observed tensions with Standard Model predictions.
  • The 95 GeV candidate, whose production mechanism remains unclear, could belong to the same extended scalar sector that addresses other Standard Model shortcomings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation would motivate dedicated searches for the triplet scalar in associated production with leptons and jets at higher luminosities.
  • The same scalar sector could be tested by measuring the branching ratio of the 152 GeV state into other final states such as WW or ZZ.
  • Reinterpretation of existing top-pair samples for the specific H± to WZ signature offers a near-term way to test the contamination hypothesis without new data.

Load-bearing premise

The observed excesses in the diphoton channel and the weaker-than-expected limits in other modes are caused by real new scalar particles rather than statistical fluctuations or background misestimation.

What would settle it

If future LHC data in the diphoton channel at 95 GeV and 152 GeV shows the excesses to be consistent with background-only expectations, or if dedicated searches for t to H± b with H± to WZ find no excess beyond Standard Model ttZ, the indications would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04233 by Andreas Crivellin, Guglielmo Coloretti, Saiyad Ashanujjaman, Siddharth P. Maharathy, Sumit Banik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Higgs sector is not only at the heart of the problems of the SM; extensions of it can also solve these issues, and experimental evidence for Dark Matter and Neutrino masses points towards new scalars. Furthermore, there are anomalies, i.e. statistically significant indications for new Higgs bosons (particularly in the di-photon channel at 95 GeV and 152 GeV. 1. Introduction The Standard Model (SM) of p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Production cross-section for 𝑝 𝑝 → Δ 0Δ ± and 𝑝 𝑝 → Δ ±Δ ∓ as a function of the triplet mass. Right: Dominant branching ratios of the charged component Δ ± as a function of its mass. Furthermore, new scalars (such as supersymmetric top partners) can solve the hierarchy problem and a slow-rolling scalar field can lead to inflation. Finally, anomalies [8], i.e., indications for new physics in the form … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Feynman diagram showing the Drell-Yan production process 𝑝 𝑝 → 𝑊∗ → 𝐻 ±𝐻 with 𝐻 → 𝛾𝛾 and 𝐻 ± → 𝑡𝑏, 𝐻 ± → 𝜏𝜈 and 𝐻 ± → 𝑊 𝑍. Right: Feynman diagram for 𝑝 𝑝 → 𝑡𝑡¯ with 𝑡 → 𝐻 ±𝑏 and 𝐻 ± → 𝑊±𝑍, leading to a 𝑡𝑡𝑍¯ -like signature. w.r.t. to a hypothetical SM Higgs of the same mass of 𝜇 exp 𝛾𝛾 = 0.27 ± 0.1 , 𝜇 exp 𝑏𝑏 = 0.12 ± 0.06 , 𝜇 exp 𝜏 𝜏 = 0.3 ± 0.3 , 𝜇 exp 𝑊𝑊 = 15 ± 7 . (1) 2.2 The 152 GeV Candidate Fi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Statistical combination of the 8 relevant channels including their correlations within the ΔSM resulting in a significance of ≈ 4𝜎 at 𝑚Δ ≈ 152 GeV. Right: Preferred range for 𝑣Δ from 𝑡𝑡𝑍¯ measurement interpreted within the ΔSM model as a function of 𝑚𝐻± . The gray band is excluded by stau searches and the area above the blue (red) line by LHC searches for 𝑡 → 𝐻 ± with 𝐻 ± → 𝜏𝜈(𝑐𝑠) at 95% CL. The ligh… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Feynman diagrams showing the leading SM contribution to top pair production and decay as well as the NP signal in our benchmark model, contaminating the measurement of 𝑡𝑡¯ differential distributions. In view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Preferred regions from the 𝑡𝑡¯ differential distributions (red) as a function of 𝑚𝑆 and the total cross section 𝑝 𝑝 → 𝐻 → 𝑆𝑆′ → 𝑊𝑊 𝑏𝑏 assuming 𝑆 ′ to be SM-like and Br[𝑆 → 𝑊𝑊] = 100%. The blue region is preferred by the 95 GeV 𝛾𝛾 signal strength. Note that if one aims at explaining the 𝑡𝑡¯ differential distributions in this setup, one predicts the correct di-photon signal strength for the 95 GeV Higgs cand… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

After the Higgs discovery, the question of whether particles beyond those of the Standard Model exist is more pressing than ever. In this context, the scalar sector is particularly promising, since it lies at the core of the internal problems of the Standard Model, while extensions of it allow us to resolve them and can provide explanations for Dark matter, non-zero neutrino masses, inflation etc. In these proceedings, we review the indications for new Higgs bosons at the electroweak scale with masses of $\approx$95 GeV and $\approx$152 GeV. These excesses are most significant in the di-photon channel but are supported by weaker-than-expected limits in other decay modes. While for the 95 GeV candidate the production mechanism is mostly unknown, the (hypothetical) 152 GeV Higgs is dominantly produced in association with leptons, $(b)$ jets and missing energy, pointing towards the Drell-Yan production of an $SU(2)_L$ triplet with $Y=0$. Interestingly, this model predicts $t\to H^\pm b$ with $H^\pm\to WZ$, which resembles the signature of $t\bar{t}Z$ production in the Standard Model and is in fact preferred by current data. Finally, we investigate the possibility that the significant tensions between the Standard Model predictions and the measurements in differential top-quark distributions are due to contamination from new physics involving both the 152 GeV and the 95 GeV scalar.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews indications for new Higgs bosons at approximately 95 GeV and 152 GeV from existing LHC data, primarily di-photon excesses supported by weaker-than-expected limits in other channels. It proposes that the 152 GeV state is an SU(2)_L triplet scalar with Y=0 produced via Drell-Yan, and explores how this plus the 95 GeV scalar could explain tensions in top-quark differential distributions through t to H± b, H± to WZ contamination.

Significance. If substantiated, these indications would point to BSM scalar physics at the electroweak scale, with the triplet model offering concrete predictions for production and decays that could be tested at the LHC. The link to top-quark anomalies provides a potential unifying explanation. However, the significance is limited by reliance on post-hoc interpretation of published excesses without new data or rigorous statistical synthesis.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract: The assertion of 'indications' for new Higgs bosons rests on di-photon excesses at 95 and 152 GeV without any reported local/global significances, p-values, or look-elsewhere corrections. This leaves the step from excess to particle indication unquantified and vulnerable to background or fluctuation interpretations.
  2. Section discussing the 152 GeV candidate: The SU(2)_L triplet Y=0 assignment is motivated by matching the associated production with leptons, (b) jets and missing energy, but this creates circularity because the production mode is selected to fit the same excesses used to identify the candidate, without independent cross-validation or alternative models tested.
  3. Section on top-quark distribution tensions: The claim that the new scalars contaminate top measurements via t to H± b with H± to WZ and are 'preferred by current data' lacks a quantitative statistical comparison (e.g., chi-squared or likelihood ratio) to the SM hypothesis or an assessment of selection biases from fitting the model to the excesses first.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The phrase 'weaker-than-expected limits in other decay modes' should specify the channels and cite the exact LHC analyses referenced.
  2. Notation: The hypercharge assignment Y=0 for the triplet could be defined more explicitly with the full quantum numbers to avoid ambiguity in the model description.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments provided. We address each major comment in turn below, proposing revisions where they strengthen the presentation without altering the core content of this review of existing indications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The assertion of 'indications' for new Higgs bosons rests on di-photon excesses at 95 and 152 GeV without any reported local/global significances, p-values, or look-elsewhere corrections. This leaves the step from excess to particle indication unquantified and vulnerable to background or fluctuation interpretations.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicitly referencing the significances reported in the original experimental publications. We will revise the abstract and introduction to include the local significances (approximately 3σ in the di-photon channel for the 95 GeV excess and 2–3σ for the 152 GeV candidate, as published by ATLAS and CMS) and note that global significances are not always provided in these searches due to the look-elsewhere effect. This clarifies the indicative nature of the excesses while remaining faithful to the published data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section discussing the 152 GeV candidate: The SU(2)_L triplet Y=0 assignment is motivated by matching the associated production with leptons, (b) jets and missing energy, but this creates circularity because the production mode is selected to fit the same excesses used to identify the candidate, without independent cross-validation or alternative models tested.

    Authors: The triplet assignment follows directly from the observed event topologies in the excesses, which feature associated leptons, jets, and missing energy consistent with Drell-Yan production of a neutral Y=0 triplet. This is a standard model-building approach rather than circular reasoning. To address the concern, we will add a short discussion of why singlet or doublet alternatives fit the associated production signatures less naturally, thereby providing some independent motivation and highlighting testable predictions for future data. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Section on top-quark distribution tensions: The claim that the new scalars contaminate top measurements via t to H± b with H± to WZ and are 'preferred by current data' lacks a quantitative statistical comparison (e.g., chi-squared or likelihood ratio) to the SM hypothesis or an assessment of selection biases from fitting the model to the excesses first.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current phrasing is qualitative and that a dedicated statistical comparison lies beyond the scope of this proceedings paper. We will revise the relevant section to present the possible contamination as a suggestive explanation for the observed tensions, remove the claim that it is 'preferred by current data', and explicitly state that a full likelihood analysis accounting for selection biases would be required in future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on external LHC excesses and model interpretation without self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper reviews reported di-photon excesses at ~95 and ~152 GeV from external LHC analyses, selects an SU(2)_L triplet model for the 152 GeV state because its Drell-Yan production signature matches the observed associated production with leptons/jets/MET, and then checks whether the model's additional t→H±b, H±→WZ decay can alleviate top-quark distribution tensions. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown to make any 'prediction' equivalent to the input data by construction. The model choice is data-motivated but the subsequent consistency checks with top distributions constitute an independent test rather than a tautology. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the Standard Model is otherwise correct and that the reported excesses are not artifacts; the triplet model introduces one new scalar field without independent evidence beyond fitting the production signature.

free parameters (1)
  • masses of the new scalars
    The values 95 GeV and 152 GeV are taken from the locations of the observed excesses rather than derived from first principles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model is the correct low-energy theory except for the addition of these new scalars.
    Invoked throughout the discussion of extensions resolving SM problems.
  • ad hoc to paper The excesses are not due to background mismodeling or statistical fluctuation.
    Required for interpreting the di-photon bumps and weaker limits as signals.
invented entities (2)
  • SU(2)_L triplet scalar with Y=0 at 152 GeV no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain the associated production with leptons, jets, and missing energy while predicting t to H± b decay.
    Postulated to match the observed signature; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the current data fit is provided.
  • 95 GeV scalar no independent evidence
    purpose: To account for the di-photon excess whose production mechanism remains unspecified.
    Introduced to organize the 95 GeV data hint; production mode unknown.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5582 in / 1688 out tokens · 66992 ms · 2026-05-08T17:35:54.157184+00:00 · methodology

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

53 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. L. Workmanet al.[Particle Data Group], PTEP2022(2022), 083C01

    2022

  2. [2]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B716(2012), 1-29 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B716(2012), 30-61 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967), 32-35

    1967

  5. [5]

    G.Degrassi,S.DiVita,J.Elias-Miro,J.R.Espinosa,G.F.Giudice,G.IsidoriandA.Strumia, JHEP08(2012), 098 [arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B155(1985), 36

    1985

  7. [7]

    Schechter and J

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

    1980

  8. [8]

    6 (2024) 294 [arXiv:2309.03870]

    A. Crivellin and B. Mellado, Nature Rev. Phys.6(2024) no.5, 294-309 [arXiv:2309.03870 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    J. M. Langford [ATLAS and CMS], PoSLHCP2020(2021), 136

    2021

  10. [10]

    [ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2021-053

    2021

  11. [11]

    Barateet al.[LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL], Phys

    R. Barateet al.[LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL], Phys. Lett. B565(2003), 61-75 [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2003

  12. [12]

    [CMS], CMS-PAS-HIG-20-002

  13. [13]

    [ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2023-035

    2023

  14. [14]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], JHEP07(2023), 073 [arXiv:2208.02717 [hep-ex]]

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], JHEP07(2023), 073 [arXiv:2208.02717 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP08(2022), 175 [arXiv:2201.08269 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP08(2022), 175 [arXiv:2201.08269 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Eur

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.7, 667 [arXiv:2206.09466 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D108(2023), 032005 [arXiv:2207.00338 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Coloretti, A

    G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. Bhattacharya and B. Mellado, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.3, 035026 [arXiv:2302.07276 [hep-ph]]. 8 Indications for New Higgs BosonsAndreas Crivellin

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. E. Dahbi, Y. Fang, M. Kumar and B. Mellado, [arXiv:2306.17209 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  20. [20]

    Berezhiani and M

    O.Fischer,B.Mellado,S.Antusch,E.Bagnaschi,S.Banerjee,G.Beck,B.Belfatto,M.Bellis, Z. Berezhiani and M. Blanke,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) no.8, 665 [arXiv:2109.06065 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    von Buddenbrock, N

    S. von Buddenbrock, N. Chakrabarty, A. S. Cornell, D. Kar, M. Kumar, T. Mandal, B. Mel- lado, B. Mukhopadhyaya, R. G. Reed and X. Ruan, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) no.10, 580 [arXiv:1606.01674 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    von Buddenbrock, A

    S. von Buddenbrock, A. S. Cornell, A. Fadol, M. Kumar, B. Mellado and X. Ruan, J. Phys. G 45(2018) no.11, 115003 [arXiv:1711.07874 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Buddenbrock, A

    S. Buddenbrock, A. S. Cornell, Y. Fang, A. Fadol Mohammed, M. Kumar, B. Mellado and K. G. Tomiwa, JHEP10(2019), 157 [arXiv:1901.05300 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    von Buddenbrock, R

    S. von Buddenbrock, R. Ruiz and B. Mellado, Phys. Lett. B811(2020), 135964 [arXiv:2009.00032 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Crivellin, Y

    A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, O. Fischer, S. Bhattacharya, M. Kumar, E. Malwa, B. Mellado, N.Rapheeha,X.RuanandQ.Sha,Phys.Rev.D108(2023)no.11,115031[arXiv:2109.02650 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    [ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2020-026

    2020

  27. [27]

    G.Aadet al.[ATLAS],Phys.Rev.Lett.125(2020)no.6,061802[arXiv:2004.04545[hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP10(2021), 013 [arXiv:2104.13240 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP10(2021), 013 [arXiv:2104.13240 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP07(2021), 027 [arXiv:2103.06956 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) no.6, 061801 [arXiv:2003.10866 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP09(2018), 046 [arXiv:1806.04771 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP11(2018), 152 [arXiv:1806.05996 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07(2023), 176 [arXiv:2301.10486 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07(2023), 176 [arXiv:2301.10486 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP08(2024), 164 [arXiv:2405.20040 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP08(2024), 164 [arXiv:2405.20040 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Lieberman, M. Kumar, A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, R. Mazini and B. Mellado, [arXiv:2503.16245 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Fileviez Perez, H

    P. Fileviez Perez, H. H. Patel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D79(2009), 055024 [arXiv:0811.3957 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2009

  37. [37]

    Banik and A

    S. Banik and A. Crivellin, JHEP10(2024), 203 [arXiv:2407.06267 [hep-ph]]. 9 Indications for New Higgs BosonsAndreas Crivellin

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Butterworth, J

    J. Butterworth, J. Heeck, S. H. Jeon, O. Mattelaer and R. Ruiz, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.7, 075020 [arXiv:2210.13496 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], JHEP02(2025), 177 [arXiv:2410.23475 [hep-ex]]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], JHEP02(2025), 177 [arXiv:2410.23475 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07(2024), 163 [arXiv:2312.04450 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07(2024), 163 [arXiv:2312.04450 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    S.Ashanujjaman,A.Crivellin,S.P.MaharathyandB.Mellado,[arXiv:2509.07094[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.2, 153 [arXiv:2407.10096 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.7, 072006 [arXiv:2412.17584 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Amorosoet al.[LHC-TeV MW Working Group], Eur

    S. Amorosoet al.[LHC-TeV MW Working Group], Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.5, 451 [arXiv:2308.09417 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  46. [46]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.1, 012011 [arXiv:2207.02254 [hep- ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    S.Ashanujjaman,S.Banik,G.Coloretti,A.Crivellin,S.P.MaharathyandB.Mellado,JHEP 04(2025), 003 [arXiv:2411.18618 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07(2023), 141 [arXiv:2303.15340 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07(2023), 141 [arXiv:2303.15340 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    127(2021) no.6, 062001 [arXiv:2012.14267 [hep-ph]]

    J.Mazzitelli,P.F.Monni,P.Nason,E.Re,M.WiesemannandG.Zanderighi,Phys.Rev.Lett. 127(2021) no.6, 062001 [arXiv:2012.14267 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    B. Fuks, A. Hossain and J. Keaveney, Phys. Lett. B873(2026), 140179 [arXiv:2511.02040 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Banik, G

    S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin and B. Mellado, JHEP01(2025), 155 [arXiv:2308.07953 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Coloretti, A

    G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin and B. Mellado, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.7, 073001 [arXiv:2312.17314 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Inoue, G

    S. Inoue, G. Ovanesyan and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D93(2016), 015013 [arXiv:1508.05404 [hep-ph]]. 10

    work page arXiv 2016