Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 67 references

In the NB-LSSM the Higgs decay h → bs can still reach branching ratios of order 10^{-5} after B̄ → Xsγ and Higgs constraints, far above the Standard Model.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 13:59 UTC pith:OLVEWMPK

load-bearing objection Honest NB-LSSM scan that puts Br(h→bs) at ~10^{-5} after B→Xsγ, but only inside a truncated loop set that omits the usual gluino–down-squark pieces. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23862 v1 pith:OLVEWMPK submitted 2026-07-26 hep-ph

The Higgs boson decay h rightarrow bs in the NB-LSSM

Cai Guo , Xing-Xing Dong , Zhan Cao , Song Gao , Shu-Min Zhao , Tai-Fu Feng This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.60.Jv12.15.Lk13.35.-r
keywords Flavor transitionBranching ratioBeyond Standard ModelNB-LSSMh → bsB̄ → XsγsupersymmetryFCNC
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 examines the rare flavor-violating Higgs decay h → bs inside the next-to-minimal B-L supersymmetric model. It first evaluates the closely related rare B decay B̄ → Xsγ, whose precise experimental rate tightly limits the new parameters. Under those limits, together with the 125 GeV Higgs mass and signal-strength requirements, the branching ratio Br(h → bs) remains allowed at the level of 10^{-5} (up to a few times that value). That is still orders of magnitude larger than the Standard Model expectation of 10^{-8}–10^{-7}. The size of the residual enhancement is controlled by soft squark mixings, the charged-Higgs mass, tan β and the extra couplings introduced by the model, giving a concrete target for future flavor-violating Higgs searches.

Core claim

After the experimental Br(B̄ → Xsγ) bound is imposed together with the measured 125 GeV Higgs mass and its signal strengths, the branching ratio Br(h → bs) in the NB-LSSM is still allowed at roughly 10^{-5} (reaching up to about 4 × 10^{-5} in the scanned points). This is orders of magnitude above the Standard Model prediction and is modulated by the model’s new parameters.

What carries the argument

One-loop Wilson coefficients for b → sγ and the corresponding loop amplitudes for h → bs, generated by charginos, up-squarks and charged Higgs bosons after the extended 5 × 5 Higgs and squark mass matrices of the NB-LSSM are diagonalized.

Load-bearing premise

The allowed 10^{-5} window rests on a restricted choice of soft-breaking parameters and the claim that the leading-log stop correction plus the tree-level Higgs matrix already keep the 125 GeV Higgs and its signal strengths inside experimental bounds.

What would settle it

A direct upper limit on Br(h → bs) below 10^{-6} at the LHC or a future collider, or a modest tightening of the Br(B̄ → Xsγ) measurement that excludes the remaining parameter points still allowing Br(h → bs) ~ 10^{-5}.

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

If this is right

  • Flavor-violating Higgs decays at the 10^{-5} level become a realistic experimental target for high-luminosity LHC or future lepton colliders.
  • Improved precision on B̄ → Xsγ will further shrink or close the parameter region that currently permits an enhanced h → bs rate.
  • The off-diagonal up-squark mixing δ_LL^{23} enhances h → bs more than B̄ → Xsγ, offering a diagnostic of the supersymmetric flavor structure.
  • Regions with smaller λ and larger g_B preferentially produce the larger surviving branching ratios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 10^{-5} window survives more complete soft-term scans, h → bs could be among the first observable flavor-violating Higgs modes in this model class.
  • The opposite dependence of the two processes on the singlet VEV v_S supplies a possible experimental cross-check that could separate NB-LSSM effects from generic two-Higgs-doublet contributions.
  • Repeating the same constrained analysis for h → bd and h → cu would map the full pattern of Higgs flavor violation predicted by the model.

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

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the flavor-violating decay h→bs in the NB-LSSM (an MSSM extension with a U(1)_{B-L} gauge factor, three Higgs singlets, and right-handed neutrinos), correlated with the radiative decay B̄→X_sγ. The authors compute one-loop charged-Higgs and chargino–up-squark diagrams for both processes, with up-squark 2–3 flavor mixing (δLL,RR,LR_23, Eq. 5) providing the FCNC source transmitted through the CKM rotation in the chargino loop. Wilson coefficients and loop functions are collected in Appendices A–B; the h→bs amplitude is written out explicitly (Eqs. 27–30). Numerically, a random scan (Table II) is filtered by MZ′ ≥ 5.15 TeV, the 125 GeV Higgs mass (tree-level 5×5 matrix plus leading-log stop correction, Eqs. 19–20), Higgs signal strengths, and finally the B̄→X_sγ branching ratio. The headline result is that Br(h→bs) can reach O(10^-3) from Higgs-sector constraints alone, but imposing the 1σ experimental B̄→X_sγ band compresses the surviving region to ~10^-5 (up to 4×10^-5), still orders of magnitude above the SM 10^-8–10^-7. One-dimensional slices (Figs. 4–5) identify δLL23, mQ, MH±, tanβ, tanβ′, λ, gYB, and vS as the controlling parameters; Appendix C explains the non-decoupling behavior seen in Fig. 4(f) as a correlated tanβ trajectory.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a concrete, quantitative correlation between a precision B observable and a flavor-violating Higgs decay in a well-defined ultraviolet model, identifying the parameter combinations (δLL23, MH±, tanβ, λ, gB, κ) that control a Br(h→bs) target of ~10^-5 — roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude above the SM and in principle accessible to HL-LHC or future lepton-collider flavor-violating Higgs searches. Credit is due for the explicit diagram-by-diagram amplitude (Eq. 27), the transparent up-squark mixing parametrization, the imposition of the Higgs-mass and signal-strength cuts before quoting Br(h→bs), and the documented scan ranges in Table II, which make the analysis reproducible in principle. The central mapping 'b→sγ excludes the O(10^-3) region and leaves O(10^-5)' is, however, established only within a restricted flavor structure (see major comments), and the quantitative window should be regarded as conditional until the down-squark/gluino sector and the theory uncertainties are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II-III, Eq. (5), Figs. 1-2] §II Eq. (5) / §III, Figs. 1-2: the entire quantitative claim — b→sγ pushes Br(h→bs) from ~10^-3 down to ~10^-5 — is derived from a loop set containing only charged-Higgs and chargino–up-squark diagrams. Flavor mixing is introduced exclusively in the up-squark sector (Eq. 5); no down-squark soft matrices, no gluino mass parameter, and no gluino/neutralino penguins appear anywhere. In generic SUSY flavor analyses, gluino–down-squark loops with δ^d_23 are the canonical dominant source for both b→sγ and the down-type FCNC h→bs. An O(0.01-0.1) δ^d,LL_23 with a TeV-scale gluino would shift C_{7,NP} (re-slicing the tight 1σ band of Eq. 23) and independently feed h→bs, moving the surviving window by orders of magnitude. The manuscript must state explicitly that the down-squark sector is assumed flavor-diagonal (or the gluino decoupled), justify this against current gluino/squark limits, andide —
  2. [§III.A, Eq. (23); §IV] Eq. (23) and §IV: the b→sγ constraint is imposed as a 1σ experimental band using the LO expression Br = R(|C7γ|² + N(Eγ)) with R=2.47×10^-3, while the SM input is NNLO (C7,SM=-0.3689) and no theory-uncertainty estimate is attached to the NP Wilson coefficients. The headline numbers — the narrow mQ window of 2.66-2.81 TeV and the 10^-5 ceiling on Br(h→bs) — depend directly on this tight, uncertainty-free treatment. Please quantify the impact of (i) using a 2σ band and (ii) a realistic theory error on the NP rate (or an NNLO-matched formula), and show how the Figs. 3-5 windows shift.
  3. [§II, Eqs. (19)-(20); §IV] Eqs. (19)-(20) and §IV: the 125 GeV Higgs filter is the tree-level 5×5 CP-even matrix plus only the leading-log stop/top correction, and points are accepted within 3σ of mh = 125.20±0.11 GeV — a ±0.33 GeV window far narrower than the theory error of a leading-log approximation in a singlet-extended model, where additional one-loop corrections (higgsino/singlet sectors, B-L D-term scalars) can shift mh by several GeV. Since this filter selects every surviving point in Figs. 3-5, please justify the truncation (e.g., cross-check a subset of points against a fuller one-loop mh, or widen the mh acceptance to reflect theory uncertainty) so the reader can assess how much of the allowed density is an artifact of treating the Higgs-mass theory error as zero.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Eq. (26)] Eq. (26): the unprimed C_{7,NP} sum lists C^(c) twice and omits C^(d), while the primed sum lists C'^(d) twice and omits C'^(c). Presumably a typo, but please confirm the numerical code actually includes all four diagrams (a)-(d) of Fig. 1.
  2. [Appendix C] Appendix C opens with 'We agree that...' — this reads as text carried over from a response to a referee of a companion paper. Please rewrite in manuscript voice.
  3. [§IV, item 4] Constraint 4 cites Ref. [60] (Un & Ozdal, a theory paper) for the 2 TeV squark mass limit; please cite the actual ATLAS/CMS searches. Similarly the 1.3 TeV chargino 'limit' applies only to long-lived winos with a specific mass splitting — the text partly acknowledges this, but the wording in the numbered list should match the caveat.
  4. [References] Reference list: [8] gives 'JHEP 02 (2016) 075010' with arXiv:2305.17362 (a 2023 e-print — the journal entry does not match); [10] is dated '(2028)'; [44] and [46] are the same Goertz-Pfoh paper; [61] 'Phys. Rev. D 111 (2023)' has a volume/year mismatch. Please audit the full list.
  5. [Figs. 3 and 5] Fig. 5(e),(f): axis labels are garbled/illegible in the typeset version (character-rendering artifacts); Fig. 3 caption refers to 'red, green, blue and purple regions' while the text describes ♦/•/■ symbol classes — please harmonize caption, legend, and text.
  6. [§V] Conclusion: the statement that δLL23 has 'negligible impact' on B→Xsγ is overstated — Fig. 4(a) shows Br(B→Xsγ) varying from ~3.2 to ~3.4×10^-4 as δLL23 goes 0→0.2, i.e. across the full 1σ band, while h→bs changes by a comparable relative amount (2.2→2.6×10^-5). Please rephrase to reflect that it is precisely this 'minor' variation that drives the exclusion.
  7. [§IV, Eq. (33)] Eq. (33) uses δLR23 = 0.7, i.e. a trilinear T_u,23 = 0.7 A_u at multi-TeV scale; charge/color-breaking and vacuum-stability constraints on such large off-diagonal trilinears are not discussed. A brief comment would suffice.
  8. [Eq. (32)] Γ(h) = 4.1 MeV (SM value) is used in Eq. (32) while the scanned points modify Higgs couplings within 2σ of the signal strengths; the total width therefore varies across the scan. The justification given is reasonable, but please estimate the effect on Br(h→bs) for the displayed points.
  9. [Various] Assorted typos: 'calcaulations' (§IV), 'the effective Hamilton' (§III.A), 'Such behavior originate' (§IV), 'increase linear' (§IV), 'This can not only explains' (§II).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Br(h o bs) and Br(B̄ o Xsγ) are computed from independent loop integrals over free soft parameters and then compared to external experimental benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim (that Br(h o bs) survives at ~10^{-5} after the Br(B̄ o Xsγ) cut) is obtained by evaluating explicit one-loop Wilson coefficients (Appendix A, Eqs. A1) and the h o bs amplitude (Eqs. 27–32) as functions of free soft parameters (Table II, Eq. 33), then retaining only those points that also satisfy the external experimental intervals on mh, Higgs signal strengths, and Br(B̄ o Xsγ). The experimental numbers are not outputs of the same fit; they are external constraints. Mild self-citations appear only for the definition of the NB-LSSM superpotential and soft terms, not for any uniqueness theorem or fitted functional form that would force the flavor result. The restricted diagram set (charged-Higgs + chargino–up-squark only) is a modeling choice that may affect correctness, but it does not make the numerical output algebraically identical to the inputs. Hence the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and scores at most 1.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the NB-LSSM field content and superpotential (taken as given), the validity of the one-loop effective-Hamiltonian treatment for both processes, a large set of free soft and dimensionless parameters scanned over chosen ranges, and several experimental external inputs used as hard cuts. No new particles beyond the model’s existing spectrum are invented for this calculation.

free parameters (5)
  • δLL23, δRR23, δLR23 (up-squark flavor mixings) = O(0.1–1) in surviving points
    Off-diagonal soft entries that directly source flavor violation; scanned from 10^{-3} to 1 and fixed to benchmark values in one-dimensional plots.
  • λ, λ2, κ (superpotential couplings)
    Dimensionless Higgs-singlet couplings entering mass matrices and vertices; scanned over O(1) ranges and shown to correlate with Br(h→bs).
  • gB, gYB (U(1)B-L and kinetic-mixing gauge couplings)
    New gauge couplings bounded by Z' searches but free inside 0<gB<0.86; strongly affect squark D-terms and loop amplitudes.
  • vS, tanβ, tanβ' (VEVs and ratios)
    Singlet and doublet VEV parameters controlling masses and mixings; scanned over multi-TeV and O(1–60) ranges.
  • soft masses mQ, mU, MH±, M2 and trilinear Tλ,Tκ,T2 = mQ ~ 2.66–2.81 TeV in one slice; M2=1400 GeV benchmark
    Soft-breaking parameters fixed or scanned to satisfy sparticle mass limits and Higgs mass; MH± treated as derived yet plotted as independent axis.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The NB-LSSM superpotential and soft-breaking Lagrangian of Eqs. (3)–(4) correctly describe the low-energy theory.
    Model definition taken from prior literature; all mass matrices and couplings derive from it (§II).
  • domain assumption One-loop Wilson coefficients and the given loop functions I1,I3,I4 capture the dominant new-physics contribution to b→sγ and h→bs.
    Standard effective-Hamiltonian assumption; higher-loop or non-perturbative pieces neglected (App. A–B).
  • domain assumption Experimental inputs Br(B̄→Xsγ)=(3.40±0.21)×10^{-4}, mh=125.20±0.11 GeV and Higgs signal strengths may be imposed as hard cuts on the parameter space.
    External data used to define the viable region (§IV).
  • ad hoc to paper Leading-log stop correction plus tree-level 5×5 CP-even mass matrix adequately reproduces the observed Higgs mass.
    Eqs. (19)–(20); full two-loop or diagrammatic corrections not included.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 80703 in / 3394 out tokens · 61871 ms · 2026-07-30T13:59:39.690082+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Within the framework of the next to minimum B-L supersymmetric model (NB-LSSM), we investigate the flavor transition process $\bar B\rightarrow X_s\gamma$. Building upon this foundation, we further discuss the Higgs decay process $h \to bs$ under the constraint from the $\bar B\rightarrow X_s\gamma$ process. Our study reveals that the branching ratio of $h \to bs$ can significantly deviate from the Standard Model (SM) expectation, depending on the values of the new parameters introduced in the model. This finding highlights the modulation of new physics parameters on the Higgs flavor-violating decay and provides important theoretical grounds for exploring new physics beyond the SM through flavor observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23862 by Cai Guo, Shu-Min Zhao, Song Gao, Tai-Fu Feng, Xing-Xing Dong, Zhan Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The one loop Feynman diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Then the branching ratio of B¯ → Xsγ in the NB-LSSM can be written as Br(B¯ → Xsγ) = R  |C7γ(µb)| 2 + N(Eγ)  , (23) where the overall factor R = 2.47 × 10−3 , and the nonperturbative contribution N(Eγ) = (3.6 ± 0.6) × 10−3 [45]. C7γ(µb) is defined by C7γ(µb) = C7γ,SM(µb) + C7,NP (µb), (24) where we choose the hadron scale µb = 2.5 GeV and use the SM contribution at NNLO level C7γ,SM(µb) = −0.3689 [46, 47… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Distributions of key parameters and observables fro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: As shown in Fig. 3(d), a clear correlation exists between the p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Parameter scans for the rare decay processes. The left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Dependence of the branching ratios for the rare decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

67 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012), 1-29 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Ranjan [CMS], Nucl

    K. Ranjan [CMS], Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 251-252 (2014), 129-134 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2014.04.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2014.04.022 2014

  3. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.25, 251802 [arXiv:2308.04775 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    L. G. Benitez-Guzm´ an, I. Garc ´ ıa-Jim´ enez, M. A. L´ opez-Osorio, E. Mart ´ ınez-Pascual and J. J. Toscano, J. Phys. G 42 (2015) no.8, 085002 doi:10.1088/0954-3899/42/8/085002 [arXiv:1506.02718 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    3: Distributions of key parameters and observables fro m the scan

    × 10-4 0.001 (f) tanβ Br(h-bs) FIG. 3: Distributions of key parameters and observables fro m the scan. All scattered points satisfy the 3 σ experimental constraint on the Higgs mass and the 2 σ constraints on the corresponding Higgs decay signal strengths. Figs. 3(a)-(c) show the Higgs mass and its signal strengths, while (d)-(f) depict the process h → bs...

    2000

  6. [6]

    J. I. Aranda, G. Gonz´ alez-Estrada, J. Monta˜ no, F. Ram ´ ırez-Zavaleta and E. S. Tututi, J. Phys. G 47 (2020) no.12, 125001 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abb44d [arXi v:2009.07166 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Blankenburg, J

    G. Blankenburg, J. Ellis and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012), 386-390 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.05.007 [arXiv:1202.5704 [ hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    C. X. Liu, H. B. Zhang, J. L. Yang, S. M. Zhao, Y. B. Liu and T. F. Feng, JHEP 04 (2020), 002 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)002 [arXiv:2002.04370 [hep -ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Abu-Ajamieh, M

    F. Abu-Ajamieh, M. Frasca, S. K. Vempati, JHEP 02 (2016) 075010 [arXiv:2305.17362]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    R. K. Barman, P. S. B. Dev, A. Thapa, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 075018 [arXiv:2210.16287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Aaij, et al., Eur

    R. Aaij, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2028) 1008 [arXiv:1808.07135]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2028

  12. [13]

    Badziak, G

    M. Badziak, G. Grilli di Cortona, M. Tabet, et al., JHEP 10 (2021) 181 [arXiv:2107.09708]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [14]

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer and M. J. Herrero, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.9, 9 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.095047 [arXiv:2306.07958 [he p-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [15]

    S. Gao, S. M. Zhao, M. Y. Liu, X. Y. Han, X. Wang and T. F. Fen g, JHEP 10 (2024), 116 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)116 [arXiv:2405.16037 [hep-ph ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    Y. S. Amhis et al. [HFLA V], Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.3, 226 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 020-8156-7 [arXiv:1909.12524 [hep-ex]]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [17]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.030001 2018

  17. [18]

    Misiak, A

    M. Misiak, A. Rehman and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 06 (2020), 175 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)175 [arXiv:2002.01548 [hep-ph ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [19]

    Misiak, H

    M. Misiak, H. M. Asatrian, K. Bieri, M. Czakon, A. Czarne cki, T. Ewerth, A. Fer- roglia, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and C. Greub, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007), 022002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.022002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609232 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [20]

    Szydagis, C

    M. Szydagis, C. Levy, G. M. Blockinger, A. Kamaha, N. Par veen and G. R. C. Rischbieter, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.1, 012002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.012002 [ar Xiv:2007.00528 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [21]

    Ahmed, S

    W. Ahmed, S. Raza, Q. Shafi, C. S. Un and B. Zhu, JHEP 01 (2021), 161 [arXiv:2008.01568 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [22]

    X. Y. Han, S. M. Zhao, L. Ruan, X. Wang and X. X. Dong, Eur. P hys. J. C 85 (2025) no.2, 163 [arXiv:2405.15387 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [23]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Phys. Rev. L ett. 102 (2009), 181802 [arXiv:0812.3661 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [24]

    H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rept. 117 (1985), 75-263

    1985

  24. [25]

    Rosiek, Phys

    J. Rosiek, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990), 3464 [arXiv:hep-ph/9511250 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1990

  25. [26]

    T. F. Feng and X. Y. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B 814 (2009), 101-141 [arXiv:0901.1686 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [27]

    C. S. Aulakh, A. Melfo, A. Rasin and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Lett. B 459 (1999), 557-562 [arXiv:hep-ph/9902409 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  27. [28]

    Abdallah, A

    W. Abdallah, A. Hammad, S. Khalil and S. Moretti, Phys. R ev. D 95 (2017) no.5, 055019 [arXiv:1608.07500 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [29]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng and H. B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.3, 210 [arXiv:2002.09313 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [30]

    Khalil and H

    S. Khalil and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 083510 [arXiv:0810.4573 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [31]

    Basso, B

    L. Basso, B. O’Leary, W. Porod and F. Staub, JHEP 09 (2012), 054 [arXiv:1207.0507 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [32]

    Delle Rose, S

    L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King, C. Marzo, S. Moret ti and C. S. Un, Phys. Rev. D 96 28 (2017) no.5, 055004 [arXiv:1702.01808 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [33]

    Delle Rose, S

    L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King, S. Kulkarni, C. Ma rzo, S. Moretti and C. S. Un, JHEP 07 (2018), 100 [arXiv:1712.05232 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [34]

    Arganda, M

    E. Arganda, M. J. Herrero, R. Morales and A. Szynkman, JH EP 03 (2016), 055 [arXiv:1510.04685 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [35]

    H. B. Zhang, T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao and F. Sun, Int. J. Mod. P hys. A 29 (2014), 1450123 [arXiv:1407.7365 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [36]

    Calibbi and G

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 41 (2018) no.2, 71-174 [arXiv:1709.00294 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [37]

    B´ elanger, J

    G. B´ elanger, J. Da Silva and H. M. Tran, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.11, 115017 [arXiv:1703.03275 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [38]

    P. H. Chankowski, S. Pokorski and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J . C 47 (2006), 187-205 [arXiv:hep- ph/0601097 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2006

  38. [39]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao, R. F. Zhu, X. Y. Yang and H . B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.9, 714 [arXiv:1803.09904 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [40]

    Carena, J

    M. Carena, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, P hys. Lett. B 355 (1995), 209-221 [arXiv:hep-ph/9504316 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  40. [41]

    Carena, S

    M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah, C. E. M. Wagner and L. T. Wan g, JHEP 07 (2012), 175 [arXiv:1205.5842 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [42]

    Altmannshofer, P

    W. Altmannshofer, P. Ball, A. Bharucha, A. J. Buras, D. M . Straub and M. Wick, JHEP 01 (2009), 019 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/019 [arXiv:0 811.1214 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/019 2009

  42. [43]

    L. Lin, T. F. Feng, F. Sun and S. M. Zhao, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24 (2009), 2181-2186 doi:10.1142/S0217732309030692

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732309030692 2009

  43. [44]

    X. Y. Yang and T. F. Feng, JHEP 05 (2010), 059 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2010)059 [arXiv:1005.4543 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [46]

    A. J. Buras, L. Merlo and E. Stamou, JHEP 08 (2011), 124 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2011)124 [arXiv:1105.5146 [hep-ph]]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [47]

    Goertz and T

    F. Goertz and T. Pfoh, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 095016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.095016 [arXiv:1105.1507 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [48]

    Gambino and M

    P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B 611 (2001), 338-366 doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(01)00347-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104034 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  47. [49]

    A. J. Buras, M. Misiak, M. Munz and S. Pokorski, Nucl. Phy s. B 424 (1994), 374-398 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90299-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/93113 45 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90299-2 1994

  48. [50]

    T. J. Gao, T. F. Feng and J. B. Chen, JHEP 02 (2013), 029 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)029 [arXiv:1303.0082 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  49. [51]

    de Florian et al

    D. de Florian et al. [LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group], CERN Yellow Rep. Mo nogr. 2 (2017), 1-869 doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002 [arXiv:1610.0 7922 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.23731/cyrm-2017-002 2017

  50. [52]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.1, 012009 [arXiv:2205.01835 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [53]

    Cacciapaglia, C

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, G. Marandella and A. Strumia , Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 033011 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604111 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  52. [54]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu and T. M. P. Tait, Phys . Rev. D 70 (2004), 093009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0408098 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  53. [55]

    Basso, Adv

    L. Basso, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015 (2015), 980687 [arXiv:1504.05328 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [56]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  55. [57]

    LEP SUSY Working Group, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Colla borations, ”Com- bined LEP Chargino Results, up to 208 GeV for large m0”, LEPSUSYWG/01-03.1 (2001), http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/Welcome.html

    2001

  56. [58]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J.C 85 (2025) 11, 1335 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14748- z [arXiv:2503.22581 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [59]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 07 (2025) 140 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)140 [arXiv:2502.066 94 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2025)140 2025

  58. [60]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.7, 072006 [arXiv:2412.17584 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [61]

    C. S. Un and O. Ozdal, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), 055024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.055024 [arXiv:1601.02494 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [62]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D 111 (2023) no.7, 072006 [arXiv:2302.05225 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [63]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Nature 607 (2022) 7917, 60–68. 30

    2022

  62. [64]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaboration], JHEP 08 (2016) 045

    2016

  63. [65]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF and D0 Collaborations], Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.5, 052014

    2013

  64. [66]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.10, 957

    2020

  65. [67]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.2, 178

    2021

  66. [68]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.6, 537

    2021

  67. [69]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 072001. 31

    2019