Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

This paper claims that, in a single-Higgs, no-new-gauge framework with only exotic scalars and vector-like fermions, all minimal models generating one-loop masses for bottom, charm, and tau require exactly four exotic multiplets—and there a

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

2026-08-03 01:31 UTC pith:DHSO7N2S

load-bearing objection A useful and mostly careful model-classification paper whose "all 25 models" claim needs a checkable enumeration before I'd treat the catalogue as complete. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29331 v1 pith:DHSO7N2S submitted 2026-07-31 hep-ph

Classification of minimal models producing b, c and tau masses at one-loop level

Lucia Stockdale , Raymond R. Volkas This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.15.Ff12.60.Fr
keywords radiative mass generationone-loop Yukawa couplingsbottom charm tau massesexotic scalarsvector-like fermionsmodel classificationhybrid modelsmass-Yukawa relation
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.

Why are the bottom, charm, and tau masses so small compared to the electroweak scale? This paper pursues the radiative mass-generation answer: these masses arise at one loop from new particles, and the loop suppression itself explains the hierarchy. It classifies all minimal ways to generate all three masses together using only exotic scalars and vector-like fermions, while keeping a single Higgs doublet and no new gauge interactions. The classification yields exactly 25 four-multiplet models, including eight "hybrid" models in which both one-loop topologies contribute. For a benchmark hybrid model, the authors show the effective Yukawa couplings can be larger than, smaller than, or exactly equal to the Standard Model prediction, so radiative models need not be ruled out by precise Higgs measurements; viable, moderately tuned parameter space remains. This yields a catalogue of the minimal one-loop mass-generation structures for these three fermions.

Core claim

The central claim is a completeness result: under the stated constraints there are exactly 25 minimal models generating one-loop masses for b, c, and tau, each with four exotic fields, and the paper tabulates them. Before symmetry breaking, only two one-loop topologies are allowed: Class One (one exotic fermion plus two exotic scalars) and Class Two (two exotic fermions plus one exotic scalar). Requiring that exotics be shared among the b-, c-, and tau-diagrams, discarding inconsistent spin, hypercharge, and SU(2) assignments, and demanding a symmetry that forbids tree-level Yukawas leaves 25 identifications. The paper singles out hybrid models—those in which both Class One and Class Two dia

What carries the argument

The workhorses are the two classification topologies and a fixed table of allowed exotic quantum numbers. In the Class One topology, two exotic scalars couple through the Higgs and one exotic fermion completes the loop; in Class Two, two exotic fermions couple through the Higgs with one exotic scalar. Assigning SM gauge quantum numbers to the exotic fields X_i^f from that table, then identifying fields shared between the b, c, and tau diagrams, produces the catalogue. Hybrid models are defined by having both topologies contribute to the same effective Yukawa coupling, and it is this two-contribution interference that allows y_eff^f to sit above, at, or below the SM value.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness of the 25-model list rests on the assumption that the two topologies before electroweak symmetry breaking and the quantum-number table imported from earlier work exhaust all possible one-loop diagrams in a single-Higgs, no-new-gauge framework with only exotic scalars and fermions.

What would settle it

Find any four-exotic model satisfying the paper's stated constraints—consistent spins, hypercharges, SU(2) assignments, and a symmetry forbidding all tree-level Yukawas—that is absent from Table 2; or re-run the identification enumeration with an independent algorithm and obtain a model outside the 25. For the benchmark's exact-replication claim, a scan showing that points with y_eff^b = y_eff^c = y_eff^tau = y_SM are excluded by existing collider and electroweak bounds would contradict the paper.

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

If this is right

  • Table 2 is a complete minimal menu for one-loop b, c, tau mass generation within the framework; any such model must match one of the 25 identifications, up to gauge-quantum-number choices.
  • Radiative models can reproduce the SM Yukawa couplings exactly, so improved Higgs signal strength measurements alone cannot exclude them; they instead push models into regions of higher fine-tuning.
  • Several of the 25 models (CT1, CT3, CO1a-d, CO3, CO4) automatically provide a one-loop neutrino Dirac mass if a right-handed neutrino is added, at no extra field cost.
  • Some models contain stable exotic multiplets and therefore offer WIMP-like dark matter candidates.
  • Hybrid models can predict Higgs signal strengths slightly below unity as well as above it, so a future downward deviation would not by itself falsify radiative mass generation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same identification-and-filtering method could classify minimal one-loop models for other fermion sets, such as the strange quark and muon, or be adapted to sequential two- and three-loop mass hierarchies.
  • Because all 25 catalogued models contain coloured exotics, direct searches for long-lived hadronising states at colliders may be a more model-independent test than precision Higgs measurements.
  • The paper's demonstration that y_eff can equal y_SM in hybrid models implies that "loop-generated mass implies modified Yukawa coupling" is not a generic rule; two-topology interference is what breaks it.
  • An independent algorithmic re-enumeration would be a valuable check, since the completeness of the two topologies and the quantum-number table is imported from earlier work rather than re-derived here.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper works within the radiative-mass framework of Baker–Cox–Volkas: a single Higgs doublet, no new gauge interactions, and only exotic scalars and vector-like fermions. It classifies 'minimal' models that generate one-loop effective Yukawa couplings for b, c, and τ by identifying the nine fields X_i^f (three fermion species × three diagram roles) down to four exotic multiplets. The classification claims to be exhaustive, yielding 25 models, eight of which are 'hybrid' models that receive contributions from both Class One and Class Two topologies. The paper then studies one hybrid model (H2) in detail, deriving one-loop masses and effective Yukawa couplings and confronting them with unitarity, S/T parameters, Higgs signal strengths, t→ch, and R-hadron bounds. The main qualitative claim is that hybrid models can produce y_eff greater than, equal to, or less than the SM Yukawa, and that the H2 benchmark retains viable parameter space, including points that exactly reproduce the SM κ_b=κ_c=κ_τ=1.

Significance. If the completeness claim holds, the 25-model table is a genuinely useful catalogue for radiative mass model building, and the hybrid models are a new extension of the framework of Ref. [17]. The H2 benchmark is analysed carefully with standard constraints, and the observation that hybrid topologies allow κ_f<1 as well as exact SM reproduction is novel and phenomenologically interesting. The main weaknesses are that the central enumeration is not independently verifiable from the manuscript, and the exact-replication claim relies on effective-Yukawa expressions that are not displayed in full. The paper would be strengthened substantially by releasing code or a complete derivation certificate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Table 2] The central claim is that Table 2 exhaustively lists all minimal four-exotic models. The enumeration is described only verbally ('we first generated the set of all possible identifications...') and the four discard criteria are stated informally. No algorithm, code, or certificate is provided, and no proof is given that the discard rules are necessary and sufficient. Appendix A proves only the impossibility of three-exotic models; it says nothing about the exhaustiveness of the four-exotic search. Because the abstract's 'all minimal models' depends directly on this enumeration, the authors should provide either a reproducible enumeration script, a downloadable list of all identification patterns, or a mathematical proof counting 25 equivalence classes, including hypercharge solutions and SU(2) assignments.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 2.3] The completeness of the catalogue also depends on the imported framework: the two topologies of Fig. 2 and the quantum-number table (Table 1) are taken from Ref. [17] without re-derivation. If there are additional one-loop topologies or exotic quantum-number assignments consistent with the stated assumptions (single Higgs doublet, no new gauge structure, only exotic scalars/fermions), the 25-model list would be incomplete. The manuscript should either summarize the derivation of the two-topology result and Table 1, or explicitly identify them as assumptions whose validity is inherited from [17]. At present the exhaustion claim is conditional on an external result that is not reproduced.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.10)–(3.13)] The abstract claims that the H2 benchmark can exactly replicate the SM Yukawa couplings. However, the text states that the full effective-Yukawa expressions are 'remarkably unwieldy' and only limiting forms are displayed. The exact-replication result is therefore not independently checkable from the manuscript; the plots in Figs. 5–6 must be produced from undisclosed full expressions. Please provide the complete y_eff formulas (or a code repository) and, for the κ=1 points, explicit parameter values and the resulting κ_b,c,τ, S, T, and signal strengths. This is load-bearing for the paper's main phenomenological claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.13) and surrounding text] The text says 'The τ quark effective Yukawa' — τ is a lepton, not a quark. Please correct this typo in Eq. (3.13) and nearby discussion.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, t→ch discussion] The t→ch constraint used in Figs. 5–6 depends on off-diagonal Yukawa entries that are omitted ('we refrain from displaying the result'). This prevents the reader from reproducing the exclusion regions. At minimum, the authors should provide the expression or make the computation available as supplementary material.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Figs. 5–6] The captions do not fully identify which contours correspond to which constraints; adding line styles or labels for μ_γ, μ_Z, μ_b,c,τ, S, T, and t→ch would greatly improve readability.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Table 3] The three accidental U(1) symmetries are listed, but the charges in Table 3 are not all computed or discussed. A short explanation of how U(1)_ψ, U(1)_χ, and U(1)_a forbid each of the three tree-level Yukawa terms would help the reader follow the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the 25-model catalogue is a combinatorial enumeration within an imported framework, and the H2 claim of κ=1 is a nontrivial scan output rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) a classification of minimal four-exotic one-loop models for b, c, τ and (ii) a benchmark H2 model that can reproduce SM Yukawa couplings. (i) is obtained by enumerating identifications among X_i^f and discarding inconsistent spin, hypercharge, SU(2)L, and tree-level-Yukawa-forbidding assignments (Sec. 2.3). The enumeration filters are not defined in terms of the 25-model result; the target catalogue is the output. The framework of exactly two one-loop topologies and the quantum-number restrictions in Table 1 are imported from [17], a self-cited paper sharing an author. This is load-bearing for the completeness claim, but it is a parameter-free framework assumption with stated constraints that do not include the b,c,τ four-exotic catalogue, so under the review rules this is legitimate external support rather than a circular reduction. Appendix A independently proves that three-exotic models are impossible, so the move to four exotic fields is not circular. (ii) The H2 analysis solves Yukawa products from the one-loop mass formulas (Eq. 3.8) and then evaluates effective Yukawa couplings from separate expressions (Eqs. 3.11-3.12). The condition κ_f = 1 is not imposed; it is found only in allowed regions of parameter space. Eq. 3.13 does make κ_τ = κ_b by construction because y_eff^τ = (m_τ/m_b) y_eff^b, but this is a transparent model relation rather than a hidden fit, and the nontrivial content is the simultaneous existence of κ_b = κ_c = 1. The lack of a displayed enumeration algorithm/code and the omission of full effective-Yukawa expressions are reproducibility/completeness concerns, not circularity. No step reduces the paper's predictions to its inputs by definition or by a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central classification rests on the framework of [17] (two topologies and Table 1), imported without derivation; the benchmark H2 analysis relies on a set of free mass/Yukawa parameters, several simplifying choices, and the assumption that φ and η have no VEVs. No new gauge structure or beyond-SM symmetry is introduced beyond the exotic fields themselves and the softly-broken U(1) symmetries imposed in Section 2.2.

free parameters (4)
  • Yukawa products (e.g., y^{Q2}_L y^c_R, y^{Q3}_L y^b_R, y^L_L y^τ_R) = Set by requiring m_c, m_b, m_τ equal observed values
    Eq. (3.8) is rearranged to fix these products; the benchmark's ability to match SM Yukawas depends on these choices.
  • Exotic mass scale m_1 (m_φ_1 = m_ζ_1) = Scanned in plots; not predicted
    Section 3.3: 'we set ... m_φ_1 = m_ζ_1 ≡ m_1' to simplify the parameter scans.
  • Exotic masses m_φ_2, m_ζ_2, trilinear a, Yukawa y_H = Scanned over parameter space
    Free parameters of the H2 model; the phenomenological constraints are mapped in these variables.
  • y^{Q2,3}_L = y^{b,c}_R choice = Assumed equal
    Section 3.2: 'we take y^{Q2,3}_L = y^{b,c}_R for simplicity' — a simplifying choice, not required by the model.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Only two one-loop topologies before EWSB (Class One and Class Two) are possible under the framework of [17] (Figure 2).
    Section 2.2 imports this from [17]; if false, the 25-model enumeration is incomplete.
  • domain assumption The quantum-number restrictions in Table 1 (from [17]) are complete for the stated field content.
    Used to filter identifications; not rederived in this paper.
  • domain assumption A U(1) (or set of U(1)s) exists that forbids the tree-level F_L H f_R Yukawa while being only softly broken by exotic mass or trilinear terms.
    Section 2.2; models that cannot forbid all relevant tree-level Yukawas are discarded, so this symmetry is a defining constraint.
  • standard math The three-exotic impossibility proof in Appendix A is correct, including the hypercharge-magnitude counting argument.
    A short hypercharge-counting argument; assumed sound.
  • ad hoc to paper Neither φ nor η develops a VEV, and only exotic–exotic mixing is considered (Z_2 unbroken or small).
    Section 3.1; this choice restricts the H2 benchmark phenomenology and is not forced by the classification.
invented entities (2)
  • Exotic vectorlike fermions χ, ψ (H2); generic X_i in the catalogue no independent evidence
    purpose: Carry the one-loop diagrams and mix with SM fermions via y_H and the Yukawa couplings to generate b, c, τ masses.
    No predicted mass or unique signature; masses are free parameters, constrained only by existing searches (e.g., R-hadron bound m > 1.25 TeV).
  • Exotic scalars φ, η (H2); generic X_i in the catalogue no independent evidence
    purpose: Complete the loops and mix with the Higgs via the trilinear a; in H2 one scalar is a colour triplet.
    Free scalar masses and quartics; no independent predicted signal beyond generic R-hadron/collider constraints.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 17099 in / 15350 out tokens · 172731 ms · 2026-08-03T01:31:08.271873+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Standard Model neither provides a dynamical explanation for the quark and lepton mass hierarchies, nor a rationale for why all of these masses save that of the top quark are suppressed compared to the electroweak scale. Motivated by this, we explore the alternative radiative mass generation hypothesis, specialising to the generation of the bottom, charm, and tau masses at one-loop level. A classification of all minimal models that use exotic scalars and exotic fermions only is presented, resulting in 25 possibilities featuring four exotic multiplets. As a bonus, some of the models produce a one-loop neutrino Dirac mass if a right-handed neutrino field is included, and some feature WIMP-like dark matter candidates. By way of example, we analyse the phenomenology of a benchmark model chosen from the set of 25 candidates and find that it is capable of exactly replicating the predicted Standard Model Yukawa couplings within the permitted parameter space.

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

36 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Electromagnetic and weak masses,

    S. Weinberg, “Electromagnetic and weak masses,”Phys. Rev. Lett.29(1972) 388–392

    1972

  2. [2]

    Quark Mixings and Mass Hierarchy From Radiative Corrections,

    B. S. Balakrishna, A. L. Kagan, and R. N. Mohapatra, “Quark Mixings and Mass Hierarchy From Radiative Corrections,”Phys. Lett. B205(1988) 345–352

    1988

  3. [3]

    Radiative Mechanisms for Generating Quark and Lepton Masses: Some Recent Developments,

    K. S. Babu and E. Ma, “Radiative Mechanisms for Generating Quark and Lepton Masses: Some Recent Developments,”Mod. Phys. Lett. A4(1989) 1975

    1989

  4. [4]

    Radiative Generation of Quark and Lepton Mass Hierarchies From a Top Quark Mass Seed,

    X.-G. He, R. R. Volkas, and D.-D. Wu, “Radiative Generation of Quark and Lepton Mass Hierarchies From a Top Quark Mass Seed,”Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1630

    1990

  5. [5]

    Hierarchical Radiative Quark and Lepton Mass Matrices,

    E. Ma, “Hierarchical Radiative Quark and Lepton Mass Matrices,”Phys. Rev. Lett.64 (1990) 2866–2869

    1990

  6. [6]

    Quark and lepton masses from top loops,

    B. A. Dobrescu and P. J. Fox, “Quark and lepton masses from top loops,”JHEP08(2008) 100, [arXiv:0805.0822]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Radiative Origin of All Quark and Lepton Masses through Dark Matter with Flavor Symmetry,

    E. Ma, “Radiative Origin of All Quark and Lepton Masses through Dark Matter with Flavor Symmetry,”Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 091801, [arXiv:1311.3213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Radiatively generated hierarchy of lepton and quark masses,

    A. E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez, S. Kovalenko, and I. Schmidt, “Radiatively generated hierarchy of lepton and quark masses,”JHEP02(2017) 125, [arXiv:1611.09797]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Sequentially loop suppressed fermion masses from a single discrete symmetry,

    C. Arbel´ aez, A. E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez, R. Cepedello, S. Kovalenko, and I. Schmidt, “Sequentially loop suppressed fermion masses from a single discrete symmetry,”JHEP06 (2020) 043, [arXiv:1911.02033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Models of Lepton and Quark Masses,

    S. Weinberg, “Models of Lepton and Quark Masses,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 3, (2020) 035020, [arXiv:2001.06582]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Radiative muon mass models and (g−2) µ,

    M. J. Baker, P. Cox, and R. R. Volkas, “Radiative muon mass models and (g−2) µ,”JHEP 05(2021) 174, [arXiv:2103.13401]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Radiatively generated fermion mass hierarchy from flavor nonuniversal gauge symmetries,

    G. Mohanta and K. M. Patel, “Radiatively generated fermion mass hierarchy from flavor nonuniversal gauge symmetries,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 7, (2022) 075020, [arXiv:2207.10407]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Fermion mass hierarchy in an extended left-right symmetric model,

    C. Bonilla, A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, S. Kovalenko, H. Lee, R. Pasechnik, and I. Schmidt, “Fermion mass hierarchy in an extended left-right symmetric model,”JHEP12(2023) 075, [arXiv:2305.11967]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Radiative origin of fermion mass hierarchy in left-right symmetric theory,

    S. Jana, S. Klett, M. Lindner, and R. N. Mohapatra, “Radiative origin of fermion mass hierarchy in left-right symmetric theory,”JHEP01(2025) 082, [arXiv:2409.04246]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Partially flavour non-universal U(1) and radiative fermion masses,

    G. Mohanta and K. M. Patel, “Partially flavour non-universal U(1) and radiative fermion masses,”JHEP02(2026) 170, [arXiv:2508.05439]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Anomalous Higgs Yukawa Couplings,

    S. Fraser and E. Ma, “Anomalous Higgs Yukawa Couplings,”EPL108no. 1, (2014) 11002, [arXiv:1402.6415]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Has the Origin of the Third-Family Fermion Masses been Determined?,

    M. J. Baker, P. Cox, and R. R. Volkas, “Has the Origin of the Third-Family Fermion Masses been Determined?,”JHEP04(2021) 151, [arXiv:2012.10458]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Higgs Yukawa coupling constraints on a benchmark one-loop radiative mass model for the bottom, charm and tau,

    L. Stockdale and R. R. Volkas, “Higgs Yukawa coupling constraints on a benchmark one-loop radiative mass model for the bottom, charm and tau,”arXiv:2511.08924

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation,

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, “Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation,”Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 277–298. – 20 –

    1979

  20. [20]

    Universal Seesaw Mechanism?,

    A. Davidson and K. C. Wali, “Universal Seesaw Mechanism?,”Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 393

    1987

  21. [21]

    Seesaw Masses for Quarks and Leptons in an Ambidextrous Electroweak Interaction Model,

    S. Rajpoot, “Seesaw Masses for Quarks and Leptons in an Ambidextrous Electroweak Interaction Model,”Phys. Lett. B191(1987) 122–126

    1987

  22. [22]

    Family Mass Hierarchy From Universal Seesaw Mechanism,

    A. Davidson and K. C. Wali, “Family Mass Hierarchy From Universal Seesaw Mechanism,” Phys. Rev. Lett.60(1988) 1813

    1988

  23. [23]

    Quark Masses and Mixing Angles From Universal Seesaw Mechanism,

    A. Davidson, S. Ranfone, and K. C. Wali, “Quark Masses and Mixing Angles From Universal Seesaw Mechanism,”Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 208

    1990

  24. [24]

    Quark mass hierarchies from universal seesaw mechanism,

    A. Davidson, L. Michel, M. L. Sage, and K. C. Wali, “Quark mass hierarchies from universal seesaw mechanism,”Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 1378–1388

    1994

  25. [25]

    A Geometry of the generations,

    L. J. Hall and H. Murayama, “A Geometry of the generations,”Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995) 3985–3988, [hep-ph/9508296]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  26. [26]

    Horizontal symmetries for the supersymmetric flavor problem,

    A. Pomarol and D. Tommasini, “Horizontal symmetries for the supersymmetric flavor problem,”Nucl. Phys. B466(1996) 3–24, [hep-ph/9507462]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  27. [27]

    Linking geometric mass hierarchy with threefold family replication,

    A. Davidson, T. Schwartz, and R. R. Volkas, “Linking geometric mass hierarchy with threefold family replication,”J. Phys. G25(1999) 1571–1588, [hep-ph/9802235]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  28. [28]

    Fermion masses and mixing angles from SU(3) family symmetry,

    S. F. King and G. G. Ross, “Fermion masses and mixing angles from SU(3) family symmetry,”Phys. Lett. B520(2001) 243–253, [hep-ph/0108112]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    Maximal Abelian Flavor Symmetries,

    J. Carrasco-Martinez and L. J. Hall, “Maximal Abelian Flavor Symmetries,” arXiv:2606.07799

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Naturalness made easy: two-loop naturalness bounds on minimal SM extensions,

    J. D. Clarke and P. Cox, “Naturalness made easy: two-loop naturalness bounds on minimal SM extensions,”JHEP02(2017) 129, [arXiv:1607.07446]. [31]LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking GroupCollaboration, A. David, A. Denner, M. Duehrssen, M. Grazzini, C. Grojean, G. Passarino, M. Schumacher, M. Spira, G. Weiglein, and M. Zanetti, “LHC HXSWG interim recommendati...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [40]

    A New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector,

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, “A New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector,” Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 964–967

    1990

  32. [41]

    Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, “Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,”Phys. Rev. D 46(1992) 381–409

    1992

  33. [42]

    Physics briefing book: Input for the european strategy for particle physics update 2020,

    R. K. Elliset al., “Physics briefing book: Input for the european strategy for particle physics update 2020,” (10, 2019)

    2020

  34. [43]

    Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,

    J. de Blaset al., “Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,”JHEP01(2020) 139, [arXiv:1905.03764]

    arXiv 2020

  35. [44]

    Electroweak precision observables and Higgs-boson signal strengths in the Standard Model and beyond: present and future,

    J. de Blas, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, S. Mishima, M. Pierini, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, “Electroweak precision observables and Higgs-boson signal strengths in the Standard Model and beyond: present and future,”JHEP12(2016) 135, [arXiv:1608.01509]. [45]A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboudet al., “Search for heavy charged long-lived particles in the ATLAS detec...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [46]

    Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,

    J. de Blaset al., “Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,”arXiv:2511.03883. – 22 –

    arXiv 2026