Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 71 references

In the two-Higgs-doublet model, the heavy scalar's decay into hh versus ZZ locks into a mass-only ratio near 9.5, a clean fingerprint for future collider searches.

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 13:14 UTC pith:MFUSTRMI

load-bearing objection Useful leading-order 2HDM correlation, but the 'parameter-free' claim is over-sold: subleading corrections shift Γ(H→hh)/Γ(H→ZZ) by tens of percent at mH=500 GeV. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.24868 v4 pith:MFUSTRMI submitted 2025-12-31 hep-ph hep-ex

Correlating Resonant Di-Higgs and Tri-Higgs Production to Hto VV in the 2HDM

Guglielmo Coloretti , Andreas Crivellin , Howard E. Haber This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords two-Higgs-doublet modelresonant di-Higgs productiontri-Higgs productionheavy neutral scalardecoupling limitHiggs basisbranching-ratio correlationshadron collider phenomenology
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.

This paper establishes a parameter-free correlation among the decay channels of the heavy neutral scalar in the two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) in the decoupling limit, where the heavy scalar H is much heavier than the 125 GeV Higgs h. It shows that the ratio of H→hh to H→ZZ decay widths depends only on m_H and m_V, not on Yukawa couplings or most scalar-potential parameters, and is approximately 9.5 for heavy masses between 500 GeV and 1 TeV. The same mechanism ties the tri-Higgs rate H→hhh to these channels, with the tri-Higgs branching ratio between about 1% and 10% of H→ZZ. If these predictions hold, a measured ratio cleanly discriminates whether a resonant di-Higgs excess originates from the 2HDM heavy scalar or from some other new-physics model.

Core claim

In the decoupling limit, the quartic coupling Z6 in the Higgs basis fixes both the alignment-breaking parameter c_{β−α} ≈ −Z6 v^2/m_H^2 and the leading heavy-scalar self-couplings, g_{Hhh} ≈ 3v Z6 and g_{Hhhh} ≈ 3Z6. Hence g_{HVV}/g_{Hhh} ≈ −2 m_V^2/(3 m_H^2), so Γ(H→hh)/Γ(H→ZZ) ≈ 9.5 and Γ(H→hhh)/Γ(H→ZZ) ≈ 0.01–0.1 for 500 GeV < m_H < 1 TeV, independent of Yukawa and all other potential parameters. The same holds in the CP-violating case with Z6 replaced by Re(Z6 e^{−iη}) and Im(Z6 e^{−iη}). This mass-only prediction makes the 2HDM testable if a heavy scalar resonance is discovered.

What carries the argument

The Z6 term in the Higgs-basis potential, the coupling (H1†H1)(H1†H2) + h.c., is the object that carries the argument. In the decoupling limit (|Z6| ≲ O(1), m_H ≫ v) it alone determines g_{Hhh} ≈ 3v Z6 and g_{Hhhh} ≈ 3Z6, and through c_{β−α} ≈ −Z6 v^2/m_H^2 it determines the HVV couplings. Dividing the two couplings yields the mass-only identity g_{HVV}/g_{Hhh} ≈ −2 m_V^2/(3 m_H^2).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the leading-order simplification g_{Hhh} ≈ 3v Z6 and g_{Hhhh} ≈ 3Z6, which drops terms in Z1, Z345, and Z7 that are multiplied by the small factor c_{β−α} ≈ −Z6 v^2/m_H^2; since v^2/m_H^2 is 0.24 at m_H = 500 GeV and 0.06 at 1 TeV, order-one values of those couplings can shift the advertised ratios by tens of percent, so the mass-only statement holds only at leading order.

What would settle it

Measure the ratio of resonant di-Higgs to Z-pair production in a heavy-resonance search over a range of m_H in 500 GeV–1 TeV. If Γ(H→hh)/Γ(H→ZZ) is significantly outside 9.5 ± (subleading corrections of tens of percent) for a 2HDM-like signal, the decoupling-limit claim fails; conversely, reproducing the specific m_H dependence of the ratio would confirm it. A direct calculation of g_{Hhh} and g_{Hhhh} to next order with order-one Z1, Z345, Z7 would also show whether the leading-order identity survives.

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

If this is right

  • A measurement of the ratio of gg→H→hh to gg→H→ZZ event rates at a reconstructed m_H between 500 GeV and 1 TeV tests the 2HDM directly: the predicted ratio is ≈9.5 at leading order.
  • The H→hh channel is the dominant decay mode of the heavy scalar across a large part of the allowed parameter space, making resonant di-Higgs searches the most powerful single probe.
  • Resonant tri-Higgs production H→hhh is predicted at a rate 1–10% of H→ZZ, with cross sections that could approach 0.1 fb at 14 TeV hadron collisions, potentially observable with sufficient luminosity.
  • The correlation persists in the presence of CP violation, up to the replacement of Z6 by its real and imaginary parts, so the prediction is not an artifact of an unrealistic CP-conserving choice.
  • Because the ratio is independent of Higgs-to-fermion couplings, it holds even without imposing natural flavor conservation, as long as flavor alignment is assumed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If future data at a fixed m_H yield an H→hh/H→ZZ ratio that deviates from ~9.5 by more than the expected subleading corrections, the 2HDM decoupling-limit explanation would be disfavored in favor of other extended scalar sectors, such as a singlet, where the di-Higgs and vector-boson couplings are not linked in this way.
  • The mass dependence of the ratio (roughly as 1/m_H^2 in the width ratio, modulated by phase space) provides an additional diagnostic: measuring it at two different m_H values would test the 2HDM prediction over a range rather than at a single point.
  • A high-precision measurement of the H→hhh/H→hh ratio could separately determine Z6, cross-checking the value inferred from H→ZZ and probing the subleading Z1, Z345, Z7 corrections that are neglected at leading order.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the decays of the heavy CP-even neutral scalar H in the two-Higgs-doublet model in the decoupling limit, m_H ≫ v, with |Z_6| ≲ O(1). Working in the Higgs basis, the authors observe that the leading contributions to g_Hhh and g_Hhhh are both proportional to Z_6, while g_HVV is proportional to c_{β−α} = −Z_6 v^2/m_H^2 at leading order. This yields the tree-level correlations g_HVV/g_Hhh ≃ −2m_V^2/(3m_H^2) and, numerically, Γ(H→hh)/Γ(H→ZZ) ≈ 9.5, as well as Γ(H→hhh)/Γ(H→ZZ) between about 0.01 and 0.1 for 500 GeV < m_H < 1 TeV. The paper also compares the resulting rates with current LHC constraints, estimates the HL-LHC reach for resonant tri-Higgs production, and extends the correlation to the CP-violating 2HDM.

Significance. If established, the correlation provides a sharp, largely model-independent test of the 2HDM interpretation of a future heavy scalar discovered in di-Higgs, VV, or tri-Higgs channels. The derivation is algebraic, uses published Feynman rules, and is not fitted to data; the CP-violating generalization and the explicit connection to H→hhh are valuable. The advertised independence from Yukawa parameters is a strong selling point. However, as detailed below, the quantitative claim of full independence from the other scalar-potential parameters is an overstatement at finite m_H, especially at the lower end of the quoted mass window.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (23)-(27), and Abstract] The claimed parameter independence is only leading order in v^2/m_H^2. Retaining the subleading terms of Eq. (25) with s_{β−α}≃1 and c_{β−α}=−Z_6 v^2/m_H^2 gives g_Hhh ≃ 3vZ_6 [1 + (v^2/m_H^2)(Z_1 − 2Z_345/3) + O(c^2, Z_7 c^2)]. Hence g_HVV/g_Hhh ≃ −(2m_V^2)/(3m_H^2) [1 − (v^2/m_H^2)(Z_1 − 2Z_345/3)]. At m_H = 500 GeV, v^2/m_H^2 = 0.24; for an order-one value such as Z_345 = 1 (Z_1 = 0) the width ratio Γ(H→hh)/Γ(H→ZZ) is shifted by about 40%, and for Z_345 = O(3) the shift is a factor of order two. These values are within the stated assumptions |Z_6| ≲ O(1) and m_H > 500 GeV. The statements that the ratio depends only on m_H and m_V, and the quoted band 9.4 ± 0.25 (or ≈9.5), are therefore not quantitatively accurate over the full 500–1000 GeV window. The paper should either present the finite-m_H expression with the Z_1,Z_345,Z_7 dependence, or explicitly restrict the parameter-independe
  2. [Eq. (30)] The phase-space integral in Eq. (30) is not self-contained. The integration variable x is not defined, and as printed the lower limit (m_H − m_h)^2/(4m_h^2) is dimensionless while the other factors appear to require x to have dimension mass^2. Since the advertised tri-Higgs ratio and the HL-LHC event estimates depend directly on this formula, please specify x explicitly (e.g., x = m_{23}^2), give the correct integration limits, and verify the normalization against a standard textbook formula.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract quotes Γ(H→hh)/Γ(H→ZZ) ≈ 9.4 ± 0.25, whereas the main text and conclusions quote ≈ 9.5. Please reconcile the numerical value and the origin of the quoted uncertainty.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that Eq. (23) implies |c_{β−α}| ≲ 0.1. This is true for m_H ≈ 800 GeV but for m_H = 500 GeV the same equation gives |c_{β−α}| ≲ 0.24. Please make the mass dependence explicit or quote the value for the benchmark mass used.
  3. [Sec. IV] The numerical LHC limits used for H→t\bar{t}, A→t\bar{t}, H→ZZ, and H→hh are quoted without a detailed breakdown. Please add a short table or specify exactly which ATLAS/CMS combination is used for each channel, since the allowed-region plot depends on these inputs.
  4. [References] Eqs. (25) and (26) cite Ref. [83], which is listed as 'in preparation'. Since the same couplings are supported by Refs. [18] and [40], this is acceptable, but a published or arXiv reference would be preferable for the central formulas.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the H→hh/H→ZZ correlation follows algebraically from the 2HDM decoupling-limit Feynman rules, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain supplying the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is derived, not assumed: Eq. (24) gives gHVV ∝ cβ−α; Eq. (23) gives cβ−α = −Z6 v^2/mH^2 + O(v^4/mA^4) in the decoupling limit; Eqs. (25)–(26) reduce to gHhh ≃ 3vZ6 and gHhhh ≃ 3Z6 when sβ−α ≃ 1 and |cβ−α| ≪ 1; combining these gives Eq. (27), gHVV/gHhh ≃ −2mV^2/(3mH^2). At leading order the Z6 factor cancels, so the advertised branching-ratio correlation is an algebraic consequence of the 2HDM potential and does not restate an input. No parameter is fitted to the predicted ratio, and the inputs — the standard 2HDM couplings and the decoupling expansion — do not already contain Γ(H→hh)/Γ(H→ZZ). The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [18,40,83]) supply parameter-free 2HDM Feynman rules and decoupling-limit expressions under stated assumptions; these are not uniqueness theorems and do not smuggle in the target correlation. The finite-v^2/mH^2 sensitivity of the advertised leading-order ratio, correctly noted by the reader, is a question of numerical accuracy and not of circularity. No circular step can be exhibited by reduction of an output to an input, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central ratios contain no fitted numbers: Z6 cancels between numerator and denominator, and a_F affects only production/absolute rates. The main assumptions are the 2HDM framework, the decoupling regime, and the leading-order simplification of the scalar couplings. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Z6 = O(1), arbitrary sign; cancels in the central ratios
    Assumed nonzero and |Z6|≲O(1) to select the decoupling limit. It sets the overall scale of tri-Higgs cross-sections but not the central width ratios.
  • a_F (flavor-alignment parameters) = scanned; |a_U|≲0.4 from ttbar searches at mH=800 GeV
    Enter the gluon-fusion production and H→ttbar width, affecting absolute cross-sections and allowed regions, but not the width ratios.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The 2HDM scalar potential in the Higgs basis (Eq. 3) and the Higgs-basis formalism are the correct low-energy framework.
    The paper works entirely within the 2HDM; this is not derived but is the model setup.
  • domain assumption Decoupling limit: |Z6|≲O(1), Y2≫v^2, so mH∼mA∼mH±≫v and cβ−α≈−Z6v^2/mH^2 (Eq. 23).
    This parameter regime is the defining assumption for the correlations; outside it the simple ratio need not hold.
  • domain assumption Tree-level couplings suffice; loop corrections are small (Ref. [101]).
    The ratios are computed at tree level; the paper cites loop work but does not quantify the shift.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of subleading Z1, Z345, and Z7 terms in Eqs. (25)-(26) when simplifying to gHhh≈3vZ6 and gHhhh≈3Z6.
    This is the load-bearing simplification behind the 'depends only on mH and mV' claim and is only approximately valid for mH≥500 GeV.
  • domain assumption Flavor alignment with real a_F and no new CP violation; CPV case treated separately in Section V.
    Used to avoid FCNCs and simplify the analysis; the paper argues the correlations extend to the CPV case.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16199 in / 22099 out tokens · 215232 ms · 2026-08-03T13:14:35.248321+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The observation of resonant di-Higgs production, which would strongly suggest the existence of a new heavy neutral scalar $H$, has been searched for extensively at the LHC. In the two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM) with $m_H\gg m_h$, where $h$ is the Higgs boson of mass 125 GeV observed at the LHC, we show that a direct correlation emerges between ${\rm Br}(H\to hh)$ and ${\rm Br}(H\to VV)$, with $V=Z,W$, which depends only on $m_H$ (and $m_V$). In particular, for heavy scalar masses between 500 GeV and 1 TeV, we find that ${\rm Br}(H\to hh)/{\rm Br}(H\to ZZ)\approx 9.4\pm 0.25$. Moreover, $H\to hh$ is a dominant decay mode over a significant region of the parameter space and serves as the primary probe for a heavy scalar resonance at current and future hadron colliders. The origin of these predictions is most transparent in the Higgs basis, where the term in the scalar potential proportional to $\mathcal H_1^\dagger \mathcal H_1 \mathcal H_1^\dagger \mathcal H_2$ (and its hermitian conjugate) generates the leading contributions to the $Hhh$ and $Hhhh$ couplings in the decoupling limit of the 2HDM. Additionally, the latter coupling governs the resonant prompt tri-Higgs production via $H\to hhh$, which is also directly correlated to $H\to hh$ (and $H\to VV$), and can yield rates large enough to be measured at the High-Luminosity LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24868 by Andreas Crivellin, Guglielmo Coloretti, Howard E. Haber.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: 2HDM predictions for Γ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Allowed regions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.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

71 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [4]

    Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay at √s= 13 TeV using up to 140 fb −1 of data collected by the ATLAS Experiment,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay at √s= 13 TeV using up to 140 fb −1 of data collected by the ATLAS Experiment,”. ATLAS-CONF-2025-006 (7 July 2025). [5]CMSCollaboration, A. Tumasyanet al., “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery,”Nature607(2022) 60–68, arXiv:2207.000...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [6]

    Combined measurements and interpretations of Higgs boson production and decay at√s= 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, “Combined measurements and interpretations of Higgs boson production and decay at√s= 13 TeV,”. CMS-PAS-HIG-21-018 (14 April 2025)

    2025

  3. [7]

    Anomalies in particle physics and their implications for physics beyond the standard model,

    A. Crivellin and B. Mellado, “Anomalies in particle physics and their implications for physics beyond the standard model,”Nature Rev. Phys.6(2024) 294–309, arXiv:2309.03870 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [8]

    Phenomenological Comparison of Models with Extended Higgs Sectors,

    M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos, and J. Wittbrodt, “Phenomenological Comparison of Models with Extended Higgs Sectors,”JHEP08 (2017) 132,arXiv:1703.07750 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [9]

    Benchmarking di-Higgs production in various extended Higgs sector models,

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, D. Azevedo, J. E. Falaki, P. M. Ferreira, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and R. Santos, “Benchmarking di-Higgs production in various extended Higgs sector models,”JHEP09(2022) 011, arXiv:2112.12515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [10]

    Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model,

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, “Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model,”Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 015018,arXiv:0811.0393 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [11]

    Singlet Extensions of the Standard Model at LHC Run 2: Benchmarks and Comparison with the NMSSM,

    R. Costa, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, “Singlet Extensions of the Standard Model at LHC Run 2: Benchmarks and Comparison with the NMSSM,”JHEP06(2016) 034,arXiv:1512.05355 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [12]

    Enhanced di-Higgs boson production in the complex Higgs singlet model,

    S. Dawson and M. Sullivan, “Enhanced di-Higgs boson production in the complex Higgs singlet model,”Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 015022,arXiv:1711.06683 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [13]

    Signs of heavy Higgs bosons at CLIC: Ane +e− road to the Electroweak Phase Transition,

    J. M. No and M. Spannowsky, “Signs of heavy Higgs bosons at CLIC: Ane +e− road to the Electroweak Phase Transition,”Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 467, arXiv:1807.04284 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [14]

    Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models: m h=125 GeV,

    J. Bernon, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml, “Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models: m h=125 GeV,”Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 075004,arXiv:1507.00933 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [15]

    Heavy Higgs boson decays in the alignment limit of the 2HDM,

    B. Grzadkowski, H. E. Haber, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, “Heavy Higgs boson decays in the alignment limit of the 2HDM,”JHEP12(2018) 056, arXiv:1808.01472 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [16]

    2HDM Neutral Scalars under the LHC,

    F. Kling, S. Su, and W. Su, “2HDM Neutral Scalars under the LHC,”JHEP06(2020) 163, arXiv:2004.04172 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [17]

    Sensitivity to triple Higgs couplings via di-Higgs production in the 2HDM at the (HL-)LHC,

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and K. Radchenko, “Sensitivity to triple Higgs couplings via di-Higgs production in the 2HDM at the (HL-)LHC,”Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 1019, arXiv:2212.11242 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [18]

    P-even, CP-violating signals in scalar-mediated processes,

    H. E. Haber, V. Keus, and R. Santos, “P-even, CP-violating signals in scalar-mediated processes,” Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 095038,arXiv:2206.09643 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [19]

    The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model reviewed,

    M. Maniatis, “The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model reviewed,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25(2010) 3505–3602,arXiv:0906.0777 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [20]

    The decoupling limit in the Georgi-Machacek model,

    K. Hartling, K. Kumar, and H. E. Logan, “The decoupling limit in the Georgi-Machacek model,”Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 015007,arXiv:1404.2640 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [21]

    Double Higgs boson production and decay in Randall-Sundrum model at hadron colliders,

    W.-J. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, X.-Z. Li, L. Guo, and C. Chen, “Double Higgs boson production and decay in Randall-Sundrum model at hadron colliders,”Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 116005, arXiv:1512.01766 [hep-ph]. [22]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Combination of searches for Higgs boson pairs inppcollisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,”Phys. Let...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [34]

    A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,

    T. D. Lee, “A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,” Phys. Rev. D8(1973) 1226–1239

    1973

  19. [35]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson,The Higgs Hunter’s Guide. (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2000)

    2000

  20. [36]

    Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,”Phys. Rept.516(2012) 1–102,arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [37]

    Building and testing models with extended Higgs sectors,

    I. P. Ivanov, “Building and testing models with extended Higgs sectors,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.95 (2017) 160–208,arXiv:1702.03776 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [38]

    Dreiner, H.E

    H.K. Dreiner, H.E. Haber, and S.P. Martin,From Spinors to Supersymmetry(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2023)

    2023

  23. [39]

    Potential of photon collider in resolving SM like scenarios,

    I. F. Ginzburg, M. Krawczyk, and P. Osland, “Potential of photon collider in resolving SM like scenarios,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A472(2001) 149–154,arXiv:hep-ph/0101229

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [40]

    The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit,

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, “The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit,”Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 075019, arXiv:hep-ph/0207010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  25. [41]

    Exclusive Signals of an Extended Higgs Sector,

    N. Craig and S. Thomas, “Exclusive Signals of an Extended Higgs Sector,”JHEP11(2012) 083, arXiv:1207.4835 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  26. [42]

    Searching for Signs of the Second Higgs Doublet,

    N. Craig, J. Galloway, and S. Thomas, “Searching for Signs of the Second Higgs Doublet,”arXiv:1305.2424 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [43]

    ILC Higgs White Paper,

    D. M. Asneret al., “ILC Higgs White Paper,” in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi. 2013. arXiv:1310.0763 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [44]

    Impersonating the Standard Model Higgs Boson: Alignment without Decoupling,

    M. Carena, I. Low, N. R. Shah, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Impersonating the Standard Model Higgs Boson: Alignment without Decoupling,”JHEP04(2014) 015, arXiv:1310.2248 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [45]

    The Higgs data and the Decoupling Limit,

    H. E. Haber, “The Higgs data and the Decoupling Limit,” inProceedings of the 1st Toyama International Workshop on Higgs as a Probe of New Physics. 12, 2013.arXiv:1401.0152 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [46]

    Maximally Symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model with Natural Standard Model Alignment,

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, “Maximally Symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model with Natural Standard Model Alignment,”JHEP12(2014) 024, arXiv:1408.3405 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP11, 147 (2015)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [47]

    Multiscalar Models With a High-energy Scale,

    H. E. Haber and Y. Nir, “Multiscalar Models With a High-energy Scale,”Nucl. Phys. B335(1990) 363–394

    1990

  32. [48]

    Suppression of Flavor Changing Effects From Neutral Spinless Meson Exchange in Gauge Theories,

    H. Georgi and D. V. Nanopoulos, “Suppression of Flavor Changing Effects From Neutral Spinless Meson Exchange in Gauge Theories,”Phys. Lett. B82(1979) 95–96

    1979

  33. [49]

    Signatures of discrete symmetries in the scalar sector,

    L. Lavoura, “Signatures of discrete symmetries in the scalar sector,”Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 7089–7092, arXiv:hep-ph/9405307

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  34. [50]

    Fundamental CP violating quantities in a SU(2)×U(1) model with many Higgs doublets,

    L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva, “Fundamental CP violating quantities in a SU(2)×U(1) model with many Higgs doublets,”Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 4619–4624, arXiv:hep-ph/9404276

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  35. [51]

    Jarlskog-like invariants for theories with scalars and fermions,

    F. J. Botella and J. P. Silva, “Jarlskog-like invariants for theories with scalars and fermions,”Phys. Rev. D 51(1995) 3870–3875,arXiv:hep-ph/9411288

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  36. [52]

    G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura, and J. P. Silva,CP Violation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1999

    1999

  37. [53]

    Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model,

    S. Davidson and H. E. Haber, “Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model,”Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 035004,arXiv:hep-ph/0504050. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 099902]. [54]CMSCollaboration, “Search for triple Higgs pro- duction in Run2 data of CMS using 4b2γfinal state,”. [55]CMSCollaboration, “Search for nonresonant triple Higgs boson producti...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  38. [57]

    High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical Design Report V. 0.1,

    G. Apollinari et al. (editors), “High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical Design Report V. 0.1,”CERN Yellow Report4/2017(2017)

    2017

  39. [58]

    Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,

    M. Cepedaet al., “Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,”CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.7(2019) 221–584, 9 arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [59]

    Physics at the FCC-hh, a 100 TeVppcollider,

    M.L. Mangano, editor, “Physics at the FCC-hh, a 100 TeVppcollider,”CERN Yellow Report3/2017(2017) ,arXiv:1710.06353 [hep-ph]. [60]FCCCollaboration, A. Abadaet al., “FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 3,”Eur. Phys. J. ST228 (2019) 755–1107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [61]

    Basis-independent treatment of the complex 2HDM,

    R. Boto, T. V. Fernandes, H. E. Haber, J. C. Rom˜ ao, and J. P. Silva, “Basis-independent treatment of the complex 2HDM,”Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 055023, arXiv:2001.01430 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [62]

    Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model. II. The Significance of tanβ,

    H. E. Haber and D. O’Neil, “Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model. II. The Significance of tanβ,”Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 015018, arXiv:hep-ph/0602242. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 059905]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [63]

    Flavor-phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models with generic Yukawa structure,

    A. Crivellin, A. Kokulu, and C. Greub, “Flavor-phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models with generic Yukawa structure,”Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 094031,arXiv:1303.5877 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [64]

    Yukawa Alignment in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model,

    A. Pich and P. Tuzon, “Yukawa Alignment in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model,”Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 091702,arXiv:0908.1554 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [65]

    Flavour constraints on multi-Higgs-doublet models: Yukawa alignment,

    A. Pich, “Flavour constraints on multi-Higgs-doublet models: Yukawa alignment,”Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.209(2010) 182–187,arXiv:1010.5217 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  46. [66]

    Global fits in the Aligned Two-Higgs-Doublet model,

    O. Eberhardt, A. P. Mart ´ ınez, and A. Pich, “Global fits in the Aligned Two-Higgs-Doublet model,”JHEP 05(2021) 005,arXiv:2012.09200 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [67]

    Alignment of Yukawa couplings in two Higgs doublet models,

    S. Y. Choi, J. S. Lee, and J. Park, “Alignment of Yukawa couplings in two Higgs doublet models,” arXiv:2011.04978 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  48. [68]

    Yukawa alignment revisited in the Higgs basis,

    J. S. Lee and J. Park, “Yukawa alignment revisited in the Higgs basis,”Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 015023, arXiv:2110.03908 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [69]

    Yukawa Alignment in a Multi Higgs Doublet Model: An effective approach,

    H. Serodio, “Yukawa Alignment in a Multi Higgs Doublet Model: An effective approach,”Phys. Lett. B 700(2011) 133–138,arXiv:1104.2545 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  50. [70]

    Yukawa alignment from natural flavor conservation,

    G. Cree and H. E. Logan, “Yukawa alignment from natural flavor conservation,”Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 055021,arXiv:1106.4039 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [71]

    Accommodating hints of new heavy scalars in the framework of the flavor-aligned two-Higgs-doublet model,

    J. M. Connell, P. Ferreira, and H. E. Haber, “Accommodating hints of new heavy scalars in the framework of the flavor-aligned two-Higgs-doublet model,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 055031, arXiv:2302.13697 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [72]

    Updated global fit of the aligned two-Higgs-doublet model with heavy scalars,

    A. Karan, V. Miralles, and A. Pich, “Updated global fit of the aligned two-Higgs-doublet model with heavy scalars,”Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 035012, arXiv:2307.15419 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [73]

    Renormalization-group constraints on Yukawa alignment in multi-Higgs-doublet models,

    P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, and J. P. Silva, “Renormalization-group constraints on Yukawa alignment in multi-Higgs-doublet models,”Phys. Lett. B688(2010) 341–344,arXiv:1001.2561 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [74]

    Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents,

    S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, “Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents,”Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 1958

    1977

  55. [75]

    Diagonal Neutral Currents,

    E. A. Paschos, “Diagonal Neutral Currents,”Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 1966

    1977

  56. [76]

    Disentangling Mass and Mixing Hierarchies,

    S. Knapen and D. J. Robinson, “Disentangling Mass and Mixing Hierarchies,”Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 161803,arXiv:1507.00009 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [77]

    Aligned and Spontaneous Flavor Violation,

    D. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Homiller, and P. Meade, “Aligned and Spontaneous Flavor Violation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 031802,arXiv:1811.00017 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [78]

    Higgs bosons with large couplings to light quarks,

    D. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Homiller, and P. R. Meade, “Higgs bosons with large couplings to light quarks,” Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 115041,arXiv:1908.11376 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [79]

    Radiatively induced flavour violation in the general two-Higgs doublet model with Yukawa alignment,

    C. B. Braeuninger, A. Ibarra, and C. Simonetto, “Radiatively induced flavour violation in the general two-Higgs doublet model with Yukawa alignment,” Phys. Lett. B692(2010) 189–195,arXiv:1005.5706 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [80]

    High scale flavor alignment in two-Higgs doublet models and its phenomenology,

    S. Gori, H. E. Haber, and E. Santos, “High scale flavor alignment in two-Higgs doublet models and its phenomenology,”JHEP06(2017) 110, arXiv:1703.05873 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [81]

    A tale of three diagonalizations,

    H. E. Haber, “A tale of three diagonalizations,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36(2021) 2130003,arXiv:2009.03990 [hep-ph]. [82]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Interpretations of the ATLAS measurements of Higgs boson production and decay rates and differential cross-sections inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV,”JHEP 11(2024) 097,arXiv:2402.05742 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [83]

    The Two-Higgs-Doublet Model from the Ground Up,

    H. E. Haber, “The Two-Higgs-Doublet Model from the Ground Up,”. in preparation

  63. [84]

    Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV,

    E. Byckling and K. Kajante,Particle Kinematics (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London, UK, 1973). [85]CMSCollaboration, A. Hayrapetyanet al., “Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV,”Rept. Prog. Phys.88(2025) 127801, arXiv:2507.05119 [hep-ex]. [86]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “S...

    arXiv 1973

  64. [98]

    Prospects for Higgs physics at energies up to 100 TeV,

    J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, and J. Quevillon, “Prospects for Higgs physics at energies up to 100 TeV,”Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 116201,arXiv:1511.07853 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [99]

    Enhancing the Sensitivity for Triple Higgs Boson Searches with Deep Learning Techniques,

    C.-W. Chiang, F.-Y. Hsieh, S.-C. Hsu, I. Low, and Z.-Z. Li, “Enhancing the Sensitivity for Triple Higgs Boson Searches with Deep Learning Techniques,” arXiv:2510.01672 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  66. [100]

    Multi-Higgs boson production with anomalous interactions at current and future proton colliders,

    A. Papaefstathiou and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, “Multi-Higgs boson production with anomalous interactions at current and future proton colliders,” JHEP06(2024) 124,arXiv:2312.13562 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [101]

    Higgs Pair Production in the 2HDM: Impact of Loop Corrections to the Trilinear Higgs couplings,

    S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner, K. Radchenko, and G. R. Weiglein, “Higgs Pair Production in the 2HDM: Impact of Loop Corrections to the Trilinear Higgs couplings,”PoSLL2024(2024) 027

    2024

  68. [102]

    An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,

    T. S. Roussyet al., “An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,”Science381(2023) 46–50,arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [103]

    Electron EDM in the complex two-Higgs doublet model,

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, N. Hamer, and H. H. Patel, “Electron EDM in the complex two-Higgs doublet model,”Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 115042, arXiv:2009.01258 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [104]

    Explanation of the excesses in associated di-photon production at 152 GeV in 2HDM,

    S. Banik and A. Crivellin, “Explanation of the excesses in associated di-photon production at 152 GeV in 2HDM,”JHEP10(2024) 203,arXiv:2407.06267 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [105]

    Correlating A→γγwith electric dipole moments in the two Higgs doublet model in light of the diphoton excesses at 95 GeV and 152 GeV,

    S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and H. E. Haber, “Correlating A→γγwith electric dipole moments in the two Higgs doublet model in light of the diphoton excesses at 95 GeV and 152 GeV,”Phys. Rev. D111 no. 7, (2025) 075021,arXiv:2412.00523 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025