Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Electric dipole moments from the perspective of a scalar triplet and singlet extension of the MSSM: A study of neutrons, electrons, mercury, and b and c quarks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The TNMSSM's new CP-violating couplings drive observable EDMs, with the neutron bound the tightest constraint.

desk verdict A workmanlike TNMSSM EDM calculation with a four-order-of-magnitude internal inconsistency between the quoted d_b and d_c predictions that needs to be resolved before the headline numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02217 v2 pith:VQ6APCWM submitted 2025-01-04 hep-ph

Qing-hua Li , Jin-Lei Yang , Xiang Yang , Tai-Fu Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords electricdipolemomentCPviolationTNMSSMsupersymmetryneutronEDMbquarkcWeinbergoperator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the TNMSSM—a supersymmetric model extended by two scalar triplets and a singlet—contains new CP-violating couplings, $\chi_d$ and $\chi_t$, that generate sizable electric dipole moments for the neutron, electron, mercury, and the $b$ and $c$ quarks. The authors compute these EDMs from one-loop diagrams, two-loop gluino and Barr-Zee diagrams, and the Weinberg operator, then confront them with current experimental upper bounds. They find that the neutron EDM bound is the sharpest constraint on $\chi_d$ and $\chi_t$, while the $b$- and $c$-quark EDMs can still reach about $10^{-22}\,\text{e}\!\cdot\!\text{cm}$ and $10^{-23}\,\text{e}\!\cdot\!\text{cm}$, respectively, which future experiments might observe. If correct, EDM experiments can directly probe the CP-violating sector of this model and help decide whether it can explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry.

What carries the argument

The analysis is organized by a five-operator effective Lagrangian: the quark EDM operator, the quark CEDM operator, and the purely gluonic Weinberg operator, with renormalization-group running from the matching scale down to the quark mass scale. The new couplings $\chi_d$ and $\chi_t$ enter the superpotential through $\chi_d H_d \cdot T H_d$ and $\chi_u H_u \cdot \bar{T} H_u$, shift the squark and neutralino/chargino mass matrices, and supply the CP-violating phases that feed the loop amplitudes. Two-loop Barr-Zee diagrams, two-loop gluino self-energy diagrams, and the Weinberg operator are all needed to match the measured observables, and the neutron and mercury EDMs are then assembled from quark EDMs and CEDMs through hadronic relations.

What would settle it

Recompute the bounds on $\chi_d$ and $\chi_t$ and the maxima of $d_b$ and $d_c$ using the full $\pm0.5$ and $\pm10\,\text{MeV}$ uncertainty band of Eq. (2) instead of the fixed central values the paper adopts; the claimed $10^{-22}\,\text{e}\!\cdot\!\text{cm}$ reach for $d_b$ survives only if it changes by less than an order of magnitude under that propagation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the TNMSSM's own CP-violating couplings, $\chi_d$ and $\chi_t$, produce electric and chromoelectric dipole moments that are not merely present but experimentally relevant. Through one-loop diagrams, two-loop gluino and Barr-Zee diagrams, and the Weinberg operator, the authors compute $d_n$, $d_e$, $d_{\text{Hg}}$, $d_b$, and $d_c$ and compare them with current bounds. They find that $\chi_t$, enhanced by $\tan\beta$ and acting through up-type squarks, dominates the EDMs; the neutron upper bound then sharply restricts $\chi_d$ and $\chi_t$, while $d_b$ and $d_c$ can still be as large as about $10^{-22}\,\text{e}\!\cdot\!\text{cm}$ and $10^{-23}\,\text{e}\!\cdot\!\text{cm}$, respectively. In the same parameter region the TNMSSM predictions are larger than the MSSM ones, making the model distinguishable through EDM measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The entire constraint analysis rests on one hadronic formula, Eq. (2), that turns quark electric and chromoelectric dipole moments into the neutron's EDM; the paper fixes that formula's coefficients at their central values (0.5 and 12 MeV) and does not propagate the $\pm0.5$ and $\pm10\,\text{MeV}$ uncertainties, so a change in this hadronic input would shift the bounds on the new CP phases and the predicted heavy-quark EDMs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The neutron EDM bound excludes most of the $\chi_t$ parameter space, leaving only $|\chi_t| \lesssim 0.2$ when other phases are fixed, so neutron EDM experiments act as a direct filter on the TNMSSM's new CPV sources.
  • Because $\chi_t$ is enhanced by $\tan\beta$ and enters through up-type squark and chargino/neutralino loops, the TNMSSM predictions for all five EDMs exceed the MSSM predictions in the same parameter region.
  • Within current constraints, $d_b$ reaches about $10^{-22}\,\text{e}\!\cdot\!\text{cm}$ and $d_c$ reaches about $10^{-23}\,\text{e}\!\cdot\!\text{cm}$, values that future heavy-quark EDM searches could probe.
  • The electron and mercury EDMs constrain the phase of $\mu$ more strongly than the neutron EDM does, so combining all four observables gives a tighter test of the model than any single bound.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper stops at quoting reachable values; a natural next step is to map the same parameter space onto CP asymmetries in $b \to s\gamma$ or $B$-meson decays, which would give an independent handle on $d_b$ without a dedicated EDM measurement.
  • If a future EDM experiment sees a signal, the correlation structure among $d_n$, $d_e$, $d_{\text{Hg}}$, $d_b$, and $d_c$—all driven by $\chi_t$ and the $\mu$ phase—would help disentangle the TNMSSM phases from MSSM phases, something the paper does not explicitly work out.
  • The large $\mu$ phase preferred for electroweak baryogenesis is the same phase most tightly bounded by $d_e$ and $d_{\text{Hg}}$; the paper notes cancellations can hide it, but does not quantify how much fine-tuning that requires, leaving the model's baryogenesis viability as an open question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper computes electric dipole moments of the neutron, electron, mercury, b quark, and c quark in the TNMSSM, including one-loop diagrams, two-loop gluino corrections, Barr-Zee-type diagrams, and the Weinberg operator. It studies the dependence of these EDMs on the gluino phase θ3, the μ phase θμ, and the TNMSSM-specific CPV sources χd and χt, and it compares the results with MSSM predictions. The central claims are that the neutron EDM upper bound imposes strict constraints on χd and χt and that the b and c quark EDMs can reach about 10^-22 e·cm and 10^-23 e·cm respectively, making them potentially observable in future experiments.

Significance. If the numerical results are correct, the paper provides a useful phenomenological study of CPV in a well-motivated SUSY extension and gives concrete, falsifiable predictions for b and c quark EDMs. The analytic expressions and the explicit TNMSSM-versus-MSSM comparison are strengths, and I see no circularity: the EDM predictions are computed from the model Lagrangian and then compared with experimental bounds. However, the headline numbers contain a four-order-of-magnitude internal inconsistency, and the hadronic uncertainty in the neutron-EDM relation is not propagated; both issues directly affect the claimed constraints and the quoted reach of d_b and d_c.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV (after Fig. 7); Abstract; Sec. V] The text after Fig. 7 states that d_b and d_c can reach 10^-26 e·cm and 10^-27 e·cm respectively from the new CPV sources alone, but Fig. 8(c)-(f) has axes labeled db×10^22 and dc×10^23 with order-unity values, and both the Abstract and Sec. V quote 10^-22 e·cm and 10^-23 e·cm. This is a four-order-of-magnitude discrepancy in the central quantitative claim of the paper. Please correct the statement or clearly distinguish the scenarios that produce the two sets of numbers.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains the hadronic uncertainties (1±0.5) and (22±10) MeV, but the text states that the coefficients are fixed to 0.5 and 12 MeV, and the numerical analysis never propagates these uncertainties. Because the paper's headline result—that |d_n| imposes strict constraints on χ_d and χ_t, and hence sets the allowed d_b and d_c ceiling—passes through this relation, the order-100% uncertainty on the hadronic coefficients should be reflected in the constraints. Please provide the resulting uncertainty band or justify why fixing the central values is sufficient.
  3. [Sec. I, Eqs. (1)-(3); Sec. IV] The paper derives or adopts bounds on d_b and d_c from a mapping through |dg_c| and dg_b, citing Ref. [22], but it does not show the intermediate steps connecting the neutron bound to these quark-level bounds. Since the claimed reach of d_b ~ 10^-22 e·cm and d_c ~ 10^-23 e·cm depends on this chain, please display the explicit mapping or provide the numerical inputs so the reader can verify the quoted limits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] The text says 'the fact can be seed explicitly'; this should read 'seen'. Similar typos appear elsewhere, such as 'in in Fig. 6'.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption of Fig. 7 does not specify the units of the plotted quantities; please add the axis labels and units so that the numbers quoted in the text can be checked against the figures.
  3. [References] Ref. [64] is incomplete ('B. Yan, S. M. Zhao, and T. F. Feng et al. [Authors]'), and Ref. [76] contains a stray bibliographic entry ('975 (2022) 115671, doi: ...').
  4. [Eq. (27)] The mercury EDM formula involves dg_s, but no strange-quark CEDM expression is given in Sec. III; please state how dg_s is obtained.
  5. [Eq. (10)] The argument of ℑ and the H function in Eq. (10) are not cleanly delimited by parentheses; please fix the notation for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EDM predictions are computed from the TNMSSM Lagrangian and compared against external experimental bounds, not fitted to them.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs model-to-observable: the TNMSSM superpotential (Eq. 6) and soft terms (Eq. 7) introduce the CPV parameters chi_d and chi_t; the mass matrices in Appendix A and SARAH-generated couplings feed into the explicit one-loop (Eqs. 24, 31) and two-loop/Barr-Zee (Eqs. 25, 26) amplitudes; Eq. (9) combines d_gamma, d_g, and C5 into quark EDMs; and Eq. (2) converts the quark-level dipoles into d_n, whose computed value is then compared with the experimental upper bound. No equation defines chi_d or chi_t in terms of d_n, d_e, or d_Hg, and the scan over chi_d and chi_t in Eq. (33) is an independent Lagrangian-level parameter scan rather than a fit to the EDM outputs. The reported maxima for d_b and d_c are ordinary predictions evaluated after imposing the experimental constraints, not quantities forced by construction. The self-citations to earlier Feng-group papers (e.g., Refs. [62], [64], [66], [67], [78]) supply standard EDM formulas or parameter conventions, not the target result; the hadronic bridge in Eq. (2) is an external input from Pospelov-Ritz and Sala, and fixing its coefficients to 0.5 and 12 MeV is a robustness or uncertainty-propagation concern, not a circular step. No load-bearing equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles beyond the existing TNMSSM triplet and singlet superfields, which it takes from prior literature. The central numerical results depend on a set of benchmark and scanned free parameters, and on the hadronic neutron EDM relation, which are the main entries in this ledger.

free parameters (6)
  • χ_d and χ_t = χ_d = χ_t = 0.1 in Eq. (32); scanned over (-1, 1) in Eq. (33)
    New TNMSSM couplings whose phases θ_d, θ_t are the CPV sources under study; the magnitudes are chosen benchmark values.
  • tan β and tan β' = tan β = 5, tan β' = 1.3
    VEV ratios controlling Yukawa and triplet-singlet mixings, taken from prior literature.
  • M3 and μ = M3 = 4.0-4.5 TeV in Fig. 6, M3 = 5 TeV in Fig. 8; μ = 0.8-1.2 TeV
    Gluino mass and μ parameter whose phases θ3 and θμ are scanned; the magnitudes are set by hand.
  • T_χd and T_χt = T_χt = -0.8 TeV, T_χd = -0.5 TeV
    Triplet-related soft trilinear terms that directly enter the χ_d and χ_t CPV effects.
  • m_squark M_Q = M_Q > 1.5 TeV, treated as universal
    Universal squark mass parameter from LHC Higgs constraints; suppresses other SUSY contributions.
  • Triplet and singlet sector parameters = λ_T = -0.22, κ = 0.8, T_λ = T_λT = -0.1 TeV, v_T^2 + v_Tbar^2 = 1 GeV^2
    Model parameters from prior constraint analyses; the EDM predictions are sensitive to them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TNMSSM superpotential and soft terms in Eqs. (6)-(7)
    The model extends the MSSM with triplet and singlet superfields; this is taken from Refs. [13-15,47,48], not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption EDM effective-operator basis, including dimension-five photon and gluon operators and the Weinberg operator
    Standard QFT effective-field-theory approach; the RGE running is taken from Refs. [24,25,55].
  • domain assumption Neutron EDM hadronic relation in Eq. (2)
    From Pospelov and Ritz; the paper fixes the coefficients to 0.5 and 12 MeV and does not propagate the full ±1 and ±10 uncertainties.
  • ad hoc to paper Only θ3, θμ, θ_d, and θ_t are non-negligible CPV phases
    To isolate the new sources, all other phases are set to zero, which may miss realistic cancellation effects between multiple phases.
  • domain assumption SARAH-generated couplings and mass matrices are correct
    The C_L,R_abc couplings are 'obtained through SARAH' and are not independently reproduced in a machine-checked form.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric dipole moments from the perspective of a scalar triplet and singlet extension of the MSSM: A study of neutrons, electrons, mercury, and b and c quarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VQ6APCWM

@misc{pith2026250102217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric dipole moments from the perspective of a scalar triplet and singlet extension of the MSSM: A study of neutrons, electrons, mercury, and b and c quarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VQ6APCWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02217}
}
abstract

In the framework of the minimal supersymmetric model extension with new scalar triplets and singlet (TNMSSM), we analyze the electric dipole moment (EDM) of neutron ($d_n$), electron EDM($d_e$), the mercury EDM($d_{Hg}$), $b$ quark ($d_b$) and $c$ quark ($d_c$) by considering the contributions from the one-loop diagrams, some two-loop diagrams and the Weinberg operators. The effects of TNMSSM specific CPV sources $\chi_d,\;\chi_t$ on $d_n$, $d_e$, $d_{Hg}$, $d_b$, $d_c$ are specialized, it is found that they have significant contributions to these EDMs, and the current upper bounds on $d_n$ impose strict constraints on $\chi_d,\;\chi_t$. The theoretical predictions on $d_b$, $d_c$ can reach about $10^{-22}$ e$\cdot$cm and $10^{-23}$ e$\cdot$cm respectively by taking the upper bounds on $d_n$, $d_e$, $d_{Hg}$ into account, which have great potential to be observed in future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Calculating the Feynman diagrams, d γ q and d g q at the one-loop level can be written 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The one-loop diagrams which contributes to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The two-loop diagrams which contributes to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Full theory diagram (a) and effective diagram (b) are plotted, where the blobs denote the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The two-loop Barr-Zee type diagrams contributing to the quark EDM. The diagrams in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The one-loop Feynman diagrams contributing to the electron EDM, where (1) denotes a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Take the values from Eq. (32), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Scanning the parameter space shown in Eq. (33), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Scanning the parameter space shown in Eq. (33), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Sala, JHEP 1403, 061 (2014)

    F. Sala, JHEP 1403, 061 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091802 (2001)

    2001

  3. [2]

    Modak and E

    T. Modak and E. Senaha, Phys. Lett. B 822 (2021), 136695

    2021

  4. [3]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 201802 (2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [4]

    Dine and A

    M. Dine and A. Kusenko, Reviews of Modern Physics76, 1 (2003). 24

    work page 2003

  6. [5]

    Modak and E

    T. Modak and E. Senaha,JHEP 11 (2020), 025

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Masip,Phys

    M. Masip,Phys. Lett. B 444 (1998), 352-357

    work page 1998

  8. [7]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng, S. K. Cui, C. X. Liu, W. Li and H. B. Zhang,JHEP 04, 013 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    J. R. Ellis, S. Ferrara and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. 114B, 231 (1982)

    1982

  2. [9]

    Polchinski and M

    J. Polchinski and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. 125B, 393 (1983)

    1983

  3. [10]

    Nath, Phys

    P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2565 (1991)

    1991

  4. [11]

    Kizukuri and N

    Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Rev. D 46, 3025 (1992)

    1992

  5. [12]

    Kizukuri and N

    Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Rev. D 45, 1806 (1992)

    1992

  6. [13]

    Bandyopadhyay, K

    P. Bandyopadhyay, K. Huitu and A. Sabanci, JHEP 1310 (2013) 091 [arXiv:1306.4530 [hep- ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    P. Bandyopadhyay, S. Di Chiara, K. Huitu and A. S. Keceli, JHEP 1411 (2014) 062

    2014

  8. [15]

    S. F. King, M. Muhlleitner, R. Nevzorov and K. Walz, Nucl. Phys. B 901 (2015), 526-555

    2015

  9. [16]

    Particle Data Group, Review of Particle Physics, 83C, 1 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Baron et al, (ACME Collaboration), Science 343, 269 (2014)

    J. Baron et al, (ACME Collaboration), Science 343, 269 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Andreev et al, (ACME Collaboration), Nature 562, 355-360 (2018)

    V. Andreev et al, (ACME Collaboration), Nature 562, 355-360 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    A. E. Blinov and A. S. Rudenko, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 189, 257 (2009)

    2009

  13. [20]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Graner, Y

    B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.16, 161601 (2016) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.11, 119901 (2017)]

    2016

  15. [23]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 63, 073015 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Braaten, C

    E. Braaten, C. S. Li and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1709 (1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    Degrassi, E

    G. Degrassi, E. Franco, S. Marchetti and L. Silvestrini, JHEP 0511, 044 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    Gisbert and J

    H. Gisbert and J. Ruiz Vidal, arXiv:1905.02513 [hep-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Chang, W

    D. Chang, W. Y. Keung, C. S. Li and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 241, 589 (1990)

    1990

  20. [28]

    J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros,Phys. Lett. B 302 (1993), 51-58

    1993

  21. [29]

    J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros,Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998), 516-519

    1998

  22. [30]

    Agashe, A

    K. Agashe, A. Azatov, A. Katz and D. Kim, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 115024 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Ellwanger, C

    U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, Phys. Rep. 496, 1 (2010). 25

    2010

  24. [32]

    Chang, R

    S. Chang, R. Dermisek, J. F. Gunion, and N. Weiner, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 75 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    J. R. Espinosa,PoS TOP2015 (2016), 043

    2016

  26. [34]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin and F. Riva,Nucl. Phys. B 854 (2012), 592-630

    2012

  27. [35]

    Elias-Miro, J

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto and A. Strumia,Phys. Lett. B 709 (2012),222-228

    2012

  28. [36]

    Falk and K

    T. Falk and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 375, 196 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Falk and K

    T. Falk and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 439, 71 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    Brhlik, G

    M. Brhlik, G. J. Good and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. D 59, 115004 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    Bartl, T

    A. Bartl, T. Gajdosik, W. Porod, P. Stockinger and H. Stremnitzer, Phys. Rev. D 60, 073003 (1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    S. Abel, S. Khalil and O. Lebedev, Nucl. Phys. B 606, 151 (2001) [hep-ph/0103320]

    2001 arXiv

  33. [41]

    V. D. Barger, T. Falk, T. Han, J. Jiang, T. Li and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D 64, 056007 (2001) [hep-ph/0101106]

    2001 arXiv

  34. [42]

    K. A. Olive, M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and Y. Santoso, Phys. Rev. D 72, 075001 (2005) [hep- ph/0506106]

    2005

  35. [43]

    Cirigliano, S

    V. Cirigliano, S. Profumo and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP 0607, 002 (2006) [hep- ph/0603246]

    2006

  36. [44]

    S. Y. Ayazi and Y. Farzan, Phys. Rev. D 74, 055008 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Barger, P

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

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Fileviez Perez and S

    P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Phys. Lett. B 673, 251 (2009) [arXiv:0811.3424 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. X. Chen, S. K. Cui, N. Y. Zhu, Z. Y. Zhang and H. C. Hu,Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) no.5, 053104

    2024

  40. [48]

    H. c. Hu, Z. Y. Zhang, N. Y. Zhu and H. X. Chen,Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) no.9, 093101

    2024

  41. [49]

    Z. Y. Zhang, J. L. Yang, H. B. Zhang and T. F. Feng,Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.1, 015035

    2024

  42. [50]

    J. Dai, H. Dykstra, R. G. Leigh, S. Paban and D. Dicus,Phys. Lett. B

  43. [51]

    D. A. Dicus,Phys. Rev. D 41, 999 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    T. F. Feng, X. Q. Li, J. Maalampi and X. M. Zhang,Phys. Rev. D 71, 056005 (2005)[arXiv: 26 0412147]

    2005

  45. [53]

    J. Cao, D. Li, L. Shang, P. Wu and Y. Zhang,’JHEP 12 (2014), 026

    2014

  46. [54]

    Ibrahim and P

    T. Ibrahim and P. Nath,Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005), 055007

    2005

  47. [55]

    R. L. Arnowitt, J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos,Phys. Rev. D 42, 2423-2426 (1990)

    1990

  48. [56]

    R. L. Arnowitt, M. J. Duff and K. S. Stelle,Phys. Rev. D 43, 3085-3088 (1991)

    1991

  49. [57]

    Staub, arXiv:0806.0538

    F. Staub, arXiv:0806.0538

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun

    F. Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun. 181 1077-1086 (2010) [arXiv:0909.2863]

    2010 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun

    F. Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun. 182 808-833 (2011) [arXiv:1002.0840]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun

    F. Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun. 184 1792-1809 (2013) [arXiv:1207.0906]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun

    F. Staub, Comput.Phys.Commun. 185 1773-1790 (2014) [arXiv:1309.7223]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    T. F. Feng, X. Q. Li, J. Maalampi and X. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 71, 056005 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Phys. Lett. B 634, 307 (2006)

    2006

  56. [64]

    B. Yan, S. M. Zhao, and T. F. Feng et al. [Authors],Nucl. Phys. B

  57. [65]

    C. Lee, V. Cirigliano and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D 71, 075010 (2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    H. B. Zhang, T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao and T. J. Gao, Nucl. Phys. B 873, 300 (2013) [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 879, 235 (2014)]

    2013

  59. [67]

    H. B. Zhang, T. F. Feng, G. H. Luo, Z. F. Ge and S. M. Zhao, JHEP 1307, 069 (2013) [Erratum: JHEP 1310, 173 (2013)]

    2013

  60. [68]

    R. L. Workman et al. (PDG), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    CMS Collab., Phys. Lett. B, 716, 30 (2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    ATLAS Collab., Phys. Lett. B, 716, 1 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    Han, T.T

    P.Cox, C.C. Han, T.T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 104 075035 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    M. V. Beekveld, W. Beenakker, M. Schutten, et al., SciPost Phys. 11 3 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03245 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Chakraborti, L

    M. Chakraborti, L. Roszkowski, S. Trojanowski, JHEP 05 252 (2021) [arXiv:2104.04458 [hep- ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    F. Wang, L. Wu, Y. Xiao, et al., Nucl. Phys. B970, 115486 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03262 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chakraborti, S

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, I. Saha, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 12 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03287 [hep-ph]]. 27

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto, et al., JHEP 07 075 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03217 [hep-ph]]. 975 (2022) 115671,doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022.115671,[arXiv:2011.0853 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Agashe, A

    K. Agashe, A. Azatov, A. Katz and D. Kim,Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011),115024

    2011

  70. [78]

    Z. J. Yang, J. L. Yang, S. M. Zhao, X. G. Wu and T. F. Feng, [arXiv:2410.13659 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS],JHEP 10, 062 (2020)[arXiv:2008.06032]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    C. S. Un and O. Ozdal, Phys. Rev. D 93, 055024 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    Cheung, T

    K. Cheung, T. J. Hou, J. S. Lee and E. Senaha,Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 015002

    2011

  74. [82]

    Ruiz Vidal,[arXiv:2407.19247 [hep-ph]]

    J. Ruiz Vidal,[arXiv:2407.19247 [hep-ph]]. 28

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.