Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

On the Robustness of type-II Seesaw Collider Searches

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single effective interaction can cut the LHC's doubly charged Higgs exclusion from 1.1 TeV to 0.7 TeV.

desk verdict A transparent and useful EFT stress test of doubly charged Higgs searches, but the headline sensitivity degradation sits on a non-perturbative benchmark that the paper itself flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.09244 v2 pith:FGX5KDVW submitted 2026-03-10 hep-ph

Christoph Englert , Manimala Mitra , Wrishik Naskar , Subham Saha This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords type-IIseesawdoublychargedHiggseffectivefieldtheorydimension-sixoperatorscollidersearchrobustnessmultileptonfinalstatesHL-LHCprospectsleptonflavour
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 asks whether standard collider bounds on the type-II seesaw—a neutrino-mass model with a scalar triplet—survive when the model is embedded in a larger theory. Treating the extra effects generically as dimension-six operators, it shows that one operator that opens the decay of the doubly charged Higgs to a same-sign dilepton plus a hard photon dramatically reshapes the search kinematics. Recasting the published 139/fb multilepton search shifts the derived mass limit from about 1.1 TeV down to about 0.7 TeV. A production-enhancing operator has the opposite effect, pushing the limit above 1.6 TeV. The paper argues current analysis strategies are therefore vulnerable to missing non-minimal realisations, and shows that adding a photon requirement would give 3-sigma sensitivity to masses up to 2.2 TeV at the high-luminosity LHC.

What carries the argument

The operative objects are two dimension-six operators in an EFT built from the Standard Model plus the seesaw triplet: O_GDelta, a gluon contact term that enhances pair production of the doubly charged scalar, and O_BLDelta, a lepton-photon transition operator that opens hard l+l+gamma decays. Their job is to translate plausible UV modifications into observable shape changes. The recast uses the invariant mass of the two leading same-sign leptons—the variable the original search fits on—to convert modified kinematics into revised 95% CL limits, and the same variable, supplemented by a photon requirement, is then used to project discovery reach.

What would settle it

Measure or bound, in a model-independent way, the branching ratio of a roughly 1 TeV doubly charged scalar into l+l+gamma relative to l+l, for example through a same-sign dilepton-plus-photon resonance search at 13 TeV with 139/fb. A 95% CL upper limit on that branching ratio well below the O_BLDelta benchmark prediction—say below a few percent at 1 TeV—would rule out the benchmark that produces the sensitivity degradation and leave the vanilla exclusion intact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within an effective field theory that extends the type-II seesaw, the authors isolate two operators that drive the dominant search sensitivity: the gluonic operator O_GDelta, which boosts pp -> Delta++ Delta-- pair production through a contact interaction, and the lepton-photon operator O_BLDelta, which induces Delta++ -> l+l+gamma (and l+l+Z) decays. With Wilson coefficients set to 1/(5 TeV)^2, O_BLDelta becomes the dominant decay channel over nearly the entire mass range, diluting the same-sign dilepton signal that standard searches are built on. Recasting the published multilepton analysis, they find the vanilla exclusion near 1.1 TeV is weakened to about 0.7 TeV when O_BLDelta is turned

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative loss of reach rests on treating the dimension-six operator with coefficient 1/(5 TeV)^2 as a trustworthy signal model; the paper itself notes this benchmark is at odds with perturbation theory, so if the EFT expansion breaks down, the predicted dominance of l+l+gamma decays—and the 0.7 TeV limit—need not hold in any complete theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the benchmark EFT fairly represents extended type-II models, current LHC mass exclusions of about 1.1 TeV for the vanilla model do not carry over; decay-deforming operator effects can leave masses as light as about 0.7 TeV unexcluded.
  • Adding a requirement of at least one hard photon to the four-lepton selection restores sensitivity, reaching 3-sigma at masses up to 2.2 TeV at the high-luminosity LHC.
  • An operator that only enhances pair production makes the search far more restrictive, excluding masses up to about 1.6 TeV, so production and decay deformations have opposite robustness implications.
  • The l+l+Z channel induced by the same operator is the second dominant decay mode and could provide an independent cross-check of the photonic signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: any future exclusion quoted against the minimal type-II seesaw should be re-derived once a photon-philic operator is allowed, because the fitted same-sign dilepton mass variable is exactly the observable that the l+l+gamma decay most distorts.
  • A testable extension: rerun the existing multilepton search with an added isolated-photon signal region; if the l+l+gamma branching fraction is large, such a region should exclude more than the standard one, and the comparison would directly confirm or refute the degradation story.
  • Beyond the paper: the benchmark coefficient 1/(5 TeV)^2 is, by the authors' own admission, at odds with perturbation theory; at much smaller coefficients the limit degradation is milder, so the robustness statement is quantitative only within the EFT validity range.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies dimension-six EFT deformations of the type-II seesaw model, focusing on operators that modify the pair production (O_GΔ, O_uΔD, O_QΔD) and the decays (O_BLΔ, O_LeHΔD) of the doubly charged Higgs Δ±±. After sketching possible UV completions, the authors concentrate on O_GΔ and O_BLΔ. They implement the model in FeynRules/MadGraph+Pythia8 and recast the ATLAS 139 fb−1 same-sign-dilepton multilepton search using pyhf, deriving 95% CL limits for the vanilla type-II model and three scenarios: S1 (vanilla + O_GΔ), S2 (vanilla + O_BLΔ), and S3 (both). The main results are that O_GΔ alone strengthens the mass exclusion to ~1.6 TeV, while O_BLΔ at C_BLΔ/Λ² = 1/(5 TeV)² weakens the limit to ~0.7 TeV because the Δ±±→ℓ±ℓ±γ mode takes over and degrades the m(ℓ±,ℓ′±) distribution. A cut-based HL-LHC projection using Δ±±→ℓ±ℓ±γ with an Nγ≥1 requirement claims a 3σ reach up to ~2.2 TeV.

Significance. If the UV-realizability issue is set aside, the paper is a methodologically transparent and useful contribution: it uses public ATLAS data, provides a clear recast with explicit signal-region definitions, varies the O_BLΔ coefficient in Fig. 6, and candidly labels its main benchmark as a 'straw man.' The qualitative message—that adding a hard-photon three-body decay mode can degrade the standard same-sign-dilepton search and thereby weaken the derived mass bound—is plausible and worth stating. However, the quantitative centerpiece, the drop from ~1.1 TeV to ~0.7 TeV in S2, is computed at a benchmark that the authors themselves say is 'at odds with perturbation theory' and for which no weakly-coupled UV completion is shown. The paper’s significance would be materially higher if it either provided a concrete UV matching that generates O_BLΔ with perturbative couplings, or explicitly framed the 0.7 TeV limit as applying to a hypothetical non-perturbative deformation rather than to plausible type-II extensions. As it stands, the robustness conclusion is undermined by the gap between the straw-man benchmark and any demonstrated realization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2b and Fig. 5b] The central S2 result is computed at C_BLΔ/Λ² = 1/(5 TeV)², vΔ = 10⁻⁵ GeV, and the paper states in Sec. 3.1 that the resulting branching-ratio pattern is 'at odds with perturbation theory.' No weakly-coupled UV completion generating O_BLΔ with this coefficient is exhibited: the UV states listed in Sec. 2.2 are not matched to O_BLΔ, and O_BLΔ is a dipole-type operator for which perturbative completions typically introduce loop factors or require strong couplings. Thus the benchmark is not established as a possible deformation of the type-II seesaw, and the derived ~700 GeV exclusion in Fig. 5b is not a robust statement about the model. The qualitative vulnerability claim may survive, but the load-bearing quantitative claim needs either a UV-matched benchmark or a clear restriction of the result to a hypothetical non-perturbative deformation.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, footnote on scaling factor] The recast is calibrated by a single scaling factor obtained by normalizing the vanilla type-II limit to the published ATLAS result, and 'the same factor is used to rescale the limits for the EFT operator cases.' This assumes that detector acceptance, isolation, and reconstruction efficiencies factorize from the kinematic distributions. Fig. 4 shows that the m(ℓ±,ℓ′±) distributions for S2/S3 differ substantially from the vanilla case, and the additional hard photon can change lepton isolation and trigger efficiencies. No closure test or systematic variation of this scaling is provided. Since the S2 limit is the central quantitative result, the sensitivity of the derived limit to this assumption should be quantified or at least discussed.
  3. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.2, overall framing] The abstract and conclusions present the results as an assessment of the robustness of type-II seesaw collider constraints. But the only scenario that demonstrates sensitivity degradation (S2) relies on an operator coefficient that the paper itself flags as a large, perturbation-theory-at-odds reference value, and the paper does not show that any of the surveyed UV completions can generate O_BLΔ with this magnitude. The reader is left without a quantitative statement about how much degradation could occur in a realistic weakly-coupled extension. Please either supply a concrete matching calculation for O_BLΔ or soften the central claim so that the 0.7 TeV limit is described as an illustrative bound in a toy setup, not as a generic robustness result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 2b] The text says the W±W± and ℓ±W±νℓ branching ratios are 'highly suppressed and therefore not shown in the figure,' but the Fig. 2b legend lists these channels. Please reconcile the caption/text.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, text near Fig. 6] Typo: 'variotion' should be 'variation.'
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 6] The notation for the Wilson coefficient is inconsistent: the figure/label uses C_BLΔ/Λ² = 10⁻⁴/(5 TeV)² while the text writes C_BLΔ = 10⁻⁴, 0.1, 1.0. Define C_BLΔ and Λ in one place and use it consistently.
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 7] The label 'ATLAS' in Fig. 7 denotes the SR4L cut-based selection, not the full ATLAS analysis. This is potentially confusing; rename it to 'SR4L' or 'ATLAS-like SR4L.'
  5. [Sec. 2.2, general] The manuscript does not state the total decay width of Δ±± at the benchmark used in Sec. 3.2. Given the large branching fraction into three-body ℓℓγ/ℓℓZ channels, a short statement of Γ_total/MΔ±± would help the reader assess the narrow-width approximation used in the recast.
  6. [References] Reference [70] (CMS HL-LHC prospects) appears to lack journal/arXiv information; please add it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the S2 limit is a computed parameter scan, not a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The EFT operators in Eqs. (2.13)-(2.17) are taken from the independent basis paper [14] (no author overlap with this paper), and the Wilson coefficients and triplet vev are declared fixed reference values (C/Λ^2 = 1/(5 TeV)^2, vΔ = 10^-5 GeV, Sec. 3.1), not fitted to any observable. Production cross sections, branching ratios, and m(ℓ±,ℓ′±) distributions are computed from this specified Lagrangian using FeynRules/MadGraph/Pythia, and the limits are derived with a pyhf recast of the public ATLAS search [71]. The weaker S2 bound (~0.7 TeV) is a direct consequence of choosing a large O_BLΔ coefficient that suppresses BR(ℓ±ℓ±) and shifts the topology toward ℓ±ℓ±γ; the coefficient is not inferred from the limit, so the result is not equivalent to its input by construction. The scaling factor footnote normalizes the vanilla recast to the ATLAS result and rescales EFT scenarios, which is detector-efficiency calibration rather than fitting the EFT prediction. The only self-citation, Ref. [22], appears for the standard mass spectrum and general HL-LHC context and is not load-bearing. The paper's own caveat that this benchmark 'is at odds with perturbation theory' (Sec. 3.1) is an EFT-validity limitation of a deliberately extreme straw-man benchmark, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results (limits and discovery reaches) are computed for chosen benchmark values of vΔ, Λ, C_GΔ, C_BLΔ, and rest on the assumed validity of the EFT at these points, the unchanged ATLAS scaling factor, and the specified operator subset. The paper is transparent about several of these choices. No new particles are postulated; the EFT deformations are contact interactions adopted from an independent basis, and the UV-completion survey is illustrative only.

free parameters (4)
  • vΔ (triplet vev) = 10^-5 GeV
    Benchmark choice in Sec. 3.1 (Figs. 2, 5, 7). Controls relative size of W±W± vs Yukawa-driven decays; chosen vanishingly small so lepton channels dominate.
  • Λ (EFT cutoff) = 5 TeV
    Cutoff scale used for all Wilson coefficient normalizations (Sec. 3.1).
  • C_GΔ/Λ² (production operator coefficient) = 1/(5 TeV)^2
    Drives S1/S3 cross-section enhancement and the ~1.6 TeV bound (Sec. 3.2).
  • C_BLΔ/Λ² (decay operator coefficient) = 10^-4, 0.1, 1.0 (in units of 1/(5 TeV)^2)
    Scanned in Fig. 6; the S2 headline bound of ~0.7 TeV corresponds to 1.0. Used in HL-LHC projection (Fig. 7).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The dimension-six operator set (2.13)-(2.17) from Ref. [14] spans the deformations relevant for LHC searches.
    Sec. 2.1: 'we consider operator sets [14] that are in direct relation with the key phenomenological ingredients of collider searches.' The study is restricted to this subset.
  • ad hoc to paper The benchmark Wilson coefficients are trustworthy as a signal model despite lying near or beyond the perturbative regime.
    Sec. 3.1 admits the C_BLΔ/Λ² = 1/(5 TeV)² choice 'is at odds with perturbation theory'; the limits in Sec. 3.2 and projections in Sec. 3.3 use these values as input.
  • ad hoc to paper The ATLAS detector-response scaling factor derived from the vanilla scenario applies unchanged to the EFT-deformed scenarios.
    Sec. 3.2 footnote: 'a scaling factor is applied by normalising the observed and expected limit obtained in the vanilla type-II scenario to the corresponding ATLAS result, and the same factor is used to rescale the limits for the EFT operator cases.'
  • domain assumption Mass degeneracy of Δ±± and Δ± (λΔ4 = 0).
    Sec. 3.1: 'negligible in our case due to the assumed mass degeneracy between Δ±± and Δ±.' This suppresses cascade decays W±Δ±*.
  • domain assumption vΔ ≪ v and small mixing angle α, keeping the SM Higgs couplings close to SM values.
    Sec. 2.1: 'The smallness of this mixing also ensures that deviations of the SM Higgs couplings from their observed values remain within current experimental limits.' Used to set vΔ = 10^-5 GeV.
  • domain assumption LO simulation plus parton showering adequately captures signal kinematics for the recast.
    Sec. 3.2: all signal events are generated at LO with MadGraph and showered with Pythia8; no NLO or matching corrections are applied to the EFT signals, and ATLAS background histograms are taken from [71].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Robustness of type-II Seesaw Collider Searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGX5KDVW

@misc{pith2026260309244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Robustness of type-II Seesaw Collider Searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGX5KDVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.09244}
}
read the original abstract

Electroweak triplet Higgs sector extensions are well-motivated scenarios to address lepton flavour observations. These models can also be strongly constrained by combining precise, indirect low-energy measurements with direct searches for exotic, doubly charged Higgs bosons. Together, these searches set competitive constraints on the type-II seesaw mechanism. In this work, we consider extensions of the type-II seesaw, specifically through the lens of a modified collider phenomenology. Surveying motivated extensions, we map out changes in expected correlations, focusing on the modified production and decay phenomenology of exotic Higgs particles. This enables us to assess the robustness of the type-II seesaw collider constraints against extended new-physics contributions that modify standard sensitivity expectations and projections.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Revised exclusion limits on doubly charged Higgs bosons from a reanalysis of the ATLAS multi-lepton search at $\sqrt{s} = 13$,TeV

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The four-lepton signal efficiencies in ATLAS's doubly charged Higgs search exceed a strict analytical ceiling, so the corrected expected mass limits are roughly 100 GeV weaker.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 80 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kajita,Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,Rev

    T. Kajita,Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,Rev. Mod. Phys. 88(2016) 030501. [2]K2Kcollaboration,Indications of neutrino oscillation in a 250 km long baseline experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 041801 [hep-ex/0212007]. [3]KamLANDcollaboration,First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance,Phys. Re...

    arXiv 2016

  2. [4]

    A. B. McDonald,Nobel Lecture: The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory: Observation of flavor change for solar neutrinos,Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) 030502

    2016

  3. [5]

    S. F. King,Neutrino mass models,Rept. Prog. Phys.67(2004) 107 [hep-ph/0310204]

    arXiv 2004

  4. [6]

    Konetschny and W

    W. Konetschny and W. Kummer,Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons,Phys. Lett. B70(1977) 433

    1977

  5. [7]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 165

    1981

  6. [8]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,Nucl. Phys. B181(1981) 287

    1981

  7. [9]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle,Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,Phys. Rev. D 22(1980) 2227

    1980

  8. [10]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich,Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 61

    1980

Show all 97 references
  1. [11]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li,Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2860. – 18 –

    1980

  2. [12]

    O. A. Ducu, A. E. Dumitriu, A. Jinaru, R. Kukla, E. Monnier, G. Moultaka et al.,Type-II Seesaw Higgs triplet productions and decays at the LHC,JHEP06(2025) 020 [2410.14830]

    2025

  3. [13]

    P. D. Bolton, J. Kriewald, M. Nemevˇ sek, F. Nesti and J. C. Vasquez,Hadron colliders signatures of lepton number violation in the type II seesaw model,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 035016 [2408.00833]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [14]

    Banerjee, J

    U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, S. Prakash, S. U. Rahaman and M. Spannowsky,Effective Operator Bases for Beyond Standard Model Scenarios: An EFT compendium for discoveries,JHEP01(2021) 028 [2008.11512]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty, S. Prakash, S. U. Rahaman and M. Spannowsky,EFT diagrammatica: UV roots of the CP-conserving SMEFT,JHEP06(2021) 033 [2103.11593]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Barger, P

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

    2009 arXiv

  7. [17]

    G.-C. Cho, C. Idegawa and E. Senaha,Electroweak phase transition in a complex singlet extension of the Standard Model with degenerate scalars,Phys. Lett. B823(2021) 136787 [2105.11830]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [18]

    N. Chen, T. Li, Y. Wu and L. Bian,Complementarity of the futuree +e− colliders and gravitational waves in the probe of complex singlet extension to the standard model,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 075047 [1911.05579]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [19]

    G.-C. Cho, C. Idegawa and R. Inumiya,A complex singlet extension of the Standard Model with a singlet fermion dark matter,Nucl. Phys. B1007(2024) 116688 [2312.05776]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [20]

    V. K. Oikonomou and A. Giovanakis,Electroweak phase transition in singlet extensions of the standard model with dimension-six operators,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 055044 [2403.01591]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Das Bakshi, J

    Anisha, S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty and S. Prakash,Hilbert Series and Plethystics: Paving the path towards 2HDM- and MLRSM-EFT,JHEP09(2019) 035 [1905.11047]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Banerjee, C

    U. Banerjee, C. Englert and W. Naskar,Resurrecting the LHC discovery potential in the extended type-II seesaw model,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 055010 [2403.17455]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Ghezzi and M. Procura,Effective Field Theory with Two Higgs Doublets, JHEP09(2016) 160 [1608.00975]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Birch-Sykes, N

    C. Birch-Sykes, N. Darvishi, Y. Peters and A. Pilaftsis,Accidental symmetries in the 2HDMEFT,Nucl. Phys. B960(2020) 115171 [2007.15599]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Biermann, C

    Anisha, L. Biermann, C. Englert and M. M¨ uhlleitner,Two Higgs doublets, effective interactions and a strong first-order electroweak phase transition,JHEP08(2022) 091 [2204.06966]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Azevedo, L

    Anisha, D. Azevedo, L. Biermann, C. Englert and M. M¨ uhlleitner,Effective 2HDM Yukawa interactions and a strong first-order electroweak phase transition,JHEP02(2024) 045 [2311.06353]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [27]

    B. A. Ouazghour, A. Arhrib, K. Cheung, E.-s. Ghourmin and L. Rahili,Comparison betweenµ −µ+ ande −e+ colliders for charged Higgs production in the 2HDM,Phys. Rev. D 109(2024) 115009 [2308.15664]. – 19 –

    2024 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Banerjee, J

    Anisha, U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, C. Englert, M. Spannowsky and P. Stylianou, Effective connections of aµ, Higgs physics, and the collider frontier,Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 016019 [2108.07683]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Ashanujjaman, K

    S. Ashanujjaman, K. Ghosh and K. Huitu,Type-II see-saw: searching the LHC elusive low-mass triplet-like Higgses ate −e+ colliders,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 075028 [2205.14983]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Ashanujjaman and K

    S. Ashanujjaman and K. Ghosh,Revisiting type-II see-saw: present limits and future prospects at LHC,JHEP03(2022) 195 [2108.10952]

    2022

  21. [31]

    Padhan, D

    R. Padhan, D. Das, M. Mitra and A. Kumar Nayak,Probing Doubly and Singly Charged Higgs atppCollider HE-LHC,Springer Proc. Phys.277(2022) 209

    2022

  22. [32]

    Das and N

    J. Das and N. Kumar,Veltman criteria in the beyond standard model effective field theory of a complex scalar triplet,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 035048 [2301.05524]

    2023

  23. [33]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz and T. You,Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP04(2021) 279 [2012.02779]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Giani, G

    T. Giani, G. Magni and J. Rojo,SMEFiT: a flexible toolbox for global interpretations of particle physics data with effective field theories,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 393 [2302.06660]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Celada, T

    E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia et al.,Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee,JHEP09 (2024) 091 [2404.12809]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Durieux, M

    G. Durieux, M. Perell´ o, M. Vos and C. Zhang,Global and optimal probes for the top-quark effective field theory at future lepton colliders,JHEP10(2018) 168 [1807.02121]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [37]

    De Blas, G

    J. De Blas, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu and A. Paul,On the future of Higgs, electroweak and diboson measurements at lepton colliders,JHEP12(2019) 117 [1907.04311]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [38]

    de Blas, J

    J. de Blas, J. C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago,Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary,JHEP03(2018) 109 [1711.10391]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Naskar, S

    W. Naskar, S. Prakash and S. U. Rahaman,EFT Diagrammatica. Part II. Tracing the UV origin of bosonic D6 CPV and D8 SMEFT operators,JHEP08(2022) 190 [2205.00910]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Weinberg,Phenomenological Lagrangians,Physica A96(1979) 327

    S. Weinberg,Phenomenological Lagrangians,Physica A96(1979) 327

    1979

  31. [41]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085 [1008.4884]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,Phys. Rept.793 (2019) 1 [1706.08945]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Aebischer, A

    J. Aebischer, A. J. Buras and J. Kumar,SMEFT ATLAS: The Landscape Beyond the Standard Model,2507.05926

  34. [44]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Homiller and M. Sullivan,Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT contributions: A case study,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 115013 [2110.06929]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Dawson, D

    S. Dawson, D. Fontes, S. Homiller and M. Sullivan,Role of dimension-eight operators in an EFT for the 2HDM,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 055012 [2205.01561]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Ellis, K

    J. Ellis, K. Mimasu and F. Zampedri,Dimension-8 SMEFT analysis of minimal scalar field extensions of the Standard Model,JHEP10(2023) 051 [2304.06663]. – 20 –

    2023 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Dawson, M

    S. Dawson, M. Forslund and M. Schnubel,SMEFT matching to Z’ models at dimension eight,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 015002 [2404.01375]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Adhikary, T

    N. Adhikary, T. Biswas, J. Chakrabortty, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky,Electroweak scalar effects beyond dimension-six in SMEFT,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 036003 [2501.12160]

    2026 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu and H. Murayama,How to use the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP01(2016) 023 [1412.1837]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Drozd, J

    A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon and T. You,The Universal One-Loop Effective Action, JHEP03(2016) 180 [1512.03003]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [51]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang,Mixed heavy–light matching in the Universal One-Loop Effective Action,Phys. Lett. B762(2016) 166 [1604.02445]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [52]

    del Aguila, Z

    F. del Aguila, Z. Kunszt and J. Santiago,One-loop effective lagrangians after matching, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 244 [1602.00126]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [53]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang,Extending the Universal One-Loop Effective Action: Heavy-Light Coefficients,JHEP08(2017) 054 [1706.07765]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Kr¨ amer, B

    M. Kr¨ amer, B. Summ and A. Voigt,Completing the scalar and fermionic Universal One-Loop Effective Action,JHEP01(2020) 079 [1908.04798]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Banerjee, J

    U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, S. U. Rahaman and K. Ramkumar,One-loop effective action up to dimension eight: integrating out heavy scalar(s),Eur. Phys. J. Plus139(2024) 159 [2306.09103]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Banerjee, J

    U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, S. U. Rahaman and K. Ramkumar,One-loop effective action up to any mass-dimension for non-degenerate scalars and fermions including light–heavy mixing,Eur. Phys. J. Plus139(2024) 169 [2311.12757]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Chakrabortty, S

    J. Chakrabortty, S. U. Rahaman and K. Ramkumar,One-loop effective action up to dimension eight: Integrating out heavy fermion(s),Nucl. Phys. B1000(2024) 116488 [2308.03849]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Cohen, X

    T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang,Functional Prescription for EFT Matching,JHEP02 (2021) 228 [2011.02484]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Dittmaier, S

    S. Dittmaier, S. Schuhmacher and M. Stahlhofen,Integrating out heavy fields in the path integral using the background-field method: general formalism,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 826 [2102.12020]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Primulando, J

    R. Primulando, J. Julio and P. Uttayarat,Scalar phenomenology in type-II seesaw model, JHEP08(2019) 024 [1903.02493]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Antusch, O

    S. Antusch, O. Fischer, A. Hammad and C. Scherb,Low scale type II seesaw: Present constraints and prospects for displaced vertex searches,JHEP02(2019) 157 [1811.03476]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Garayoa and T

    J. Garayoa and T. Schwetz,Neutrino mass hierarchy and Majorana CP phases within the Higgs triplet model at the LHC,JHEP03(2008) 009 [0712.1453]

    2008 arXiv

  53. [63]

    B. Fuks, M. Nemevˇ sek and R. Ruiz,Doubly Charged Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 075022 [1912.08975]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Fileviez Perez, T

    P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han, G.-y. Huang, T. Li and K. Wang,Neutrino Masses and the CERN LHC: Testing Type II Seesaw,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 015018 [0805.3536]. – 21 –

    2008 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Chakrabortty, P

    J. Chakrabortty, P. Ghosh, S. Mondal and T. Srivastava,Reconciling(g−2) µ and charged lepton flavor violating processes through a doubly charged scalar,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 115004 [1512.03581]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li and R. Ruiz,Lepton Number Violation: Seesaw Models and Their Collider Tests,Front. in Phys.6(2018) 40 [1711.02180]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [67]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and Y. Zhang,Displaced vertex signatures of doubly charged scalars in the type-II seesaw and its left-right extensions,JHEP10(2018) 199 [1808.00943]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [68]

    del ´Aguila and M

    F. del ´Aguila and M. Chala,LHC bounds on Lepton Number Violation mediated by doubly and singly-charged scalars,JHEP03(2014) 027 [1311.1510]. [69]ATLAScollaboration,Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states with the ATLAS detector using prot...

    2014 arXiv

  59. [72]

    Mitra, S

    M. Mitra, S. Niyogi and M. Spannowsky,Type-II Seesaw Model and Multilepton Signatures at Hadron Colliders,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 035042 [1611.09594]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [73]

    Li,Type II Seesaw and tau lepton at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC and FCC-hh,JHEP09 (2018) 079 [1802.00945]

    T. Li,Type II Seesaw and tau lepton at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC and FCC-hh,JHEP09 (2018) 079 [1802.00945]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [74]

    D. N. Dinh, A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov,Theµ−eConversion in Nuclei, µ→eγ, µ→3eDecays and TeV Scale See-Saw Scenarios of Neutrino Mass Generation, JHEP08(2012) 125 [1205.4671]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [75]

    Chakrabortty, P

    J. Chakrabortty, P. Ghosh and W. Rodejohann,Lower Limits onµ→eγfrom New Measurements onU e3,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 075020 [1204.1000]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [76]

    N. D. Barrie and S. T. Petcov,Lepton Flavour Violation tests of Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis,JHEP01(2023) 001 [2210.02110]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [77]

    Englert, M

    C. Englert, M. Russell and C. D. White,Effective Field Theory in the top sector: do multijets help?,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 035019 [1809.09744]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [78]

    R. M. Fonseca,GroupMath: A Mathematica package for group theory calculations,Comput. Phys. Commun.267(2021) 108085 [2011.01764]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [79]

    D. B. Kaplan,Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses,Nucl. Phys. B365(1991) 259

    1991

  67. [80]

    Contino, Y

    R. Contino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol,Higgs as a Holographic Pseudo Goldstone Boson, Nucl. Phys. B671(2003) 148 [hep-ph/0306259]

    2003 arXiv

  68. [81]

    Agashe, R

    K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol,The Minimal composite Higgs model,Nucl. Phys. B 719(2005) 165 [hep-ph/0412089]

    2005 arXiv

  69. [82]

    Contino,The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small, pp

    R. Contino,The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small, pp. 235–306, 2011,1005.4269, DOI. – 22 –

    2011 arXiv

  70. [83]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer,The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs, vol. 913. Springer, 2016, 10.1007/978-3-319-22617-0, [1506.01961]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [84]

    Redi and A

    M. Redi and A. Tesi,Implications of a Light Higgs in Composite Models,JHEP10(2012) 166 [1205.0232]

    2012 arXiv

  72. [85]

    Vecchi,A dangerous irrelevant UV-completion of the composite Higgs,JHEP02(2017) 094 [1506.00623]

    L. Vecchi,A dangerous irrelevant UV-completion of the composite Higgs,JHEP02(2017) 094 [1506.00623]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [86]

    Georgi and S

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow,Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,Phys. Rev. Lett.32 (1974) 438

    1974

  74. [87]

    Fritzsch and P

    H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski,Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,Annals Phys. 93(1975) 193

    1975

  75. [88]

    B. Bajc, M. Nemevsek and G. Senjanovic,Probing seesaw at LHC,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 055011 [hep-ph/0703080]

    2007 arXiv

  76. [89]

    Langacker,The Physics of HeavyZ ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev

    P. Langacker,The Physics of HeavyZ ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1199 [0801.1345]

    2009 arXiv

  77. [90]

    Bonilla, T

    C. Bonilla, T. Modak, R. Srivastava and J. W. F. Valle,U(1) B3−3Lµ gauge symmetry as a simple description ofb→sanomalies,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 095002 [1705.00915]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [91]

    Davighi,Anomalous Z’ bosons for anomalous B decays,JHEP08(2021) 101 [2105.06918]

    J. Davighi,Anomalous Z’ bosons for anomalous B decays,JHEP08(2021) 101 [2105.06918]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [92]

    Allanach and A

    B. Allanach and A. Mullin,Plan B: new Z’ models forb→sℓ +ℓ− anomalies,JHEP09 (2023) 173 [2306.08669]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [93]

    Allanach and N

    B. Allanach and N. Gubernari,MalaphoricZ ′ models forb→sℓ +ℓ− anomalies,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 2 [2409.06804]

    2025 arXiv

  81. [94]

    B. C. Allanach,U(1) B3−L2 explanation of the neutral currentB−anomalies,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 56 [2009.02197]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [95]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250 [1310.1921]

    2014 arXiv

  83. [96]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079 [1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  84. [97]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output,Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 1201 [1108.2040]

    2012 arXiv

  85. [98]

    M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky,New Physics in LHC Higgs boson pair production,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 055002 [1210.8166]. [99]LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Groupcollaboration,Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,CERN Yel...

    2013 arXiv

  86. [100]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands,PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,JHEP05 (2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175]

    2006 arXiv

  87. [101]

    Feickert, L

    M. Feickert, L. Heinrich and G. Stark,pyhf: a pure-Python statistical fitting library with tensors and automatic differentiation,PoSICHEP2022(2022) 245 [2211.15838]. – 23 –

    2022 arXiv

  88. [102]

    Belvedere, C

    A. Belvedere, C. Englert, R. Kogler and M. Spannowsky,Dispelling the √ Lmyth for the High-Luminosity LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 715 [2402.07985]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [103]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554. – 24 –

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.