pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2511.04796 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-06 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Interpretation of LHC excesses at 95 GeV and 152 GeV in an extended Georgi-Machacek model

Ting-Kuo Chen , Cheng-Wei Chiang , Sven Heinemeyer , Georg Weiglein This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 00:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords Georgi-Machacek modelHiggs boson excesses95 GeV excess152 GeV excessdi-photon decayextended Higgs sectorcustodial symmetry breaking
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

A minimally extended Georgi-Machacek model accounts for LHC excesses at both 95 GeV and 152 GeV while fitting the 125 GeV Higgs.

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

The paper examines reported excesses in di-photon searches at 95 GeV from CMS and ATLAS, compatible with a LEP b bbar excess, plus a 152 GeV excess from sideband analysis. It shows these signals arise naturally from new scalar bosons in the minimally extended Georgi-Machacek model. The model predicts scalar masses below 200 GeV, uses a doubly charged Higgs to boost photon decays, and relies on mild custodial symmetry breaking for asymmetric W and Z couplings while keeping the rho parameter near one at tree level. This framework improves the overall fit to the data and forecasts additional light scalars for future detection.

Core claim

We demonstrate that these excesses can be well described in a minimally extended Georgi-Machacek (meGM) model. This is enabled by four key features of the meGM model: a natural prediction for scalar boson masses of ≲200 GeV arising from the condition to describe both the Higgs boson signal at 125 GeV and the excesses at 95 GeV, the prediction for a doubly charged Higgs boson that can potentially enhance the di-photon decay rates, asymmetric WW and ZZ couplings to neutral scalar bosons that are induced by mild custodial symmetry breaking, and the approximate preservation of the electroweak ρ parameter to be 1 at tree level.

What carries the argument

the minimally extended Georgi-Machacek (meGM) model with its doubly charged Higgs boson and mild custodial symmetry breaking that produces asymmetric vector-boson couplings

If this is right

  • The model naturally improves the fit to the LHC data around 152 GeV when describing the excesses at 95 GeV.
  • Additional light CP-odd and charged scalar bosons are predicted that can be probed in dedicated searches during upcoming LHC runs.
  • Sensitivity studies show interesting prospects for measuring the 95 and 125 GeV Higgs-boson couplings at the HL-LHC and future e+e- colliders.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation would favor Higgs-sector extensions that maintain tree-level electroweak precision while allowing light scalars below 200 GeV.
  • The same features could be checked against other mild excesses reported in similar mass ranges at the LHC.
  • Precision measurements of scalar couplings at future colliders would provide a direct test to separate this model from simpler two-Higgs-doublet scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The excesses at 95 GeV and 152 GeV arise from production and decay of new scalar bosons in the meGM model rather than from statistical fluctuations or incomplete background modeling.

What would settle it

Future LHC searches that find no evidence for the predicted additional light CP-odd or charged scalars, or HL-LHC coupling measurements that deviate from the meGM predictions for the 95 and 125 GeV states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04796 by Cheng-Wei Chiang, Georg Weiglein, Sven Heinemeyer, Ting-Kuo Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A representative Feynman diagram of the charged Drell-Yan production of the scalar boson pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Sample distributions in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sample distributions in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sample distributions in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Sample distributions in the eight relevant SR’s listed in Tab. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Sample distributions in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Sample distribution in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sample distribution in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Sample distributions of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze the excesses at 95 GeV in the light Higgs-boson searches in the di-photon decay channel reported by CMS and ATLAS, which combined are at the level of three standard deviations and are compatible with the excess in the $b\bar{b}$ final state observed at LEP, together with an excess in the di-photon channel at around 152 GeV reported based on a sideband analysis. We demonstrate that these excesses can be well described in a minimally extended Georgi-Machacek (meGM) model. This is enabled by four key features of the meGM model: (1) a natural prediction for scalar boson masses of $\lesssim$200 GeV arising from the condition to describe both the Higgs boson signal at 125 GeV and the excesses at 95 GeV, (2) the prediction for a doubly charged Higgs boson that can potentially enhance the di-photon decay rates, (3) asymmetric $WW$ and $ZZ$ couplings to neutral scalar bosons that are induced by mild custodial symmetry breaking, and (4) the approximate preservation of the electroweak $\rho$ parameter to be 1 at tree level. We show in our numerical analysis that the meGM model naturally improves the fit to the LHC data around 152 GeV when describing the excesses at 95 GeV. At the same time, the model also predicts additional light CP-odd and charged scalar bosons that can be potentially probed in future experiments, which motivates dedicated searches in the upcoming LHC runs. We also present the results of sensitivity studies for the 95 and 125 GeV Higgs-boson couplings at the HL-LHC and future $e^+e^-$ colliders, which demonstrate very interesting prospects for probing the meGM model at future colliders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript interprets the reported ~3σ excesses at 95 GeV in the diphoton channel (CMS+ATLAS) and the compatible LEP bb excess, together with a sideband excess near 152 GeV, as arising from new scalar bosons in a minimally extended Georgi-Machacek (meGM) model. It argues that four model features—natural light scalar masses from simultaneously fitting the 125 GeV Higgs and 95 GeV signals, a doubly-charged Higgs that can enhance diphoton rates, asymmetric WW/ZZ couplings induced by mild custodial-symmetry breaking, and tree-level preservation of ρ≈1—allow a good description of the data. Numerical results are said to show that accommodating the 95 GeV excess automatically improves the 152 GeV fit, while additional light CP-odd and charged scalars are predicted and sensitivity projections for HL-LHC and future e⁺e⁻ colliders are provided.

Significance. If the numerical fits are robust, the work supplies a concrete, minimally extended BSM framework that simultaneously addresses multiple reported anomalies while preserving key electroweak constraints and offering concrete, testable predictions for additional scalars and coupling deviations at future colliders. The emphasis on natural mass scales and the doubly-charged Higgs contribution to diphotons provides a focused target for experimental searches.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical analysis] Numerical analysis section: the central claim that the meGM model 'naturally improves the fit to the LHC data around 152 GeV when describing the excesses at 95 GeV' is load-bearing for the interpretation. The manuscript must supply the explicit parameter scans, the treatment of experimental uncertainties, the exclusion criteria applied, and a quantitative comparison (e.g., Δχ² or likelihood ratio) against the background-only hypothesis or the SM to demonstrate that the improvement is not merely a consequence of the added degrees of freedom from fitting both the 125 GeV and 95 GeV signals.
  2. [Model and numerical analysis] Model definition and fitting procedure: the four key features are presented as enabling a good description, yet the parameter space is tuned to accommodate the 125 GeV Higgs and the 95 GeV excess simultaneously. A concrete demonstration is needed that the 152 GeV improvement survives when the custodial-breaking parameter and scalar-potential parameters are varied within ranges that still satisfy all existing Higgs-signal-strength and electroweak-precision constraints, rather than being an artifact of the specific tuning chosen for the 95 GeV fit.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model section] The notation for the mixing angles between the CP-even scalars and the definition of the custodial-symmetry-breaking parameter should be introduced with an explicit equation or table in the model section to improve readability.
  2. [Sensitivity studies] Figure captions for the sensitivity projections at HL-LHC and future e⁺e⁻ colliders should state the assumed integrated luminosities and the precise observables (e.g., signal-strength ratios) being projected.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive major comments. We have revised the numerical analysis section to provide greater transparency and robustness in our fits, addressing the concerns raised while preserving the core interpretation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical analysis] Numerical analysis section: the central claim that the meGM model 'naturally improves the fit to the LHC data around 152 GeV when describing the excesses at 95 GeV' is load-bearing for the interpretation. The manuscript must supply the explicit parameter scans, the treatment of experimental uncertainties, the exclusion criteria applied, and a quantitative comparison (e.g., Δχ² or likelihood ratio) against the background-only hypothesis or the SM to demonstrate that the improvement is not merely a consequence of the added degrees of freedom from fitting both the 125 GeV and 95 GeV signals.

    Authors: We agree that additional detail is required to substantiate the robustness of the numerical results. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the Numerical analysis section to explicitly describe the parameter scans (including the full ranges and sampling method for the custodial-breaking and potential parameters), the incorporation of experimental uncertainties from the ATLAS/CMS diphoton and LEP bb data, and the exclusion criteria based on Higgs signal-strength measurements and electroweak precision observables. We now also report quantitative fit improvements via Δχ² values (and likelihood ratios) relative to both the background-only hypothesis and the SM-only case. These comparisons show that the improvement at 152 GeV remains statistically significant after accounting for the extra degrees of freedom used in the simultaneous 125 GeV + 95 GeV fit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model and numerical analysis] Model definition and fitting procedure: the four key features are presented as enabling a good description, yet the parameter space is tuned to accommodate the 125 GeV Higgs and the 95 GeV excess simultaneously. A concrete demonstration is needed that the 152 GeV improvement survives when the custodial-breaking parameter and scalar-potential parameters are varied within ranges that still satisfy all existing Higgs-signal-strength and electroweak-precision constraints, rather than being an artifact of the specific tuning chosen for the 95 GeV fit.

    Authors: We have performed additional dedicated scans in which the custodial-breaking parameter and the scalar-potential parameters are varied over the full ranges still compatible with all current Higgs signal-strength and electroweak-precision constraints. The revised manuscript includes new figures and tables that demonstrate the 152 GeV fit improvement persists across these variations. This shows that the enhancement is a generic consequence of the four model features (light scalar masses from the joint 125/95 GeV fit, doubly-charged Higgs contribution, asymmetric WW/ZZ couplings, and tree-level ρ≈1) rather than an artifact of a narrow tuning chosen solely for the 95 GeV excess. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claims rest on independent model dynamics

full rationale

The paper fits meGM model parameters to the 125 GeV Higgs signal and 95 GeV excess, then reports that the same parameter region improves the 152 GeV description. This does not reduce to a self-definition or fitted-input-called-prediction because the improvement arises from the model's specific structural predictions (doubly-charged Higgs enhancement of diphoton rates, mild custodial breaking inducing asymmetric WW/ZZ couplings, and tree-level rho preservation), which correlate the scalar mass spectrum and decay widths across different resonances. These features are derived from the extended scalar potential and are not imposed by the 152 GeV data. No self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is load-bearing for the main result; the numerical analysis uses the model's equations to generate correlated predictions that can be tested independently. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external data benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on several free parameters in the scalar potential and vacuum expectation values that are adjusted to fit the 95 GeV excess and the 125 GeV Higgs, plus the structural assumption that mild custodial symmetry breaking preserves the rho parameter near unity while allowing asymmetric WW and ZZ couplings.

free parameters (2)
  • scalar potential parameters and mixing angles
    Adjusted to simultaneously describe the 125 GeV Higgs signal and the 95 GeV excess while generating the required di-photon rates.
  • custodial symmetry breaking strength
    Chosen mildly to produce asymmetric WW and ZZ couplings without spoiling the rho parameter.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The model structure preserves the electroweak rho parameter at approximately 1 at tree level.
    Invoked as one of the four key features that enable the description of the excesses.
invented entities (2)
  • doubly charged Higgs boson no independent evidence
    purpose: Enhances the di-photon decay rates of the neutral scalars to match the observed excesses.
    Introduced by the triplet fields in the extended model.
  • additional light CP-odd and singly charged scalar bosons no independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted as testable signatures at future colliders.
    Arise from the same scalar sector when parameters are fixed to the excesses.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5875 in / 1687 out tokens · 58847 ms · 2026-05-18T00:19:41.546359+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Low mass scalars at $e^+e-$ colliders

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The paper summarizes new developments in models and experimental searches for low-mass scalars at Higgs factories since prior reviews.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 109 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    is the mass of the charged fermionf, If is the third component of its isospin, i.e., Iu (Id,e) = 1/2 (−1/2), and Vud is the associated element of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. In Eq. (II.17), the generation indices are not explicitly shown. In the CP-conserving limit, the scalar bosons couple only through either the scalar- or pseudoscalar-type in...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (II.3) is not the global minimum of the Higgs potential and that there exist some other deeper minima

    Vacuum stability In general, it is possible that the desired electroweak vacuum⃗ v= (vϕ, vχ, vξ) satisfying Eq. (II.3) is not the global minimum of the Higgs potential and that there exist some other deeper minima. 10 While metastable configurations where the tunneling rates into all deeper minima are so low that the lifetime of the metastable electroweak...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Boundedness from below The Higgs potential has to be bounded from below in any direction of the field space for large field values. Such stability of the potential is ensured by the following conditions: λ > 0, ρ 3 > 0, ρ 1 + min(ρ2/2, ρ2) > 0 , (II.28) 4λρ3 > σ 2 3, 4λ(ρ1 + ρ2ζ) > σ1 + σ2 − |σ2|√2ζ − 1 2 2 , (II.29) 4(ρ1 + ρ2ζ + ρ3 − ρ4 − ηρ5)ρ3 > (2ρ3 −...

    work page

  4. [4]

    ERDF: A way of making Europe

    Perturbative unitarity We now consider the perturbative unitarity conditions from all the high-energy 2 → 2 bosonic scattering processes. The longitudinal modes of the weak vector bosons are taken into account 11 |Q| |Y | Two-Body States 0 ϕ+ϕ−, ϕ0ϕ0∗, χ++χ−−, χ+χ−, χ0χ0∗, ξ+ξ−, ξ0ξ0 √ 2 1 2 ϕ0∗χ0, ϕ−χ+, ϕ0ξ0, ϕ−ξ+ 0 1 ϕ0ϕ0 √ 2 , χ0ξ0, χ+ξ− 3 2 ϕ0χ0 2 χ0χ...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033

  5. [5]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    , Nature 607 (2022) 60 [ 2207.00043]

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Nature 607, 60 (2022), arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Nature 607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Search for diphoton resonances in the 66 to 110 GeV mass range using 140 fb −1 of 13 TeV pp collisions collected with the ATLAS detector , Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. D 109, 035005 (2024), arXiv:2306.03889 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson at LEP

    R. Barate et al. (LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL), Phys. Lett. B 565, 61 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0306033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    J. Cao, X. Guo, Y. He, P. Wu, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 95, 116001 (2017), arXiv:1612.08522 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Model-Independent Bounds on a Light Higgs

    A. Azatov, R. Contino, and J. Galloway, JHEP 04, 127 (2012), [Erratum: JHEP 04, 140 (2013)], arXiv:1202.3415 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 07, 073 (2023), arXiv:2208.02717 [hep-ex]. 30

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Search for dilepton resonances from decays of (pseudo)scalar bosons produced in association with a massive vector boson or top quark anti-top quark pair at √s = 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Belyaev, R

    A. Belyaev, R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, M. Chakraborti, S. Moretti, and S. Semlali, JHEP 05, 209 (2024), arXiv:2306.09029 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, H. B. Cˆ amara, F. R. Joaquim, and J. F. Seabra, Phys. Rev. D 108, 075020 (2023), arXiv:2307.03768 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Dutta, J

    J. Dutta, J. Lahiri, C. Li, G. Moortgat-Pick, S. F. Tabira, and J. A. Ziegler, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 926 (2024), arXiv:2308.05653 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Ellwanger and C

    U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1138 (2023), arXiv:2309.07838 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    J. Cao, X. Jia, J. Lian, and L. Meng, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075001 (2024), arXiv:2310.08436 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Arcadi, G

    G. Arcadi, G. Busoni, D. Cabo-Almeida, and N. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. D 110, 115028 (2024), arXiv:2311.14486 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Ahriche, Phys

    A. Ahriche, Phys. Rev. D 110, 035010 (2024), arXiv:2312.10484 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Chen, C.-W

    T.-K. Chen, C.-W. Chiang, S. Heinemeyer, and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075043 (2024), arXiv:2312.13239 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138481 (2024), arXiv:2312.17733 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    C.-X. Liu, Y. Zhou, X.-Y. Zheng, J. Ma, T.-F. Feng, and H.-B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 056001 (2024), arXiv:2402.00727 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    J. Cao, X. Jia, and J. Lian, Phys. Rev. D 110, 115039 (2024), arXiv:2402.15847 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Kalinowski and W

    J. Kalinowski and W. Kotlarski, JHEP 07, 037 (2024), arXiv:2403.08720 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Ellwanger and C

    U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 526 (2024), arXiv:2403.16884 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Ellwanger, C

    U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, S. F. King, and S. Moretti, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 788 (2024), arXiv:2404.19338 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Arhrib, K

    A. Arhrib, K. H. Phan, V. Q. Tran, and T.-C. Yuan, Nucl. Phys. B 1015, 116909 (2025), arXiv:2405.03127 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Benbrik, M

    R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D 110, 115030 (2024), arXiv:2405.02899 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Lian, Phys

    J. Lian, Phys. Rev. D 110, 115018 (2024), arXiv:2406.10969 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Ghosh, (2025), arXiv:2501.17457 [hep-ph]

    S. Ghosh, (2025), arXiv:2501.17457 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    X. Du, H. Liu, and Q. Chang, Phys. Rev. D 112, 015019 (2025), arXiv:2502.06444 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Benbrik, M

    R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, K. Kahime, S. Moretti, L. Rahili, and B. Taki, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139688 (2025), arXiv:2505.07811 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Precise prediction for the Higgs-Boson Masses in the $\mu\nu$SSM

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, and C. Mu˜ noz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 504 (2018), arXiv:1712.07475 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Decays of the neutral Higgs bosons into SM fermions and gauge bosons in the $\mathcal{CP}$-violating NMSSM

    F. Domingo, S. Heinemeyer, S. Paßehr, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 942 (2018), arXiv:1807.06322 [hep-ph]. 31

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Biek¨ otter, M

    T. Biek¨ otter, M. Chakraborti, and S. Heinemeyer, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 2 (2020), arXiv:1903.11661 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Biek¨ otter, A

    T. Biek¨ otter, A. Grohsjean, S. Heinemeyer, C. Schwanenberger, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 178 (2022), arXiv:2109.01128 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, and G. Weiglein, JHEP 08, 201 (2022), arXiv:2203.13180 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, and G. Weiglein, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138217 (2023), arXiv:2303.12018 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Georgi and M

    H. Georgi and M. Machacek, Nucl. Phys. B 262, 463 (1985)

    work page 1985

  44. [44]

    M. S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, Phys. Lett. B 165, 105 (1985)

    work page 1985

  45. [45]

    Crivellin, Y

    A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, O. Fischer, S. Bhattacharya, M. Kumar, E. Malwa, B. Mellado, N. Rapheeha, X. Ruan, and Q. Sha, Phys. Rev. D 108, 115031 (2023), arXiv:2109.02650 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Coloretti, A

    G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. Bhattacharya, and B. Mellado, Phys. Rev. D 108, 035026 (2023), arXiv:2302.07276 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Banik, G

    S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado, JHEP 01, 155 (2025), arXiv:2308.07953 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S.-E. Dahbi, Y. Fang, M. Kumar, and B. Mellado, (2023), arXiv:2306.17209 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139298 (2025), arXiv:2402.00101 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Crivellin, S

    A. Crivellin, S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, (2024), arXiv:2404.14492 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Banik, G

    S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and H. E. Haber, (2024), arXiv:2412.00523 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, JHEP 04, 003 (2025), arXiv:2411.18618 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Ashanujjaman, A

    S. Ashanujjaman, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and A. Thapa, (2025), arXiv:2503.01974 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Lieberman, M. Kumar, A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, R. Mazini, and B. Mellado, (2025), arXiv:2503.16245 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Chen, C.-W

    T.-K. Chen, C.-W. Chiang, and K. Yagyu, JHEP 06, 069 (2023), [Erratum: JHEP 07, 169 (2023)], arXiv:2303.09294 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Navas et al

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

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Science 376, 170 (2022)

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Chen, C.-W

    T.-K. Chen, C.-W. Chiang, and K. Yagyu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 055035 (2022), arXiv:2204.12898 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Effects of custodial symmetry breaking in the Georgi-Machacek model at high energies

    S. Blasi, S. De Curtis, and K. Yagyu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 015001 (2017), arXiv:1704.08512 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Keeshan, H

    B. Keeshan, H. E. Logan, and T. Pilkington, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015001 (2020), arXiv:1807.11511 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980)

    work page 1980

  62. [62]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980). 32

    work page 1980

  63. [63]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 94, 61 (1980)

    work page 1980

  64. [64]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981)

    work page 1981

  65. [65]

    W. G. Hollik, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, JHEP 03, 109 (2019), arXiv:1812.04644 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    P. M. Ferreira, M. M¨ uhlleitner, R. Santos, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, JHEP 09, 006 (2019), arXiv:1905.10234 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 301 (2022), arXiv:2112.12132 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 10, 1145 (1974), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 972 (1975)]

    work page 1974

  69. [69]

    Phenomenological signatures of additional scalar bosons at the LHC

    S. von Buddenbrock, N. Chakrabarty, A. S. Cornell, D. Kar, M. Kumar, T. Mandal, B. Mellado, B. Mukhopadhyaya, R. G. Reed, and X. Ruan, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 580 (2016), arXiv:1606.01674 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    Multi-lepton signatures of additional scalar bosons beyond the Standard Model at the LHC

    S. von Buddenbrock, A. S. Cornell, A. Fadol, M. Kumar, B. Mellado, and X. Ruan, J. Phys. G 45, 115003 (2018), arXiv:1711.07874 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Buddenbrock, A

    S. Buddenbrock, A. S. Cornell, Y. Fang, A. Fadol Mohammed, M. Kumar, B. Mellado, and K. G. Tomiwa, JHEP 10, 157 (2019), arXiv:1901.05300 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    von Buddenbrock, R

    S. von Buddenbrock, R. Ruiz, and B. Mellado, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135964 (2020), arXiv:2009.00032 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Hernandez, M

    Y. Hernandez, M. Kumar, A. S. Cornell, S.-E. Dahbi, Y. Fang, B. Lieberman, B. Mellado, K. Mon- nakgotla, X. Ruan, and S. Xin, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 365 (2021), arXiv:1912.00699 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Coloretti, A

    G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado, Phys. Rev. D 110, 073001 (2024), arXiv:2312.17314 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 07, 027 (2021), arXiv:2103.06956 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 07, 088 (2023), arXiv:2207.00348 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 061802 (2020), arXiv:2004.04545 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 061801 (2020), arXiv:2003.10866 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 10, 013 (2021), arXiv:2104.13240 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 09, 046 (2018), arXiv:1806.04771 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.