pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.14587 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-16 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Charged Higgs Pairs at the LHC: A NLO Analysis

Mohamed Ahmed , Lisa Biermann , Harald Ita , Irina Rusetski , Michael Spira , Yelyzaveta Yedelkina This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 22:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords charged HiggsHiggs pair productionNLO QCD2HDMLHCDrell-Yangluon fusionvector boson fusion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Next-to-leading order QCD corrections reduce scale uncertainties for charged Higgs pair production at the LHC

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

The paper calculates next-to-leading order QCD predictions for producing pairs of charged Higgs bosons at the LHC in the type-I two-Higgs doublet model. It incorporates Drell-Yan-like production, gluon fusion, and vector-boson fusion while evaluating uncertainties from renormalization and factorization scales, parton distribution functions, and the strong coupling. The central result is that the higher-order corrections substantially lower the relative scale dependence of the predicted cross sections. This matters for any future experimental observation of charged Higgs states because it turns the theoretical numbers into a firmer basis for extracting model parameters from data.

Core claim

In the type-I 2HDM we obtain next-to-leading order QCD predictions for charged-Higgs pair production that include all three main channels: Drell-Yan-like production, gluon fusion, and vector-boson fusion. The QCD corrections lead to a significant reduction of the relative scale dependences, while uncertainties from parton densities and the strong coupling are also quantified at the LHC.

What carries the argument

Next-to-leading-order QCD corrections applied uniformly to Drell-Yan, gluon-fusion, and vector-boson-fusion channels for H^+ H^- production, which dampen the dependence on unphysical scales.

If this is right

  • The improved NLO predictions allow quantitative comparison with LHC data if charged Higgs states are observed.
  • Scale uncertainties shrink across Drell-Yan-like, gluon-fusion, and vector-boson-fusion production modes.
  • Uncertainties from parton densities and the strong coupling can be evaluated at the same perturbative order.
  • The results hold for a range of charged-Higgs masses and tan-beta values within the model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same NLO framework could be applied to other 2HDM types or to supersymmetric models containing charged Higgs bosons.
  • Experimental searches could translate the reduced theoretical uncertainty into tighter limits on charged-Higgs parameters.
  • Neutral Higgs-pair production rates could be computed at the same order for cross-checks within the same model.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the type-I 2HDM is realized in nature and that perturbative QCD remains valid and sufficient at the relevant LHC energies and scales.

What would settle it

An LHC measurement of the H^+ H^- production rate that displays a scale variation at NLO comparable to or larger than the LO variation would falsify the claim that the corrections produce a significant reduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14587 by Harald Ita, Irina Rusetski, Lisa Biermann, Michael Spira, Mohamed Ahmed, Yelyzaveta Yedelkina.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Typical diagrams contributing to qq¯ → V ∗ → H+H− at lowest order: (a) Drell–Yan￾like contribution, (b) bottom-Yukawa induced contribution. s-channel photon and Z-boson exchange, see Fig. 1a. Therefore, we are neglecting the bottom￾Yukawa-induced part in the following. The lowest-order partonic cross section can be expressed as [15] σˆLO(qq¯ → H +H −) = πα2β 3 9Q2    e 2 q + 2 eqvqvH 1 − M2 Z Q2 + (v … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Typical diagrams contributing to qq¯ → V ∗ → H+H− at NLO. see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The K factor, defined as the ratio σNLO/σLO, for the Drell–Yan like cross section of charged-Higgs pair production as a function of the charged Higgs mass. It is the same in both 2HDM scenarios. The MSHT20lo as130 and MSHT20nlo as118 parton densities (PDFs) [18] were used for the LO and NLO cross sections, respectively, for a consistent definition of the K factor. The cross section is independent of tan β … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Drell–Yan like cross section of charged-Higgs pair production as a function of the charged Higgs mass with scale uncertainties. The PDF4LHC15 parton densities [19] have been used for the LO and NLO cross sections. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Typical diagrams contributing to gg → H+H− at lowest order. Charged-Higgs pair production via gluon fusion is a loop-induced process that is mediated by mixed top/bottom triangle and box diagrams at LO, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Typical effective diagrams contributing to the (a) virtual and (b) real corrections to charged Higgs-boson pair production via gluon fusion, where for the blobs, the effective Feynman rules derived from the Lagrangian in Eq. (28) are used. where τ0 = 4 M2 H± s . (31) The objects Pgg(z), Pgq(z) denote the Altarelli–Parisi splitting functions [17] Pgg(z) = 6  D0(z) + 1 z − 2 + z(1 − z)  + 33 − 2NF 6 δ(1 − … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The K factor of the gluon-fusion cross section describing charged-Higgs pair produc￾tion as a function of the charged Higgs mass for the two 2HDM scenarios. The MSHT20lo as130 and MSHT20nlo as118 PDFs [18] were adopted for the LO and NLO cross sections, respectively, for the consistent definition of the K factor. mass, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gluon-fusion cross section of charged-Higgs pair production as a function of the charged Higgs mass with scale uncertainties for the scenario with tan β = 2. The PDF4LHC15 PDFs [19] were used for the LO and NLO cross sections. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Generic diagram of vector-boson fusion at LO. The blob contains all subdiagrams of the processes V1V2 → H+H− with V1,2 = γ, Z, W. treating this process in the structure-function approach (SFA) that neglects interference terms in the case of identical incoming quarks that arise between diagrams of the type of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Typical diagrams contributing to the subprocesses of charged-Higgs pair production via VBF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The ratio between the SFA and the full calculation of charged-Higgs pair production via VBF at LO for the two 2HDM scenarios of Eqs. (9,10) as a function of the charged Higgs mass. The PDF4LHC15 PDFs [19] were used for the LO cross sections. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The ratio between the pure photon-exchange contribution and the full calculation within the SFA of charged-Higgs pair production via VBF at LO for the two 2HDM scenarios of Eqs. (9,10) as a function of the charged Higgs mass. The PDF4LHC15 PDFs [19] were used for the LO cross sections. 6Our comparison with the former LO calculation of Ref. [10] revealed several sources of discrepancies related to sign err… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The K factor for the VBF cross section of charged-Higgs pair production as a function of the charged Higgs mass for the two 2HDM scenarios. The MSHT20lo as130 and MSHT20nlo as118 PDFs [18] were adopted for the LO and NLO cross sections, respectively. the VBF does not develop a relevant dependence on the value of tan β, since it is dominated by the gauge-coupling contributions. 6 Results Using the above co… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The cross section of VBF of charged-Higgs pair production as a function of the charged Higgs mass for tan β = 2. The PDF4LHC15 PDFs [19] were adopted for the LO and NLO cross sections. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The total cross sections of all production modes of charged-Higgs pair production as a function of the charged Higgs mass for tan β = 2. The PDF4LHC15 PDFs [19] were adopted for the NLO cross sections. The error bands are the sum of the scale and the PDF+αs uncertainties. DY-like ggF VBF σ(pp → H+H - ) [fb] PDF4LHC15 √s = 13.6 TeV tanβ = 20 MH ± [GeV] 10 -9 10 -8 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 … view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Charged Higgs-boson pair production at hadron colliders yields information about the trilinear couplings involving charged Higgs fields in extensions of the Standard Model (SM). We consider the type-I two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM) extension and obtain next-to-leading order QCD predictions for the charged-Higgs pair production ($H^+H^-$ production). All production modes, i.e. Drell--Yan-like production, gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion are included in the analysis. We determine uncertainties originating from the scale dependence, the parton-density functions and strong coupling $\alpha_s$ at the LHC. We observe that the QCD corrections lead to a significant reduction of the relative scale dependences. These improved predictions will allow for a quantitative interpretation of experimental measurements, in case that charged Higgs states will be observed.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections to charged Higgs pair production (H^+ H^-) in the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model at the LHC. It includes Drell-Yan-like production, gluon fusion, and vector-boson fusion channels, determines uncertainties from renormalization/factorization scale variations, parton distribution functions, and α_s, and reports that the NLO corrections lead to a significant reduction in relative scale dependence.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies more reliable theoretical predictions for a process that probes trilinear Higgs couplings in a well-motivated BSM scenario. The reduction of scale uncertainty is the standard perturbative improvement expected from a consistent NLO calculation and directly enhances the interpretability of potential LHC signals.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that uncertainties from scale dependence, PDFs, and α_s are determined, but the manuscript should explicitly tabulate or plot the individual contributions of each uncertainty source at representative values of m_{H^±} and tan β to allow readers to assess their relative sizes.
  2. A short statement on the numerical implementation (e.g., which code or library is used for the NLO matrix elements and how the three channels are combined) would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary and recommendation of minor revision. Our work provides NLO QCD predictions for H^+ H^- production in the type-I 2HDM at the LHC across Drell-Yan, gluon-fusion and vector-boson-fusion channels, with quantified uncertainties from scales, PDFs and alpha_s, showing the expected reduction in scale dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs a standard NLO QCD calculation for H^+ H^- production in type-I 2HDM by combining established Drell-Yan, gluon-fusion and VBF channels with conventional perturbative expansions, parton luminosities and scale-variation estimates. The observed reduction in scale dependence follows directly from the inclusion of higher-order terms in the usual way and does not reduce to any self-defined quantity, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. All inputs (tan β, m_{H^±}, PDFs, α_s) are external; the derivation chain is self-contained against external QCD benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the type-I 2HDM framework and standard perturbative QCD assumptions rather than new entities or heavily fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • tan beta
    Ratio of vacuum expectation values in the 2HDM, treated as an input parameter.
  • charged Higgs mass
    Mass parameter of the charged Higgs boson, scanned or fixed as input.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Perturbative QCD is valid and sufficient for the process at LHC energies
    Standard assumption invoked for NLO calculations in hadron collider phenomenology.
  • domain assumption Type-I 2HDM correctly describes the extended Higgs sector
    The paper restricts the analysis to this specific model extension.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5452 in / 1361 out tokens · 41835 ms · 2026-05-16T22:08:16.546787+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.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We consider the type-I two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM) extension and obtain next-to-leading order QCD predictions for the charged-Higgs pair production... All production modes... We observe that the QCD corrections lead to a significant reduction of the relative scale dependences.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/BranchSelection branch_selection unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The two scenarios of the 2HDM type I we use... tan β = 2 ... tan β = 20 ... MH± varied between 300 GeV and 2 TeV

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. When Two Loops Matter: Electroweak Precision in the SMEFT

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A modification to the top-Higgs Yukawa coupling in SMEFT induces a two-loop shift in the W mass through a large anomalous dimension, providing a new indirect probe via electroweak precision observables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1; S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508 and Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156; F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321; G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585; T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], JHEP 1608 (2016) 045; G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2019-005; A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collabora- tion], JHEP 01 (2021) 148

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 35 (1971) 167; G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 44 (1972) 189

    work page 1971

  5. [5]

    T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973), 1226-1239

    work page 1973

  6. [6]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. 516 (2012), 1-102

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Alves and T

    A. Alves and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 115014

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Kidonakis and A

    N. Kidonakis and A. Tonero, JHEP 06 (2024) 138

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Hespel, D

    B. Hespel, D. Lopez-Val and E. Vryonidou, JHEP 09 (2014), 124

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Moretti, J

    S. Moretti, J. Phys. G 28 (2002), 2567

    work page 2002

  11. [11]

    S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1958. 26

    work page 1977

  12. [12]

    Kanemura, Y

    S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 115002

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    Coimbra, M

    R. Coimbra, M. O. P. Sampaio and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2428; M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos and J. Wittbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.3, 198

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weig lein and J. Wittbrodt, Comput. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023), 108803

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Eichten, I

    E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. D. Lane and C. Quigg, Rev. Mod. Phys . 56 (1984), 579-707

    work page 1984

  16. [16]

    Altarelli, R

    G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B 157 (1979) 461-497; J. Kubar- Andre and F. E. Paige, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 221

    work page 1979

  17. [17]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298-318

    work page 1977

  18. [18]

    Bailey, T

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin and R. S. T horne, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.4, 341

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Butterworth, S

    J. Butterworth, S. Carrazza, A. Cooper-Sarkar, A. De Roe ck, J. Feltesse, S. Forte, J. Gao, S. Glazov, J. Huston and Z. Kassabov, et al. J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Krause, T

    A. Krause, T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 519 (1998) 85-100

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991), 440-446; S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B 359 (1991), 283-300; M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zer was, Nucl. Phys. B 453 (1995), 17-82

    work page 1991

  22. [22]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 115012

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J . Schlenk, U. Schubert and T. Zirke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no.1, 012001 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no.7, 079901]; S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jo nes, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk and T. Zirke, JHEP 1610 (2016) 107; J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, ...

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    G. C. Cho, K. Hagiwara, J. Kanzaki, T. Plehn, D. Rainwater and T . Stelzer, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 054002. 27

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Gutzwiller, Diploma thesis, ETH Zurich, 2008

    S. Gutzwiller, Diploma thesis, ETH Zurich, 2008

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    M. A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, O. F´ elix-Beltr´ an, J. Hern´ andez-S´anchez, C. G. Honorato and T. A. Valencia-P´ erez, [arXiv:2503.03822 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    Cridge [PDF4LHC21 combination group], SciPost Phys

    T. Cridge [PDF4LHC21 combination group], SciPost Phys. Proc. 8 (2022), 101. 28

    work page 2022