Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:1207.6596 v2 · submitted 27 Jul 2012 · 18 references

Large diphoton Higgs rates from supersymmetric triplets

Antonio Delgado, Germano Nardini, Mariano Quiros

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Recent results on Higgs searches at the LHC point towards the existence of a Higgs boson with mass of about 126 GeV whose diphoton decay rate tends to be larger than in the Standard Model.”

more of the abstract

These results are in tension with natural MSSM scenarios: such a Higgs mass requires heavy (third-generation) squarks which reintroduce some amount of fine-tuning and in general the Higgs diphoton decay rate tends to follow the Standard Model result. In this paper we prove that these problems can be alleviated by introducing an extra supersymmetric triplet coupled to the Higgs in the superpotential. This superfield generates a sizeable tree-level correction to the Higgs mass so that the third generation is no longer required to be heavy, and its charged component enhances the diphoton Higgs decay rates by as much as 50% with respect to the Standard Model values. We also show that such a scenario is compatible with present electroweak precision observables.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 12 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A clean, correctly executed combination of known triplet ingredients; the headline 50% diphoton number rests on a heavy-chargino expansion applied where tau ~ 0.4, and the EWPT claim quietly needs m_Sigma ~ 1.5 TeV. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 9 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 18 references say.

The paper says, at §3, Eq. (10)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

Eq. (10) is the m_h^2 ≪ 4 m_χ^2 limit of the chargino loop, but it is applied in the benchmark that delivers the largest Rγγ (right panels of Figs. 1 and 2: M2 = 250 GeV, m = 117 GeV, lightest chargino 95–110 GeV), where τ = m_h^2/(4 m_χ^2) ≈ 0.33–0.44.

more of objection 1

The full one-loop function A_{1/2}(τ) for the chargino is never shown, so the size and sign of the correction to the quoted Rγγ ≃ 1.5 are unquantified. Please evaluate the full one-loop chargino amplitude at the benchmark points (or at least display A_{1/2}(τ) at the relevant τ) and state the resulting shift in Rγγ; if the shift is not small, the contour lines in Figs. 1–2 should be recomputed. This is the load-bearing point for the abstract's 'as much as 50%' (abstract:s3).

The paper says, at §3, Eq. (11)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

As printed, Eq. (11) is dimensionally inconsistent: the left-hand side, ∂/∂log v log det M_ch(v), is dimensionless, while the first term on the right-hand side has dimensions of mass^6 and the second of mass^3. A denominator appears to have been lost in typesetting.

more of objection 2

Without the correct expression the reader cannot reproduce Fig. 1 or verify the sign of the numerator, which the paper itself says 'depends on the specific values that one can choose for the parameters.' Please provide the corrected expression and, if possible, a numerical check at one benchmark point.

The paper says, at §2, Eq. (7)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The paper assumes m_Σ in the TeV range and sets ⟨ξ^0⟩ = 0, but does not state the m_Σ value required by the ρ bound for the benchmark parameters. For λ = 0.85, μ = μΣ = 221 GeV and tan β = 1, I estimate ⟨ξ^0⟩ ≈ 7.6 GeV at m_Σ = 1 TeV, which exceeds the quoted 4 GeV bound; m_Σ ≳ 1.4 TeV is needed.

more of objection 3

Please state the required m_Σ explicitly and confirm that the scalar triplet loops are indeed negligible for h → γγ and for the Higgs mass at that mass. If m_Σ must be around 1.5 TeV, the one-loop triplet contribution to the Higgs mass parameter, λ^2 m_Σ^2/(16π^2), is comparable to the stop contribution the triplet is meant to replace, so the naturalness gain claimed in abstract:s2 should be quantified rather than asserted.

9 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 9

The verb 'we prove' is too strong for a numerical scan over benchmark points; 'we show' would more accurately describe the evidence presented.

The paper says, at §4, after Eq. (12)

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 9

The sentence 'with m = 117 GeV, λ = 0.85 and tan β = 1 we get μ = 221 GeV for tan β = 1 and μ = 177 GeV for tan β = 6' repeats 'for tan β = 1'; the first occurrence should be removed.

show 7 more

The paper says, at §2

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 9

The statement that Y = ±1 triplets 'should lead to similar results' is asserted without demonstration; either provide a brief argument or soften the claim.

The paper says, at §6

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 9

The collider-signature sentence ('pair production of neutralinos (charginos) which then decay mainly into Higgs plus missing energy') is not backed by a calculation; either provide a rough estimate of the rates or soften the statement.

The paper says, at Fig. 1 caption

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 9

The caption should state the values of μ and μΣ used; the text says μ = μΣ, but the caption does not, which makes the figure hard to read in isolation.

The paper says, at §3, Fig. 1

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 9

The paper should state explicitly how the m_h = 126 GeV contours are computed (tree-level triplet shift plus MSSM one-loop, or a full two-loop calculation) and whether the triplet's own one-loop contribution to m_h is included.

The paper says, at §2, Eq. (9)

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 9

The derivation of the chargino masses in the M2 ≫ m_W limit should be sketched, or a reference given, so that the reader can follow the passage from Eq. (8) to Eq. (9).

The paper says, at §2

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 9

The LEP bound of 94 GeV quoted for the chargino mass applies to a wino-like state; the lightest chargino in the benchmark is a mixed Higgsino/triplet state, so the paper should state which bound actually applies and confirm that the 95–110 GeV states are not excluded.

The paper says, at Introduction

Pith says: minor objection 9 of 9

The triplet extension of the MSSM was studied in Ref. [9] for the Higgs mass bound; the paper should state explicitly what is new here (the diphoton rate and the electroweak-precision check) relative to that earlier work.

What would settle it

Recompute R_gamma_gamma at the benchmark point M2 = 250 GeV, m = 117 GeV, lambda = 0.85, tan beta = 1 using the full chargino loop function A_1/2(tau_chi) with tau_chi = m_h^2/(4 m_chi^2) instead of the m_h^2 << 4 m_chi^2 limit of Eq. (10). If the resulting R_gamma_gamma differs from the quoted ~1.5 by more than about 10%, or if the sign of the chargino contribution flips, the headline 50% figure is not established at the stated accuracy and the contour lines in Fig. 1 should be redrawn.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 12 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence high
  2. Skeptic agrees 30 min 30 s · 35,123 tokens read, 99,381 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 2 min 32 s · 12,800 tokens read, 7,601 written
  4. Referee major revision: 3 major objections, 9 minor 4 min 55 s · 12,073 tokens read, 16,041 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The short version: this is a clean, correctly executed model-building paper, and the combined result — one Y = 0 triplet giving mh = 126 GeV with 700 GeV stops and R_gamma_gamma up to ~1.5 — is genuinely new as a statement, even though every ingredient is cited. The tree-level mass shift (Eq. 6) is Espinosa-Quiros, the chargino diphoton amplitude is Carena-Low-Wagner, the oblique corrections are standard. What the paper adds is the quantitative demonstration that one multiplet does all of it at once, with S ~ 0.08 and T ~ 0 inside the measured ranges. That is worth having, and the Landau-pole discussion is honest about what the model does not do (perturbative unification). Credit where it is due: the figures are internally consistent and the numbers check out when I redo them by hand from the 3x3 chargino mass matrix. The soft spot is the one your reader flagged, and I agree it is the load-bearing one. Eq. (10) is the mh2 << 4 m_chi2 limit of the chargino loop — the (4/3) d log det / d log v structure is exactly the heavy-fermion limit A1/2(0) = 4/3. The benchmark that gives R_gamma_gamma ~ 1.5 (M2 = 250 GeV, m = 117 GeV, lightest chargino 95-110 GeV) has tau = mh2/4m_chi2 ~ 0.33-0.40. That is not small. The full A1/2(tau) is never shown, so the correction to the quoted number is unquantified, and since the chargino term is only ~20% of the W+top denominator, a 30-40% correction to it moves R_gamma_gamma by O(0.1). The qualitative conclusion survives; the 50% does not come with an error bar. A full-loop cross-check would settle it in a paragraph. Second, smaller: the rho-parameter is handled by setting <xi0> = 0, but Eq. (7) with the benchmark lambda ~ 0.85 and mu ~ 221 GeV needs m_Sigma >~ 1.5 TeV to keep <xi0> <~ 4 GeV. The paper assumes A_lambda, mu, mu_Sigma << m_Sigma but never states the number or checks that such a heavy triplet scalar does not reintroduce the fine-tuning it was meant to remove. That is a side claim, not the main result, but it should be said out loud. Minor: the prose after Eq. (11) says a positive r.h.s. gives enhancement, but the benchmark numbers appear to require the opposite sign; the typesetting is garbled, so a referee should check. And 'we prove' in the abstract is too strong for a numerical scan with an approximation. None of this is fatal. The framework is sound and the paper is a useful template even now that the diphoton excess has gone. Send it to a referee.

The strongest objection

The paper's central quantitative claim is the ~50% diphoton enhancement (abstract:s3), computed from Eq. (10), which is explicitly the m_h^2 << 4 m_chi^2 limit of the chargino loop. The benchmark that delivers the largest R_gamma_gamma (right panel of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2: M2 = 250 GeV, m = 117 GeV, lightest chargino 95-110 GeV) has m_h^2/(4 m_chi^2) ~ 0.3-0.4, so the expansion parameter is not small. The full one-loop A_1/2(tau) function is never shown for the chargino, so the size and sign of the correction to the quoted R_gamma_gamma ~ 1.5 are unquantified. This is the load-bearing soft spot because the headline number is the paper's main selling point and it is derived in a regime where the approximation is marginal. The reader's weakest_assumption identifies exactly this, so I agree on that point. I would add one refinement: the reader frames it as an accuracy issue, but it could also be a sign issue, since the interference between the W, top and chargino amplitudes in Eq. (10) is what sets whether R_gamma_gamma is above or below 1; a full-loop evaluation could move the contour lines in Fig. 1 noticeably. The reader's second concern (the triplet VEV / m_Sigma value needed to satisfy the rho parameter, Eq. 7) is legitimate but is a consistency check on a side claim (abstract:s4), not on the central diphoton claim, and the paper does state the hierarchy A_lambda, mu, mu_Sigma << m_Sigma as an assumption, so it is acknowledged rather than hidden. I would not elevate it above the loop-function issue.

The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies the heavy-chargino expansion in Eq. (10) as the least secure step behind the headline number, and I reach the same conclusion independently from the text: the benchmark chargino masses (95-110 GeV) put m_h^2/4m_chi^2 at 0.3-0.4, and the paper never displays the full loop function for comparison. That is a genuine, concrete gap in the derivation of the central quantitative claim, and it is the right thing to flag. I agree with the reader's framing and would only sharpen it: the concern is not merely numerical accuracy but possibly the sign of the interference term, which determines whether R_gamma_gamma is enhanced or suppressed. The reader's second concern (the m_Sigma value implied by Eq. 7 for the rho parameter) is also fair, but it bears on the electroweak-precision side claim (abstract:s4) rather than the diphoton claim, and the paper does state the A_lambda, mu, mu_Sigma << m_Sigma hierarchy as an explicit assumption, so it is acknowledged rather than concealed. On the central existence claim, the framework is standard and correctly transcribed: the tree-level mass shift (Eq. 6), the chargino mass matrix (Eq. 8), and the oblique corrections (Eq. 12) are all consistent with the cited literature, and the S, T values in Fig. 3 sit inside the measured ranges. The paper's own sentences do not state any limitation, so there is nothing acknowledged that I would be double-counting. The historical disappearance of the diphoton excess affects significance, not correctness, and the reader already notes this. My read therefore does not move the verdict: CONDITIONAL is appropriate, with the loop-function cross-check as the specific item that would upgrade or downgrade it. Confidence stays high because the physics is standard and the full text is available.

The referee's report

If the central numbers hold, this is an economical and well-motivated response to two simultaneous tensions of the MSSM: the 126 GeV Higgs mass with natural stops, and a diphoton rate above the Standard Model value. The analysis is self-contained, uses standard formulas from the literature, and includes a genuine electroweak-precision check (S ≃ 0.08, T ≃ 0 at the benchmark), which is a real strength. The paper is also honest about the Landau pole and about the non-perturbative unification that the large λ requires. The main caveat is that the headline enhancement rests on an approximation that is marginal in the benchmark region, so the size of the quoted effect is not yet established at the stated accuracy.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The paper takes on two problems that appeared together in 2012 LHC data: a Higgs boson near 126 GeV, and a diphoton decay rate roughly 1.6 to 1.8 times the Standard Model prediction. In the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model the first problem forces third-generation squarks into the TeV range, which reintroduces fine-tuning, while the second is hard to reproduce at all. The authors show that a single extra superfield, a colorless $SU(2)_L$ triplet with zero hypercharge coupled to the two Higgs doublets through $W = y H_1 H_2$ (written $W = y H_1 H_2$ in the paper as $W = y H_1 H_2$), adds a tree-level quartic term that pushes the Higgs mass up without heavy stops, and that its charged components run in the $h$ to photon-photon loop and can push the rate up by as much as 50 percent. They then check that the same triplet does not blow up the electroweak $S$ and $T$ parameters, provided its neutral scalar stays heavy and its vacuum expectation value stays below about 4 GeV.

What carries the argument. Two pieces of machinery carry the argument. The first is the triplet superpotential $W = y H_1 H_2$ together with its soft trilinear term, which generates both the tree-level Higgs quartic shift and, through a tadpole for the neutral component, a triplet vacuum expectation value constrained by the $ρ$ parameter to be below about 4 GeV. The authors assume a hierarchy in which the soft triplet mass $m_Σ$ is much larger than $A_λ$, $μ$ and $μ_Σ$, which keeps that tadpole small. The second is the chargino mass matrix built from the wino, Higgsino and triplet fermions, whose determinant enters the diphoton amplitude through the expression $1 + (4/3) (∂/∂ log v) log det M_ch(v) / [(4/3) A_{1/2}(τ_t) + A_1(τ_W)]$, squared. The sign and size of that derivative, controlled by $y$, $tan β$, $M_2$, $μ$ and $μ_Σ$, decide whether the diphoton rate goes up or down, and the paper selects the region where it goes up. The running of $y$ and the top Yukawa is then used to locate the Landau pole, which for $y = 0.8$ and $tan β$ near 1.5 falls around $2 × 10^9$ GeV.

Core claim. The central claim is that a single zero-hypercharge $SU(2)_L$ triplet superfield $W = y H_1 H_2$ (in the paper's notation $W = y H_1 H_2$), added to the MSSM superpotential, removes the tension between a 126 GeV Higgs and naturalness. Its coupling contributes a new tree-level piece to the SM-like Higgs mass, $m_h^2 = m_Z^2 cos^2 2β + (y^2/2) v^2 sin^2 2β$, which is largest at $tan β$ near 1 and vanishes as $tan β$ grows. With $y$ around 0.85 and $tan β$ near 1, the authors find $m_h = 126$ GeV with 700 GeV stops and no stop mixing, so the fine-tuning penalty of the MSSM is avoided. The same triplet's charged fermions mix with the wino and Higgsino into three charginos, and the lightest two of these, at 95 to 240 GeV, can lift the diphoton rate to $R_{γγ}$ around 1.4 to 1.5 for $M_2 = 250$ GeV. The paper also reports that the resulting oblique parameters stay inside the measured ranges, with $S$ near 0.08 and $T$ near 0 in the region of maximal diphoton enhancement.

The premise it rests on. The diphoton rate is computed in the limit where the Higgs mass is much smaller than twice the chargino mass, yet the benchmark points that give the largest enhancement have a lightest chargino of only 95 to 110 GeV against a 126 GeV Higgs, so the expansion parameter is around 0.3 to 0.4 and the quoted 50 percent enhancement is not established to the stated accuracy.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

If the mechanism holds, a 126 GeV Higgs no longer requires TeV-scale stops or large stop mixing, so the MSSM's little hierarchy problem is softened by a single new coupling rather than by tuning.

The same new coupling predicts an enhanced $h$ to photon-photon rate, up to about 1.5 times the Standard Model value, while leaving the $ZZ$, $WW$ and gluon-fusion channels essentially Standard-Model-like because the triplet is colorless.

The triplet must be accompanied by charginos and neutralinos in the 100 to 400 GeV range, with the lightest chargino above the 94 GeV experimental bound, and these would decay mainly into a Higgs plus missing energy.

The theory does not unify perturbatively: the coupling runs into a Landau pole, so the model must either be cut off below roughly $10^9$ to $10^{16}$ GeV depending on $tan β$, or rely on non-perturbative unification.

Electroweak precision observables remain consistent because the triplet's contribution to $T$ is suppressed both by custodial symmetry at $tan β = 1$ and by a loop factor times $m_W^2/μ^2$.

The diphoton enhancement and the Higgs mass shift are driven by the same coupling, so a future measurement of $R_{γγ}$ in the 1.4 to 1.5 range would function as an indirect measurement of the triplet Yukawa, and a null result in that channel would squeeze the parameter region where the tree-level mass shift does the work.

Because the enhancement requires the lightest charginos to sit near 100 GeV, the LHC's chargino mass reach is the natural place to confirm or exclude this scenario, independently of the Higgs branching ratios.

The assumed hierarchy between the soft triplet mass and the trilinear coupling is what keeps the $ρ$ parameter safe; if supersymmetry breaking generated $A_λ$ at the same loop order as $m_Σ$, the triplet vacuum expectation value would need a separate suppression mechanism, and the electroweak-fit conclusion would need rechecking.

The Landau pole near $10^9$ GeV means the model makes a sharp prediction for the scale of new physics: any discovery of a perturbative grand-unified structure at $10^{16}$ GeV would be incompatible with a triplet Yukawa as large as 0.85.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Recent results on Higgs searches at the LHC point towards the existence of a Higgs boson with mass of about 126 GeV whose diphoton decay rate tends to be larger than in the Standard Model. These results are in tension with natural MSSM scenarios: such a Higgs mass requires heavy (third-generation) squarks which reintroduce some amount of fine-tuning and in general the Higgs diphoton decay rate tends to follow the Standard Model result. In this paper we prove that these problems can be alleviated by introducing an extra supersymmetric triplet coupled to the Higgs in the superpotential. This superfield generates a sizeable tree-level correction to the Higgs mass so that the third generation is no longer required to be heavy, and its charged component enhances the diphoton Higgs decay rates by as much as 50% with respect to the Standard Model values. We also show that such a scenario is compatible with present electroweak precision observables.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.63

“In this paper we prove that these problems can be alleviated by introducing an extra supersymmetric triplet coupled to the Higgs in the superpotential.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.27 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.49 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.95 · mentions code or data availability 0.01

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Recent results on Higgs searches at the LHC point towards the existence of a Higgs boson with mass of about 126 GeV whose diphoton decay rate tends to be larger than in the Standard Model. background 1.00 0.04 0.03 hedged possibility 0.81
These results are in tension with natural MSSM scenarios: such a Higgs mass requires heavy (third-generation) squarks which reintroduce some amount of fine-tuning and in general the Higgs diphoton decay rate tends to follow the Standard Model result. background 0.90 0.05 0.02 asserted 0.91
In this paper we prove that these problems can be alleviated by introducing an extra supersymmetric triplet coupled to the Higgs in the superpotential. contribution 0.99 0.88 0.68 asserted 1.00
This superfield generates a sizeable tree-level correction to the Higgs mass so that the third generation is no longer required to be heavy, and its charged component enhances the diphoton Higgs decay rates by as much as 50% with respect to the Standard Model values. result 0.96 0.92 0.72 asserted 0.99
We also show that such a scenario is compatible with present electroweak precision observables. result 0.99 0.91 0.09 asserted 0.79

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.98

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v2

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,452 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (4)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. Left panel: Contour plots of Rγγ (dashed lines) for M2 = 750 GeV, m = 100 GeV and µ− = 0. Contour plots of mh = 126 GeV for Xt = 0 [thick solid (red) line] and for Xt = 4 [thin solid (red) line]. Right panel: The same as in the left panel but for M2 = 250 GeV and m = 117 GeV. of Rγγ can be achieved by decreasing M2 a possibility shown in the right panel of
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. Left panel: Contour plots of Rγγ (dashed lines) for M2 = 750 GeV, m = 100 GeV and tan β = 1 in the plane (λ, µ−/GeV) and mh = 126 GeV for Xt = 0 [thick solid (red) line] and Xt = 4 [thin solid (red) line]. Right panel: Same as in the left panel but for M2 = 250 GeV and m = 117 GeV. at 95% CL. Moreover at one-loop the supersymmetric triplet contributes to the electroweak observ￾ables through its coupling to the Higgs sector and, for µ = µΣ, the oblique S and T param￾eters [16] get modified compared to the MSSM as αS = s 2 W λ 2 10π 2 m2 W µ2  1 + 19 24 sin 2β  + O(g 4 ) , αT = 3λ 2…
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. Contour plots of the S (left panel) and T (right panel) parameters in the plane (λ,tan β) for m = 117 GeV, M2 = 250 GeV and µ = µΣ. we obtain S ≃ 0.08 and T ≃ 0. The technical reasons why triplet corrections to the electroweak observables are generally small in the considered region are: • For tan β = 1 (and zero triplet VEV) the custodial symmetry is unbroken by the triplet and thus T = 0. • Apart from the loop factor there is the extra suppression m2 W /µ2 and it turns out that this ratio is small. For instance with m = 117 GeV, λ = 0.85 and tan β = 1 we get µ = 221 GeV for tan β =
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. Left panel: Contour lines for constant values of the cutoff Λ (in GeV) in the plane (λ,tan β). Right panel: Plot of λ(t) [solid (red) line] and ht(t) [dashed (blue) line] for tan β = 1.5 and λ = 0.8. GeV to 1016 GeV for tan β ≃ 1 to tan β ≃ 6, respectively. In particular, in the parameter region considered in the right panels of Figs. 1 and 2, for Rγγ ≃ 1.5 and mh = 126 GeV it 6 Indeed, even in the regime where λ is small so that the theory remains perturbative until the Planck scale, unification cannot be achieved because the extra triplet modifies the MSSM beta functions of the…

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (18)
  1. [1] F. Gianotti, CERN Seminar, ”Update on the Standard Model Higgs searches in AT- LAS”, July, 4 2012 on Pith
  2. [2] J. Incandela, CERN Seminar, ”Update on the Standard Model Hig gs searches in CMS”, July, 4 2012 on Pith
  3. [3] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], “Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in the diphoton decay channel with 4.9 fb-1 of pp collisions at sqrt(s) =7 TeV with ATLAS,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111803 (2012) [arXiv:1202.1414 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying into two photons in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV,” Phys. Le tt. B 710, 403 (2012) [arXiv:1202.1487 [hep-ex]]. 10 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], “Observation of a new particle in the search fo r the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LH C,” Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012) [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012) [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah and C. E. M. Wagner, “A 125 GeV SM -like Higgs in the MSSM and the γγ rate,” JHEP 1203, 014 (2012) [arXiv:1112.3336 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] M. S. Carena, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, “An alytical expressions for radiatively corrected Higgs masses and couplings in the MSSM,” Ph ys. Lett. B 355, 209 (1995) [hep-ph/9504316]; M. S. Carena, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, “Effective potential methods an... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, “On Higgs boson masses in nonminimal supersymmet- ric standard models,” Phys. Lett. B 279, 92 (1992); J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, “Upper bounds on the lightest Higgs boson mass in general supersy mmetric Standard Models,” Phys. Lett. B 302, 51 (... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] I. Antoniadis, E. Dudas, D. M. Ghilencea and P. Tziveloglou, “MSS M with Dimension- five Operators (MSSM(5)),” Nucl. Phys. B 808 (2009) 155 [arXiv:0806.3778 [hep-ph]]; M. Carena, K. Kong, E. Ponton and J. Zurita, “Supersymmetric Hig gs Bosons and Be- yond,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 015... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] J. Beringer et al. [Particle Data Group Collaboration], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 0100001 (2012) on Pith
  12. [12] J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos, “A Phenomenologica l Profile of the Higgs Boson,” Nucl. Phys. B 106 (1976) 292 on Pith
  13. [13] M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharo v, “Low-Energy Theorems for Higgs Boson Couplings to Photons,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys . 30 (1979) 711 [Yad. Fiz. 30 (1979) 1368]. 11 on Pith
  14. [14] M. Carena, I. Low and C. E. M. Wagner, “Implications of a Modifie d Higgs to Diphoton Decay Width,” arXiv:1206.1082 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [15] A. Djouadi, “The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking . II. The Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model,” Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1 [hep-ph/0503173] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, “Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 46, 381 (1992) on Pith
  17. [17] G. Marandella, C. Schappacher and A. Strumia, “Supersymmet ry and precision data after LEP2,” Nucl. Phys. B 715 (2005) 173 [hep-ph/0502095] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] L. Maiani, G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, “Bounds on the Number an d Masses of Quarks and Leptons,” Nucl. Phys. B 136 (1978) 115; L. Maiani and R. Petronzio, “Low-energy Gauge Couplings And The Mass Gap Of N=1 Supersymmetry,” Phys. Le tt. B 176 (1986) 120 [Erratum-ibid. 178B (198... on Pith
Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. Supersymmetric Custodial Triplets hep-ph · Aug 2013
  2. Exotic Leptons: Higgs, Flavor and Collider Phenomenology hep-ph · Aug 2013
  3. Dirac Gauginos and the 125 GeV Higgs hep-ph · Nov 2012
  4. Enhanced $h\rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ rate in MSSM singlet extensions hep-ph · Aug 2012
  5. Doublet-Triplet Fermionic Dark Matter hep-ph · Mar 2014
  6. A Light Supersymmetric Higgs Sector Hidden by a Standard Model-like Higgs hep-ph · Mar 2013
  7. Stau with Large Mass Difference and Enhancement of the Higgs to Diphoton Decay Rate in the MSSM hep-ph · Mar 2013
  8. New Scalar Contributions to $h\to Z\gamma$ hep-ph · Jan 2013
  9. Higgs mixing and diphoton rate enhancement in NMSSM models hep-ph · Nov 2012
  10. $h \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ excess and Dark Matter from Composite Higgs Models hep-ph · Oct 2012
How the literature uses it

34 arXiv papers cite this in 79 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 48 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 2 papers
Uses its data or values 1 paper
  • The measurement of the $ρ$ parameter, which imposes $⟨t^3_R⟩≲2$ GeV [ref] , provides no constraint on the model besides in the corner with $ω≳0.21$ and $1/R≲10$TeV.

    Natural Supersymmetry from Extra Dimensions · Triplet VEV and mass spectrum · 0.86

Compares with it 3 papers
  • We have shown that the additional Triplino component in the chargino sector provides a maximal enhancement of 60% in the $R_ γγ$ signal strength, which is slightly larger than previously estimated (i.e. $R_γγ≲1.45$) [ref] .

    Dark Matter versus h into gamma gamma and h into gamma Z with supersymmetric triplets · Conclusions · 0.94

  • As a way of comparison with [ref] we scan the parameter region again for viable points within the region defined below 1≤t_β≤10 , 0≤λ≤1 , 5 GeV≤μ_D,μ_T≤250 GeV , 50 GeV≤M_1,M_2≤300 GeV , A_t=A_T=B_T=0 , 0 ≤B_D≤2 TeV , 500 GeV≤m_Q,m_t̃,m_b̃≤2 TeV which roughly corresponds to (and exceeds) the region scanned in [ref] , and apply again the perturbativity constraints (no coupling larger than $2π$ at $Λ_UV$) as well as the lower bound on $m_h^0_2$, Eq. [ref].

    Naturality vs perturbativity, $B_s$ physics, and LHC data in triplet extension of MSSM · Higgs Physics at LHC · 0.96

  • This analysis is similar in spirit to models adding a triplet to the MSSM [ref] , except instead of including a Majorana Wino and supersymmetric triplet mass we have included a Dirac Wino mass.

    Dirac Gauginos and the 125 GeV Higgs · Charginos · 0.87

Cites it as support 2 papers
Cites it as background 16 papers

What it cites · 8 sentences without a confident label

Uses data or values from 2 papers
Cites as background 1 paper

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment