Updated Global Analysis of Higgs Couplings

John Ellis; Tevong You

REVIEW

Updated Global Analysis of Higgs Couplings

John Ellis, Tevong You

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 15 Mar 2013 · 36 references

Pith's verdict: A solid Moriond-2013 update of the Ellis–You Higgs coupling fit; the sign result is real but conditional on SM loop content, and the abstract hides that condition.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1303.3879 (version 1)

Pith IDZ2DPKZSM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJohn Ellis, Tevong You. "Updated Global Analysis of Higgs Couplings." arXiv:1303.3879 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/Z2DPKZSM

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Quick read on Ellis–You 1303.3879. It is the Moriond-2013 update of their Higgs coupling fit, and the numbers people will quote are a = 1.03 ± 0.06, c = 0.84 ± 0.15, and a Δχ² ≈ 9 preference for c > 0 over the wrong-sign branch. The (M, ε) fit is the more interesting result to me: M = 244 +20/−10 GeV and ε = −0.022 +0.042/−0.021, i.e. the couplings are linear in mass to a couple of percent and normalized by v to about 10%. That is a clean, quotable statement, and the right panel of Fig. 6, where each species' coupling is predicted with that species dropped from the fit, is the figure I would actually show someone. The invisible-BR limit (4% at 68% CL under SM couplings) is a useful by-product. The (a, c) and (M, ε) machinery is theirs from ref. [17] and they say so up front, so the new content is the dataset and the resulting numbers, not a new method. That is fine for what this is. On the reader's worry about the CMS γγ reconstruction: I don't think it lands. Their 0.72 versus the official 0.78, with ±0.25 errors, is a quarter sigma in one channel. The c < 0 branch predicts a γγ rate roughly double the SM, so it is the qualitative absence of an enhancement in both ATLAS and CMS that kills it, not the central value. The genuine condition is the one the authors state in Section 3 and show in the right panel of Fig. 4: assume no new particles in the γγ and gg loops, and the sign is fixed; marginalize over cγ and, as they say themselves, the symmetry is restored. So the 'first time' claim is conditional, and the body is honest about it. My one real complaint is that the abstract states the sign result flat, with no mention of the loop assumption. That is the sentence a plenary speaker will read out. Minor: no likelihood code or digitized inputs, so reproducing the subchannel combinations means redoing them; and 'December 2013' for the CERN Council should be 2012. This is for anyone quoting post-Moriond Higgs coupling numbers, and the (M, ε) plot is the useful framing for 'is it really the Higgs.' Send it out; I would cite it.

Referee report

Significance

The paper is a timely and careful update of a well-established program, and its two headline results are of real value to the community. The (M, epsilon) parameterization of Eq. (1) is a genuinely useful device: it converts the diffuse question of whether the Higgs resembles the Standard Model boson into two falsifiable numbers, the linearity of the mass dependence and the location of the scaling scale relative to v = 246 GeV, and the paper reports both with explicit chi-squared prices for the Standard Model point. The sign determination, if it holds under its stated assumptions, is a qualitative step beyond coupling-strength measurements, since it constrains the interference structure of the photon-photon loop and excludes the anti-dilaton branch c = -a. The analysis is also commendably candid about its inputs: Section 2 explicitly reports where the reconstructed likelihoods depart from the official combinations, and Section 3 explicitly states the assumption under which the sign discrimination is obtained. The results are derived from public data and are in principle reproducible, which is a strength worth naming.

Major objections (4)

[Abstract, sentence s2, and Section 6] The abstract states without qualification that 'Our global analysis of its couplings to fermions and massive bosons determines that they have the same relative sign as in the Standard Model', and the Conclusions repeat the claim in the same unconditional form. Section 3 and the right panel of Fig. 4 show that this is not what the analysis establishes: when c_gamma and c_g are marginalized, the paper itself reports that 'the symmetry between the solutions with c > 0 and < 0 is restored'. The sign result is therefore conditional on the assumption that no non-Standard-Model particles contribute to the H gamma gamma and H g g amplitudes, and that condition should appear in the abstract and in the Conclusions, not only in the body. As written, a reader of the abstract alone would take away a stronger result than the paper delivers.
[Section 2 and Fig. 2, bottom right panel] The sign discrimination is a Delta chi-squared of about 9 obtained from a likelihood that the authors reconstruct themselves, and Section 2 documents that the reconstruction is not exact for the channel that drives it: the combined CMS photon-photon value is quoted as mu = 0.72 +0.24/-0.26 against the official 0.78 +0.28/-0.26. I do not think this discrepancy alone threatens the sign result, since the c < 0 branch predicts a photon-photon rate substantially above the Standard Model and both experiments sit at or below it, but the paper should demonstrate that rather than leave it to the reader. A short quantitative check would settle the matter: repeat the (a, c) fit with the official CMS photon-photon combination, and separately with the photon-photon and gluon-fusion theory uncertainties inflated to the 10% level, and report the resulting Delta chi-squared between the two sign branches. If the gap remains of order 9, the claim is robust and the check strengthens the paper; if it drops substantially, the reader deserves to know.
[Section 2, likelihood combination] The fit treats the subchannels as statistically independent, and the paper does not discuss the correlations induced by common systematic uncertainties, in particular luminosity, jet energy scale, and the gluon-fusion theory uncertainty, which are shared across channels within an experiment and across experiments. Ignoring such correlations generally underestimates the uncertainties and can sharpen an apparent discrimination. Since the central claim rests on a likelihood difference, the paper should state explicitly whether any correlations were included, and if not, estimate their effect on the quoted errors in Eqs. (5) and (6) and on the sign gap. This is a methodological transparency issue rather than an error, but it bears directly on the headline number.
[Section 4, Eq. (7) and Fig. 6] The (M, epsilon) fit is presented as a direct probe of the mass dependence, but the text does not state whether it assumes Standard Model loop content for c_gamma and c_g, as the (a, c) fit of Fig. 2 does. Given that the same data and the same sign ambiguity enter, and given that the right panel of Fig. 4 shows the loop assumptions matter, the paper should say explicitly what is held fixed in Fig. 6 and whether marginalizing over the loop factors changes the quoted ranges. The strongly asymmetric error on M, +20/-10 GeV, also warrants a sentence: it suggests a non-parabolic likelihood, and the reader should be told how the 68% range was extracted.

Minor objections (8)

[Section 1] The text refers to 'the CERN Council in December 2013'; the paper is dated March 2013 and the reference is clearly to December 2012. The same sentence gives the ATLAS photon-photon result as 1.80+0.4-0.36, with inconsistent significant figures between the central value and its errors.
[References] Reference [18] gives 'arXiv:1303:1812' with a colon where a period belongs, and reference [16] contains an unrendered LaTeX command, 'JHEP bf 10 (2012) 062', which should read JHEP 10 (2012) 062.
[Fig. 10, right panel caption] The caption reads 'marginalizing over the invisible branching ration BRinv'; 'ration' should be 'ratio'.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption names the experiments as 'ATLAS, CDF, D0 and CMS' while the body text refers throughout to the Tevatron combination. The caption should be self-contained and use one naming convention consistently.
[Section 3, Eq. (5)] The quoted errors on a and c should be accompanied by a statement of the convention used to extract them, for example the Delta chi-squared = 1 range after marginalizing over the other parameter, so that the numbers can be compared directly with other fits in the literature.
[Section 3, Figs. 2 and 3] The text explains the shading and contour convention once, in Section 3, but the figure captions do not repeat it. Each caption should state that lighter shading indicates more likely regions and that the dotted, dashed and solid contours correspond to 68, 95 and 99% CL, so that the figures stand on their own.
[Section 5, Eq. (8)] The definition R_Vis = Gamma_Vis / Gamma_SM_Tot assumes that the visible width contains no non-Standard-Model contributions. The text should say so explicitly at the equation, since the subsequent limits on BR_inv are only as strong as that assumption, and the dot-dashed curve in Fig. 10, whose shallow minimum near BR_inv ~ 0.4 requires a > 1, deserves a sentence of interpretation.
[Section 6] The concluding remark that the measurements 'provide circumstantial support to supersymmetry as opposed to these minimal composite alternatives' is not derived from any fit presented in the paper. It is a reasonable opinion, but it should either be supported by a fit to a supersymmetric benchmark or be explicitly labelled as the authors' interpretation rather than a result of the analysis.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A global fit to the first full round of LHC Higgs data finds that the new particle's couplings to fermions and to heavy bosons carry the same relative sign as in the Standard Model, and that their sizes track particle masses almost exactly.

The reading

The paper asks a narrow but consequential question: the particle discovered at the LHC is a Higgs boson, but is it *the* Standard Model Higgs boson? To answer, the authors collect essentially all public Higgs measurements available in March 2013 — signal strengths in the $bbar b$, $tau^+tau^-$, $gammagamma$, $WW^*$ and $ZZ^*$ channels from ATLAS, CMS and the Tevatron — and fit them to a two-parameter model in which the couplings to massive bosons and to fermions are each rescaled by a single number, $a$ and $c$. The combined signal strength comes out at $mu = 1.02^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$, i.e. the overall rate is already within about 13% of the Standard Model at 68% confidence. The headline result is that the fit now prefers $c>0$ over $c<0$ by $Delta chi^2 sim 9$, fixing the relative sign of the fermion and boson couplings for the first time. A second, more physical parameterization asks whether the couplings really scale with mass as $m^{1+epsilon}$ and whether the scale of that scaling is the electroweak scale $v = 246$ GeV; the data say yes to both, to within a few percent and 10% respectively.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a global likelihood built channel by channel from published signal strengths, event counts, or 95% CL limits, then combined across experiments and subchannels — including separate 0-, 1- and 2-jet bins whose vector-boson-fusion content (2%, 12%, 81%) is what breaks degeneracies between production and decay couplings. That likelihood is then mapped onto two coupling parameterizations: the multiplicative $(a, c)$ rescaling of an effective Lagrangian in which $a$ and $c$ measure deviations from the Standard Model for bosons and fermions, and the mass-scaling $(M, epsilon)$ form that tests whether the couplings follow $m^{1+epsilon}$ and whether the scale is $v$. The 2-jet bins do specific work here: they exclude the band around $c sim 0$ where gluon-fusion production would fake the signal, which is what sharpens the sign discrimination. Named alternatives — the composite-Higgs MCHM4 line $a = c$, the MCHM5 curve, and the anti-dilaton line $c = -a$ — are drawn on the same plane so the reader can see which survive.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two claims carry the paper. First, the relative sign of the Higgs couplings to fermions and to massive vector bosons is now determined: the global minimum sits at $a = 1.03 pm 0.06$ and $c = 0.84 pm 0.15$, and the mirror branch with $c<0$ is disfavoured by $Delta chi^2 sim 9$. This is not a symmetry of the fit — it comes from interference between the top-quark and $W$-boson loops in $H to gammagamma$, so the newly reported CMS diphoton result, compatible with the Standard Model, is what tips the balance. Second, using the parameterization $lambda_f = sqrt{2}(m_f/M)^{1+epsilon}$ and $g_V = 2 m_V^{2(1+epsilon)}/M^{1+2epsilon}$, the authors find $M = 244^{+20}_{-10}$ GeV and $epsilon = -0.022^{+0.042}_{-0.021}$, with a likelihood penalty of only $Delta chi^2 = 0.12$ for the Standard Model point $(M, epsilon) = (246 text{ GeV}, 0)$. In other words the couplings are linear in mass to within a few percent and normalized by the conventional symmetry-breaking scale to within 10%. Subsidiary results: the loop-induced couplings come out at $c_gamma = 1.18 pm 0.12$ and $c_g = 0.88 pm 0.11$ when the tree-level couplings are held at their Standard Model values; the total Higgs width lies within 20% of the Standard Model at 68% confidence; and, assuming Standard Model couplings and no new loop contributions, the invisible branching ratio is bounded at 0.04 (68% CL) and 0.13 (95% CL).

Load-bearing premise

The sign preference rests on the authors' own reconstruction of the CMS diphoton likelihood, which they report as $mu = 0.72^{+0.24}_{-0.26}$ against the official $0.78^{+0.28}_{-0.26}$ and which they themselves say largely drives the result, so a modest change in that one channel's treatment could weaken the $Delta chi^2 sim 9$ separation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The anti-dilaton scenario $c = -a$, and any model in which fermion and boson couplings enter with opposite relative sign, is excluded at roughly the $3sigma$ level by the current combination.
The absence of a significant diphoton anomaly means there is no longer empirical pressure for extra charged particles in the $H gammagamma$ loop; any new physics there must be arranged to leave $c_g$ near unity, since $c_g = 0.88 pm 0.11$.
Minimal composite-Higgs models remain viable only near the Standard Model limit, so the data already constrain the compositeness scale to be well above the electroweak scale in those constructions.
Because the total width is pinned to within 20% of the Standard Model value, the room left for invisible or non-Standard Higgs decays is small: a few percent at 68% confidence under Standard Model assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

The sign discrimination is a statement about loop interference, not about a direct measurement of a fermion coupling sign; it therefore tests the *relative* structure of the $t$-quark and $W$ contributions to $H to gammagamma$, and a future independent extraction of that loop (for example from off-shell or high-$p_T$ Higgs production) would be a genuinely separate check.
The $(M, epsilon)$ result suggests a natural next step: rather than fitting one global $(M, epsilon)$, fit separate exponents per fermion species, since the current data are already sensitive at the few-percent level and the $tau$ and $b$ channels will tighten fastest.
If the couplings continue to sit on the linear, $v$-normalized line as errors shrink, the parameter space of composite and dilaton-like alternatives shrinks toward the decoupling limit, which inverts the usual logic: the Higgs mass and the coupling line would together be circumstantial evidence for a weakly coupled sector rather than a strongly coupled one.
The invisible-width bound is derived under the assumption of no new loop contributions; relaxing that assumption, as the authors do in one variant, shifts the preferred region, so a future direct search for invisible Higgs decays would be the cleaner discriminant.

Original abstract

There are many indirect and direct experimental indications that the new particle H discovered by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations has spin zero and (mostly) positive parity, and that its couplings to other particles are correlated with their masses. Beyond any reasonable doubt, it is a Higgs boson, and here we examine the extent to which its couplings resemble those of the single Higgs boson of the Standard Model. Our global analysis of its couplings to fermions and massive bosons determines that they have the same relative sign as in the Standard Model. We also show directly that these couplings are highly consistent with a dependence on particle masses that is linear to within a few %, and scaled by the conventional electroweak symmetry-breaking scale to within 10%. We also give constraints on loop-induced couplings, on the total Higgs decay width, and on possible invisible decays of the Higgs boson under various assumptions.

The compiled record

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. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,367 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.31 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.35 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.96 · compares with prior results 0.53 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

There are many indirect and direct experimental indications that the new particle H discovered by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations has spin zero and (mostly) positive parity, and that its couplings to other particles are correlated with their masses. Beyond any reasonable doubt, it is a Higgs boson, and here we examine the extent to which its couplings resemble those of the single Higgs boson of the Standard Model. Our global analysis of its couplings to fermions and massive bosons determines that they have the same relative sign as in the Standard Model. We also show directly that these couplings are highly consistent with a dependence on particle masses that is linear to within a few %, and scaled by the conventional electroweak symmetry-breaking scale to within 10%. We also give constraints on loop-induced couplings, on the total Higgs decay width, and on possible invisible decays of the Higgs boson under various assumptions.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	There are many indirect and direct experimental indications that the new particle H discovered by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations has spin zero and (mostly) positive parity, and that its couplings to other particles are correlated with their masses.	background 1.00	0.08	0.05	hedged possibility 0.86
s1	Beyond any reasonable doubt, it is a Higgs boson, and here we examine the extent to which its couplings resemble those of the single Higgs boson of the Standard Model.	contribution 0.55	0.27	0.08	asserted 1.00
s2	Our global analysis of its couplings to fermions and massive bosons determines that they have the same relative sign as in the Standard Model.	result 1.00	0.96	0.44	asserted 1.00
s3	We also show directly that these couplings are highly consistent with a dependence on particle masses that is linear to within a few %, and scaled by the conventional electroweak symmetry-breaking scale to within 10%.	result 1.00	0.95	0.27	asserted 0.89
s4	We also give constraints on loop-induced couplings, on the total Higgs decay width, and on possible invisible decays of the Higgs boson under various assumptions.	contribution 0.68	0.94	0.04	asserted 0.95

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.92 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

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

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** A compilation of the Higgs signal strengths measured by the ATLAS, CDF, D0 and CMS Collaborations in the ¯bb, τ +τ −, γγ, WW∗ and ZZ∗ final states. We display the combinations of the different channels for each final state, and also the combination of all these measurements, with the result for the VBF and VH channels (excluding the γγ final state) shown separately in the bottom line. 3 Higgs Couplings to Bosons and Fermions Our first step in analyzing the implications of these data uses the following effective lowenergy nonlinear Lagrangian for the electroweak symmetry-breaking…

**Figure 2.** The constraints in the (a, c) plane imposed by the measurements in

**Figure 3.** The one-dimensional likelihood functions for the boson coupling parameter a (left panel) and the fermion coupling parameter c (right panel), as obtained by marginalizing over the other parameter in the bottom right panel of

**Figure 4.** Left: The constraints in the (cγ, cg) plane imposed by the measurements in

**Figure 5.** The one-dimensional likelihood functions for cγ (left panel) and cg (right panel), as obtained by marginalizing over the other variable in the bottom right panel of

**Figure 6.** The constraints in the (M, ) plane imposed by the measurements in

**Figure 7.** The one-dimensional likelihood functions for (left panel) and M (right panel), as obtained by marginalizing over the other variable in the left panel of

**Figure 8.** Contours of the total Higgs decay rate relative to the Standard Model prediction in the (a, c) plane shown in the bottom right panel of

**Figure 9.** The one-dimensional likelihood function for the total Higgs decay width relative to its value in the Standard Model, R ≡ Γ/ΓSM, assuming decays into Standard Model particles alone and assuming a = c or equivalently = 0 (solid line), marginalizing over (a, c) (dashed line) and marginalizing over (M, ) (dot-dashed line). require a > 1. Finally, the dashed line was obtained fixing (a, c) = (1, 1) (or equivalently (M, ) = (v, 0)), but marginalizing over the loop factors (cγ, cg). Conversely, the right panel of

**Figure 10.** Left: The branching ratio for Higgs decay into invisible particles obtained assuming the Standard Model decay rates for all the visible Higgs decays (solid), marginalizing over (cγ, cg) (dashed) and (a,c) (dot-dashed). Right: The constraints in the (cγ, cg) plane when marginalizing over the invisible branching ration BRinv. 14

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1303.3879 by the authors.

References

Works cited (36)

[17]

J. Ellis and T. You, JHEP 1209, 123 (2012) [arXiv:1207.1693 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[1]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]; see also https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/HiggsPublicResults

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[2]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]; see also http://cms.web.cern.ch/org/cms-papers-and-results. 15

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[3]

P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508 and Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156

View on Pith 1964
[4]

J. Ellis, V. Sanz and T. You, arXiv:1211.3068 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[5]

J. Ellis, V. Sanz and T. You, arXiv:1303.0208 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1527124/ﬁles/ATLAS-CONF-2013- 029.pdf, CONF-2013-029

View on Pith 2013
[7]

M. Chen on behalf of the CMS Collaboration, Talk given at the Rencontres de Moriond Electroweak Session (2013), https://indico.in2p3.fr/getFile.py/access?contribId=15&sessionId=6&resId =0&materialId=slides&confId=7411

View on Pith 2013
[8]

T. Adye on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration, Talk given at the Rencontres de Moriond Electroweak Session (2013), http://moriond.in2p3.fr/QCD/2013/ThursdayMorning/Adye.pdf

View on Pith 2013
[9]

M. Baak, M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. Hoecker, D. Ludwig, K. Moenig, M. Schott and J. Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2003 [arXiv:1107.0975 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[10]

J.R. Ellis, G. Ridolﬁ and F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) 83 and B 262 (1991) 477; Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi and T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 85 (1991) 1 and Phys. Lett. B 262 (1991) 54; H.E. Haber and R. Hempﬂing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1815

View on Pith 1991
[11]

Hadron Collider Physics Symposium 2012, http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/hcp2012/

View on Pith 2012
[12]

M. Kado on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration, Physics Jamboree at CERN, Dec. 13th, 2012, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides& contribId=0&sessionId=0&subContId=3&confId=218449. S. Bolognesi on be- half of the CMS Collaboration, Physics Jamboree at CERN, Dec. 13th, 2012, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&material...

View on Pith 2012
[13]

Rencontres de Moriond 2013 Electroweak Session, https://indico.in2p3.fr/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=7411. 16

View on Pith 2013
[14]

Aspen 2013 - Higgs Quo Vadis, http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=202554

View on Pith 2013
[15]

Rencontres de Moriond 2013 QCD Session, http://moriond.in2p3.fr/QCD/2013/MorQCD13Prog.html

View on Pith 2013
[16]

For other analyses of the X particle couplings, see: D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuﬂik and T. Volanski, arXiv:1202.3144 [hep-ph]; A. Azatov, R. Contino and J. Galloway, JHEP 1204 (2012) 127 [hep-ph/1202.3415]. J.R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleit- ner and M. Trott, arXiv:1202.3697 [hep-ph]; P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, arXiv:1203...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[18]

A. Falkowski, F. Riva and A. Urbano, arXiv:1303:1812 [hep-ph], P. P. Giardino, K. Kan- nike, I. Masina, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, arXiv:1303.3570 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, arXiv:1209.0040 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[20]

F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321

View on Pith 1964
[21]

P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132

View on Pith 1964
[22]

G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585

View on Pith 1964
[23]

W. Yao on behalf of the TeVatron Collaboration, Talk given at the Rencontres de Moriond Electroweak Session (2013), https://indico.in2p3.fr/getFile.py/access?contribId=69&sessionId=6&resId =0&materialId=slides&confId=7411

View on Pith 2013
[24]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1449158/files/HIG-12-003-pas.pdf

View on Pith
[25]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493602/files/HIG-12-042-pas.pdf

View on Pith
[26]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1460438/files/HIG-12-020-pas.pdf

View on Pith
[27]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1527126/files/ATLAS-CONF-2013-030.pdf

View on Pith 2013
[28]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1494149/files/HIG-12-045-pas.pdf

View on Pith
[29]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493625/files/ATLAS-CONF-2012-161.pdf

View on Pith 2012
[30]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493624/files/ATLAS-CONF-2012-160.pdf

View on Pith 2012
[31]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493615/files/HIG-12-043-pas.pdf. 18

View on Pith
[32]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1460419/files/HIG-12-015-pas.pdf

View on Pith
[33]

G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 0706 (2007) 045 [hep- ph/0703164]; R. Contino, C. Grojean, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 1005 (2010) 089 [arXiv:1002.1011 [hep-ph]]; R. Contino, arXiv:1005.4269 [hep-ph]; R. Grober and M. Muhlleitner, JHEP 1106 (2011) 020 [arXiv:1012.1562 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[34]

S. Biswas, E. Gabrielli and B. Mele, [arXiv:1211.0499 [hep-ph]], M. Farina, C. Grojean, F. Maltoni, E. Salvioni and A. Thamm, [arXiv:1211.3736 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[35]

V. Barger, M. Ishida and W-Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 261801 [arXiv:1203.3456 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[36]

For recent dedicated studies of invisible width at the LHC see for example: J.R. Es- pinosa, M. Muhlleitner, C. Grojean and M. Trott, arXiv:1205.6790 [hep-ph]; G. Be- langer, B. Dumont, U. Ellwanger, J. F. Gunion and S. Kraml, arXiv:1302.5694 [hep-ph]; 19

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 30 Pith papers

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

Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV
hep-ex 2016-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Combining ATLAS and CMS Run 1 data, Higgs production and decay rates match Standard Model predictions to about 10%, with vector boson fusion and H to tau tau each observed above 5 sigma.
CP violation with a dynamical Higgs
hep-ph 2014-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A complete basis of twenty CP-odd gauge and gauge-Higgs operators for a non-linearly realised Higgs is constructed, mapped onto the linear dimension-six basis, and used to derive bounds from EDMs, LEP triple-gauge dat...
Dark Nuclei I: Cosmology and Indirect Detection
hep-ph 2014-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Dark nucleosynthesis, the dark-sector analogue of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, can produce indirect-detection signals from asymmetric dark matter without requiring any symmetric component.
Mono-Higgs: a new collider probe of dark matter
hep-ph 2013-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A simulation-based sensitivity study shows that LHC searches for a Higgs boson plus missing transverse energy can probe dark matter coupling to the Higgs, with the diphoton final state giving the strongest reach acros...
Lepton flavor violation in the Higgs sector and the role of hadronic tau-lepton decays
hep-ph 2013-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Dispersively determined two-pion form factors show that Higgs-mediated tau -> ell pi pi decays are dominated by the gluon and strange-quark couplings, yielding bounds on lepton-flavor-violating Higgs couplings competi...

Show 25 more citing papers

Bounding the Higgs Boson Width Through Interferometry
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD corrections cut the Higgs-induced diphoton mass shift from about 120 to about 70 MeV, and the shift grows as the square root of the Higgs width, giving an independent handle on that width.
Lilith: a tool for constraining new physics from Higgs measurements
hep-ph 2015-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors release Lilith, an open-source tool that builds a global Higgs likelihood from published signal strengths and reproduces the ATLAS and CMS coupling fits, with a documented Gaussian approximation that degra...
Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining seven decay channels and four production modes, CMS measures the Higgs boson mass as 125.02 GeV and finds all signal strengths and coupling scale factors consistent with standard model predictions.
Leptoquarks, Dark Matter, and Anomalous LHC Events
hep-ph 2014-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Leptoquarks that decay mainly to dark matter and jets can reproduce the CMS electron-plus-jet excess while surviving proton decay, meson mixing, and muon g-2 constraints, leaving a few dark matter models testable by XENON1T.
Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: New Physics Working Group Report
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Twenty contributed studies from the 2013 Les Houches New Physics working group cover Higgs coupling fits, vector-like quark and composite Higgs benchmarks, SUSY constraints, flavour observables and dark matter, includ...
Fitting the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess with Cascade Annihilations
hep-ph 2014-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Dark matter annihilating into pairs of light mediators, which then decay to Standard Model particles, fits the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess as well as direct annihilation while evading direct-detection and collide...
Probing the Standard Model with Higgs signal rates from the Tevatron, the LHC and a future ILC
hep-ph 2014-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combined Tevatron and LHC Higgs signal rates are consistent with Standard Model couplings, additional undetectable Higgs decay is bounded below 40% at 95% confidence under a gauge-coupling assumption, and a future ILC...
Disentangling Higgs-Top Couplings in Associated Production
hep-ph 2013-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Cross sections, invariant-mass shapes, and top-polarization asymmetries in ttH, tH and anti-tH production at 14 TeV are shown to discriminate scalar from pseudoscalar Higgs-top couplings across the parameter region st...
Vector-like leptons: Higgs decays and collider phenomenology
hep-ph 2013-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

In models where charged-lepton masses come from mixing with heavy vector-like leptons, the dipole operator locks lepton-flavour-violating Higgs decays to radiative lepton decays, so current bounds make the Higgs chann...
Exotic Decays of the 125 GeV Higgs Boson
hep-ph 2013-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper maps about twenty exotic Higgs decay topologies onto the models that produce them and derives new Run 1 limits on several by reinterpreting existing ATLAS and CMS analyses.
Disentangling a dynamical Higgs
hep-ph 2013-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Complete four-derivative chiral gauge and gauge-Higgs operator basis, mapped onto the dimension-six linear basis, yields specific coupling decorrelations that current LHC Higgs and triple-gauge data cannot yet resolve.
Global fit to Higgs signal strengths and couplings and implications for extended Higgs sectors
hep-ph 2013-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining all public 2013 LHC and Tevatron Higgs signal strengths into reusable two-parameter likelihood ellipses, the authors find Higgs couplings consistent with the Standard Model and derive limits on invisible dec...
Singlet Fermionic Dark Matter and the Electroweak Phase Transition
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A singlet fermion plus a Z2-breaking singlet scalar can, in a broad scanned region, account for all dark matter and produce a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition while evading current direct detection an...
Searching for Signs of the Second Higgs Doublet
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Fits to the 126 GeV Higgs couplings in two Higgs doublet models leave H to hh and A to Zh as the highest-rate discovery channels for the heavier scalars, with gamma-gamma and tau-tau taking over in the exact alignment limit.
A Lower Bound on the Mass of Cold Thermal Dark Matter from Planck
hep-ph 2013-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Cold thermal dark matter that remained in equilibrium with neutrinos, or with electrons and photons, after neutrino decoupling must be heavier than roughly 1 to 10 MeV, because its entropy transfer shifts the neutrino...
Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-09 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining six Higgs decay channels from 35.9 fb^-1 of 13 TeV CMS data yields a global signal strength of 1.17 ± 0.10 and coupling constraints consistent with the standard model.
Current and future constraints on Higgs couplings in the nonlinear Effective Theory
hep-ph 2018-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A Bayesian fit to LHC Higgs data constrains the leading Wilson coefficients of the electroweak chiral Lagrangian to within roughly 6 to 13 percent of their Standard Model values, and projects how future colliders woul...
Electroweak precision observables and Higgs-boson signal strengths in the Standard Model and beyond: present and future
hep-ph 2016-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining electroweak precision observables with 7 and 8 TeV Higgs signal strengths yields constraints on new-physics oblique parameters, Z-b-b couplings and Higgs coupling scale factors, all consistent with the Stand...
Constraints on new phenomena via Higgs boson couplings and invisible decays with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-09 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining Run 1 ATLAS Higgs measurements, the invisible Higgs branching ratio is bounded below 0.23 at 95% confidence and the hMSSM pseudoscalar is excluded below 370 GeV.
Low-mass right-handed sneutrino dark matter: SuperCDMS and LUX constraints and the Galactic Centre gamma-ray excess
hep-ph 2014-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Light right-handed sneutrinos in the NMSSM can satisfy current Higgs, flavour, direct-detection, and indirect-detection constraints for masses from about 2 to 50 GeV, with a wide surviving region for future low-thresh...
The Poker Face of the Majoron Dark Matter Model: LUX to keV Line
hep-ph 2014-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Thermal Majoron dark matter coupled through the Higgs portal is excluded by LUX below 225 GeV except at the Higgs resonance, while a keV-scale triplet-Higgs variant can be tuned to the 3.5 keV cluster line.
Electroweak Vacuum Stability in light of BICEP2
hep-ph 2014-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

For a 125.5 GeV Higgs, GUT-scale inflation requires the top quark mass below about 172 GeV, or a new Higgs-inflaton coupling of order 10^-11, to keep the electroweak vacuum from collapsing during inflation.
Physical Naturalness and Dynamical Breaking of Classical Scale Invariance
hep-ph 2013-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A classically scale-invariant Standard Model coupled through a singlet scalar to a confining dark sector can, in principle, generate the electroweak scale and a dark matter relic from the same strong dynamics.
The couplings of the Higgs boson and its CP properties from fits of the signal strengths and their ratios at the 7+8 TeV LHC
hep-ph 2013-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Global fits to the 2011-2012 LHC Higgs data show the 126 GeV boson has Standard Model-like couplings at 68% CL, is at most about 68% CP-odd at 99% CL, and has an invisible width below 0.52 of the Standard Model value ...
Effective field theory approach to LHC Higgs data
hep-ph 2015-04 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

A review of the dimension-six effective field theory for LHC Higgs data, with signal-strength formulas and a global fit that constrains nine Higgs couplings, several only weakly.

How later papers used it

101 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 91 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 27 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 14 of the 142 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

3 later papers by other authors are listed below: 2 used its data or values and 1 compared its own results with it. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 3 of 24 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

Used the numerical values quoted in this paper, √(C_gg) = 0.88 ± 0.11 and √(C_γγ) = 1.18 ± 0.12.

Constraining minimal and non-minimal UED models with Higgs couplings (2013) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Took the LHC 8 TeV data bound of BR(H→invisible) < 0.13 at 95% CL from this paper.

Phenomenology of the Sterile Neutrinos (2016) · 0.93 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

By the same authors

Displayed the regions of the (κ_t, κ̃_t) plane allowed at the 68 and 95% CL according to the analysis of this paper.

Disentangling Higgs-Top Couplings in Associated Production (2013) (same authors) · 0.89 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Compares with it 1 of 4 papers with this label

Reported that its indirect limit on the invisible width is at least a factor of two worse than those obtained in the similar fits of this paper using the latest LHC data.

The couplings of the Higgs boson and its CP properties from fits of the signal strengths and their ratios at the 7+8 TeV LHC (2013) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

100 arXiv papers cite this in 141 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 · 93 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

An additional fit is performed using a phenomenological parametrization relating the masses of the fermions and vector bosons to the corresponding $κ$ modifiers using two parameters, denoted $M$ and $ϵ$ [ref] .

Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV · Generic model within kappa-framework assuming resolved loops · 0.91
[ref] for the effective Lagrangian,

Bounding the Higgs Boson Width Through Interferometry · Theoretical Description · 0.97

Uses its data or values 24 papers

The Run 2 data [ref] with improved measurements of the $hbb̅$ and $htt̅$ couplings, compared to what Run 1 could achieve [ref] , penetrate rather deep into the BSM parameter space, leading to new constraints.

Probing the Higgs boson through Yukawa force · Introduction · 0.96
We are going to use the numerical values quoted in [ref] : $√(C_gg) =0.88 ±0.11$ and $√(C_γγ) = 1.18 ±0.12.$

Constraining minimal and non-minimal UED models with Higgs couplings · Introduction · 1.00
The non-standard decay branching ratio of the SM Higgs boson is constrained to $Γ_h →inv < 1.2 MeV$ (branching ratio about $22%$) by the results of a global fitting to the most updated data from the CMS and ATLAS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), as well as those from the Tevatron [ref] .

Dark Photon as Fractional Cosmic Neutrino Masquerader · Collider Bounds From Higgs Invisible Width · 0.91

Compares with it 4 papers

These modifications are in a qualitative agreement with the global combination from [ref] which is based on Moriond 2013 (La Thuile, March 2013) experimental data [ref] .

Higgs boson signal at complete tree level in the SM extension by dimension-six operators · Beyond the infinitely small width approximation · 0.98
Thus, $BR_nonSM ≤18.8%$ at 95%C.L. if $c_α1̄$ fixed as also similarly obtained by Ref. [ref] using up-to-date data.

Implications of LHC data on 125GeV Higgs-like boson for the Standard Model and its various extensions · How likely are signals universally modified? : ${ α, BR_nonSM }$ · 0.84
With the simplifying $c_f=c_V=1$ assumption, the indirect limit on the invisible width that one obtains from the signal strengths is better, as can be seen from the figure; at $1σ$, it reads as μ_inv = Γ_H^inv/ Γ_H^SM ≤0.52 @68%CL This limit is at least a factor of two worse than those obtained in the similar fits of Refs. [ref] using the latest LHC data, the reason being that, here, we assume a 20% theoretical uncertainty on the Higgs production cross sections that we treat as a bias and do not combine quadratically with the experimental uncertainty.

The couplings of the Higgs boson and its CP properties from fits of the signal strengths and their ratios at the 7+8 TeV LHC · 5. The invisible Higgs decay width · 0.99

Cites it as background 13 papers

Soon after the discovery of the 125 GeV Higgs boson, several analyses have been performed, for example, in the context of MSSM [ref] , general 2-Higgs doublet models [ref] , next-to minimal supersymmetric standard model (NMSSM) [ref] , effective theory framework [ref] .

Status of MSSM Higgs Sector using Global Analysis and Direct Search Bounds, and Future Prospects at the HL-LHC · Introduction · 0.96
The Higgs couplings can be parametrized in terms of effective Lagrangians [ref] whose structure depends, however, on the class of models considered, such as extended Higgs sectors, extra fermions and/or scalars contributing to loop diagrams, composite Higgs bosons and/or fermions, nonlinear realizations of electroweak symmetry breaking, large extra dimensions, Higgs–dilaton mixing and more.

Global fit to Higgs signal strengths and couplings and implications for extended Higgs sectors · Introduction · 0.95
Indirect searches may well give fruitful results prior to the discovery of new resonances, and may allow to explore and disentangle the two possible avenues of realisation of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB): linear [ref] –which is typical of BSM theories in which the Higgs particle is elementary– or non-linear [ref] –as for instance in models in which the Higgs boson is a composite pseudo-goldstone boson of some strong-interacting BSM theory or a dilaton.

CP violation with a dynamical Higgs · Introduction · 0.97

What it cites · 11 sentences without a confident label

Uses data or values from 1 paper

The same information can be found for ATLAS at 7 TeV in [ref] and at 8 TeV in [ref] , broken down into eleven subchannels including two VBF-dominated ones.

Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC · Summary of the Data · 0.96

Cites as background 5 papers

We now discuss the total Higgs decay rate in the two classes of global fit discussed above, assuming that the Higgs has no other decays beyond those in the Standard Model [ref] .

Total Width of 125 GeV Higgs Boson · The Total Higgs Decay Rate · 0.81
There have been many analyses of the $H$ couplings [ref] , some also including the Moriond 2013 data [ref] .

Interpreting LHC Higgs Results from Natural New Physics Perspective · Introduction and Summary · 0.99
There have been many analyses of the $H$ couplings [ref] , some also including the Moriond 2013 data [ref] .

Global Analysis of the Higgs Candidate with Mass ~ 125 GeV · Introduction and Summary · 0.99

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [17]

J. Ellis and T. You, JHEP 1209, 123 (2012) [arXiv:1207.1693 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[2] [1]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]; see also https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/HiggsPublicResults

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[3] [2]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]; see also http://cms.web.cern.ch/org/cms-papers-and-results. 15

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[4] [3]

P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508 and Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156

View on Pith 1964

[5] [4]

J. Ellis, V. Sanz and T. You, arXiv:1211.3068 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [5]

J. Ellis, V. Sanz and T. You, arXiv:1303.0208 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [6]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1527124/ﬁles/ATLAS-CONF-2013- 029.pdf, CONF-2013-029

View on Pith 2013

[8] [7]

M. Chen on behalf of the CMS Collaboration, Talk given at the Rencontres de Moriond Electroweak Session (2013), https://indico.in2p3.fr/getFile.py/access?contribId=15&sessionId=6&resId =0&materialId=slides&confId=7411

View on Pith 2013

[9] [8]

T. Adye on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration, Talk given at the Rencontres de Moriond Electroweak Session (2013), http://moriond.in2p3.fr/QCD/2013/ThursdayMorning/Adye.pdf

View on Pith 2013

[10] [9]

M. Baak, M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. Hoecker, D. Ludwig, K. Moenig, M. Schott and J. Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2003 [arXiv:1107.0975 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[11] [10]

J.R. Ellis, G. Ridolﬁ and F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) 83 and B 262 (1991) 477; Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi and T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 85 (1991) 1 and Phys. Lett. B 262 (1991) 54; H.E. Haber and R. Hempﬂing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1815

View on Pith 1991

[12] [11]

Hadron Collider Physics Symposium 2012, http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/hcp2012/

View on Pith 2012

[13] [12]

M. Kado on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration, Physics Jamboree at CERN, Dec. 13th, 2012, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides& contribId=0&sessionId=0&subContId=3&confId=218449. S. Bolognesi on be- half of the CMS Collaboration, Physics Jamboree at CERN, Dec. 13th, 2012, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&material...

View on Pith 2012

[14] [13]

Rencontres de Moriond 2013 Electroweak Session, https://indico.in2p3.fr/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=7411. 16

View on Pith 2013

[15] [14]

Aspen 2013 - Higgs Quo Vadis, http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=202554

View on Pith 2013

[16] [15]

Rencontres de Moriond 2013 QCD Session, http://moriond.in2p3.fr/QCD/2013/MorQCD13Prog.html

View on Pith 2013

[17] [16]

For other analyses of the X particle couplings, see: D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuﬂik and T. Volanski, arXiv:1202.3144 [hep-ph]; A. Azatov, R. Contino and J. Galloway, JHEP 1204 (2012) 127 [hep-ph/1202.3415]. J.R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleit- ner and M. Trott, arXiv:1202.3697 [hep-ph]; P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, arXiv:1203...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[18] [18]

A. Falkowski, F. Riva and A. Urbano, arXiv:1303:1812 [hep-ph], P. P. Giardino, K. Kan- nike, I. Masina, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, arXiv:1303.3570 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[19] [19]

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, arXiv:1209.0040 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [20]

F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321

View on Pith 1964

[21] [21]

P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132

View on Pith 1964

[22] [22]

G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585

View on Pith 1964

[23] [23]

W. Yao on behalf of the TeVatron Collaboration, Talk given at the Rencontres de Moriond Electroweak Session (2013), https://indico.in2p3.fr/getFile.py/access?contribId=69&sessionId=6&resId =0&materialId=slides&confId=7411

View on Pith 2013

[24] [24]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1449158/files/HIG-12-003-pas.pdf

View on Pith

[25] [25]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493602/files/HIG-12-042-pas.pdf

View on Pith

[26] [26]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1460438/files/HIG-12-020-pas.pdf

View on Pith

[27] [27]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1527126/files/ATLAS-CONF-2013-030.pdf

View on Pith 2013

[28] [28]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1494149/files/HIG-12-045-pas.pdf

View on Pith

[29] [29]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493625/files/ATLAS-CONF-2012-161.pdf

View on Pith 2012

[30] [30]

ATLAS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493624/files/ATLAS-CONF-2012-160.pdf

View on Pith 2012

[31] [31]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1493615/files/HIG-12-043-pas.pdf. 18

View on Pith

[32] [32]

CMS Collaboration, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1460419/files/HIG-12-015-pas.pdf

View on Pith

[33] [33]

G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 0706 (2007) 045 [hep- ph/0703164]; R. Contino, C. Grojean, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 1005 (2010) 089 [arXiv:1002.1011 [hep-ph]]; R. Contino, arXiv:1005.4269 [hep-ph]; R. Grober and M. Muhlleitner, JHEP 1106 (2011) 020 [arXiv:1012.1562 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[34] [34]

S. Biswas, E. Gabrielli and B. Mele, [arXiv:1211.0499 [hep-ph]], M. Farina, C. Grojean, F. Maltoni, E. Salvioni and A. Thamm, [arXiv:1211.3736 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[35] [35]

V. Barger, M. Ishida and W-Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 261801 [arXiv:1203.3456 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[36] [36]

For recent dedicated studies of invisible width at the LHC see for example: J.R. Es- pinosa, M. Muhlleitner, C. Grojean and M. Trott, arXiv:1205.6790 [hep-ph]; G. Be- langer, B. Dumont, U. Ellwanger, J. F. Gunion and S. Kraml, arXiv:1302.5694 [hep-ph]; 19

View on Pith Pith review arXiv