Heavy Higgs Searches and Constraints on Two Higgs Doublet Models

Chien-Yi Chen; Marc Sher; S. Dawson

REVIEW

Heavy Higgs Searches and Constraints on Two Higgs Doublet Models

Chien-Yi Chen, S. Dawson, Marc Sher

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 7 May 2013 · 43 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, useful 2HDM constraint map whose 200 GeV headline survives scrutiny, but the 300 GeV contours lean on a Standard-Model-width limit that the paper never propagates.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 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 →

· 3 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 ID1305.1624 (version 3)

Pith IDTQC5HNVX, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationChien-Yi Chen, Marc Sher, S. Dawson. "Heavy Higgs Searches and Constraints on Two Higgs Doublet Models." arXiv:1305.1624 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/TQC5HNVX

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

Bottom line: this is a careful, useful constraint map, and the headline number — the Type-I case at M_H = 200 GeV where heavy-Higgs limits cut the surviving parameter space by more than a factor of two — holds up. The 300 GeV contours are the part I would not take at face value, and the reason is not the one the reader flagged. The light-Higgs chi-squared is essentially a re-run of the authors' earlier fit [6] with the full 2012-13 dataset; that part is routine. The genuinely new content is reinterpreting the CMS heavy-Higgs limit [29] as a bound on H0, including the H0 to h0h0 channel and the mu-squared dependence shown in Fig. 5. That is a real addition, and it is done cleanly: standard chi-squared, inputs tabulated from published ATLAS/CMS/Tevatron notes, and the Hhh coupling from Kanemura et al. transcribed correctly. The reader's weakest-assumption call points at large tan beta in Type II. I think that is the wrong location. At 200 GeV the hh channel is kinematically closed, and even a tan beta-enhanced bb width is small against the roughly 1.4 GeV Standard Model total width, so BR(VV) stays near unity and the factor-of-two claim is safe. The soft spot is at M_H of 250 GeV and above, where Eqs. (4)-(5) give a Gamma(H0 to h0h0) of several GeV, comparable to or larger than the Standard Model width at 300 GeV. The paper folds that into BR(H0 to VV) but still compares against a CMS limit extracted assuming a Standard Model-width lineshape. A broader resonance spreads across bins and weakens the limit, so the 300 GeV contours in Figs. 3 and 4 and the 3 ab-1 projections in Fig. 4 carry an unquantified optimism. They say 'assuming a Standard Model width' in one clause and move on; one sentence estimating the size of the effect would settle it. Second, minor: the projections pin central values to the Standard Model and scale errors as 1 over root L, which footnote 42 already admits is optimistic. That is a best case, not a forecast, and it is labelled as such. This is for 2HDM phenomenologists and anyone preparing heavy-Higgs search projections for the upgrade. It deserves a referee, and the referee should ask for the width estimate.

Referee report

Significance

The result is a useful and timely consolidation: it extends the earlier four-model fit to the complete data set, adds the CMS h → γγ pull that shifts the global fit, and — the genuinely new ingredient — demonstrates that heavy-Higgs searches probe directions in (cos(β−α), tan β) that the 125 GeV coupling measurements leave open. The paper is explicit about its inputs (Tables III and IV cite the ATLAS, CMS, and Tevatron conference notes), states its projection scheme and its optimism (footnote [42]), and gives falsifiable projections for 300 and 3000 fb⁻¹ that can be checked once the luminosity is delivered. The χ² minimum at tan β ≈ 1, cos(β−α) ≈ 0 is a non-trivial consistency check that the machinery reproduces the expected Standard-Model-like limit. The physics is standard and the machinery is transparent; the value of the paper lies in the comparison of two independent constraint sets rather than in any new formalism.

Major objections (3)

[§III, Figs. 2–4] The heavy-Higgs constraint is obtained by rescaling the CMS 95% CL limit of Ref. [29] — which is derived assuming the Standard Model total width — onto the 2HDM state H0. The manuscript states this assumption ('assuming a Standard Model width') but does not propagate its consequences, and the region where it bites hardest is precisely the region the paper claims to newly exclude. Above M_H0 = 250 GeV, Eqs. (4)–(5) open H0 → h0h0 with λ_Hhh of order (M_H0² + 2M_h0²)/(2v) ≈ 250 GeV, giving a partial width of several GeV, comparable to or larger than the Standard-Model width at 300 GeV. A broader resonance spreads the signal over more bins and degrades the experimental sensitivity, so the 300 GeV contours in Figs. 3 and 4 and the corresponding 3 ab⁻¹ projections in Fig. 4 carry an unquantified optimism. The same concern applies at M_H0 = 200 GeV in the Type-II and flipped models at large tan β, where the tan β-enhanced bottom Yukawa (g_Hbb = cos α/cos β → tan β as cos(β−α) → 0) can make Γ(H0 → b b̄) several times the Standard-Model total width even though the hh channel is kinematically closed. I would ask the authors to either (a) estimate the modification of the CMS limit for a resonance of width Γ_H0/Γ_SM ≠ 1 and show that the 95% CL contours in Figs. 2–4 are stable, or (b) restrict the quantitative exclusion claims to the kinematic region where the width is demonstrably close to the Standard-Model value, and state the width ratio explicitly on the figures. The statement in §III that a 200 GeV Standard Model Higgs 'will decay almost 100% of the time into vector bosons' is also quantitatively too strong — the Standard-Model WW and ZZ branching ratios at 200 GeV sum to roughly 80%, not ~100% — and this should be corrected in the same pass.
[§II, Tables III and IV, χ² definition] The χ² = Σ_i (R_i^2HDM − R_i^meas)²/(σ_i^meas)² treats every entry of Tables III and IV as an independent Gaussian measurement, but several entries are the same data decomposed in different ways: for example the ATLAS h → γγ rows list ggF, VBF, Vh, and inclusive, and the CMS h → ZZ rows list ggF, VBF+Vh, and inclusive. These are strongly correlated (the inclusive entry is approximately the luminosity-weighted sum of the others), so the fit effectively counts the same events two or three times. This affects every contour in Fig. 1 and therefore the baseline against which the heavy-Higgs improvement in Fig. 3 is measured. The direction of the bias is not obviously conservative: double-counting can either tighten or loosen the 95% CL region depending on the pulls. I would ask for a stability test — repeat the fit using only the inclusive entries, or only the mutually exclusive subchannel entries, and show that the 95% CL contours in Fig. 1 and the 'factor of two' comparison in Fig. 3 are unchanged at the level of the quoted precision. The manuscript should also state the Δχ² value used to draw the 95% CL contours for two free parameters.
[§IV, Conclusions] The headline quantitative claim — that for the Type-I model with M_H0 = 200 GeV the parameter space allowed by 125 GeV branching ratios 'can be shrunk by more than a factor of two' — is not supported by any number in the text or in the figure captions. Fig. 3a shows overlapping contours but gives no areas, and the reader cannot verify the factor-of-two statement without digitizing the figure. Since this is the sentence the abstract and conclusion rest on, the authors should quote the allowed area (or the allowed fraction of the tan β < 7, |cos(β−α)| ≤ 1 plane) before and after including the heavy-Higgs constraint, for each of the four models and each M_H0, in a small table. This would also make the comparison between the 200 GeV and 300 GeV cases, and between current and projected luminosity, quantitative rather than visual.

Minor objections (8)

[Abstract] 'femptobarn' should read 'femtobarn'; the unit appears twice in the abstract.
[Figs. 1–5, captions] The line-style and colour conventions are not consistent across figures: Fig. 1 assigns black solid / red dotted / blue dashed to current / 300 fb⁻¹ / 3000 fb⁻¹, Fig. 2 assigns black solid / blue dashed / red dotted to current / 300 fb⁻¹ / 3 ab⁻¹, and Fig. 3 uses blue and red for the 200 and 300 GeV heavy-Higgs limits. Adopting one convention throughout, and stating it once in the text, would remove a real source of confusion when comparing Fig. 1 with Fig. 3.
[Fig. 5 caption] The caption refers to 'the vertical lines at small cos(α−β)', whereas the rest of the paper uses cos(β−α). Please make the sign convention uniform, and state explicitly in the caption that the plotted quantity is cos(β−α).
[§III, gluon-fusion rate] The text notes that the gluon-fusion production rate in the 2HDM differs from the Standard Model 'because of the different t and b couplings', but does not say whether the bottom-quark loop is included in the amplitude, including its interference with the top loop. At tan β = 5–7 in the Type-II and flipped models this interference is significant and can change the rate by a large factor. Please state explicitly what is included.
[§II, Eq. (3) and Fig. 5] The perturbativity bound tan β < 7 follows from Eq. (3), which is derived under the assumption μ² = 0. Fig. 5 then explores x ≠ 0, i.e. μ² ≠ 0, while still restricting the plotted range to tan β ≤ 6. Since a non-zero μ² relaxes the bound, the restriction is conservative rather than wrong, but the text should say so, otherwise the reader may infer that Eq. (3) applies in Fig. 5.
[§II, fit definition] The signal strength predicted by the 2HDM, R^2HDM, is never written explicitly in terms of α and β for any channel. Giving one worked example (for instance h → γγ or h → ZZ) would let the reader check the coupling conventions of Tables I and II against the fit.
[§III, experimental input] Only the CMS heavy-Higgs limit of Ref. [29] is used. ATLAS has published comparable 95% CL limits over the same mass range; at minimum the authors should note whether the ATLAS limit is weaker, comparable, or stronger, since a combined or conservative choice would affect the quoted contours.
[§II, flavour constraints] The prior tan β ≥ 1 is imposed from ΔM_Bd, but the Type-II and flipped models are also constrained at large tan β by B_s → μ⁺μ⁻ and b → s γ. The paper should state whether those constraints are satisfied everywhere in the plotted region or whether they would further trim the large-tan β corners of Figs. 1 and 3.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The LHC's failure to find a second heavy Higgs can close off regions of two-Higgs-doublet parameter space that the 125 GeV Higgs measurements alone leave open, cutting the surviving Type I area by more than half at a 200 GeV mass.

The reading

The paper asks a practical question that follows from the 125 GeV discovery: once the light Higgs has been measured, how much of the two-Higgs-doublet parameter space can be closed off by the separate LHC search for a second, heavier neutral scalar? The authors first update a global fit of all published 125 GeV signal strengths for the four standard versions of the model (Type I, Type II, lepton-specific, flipped) in the plane of $tan beta$ and $cos(beta - alpha)$, then ask what the same fit would look like with 300 and 3000 fb$^{-1}$ of data. They then take the CMS 95% confidence upper limit on a Standard-Model-like Higgs between 200 and 400 GeV and reweight it by the 2HDM couplings of the heavy state $H^0$ to top and bottom quarks, which control gluon-fusion production. The payoff is that the heavy-Higgs search bites into regions the 125 GeV fit leaves alive, most visibly in Type I, where the surviving area shrinks by more than a factor of two at $M_{H^0} = 200$ GeV. The authors argue this makes continued heavy-Higgs searches a worthwhile use of the high-luminosity LHC.

What carries the argument

Two pieces of machinery carry the argument. The first is the pair of coupling tables: every 2HDM coupling of $h^0$ and $H^0$ to fermions and vector bosons is a fixed trigonometric function of $alpha$ and $beta$, with the vector-boson couplings proportional to $sin(beta - alpha)$ for the light state and $cos(beta - alpha)$ for the heavy one, so a single pair of numbers controls all production and decay rates. The second is a $chi^2$ fit of the predicted signal strengths to the measured ones across the $gamma gamma$, $WW$, $ZZ$, $b bbar$ and $tau tau$ channels, with asymmetric errors averaged in quadrature; the 95% confidence contour in the $(cos(beta - alpha), tan beta)$ plane is what the figures show. For the heavy-Higgs part, the $H^0 to h^0 h^0$ width enters through the trilinear coupling $lambda_{Hhh}$, which is proportional to $cos(beta - alpha)$ times a ratio of mixing angles, so in the limit $cos(beta - alpha) to 0$ both the vector-boson and the $h^0 h^0$ channels vanish and $H^0 to b bbar$ dominates, producing the visible dip near the origin of the plots.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that non-observation of a Standard-Model-like Higgs boson in the 200 to 400 GeV range is not merely a null result about one particle but a constraint on the whole two-Higgs-doublet parameter space, and that it is complementary to, not redundant with, the constraints from the 125 GeV state. The mechanism is straightforward: in these models the heavy CP-even scalar $H^0$ is produced mainly by gluon fusion, with a rate set by its top and bottom Yukawa couplings, so the published upper bound on $sigma(gg to H) times$ branching ratio to vector bosons translates into an allowed band in the $(cos(beta - alpha), tan beta)$ plane. The authors overlay those bands on the regions already allowed by the light-Higgs fit and report that the overlap is smaller. For Type I at $M_{H^0} = 200$ GeV the allowed region is reduced by more than a factor of two; for Type II the additional exclusion sits mostly at small $tan beta$. At 300 GeV the opening of the $H^0 to h^0 h^0$ channel shrinks the gain, and at 400 GeV only a small low-$tan beta$ sliver is added.

Load-bearing premise

The CMS upper limit on a heavy Higgs was derived assuming the Standard Model total width and Standard Model production and decay kinematics, and the paper applies it directly to the 2HDM heavy state even though at large $tan beta$ in Type II the enhanced bottom Yukawa can make that state much wider than the Standard Model Higgs, which would spread the signal and weaken the bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the argument holds, the high-luminosity LHC can exclude a large fraction of the Type I 2HDM parameter space with $M_{H^0}$ near 200 GeV without ever observing the heavy state, purely from its absence.
The exclusion power grows with integrated luminosity in a predictable way, since the authors scale the experimental errors as $1/sqrt{L}$ and quote contours for 300 and 3000 fb$^{-1}$.
For Type II and flipped models the extra exclusion concentrates at small $tan beta$, complementing the large-$tan beta$ region already closed by the enhanced bottom Yukawa in the 125 GeV fit and by $B$-physics constraints.
Above roughly 250 GeV the new $H^0 to h^0 h^0$ channel suppresses the vector-boson branching ratio, so the heavy-Higgs constraint weakens with increasing mass and the strongest reach is at the low end of the considered range.
Because the $Hhh$ coupling depends on the soft $Z_2$-breaking parameter through $x = 2 mu^2 / (M_{H^0}^2 + 2 M_{h^0}^2)$, the excluded region is not fixed: turning on $x$ reshapes the contours, as the authors show for $x = 0, 0.25, 0.5$ in the Type I case.

Reading between the lines

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

The same reweighting logic extends to any channel where the heavy scalar decays to a measured final state; a dedicated $H^0 to tau tau$ or $H^0 to ZZ$ search reweighted by the coupling tables would tighten the large-$tan beta$ corner that the inclusive vector-boson bound constrains least well.
The paper's projection method assumes systematic errors improve with luminosity; if they instead plateau, the 3000 fb$^{-1}$ contours here should be read as an optimistic ceiling rather than a forecast, which matters for anyone using these plots to plan a search programme.
A 2HDM point that survives both the light-Higgs fit and the heavy-Higgs bound is a natural target for a direct width measurement: if the heavy state exists with an enhanced bottom Yukawa, its width would be visibly broader than the Standard Model value, which is precisely the regime where the quoted exclusion is least reliable.
The complementarity the authors demonstrate suggests the two fits should eventually be performed jointly rather than overlaid, since a single likelihood combining the 125 GeV signal strengths and the heavy-Higgs null searches would give contours that neither data set can produce alone.

Original abstract

Since the discovery of a Higgs boson at the LHC and the measurement of many of its branching ratios, there have been numerous studies exploring the restrictions these results place on the parameter space of two Higgs doublet models. We extend these results to include the full data set and study the expected sensitivity that can be obtained with 300 and 3000 inverse femptobarn of integrated luminosity. We consider searches for a heavy Standard Model Higgs boson, with a mass ranging from 200 to 400 GeV, and show that the non-observation of such a Higgs boson can substantially narrow the allowed regions of parameter space in two Higgs doublet models.

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, 3,110 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.10 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.54 · compares with prior results 0.55 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Since the discovery of a Higgs boson at the LHC and the measurement of many of its branching ratios, there have been numerous studies exploring the restrictions these results place on the parameter space of two Higgs doublet models. We extend these results to include the full data set and study the expected sensitivity that can be obtained with 300 and 3000 inverse femptobarn of integrated luminosity. We consider searches for a heavy Standard Model Higgs boson, with a mass ranging from 200 to 400 GeV, and show that the non-observation of such a Higgs boson can substantially narrow the allowed regions of parameter space in two Higgs doublet models.

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	Since the discovery of a Higgs boson at the LHC and the measurement of many of its branching ratios, there have been numerous studies exploring the restrictions these results place on the parameter space of two Higgs doublet models.	background 1.00	0.04	0.04	asserted 0.97
s1	We extend these results to include the full data set and study the expected sensitivity that can be obtained with 300 and 3000 inverse femptobarn of integrated luminosity.	contribution 0.89	0.88	0.06	asserted 0.83
s2	We consider searches for a heavy Standard Model Higgs boson, with a mass ranging from 200 to 400 GeV, and show that the non-observation of such a Higgs boson can substantially narrow the allowed regions of parameter space in two Higgs doublet models.	result 0.73	0.90	0.83	asserted 0.92

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.74 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.75.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

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.** FIG. 1: Allowed regions in the (cos(

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Allowed regions in Type-I (a) and Type-II (b) 2HDMs fr

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Allowed regions in Type-I (a), Type-II (b), Lepton Sp

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Allowed regions in the (cos(

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: Allowed regions in the (cos(

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1305.1624 by the authors.

References

Works cited (43)

[6]

C. -Y. Chen and S. Dawson, arXiv:1301.0309 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1304.0213 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[42]

The assumption that the uncertainty scales as 1 / √ L is true for the statistical error, and assumes that improvem ents are made in the systematic errors with increasing luminosity. T his assumption is therefore optimistic, but is the one used b y CMS for the European Strategy Report[24]

View on Pith
[1]

G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. S her and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. 516, 1 (2012) [arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[2]

P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Re v. D 85, 035020 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0019 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[3]

A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion and Y. Jiang, arXiv :1211.3580 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[4]

S. Chang, S. K. Kang, J. -P. Lee, K. Y. Lee, S. C. Park and J. S ong, arXiv:1210.3439 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[5]

P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Re v. D 85, 077703 (2012) [arXiv:1112.3277 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[7]

D. S. M. Alves, P. J. Fox and N. J. Weiner, arXiv:1207.5499 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

N. Craig and S. Thomas, JHEP 1211, 083 (2012) [arXiv:1207.4835 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[9]

N. Craig, J. A. Evans, R. Gray, C. Kilic, M. Park, S. Somalw ar and S. Thomas, JHEP 1302, 033 (2013) [arXiv:1210.0559 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[10]

Y. Bai, V. Barger, L. L. Everett and G. Shaughnessy, arXi v:1210.4922 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

A. Azatov and J. Galloway, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330004 (2013) [arXiv:1212.1380 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[12]

B. A. Dobrescu and J. D. Lykken, JHEP 1302, 073 (2013) [arXiv:1210.3342 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[13]

P. M. Ferreira, H. E. Haber, R. Santos and J. P. Silva, arX iv:1211.3131 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

A. Celis, V. Ilisie and A. Pich, arXiv:1302.4022 [hep-p h]. 7 TABLE III: Measured Higgs Signal Strengths Decay Production Measured Signal Strength Rmeas γγ ggF 1.6+0.3+0.3−0.3−0.2, [ATLAS] [31] VBF 1.7+0.8+0.5−0.8−0.4 [ATLAS][31] Vh 1.8+1.5+0.3−1.3−0.3 [ATLAS][31] inclusive 1.65+0.24+0.25−0.24−0.18 [ATLAS][31] ggF+tth 0.52 ± 0.5 [CMS][32] VBF+Vh 1.48+1.24...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

B. Grinstein and P. Uttayarat, arXiv:1304.0028 [hep-p h]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

M. Krawczyk, D. Sokolowska and B. Swiezewska, arXiv:13 03.7102 [hep-ph]

View on Pith
[17]

B. Coleppa, F. Kling and S. Su, arXiv:1305.0002 [hep-ph ]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[18]

W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D 86, 115009 (2012) [arXiv:1210.2465 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[19]

C. -W. Chiang and K. Yagyu, arXiv:1303.0168 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[20]

L. Basso, A. Lipniacka, F. Mahmoudi, S. Moretti, P. Osla nd, G. M. Pruna and M. Purmohammadi, JHEP 1211, 011 (2012) [arXiv:1205.6569 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[21]

J. Chang, K. Cheung, P. -Y. Tseng and T. -C. Yuan, Phys. Re v. D 87, 035008 (2013) [arXiv:1211.3849 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[22]

N. Craig, J. Galloway and S. Thomas, arXiv:1305.2424 [h ep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher and J. Bo P. Silva, arXiv:1304.5225 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[24]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Note 2012-006

View on Pith 2012
[25]

J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane and S. Dawson, Front. Phys. 80, 1 (2000). 8

View on Pith 2000
[26]

F. Mahmoudi and O. Stal, Phys. Rev. D 81, 035016 (2010) [arXiv:0907.1791 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[27]

N. Craig, J. Galloway, and S. Thomas: https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceTimeTable.py?confId=248303#20130425

View on Pith
[28]

A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov and R. Santos, ar Xiv:1303.5098 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[30]

S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha and C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Re v. D 70, 115002 (2004) [hep-ph/0408364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[31]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2013-012

View on Pith 2013
[32]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-001

View on Pith
[33]

See talk slides, ‘H → bb from Tevatron’, by Yuji Enari, at HCP2012

View on Pith
[34]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2013-030

View on Pith 2013
[35]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-003

View on Pith
[36]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2013-013

View on Pith 2013
[37]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-002

View on Pith
[38]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2012-170

View on Pith 2012
[39]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-12-044

View on Pith
[40]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2012-160

View on Pith 2012
[41]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-004

View on Pith
[43]

We use the same sign convention as in Ref [25], i.e. sin(β − α) > 0 and 0 ≤ β ≤ π2

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 20 Pith papers

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

Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson in final states with boosted muon pairs and tau lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV
hep-ex 2026-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

No evidence is found for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson in decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson or a heavier scalar to muon and tau final states; 95% confidence level upper limits are set on the production cross sectio...
Parton distributions with threshold resummation
hep-ph 2015-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Fitting parton distributions with threshold-resummed cross sections suppresses the large-x PDFs and largely cancels the enhancement that resummation adds to hadronic cross sections at high invariant mass.
Global fits of the two-loop renormalized Two-Higgs-Doublet model with soft $Z_2$ breaking
hep-ph 2015-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-loop RGEs and global fits show that a stable Two-Higgs-Doublet model up to the Planck scale requires quartic couplings below about 1 and pushes the heavy Higgs masses above 340 to 360 GeV in type II and Y.
Echoes of the Electroweak Phase Transition: Discovering a second Higgs doublet through $A_0 \rightarrow H_0 Z$
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In two-Higgs-doublet models with a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition, the decay A0 → ZH0 dominates and is projected to be discoverable at the 14 TeV LHC with 20-60 fb^-1.
Search for light bosons in decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2017-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No sign of Higgs decays to pairs of light bosons in 19.7 fb^-1 of 8 TeV CMS data; 95% CL upper limits on the exotic branching fraction reach 17% (4 tau), 16% (2 mu 2 b), and 4% (2 mu 2 tau) in favorable 2HDM+S scenarios.

Show 15 more citing papers

The Hunt for the Rest of the Higgs Bosons
hep-ph 2015-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Three LHC search channels for additional Higgs bosons, heavy Higgs to top pairs, invisible Higgs with b or t quarks, and charged Higgs in tb, remain uncovered and are projected to give meaningful reach at 14 TeV.
Search for a 'stable alignment limit' in two Higgs-doublet models
hep-ph 2015-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Requiring the two-Higgs-doublet potential to stay stable up to the Planck scale, with the observed Higgs in the alignment limit, forces the nonstandard scalars to be nearly degenerate and tan beta above about 3.
Benchmarks for Higgs Effective Theory: Extended Higgs Sectors
hep-ph 2015-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Explicit dimension-six matching coefficients are derived for singlet, two-Higgs-doublet, and dilaton extensions of the Higgs sector, and used to estimate where the effective field theory breaks down.
Maximally Symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model with Natural Standard Model Alignment
hep-ph 2014-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A maximally symmetric SO(5) two-Higgs-doublet model naturally realizes the Standard Model alignment limit, and its softly broken version predicts a quasi-degenerate heavy Higgs spectrum testable via four-top final states.
Higgs pair production via gluon fusion in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model
hep-ph 2014-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

NLO-plus-parton-shower predictions for all seven Two-Higgs-Doublet-Model Higgs pair final states show K-factors of 1.5 to 1.7, roughly halved scale uncertainties, and resonant heavy-Higgs enhancements of the light pai...
Constraints on and future prospects for Two-Higgs-Doublet Models in light of the LHC Higgs signal
hep-ph 2014-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Type I and Type II 2HDMs are scanned against LHC8 Higgs signal strengths, heavy-Higgs limits and feed-down constraints, showing where the 125.5 GeV state can be either h or H and what LHC14 can still discover.
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...
A strong electroweak phase transition in the 2HDM after LHC8
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A broad scan of two-Higgs-doublet models finds that a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition favors a Standard-Model-like 125 GeV Higgs, a pseudoscalar heavier than 400 GeV, and the mass ordering m_H+ < m_H...
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.
Status of the Charged Higgs Boson in Two Higgs Doublet Models
hep-ph 2017-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining LHC, LEP and flavour data, the charged Higgs of the Type II 2HDM is pushed above about 600 GeV independent of tan beta, while lighter charged Higgses survive only with suppressed fermion couplings.
Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models
hep-ph 2014-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Of the four natural two-Higgs-doublet models, only the lepton-specific (type X) model can accommodate the muon g-2 anomaly while satisfying electroweak precision, vacuum stability, perturbativity, and B-physics constraints.
Extending two-Higgs-doublet models by a singlet scalar field - the Case for Dark Matter
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A singlet-scalar dark matter particle added to Type I and Type II two-Higgs-doublet models survives LUX and SuperCDMS direct-detection limits only for masses above roughly 55 GeV, except for a few Type II points near ...
Towards a general analysis of LHC data within two-Higgs-doublet models
hep-ph 2013-10 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Current Higgs data fix the 126 GeV boson's top Yukawa sign to the Standard Model value but leave the bottom and tau Yukawa signs degenerate at 90% CL, splitting the surviving two-Higgs-doublet parameter space into dis...
Higgs Working Group Report of the Snowmass 2013 Community Planning Study
hep-ex 2013-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A community planning report tabulating the projected Higgs coupling, mass, width, CP, self-coupling, and heavy-Higgs reach of the HL-LHC, ILC, CLIC, TLEP, muon, photon, and 33-100 TeV proton colliders on a common footing.
Scalar sector of Two-Higgs-Doublet models: A mini-review
hep-ph 2015-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

After the 125 GeV Higgs, 2HDM scalar parameter space is squeezed by stability, unitarity, and T-parameter constraints, with softly broken U(1) symmetry allowing heavier individual nonstandard scalars than exact Z2.

How later papers used it

58 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 50 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 4 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 9 of the 78 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

1 paper by the same authors is listed below: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 1 of 2 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Followed the same procedure as this paper to estimate the future reach of the LHC.

LHC Constraints on the Lee-Wick Higgs Sector (2014) (same authors) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

58 arXiv papers cite this in 78 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 · 34 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

Using the recent measurements of the signal strengths of the light Higgs we perform a $χ^2$ fit by following the same procedure as described in Refs. [ref] .

The Next-to-Minimal Two Higgs Doublet Model · Analysis · 1.00
To estimate the future reach of the LHC, we follow the same procedure as in Ref. [ref] .

LHC Constraints on the Lee-Wick Higgs Sector · Bounds · 1.00

Uses its data or values 2 papers

The 2HDM predictions for $M_W$ and $sin^2θ^lept_eff$ depend on the $Z$ boson mass $M_Z=91.1876 (21)$ GeV [ref] , the top quark mass, $m_t = 173.2 (0.9)$ GeV [ref] , the strong coupling constant $α_s(M_Z)=0.1185 (6)$ [ref] , the variation of the fine-structure constant due to light quarks, $Δα^(5)_had(M^2_Z) = 0.02763 (14)$ [ref] , the masses of the neutral Higgs bosons $M_h=126$ GeV, $M_H$ and $M_A$, the charged Higgs mass $M_H^±$, and the combination $(β-α)$ of the mixing angles in the scalar sector, which we will set to $π/2$ to be consistent with the LHC results on Higgs boson searches [ref] .

Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models · Electroweak constraints · 1.00
Current limits on $sin(β-α)$ from Type-I models [ref] are rather weak, corresponding to $sin(β-α) > 0.85$.

The Electron/Muon Specific Two Higgs Doublet Model at e+ e- Colliders · Constraints from LEP-200 · 0.83

Compares with it 2 papers

For the CP conserving case $(α_b = 0)$, we found that the bounds are very similar to those studied in Refs. [ref] .

Complementarity of LHC and EDMs for Exploring Higgs CP Violation · Limits from Heavy Higgs Searches in the Models with no $Z_2$ Symmetry · 0.98
The current LHC exclusion regions and the projections to 300 and 3000 agree with those of Ref. [ref] .

Scrutinizing h(125) in Two Higgs Doublet Models at the LHC, ILC, and Muon Collider · Two Higgs Doublet Models · 1.00

Cites it as support 3 papers

In fact, the measured signal strengths and production cross section of such a particle are in very good agreement with the corresponding SM predictions [ref] .

Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models · Introduction · 0.96
The recent global fits of the LHC data in the 2HDM context [ref] certifies that alignment is indeed a reasonable assumption.

Search for a 'stable alignment limit' in two Higgs-doublet models · The scalar potential · 1.00
In view of the recent global fits for 2HDMs using the LHC Higgs data, alignment is a reasonable assumption [ref] .

New limits on $\mathbf{\tan\beta}$ for 2HDMs with $\mathbf{Z_2}$ symmetry · The scalar potential · 0.99

Cites it as background 32 papers

A simple extension of the scalar sector of the SM is to add another doublet: this gives rise to the well known 2HDM, which has been thoroughly studied with respect to the LHC (with a lighter scalar in [ref] , and a heavier one in [ref] ).

Searching for a lighter Higgs: parametrisation and sample tests · Two Higgs Doublet Model · 0.97
Many papers [ref] examined various channels in the four 2HDMs in light of the experimental findings at the LHC and ILC.

Projections for Two Higgs Doublet Models at the LHC and ILC: A Snowmass White Paper · Introduction · 0.96
Recent 2HDM efforts [ref] have thus focused on the extent to which deviations from the SM are still possible and the implications for possibly observing such deviations and/or the other Higgs bosons in future LHC running.

Extending two-Higgs-doublet models by a singlet scalar field - the Case for Dark Matter · Fitting the 8 TeV LHC Higgs Signal in the 2HDM · 0.95

What it cites · 10 sentences without a confident label

Builds on 1 paper

In Section II, we update previous studies [ref] for all four 2HDMs to include the full data set and highlight the significant effect of the latest CMS result on $h→γγ$ on the global fit.

Exploring Two Higgs Doublet Models Through Higgs Production · Introduction · 0.93

Uses data or values from 1 paper

We use the $95%$ confidence level band from recent CMS bounds (from Figure 11 in Ref. [ref] ) and scale predictions as the inverse square root of the integrated luminosity.

Search for a standard-model-like Higgs boson with a mass in the range 145 to 1000 GeV at the LHC · Constraints from Heavy Higgs Searches · 1.00

Compares with 1 paper

Similar bounds for the Type-I and Type -II models have been obtained in Ref. [ref] .

Searching for Signs of the Second Higgs Doublet · LHC Reach from $h^0$ Measurements · 0.98

Cites as background 18 papers

Some of the simplest extensions of the scalar sector are the two Higgs doublet models (2HDMs) [ref] .

Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models · Introduction · 1.00
Subsequently, many papers [ref] examined various channels in the four 2HDMs in light of the experimental findings at the LHC.

Probing the charged Higgs boson at the LHC in the CP-violating type-II 2HDM · Introduction · 0.85
Subsequently, many papers [ref] examined various channels in the four 2HDMs in light of the experimental findings at the LHC.

Exclusive Signals of an Extended Higgs Sector · Introduction · 0.85

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] [6]

C. -Y. Chen and S. Dawson, arXiv:1301.0309 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [29]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1304.0213 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[3] [42]

The assumption that the uncertainty scales as 1 / √ L is true for the statistical error, and assumes that improvem ents are made in the systematic errors with increasing luminosity. T his assumption is therefore optimistic, but is the one used b y CMS for the European Strategy Report[24]

View on Pith

[4] [1]

G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. S her and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. 516, 1 (2012) [arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[5] [2]

P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Re v. D 85, 035020 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0019 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[6] [3]

A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion and Y. Jiang, arXiv :1211.3580 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [4]

S. Chang, S. K. Kang, J. -P. Lee, K. Y. Lee, S. C. Park and J. S ong, arXiv:1210.3439 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [5]

P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Re v. D 85, 077703 (2012) [arXiv:1112.3277 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[9] [7]

D. S. M. Alves, P. J. Fox and N. J. Weiner, arXiv:1207.5499 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[10] [8]

N. Craig and S. Thomas, JHEP 1211, 083 (2012) [arXiv:1207.4835 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[11] [9]

N. Craig, J. A. Evans, R. Gray, C. Kilic, M. Park, S. Somalw ar and S. Thomas, JHEP 1302, 033 (2013) [arXiv:1210.0559 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[12] [10]

Y. Bai, V. Barger, L. L. Everett and G. Shaughnessy, arXi v:1210.4922 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [11]

A. Azatov and J. Galloway, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330004 (2013) [arXiv:1212.1380 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[14] [12]

B. A. Dobrescu and J. D. Lykken, JHEP 1302, 073 (2013) [arXiv:1210.3342 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[15] [13]

P. M. Ferreira, H. E. Haber, R. Santos and J. P. Silva, arX iv:1211.3131 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [14]

A. Celis, V. Ilisie and A. Pich, arXiv:1302.4022 [hep-p h]. 7 TABLE III: Measured Higgs Signal Strengths Decay Production Measured Signal Strength Rmeas γγ ggF 1.6+0.3+0.3−0.3−0.2, [ATLAS] [31] VBF 1.7+0.8+0.5−0.8−0.4 [ATLAS][31] Vh 1.8+1.5+0.3−1.3−0.3 [ATLAS][31] inclusive 1.65+0.24+0.25−0.24−0.18 [ATLAS][31] ggF+tth 0.52 ± 0.5 [CMS][32] VBF+Vh 1.48+1.24...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [15]

B. Grinstein and P. Uttayarat, arXiv:1304.0028 [hep-p h]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[18] [16]

M. Krawczyk, D. Sokolowska and B. Swiezewska, arXiv:13 03.7102 [hep-ph]

View on Pith

[19] [17]

B. Coleppa, F. Kling and S. Su, arXiv:1305.0002 [hep-ph ]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [18]

W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D 86, 115009 (2012) [arXiv:1210.2465 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[21] [19]

C. -W. Chiang and K. Yagyu, arXiv:1303.0168 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[22] [20]

L. Basso, A. Lipniacka, F. Mahmoudi, S. Moretti, P. Osla nd, G. M. Pruna and M. Purmohammadi, JHEP 1211, 011 (2012) [arXiv:1205.6569 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[23] [21]

J. Chang, K. Cheung, P. -Y. Tseng and T. -C. Yuan, Phys. Re v. D 87, 035008 (2013) [arXiv:1211.3849 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[24] [22]

N. Craig, J. Galloway and S. Thomas, arXiv:1305.2424 [h ep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [23]

A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher and J. Bo P. Silva, arXiv:1304.5225 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [24]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Note 2012-006

View on Pith 2012

[27] [25]

J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane and S. Dawson, Front. Phys. 80, 1 (2000). 8

View on Pith 2000

[28] [26]

F. Mahmoudi and O. Stal, Phys. Rev. D 81, 035016 (2010) [arXiv:0907.1791 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[29] [27]

N. Craig, J. Galloway, and S. Thomas: https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceTimeTable.py?confId=248303#20130425

View on Pith

[30] [28]

A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov and R. Santos, ar Xiv:1303.5098 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [30]

S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha and C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Re v. D 70, 115002 (2004) [hep-ph/0408364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[32] [31]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2013-012

View on Pith 2013

[33] [32]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-001

View on Pith

[34] [33]

See talk slides, ‘H → bb from Tevatron’, by Yuji Enari, at HCP2012

View on Pith

[35] [34]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2013-030

View on Pith 2013

[36] [35]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-003

View on Pith

[37] [36]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2013-013

View on Pith 2013

[38] [37]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-002

View on Pith

[39] [38]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2012-170

View on Pith 2012

[40] [39]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-12-044

View on Pith

[41] [40]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2012-160

View on Pith 2012

[42] [41]

CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS HIG-13-004

View on Pith

[43] [43]

We use the same sign convention as in Ref [25], i.e. sin(β − α) > 0 and 0 ≤ β ≤ π2

View on Pith