Status of the two-Higgs-doublet model of type II

Martin Wiebusch; Otto Eberhardt; Ulrich Nierste

REVIEW

Status of the two-Higgs-doublet model of type II

Otto Eberhardt, Ulrich Nierste, Martin Wiebusch

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 7 May 2013 · 96 references

Pith's verdict: A careful, well-documented 2HDM type-II global fit whose qualitative conclusions are solid even if the σ labels are softer than they look.

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 →

· 2 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1305.1649 (version 2)

Pith IDMKNDOUD6, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationMartin Wiebusch, Otto Eberhardt, Ulrich Nierste. "Status of the two-Higgs-doublet model of type II." arXiv:1305.1649 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/MKNDOUD6

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

This is the 2HDM type-II constraint paper you'd want on the shelf: a single fit combining Higgs signal strengths, heavy-Higgs search limits, the full LEP/SLC electroweak pseudo-observables including the Zbb vertex, Br(B→Xsγ) at NNLO, and Δm_Bs. The new numbers are real and quotable: m_H± > 322 GeV at 2σ, the both-neutral-heavy-below-300-GeV corner excluded at 2σ, and large β−α deviations excluded at 2σ for tanβ < 5. The last one is the interesting claim, and it's argued on a specific mechanism — flavour plus Rb forcing m_H± large, which then pins α near β−π/2 — not asserted. The disagreement with [24,26,27] is likewise argued on scan coverage of the decoupling corridor, which is a fair criticism of scan-based analyses that miss the fine-tuned heavy-mass relations perturbativity enforces. Execution has marks of care I can verify from the text: two independent fitters, both λmax = 2π and 4π shown on every plot, loop-induced hgg and hγγ computed rather than approximated, expected rather than observed search limits with the reason stated. Credit where due — this is more careful than most of the 2013 2HDM literature it's competing with. Two soft spots. First, the σ labels come from Wilks' theorem applied with hard theoretical cuts, which the authors themselves flag in Sec. 4 as violating the theorem's assumptions and defer to future work. The classifier's 'limitations: none found' is wrong on this — the caveat is stated in the text. The stress-test's sharper point is that the paper says the fits were cross-checked in CKMfitter, which uses a different p-value prescription, but never reports whether the contours actually agree. That's a genuine gap and the natural empirical test of the caveat, though I'd weight it less than the stress-test does: the qualitative conclusions (lower strip disfavoured, m_H± above a few hundred GeV) are robust to a shift of the 2σ boundary by tens of GeV. Second, the Br(B→Xsγ) evaluation uses private code from Hermann-Misiak-Steinhauser; the calculation is published, so this is a mild reproducibility nit, not a hole. The single multiplicative nuisance parameter for the theory error is conservative in the direction that softens the bound, so it cuts toward the authors. Bottom line: worth a serious referee, worth citing for the constraint map, and the σ labels should be read as indicative rather than exact.

Referee report

Significance

This is a careful and, for its time, unusually complete global fit, and several methodological choices deserve explicit credit. The arbitrary perturbativity cutoff is not hidden: results are shown for lambda_max = 2 pi and 4 pi throughout, with the 4 pi contours overlaid as green lines, so the reader can see directly which features are cutoff-dependent (the heavy-mass differences in Fig. 2) and which are not (the tan beta-m_H+- plane, where the green lines coincide with the blue boundaries). The electroweak sector is treated properly, with a dedicated one-loop recalculation of the 2HDM contributions to the pseudo-observables rather than a reduction to oblique parameters, which matters for Rb. The use of expected rather than observed limits for the heavy-Higgs searches is a defensible and clearly stated choice that avoids sensitivity to background fluctuations. The Br(Bbar to Xs gamma) prediction uses the NNLO calculation of the cited authors. The fit is cross-checked with a second, independent implementation. The resulting constraints on the heavy-Higgs mass plane, and the observation that perturbativity forces the heavy masses to be of order v apart in the decoupling limit, are af

Major objections (2)

[Sec. 4; abstract:s2; abstract:s4] Section 4 states that all fits were cross-checked with an independent implementation in the CKMfitter software, and in the same paragraph states that the p-values are obtained from Wilks' theorem while acknowledging that the hard theoretical cuts violate the theorem's assumptions. The outcome of that cross-check is not reported. This matters because CKMfitter's default treatment of p-values (the plugin/Rfit construction) is not the same as a naive Delta-chi-squared mapping, so the comparison is precisely the empirical test of the caveat the authors raise, and every sigma label in abstract:s2, abstract:s4 and Sec. 5 inherits the answer. Please state explicitly whether the two implementations agree on the 1 sigma and 2 sigma contours of Fig. 1(a) and on the 322 GeV lower bound of Fig. 1(b), and quantify any discrepancy. If they disagree, the sigma labels in the abstract and conclusions should be softened; if they agree, one sentence saying so would materially strengthen the paper's central claim at negligible cost.
[Sec. 3 (Br(Bbar to Xs gamma) and Delta m_Bs inputs); Sec. 4 and Sec. 5 (322 GeV bound)] The 322 GeV lower bound on m_H+-, quoted in Sec. 4 and repeated as a headline number in Sec. 5, is a 2 sigma contour whose position is controlled by the treatment of the Br(Bbar to Xs gamma) theory error. Section 3 models that error (3% statistical, 12% systematic, the latter added linearly) as a single multiplicative nuisance parameter, and does the same for Delta m_Bs. A single multiplicative factor cannot capture the m_c-interpolation and scale ambiguities of the cited NNLO calculation, which can enter with different signs in different regions of parameter space, so the mapping from theory error to a shift in the 2 sigma contour is not obviously conservative. Please demonstrate the robustness of the 322 GeV number, for instance by repeating the fit with the nuisance parameter fixed at its central value and with the systematic uncertainty halved, and report how far the bound moves. If the shift is comparable to the quoted precision, the '2 sigma' qualifier should be qualified in the conclusions rather than stated flatly.

Minor objections (9)

[Abstract (abstract:s2) vs Sec. 5] The abstract says deviations are 'completely excluded for small values of tan(beta)', whereas Sec. 5 states the precise version: excluded at two standard deviations for tan beta < 5. 'Completely excluded' overstates a 2 sigma statement and omits the numerical range; please align the abstract wording with Sec. 5.
[Sec. 1] The claim that this is 'the first global fit which consistently includes all the above-mentioned constraints' is a priority claim that is difficult for a reader to verify and is not needed for the physics case. Consider softening it to a statement of what the analysis does, or substantiating it with a short comparison to the closest prior work.
[Sec. 5 (comparison with Ref. [27])] The statement that the scan-based analysis of Ref. [27] 'simply misses' the decoupling-limit scenarios is asserted in one sentence without demonstration. Since this is a criticism of another group's methodology, please either give the concrete reason the scan fails (e.g. the region of parameter space not sampled) or soften the wording.
[Eq. (4.2)] The numerical values mt = 174 GeV and mb = 4.2 GeV entering Eq. (4.2) are quoted without scheme or scale. Please state them, since the quoted Rgg approximately 1.23 depends on them at the few-percent level.
[Fig. 2(a)] The p-value profiles for m_H, m_A and m_H+- are shown without saying how the remaining parameters are treated. Please state explicitly that the other parameters (and the nuisance parameters) are profiled, and note whether the profiles are one-dimensional scans of the full likelihood or slices at fixed values of the other masses.
[Sec. 3 (Delta m_Bs input)] The relative systematic uncertainty on Delta m_Bs is quoted as +8.0/-8.5%, i.e. asymmetric, but is then represented by a single multiplicative nuisance parameter, which is presumably treated symmetrically. Please clarify how the asymmetry is handled and whether it has any effect on the fit.
[Sec. 3 (perturbativity implementation)] The bound |lambda_i| < lambda_max is applied to the quartic couplings without stating the scale at which they are evaluated. Please specify whether the lambda_i are tree-level Lagrangian parameters at the electroweak scale or running couplings, since the numerical impact of the 2 pi versus 4 pi choice depends on this.
[Sec. 4 (fit quality)] No table of the global chi-squared minimum, the number of degrees of freedom, or a goodness-of-fit measure is given. Adding the best-fit point with its chi-squared for the two perturbativity choices would let the reader judge whether the fit describes the data adequately, independently of the contour plots.
[Table 2 and Table 3] For the 8 TeV CMS H to tau tau categories the percentage contributions are said to be derived from the selection efficiencies of Table 2, but the derivation is not shown. A short formula or a sentence explaining the convolution would make Table 3 reproducible.

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

The paper

The paper claims

A global fit puts the type-II two-Higgs-doublet model on a short leash: the 126 GeV boson wants to be Standard-Model-like, and the heavy scalars cannot all be light.

The reading

The paper asks a narrow but consequential question: if the 126 GeV resonance discovered at the LHC is the lighter CP-even scalar $h$ of the type-II two-Higgs-doublet model, how much can its couplings differ from those of the Standard Model Higgs boson before the data object? The authors answer with a single global fit that folds theoretical requirements (a potential bounded from below, a vacuum that is the global minimum, perturbative self-couplings) together with Higgs signal strengths, null searches for heavier scalars, electroweak precision observables, $Br( B to X_s gamma)$ and $B_s$–$bar B_s$ mixing. The fit pulls towards the alignment limit $beta - alpha = pi/2$, where the light scalar couples exactly as the Standard Model Higgs does; departures are disfavoured at one standard deviation and excluded at two for $tan beta < 5$. The same fit turns into mass statements: charged Higgs masses below 322 GeV are excluded at two standard deviations, and no scenario with both heavy neutral scalars $H$ and $A$ below roughly 300 GeV survives at that level. The reason a general reader should care is that this is a measurement of how much freedom the electroweak symmetry-breaking sector still has, and a map of which heavy-Higgs decay channels remain worth searching for.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a single joint likelihood over the model parameters $(tan beta, m_{12}, lambda_1, dots, lambda_5)$, built so that every constraint enters as a genuine multi-parameter fit rather than as a sequential cut. Two pieces do most of the work. First, the coupling table relating each 2HDM coupling to its Standard Model counterpart through $beta$ and $alpha$: $h$ couples to $W, Z$ as $sin(beta - alpha)$, to up-type quarks as $cos alpha / sin beta$ and to down-type quarks and leptons as $-sin alpha / cos beta$, so the single number $beta - alpha$ controls how far the 126 GeV state can drift from the Standard Model. Second, the loop-level effective couplings: $R_{gg}$ and $R_{gamma gamma}$, the squared 2HDM-to-Standard-Model ratios of the $hgg$ and $h gamma gamma$ vertices, computed at one loop with FeynArts, FormCalc and LoopTools, then weighted by the per-event-category production fractions that the experimental collaborations publish. Because the theoretical requirements are imposed as hard parameter cuts, the authors flag that the conversion of the fit into $1sigma$, $2sigma$ and $3sigma$ contours via Wilks' theorem rests on assumptions those cuts violate, and they defer that question to later work. To test how much the answer depends on the arbitrary perturbativity threshold, every result is shown twice, for $lambda_{max} = 2pi$ and $lambda_{max} = 4pi$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the type-II two-Higgs-doublet model with a softly broken $Z_2$ symmetry is being squeezed into its alignment limit by the combination of Higgs data and flavour data, not by either alone. Signal strengths alone still tolerate a second allowed region where the light scalar's couplings are visibly non-Standard-Model; the authors show that adding $Br( bar B to X_s gamma)$, $Delta m_{B_s}$ and the hadronic $Z to b bar b$ branching ratio removes that region at one standard deviation and eliminates it entirely at two standard deviations once $tan beta < 5$. The mechanism is specific: for small $tan beta$ the charged-Higgs contributions to those observables scale with positive powers of $cot beta$, forcing $m_{H^pm}$ to large values, and in that heavy-charged-Higgs limit the perturbativity requirement on the quartic couplings drags $alpha$ back towards $beta - pi/2$. The paper's own quantitative corollaries follow from the same fit: $m_{H^pm} > 322$ GeV at two standard deviations from the $tan beta$-independent terms in $bar B to X_s gamma$; the region with $m_H$ and $m_A$ both under about 300 GeV excluded at two standard deviations by the joint action of flavour and electroweak precision observables; and, under the tighter perturbativity choice $lambda_{max} = 2pi$, the on-shell decay $H to H^+ H^-$ excluded at two standard deviations. The authors also record where they depart from the recent literature, stating that they do not confirm the upper bounds on heavy Higgs masses or on $tan beta$ reported in a scan-based analysis, because such scans miss the decoupling configurations in which the heavy masses satisfy the relations perturbativity enforces.

Load-bearing premise

The sigma-level exclusions all rest on converting the fit into p-values through Wilks' theorem while vacuum stability, the global-minimum condition and perturbativity are imposed as hard parameter cuts, and the authors themselves state in Section 4 that it is not clear how reliable those p-values are under that treatment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the 126 GeV resonance is the light CP-even 2HDM scalar, its couplings to $W$, $Z$, up-type and down-type fermions are pinned near their Standard Model values, with $beta - alpha$ confined close to $pi/2$ for $tan beta < 5$.
Charged Higgs bosons lighter than 322 GeV are excluded at two standard deviations, a bound driven mainly by $Br( bar B to X_s gamma)$ and largely independent of $tan beta$.
The window in which both heavy neutral scalars $H$ and $A$ sit below about 300 GeV is closed at two standard deviations, so a search strategy built on two simultaneously light neutral states is not motivated by this fit.
Under the tight perturbativity choice $lambda_{max} = 2pi$, the on-shell decay $H to H^+ H^-$ is excluded at two standard deviations, which removes one channel from the heavy-Higgs search menu.
For large heavy-Higgs masses the differences between $m_H$, $m_A$ and $m_{H^pm}$ are constrained to be of order the electroweak scale $v$, so the decoupling limit is reached along a narrow ridge rather than a broad plateau.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the exclusion of the non-aligned region hinges on flavour observables, any upward shift in the measured $Br( bar B to X_s gamma)$ central value or a reduction of its theory error would tighten the coupling bound on the light scalar without any new LHC data.
The paper's disagreement with scan-based 2HDM fits is a methodological point that generalises: parameter scans that sample masses uniformly can miss regions selected by perturbativity-induced mass relations, which suggests mass-plane exclusion plots in extended Higgs sectors should be read with the sampling prior in mind.
A useful cross-check would be to re-express the $R_{gg}$–$R_{gamma gamma}$ allowed island as a prediction for the $h to gamma gamma$ and $t bar t h$ signal strengths at a future lepton collider, where the two effective couplings can be separated more cleanly than at the LHC.
Since the sigma-level contours depend on treating theoretical constraints as hard cuts, a Monte Carlo or profile-likelihood treatment that promotes vacuum stability and perturbativity to soft priors would be a concrete way to test whether the two-sigma exclusions quoted here are stable.

Original abstract

We determine the allowed parameter space of the CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) of type II with a softly broken Z_2 symmetry. Our analysis includes theoretical constraints from vacuum stability and perturbativity as well as experimental constraints from signal strengths of the 126 GeV Higgs boson, the non-observation of additional Higgs resonances and electroweak precision and flavour observables. If the 126 GeV resonance is interpreted as the light CP-even Higgs boson of the 2HDM our analysis shows that scenarios where the couplings of this boson deviate substantially from those of the SM Higgs boson are disfavoured at one standard deviation and completely excluded for small values of tan(beta). We also discuss bounds on the masses of the heavy 2HDM Higgs bosons and their implications for the possible decay modes of these particles. We find that the region in which both non-standard neutral Higgs bosons are simultaneously lighter than 300 GeV is excluded at two standard deviations.

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, 4,472 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.27 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.19 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.36 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We determine the allowed parameter space of the CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) of type II with a softly broken Z_2 symmetry. Our analysis includes theoretical constraints from vacuum stability and perturbativity as well as experimental constraints from signal strengths of the 126 GeV Higgs boson, the non-observation of additional Higgs resonances and electroweak precision and flavour observables. If the 126 GeV resonance is interpreted as the light CP-even Higgs boson of the 2HDM our analysis shows that scenarios where the couplings of this boson deviate substantially from those of the SM Higgs boson are disfavoured at one standard deviation and completely excluded for small values of tan(beta). We also discuss bounds on the masses of the heavy 2HDM Higgs bosons and their implications for the possible decay modes of these particles. We find that the region in which both non-standard neutral Higgs bosons are simultaneously lighter than 300 GeV is excluded at two standard deviations.

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	We determine the allowed parameter space of the CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) of type II with a softly broken Z_2 symmetry.	contribution 1.00	0.95	0.07	asserted 0.95
s1	Our analysis includes theoretical constraints from vacuum stability and perturbativity as well as experimental constraints from signal strengths of the 126 GeV Higgs boson, the non-observation of additional Higgs resonances and electroweak precision and flavour observables.	method 0.93	0.88	0.04	asserted 0.98
s2	If the 126 GeV resonance is interpreted as the light CP-even Higgs boson of the 2HDM our analysis shows that scenarios where the couplings of this boson deviate substantially from those of the SM Higgs boson are disfavoured at one standard deviation and completely excluded for small values of tan(beta).	result 0.97	0.94	0.45	asserted 0.99
s3	We also discuss bounds on the masses of the heavy 2HDM Higgs bosons and their implications for the possible decay modes of these particles.	contribution 0.92	0.67	0.05	unclear 0.53
s4	We find that the region in which both non-standard neutral Higgs bosons are simultaneously lighter than 300 GeV is excluded at two standard deviations.	result 1.00	0.96	0.21	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.88 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.86.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

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

levels run

P abstract

not run

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

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.** Allowed regions in the tan β-(β − α) plane (a), the tan β-mH± plane (b) and the RggRγγ plane (c). The shaded blue areas are the regions allowed at one, two and three standard deviations (dark to light) for the tight perturbativity constraint (λmax = 2π). The contours of the corresponding regions for λmax = 4π are indicated by green lines. hadronic Z → b ¯b branching ratio Rb. All these observables get contributions from charged Higgs diagrams which are proportional to positive powers of cot β. Suppressing these terms for small values of tan β requires very large values of mH± , so…

**Figure 2.** (a) shows p-values for the masses of the heavy 2HDM Higgs bosons. (b) to (d) shows allowed regions in the mH-mA, mH± -mA and mH± -mH planes, respectively. The shaded blue areas are the regions allowed at one, two and three standard deviations (dark to light) for the tight perturbativity constraint (λmax = 2π). The contours of the corresponding regions for λmax = 4π are indicated by green lines. The dashed lines indicate thresholds for on-shell decays of one heavy 2HDM Higgs boson into other heavy 2HDM Higgs bosons. 5 Conclusions In this paper we have confronted the type-II 2HDM…

**Figure 3.** Higgs signal strengths measured by D0, CDF, ATLAS and CMS. The superscripts T, A7, A8, C7 and C8 refer to Tevatron, ATLAS 7 TeV, ATLAS 8 TeV, CMS 7 TeV and CMS 8 TeV data, respectively. The subscripts jj, cch etc. denote the different event categories defined by ATLAS and CMS. The combination of all signal strengths yields µcombined = 1.007+0.099 −0.098 and is illustrated by the green band. – 18 –

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1305.1649 by the authors.

References

Works cited (96)

[1]

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC , Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61, [ arXiv:1207.7235]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[2]

A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29, [ arXiv:1207.7214]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[3]

A. Djouadi and A. Lenz, Sealing the fate of a fourth generation of fermions , Phys.Lett. B715 (2012) 310–314, [ arXiv:1204.1252]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[4]

E. Kuﬂik, Y. Nir, and T. Volansky, Implications of Higgs Searches on the Four Generation Standard Model, arXiv:1204.1975. – 11 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1975
[5]

O. Eberhardt, G. Herbert, H. Lacker, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. N ierste, and M. Wiebusch, Joint analysis of Higgs decays and electroweak precision ob servables in the Standard Model with a sequential fourth generation , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 013011, [ arXiv:1204.3872]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[6]

M. Buchkremer, J.-M. Gerard, and F. Maltoni, Closing in on a perturbative fourth generation, JHEP 1206 (2012) 135, [ arXiv:1204.5403]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[7]

O. Eberhardt, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. Nierste, and M. Wiebusch, Status of the fourth fermion generation before ICHEP2012: Higgs data and electr oweak precision observables , arXiv:1207.0438

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

O. Eberhardt, G. Herbert, H. Lacker, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. N ierste, and M. Wiebusch, Impact of a Higgs boson at a mass of 126 GeV on the standard mode l with three and four fermion generations , Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 241802, [ arXiv:1209.1101]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[9]

T. Lee, A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation , Phys.Rev. D8 (1973) 1226–1239

View on Pith 1973
[10]

S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents , Phys.Rev. D15 (1977) 1958

View on Pith 1977
[11]

J. F. Donoghue and L. F. Li, Properties of Charged Higgs Bosons , Phys.Rev. D19 (1979) 945

View on Pith 1979
[12]

O. Deschamps, S. Descotes-Genon, S. Monteil, V. Niess, S. T’J ampens, et al., The Two Higgs Doublet of Type II facing ﬂavour physics data , Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 073012, [arXiv:0907.5135]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[13]

P. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Implications of the LHC two-photon signal for two-Higgs-doublet models , arXiv:1112.3277

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

K. Blum and R. T. D’Agnolo, 2 Higgs or not 2 Higgs , Phys.Lett. B714 (2012) 66–69, [arXiv:1202.2364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[15]

L. Basso, A. Lipniacka, F. Mahmoudi, S. Moretti, P. Osland, et a l., Probing the charged Higgs boson at the LHC in the CP-violating type-II 2HDM , JHEP 1211 (2012) 011, [arXiv:1205.6569]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[16]

H. Cheon and S. K. Kang, Constraining parameter space in type-II two-Higgs doublet model in light of a 125 GeV Higgs boson , arXiv:1207.1083

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[17]

D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuﬂik, T. Volansky, and J. Zupan, Higgs After the Discovery: A Status Report, arXiv:1207.1718

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[18]

P. Ferreira, H. E. Haber, R. Santos, and J. P. Silva, Mass-degenerate Higgs bosons at 125 GeV in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model , arXiv:1211.3131

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and Y. Jiang, Two-Higgs-Doublet Models and Enhanced Rates for a 125 GeV Higgs , arXiv:1211.3580

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[20]

J. Chang, K. Cheung, P.-Y. Tseng, and T.-C. Yuan, Implications on the Heavy CP-even Higgs Boson from Current Higgs Data , Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 035008, [ arXiv:1211.3849]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[21]

C.-Y. Chen and S. Dawson, Exploring Two Higgs Doublet Models Through Higgs Productio n, arXiv:1301.0309

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[22]

A. Celis, V. Ilisie, and A. Pich, LHC constraints on two-Higgs doublet models , arXiv:1302.4022

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, I. Masina, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia, The universal Higgs ﬁt , arXiv:1303.3570. – 12 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[24]

B. Grinstein and P. Uttayarat, Carving Out Parameter Space in Type-II Two Higgs Doublets Model, arXiv:1304.0028

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

J. Shu and Y. Zhang, Impact of a CP Violating Higgs: from LHC to Baryogenesis , arXiv:1304.0773

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

A. Barroso, P. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, 2HDM at the LHC - the story so far, arXiv:1304.5225

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[27]

B. Coleppa, F. Kling, and S. Su, Constraining Type II 2HDM in Light of LHC Higgs Searches, arXiv:1305.0002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[28]

J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit , Phys.Rev. D67 (2003) 075019, [ hep-ph/0207010]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[29]

A. Barroso, P. Ferreira, I. Ivanov, and R. Santos, Metastability bounds on the two Higgs doublet model , arXiv:1303.5098

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[30]

U. Nierste and K. Riesselmann, Higgs sector renormalization group in the MS and OMS scheme: The Breakdown of perturbation theory for a heavy Hig gs, Phys.Rev. D53 (1996) 6638–6652, [ hep-ph/9511407]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[31]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2013-012

View on Pith 2013
[32]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2013-013

View on Pith 2013
[33]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-001

View on Pith
[34]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-002

View on Pith
[35]

P. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Could the LHC two-photon signal correspond to the heavier scalar in two-Higgs-doublet models? , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035020, [arXiv:1201.0019]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[36]

G. Burdman, C. E. Haluch, and R. D. Matheus, Is the LHC Observing the Pseudo-scalar State of a Two-Higgs Doublet Model ? , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 095016, [ arXiv:1112.3961]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[37]

T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one-loop calculations in four and D dimensions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153–165, [ hep-ph/9807565]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[38]

T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431, [ hep-ph/0012260]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[39]

T. Hahn and M. Rauch, News from FormCalc and LoopTools , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 157 (2006) 236–240, [ hep-ph/0601248]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[40]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-003

View on Pith
[41]

W. Hollik, Nonstandard Higgs bosons in SU (2) × U (1) radiative corrections, Z.Phys. C32 (1986) 291

View on Pith 1986
[42]

W. Hollik, Radiative corrections with two Higgs doublets at LEP/SLC an d HERA , Z.Phys. C37 (1988) 569

View on Pith 1988
[43]

H. E. Haber and H. E. Logan, Radiative corrections to the Z b anti-b vertex and constrain ts on extended Higgs sectors , Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 015011, [ hep-ph/9909335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[44]

P. Gonzalez, J. Rohrwild, and M. Wiebusch, Electroweak Precision Observables within a Fourth Generation Model with General Flavour Structure , Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2007, [arXiv:1105.3434]. – 13 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[45]

D. Y. Bardin, M. S. Bilenky, T. Riemann, M. Sachwitz, and H. Vogt , DIZET: A Program Package for the Calculation of Electroweak One Loop Correct ions for the Process e+e− → f +f − Around the Z 0 Peak, Comput.Phys.Commun. 59 (1990) 303–312

View on Pith 1990
[46]

D. Y. Bardin, P. Christova, M. Jack, L. Kalinovskaya, A. Olchev ski, et al., ZFITTER v.6.21: A Semianalytical program for fermion pair production in e+ e - annihilation , Comput.Phys.Commun. 133 (2001) 229–395, [ hep-ph/9908433]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[47]

A. Arbuzov, M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas, M. Grunewald, et al., ZFITTER: A Semi-analytical program for fermion pair production in e+e− annihilation, from version 6.21 to version 6.42 , Comput.Phys.Commun. 174 (2006) 728–758, [ hep-ph/0507146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[48]

A. Freitas and Y.-C. Huang, Electroweak two-loop corrections to sin2θeﬀ,bb and Rb using numerical Mellin-Barnes integrals , JHEP 1208 (2012) 050, [ arXiv:1205.0299]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[49]

M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino, and G. Giudice, Next-to-leading QCD corrections to B → Xsγ: Standard model and two Higgs doublet model , Nucl.Phys. B527 (1998) 21–43, [hep-ph/9710335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[50]

F. Borzumati and C. Greub, 2HDMs predictions for ¯B → Xsγ in NLO QCD , Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 074004, [ hep-ph/9802391]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[51]

F. Borzumati and C. Greub, Two Higgs doublet model predictions for ¯B → Xsγ in NLO QCD: Addendum , Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 057501, [ hep-ph/9809438]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[52]

P. Ciafaloni, A. Romanino, and A. Strumia, Two loop QCD corrections to charged Higgs mediated b → sγ decay, Nucl.Phys. B524 (1998) 361–376, [ hep-ph/9710312]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[53]

C. Bobeth, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Matching conditions for b → sγ and b → sg in extensions of the standard model , Nucl.Phys. B567 (2000) 153–185, [ hep-ph/9904413]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[54]

T. Hermann, M. Misiak, and M. Steinhauser, ¯B → Xsγ in the Two Higgs Doublet Model up to Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD , JHEP 1211 (2012) 036, [ arXiv:1208.2788]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[55]

M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, NNLO QCD corrections to the ¯B → Xsγ matrix elements using interpolation in mc, Nucl.Phys. B764 (2007) 62–82, [ hep-ph/0609241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[56]

Heavy Flavor Averaging Group , Y. Amhis et al., Averages of B-Hadron, C-Hadron, and tau-lepton properties as of early 2012 , arXiv:1207.1158

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[57]

P. Gambino and P. Giordano, Normalizing inclusive rare B decays , Phys.Lett. B669 (2008) 69–73, [ arXiv:0805.0271]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[58]

L. Abbott, P. Sikivie, and M. B. Wise, Constraints on Charged Higgs Couplings , Phys.Rev. D21 (1980) 1393

View on Pith 1980
[59]

C. Geng and J. N. Ng, CHARGED HIGGS EFFECT IN B)d)0 - anti-B(d)0 MIXING, K → pi neutrino anti-neutrino DECAY AND RARE DECAYS OF B MESONS , Phys.Rev. D38 (1988) 2857

View on Pith 1988
[60]

A. J. Buras, P. Krawczyk, M. E. Lautenbacher, and C. Salaza r, B0- ¯B0 mixing, CP violation, K + → π+ν ¯ν and B → KγX in a two Higgs doublet model , Nucl.Phys. B337 (1990) 284–312

View on Pith 1990
[61]

Private communication with the CKMﬁtter group

View on Pith
[62]

A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and P. H. Weisz, Leading and next-to-leading QCD corrections to ε parameter and B0- ¯B0 mixing in the presence of a heavy top quark , Nucl.Phys. B347 (1990) 491–536. – 14 –

View on Pith 1990
[63]

Particle Data Group , J. Beringer et al., Review of Particle Physics (RPP) , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 010001

View on Pith 2012
[64]

A. Lenz, U. Nierste, J. Charles, S. Descotes-Genon, H. Lack er, et al., Constraints on new physics in B − ¯B mixing in the light of recent LHCb data , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 033008, [arXiv:1203.0238]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[65]

HPQCD Collaboration, E. Gamiz, C. T. Davies, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, a nd M. Wingate, Neutral B Meson Mixing in Unquenched Lattice QCD , Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 014503, [ arXiv:0902.1815]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[66]

LHCb, R. Aaij et al., Precision measurement of the B0s − ¯B0s oscillation frequency with the decay B0s → D−s π+, arXiv:1304.4741

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[67]

W.-S. Hou, Enhanced charged Higgs boson eﬀects in B− to tau anti-neutrino, mu anti-neutrino and b to tau anti-neutrino + X , Phys.Rev. D48 (1993) 2342–2344

View on Pith 1993
[68]

A. Akeroyd and S. Recksiegel, The Eﬀect of H+- on B+- → tau+- nu(tau) and B+- → mu+- muon neutrino , J.Phys. G29 (2003) 2311–2317, [ hep-ph/0306037]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[69]

B. Grzadkowski and W.-S. Hou, Searching for B → Dτ ¯τ - neutrino at the 10-percent level , Phys.Lett. B283 (1992) 427–433

View on Pith 1992
[70]

T. Miki, T. Miura, and M. Tanaka, Eﬀects of charged Higgs boson and QCD corrections in anti-B → D tau anti-nu(tau) , hep-ph/0210051

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[71]

U. Nierste, S. Trine, and S. Westhoﬀ, Charged-Higgs eﬀects in a new B → D tau nu diﬀerential decay distribution , Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 015006, [ arXiv:0801.4938]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[72]

J. F. Kamenik and F. Mescia, B → D tau nu Branching Ratios: Opportunity for Lattice QCD and Hadron Colliders , Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 014003, [ arXiv:0802.3790]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[73]

S. Trine, Charged-Higgs eﬀects in B → (D) tau nu decays , arXiv:0810.3633

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[74]

M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe, Tau longitudinal polarization in B → D tau nu and its role in the search for charged Higgs boson , Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 034027, [ arXiv:1005.4306]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[75]

S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and I. Nisandzic, On the B → D∗τ ¯ντ Sensitivity to New Physics , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 094025, [ arXiv:1203.2654]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[76]

Y. Sakaki and H. Tanaka, Constraints of the Charged Scalar Eﬀects Using the Forward-Backward Asymmetry on B → D(∗)τ ¯ντ , Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 054002, [arXiv:1205.4908]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[77]

D. Becirevic, N. Kosnik, and A. Tayduganov, ¯B → Dτ ¯ντ vs. ¯B → Dµ¯νµ, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 208–213, [ arXiv:1206.4977]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[78]

A. Celis, M. Jung, X.-Q. Li, and A. Pich, Sensitivity to charged scalars in B → D(∗)τ ντ and B → τ ντ decays, JHEP 1301 (2013) 054, [ arXiv:1210.8443]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[79]

M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe, New physics in the weak interaction of ¯B → D(∗)τ ¯ν, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 034028, [ arXiv:1212.1878]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[80]

H. E. Logan and U. Nierste, Bs,d → ℓ+ℓ− in a two Higgs doublet model , Nucl.Phys. B586 (2000) 39–55, [ hep-ph/0004139]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[81]

A. Crivellin, C. Greub, and A. Kokulu, Explaining B → Dτ ν, B → D∗τ ν and B → τ ν in a 2HDM of type III , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 054014, [ arXiv:1206.2634]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[82]

M. Wiebusch, Numerical Computation of p-values with myFitter , arXiv:1207.1446. – 15 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[83]

A. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, and F. Le Diberder, A New approach to a global ﬁt of the CKM matrix , Eur.Phys.J. C21 (2001) 225–259, [ hep-ph/0104062]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[84]

J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos, A Phenomenological Proﬁle of the Higgs Boson, Nucl.Phys. B106 (1976) 292

View on Pith 1976
[85]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC , Nucl.Phys. B453 (1995) 17–82, [ hep-ph/9504378]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[86]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-12-043

View on Pith
[87]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-091, Table 6

View on Pith 2012
[88]

CDF, D0 Collaborations, Higgs Boson Studies at the Tevatron , arXiv:1303.6346

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[89]

A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Combined search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 032003, [arXiv:1207.0319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[90]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-091, Fig. 14a

View on Pith 2012
[91]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2013-030

View on Pith 2013
[92]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-161

View on Pith 2012
[93]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-160

View on Pith 2012
[94]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-12-020

View on Pith
[95]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-12-045

View on Pith
[96]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-004. ggF VBF VH 0/1 jet [%] 0 .945 2 .101 1 .702 VBF [%] 0 .026 0 .979 0 .023 T able 2: Selection eﬃciencies for the diﬀerent Higgs production mechanisms in the H → τ τ event categories deﬁned by CMS [ 86] (see also Fig. 3). The columns stand for gluon fusion (ggF), vector boson fusion (VBF) and W H or ZH assoc...

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 21 Pith papers

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

Dark forces coupled to non-conserved currents
hep-ph 2017-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Longitudinal-mode enhancement of light-vector production, applied to rare Z decays, flavor-changing meson decays, and anomaly-induced couplings, yields constraints significantly stronger than prior literature and excl...
Next-to-leading order unitarity fits in Two-Higgs-Doublet models with soft $\mathbb{Z}_2$ breaking
hep-ph 2016-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Global fits with NLO unitarity conditions cap the 2HDM quartic couplings at 4.2 in magnitude and heavy Higgs mass splittings at 235 GeV (type I) and 100 GeV (type II) at 95% confidence.
New LHC Benchmarks for the CP-conserving Two-Higgs-Doublet Model
hep-ph 2015-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A new 'hybrid' input parametrization for the CP-conserving 2HDM, anchored on the observed 125 GeV Higgs, yields seven benchmark scenarios for LHC Run II Higgs searches.
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.

Show 16 more citing papers

Scrutinizing the Alignment Limit in Two-Higgs-Doublet Models. Part 1: $m_h = 125$ GeV
hep-ph 2015-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

In Type I and Type II two-Higgs-doublet models, a 125 GeV Higgs can appear Standard-Model-like through alignment without decoupling, while its bottom-quark and triple-Higgs couplings still deviate by up to tens of per...
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.
Updated NNLO QCD predictions for the weak radiative B-meson decays
hep-ph 2015-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

An updated next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD calculation raises the Standard Model B to X_s gamma branching ratio to (3.36 +/- 0.23) x 10^-4 and tightens the two-Higgs-doublet charged Higgs mass bound to 480 GeV at 95% C.L.
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.
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.
Benchmarks for Higgs Pair Production and Heavy Higgs Searches in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model of Type II
hep-ph 2014-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Current data forbid the 2HDM triple-h coupling from exceeding its Standard Model value at three sigma, but still allow gluon-fusion Higgs-pair production to be enhanced by more than a factor of 50 when a heavy Higgs l...
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...
FlavBit: A GAMBIT module for computing flavour observables and likelihoods
hep-ph 2017-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

FlavBit packages flavour physics predictions, experimental measurements, and correlated likelihoods into a reusable module for global fits of physics beyond the Standard Model.
Simplified dark matter models with two Higgs doublets: I. Pseudoscalar mediators
hep-ph 2017-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In a two-Higgs-doublet model with a pseudoscalar mediator, projected 13 TeV LHC mono-Z and mono-Higgs searches constrain the dark matter coupling more strongly than mono-jet searches over much of the parameter space.
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...
Update of Global Two-Higgs-Doublet Model Fits
hep-ph 2017-11 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Combining LHC Run 1 and Run 2 Higgs signal strengths and heavy-Higgs searches, the fit excludes deviations from the alignment limit larger than 0.03 in type I and 0.02 in types II, X and Y, and sets lower bounds on th...
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.
Building and testing models with extended Higgs sectors
hep-ph 2017-02 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

A pedagogical survey of how extended Higgs sectors are built and tested, covering 2HDM, NHDM, singlet and triplet extensions, and their collider and astroparticle signatures.

How later papers used it

76 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 68 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 7 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 12 of the 107 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 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 1 of 3 papers with this label

Used this paper's global fit results for the Type-II 2HDM, including limits from electroweak precision data and flavour constraints from Δm_B_s and B→X_sγ relevant for the low tanβ region.

Maximally Symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model with Natural Standard Model Alignment (2014) · 0.89 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

75 arXiv papers cite this in 106 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 · 56 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 3 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
The experimental constraints included in our analysis are * the signal strengths of the light $CP$ even Higgs boson $h$, as measured by the ATLAS [ref] and CMS [ref] collaborations, * the CMS exclusion limits for a heavy Higgs decaying into $WW$, $ZZ$ [ref] or $ττ$ [ref] final states, * the full set of electroweak precision observables [ref] (see [ref] for details) and * the flavour constraints relevant for the low $tanβ$ region, i.e. the constraints from the mass splitting $Δm_B_s$ of the neutral $B_s$ system and the branching fraction $(B→X_sγ)$.

Benchmarks for Higgs Pair Production and Heavy Higgs Searches in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model of Type II · Theoretical and Experimental Constraints · 1.00
For the SM-like Higgs boson mass, we will use the $3σ$ allowed range from the recent CMS and ATLAS Higgs mass measurements [ref] : [equation] For the Higgs couplings to the SM vector bosons and fermions, we use the constraints in the $(tanβ, β-α)$ plane derived from a recent global fit for the Type-II 2HDM [ref] .[Note that in our convention, the couplings of the SM-like Higgs boson to vector bosons is proportional to $cos(β-α)$ [cf. ([ref])].

Maximally Symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model with Natural Standard Model Alignment · Misalignment Predictions · 1.00

Compares with it 4 papers

This section is dedicated to the comparison of the ATHDM, with CP-conseving Yukawas and potential, with the usual THDMs with $𝒵_2$ symmetries [ref] .

Constraining the two-Higgs doublet models with the LHC data · ATHDM versus $𝒵_2$ models · 0.89
Points cluster along the ST line $α=β$, confirming the results in [ref] , see also [ref] .

Bounds to the Higgs Sector Masses in Minimal Supersymmetry from LHC Data · Introduction · 0.82
The bounds presenter here for the THDM and Leptoquark models are complementary to those presented in [ref] .

Two Higgs doublet model and leptoquarks constraints from D meson decays · Conclusions · 0.99

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 36 papers

The parameter space of the THDM has been extensively scrutinized in the literature, considering LHC data, LEP data, flavour bounds and theoretical constraints [ref] .

Updated global fit of the aligned two-Higgs-doublet model with heavy scalars · Introduction · 0.87
A large number of papers [ref] performed fits of current data for the 125.5 GeV Higgs-like state (as per the status post Moriond 2013) within the context of 2HDMs, and investigated the consequent phenomenology of the other Higgs states present in the models.

Constraints on and future prospects for Two-Higgs-Doublet Models in light of the LHC Higgs signal · Introduction · 0.87
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

What it cites · 28 sentences without a confident label

Contests 3 papers

The scan-based analysis of [ref] simply misses the scenarios where these relations are fulfilled.

Constraining Type II 2HDM in Light of LHC Higgs Searches · Conclusions · contest 0.88
Contrary to statements in e.g. [ref] we find that scenarios where $β-α$ deviates significantly from $π/2$ are disfavoured at one standard deviation and excluded at two standard deviations for $tanβ<5$.

Carving Out Parameter Space in Type-II Two Higgs Doublets Model · Conclusions · contest 0.83
Contrary to statements in e.g. [ref] we find that scenarios where $β-α$ deviates significantly from $π/2$ are disfavoured at one standard deviation and excluded at two standard deviations for $tanβ<5$.

2HDM at the LHC - the story so far · Conclusions · contest 0.83

Uses the method or tool of 5 papers

To evaluate it we use private code provided by the authors of [ref] .

$\bar{B}\to X_s \gamma$ in the Two Higgs Doublet Model up to Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD · Theoretical Constraints and Experimental Inputs · 1.00
For the theoretical computation of this quantity we use the expressions given in [ref] : [equation] where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant and the dependence on the 2HDM parameters is in the quantities $S_WW$, $S_WH$ and $S_HH$ (see [ref] for their definition).

The Two Higgs Doublet of Type II facing flavour physics data · Theoretical Constraints and Experimental Inputs · 0.90
The results have then been combined with the SM contributions (including all available higher-order corrections) using the prescription of Ref. [ref] .

Electroweak Precision Observables within a Fourth Generation Model with General Flavour Structure · Theoretical Constraints and Experimental Inputs · 0.97

Uses data or values from 3 papers

Our experimental input for $(B̅→X_sγ)_E>E_0$ is [ref] [equation] * the mass splitting $Δm_B_s$ in the neutral $B_s$ meson system.

$\bar{B}\to X_s \gamma$ in the Two Higgs Doublet Model up to Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD · Theoretical Constraints and Experimental Inputs · 0.86
We use the same inputs as in Table II of [ref] , and our SM parameters ($M_Z$, $m_t$, $α_s$ and $Δα^(5)_had(M_Z)$) are fixed to the best-fit values from that analysis.

Impact of a Higgs boson at a mass of 126 GeV on the standard model with three and four fermion generations · Theoretical Constraints and Experimental Inputs · 0.99
Our experimental input for $Δm_B_s$ is [ref] [equation]

Precision measurement of the $B^{0}_{s}$-$\bar{B}^{0}_{s}$ oscillation frequency with the decay $B^{0}_{s}\rightarrowD^{-}_{s}\pi^{+}$ · Theoretical Constraints and Experimental Inputs · 1.00

Compares with 16 papers

If we remove the flavour observables and $R_b$ from our fit we confirm the results of previous analyses (e.g. [ref] ) where the lower strip in Fig. [ref](a) is still allowed at one standard deviation.

Carving Out Parameter Space in Type-II Two Higgs Doublets Model · Results · 0.95
If we remove the flavour observables and $R_b$ from our fit we confirm the results of previous analyses (e.g. [ref] ) where the lower strip in Fig. [ref](a) is still allowed at one standard deviation.

2HDM at the LHC - the story so far · Results · 0.95
The pattern of Fig. [ref](b) is the same as the one found in [ref] , but of course the newer data and the NNLO result used by us lead to a tighter lower bound on $m_H^±$.

The Two Higgs Doublet of Type II facing flavour physics data · Results · 0.99

Cites as background 18 papers

After the Higgs discovery the compatibility of the type-II 2HDM with the observed Higgs signal strengths and other experimental data has been studied in several papers [ref] .

Implications of the LHC two-photon signal for two-Higgs-doublet models · Introduction · 0.91
After the Higgs discovery the compatibility of the type-II 2HDM with the observed Higgs signal strengths and other experimental data has been studied in several papers [ref] .

2 Higgs or not 2 Higgs · Introduction · 0.91
After the Higgs discovery the compatibility of the type-II 2HDM with the observed Higgs signal strengths and other experimental data has been studied in several papers [ref] .

Probing the charged Higgs boson at the LHC in the CP-violating type-II 2HDM · Introduction · 0.91

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] [1]

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC , Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61, [ arXiv:1207.7235]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[2] [2]

A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29, [ arXiv:1207.7214]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[3] [3]

A. Djouadi and A. Lenz, Sealing the fate of a fourth generation of fermions , Phys.Lett. B715 (2012) 310–314, [ arXiv:1204.1252]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[4] [4]

E. Kuﬂik, Y. Nir, and T. Volansky, Implications of Higgs Searches on the Four Generation Standard Model, arXiv:1204.1975. – 11 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1975

[5] [5]

O. Eberhardt, G. Herbert, H. Lacker, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. N ierste, and M. Wiebusch, Joint analysis of Higgs decays and electroweak precision ob servables in the Standard Model with a sequential fourth generation , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 013011, [ arXiv:1204.3872]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

M. Buchkremer, J.-M. Gerard, and F. Maltoni, Closing in on a perturbative fourth generation, JHEP 1206 (2012) 135, [ arXiv:1204.5403]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[7] [7]

O. Eberhardt, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. Nierste, and M. Wiebusch, Status of the fourth fermion generation before ICHEP2012: Higgs data and electr oweak precision observables , arXiv:1207.0438

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [8]

O. Eberhardt, G. Herbert, H. Lacker, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. N ierste, and M. Wiebusch, Impact of a Higgs boson at a mass of 126 GeV on the standard mode l with three and four fermion generations , Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 241802, [ arXiv:1209.1101]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[9] [9]

T. Lee, A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation , Phys.Rev. D8 (1973) 1226–1239

View on Pith 1973

[10] [10]

S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents , Phys.Rev. D15 (1977) 1958

View on Pith 1977

[11] [11]

J. F. Donoghue and L. F. Li, Properties of Charged Higgs Bosons , Phys.Rev. D19 (1979) 945

View on Pith 1979

[12] [12]

O. Deschamps, S. Descotes-Genon, S. Monteil, V. Niess, S. T’J ampens, et al., The Two Higgs Doublet of Type II facing ﬂavour physics data , Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 073012, [arXiv:0907.5135]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[13] [13]

P. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Implications of the LHC two-photon signal for two-Higgs-doublet models , arXiv:1112.3277

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [14]

K. Blum and R. T. D’Agnolo, 2 Higgs or not 2 Higgs , Phys.Lett. B714 (2012) 66–69, [arXiv:1202.2364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[15] [15]

L. Basso, A. Lipniacka, F. Mahmoudi, S. Moretti, P. Osland, et a l., Probing the charged Higgs boson at the LHC in the CP-violating type-II 2HDM , JHEP 1211 (2012) 011, [arXiv:1205.6569]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[16] [16]

H. Cheon and S. K. Kang, Constraining parameter space in type-II two-Higgs doublet model in light of a 125 GeV Higgs boson , arXiv:1207.1083

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [17]

D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuﬂik, T. Volansky, and J. Zupan, Higgs After the Discovery: A Status Report, arXiv:1207.1718

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[18] [18]

P. Ferreira, H. E. Haber, R. Santos, and J. P. Silva, Mass-degenerate Higgs bosons at 125 GeV in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model , arXiv:1211.3131

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[19] [19]

A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and Y. Jiang, Two-Higgs-Doublet Models and Enhanced Rates for a 125 GeV Higgs , arXiv:1211.3580

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [20]

J. Chang, K. Cheung, P.-Y. Tseng, and T.-C. Yuan, Implications on the Heavy CP-even Higgs Boson from Current Higgs Data , Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 035008, [ arXiv:1211.3849]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[21] [21]

C.-Y. Chen and S. Dawson, Exploring Two Higgs Doublet Models Through Higgs Productio n, arXiv:1301.0309

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[22] [22]

A. Celis, V. Ilisie, and A. Pich, LHC constraints on two-Higgs doublet models , arXiv:1302.4022

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[23] [23]

P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, I. Masina, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia, The universal Higgs ﬁt , arXiv:1303.3570. – 12 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[24] [24]

B. Grinstein and P. Uttayarat, Carving Out Parameter Space in Type-II Two Higgs Doublets Model, arXiv:1304.0028

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [25]

J. Shu and Y. Zhang, Impact of a CP Violating Higgs: from LHC to Baryogenesis , arXiv:1304.0773

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

A. Barroso, P. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, 2HDM at the LHC - the story so far, arXiv:1304.5225

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[27] [27]

B. Coleppa, F. Kling, and S. Su, Constraining Type II 2HDM in Light of LHC Higgs Searches, arXiv:1305.0002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[28] [28]

J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit , Phys.Rev. D67 (2003) 075019, [ hep-ph/0207010]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[29] [29]

A. Barroso, P. Ferreira, I. Ivanov, and R. Santos, Metastability bounds on the two Higgs doublet model , arXiv:1303.5098

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[30] [30]

U. Nierste and K. Riesselmann, Higgs sector renormalization group in the MS and OMS scheme: The Breakdown of perturbation theory for a heavy Hig gs, Phys.Rev. D53 (1996) 6638–6652, [ hep-ph/9511407]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[31] [31]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2013-012

View on Pith 2013

[32] [32]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2013-013

View on Pith 2013

[33] [33]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-001

View on Pith

[34] [34]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-002

View on Pith

[35] [35]

P. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Could the LHC two-photon signal correspond to the heavier scalar in two-Higgs-doublet models? , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035020, [arXiv:1201.0019]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[36] [36]

G. Burdman, C. E. Haluch, and R. D. Matheus, Is the LHC Observing the Pseudo-scalar State of a Two-Higgs Doublet Model ? , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 095016, [ arXiv:1112.3961]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[37] [37]

T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one-loop calculations in four and D dimensions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153–165, [ hep-ph/9807565]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[38] [38]

T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431, [ hep-ph/0012260]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[39] [39]

T. Hahn and M. Rauch, News from FormCalc and LoopTools , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 157 (2006) 236–240, [ hep-ph/0601248]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[40] [40]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-003

View on Pith

[41] [41]

W. Hollik, Nonstandard Higgs bosons in SU (2) × U (1) radiative corrections, Z.Phys. C32 (1986) 291

View on Pith 1986

[42] [42]

W. Hollik, Radiative corrections with two Higgs doublets at LEP/SLC an d HERA , Z.Phys. C37 (1988) 569

View on Pith 1988

[43] [43]

H. E. Haber and H. E. Logan, Radiative corrections to the Z b anti-b vertex and constrain ts on extended Higgs sectors , Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 015011, [ hep-ph/9909335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[44] [44]

P. Gonzalez, J. Rohrwild, and M. Wiebusch, Electroweak Precision Observables within a Fourth Generation Model with General Flavour Structure , Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2007, [arXiv:1105.3434]. – 13 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[45] [45]

D. Y. Bardin, M. S. Bilenky, T. Riemann, M. Sachwitz, and H. Vogt , DIZET: A Program Package for the Calculation of Electroweak One Loop Correct ions for the Process e+e− → f +f − Around the Z 0 Peak, Comput.Phys.Commun. 59 (1990) 303–312

View on Pith 1990

[46] [46]

D. Y. Bardin, P. Christova, M. Jack, L. Kalinovskaya, A. Olchev ski, et al., ZFITTER v.6.21: A Semianalytical program for fermion pair production in e+ e - annihilation , Comput.Phys.Commun. 133 (2001) 229–395, [ hep-ph/9908433]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[47] [47]

A. Arbuzov, M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas, M. Grunewald, et al., ZFITTER: A Semi-analytical program for fermion pair production in e+e− annihilation, from version 6.21 to version 6.42 , Comput.Phys.Commun. 174 (2006) 728–758, [ hep-ph/0507146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[48] [48]

A. Freitas and Y.-C. Huang, Electroweak two-loop corrections to sin2θeﬀ,bb and Rb using numerical Mellin-Barnes integrals , JHEP 1208 (2012) 050, [ arXiv:1205.0299]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[49] [49]

M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino, and G. Giudice, Next-to-leading QCD corrections to B → Xsγ: Standard model and two Higgs doublet model , Nucl.Phys. B527 (1998) 21–43, [hep-ph/9710335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[50] [50]

F. Borzumati and C. Greub, 2HDMs predictions for ¯B → Xsγ in NLO QCD , Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 074004, [ hep-ph/9802391]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[51] [51]

F. Borzumati and C. Greub, Two Higgs doublet model predictions for ¯B → Xsγ in NLO QCD: Addendum , Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 057501, [ hep-ph/9809438]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[52] [52]

P. Ciafaloni, A. Romanino, and A. Strumia, Two loop QCD corrections to charged Higgs mediated b → sγ decay, Nucl.Phys. B524 (1998) 361–376, [ hep-ph/9710312]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[53] [53]

C. Bobeth, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Matching conditions for b → sγ and b → sg in extensions of the standard model , Nucl.Phys. B567 (2000) 153–185, [ hep-ph/9904413]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[54] [54]

T. Hermann, M. Misiak, and M. Steinhauser, ¯B → Xsγ in the Two Higgs Doublet Model up to Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD , JHEP 1211 (2012) 036, [ arXiv:1208.2788]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[55] [55]

M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, NNLO QCD corrections to the ¯B → Xsγ matrix elements using interpolation in mc, Nucl.Phys. B764 (2007) 62–82, [ hep-ph/0609241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[56] [56]

Heavy Flavor Averaging Group , Y. Amhis et al., Averages of B-Hadron, C-Hadron, and tau-lepton properties as of early 2012 , arXiv:1207.1158

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[57] [57]

P. Gambino and P. Giordano, Normalizing inclusive rare B decays , Phys.Lett. B669 (2008) 69–73, [ arXiv:0805.0271]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[58] [58]

L. Abbott, P. Sikivie, and M. B. Wise, Constraints on Charged Higgs Couplings , Phys.Rev. D21 (1980) 1393

View on Pith 1980

[59] [59]

C. Geng and J. N. Ng, CHARGED HIGGS EFFECT IN B)d)0 - anti-B(d)0 MIXING, K → pi neutrino anti-neutrino DECAY AND RARE DECAYS OF B MESONS , Phys.Rev. D38 (1988) 2857

View on Pith 1988

[60] [60]

A. J. Buras, P. Krawczyk, M. E. Lautenbacher, and C. Salaza r, B0- ¯B0 mixing, CP violation, K + → π+ν ¯ν and B → KγX in a two Higgs doublet model , Nucl.Phys. B337 (1990) 284–312

View on Pith 1990

[61] [61]

Private communication with the CKMﬁtter group

View on Pith

[62] [62]

A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and P. H. Weisz, Leading and next-to-leading QCD corrections to ε parameter and B0- ¯B0 mixing in the presence of a heavy top quark , Nucl.Phys. B347 (1990) 491–536. – 14 –

View on Pith 1990

[63] [63]

Particle Data Group , J. Beringer et al., Review of Particle Physics (RPP) , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 010001

View on Pith 2012

[64] [64]

A. Lenz, U. Nierste, J. Charles, S. Descotes-Genon, H. Lack er, et al., Constraints on new physics in B − ¯B mixing in the light of recent LHCb data , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 033008, [arXiv:1203.0238]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[65] [65]

HPQCD Collaboration, E. Gamiz, C. T. Davies, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, a nd M. Wingate, Neutral B Meson Mixing in Unquenched Lattice QCD , Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 014503, [ arXiv:0902.1815]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[66] [66]

LHCb, R. Aaij et al., Precision measurement of the B0s − ¯B0s oscillation frequency with the decay B0s → D−s π+, arXiv:1304.4741

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[67] [67]

W.-S. Hou, Enhanced charged Higgs boson eﬀects in B− to tau anti-neutrino, mu anti-neutrino and b to tau anti-neutrino + X , Phys.Rev. D48 (1993) 2342–2344

View on Pith 1993

[68] [68]

A. Akeroyd and S. Recksiegel, The Eﬀect of H+- on B+- → tau+- nu(tau) and B+- → mu+- muon neutrino , J.Phys. G29 (2003) 2311–2317, [ hep-ph/0306037]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[69] [69]

B. Grzadkowski and W.-S. Hou, Searching for B → Dτ ¯τ - neutrino at the 10-percent level , Phys.Lett. B283 (1992) 427–433

View on Pith 1992

[70] [70]

T. Miki, T. Miura, and M. Tanaka, Eﬀects of charged Higgs boson and QCD corrections in anti-B → D tau anti-nu(tau) , hep-ph/0210051

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[71] [71]

U. Nierste, S. Trine, and S. Westhoﬀ, Charged-Higgs eﬀects in a new B → D tau nu diﬀerential decay distribution , Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 015006, [ arXiv:0801.4938]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[72] [72]

J. F. Kamenik and F. Mescia, B → D tau nu Branching Ratios: Opportunity for Lattice QCD and Hadron Colliders , Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 014003, [ arXiv:0802.3790]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[73] [73]

S. Trine, Charged-Higgs eﬀects in B → (D) tau nu decays , arXiv:0810.3633

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[74] [74]

M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe, Tau longitudinal polarization in B → D tau nu and its role in the search for charged Higgs boson , Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 034027, [ arXiv:1005.4306]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[75] [75]

S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and I. Nisandzic, On the B → D∗τ ¯ντ Sensitivity to New Physics , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 094025, [ arXiv:1203.2654]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[76] [76]

Y. Sakaki and H. Tanaka, Constraints of the Charged Scalar Eﬀects Using the Forward-Backward Asymmetry on B → D(∗)τ ¯ντ , Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 054002, [arXiv:1205.4908]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[77] [77]

D. Becirevic, N. Kosnik, and A. Tayduganov, ¯B → Dτ ¯ντ vs. ¯B → Dµ¯νµ, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 208–213, [ arXiv:1206.4977]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[78] [78]

A. Celis, M. Jung, X.-Q. Li, and A. Pich, Sensitivity to charged scalars in B → D(∗)τ ντ and B → τ ντ decays, JHEP 1301 (2013) 054, [ arXiv:1210.8443]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[79] [79]

M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe, New physics in the weak interaction of ¯B → D(∗)τ ¯ν, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 034028, [ arXiv:1212.1878]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[80] [80]

H. E. Logan and U. Nierste, Bs,d → ℓ+ℓ− in a two Higgs doublet model , Nucl.Phys. B586 (2000) 39–55, [ hep-ph/0004139]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[81] [81]

A. Crivellin, C. Greub, and A. Kokulu, Explaining B → Dτ ν, B → D∗τ ν and B → τ ν in a 2HDM of type III , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 054014, [ arXiv:1206.2634]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[82] [82]

M. Wiebusch, Numerical Computation of p-values with myFitter , arXiv:1207.1446. – 15 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[83] [83]

A. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, and F. Le Diberder, A New approach to a global ﬁt of the CKM matrix , Eur.Phys.J. C21 (2001) 225–259, [ hep-ph/0104062]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[84] [84]

J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos, A Phenomenological Proﬁle of the Higgs Boson, Nucl.Phys. B106 (1976) 292

View on Pith 1976

[85] [85]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC , Nucl.Phys. B453 (1995) 17–82, [ hep-ph/9504378]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[86] [86]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-12-043

View on Pith

[87] [87]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-091, Table 6

View on Pith 2012

[88] [88]

CDF, D0 Collaborations, Higgs Boson Studies at the Tevatron , arXiv:1303.6346

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[89] [89]

A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Combined search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 032003, [arXiv:1207.0319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[90] [90]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-091, Fig. 14a

View on Pith 2012

[91] [91]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2013-030

View on Pith 2013

[92] [92]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-161

View on Pith 2012

[93] [93]

ATLAS conference note, ATLAS-CONF-2012-160

View on Pith 2012

[94] [94]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-12-020

View on Pith

[95] [95]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-12-045

View on Pith

[96] [96]

CMS physics analysis summary, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-004. ggF VBF VH 0/1 jet [%] 0 .945 2 .101 1 .702 VBF [%] 0 .026 0 .979 0 .023 T able 2: Selection eﬃciencies for the diﬀerent Higgs production mechanisms in the H → τ τ event categories deﬁned by CMS [ 86] (see also Fig. 3). The columns stand for gluon fusion (ggF), vector boson fusion (VBF) and W H or ZH assoc...

View on Pith