Diphoton decay for a $750$ GeV scalar boson in an $U(1)_{X}$ model

C.F. Sierra; F. Ochoa; R. Martinez

REVIEW

Diphoton decay for a $750$ GeV scalar boson in an $U(1)_{X}$ model

R. Martinez, F. Ochoa, C.F. Sierra

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 17 Dec 2015 · 34 references

Pith's verdict: A competent scan of the authors' own anomaly-free U(1)_X model against a signal that was already dying when v4 appeared, with one real derivation slip in the ξχhh decoupling that a referee should force them to fix.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 9, 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 →

· 5 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1512.05617 (version 4)

Pith IDZUIMQZO7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationC.F. Sierra, F. Ochoa, R. Martinez. "Diphoton decay for a $750$ GeV scalar boson in an $U(1)_{X}$ model." arXiv:1512.05617 (2015). https://pith.science/paper/ZUIMQZO7

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

The short version: this is the Martinez-Ochoa-Sierra U(1)_X model — particle content, anomaly cancellation, scalar potential, Yukawa Lagrangian all from their own Phys. Rev. D papers [21-23] — pointed at the December 2015 diphoton excess. The new material is the one-loop calculation and the parameter scans. That is a legitimate, modest piece of work, not a new model, and the abstract's 'compatible with ATLAS and CMS' [abstract:s2] should be read as 'a free Yukawa coupling can be dialed to hit 2-8 fb,' which is a fit, not a prediction. The reader is right about that and it is worth saying plainly to anyone who skims the abstract and thinks a prediction was made. What the scan actually constrains is the fixed ratio of Γ_Zγ and Γ_ZZ to Γ_γγ, and that part is fine as far as it goes. The Γ = 45 GeV scenario in Fig. 4 does produce a real exclusion (m_T ≳ 965 GeV at 99% CL), and Fig. 2a shows the fermion loops alone can reach the rate with λ = 0. Those are the two results I would actually keep. The stress-test concern lands. Eqs. (18)-(19) impose λ6 S²α + λ7 C²α = 0 and λ6 S²β + λ7 C²β = λ, and the paper then solves for λ6, λ7 'using the approximation of Eq. (7), α≈β.' Under α = β the two equations coincide and the system is singular; the printed Eq. (20) does not satisfy Eq. (18) in that limit. The fix is easy — keep the exact α from Eq. (6) in the denominator — but as written, the λ_eff scan in Fig. 3 rests on a step that does not hold. Two smaller things: Eq. (13) does not follow from the λ8 ξχ²|σ|² term in Eq. (10) as written (linear in λ8, no λ3, no λ8²), and m_H± = 400 GeV sits oddly against the paper's own claim that H, A, H± are degenerate at the TeV scale. Neither is fatal; both should be asked about. The v4 date is July 2016 and the experimental premise is not updated, which is a timing problem rather than a physics error, but a reader in 2016 should know the target is gone. Who gets value: people working on non-universal U(1)′ extensions who want a worked diphoton example, and anyone studying how free-coupling scans manufacture 'compatibility.' Worth a serious referee — the model is published, the loop calculation is standard and correctly transcribed, and the Eq. (20) issue is exactly what review is for.

Referee report

Significance

The paper is a competent, self-contained implementation of a standard diphoton calculation inside a specific anomaly-free model, and several things are done well: the U(1)_X charge assignment is genuinely anomaly-free and non-trivial, the loop amplitudes include both the heavy-quark and charged-Higgs contributions with their interference, the three width scenarios are a sensible way to organize the parameter space, and the connection to a singlet scalar dark-matter candidate gives the construction some added reach. The form factors and the Cgg normalization are correctly transcribed from the literature. The main limitation on significance is that the result is a scan over free couplings rather than a prediction, and the experimental premise has since been overtaken; the paper is best read as a model-study of a 750 GeV singlet rather than as an explanation of data.

Major objections (5)

[§3.1, Eqs. (18)-(20)] The ξχhh decoupling that licenses the λ_eff scan of Fig. 3 is not internally consistent. Eqs. (18) and (19) are imposed together with the approximation α ≈ β of Eq. (7); under α = β the two equations become the same expression, so the 2×2 system is singular and forces λ = 0 rather than a free λ up to 5. Concretely, substituting the Eq. (20) values into the left-hand side of Eq. (18) with α = β gives λ(C⁴β − S⁴β)/(C²β − S²β) = λ, not 0, so Eq. (20) does not satisfy the condition it is meant to enforce. Eq. (20) is also not the exact solution of the system for α ≠ β, which is λ6 = −λC²α/(S²αC²β − S²βC²α) and λ7 = λS²α/(S²αC²β − S²βC²α); and the two denominators in Eq. (20) are themselves inconsistent, with S²α appearing in λ6 and S²β in λ7. Because Fig. 3 scans λ_eff = λ = h over [0, 5], this is load-bearing: if the decoupling is not viable, ξχ→hh is open, Γ in Eq. (12) is larger than assumed, and the contours move. The fix is straightforward — retain the exact α from Eq. (6) in the denominators of Eq. (20) and re-derive the Fig. 3 contours — but it must be done.
[§3.1, Eq. (13) and Eq. (10)] The dark-matter width in Eq. (13) does not follow from the potential of Eq. (2) as written. Expanding |χ|² = (υχ + ξχ)²/2 in the λ8|χ|²|σ|² term gives a trilinear coupling λ8υχ ξχ|σ|², so the two-body width is Γ = λ8²υχ²/(32π m_ξχ)√(1 − 4m_σ²/m_ξχ²), which after Eq. (8) becomes Γ = λ8² m_ξχ/(64π λ3)√(1 − 4m_σ²/m_ξχ²) — quadratic in λ8 and inversely proportional to λ3. Eq. (13) is linear in λ8 and contains no λ3. The quoted numbers (λ8 = 0.15 giving Γ ≈ 1.1 GeV) follow from Eq. (13) as printed, so either λ8 in Eq. (13) is a rescaled coupling or a factor has been dropped. Relatedly, the λ8 term in Eq. (10) is written as λ8ξχ²|σ|² inside the υχξχ{…} brace, which is dimensionally inconsistent; it should presumably read λ8|σ|². Since Figs. 5(a)-(d) are the entire basis of the third scenario, the relation between the λ8 of Eq. (2) and the λ8 of Eq. (13) should be stated explicitly and the contours recomputed if the normalization changes.
[§3.2, Figs. 3-5 and Fig. 4 axis] The scan allows the Yukawa coupling h to reach h/4π = 1, i.e. h ≈ 12.6, but this region is not consistent with the model's own assumptions. Since m_T = h_T υχ/√2, taking m_T = 900 GeV and h = 4π gives υχ ≈ 100 GeV, below the electroweak VEV and in direct conflict with the stated requirement υχ > υ (indeed υχ ≫ υ) of §2. The same point gives λ3 = m_ξχ²/(2υχ²) ≈ 28, far outside the perturbative regime assumed when Eq. (8) is used. The authors should impose the consistency conditions υχ ≳ few TeV and λ3 ≲ 1 on the scan and state explicitly how much of the allowed region in Figs. 3, 4 and 5 survives. This is a correctness check on the parameter space, not a matter of taste, and it directly affects the claimed m_T reach up to 3 TeV.
[§3.2 and abstract] The abstract's claim of a cross section 'compatible with ATLAS and CMS collaborations data' is the outcome of a scan over two free couplings, h and λ_eff, with the overall normalization of the loop amplitude adjustable by h. The manuscript should say this plainly: the contours establish where in the (m_T, h, λ_eff) space the model can reach 2-8 fb, not that the model predicts it. A short quantitative statement of the tuning would help — for instance, what fraction of the perturbative (h, λ_eff) plane survives for each m_T, and how close to a coupling boundary the viable points sit. Relatedly, the perturbativity criterion used in Fig. 4 and the surrounding text is h/4π ≤ 1, whereas the standard criterion is h²/(4π) ≲ 1, i.e. h ≲ 3.5; the authors should state which convention they adopt and, if the weaker one, justify it.
[§1 and §3.2, experimental input] The manuscript (v4, dated 27 July 2016) still treats the December 2015 diphoton excess as the target and does not discuss the 13 TeV results presented at Moriond 2016 and later, which showed no significant excess in the same channel. The central claim of compatibility with ATLAS and CMS data should either be updated against the then-current dataset or explicitly scoped to the 2015 announcement. As it stands, a reader cannot tell whether the quoted 2-8 fb window is still the relevant target. This is fixable by rescoping — the loop calculation itself remains a valid model study of a 750 GeV singlet — but the framing of the abstract and conclusions needs to reflect it.

Minor objections (5)

[§3.2, Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The text states that in Fig. 2(a) the contributions 'ignoring the dominant Γgg' have branching ratios of order 42%, 33% and 25% for Γγγ, ΓZγ and ΓZZ. Since Γgg is described as dominant, these are fractions of the non-gluonic width, not branching ratios; the actual BRγγ entering Eq. (21) is much smaller. Please relabel these as relative fractions of the electroweak loop width, or quote the true branching ratios, so that Fig. 2 can be read against Eq. (21).
[§2, dark-matter sector] Section 2 states that σ 'must accomplish' conditions in order to reproduce the observed relic density, citing Refs. [22, 23], but no relic-density calculation appears in this manuscript and the quoted range 0.15 ≤ λ8 ≤ 3 is not tied to Ωh². Please state whether Ωh² is verified here or simply assumed from the earlier work, and note the direct-detection expectations for λ8 of order 3, which are the natural place where this scenario would be tested.
[§3.1, Eqs. (6) and (16)] Eq. (6) and the ΓZγ and ΓZZ expressions in Eq. (16) contain unbalanced parentheses and, in Eq. (6), a stray closing parenthesis after tan 2β; these should be corrected so that the formulas can be reproduced. The relative factor 2/3 and the 1/(24πα) coefficient in Eq. (16) are also not derived anywhere and would benefit from a one-line explanation or a citation.
[§3.1, ξχ mixing] The analysis implicitly neglects tree-level couplings of ξχ to SM fermions and to hh generated by υ/υχ mixing with the doublets. Since this suppression is what makes the loop-induced treatment consistent, it would be worth stating the scaling explicitly in §3.1 rather than leaving it implicit.
[References] References [24] and [30]-[33] do not appear to be cited anywhere in the text. Either cite them where relevant (for instance [30]-[33] in the discussion of the gluon-fusion production and width) or remove them from the list.

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

The paper

The paper claims

A 750 GeV scalar can reach the diphoton rate through heavy-quark loops in a U(1) extension

The reading

The paper asks whether the 750 GeV bump once reported in the diphoton mass spectrum by ATLAS and CMS can be produced by a single new scalar particle that already has a reason to exist in a known class of models. The setting is a nonuniversal, anomaly-free $U(1)_X$ extension of the Standard Model, whose anomaly-cancellation conditions force three families and three extra quark singlets ($T$, $J_1$, $J_2$) plus a second Higgs doublet, leaving one real singlet $xi_chi$ in the spectrum after symmetry breaking. The claim is that $xi_chi$ at 750 GeV decays to two photons at one loop through the three heavy quarks and the charged Higgs $H^pm$, and that with quark masses anywhere in $[900, 3000]$ GeV the resulting $pp to xi_chi to gamma gamma$ cross section lands in the 2-8 fb window the experiments reported. A second singlet, $sigma$, is offered as a scalar dark matter candidate that couples to $xi_chi$ at tree level and can dominate its width, which changes which regions of parameter space survive. The interest is that the same particle content that fixes the anomalies also supplies the loop content needed for the diphoton rate, so the signal would not be a bolt-on.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the one-loop triangle amplitude for a CP-even scalar coupling to two gauge bosons, written in the paper's compact form: each fermion or charged scalar in the loop contributes $h_i N_i Q_i^2 F_i$ with $F_{1/2} = -sqrt{tau}[1 + (1-tau) f(tau)]$ and $F_0 = sqrt{tau}[1 - tau f(tau)]$, $f(tau) = [arcsin(1/sqrt{tau})]^2$, $tau_i = 4 m_i^2 / m_{xi_chi}^2$. Because all relevant loop masses exceed $375$ GeV, the form factors stay in the real branch and the amplitudes are computable without imaginary parts. The second piece of machinery is the decoupling construction in Eqs. (18)-(20): the authors set $lambda_6 S_alpha^2 + lambda_7 C_alpha^2 approx 0$ to suppress $xi_chi h h$ (which is tightly bounded) while demanding $lambda_6 S_beta^2 + lambda_7 C_beta^2 = lambda$, so that a free effective coupling $lambda$ to $H^+ H^-$ survives to feed the photon loop. This is what lets the contour plots in $Gamma_{Zgamma}/Gamma_{gamma gamma}$ versus $Gamma_{ZZ}/Gamma_{gamma gamma}$ be drawn as a function of only $m_T$ and $lambda_{rm eff}$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the nonuniversal $U(1)_X$ model of its earlier work, the real component $xi_chi$ of the singlet $chi$ is a viable 750 GeV diphoton resonance. The decay $xi_chi to gamma gamma$ proceeds at one loop through two bottom-like singlets $J_n$, one top-like singlet $T$, and the charged Higgs $H^pm$; the same loops generate $gg$, $Zgamma$ and $ZZ$ channels, and the paper computes all four widths from a common form-factor expression with $F_{1/2}$ for fermions and $F_0$ for the scalar. The production cross section is obtained from the standard narrow-width formula $sigma(pp to xi_chi to gamma gamma) = C_{gg}, Gamma(xi_chi to gg), Gamma(xi_chi to gamma gamma) / (m_{xi_chi} Gamma)$, with the gluon-gluon luminosity integral taken as $C_{gg} = 2137$ at 13 TeV. Three treatments of the total width are scanned: loop-only, the ATLAS-motivated $Gamma = 45$ GeV, and dark-matter dominance via $xi_chi to sigma^* sigma$. The authors report that for exotic quark masses between 900 GeV and 3 TeV, and with the trilinear coupling $lambda_{rm eff}$ and Yukawa $h$ chosen appropriately, the predicted cross section falls inside the combined ATLAS and CMS range of 2-8 fb, while the ratio bounds $Gamma_{Zgamma} < 20, Gamma_{gamma gamma}$ and $Gamma_{ZZ} < 10, Gamma_{gamma gamma}$ cut off the large-coupling end of the scan.

Load-bearing premise

The argument needs the 750 GeV singlet to be switched off from the highly constrained $hh$ channel while keeping a freely adjustable, sizeable coupling to $H^+ H^-$; the paper obtains this by imposing two conditions and then solving them under the approximation $alpha approx beta$, which is the step that makes the free coupling possible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mechanism holds, a 750 GeV resonance in this model would come with correlated rates in $Zgamma$ and $ZZ$, not photons alone, so the ratios $Gamma_{Zgamma}/Gamma_{gamma gamma}$ and $Gamma_{ZZ}/Gamma_{gamma gamma}$ become the discriminating observables rather than the diphoton yield by itself.
The exotic quark masses are bounded from above by the same fit: with a 45 GeV width the model is excluded above $m_T approx 965$ GeV at 99% CL, and with dark-matter-dominated width the excluded region moves to roughly 2.7 TeV, 2.0 TeV, 1.3 TeV or 0.98 TeV depending on $lambda_8$ and $m_{H^pm}$.
A scalar dark matter particle $sigma$ with $0.15 leq lambda_8 leq 3$ would give $xi_chi$ a width between about 1.2 and 23 GeV, so the observed width of the resonance would itself be a measurement of the dark-sector coupling.
Because the same singlet-quark content is required by anomaly cancellation, a confirmed diphoton resonance at this mass would simultaneously be evidence for the extended quark sector that the $U(1)_X$ charge assignment demands.

Reading between the lines

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

The decoupling step deserves a direct algebraic check: if the approximation $alpha approx beta$ of Eq. (7) is taken exactly, then Eqs. (18) and (19) coincide and together force $lambda = 0$ rather than leaving $lambda$ free up to 5, so the Fig. 3 scan over $lambda_{rm eff}$ rests on a condition that the paper's own approximation does not actually permit. A reader wanting to use these contours shou
The framework predicts a specific partner signature that the paper does not pursue: the same $T$ and $J_n$ quarks that feed the photon loop should be produced in pairs at the LHC and decay through the $Z'$ and the extra Higgs states, so the 900 GeV lower bound used here is a moving target that future heavy-quark searches will tighten independently of the diphoton channel.
Since the width is the least constrained ingredient, the three scenarios scanned here are effectively three different theories; a measurement of the resonance width, even a loose one, would select among them and could rule out the loop-only case, whose branching ratios the paper puts at roughly 42% to $gamma gamma$, 33% to $Zgamma$ and 25% to $ZZ$.
The dark matter singlet is introduced with a global $U(1)$ to forbid odd terms, but the paper notes that spontaneous symmetry breaking can regenerate them; whether the symmetry survives the $U(1)_X$ breaking is a separate stability question that the diphoton fit does not test.

Original abstract

In the context of a nonuniversal and anomaly free $U(1)_{X}$ extension of the standard model, we examine the decay of a $750$GeV scalar singlet state, $\xi_{\chi}$, as a possible explanation of the observed diphoton excess announced by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at CERN-LHC collider. One-loop decay to photons is allowed through three heavy singlet quarks and one charged Higgs boson into the loop. We obtain, for different width approximations and for masses of the exotic singlet quarks in the region $[900,\,3000]$ GeV, a production cross section $\sigma(pp\to\xi_{\chi}\to\gamma\gamma)$ compatible with ATLAS and CMS collaborations data. We also include another scalar singlet, $\sigma$, as a dark matter candidate that may couple with the 750 GeV scalar at tree level with production cross sections in agreement with ATLAS and CMS.

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-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,885 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.13 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.63 · compares with prior results 0.53 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v4. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In the context of a nonuniversal and anomaly free $U(1)_{X}$ extension of the standard model, we examine the decay of a $750$GeV scalar singlet state, $\xi_{\chi}$, as a possible explanation of the observed diphoton excess announced by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at CERN-LHC collider. One-loop decay to photons is allowed through three heavy singlet quarks and one charged Higgs boson into the loop. We obtain, for different width approximations and for masses of the exotic singlet quarks in the region $[900,\,3000]$ GeV, a production cross section $\sigma(pp\to\xi_{\chi}\to\gamma\gamma)$ compatible with ATLAS and CMS collaborations data. We also include another scalar singlet, $\sigma$, as a dark matter candidate that may couple with the 750 GeV scalar at tree level with production cross sections in agreement with ATLAS and CMS.

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	In the context of a nonuniversal and anomaly free $U(1)_{X}$ extension of the standard model, we examine the decay of a $750$GeV scalar singlet state, $\xi_{\chi}$, as a possible explanation of the observed diphoton excess announced by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at CERN-LHC collider.	contribution 0.78	0.55	0.12	hedged possibility 0.96
s1	One-loop decay to photons is allowed through three heavy singlet quarks and one charged Higgs boson into the loop.	method 0.95	0.39	0.05	asserted 0.97
s2	We obtain, for different width approximations and for masses of the exotic singlet quarks in the region $[900,\,3000]$ GeV, a production cross section $\sigma(pp\to\xi_{\chi}\to\gamma\gamma)$ compatible with ATLAS and CMS collaborations data.	result 1.00	0.94	0.63	asserted 0.78
s3	We also include another scalar singlet, $\sigma$, as a dark matter candidate that may couple with the 750 GeV scalar at tree level with production cross sections in agreement with ATLAS and CMS.	contribution 0.72	0.87	0.14	hedged possibility 0.96

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.96 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.65.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v4

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.** Diphoton scalar decay mediated by quarks T ,J n and charged Higgs bosons H±. Vχ = µ 2 3 |χ| 2 + λ3 |χ| 4 + λ6 |χ| 2 |φ1| 2 + λ7 |χ| 2 |φ2| 2 + λ8 |χ| 2 |σ| 2 . (9) After rotation to mass eigenvectors according to (4), we obtain all the interactions of χ with the scalar matter. In particular, for the real component ξχ of χ, we obtain: Vξχ = 1 2 m2 ξχ ξ 2 χ + υχξχ n λ6S 2 β + λ7C 2 β H+

**Figure 2.** Different decay channels for the 750 GeV candidate.

**Figure 3.** Contour plots of the production cross-section

**Figure 4.** Contours of the production cross-section

**Figure 5.** Contour plots of the production cross-section

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1512.05617 by the authors.

References

Works cited (34)

[1]

S. L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967); A. Salam, in Elementary Particle Theory: Relativistic Groups and Analyticity (Nobel Symposium No. 8), edited by N. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1968), p. 367

View on Pith 1961
[2]

Talk by Jim Olsen, CMS Collaboration, “CMS 13 TeV Results”, CERN Jamboree, De- cember 15, 2015. Plots are presented in, http://cms-results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/public- results/preliminary-results/LHC-Jamboree-2015/index.html

View on Pith 2015
[3]

Talk by Marumi Kado, ATLAS Collaboration, “ATLAS 13 TeV Results”, CERN Jam- boree, December 15, 2015. Plots are presented in, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/ AtlasPublic/December2015-13TeV

View on Pith 2015
[4]

Y. Mambrini, G. Arcadi and A. Djouadi, arXiv:1512.04913; M. Backovic, A. Mariotti and D. Redigolo, arXiv:1512.04917; A. Angelescu, A. Djouadi and G. Moreau, arXiv:1512.04921; Y. Nakai, R. Sato and K. Tobioka, arXiv:1512.04924; S. Knapen, T. Melia, M. Papucci and K. Zurek, arXiv:1512.04928; R. Franceschini et al., arXiv:1512.04933; S. D. McDermott, P. Mead...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[5]

B. Dutta, et al., arXiv:1512.05439; Q.-H. Cao, et al., arXiv:1512.05542; S. Matsuzaki and K. Yamawaki, arXiv:1512.05564; A. Kobakhidze, et al., arXiv:1512.05585; P. Cox, A. D. Medina, T. S. Ray and A. Spray, arXiv:1512.05618; D. Becirevic, E. Bertuzzo, O. Sumensari and R. Z. Funchal, arXiv:1512.05623; J. M. No, V. Sanz and J. Setford, arXiv:1512.05700; S....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

E. Gabrielli, et al., arXiv:1512.05961; J. S. Kim, J. Reuter, K. Rolbiecki and R. R. de Austri, arXiv:1512.06083; A. Alves, A. G. Dias and K. Sinha, arXiv:1512.06091; E. Megias, O. Pujolas and M. Quiros, arXiv:1512.06106; L. M. Carpenter, R. Colburn and J. Goodman, arXiv:1512.06107; J. Bernon and C. Smith, arXiv:1512.06113; W. Chao, arXiv:1512.06297; M. T...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[7]

I. Chakraborty and A. Kundu, arXiv:1512.06508; R. Ding, L. Huang, T. Li and B. Zhu, arXiv:1512.06560; H. Han, S. Wang and S. Zheng, arXiv:1512.06562; X. -F. Han and L. Wang, arXiv:1512.06587; J. Chang, K. Cheung and C. Lu, arXiv:1512.06671; D. Bardhan, et al., arXiv:1512.06674; T.-F. Feng, X.-Q. Li, H.-B. Zhang and S.-M. Zhao, arXiv:1512.06696; O. An- tip...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

S. M. Boucenna, S. Morisi and A. Vicente, arXiv:1512.06878; C. W. Murphy, arXiv:1512.06976; A. E. C. Hernandez and I. Nisandzic, arXiv:1512.07165; U. K. Dey, S. Mohanty and G. Tomar, arXiv:1512.07212; G. M. Pelaggi, A. Strumia, E. Vigiani, arXiv:1512.07225; J. de Blas, J. Santiago and R. V. -Morales, arXiv:1512.07229; A. Belyaev, et al., arXiv:1512.07242;...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen and P.-H. Gu, arXiv:1512.07541; P. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, arXiv:1512.08507; B. C. Allanach, P. Dev, S. A. Renner and K. Sakurai, arXiv:1512.07645; H. Davoudiasl and C. Zhang, arXiv:1512.07672; N. Craig, P. Draper, C. Kilic and S. Thomas, arXiv:1512.07733; K. Das and S. K. Rai, arXiv:1512.07789; K. Cheung, et al., arXiv:15...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

H. Han, S. Wang, S. Zheng and S. Zheng, arXiv:1512.07992; J.-C. Park and S. C. Park, arXiv:1512.08117; A. Salvio and A. Mazumdar, arXiv:1512.08184; D. Chway, R. Dermivsek, T. H. Jung and H. D. Kim, arXiv:1512.08221; G. Lo, et al., arXiv:1512.08255; M. Son and A. Urbano, arXiv:1512.08307; Y.-L. Tang and S.-H. Zhu, arXiv:1512.08323; H. An, C. Che- ung and Y...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

L. E. Ibanez, V. M. Lozano, arXiv:1512.08777; E. Ma, arXiv:1512.09159; L. Marzola, et al., arXiv:1512.09136; Y. Jiang, Y.-Y. Li, T. Liu, arXiv:1512.09127; A. E. C. Hernandez, arXiv:1512.09092; S. Kanemura, N. Machida, S. Odori, T. Shindou, arXiv:1512.09053; S. Kane- mura, et al., arXiv:1512.09048; X.-J. Huang, W.-H. Zhang, Y.- F. Zhou, arXiv:1512.08992; Y...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

A. E. Faraggi, J. Rizos, arXiv:1601.03604; A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, R. Godbole, J. Quevillon, arXiv:1601.03696; J. H. Davis, M. Fairbairn, J. Heal, P. Tunney, arXiv:1601.03153; R. Ding, Z.-L. Han, Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, arXiv:1601.02714; M. Fabbrichesi, A. Urbano, arXiv:1601.02447; J. Cao, etal., arXiv:1601.02570; P.Ko, T.Nomura, arXiv:1601.02490; S.Fichet, G.v....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[13]

Dario Buttazzo, Admir Greljo, David Marzocca, arXiv:1512.04929 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

A. Pilaftsis, arXiv:1512.04931 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

Keisuke Harigaya and Yasunori Nomura, arXiv:1512.04850

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

John Ellis, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, Veronica Sanz, Tevong You, arXiv:1512.05327

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[17]

Florian Staub et. al., arXiv:1602.05581

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[18]

P. Langacker and M. Plumacher, Phys. Rev. D 62, 013006 (2000); K. Leroux and D. London, Phys. Lett. B 526, 97 (2002); S. Baek, J. H. Jeon, and C. S. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 641, 183 (2006)

View on Pith 2000
[19]

For a review see A. Leike, Phys. Rep. 317, 143 (1999); J. Erler, P. Langacker, and T. J. Li, Phys. Rev. D 66, 015002 (2002); S. Hesselbach, F. Franke, and H. Fraas, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 149 (2002)

View on Pith 1999
[20]

Rick S. Gupta, Heidi Rzehak, James D. Wells, Phys.Rev. D88, 055024 (2013) [arXiv:hep- ph/1305.6397]; Aielet Efrati, Yosef Nir, [arXiv:hep-ph/1401.0935]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[21]

R. Martinez, J. Nisperuza, F. Ochoa, J.P. Rubio Phys. Rev. D 89, 056008 (2014). arXiv:1303.2734 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[22]

R. Martinez, J. Nisperuza, F. Ochoa, J.P. Rubio Phys. Rev. D 90, 095004 (2014). arXiv:1408.5153 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[23]

R. Martinez, J. Nisperuza, F. Ochoa, J. P. Rubio, C.F. Sierra Phys. Rev. D 92, 035016 (2015). arXiv:1411.1641 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[24]

Wei-Chih Huang, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai, Tzu-Chiang Yuan, arXiv:1512.07268 [hep-ph]. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G. Kane and S. Dawson.The Higgs Hunter’s Guide . Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1990; R. Martinez, M. A. Perez, and J. J. Toscano, Phys. Rev.D 40, 1722 (1989); R. Martinez, M.A. Perez, J.J. Toscano, Phys.Lett.B234 (1990) 503; R. Martinez, M.A. Perez, Nucl.Phys. B347 (1990) 105-119

View on Pith 1989
[26]

Qing-Hong Cao, Yandong Liu, Ke-Pan Xie, Bin Yan, Dong-Ming Zhang, Phys. Rev.D93, 075030 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[27]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zerwas,Higgs boson production at the LHC , Nucl. Phys. B 453 (1995) 17 [hep-ph/9504378]. A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne, G. Watt, “Parton distributions for the LHC ”, Eur. Phys. J.C63 (2009) 189 [arXiv:0901.0002]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[28]

CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev.D 93, 012003 (2016); ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1602.05606 [hep-ex]; CMS Collaboration arXiv:1507.07129 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[29]

ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 03, 127 (2016); CMS Collaboration, JHEP12, 178 (2015); CMS Collaboration, arXiv:1508.07774 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[30]

Chien-Yi Chen, S. Dawson, I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev.D91, 035015 (2015); T. Plehn, M. Spira, P.M. Zerwas, Nucl.Phys. B479, 46-64, (1996); Erratum-ibid.B531:655, (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9603205; Daniel de Florian, Javier Mazzitelli. Phys.Rev.Lett.111 (2013) 201801 arXiv:1309.6594

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[31]

Matthew J. Dolan, Christoph Englert, Michael Spannowsky., Phys.Rev.D87 (2013) 5, 055002, arXiv:1210.8166; S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, M. Spira, Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 115012, hep- ph/9805244; S. Dawson, I.M. Lewis, Phys.Rev.D92 (2015) 9, 094023 arXiv:1508.05397 Matthew J. Dolan, Christoph Englert, Michael Spannowsky, JHEP1210 (2012) 112, arXiv:1206.5001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[32]

Jose M. No, Michael Ramsey-Musolf, Phys.Rev.D89 (2014) 9, 095031, arXiv:1310.6035

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[33]

J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Grober, M.M. Muhlleitner, J. Quevillon, M. Spira, JHEP1304 (2013) 151, arXiv:1212.5581

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[34]

Roberto Franceschini, Gian F. Giudice, Jernej F. Kamenik, Matthew McCullough, Francesco Riva, Alessandro Strumia, Riccardo Torre, arXiv:1604.06446 [hep-ph]. 13

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 22 Pith papers

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

Precision tools and models to narrow in on the 750 GeV diphoton resonance
hep-ph 2016-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Forty SARAH model files plus automated NLO and N3LO diphoton and digluon decay rates let any weakly coupled 750 GeV explanation be checked with the same precision machinery.
Flavor Anomalies, the Diphoton Excess and a Dark Matter Candidate
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A singlet scalar at 750 GeV, produced via leptoquark loops and decaying to photons via new vector-like fermions, is proposed to explain the diphoton excess, the B-physics anomalies, and dark matter at once.
Di-photon Excess Explained by a Resonant Sneutrino in R-parity Violating Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV sneutrino with R-parity violating couplings and a 375 to 389 GeV stau in the loop reproduces the LHC di-photon excess while staying under di-jet bounds.
On the 750 GeV di-photon excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A gauge-singlet scalar explains the 750 GeV diphoton excess far more easily than a second Higgs doublet, and cascade decays of a heavier resonance can fit the 13 TeV signal while staying under 8 TeV limits.
LHC diphoton 750 GeV resonance as an indication of $SU(3)_c\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A neutral CP-even scalar of a 3-3-1 gauge model, coupled to photons and gluons through vector-like fermion loops, is offered as the source of the 750 GeV diphoton excess.

Show 17 more citing papers

Vector Leptoquarks and the 750 GeV Diphoton Resonance at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV singlet scalar coupled to TeV-scale vector leptoquarks has viable parameter space to produce the observed diphoton rate without violating unitarity, Higgs measurements, or resonance searches.
The LHC diphoton resonance from gauge symmetry
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 3-3-1 gauge extension of the Standard Model supplies the vector-like quarks and a singlet scalar that can fit the 750 GeV diphoton excess, with the scalar-quark couplings tuned to the data.
One jet to rule them all: monojet constraints and invisible decays of a 750 GeV diphoton resonance
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Recasting the 8 TeV ATLAS monojet search excludes mediator scales below roughly 500 to 650 GeV for a 750 GeV scalar portal to Majorana dark matter, leaving narrow windows where a broad diphoton resonance and the relic...
Tricking Landau-Yang: How to obtain the diphoton excess from a vector resonance
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A new Z' boson decaying to a photon plus a GeV-scale scalar, whose two photons merge in the calorimeter, can reproduce the 750 GeV diphoton excess without violating the Landau-Yang theorem.
750 GeV Diphotons from a D3-brane
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A probe D3-brane in an F-theory GUT yields a 750 GeV scalar modulus whose dimension-five couplings to Standard Model gauge fields can reproduce the reported diphoton excess, with correlated ZZ and Z gamma signals.
Symmetries Behind the 750 GeV Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A gauged baryon-number or B+L model with a 750 GeV scalar and anomaly-cancelling vector-like quarks can accommodate the LHC diphoton excess, with the width supplied by a tuned dark matter coupling.
The 750 GeV $S$-cion: Where else should we look for it?
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Associated production of the 750 GeV diphoton resonance with Z or W bosons would yield detectable gamma-gamma-lepton-lepton, gamma-gamma-lepton-plus-missing-energy, and three-lepton-plus-photon-plus-missing-energy sig...
A resonance without resonance: scrutinizing the diphoton excess at 750 GeV
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A cascade of two pseudoscalars, a heavy one near 1.75 TeV decaying to two 750 GeV states that decay to photons, can fit the 13 TeV diphoton excess with chi-squared 1.8 versus 8.8 for the Standard Model alone.
A hidden confining world on the 750 GeV diphoton excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A hidden confining gauge theory with four vector-like fermions yields a 750 GeV pseudo-Goldstone boson whose anomaly-induced couplings to gluons and photons can reproduce the LHC diphoton excess.
Quirky Explanations for the Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A hybrid quirk-plus-scalar model can accommodate the 750 GeV diphoton excess while evading current bounds, and predicts additional dijet, dilepton, and displaced-vertex signals in LHC run 2.
A Boost Test of Anomalous Diphoton Resonance at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A boosted Z-jet plus a hard photon is a viable channel to confirm or exclude the 750 GeV diphoton resonance at the 14 TeV LHC, reaching 5 sigma for a Z-gamma branching ratio about 4.9 times the diphoton one at 300 inv...
Goldstones in Diphotons
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Of three Goldstone-type explanations for the 750 GeV diphoton excess, a CP-odd pseudo-Goldstone boson with a large electromagnetic anomaly and the sgoldstino survive Run-1 constraints, while the minimal dilaton does not.
Di-photon excess illuminates Dark Matter
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV scalar mediator decaying invisibly to a ~300 GeV Dirac fermion can simultaneously account for the large width hinted by ATLAS and the observed dark matter relic density, predicting a jet plus missing-energy ...
LHC 750 GeV Diphoton excess in a radiative seesaw model
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A singlet scalar coupled to multiple doubly charged scalars in a three-loop neutrino mass model can produce the 750 GeV diphoton excess via photon fusion, with a diphoton branching ratio fixed near 60% by quantum numbers.
Quark Seesaw, Vectorlike Fermions and Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A singlet scalar in a left-right quark seesaw model with vectorlike fermions can match the 750 GeV diphoton rate once the singlet VEV and Yukawa coupling are chosen to fit it.
Diphoton and Dark Matter from Cascade Decay
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A heavy 1.6 TeV scalar decaying to two 750 GeV scalars, each decaying to photons or dark matter, can reproduce the 2015 diphoton excess while predicting four-photon and diboson signals.
The Minimal Scalar-Stealth Top Interpretation of the Diphoton Excess
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A singlet scalar at 750 GeV with a stealth vector-like top quark of 400 to 500 GeV and Yukawa coupling 0.5 to 1.5 can fit the 2015 diphoton excess without violating dijet or dark matter constraints.

How the literature uses it

55 arXiv papers cite this in 62 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 · 16 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

In the validation process of this work, we identified several results in the literature that deviate, often by an order of magnitude or more, in comparison to our results [ref] .

Precision tools and models to narrow in on the 750 GeV diphoton resonance · The diphoton and digluon rates beyond leading order · contest 0.82

Cites it as background 43 papers

In one of the most studied types, the $750$ GeV particle is a scalar or pseudoscalar $s$ that is produced and decays via loops of vector-like exotic fermions [ref] .

String Consistency, Heavy Exotics, and the 750 GeV Diphoton Excess at the LHC: Addendum · Introduction · 0.99
This could be an argument against the reality of the diphoton excess, meaning nothing but a statistical fluctuations; but if taken seriously, it put strong constraint on the implied model building [ref] [ Refs. [ref] on this subject appeared at the same time as this work.].

The Minimal Scalar-Stealth Top Interpretation of the Diphoton Excess · Introduction · 0.85
Although many attempts [ref] have already been made in the context of a scalar resonance coupled to vector-like fermions, our prime goal in this paper is to show that the vector-like fermions assisting the production and decay of the scalar can be related to a possible dark sector.

750 GeV Di-photon excess at CERN LHC from a dark sector assisted scalar decay · Introduction · 0.81

What it cites · 26 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 1 paper

When we apply the minimum conditions $∂⟨V⟩/∂υ_i=0$ for each scalar VEV $υ_i=υ_1,2,χ$, following [ref] we obtain at dominant order

Scalar Dark Matter with CERN-LEP data and $Z'$ search at the LHC in an $U(1)'$ Model · Higgs potential · 0.92

Uses data or values from 5 papers

For the analysis, we take the combined results for the cross section from ATLAS and CMS, $σ(pp→ξ_χ→γγ)=(2-8) fb$ equally valid for $√(s)=8$ TeV and $C_gg=174$ [ref] .

On the Interpretation of a Possible $\sim 750$ GeV Particle Decaying into $\gamma \gamma$ · Production cross section · 1.00
Also, the lower bound of 900 GeV for $m_T$ corresponds to the reported value in recent searches on top- and bottom-like heavy quarks from ATLAS and CMS Collaborations [ref] and the upper bound of 3 TeV corresponds to the asymptotic value obtained from the fermionic form factor $F_1/2$.

Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying into $Wb$ in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector · Production cross section · 0.98
At the scale $μ=m_ξ_χ=750$ GeV, and center-of-mass energy $√(s)=13 TeV$, this integral gives $C_gg=2137$ [ref] .

Parton distributions for the LHC · Production cross section · 0.86

Cites as background 2 papers

Authors in [ref] and [ref] have studied general cases for different possible models.

On the Interpretation of a Possible $\sim 750$ GeV Particle Decaying into $\gamma \gamma$ · Introduction · 0.92
Authors in [ref] and [ref] have studied general cases for different possible models.

Precision tools and models to narrow in on the 750 GeV diphoton resonance · Introduction · 0.92

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]

S. L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967); A. Salam, in Elementary Particle Theory: Relativistic Groups and Analyticity (Nobel Symposium No. 8), edited by N. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1968), p. 367

View on Pith 1961

[2] [2]

Talk by Jim Olsen, CMS Collaboration, “CMS 13 TeV Results”, CERN Jamboree, De- cember 15, 2015. Plots are presented in, http://cms-results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/public- results/preliminary-results/LHC-Jamboree-2015/index.html

View on Pith 2015

[3] [3]

Talk by Marumi Kado, ATLAS Collaboration, “ATLAS 13 TeV Results”, CERN Jam- boree, December 15, 2015. Plots are presented in, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/ AtlasPublic/December2015-13TeV

View on Pith 2015

[4] [4]

Y. Mambrini, G. Arcadi and A. Djouadi, arXiv:1512.04913; M. Backovic, A. Mariotti and D. Redigolo, arXiv:1512.04917; A. Angelescu, A. Djouadi and G. Moreau, arXiv:1512.04921; Y. Nakai, R. Sato and K. Tobioka, arXiv:1512.04924; S. Knapen, T. Melia, M. Papucci and K. Zurek, arXiv:1512.04928; R. Franceschini et al., arXiv:1512.04933; S. D. McDermott, P. Mead...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[5] [5]

B. Dutta, et al., arXiv:1512.05439; Q.-H. Cao, et al., arXiv:1512.05542; S. Matsuzaki and K. Yamawaki, arXiv:1512.05564; A. Kobakhidze, et al., arXiv:1512.05585; P. Cox, A. D. Medina, T. S. Ray and A. Spray, arXiv:1512.05618; D. Becirevic, E. Bertuzzo, O. Sumensari and R. Z. Funchal, arXiv:1512.05623; J. M. No, V. Sanz and J. Setford, arXiv:1512.05700; S....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [6]

E. Gabrielli, et al., arXiv:1512.05961; J. S. Kim, J. Reuter, K. Rolbiecki and R. R. de Austri, arXiv:1512.06083; A. Alves, A. G. Dias and K. Sinha, arXiv:1512.06091; E. Megias, O. Pujolas and M. Quiros, arXiv:1512.06106; L. M. Carpenter, R. Colburn and J. Goodman, arXiv:1512.06107; J. Bernon and C. Smith, arXiv:1512.06113; W. Chao, arXiv:1512.06297; M. T...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [7]

I. Chakraborty and A. Kundu, arXiv:1512.06508; R. Ding, L. Huang, T. Li and B. Zhu, arXiv:1512.06560; H. Han, S. Wang and S. Zheng, arXiv:1512.06562; X. -F. Han and L. Wang, arXiv:1512.06587; J. Chang, K. Cheung and C. Lu, arXiv:1512.06671; D. Bardhan, et al., arXiv:1512.06674; T.-F. Feng, X.-Q. Li, H.-B. Zhang and S.-M. Zhao, arXiv:1512.06696; O. An- tip...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [8]

S. M. Boucenna, S. Morisi and A. Vicente, arXiv:1512.06878; C. W. Murphy, arXiv:1512.06976; A. E. C. Hernandez and I. Nisandzic, arXiv:1512.07165; U. K. Dey, S. Mohanty and G. Tomar, arXiv:1512.07212; G. M. Pelaggi, A. Strumia, E. Vigiani, arXiv:1512.07225; J. de Blas, J. Santiago and R. V. -Morales, arXiv:1512.07229; A. Belyaev, et al., arXiv:1512.07242;...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[9] [9]

Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen and P.-H. Gu, arXiv:1512.07541; P. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, arXiv:1512.08507; B. C. Allanach, P. Dev, S. A. Renner and K. Sakurai, arXiv:1512.07645; H. Davoudiasl and C. Zhang, arXiv:1512.07672; N. Craig, P. Draper, C. Kilic and S. Thomas, arXiv:1512.07733; K. Das and S. K. Rai, arXiv:1512.07789; K. Cheung, et al., arXiv:15...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[10] [10]

H. Han, S. Wang, S. Zheng and S. Zheng, arXiv:1512.07992; J.-C. Park and S. C. Park, arXiv:1512.08117; A. Salvio and A. Mazumdar, arXiv:1512.08184; D. Chway, R. Dermivsek, T. H. Jung and H. D. Kim, arXiv:1512.08221; G. Lo, et al., arXiv:1512.08255; M. Son and A. Urbano, arXiv:1512.08307; Y.-L. Tang and S.-H. Zhu, arXiv:1512.08323; H. An, C. Che- ung and Y...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[11] [11]

L. E. Ibanez, V. M. Lozano, arXiv:1512.08777; E. Ma, arXiv:1512.09159; L. Marzola, et al., arXiv:1512.09136; Y. Jiang, Y.-Y. Li, T. Liu, arXiv:1512.09127; A. E. C. Hernandez, arXiv:1512.09092; S. Kanemura, N. Machida, S. Odori, T. Shindou, arXiv:1512.09053; S. Kane- mura, et al., arXiv:1512.09048; X.-J. Huang, W.-H. Zhang, Y.- F. Zhou, arXiv:1512.08992; Y...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [12]

A. E. Faraggi, J. Rizos, arXiv:1601.03604; A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, R. Godbole, J. Quevillon, arXiv:1601.03696; J. H. Davis, M. Fairbairn, J. Heal, P. Tunney, arXiv:1601.03153; R. Ding, Z.-L. Han, Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, arXiv:1601.02714; M. Fabbrichesi, A. Urbano, arXiv:1601.02447; J. Cao, etal., arXiv:1601.02570; P.Ko, T.Nomura, arXiv:1601.02490; S.Fichet, G.v....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [13]

Dario Buttazzo, Admir Greljo, David Marzocca, arXiv:1512.04929 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [14]

A. Pilaftsis, arXiv:1512.04931 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[15] [15]

Keisuke Harigaya and Yasunori Nomura, arXiv:1512.04850

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [16]

John Ellis, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, Veronica Sanz, Tevong You, arXiv:1512.05327

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [17]

Florian Staub et. al., arXiv:1602.05581

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[18] [18]

P. Langacker and M. Plumacher, Phys. Rev. D 62, 013006 (2000); K. Leroux and D. London, Phys. Lett. B 526, 97 (2002); S. Baek, J. H. Jeon, and C. S. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 641, 183 (2006)

View on Pith 2000

[19] [19]

For a review see A. Leike, Phys. Rep. 317, 143 (1999); J. Erler, P. Langacker, and T. J. Li, Phys. Rev. D 66, 015002 (2002); S. Hesselbach, F. Franke, and H. Fraas, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 149 (2002)

View on Pith 1999

[20] [20]

Rick S. Gupta, Heidi Rzehak, James D. Wells, Phys.Rev. D88, 055024 (2013) [arXiv:hep- ph/1305.6397]; Aielet Efrati, Yosef Nir, [arXiv:hep-ph/1401.0935]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[21] [21]

R. Martinez, J. Nisperuza, F. Ochoa, J.P. Rubio Phys. Rev. D 89, 056008 (2014). arXiv:1303.2734 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[22] [22]

R. Martinez, J. Nisperuza, F. Ochoa, J.P. Rubio Phys. Rev. D 90, 095004 (2014). arXiv:1408.5153 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[23] [23]

R. Martinez, J. Nisperuza, F. Ochoa, J. P. Rubio, C.F. Sierra Phys. Rev. D 92, 035016 (2015). arXiv:1411.1641 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[24] [24]

Wei-Chih Huang, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai, Tzu-Chiang Yuan, arXiv:1512.07268 [hep-ph]. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [25]

J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G. Kane and S. Dawson.The Higgs Hunter’s Guide . Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1990; R. Martinez, M. A. Perez, and J. J. Toscano, Phys. Rev.D 40, 1722 (1989); R. Martinez, M.A. Perez, J.J. Toscano, Phys.Lett.B234 (1990) 503; R. Martinez, M.A. Perez, Nucl.Phys. B347 (1990) 105-119

View on Pith 1989

[26] [26]

Qing-Hong Cao, Yandong Liu, Ke-Pan Xie, Bin Yan, Dong-Ming Zhang, Phys. Rev.D93, 075030 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[27] [27]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zerwas,Higgs boson production at the LHC , Nucl. Phys. B 453 (1995) 17 [hep-ph/9504378]. A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne, G. Watt, “Parton distributions for the LHC ”, Eur. Phys. J.C63 (2009) 189 [arXiv:0901.0002]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[28] [28]

CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev.D 93, 012003 (2016); ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1602.05606 [hep-ex]; CMS Collaboration arXiv:1507.07129 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[29] [29]

ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 03, 127 (2016); CMS Collaboration, JHEP12, 178 (2015); CMS Collaboration, arXiv:1508.07774 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[30] [30]

Chien-Yi Chen, S. Dawson, I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev.D91, 035015 (2015); T. Plehn, M. Spira, P.M. Zerwas, Nucl.Phys. B479, 46-64, (1996); Erratum-ibid.B531:655, (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9603205; Daniel de Florian, Javier Mazzitelli. Phys.Rev.Lett.111 (2013) 201801 arXiv:1309.6594

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[31] [31]

Matthew J. Dolan, Christoph Englert, Michael Spannowsky., Phys.Rev.D87 (2013) 5, 055002, arXiv:1210.8166; S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, M. Spira, Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 115012, hep- ph/9805244; S. Dawson, I.M. Lewis, Phys.Rev.D92 (2015) 9, 094023 arXiv:1508.05397 Matthew J. Dolan, Christoph Englert, Michael Spannowsky, JHEP1210 (2012) 112, arXiv:1206.5001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[32] [32]

Jose M. No, Michael Ramsey-Musolf, Phys.Rev.D89 (2014) 9, 095031, arXiv:1310.6035

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[33] [33]

J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Grober, M.M. Muhlleitner, J. Quevillon, M. Spira, JHEP1304 (2013) 151, arXiv:1212.5581

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[34] [34]

Roberto Franceschini, Gian F. Giudice, Jernej F. Kamenik, Matthew McCullough, Francesco Riva, Alessandro Strumia, Riccardo Torre, arXiv:1604.06446 [hep-ph]. 13

View on Pith Pith review arXiv