New renormalization scheme in extended Higgs sectors for Higgs precision measurements

Kei Yagyu; Mariko Kikuchi; Shinya Kanemura

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

New renormalization scheme in extended Higgs sectors for Higgs precision measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a renormalization scheme for the two-Higgs-doublet mixing angles in which the counterterms δα and δβ are fixed by demanding that the next-to-leading-order decay rates of h→ZZ* and h→ττ equal the SM rates times the…

desk verdict Sensible proceedings summary of a useful 2HDM renormalization scheme, but not self-contained; the two defining channels are inputs, and the existence/uniqueness of the counterterm solution is not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18859 v1 pith:UU55UYYE submitted 2024-11-28 hep-ph

Shinya Kanemura , Mariko Kikuchi , Kei Yagyu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords twoHiggsdoubletmodelrenormalizationschememixinganglecountertermsprecisionmeasurementselectroweakradiativecorrectionsscalingfactorsalignmentlimitfutureleptoncolliders

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to define the two mixing angles α and β of the two-Higgs-doublet model at one-loop order in a way that keeps their tree-level physical meaning: how close the 125 GeV Higgs is to the Standard Model Higgs. It proposes fixing the counterterms δα and δβ by requiring that the NLO decay rates of h→ZZ*→Zℓ+ℓ− and h→τ+τ− equal the corresponding SM NLO rates multiplied by the squared scaling factors κ_V² and κ_τ². Because these two channels are used as inputs, the NLO predictions for other channels—such as h→WW*, h→bb, and h→ττ itself—become well-defined predictions of the scheme. The motivation is that future Higgs factories will measure Higgs couplings to better than one percent, and a scheme of this type lets measured deviations be directly mapped onto tree-level κ factors without contamination from loop corrections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of equations (17)–(18) (rewritten as (22)), which impose that the electroweak corrections to the two selected decay channels match the SM electroweak corrections; solving these two equations fixes δα and δβ. The rest of the counterterms are handled by standard on-shell conditions supplemented by the alternative tadpole scheme, and the scheme's numerical behavior is exhibited by scanning M² under perturbative-unitarity and vacuum-stability constraints. The mechanism that produces the distinctive Type-X h→bb effect is the appearance of δZ_h multiplied by tan(β−α) after substituting the solved counterterms, which becomes large as cos(β−α)→0.

What would settle it

Compute the two equations (22) as functions of δα and δβ across the 2HDM parameter space allowed by unitarity and vacuum stability; any parameter point where the Jacobian determinant with respect to δα and δβ vanishes, or where no real solution exists, would show the scheme is not globally defined. The Type-X near-alignment region is the natural place to look, because the ττ equation's δZ_h term changes with tan(β−α).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two mixing-angle counterterms can be determined by the two renormalization conditions Γ(h→Zℓℓ)^NLO = (κ_V)² Γ(h→Zℓℓ)^NLO_SM and Γ(h→ττ)^NLO = (κ_τ)² Γ(h→ττ)^NLO_SM, equivalently $Δ^{{Zℓℓ}}$_EW = $Δ^{{Zℓℓ}}$_EW|_SM and $Δ^{{τ}}$_EW = $Δ^{{τ}}$_EW|_SM. In the near-alignment regime this scheme keeps the NLO decay rates of h→ZZ* and h→WW* close to their tree-level κ-factor description, and in Type-I models the fermionic rates h→ff follow κ_f² as well. In Type-X models, by contrast, h→bb can receive a large NLO correction near the alignment limit, traced to the δZ_h wavefunction counterterm entering with a tan(β−α) enhancement when ζ_τ and ζ_f differ.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that the two conditions (17) and (18) can actually be solved for δα and δβ, meaning the two equations are independent and consistent at every parameter point where the scheme is used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the new scheme, ΔR(h→ZZ*) and ΔR(h→ττ) coincide with the LO κ-factor predictions by construction, so future measurements of these channels can be used as inputs rather than tests.
In Type-I 2HDMs, the NLO predictions for h→WW* and h→bb remain close to the tree-level κ² scaling, so the κ description of these channels survives at one loop.
In Type-X 2HDMs, h→bb at NLO can deviate strongly from its tree-level κ_b² prediction near the alignment limit, especially at smaller cos(β−α) and small M²/v².
Because the scheme fixes the mixing counterterms by physical inputs rather than by wavefunction-renormalization conventions, it removes a major source of scheme ambiguity in NLO 2HDM Higgs-precision calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

Choosing different input channels (for instance h→WW* and h→bb instead of h→ZZ* and h→ττ) would define a different, but equally consistent, scheme; predictions for the non-input channels would shift by finite one-loop terms, so any κ extraction from data is only meaningful once the input pair is specified.
The near-alignment Type-X result suggests that in models with flavor-dependent ζ_f, the tree-level κ parametrization can break down at the loop level for fermionic channels, so precision fits should either use NLO-defined κ factors or include the scheme dependence explicitly.
The same input-channel strategy could be transplanted to other extended Higgs sectors (e.g., models with more doublets or with triplet representations) whenever the number of mixing parameters equals the number of channels that future colliders can measure cleanly, provided the one-loop corrections depend on the counterterms in a non-degenerate way.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a proceedings summary of the authors' PLB paper [8] that defines a new renormalization scheme for the 2HDM mixing angles α and β. The core idea is sensible—fix δα and δβ by requiring the NLO rates for h→ZZ* and h→ττ to match the tree-level κ-scaled SM rates—and the implementation in H-COUP with parameter scans under unitarity and vacuum stability is solid. What this submission adds beyond [8] is negligible; it is a compact presentation, not new physics.

The scheme itself is a legitimate renormalization choice. The two input channels are inputs by construction, which is the nature of renormalization conditions; the other decays, h→WW* and h→bb, are genuine predictions. The Type-X h→bb deviation near alignment is the most interesting output. The paper attributes it to δZh enhanced by tan(β−α); that is correct since tan(β−α) becomes large when c_{β−α}→0. The stress-test note's worry that tan is small in that limit is a mistake—cot would be small. So that particular objection does not land.

The real soft spots are two. First, the paper is not self-contained: the explicit counterterm expressions are only referenced to [8]. For a proceedings, that is acceptable, but it means the reader cannot verify the scheme from this text alone. Second, the existence and uniqueness of the solution for δα and δβ from Eqs. (17)-(18) is assumed, not shown. If the two conditions become linearly dependent in some limit, the scheme would fail. The numerical scans suggest solutions exist for the points shown, but the paper shows no plot of the counterterms or of the determinant of the 2×2 system. That would be a cheap and informative addition. The concern is moderate, not fatal—the results look plausible—but without it, one cannot tell whether the large Type-X bb effect is a robust prediction or an artifact of large counterterm cancellations.

Who is this for? Researchers doing precision 2HDM phenomenology for future lepton colliders. It is a useful entry point to the scheme, but the cited PLB paper is the actual reference. I would not cite this proceedings in my own work; I would cite [8] and the H-COUP papers. For peer review, I would send it to a referee if the venue requires one, because the underlying scheme is meaningful and the summary is accurate, but the lack of self-containedness should be flagged. For a proceedings, it is fine as is.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new renormalization scheme for the mixing angles α and β in the 2HDM with a softly-broken Z2 symmetry. The counterterms δα and δβ are fixed by requiring that the NLO partial widths of h → Zℓ⁺ℓ⁻ and h → τ⁺τ⁻ are equal to the SM NLO widths multiplied by the squared tree-level scaling factors (κ_V)² and (κ_τ)² (Eqs. (17) and (18)). The scheme is implemented in the H-COUP package, and NLO predictions for h → WW*, h → bbar b, etc. are shown for Type-I and Type-X 2HDMs, comparing with the earlier KOSY scheme. The paper is a proceedings contribution; detailed expressions for the counterterms are deferred to Ref. [8].

Significance. If the proposed scheme is consistent, it provides a practical loop-level definition of the mixing angles that keeps the tree-level κ-structure intact for the input channels, enabling future Higgs factories to use measured h → ZZ and h → ττ rates as inputs and to predict other decay modes at NLO. The use of the public H-COUP code and the clear statement of the renormalization conditions are strengths. The main risk is whether the two conditions in Eqs. (17) and (18) actually determine δα and δβ without large or singular solutions, particularly near the alignment limit; this is not demonstrated in the present text.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Eqs. (17) and (18)] The central claim that the conditions (17) and (18) uniquely determine δα and δβ requires that the two equations are independent and that a solution exists. The manuscript does not give the explicit expressions for δ(β−α) and δβ, nor does it provide any information about the determinant of the 2×2 linear system that must be inverted; it only refers to Ref. [8]. Since the two input channels are forced to match by construction, the predictive status of the other channels in Figs. 1 and 2 depends on the counterterms not being driven to large or singular values by a near-degenerate system. Please provide evidence for the existence and uniqueness of the solution across the scanned parameter space, for instance plots of δα, δβ, δ(β−α), or of the determinant, especially near c_{β−α} → 0.
[Section 3, paragraph after Fig. 2] The explanation of the large Type-X h → bbar b deviation is internally inconsistent. The text states that a δZh contribution is 'enhanced by the factor of tan(β−α)' in the nearly alignment case c_{β−α} ≪ 1, but tan(β−α) = c_{β−α}/s_{β−α} is small, not enhanced, in that limit. Either the expression is a typo (perhaps cot(β−α) or 1/tan(β−α) is meant) or the stated mechanism is incorrect. As written, the explanation does not account for the numerical result, and this is the only explanation offered for a striking prediction of the scheme. Please correct the parametric statement and clarify the actual mechanism.
[Section 3, Figs. 1 and 2] The numerical results are shown only for one benchmark point (mH± = mH = mA = 300 GeV, tanβ = 2, cos(β−α) > 0) with M2 scanned. Given that the main message is the predictive power of the new scheme, the robustness of the results would be significantly strengthened by showing at least one additional benchmark with a different tanβ or different additional-Higgs masses, or by explicitly stating that such scans are presented in Ref. [8]. This is a request for more evidence, not a claim that the current scan is incorrect.

minor comments (4)

[Conclusions] There is a typo: 'renormlization' should be 'renormalization'.
[Eq. (19)] The sign convention for c_{β−α} should be stated explicitly. The text later enforces cos(β−α) > 0 in the numerical scans, but the equations as written hold for either sign, and the κ factors change sign accordingly.
[After Eq. (22)] The sentence 'the former (latter) includes the counterterm δ(β−α) (δβ and δ(β−α))' is ambiguous. Please specify explicitly that Δ^{Zℓℓ}_{EW} depends on δ(β−α) and that Δ^{τ}_{EW} depends on both δβ and δ(β−α), to avoid confusion about which channel receives which counterterm.
[Section 3, Eq. (17)–(18)] Since the proceedings relies on Ref. [8] for the detailed expressions, it would be helpful to include a short sentence summarizing the structure of the solution (e.g., that the two conditions yield a 2×2 linear system whose coefficients are known functions of the input parameters) so that the reader can assess the existence issue without consulting the external reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two matching channels are explicitly labeled renormalization inputs, and the h to WW* and h to bb predictions are independent.

full rationale

The paper defines the new scheme by Eqs. (17) and (18), fixing delta alpha and delta beta so that Gamma(h to ZZ* to Zll)_NLO equals (kappa_V)^2 times the SM NLO rate and Gamma(h to tau tau)_NLO equals (kappa_tau)^2 times the SM NLO rate. It then explicitly states, when discussing Fig. 1, that the results for Delta R(h to ZZ*) and Delta R(h to tau tau) agree with the LO results 'as these are taken as the inputs in the renormalization conditions.' Thus the reproduction of those two rates is a renormalization condition by construction, not a disguised prediction; the paper does not claim to predict those two channels. The actual predictive claims are for h to WW*, h to bb, and other channels not used to fix the counterterms, and those rates are not forced by Eqs. (17) and (18). The Type-X h to bb deviation in Fig. 2 is a nontrivial output of the scheme rather than an input. The explicit solution for delta(beta-alpha) and delta beta is deferred to the authors' companion paper Ref. [8], and existence or uniqueness of that solution is not demonstrated in this proceedings text; that is a completeness gap and a correctness risk, but not a circular reduction, because the conditions are not defined in terms of the quantities they are claimed to predict. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. Hence the derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the input channels are openly inputs, and the remaining channels are genuine predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard 2HDM renormalization framework and on the assumption that the two new decay-rate conditions determine the mixing-angle counterterms. No new particles or fitted parameters are introduced; the benchmark points in the figures are illustrative.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper The new renormalization conditions (17) and (18) have a solution for delta alpha and delta beta.
The paper imposes these conditions to fix the last two counterterms but does not prove existence or uniqueness; the numerical implementation assumes such a solution exists.
domain assumption Standard 2HDM framework with softly-broken Z2 symmetry and the Higgs basis.
Section 2 sets up the model, the mixing angles, and the tree-level kappa factors; all subsequent calculations rely on this framework.
domain assumption On-shell renormalization conditions (14)-(16) for masses and wavefunctions and the alternative tadpole scheme.
Section 3 uses these standard renormalization conditions to fix 16 of the 20 counterterms; these are background results from the literature.
domain assumption Electroweak sector renormalization (delta v) follows the Standard Model treatment.
The paper cites Ref. [17] for the SM electroweak renormalization and assumes it applies to the 2HDM calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New renormalization scheme in extended Higgs sectors for Higgs precision measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UU55UYYE

@misc{pith2026241118859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New renormalization scheme in extended Higgs sectors for Higgs precision measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UU55UYYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18859}
}

abstract

We discuss a new renormalization scheme for mixing angles in extended Higgs sectors for the coming era of the Higgs precise measurements at future lepton colliders. We focus on the two Higgs doublet models (2HDMs) with a softly-broken $Z_2$ symmetry as a simple and important example, in which two mixing angles $\alpha$ and $\beta$ appear in the Higgs sector. In this new scheme, the counterterms for two mixing angles $\delta\alpha$ and $\delta\beta$ are determined by requiring that deviations in the decay rates of $h\to ZZ^* \to Z\ell^+\ell^-$ and $h \to \tau\tau$ from the corresponding predictions in the standard model at NLO are given by the square of the scaling factor at tree level. We show how this scheme works in the 2HDMs, and demonstrate how the other decay rates (e.g., $h \to WW^*$, $h \to b\bar{b}$, etc.) are predicted at NLO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18859 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Deviations in the decay rates ∆R as a function of δ(≡ 1−sin(β−α)) in the Type-I 2HDM with mH± = mH = mA = 300 GeV, tan β = 2, cos(β−α) > 0 and M2 being scanned under the constraints from perturbative unitarity and vacuum stability. The black and red shaded regions represent the predictions by using the KOSY scheme [18] and the new scheme [8], respectively. The blue dashed curve show the LO result. where ζe is given … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[8]

Kanemura, M

S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, K. Yagyu, New renormalization scheme in the two Higgs doublet models, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139050 (2024), 2408.08033. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139050

arXiv 2024
[1]

H. Baer, T. Barklow, K. Fujii, Y . Gao, A. Hoang, S. Kanemura, J. List, H.E. Logan, A. Nomerotski, M. Perelstein et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - V olume 2: Physics (2013),1306.6352

arXiv 2013
[2]

S. Asai, J. Tanaka, Y . Ushiroda, M. Nakao, J. Tian, S. Kanemura, S. Matsumoto, S. Shi- rai, M. Endo, M. Kakizaki, Report by the Committee on the Scientific Case of the ILC Operating at 250 GeV as a Higgs Factory (2017), 1710.08639

arXiv 2017
[3]

Fujii et al., Physics Case for the 250 GeV Stage of the International Linear Collider (2017), 1710.07621

K. Fujii et al., Physics Case for the 250 GeV Stage of the International Linear Collider (2017), 1710.07621

arXiv 2017
[4]

Aihara et al

H. Aihara et al. (ILC), The International Linear Collider. A Global Project (2019), 1901.09829

arXiv 2019
[5]

Group, CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report

C.S.S. Group, CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and De- tector (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

Abada et al

A. Abada et al. (FCC), FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report V olume 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019). 10.1140 /epjc/s10052-019- 6904-3

work page 2019
[7]

The CLIC potential for new physics

J. Klamka (CLICdp), The CLIC potential for new physics, inEuropean Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics 2021 (2021), 2111.04787

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 34 references

[9]

Enomoto, S

K. Enomoto, S. Kanemura, Y . Mura, Electroweak baryogenesis in aligned two Higgs doublet models, JHEP 01, 104 (2022), 2111.13079. 10.1007/JHEP01(2022)104

2022 arXiv
[10]

Enomoto, S

K. Enomoto, S. Kanemura, Y . Mura, New benchmark scenarios of electroweak baryo- genesis in aligned two Higgs double models, JHEP 09, 121 (2022), 2207.00060. 10.1007/JHEP09(2022)121

2022 arXiv
[11]

Kanemura, Y

S. Kanemura, Y . Mura, Electroweak baryogenesis via top-charm mixing, JHEP09, 153 (2023), 2303.11252. 10.1007/JHEP09(2023)153

2023 arXiv
[12]

Barger, J.L

V .D. Barger, J.L. Hewett, R.J.N. Phillips, New Constraints on the Charged Higgs Sector in Two Higgs Doublet Models, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3421 (1990). 10.1103 /Phys- RevD.41.3421

1990
[13]

Grossman, Phenomenology of models with more than two Higgs doublets, Nucl

Y . Grossman, Phenomenology of models with more than two Higgs doublets, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 355 (1994), hep-ph/9401311. 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90316-6

1994 arXiv
[14]

M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, K. Tsumura, K. Yagyu, Models of Yukawa interaction in the two Higgs doublet model, and their collider phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D80, 015017 (2009), 0902.4665. 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.015017

2009 arXiv
[15]

Fleischer, F

J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner, Radiative Corrections to Higgs Decays in the Extended Weinberg-Salam Model, Phys. Rev.D23, 2001 (1981). 10.1103/PhysRevD.23.2001

1981 doi
[16]

Krause, R

M. Krause, R. Lorenz, M. Muhlleitner, R. Santos, H. Ziesche, Gauge-independent Renormalization of the 2-Higgs-Doublet Model, JHEP 09, 143 (2016), 1605.04853. 10.1007/JHEP09(2016)143

2016 arXiv
[17]

M. Bohm, H. Spiesberger, W. Hollik, On the One Loop Renormalization of the Elec- troweak Standard Model and Its Application to Leptonic Processes, Fortsch. Phys. 34, 687 (1986). 10.1002/prop.19860341102

1986 doi
[18]

Kanemura, Y

S. Kanemura, Y . Okada, E. Senaha, C.P. Yuan, Higgs coupling constants as a probe of new physics, Phys. Rev. D 70, 115002 (2004), hep-ph/0408364. 10.1103/Phys- RevD.70.115002

2004 arXiv
[19]

Pilaftsis, Resonant CP violation induced by particle mixing in transition amplitudes, Nucl

A. Pilaftsis, Resonant CP violation induced by particle mixing in transition amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B 504, 61 (1997), hep-ph/9702393. 10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00469-0

1997 arXiv
[20]

Denner, T

A. Denner, T. Sack, Renormalization of the Quark Mixing Matrix, Nucl. Phys. B 347, 203 (1990). 10.1016/0550-3213(90)90557-T

1990 doi
[21]

Denner, L

A. Denner, L. Jenniches, J.N. Lang, C. Sturm, Gauge-independent MS renormalization in the 2HDM, JHEP 09, 115 (2016), 1607.07352. 10.1007/JHEP09(2016)115

2016 arXiv
[22]

Denner, J.N

A. Denner, J.N. Lang, S. Uccirati, NLO electroweak corrections in extended Higgs Sec- tors with RECOLA2, JHEP 07, 087 (2017), 1705.06053. 10.1007/JHEP07(2017)087

2017 arXiv
[23]

Altenkamp, S

L. Altenkamp, S. Dittmaier, H. Rzehak, Renormalization schemes for the Two-Higgs- Doublet Model and applications to h → WW/ZZ → 4 fermions, JHEP 09, 134 (2017), 1704.02645. 10.1007/JHEP09(2017)134

2017 arXiv
[24]

Denner, S

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, J.N. Lang, Renormalization of mixing angles, JHEP 11, 104 (2018), 1808.03466. 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)104

2018 arXiv
[25]

Kanemura, M

S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, K. Sakurai, K. Yagyu, H-COUP: a program for one-loop cor- rected Higgs boson couplings in non-minimal Higgs sectors, Comput. Phys. Commun. 233, 134 (2018), 1710.04603. 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.06.012

2018 arXiv
[26]

Kanemura, M

S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, K. Mawatari, K. Sakurai, K. Yagyu, H-COUP Version 2: a program for one-loop corrected Higgs boson decays in non-minimal Higgs sectors (2019), 1910.12769

2019 arXiv
[27]

M. Aiko, S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, K. Sakurai, K. Yagyu, H-COUP Ver- sion 3: A program for one-loop corrected decays of any Higgs bosons in non- minimal Higgs models, Comput. Phys. Commun. 301, 109231 (2024), 2311.15892. 10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109231

2024 arXiv
[28]

Kanemura, T

S. Kanemura, T. Kubota, E. Takasugi, Lee-Quigg-Thacker bounds for Higgs boson masses in a two doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 313, 155 (1993), hep-ph/9303263. 10.1016/0370-2693(93)91205-2

1993 arXiv
[29]

Akeroyd, A

A.G. Akeroyd, A. Arhrib, E.M. Naimi, Note on tree level unitarity in the gen- eral two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 490, 119 (2000), hep-ph/0006035. 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00962-X

2000 arXiv
[30]

Ginzburg, I.P

I.F. Ginzburg, I.P. Ivanov, Tree-level unitarity constraints in the most general 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D 72, 115010 (2005), hep-ph/0508020. 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.115010

2005 arXiv
[31]

Kanemura, K

S. Kanemura, K. Yagyu, Unitarity bound in the most general two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 751, 289 (2015), 1509.06060. 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.047

2015 arXiv
[32]

Deshpande, E

N.G. Deshpande, E. Ma, Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets, Phys. Rev. D 18, 2574 (1978). 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.2574

1978 doi
[33]

S. Nie, M. Sher, Vacuum stability bounds in the two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 449, 89 (1999), hep-ph/9811234. 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00019-2

1999 arXiv
[34]

Kanemura, T

S. Kanemura, T. Kasai, Y . Okada, Mass bounds of the lightest CP even Higgs boson in the two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 471, 182 (1999), hep-ph/9903289. 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01351-9

1999 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Kanemura, M

S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, K. Yagyu, New renormalization scheme in the two Higgs doublet models, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139050 (2024), 2408.08033. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139050

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

H. Baer, T. Barklow, K. Fujii, Y . Gao, A. Hoang, S. Kanemura, J. List, H.E. Logan, A. Nomerotski, M. Perelstein et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - V olume 2: Physics (2013),1306.6352

arXiv 2013

[3] [2]

S. Asai, J. Tanaka, Y . Ushiroda, M. Nakao, J. Tian, S. Kanemura, S. Matsumoto, S. Shi- rai, M. Endo, M. Kakizaki, Report by the Committee on the Scientific Case of the ILC Operating at 250 GeV as a Higgs Factory (2017), 1710.08639

arXiv 2017

[4] [3]

Fujii et al., Physics Case for the 250 GeV Stage of the International Linear Collider (2017), 1710.07621

K. Fujii et al., Physics Case for the 250 GeV Stage of the International Linear Collider (2017), 1710.07621

arXiv 2017

[5] [4]

Aihara et al

H. Aihara et al. (ILC), The International Linear Collider. A Global Project (2019), 1901.09829

arXiv 2019

[6] [5]

Group, CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report

C.S.S. Group, CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and De- tector (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Abada et al

A. Abada et al. (FCC), FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report V olume 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019). 10.1140 /epjc/s10052-019- 6904-3

work page 2019

[8] [7]

The CLIC potential for new physics

J. Klamka (CLICdp), The CLIC potential for new physics, inEuropean Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics 2021 (2021), 2111.04787

work page Pith review arXiv 2021