Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 160 references

The Two Scales of New Physics in Loop-Induced Higgs Couplings

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deviation in a loop-induced Higgs coupling caused solely by new vectorlike fermions would imply a computable upper bound on the mass scale of new bosons, set by the onset of a Landau pole or vacuum instability.

desk verdict A solid, systematic extension of the two-scale framework to hgg, hγγ, and hZγ, with real new formulas and a broad scan; the central bound is honest within its explicitly stated perturbative-UV-completion assumption, though the abstract oversells it slightly. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14237 v2 pith:VKAKMAEZ submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Florian Nortier , Gabriele Rigo , Pablo Sesma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-th
keywords vectorlikefermionsHiggscouplingsloop-inducedLandaupolevacuumstabilitytwonewphysicsscalesHL-LHCfutureleptoncolliders
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

This paper argues that a single measured anomaly in a loop-induced Higgs coupling could reveal two distinct new-physics scales rather than one. If the anomaly is produced solely by new vectorlike fermions, the size of their Yukawa couplings to the Higgs can be inferred from the deviation, and those same couplings inevitably drive either a Landau pole or a negative Higgs quartic at a computable scale $\Lambda_B$; new bosons must therefore appear below that scale. The authors map out $\Lambda_B$ for a wide grid of vectorlike fermion representations and compare the predicted coupling deviations to the projected sensitivities of the HL-LHC and future lepton colliders. The result matters because it turns a hypothetical future observation into a concrete target: for several models, such as a TeV-scale colored doublet for $h\to gg$, the fermion-only description is valid up to a scale far above the fermion masses, so new bosons are guaranteed but well separated; for other channels, the bosons would have to sit close to the fermions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bosonic scale $\Lambda_B$, defined as the minimum of two instability scales: the Landau-pole scale where the VLF Yukawa coupling hits $y^{(\mathrm{c})}(\mu)=4\pi$, and the vacuum-instability scale where the Higgs quartic satisfies $1/\lambda(\mu) = -14.53 + 0.153\log(\mathrm{GeV}/\mu)$. The argument runs on two computations: the 1-loop amplitudes for $h\to gg$, $h\to\gamma\gamma$, and $h\to Z\gamma$, which relate the coupling deviation $\delta\mu_{hVV'}$ to the combination $y y^{\mathrm{c}} v / M_L^2$ with representation-dependent coefficients; and the 2-loop RGE running of the SM plus vectorlike fermions, which controls how fast the Yukawas and the Higgs quartic run. The relation $y=(-1)^n y^{\mathrm{c}}$ is chosen because it maximizes $\Lambda_B$ for a given deviation, making the derived bounds conservative. The one-loop amplitudes are computed in full analytic form and the RGEs are derived and solved numerically.

What would settle it

Measure the masses and Yukawa couplings of the vectorlike fermions that produce a future Higgs anomaly, run the 2-loop renormalization group equations, and check whether the Higgs quartic stays positive and the Yukawa couplings stay below $4\pi$ up to scales well above the predicted $\Lambda_B$; if they do, the claimed necessity of new bosons below $\Lambda_B$ is falsified for that model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a loop-induced Higgs coupling deviation ($h\to gg$, $h\to\gamma\gamma$, or $h\to Z\gamma$) generated entirely by vectorlike fermions carries with it an upper bound on the mass scale of new bosons. The bound is $\Lambda_B = \min(\mu_{\mathrm{LP}}, \mu_{\mathrm{VI}})$, where the Landau-pole scale satisfies $y^{(c)}(\mu_{\mathrm{LP}})=4\pi$ and the vacuum-instability scale satisfies $1/\lambda(\mu_{\mathrm{VI}}) = -14.53 + 0.153\log(\mathrm{GeV}/\mu_{\mathrm{VI}})$. Computing the 1-loop amplitudes and the 2-loop renormalization-group running for the full grid of anomaly-free representations $(r,n)_Y$ with $N_F$ flavors, they determine, per channel, which models can produce a deviation visible at the HL-LHC or at future lepton colliders while keeping $\Lambda_B \gg M_{\mathrm{max}}$, the regime in which the fermion-only effective theory is self-consistent up to high energies. For $h\to gg$, the model $(3,2)_{1/2}$ with $N_F=1$ achieves this at the HL-LHC with $M_1\simeq 1$ TeV; for $h\to\gamma\gamma$, higher hypercharges (e.g., $Y=3$) or more flavors preserve the hierarchy; for $h\to Z\gamma$, only a narrow window near 1 TeV with $Y=3$ is viable.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument assumes that the theory above the new fermions stays weakly interacting, so that a Landau pole or a negative Higgs quartic genuinely forces new bosons to appear at the computed scale; if the ultimate completion is strongly coupled, the instabilities could be cured without any new bosons there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any $h\to gg$ deviation that reaches HL-LHC sensitivity and is attributed to a TeV-scale colored doublet with one flavor can have $\Lambda_B \gg M_{\mathrm{max}}$, so the fermion-only effective theory holds up to a scale far above the new fermion masses.
  • For $h\to\gamma\gamma$, models with low hypercharge or few flavors cannot reach HL-LHC sensitivity without new bosons appearing near the fermion mass; high hypercharge (e.g., $Y=3$) or $N_F=3$–$5$ flavors restores a hierarchy.
  • For $h\to Z\gamma$, future collider sensitivities are weaker; only higher-hypercharge fermions near 1 TeV can produce an FLC-visible deviation with a mild $\Lambda_B > M_{\mathrm{max}}$, and any HL-LHC-visible deviation would force new bosons at almost the same scale.
  • The bound $\Lambda_B$ is usually set by vacuum instability, except for large hypercharges where the Landau pole dominates, so the dominant instability channel is model-dependent.
  • If the recent $h\to Z\gamma$ hint (2.2$\pm$0.7 times the SM) were confirmed as a large deviation, no purely fermionic model considered here could fit it without severe EWPT tension and new bosons at nearly the same scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-scale logic can be applied to other loop-induced Higgs observables, such as Higgs pair production or $h\to c\bar{c}$, where fermion loops dominate; the predicted $\Lambda_B$ would give a direct target for future collider searches.
  • Because the paper deliberately chooses $y=(-1)^n y^{\mathrm{c}}$ to maximize $\Lambda_B$ for each deviation, generic parameter choices in these models would predict a lower bosonic scale, making new bosons even more urgent than the conservative bounds suggest.
  • A confirmed anomaly in $h\to Z\gamma$ at the current hint level would, under this framework, effectively rule out purely fermionic explanations and point to new bosons at the TeV scale—an interplay between the two channels that the paper does not exploit.
  • The representation-dependence of the bound (e.g., for $h\to gg$ only $r$ matters, not $Y$) could be used to cross-correlate anomalies in $gg$, $\gamma\gamma$, and $Z\gamma$ to narrow down the quantum numbers of the new fermions before any direct discovery.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers Standard Model extensions whose only new low-energy degrees of freedom are vectorlike fermions (VLFs) and asks what scale ΛB of new bosonic states is implied if such fermions produce a measured deviation in the loop-induced Higgs couplings hgg, hγγ, or hZγ. Using the renormalizable VLF model of Eq. (2.6), 1-loop amplitudes computed from the Appendix B mass eigenstates (leading 1/M_L^2 behavior in Eqs. (3.2), (3.4), (3.6), full results via Package-X), and 2-loop RGEs generated with SARAH, the authors define ΛB as the minimum of the Landau-pole scale y(µ)=4π and the vacuum-(meta)stability boundary 1/λ(µ)=-14.53+0.153 log(GeV/µ). They scan representations with r≤8, n≤7, |Y|≤5, N_F=1,3,5 and present ΛB vs δµ curves compared with HL-LHC and future-lepton-collider projections. Main findings: for hgg, TeV-scale VLFs can produce HL-LHC-visible deviations with ΛB ≫ Mmax; for hγγ, larger hypercharge or flavor number is the most effective route; for hZγ, the reach is more limited. The interpretation of the bound rests on the premise, stated in Footnote 2, that the UV completion is a standard QFT or a perturbative string theory.

Significance. If the perturbative premise holds, the paper gives a coherent and checkable mapping from one loop-induced Higgs coupling measurement to two new-physics scales, extending the companion article to the three loop-induced couplings. The strengths are concrete: the complete analytic mass spectrum and h/Z/γ couplings for arbitrary SU(2) tensor representations (Appendices A and B); the compact asymptotic formulas in Eqs. (3.2)-(3.6); the SARAH-based 2-loop RGE running; the conservative treatment of EWPT and collider constraints with explicit disclaimers; and the honest statement of the perturbativity premise in Footnote 2. The paper is explicit about its idealized assumptions (real couplings, no inter-flavor mixing, and the y=(-1)^n yc choice that maximizes the hierarchy), and its verdicts are phrased as a guide for model-building rather than as a rigorous no-go theorem. Within its stated class of completions, the numerical hierarchy statements are convincing and the projections are falsifiable.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2.1 (Fn. 2); Abstract; §4] The central necessity claim is stated unconditionally in the Abstract ('An anomaly ... allows one to compute an upper bound ... necessary to prevent Landau poles or vacuum instability') and in Section 4 ('These instabilities must be resolved by introducing new bosons'), whereas Section 2.1, Footnote 2 restricts the claim to UV completions that are standard QFTs or perturbative string theories. This restriction is load-bearing: the ΛB curves in Figs. 3-11 are obtained from 2-loop perturbative RGEs, and in a strongly coupled completion (composite vectorlike fermions, an asymptotically safe fixed point, or any non-perturbative completion with the same field content) the perturbative Landau pole and the apparent vacuum instability need not correspond to a scale at which new bosonic states must appear. The manuscript does not argue that the perturbative class exhausts the consistent completions of Eq. (2.6), nor does it define 'standard QFT' tightly enough to exclude the non-perturbative case. I recommend moving the qualification into the Abstract and Section 4 and rephrasing 'necessary' as a statement about the adopted perturbative UV-completion class, so that the advertised inference matches the derivation; the quantitative bounds themselves are conditionally sound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.2 vs. Fig. 4] The text says Fig. 4 is computed for the model (r=1, n=2, Y=1/2), while the caption states (r=1, n=2, Y=0); both the amplitude in Eq. (3.4) and the EWPT constraints depend on Y, so please correct one of the two statements.
  2. [§3.2.2 vs. Fig. 7] The last bullet of Section 3.2.2 identifies the bottom panel of Fig. 7 as (r=3, n=3, Y=1/2, N_F=1), while the caption of that panel gives Y=0; please reconcile the running text with the plots.
  3. [§3.2.3 vs. Fig. 10] Section 3.2.3 refers to Fig. 10 as the model (r=1, n=2, N_F=1) with Y=2, 3, but the caption of Fig. 10 states (r=1, n=3, N_F=1); this matters for the quoted conclusions because the coefficient in Eq. (3.6) depends on n.
  4. [§3.1] The treatment of the RGE running is summarized only by the sentence 'we neglect the running of the couplings between the weak scale and the new fermion scale ΛF'; specifying the matching scale and the decoupling of VLF thresholds in one or two sentences would improve reproducibility of the ΛB curves.
  5. [Fig. 12] The caption of Fig. 12 does not say which curve corresponds to which value of M1; please add a legend or an explicit enumeration of the M1 values in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructive circularity: ΛB is computed from the model's own loop amplitudes and RGEs; companion-paper self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is self-contained and non-circular. The authors specify the VLF model in Eqs. (2.6)-(2.8), compute the one-loop amplitudes C_hgg, C_hγγ, and C_hZγ from the mass-basis Lagrangian in Appendix B (quoted in Eqs. (3.2), (3.4), (3.6)), convert these into the coupling deviations δμ via Eq. (2.4), and then obtain ΛB by running the same model's couplings with 2-loop RGEs generated by SARAH, using the Landau-pole and vacuum-instability criteria defined in Section 2.1. No value of ΛB is fed back into the amplitude calculation, and no experimental quantity is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction. The hypothetical deviation is an input scan parameter; the choice y = (-1)^n y_c is explicitly stated as the choice that maximizes ΛB, not as a fit to data. The self-citations to the companion paper [69] appear when adopting the VLF ansatz ("we demonstrated that our objective can be achieved by focusing on a model...") and when referring to EWPT and rescaling arguments, but the numerical content of the present paper (amplitude formulas, RGE running, Figs. 3-11) is computed here. The classification of viable fermionic extensions comes from the external Ref. [38], and the Landau-pole/vacuum-instability logic traces to Refs. [67,68]. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to forbid alternatives. Footnote 2 explicitly limits the conclusion to standard QFT or perturbative string UV completions; that is a disclosed scope assumption and therefore a caveat, not a circular step, though it is a substantive correctness consideration outside circularity analysis. The Section 4 disclaimer about the simplified framework is likewise a caveat, not a constructed loop. I can exhibit no equation in which an output equals an input by definition, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The score of 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations to [69] without constructive circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper defines a mapping from a hypothetical Higgs-coupling deviation to an upper bound on a bosonic scale, using a model class of vectorlike fermions from Ref. [38] and RG tools (SARAH, Package-X). The main underlying inputs are: the specific fermion content of Eqs. (2.6)-(2.7), the perturbative-QFT assumption for the UV completion (footnote 2), the SM vacuum-instability criterion (1/λ = -14.53 + 0.153 log(GeV/µ)), and a set of benchmark choices (M1, N_F, y = (-1)^n y_c, ML = ME) that shape the plots but do not alter the method. No experimental data are fitted in this work.

free parameters (4)
  • Lightest VLF mass M1 (benchmark per curve) = e.g., 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2 TeV (red, blue, yellow, green lines)
    Each curve in Figs. 3-11 fixes M1 to a benchmark; the paper does not fit M1 to data but presents bounds at selected illustrative masses. The dependence of the bounds on M1 is a central output, not an input.
  • Yukawa coupling sign convention y = (-1)^n yc = y = (-1)^n yc
    Chosen to maximize the coupling deviation for a given Yukawa magnitude, hence to maximize (most conservative) ΛB; used throughout Section 3.2 and stated in figure captions.
  • Mass ratio ML = ME = ML = ME
    Benchmark adopted in Section 2.3.3 for collider constraints; stated as 'one can safely set ML = ME without significantly affecting the discussion [69]'.
  • Number of VLF flavors N_F = NF = 1, 3, 5 in the plots; Landau-pole limits NF ≲ 130 (n=2), ≲ 30 (n=3)
    Scanned as a free model parameter in Figs. 4-9; larger N_F increases the coupling deviation at fixed hierarchy, but the paper does not fit N_F to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The new fermions are vectorlike with the renormalizable Lagrangian of Eq. (2.7): L = (r,n)_Y, Lc = (r,n)_-Y, E = (r,n-1)_Y', Ec = (r,n-1)_-Y', with Y' = Y + 1/2, mass terms ML, ME and Yukawa couplings y, yc; no flavor mixing and no significant mixing with SM fermions.
    Defines the model class under study from Ref. [38]; all results are conditional on this fermion content, Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The UV completion of the fermionic extension is a standard QFT or a perturbative string theory, so that loss of perturbativity (Landau pole) or vacuum instability forces new bosonic states below the scale ΛB.
    Stated in footnote 2 of Section 1; if the UV completion is non-perturbative, the two-scale logic could fail.
  • domain assumption The vacuum instability criterion 1/λ(µ = ΛB) = -14.53 + 0.153 log(GeV/ΛB) from the SM metastability analysis (Refs. [117-121]) remains applicable when VLFs are added, and the 2-loop RGEs from SARAH correctly capture the running.
    Used in Section 3.1 to define ΛB; the paper checks numerically that the 2-loop effective potential does not significantly change ΛB (footnote 4).
  • standard math Perturbative control is lost when a Yukawa coupling reaches y = 4π; the exact threshold is not critical because the running is fast near this value.
    Footnote 3 of Section 3.1 defines the Landau-pole scale; the paper states the conclusion is insensitive to O(1) changes in the threshold, checked numerically in Ref. [68].
  • domain assumption The SM contributions to the loop-induced Higgs couplings are dominated by the W boson and top quark, and the ratio of Eq. (2.4) normalizes away the dominant NLO multiplicative corrections for r = 3.
    Section 3.1: the paper neglects running between weak scale and ΛF and notes r ≥ 6 may require NLO corrections at the 10% level.
  • domain assumption Representation space bounded by absence of gauge Landau poles: r ≤ 8, n ≤ 7, |Y| ≤ 5, N_F ≲ 130 (n=2) or ≲ 30 (n=3).
    Section 2.3.1, adopted from Refs. [68,69]; these bounds restrict the scanned models but do not change the method.
invented entities (1)
  • Generic new bosonic states below the scale ΛB (unspecified)
    purpose: Must appear to resolve the Landau pole in the VLF Yukawa couplings or the negative Higgs quartic at the scale ΛB determined in Section 3.
    No specific particle, mass, or coupling is predicted beyond the scale bound; the bosons are a generic necessity of the argument, not a concrete new state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Two Scales of New Physics in Loop-Induced Higgs Couplings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKAKMAEZ

@misc{pith2026241214237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Two Scales of New Physics in Loop-Induced Higgs Couplings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKAKMAEZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14237}
}
abstract

Probing new physics through precise measurements of Higgs boson couplings is a central objective of the particle collider program at the high-energy frontier. An anomaly in Higgs couplings induced solely by new fermions allows one to compute an upper bound on the mass scale of new bosons. This new bosonic scale is necessary to prevent Landau poles or vacuum instability. Consequently, a single anomalous measurement can provide insight into two distinct new physics scales. In this article, we apply this approach to the loop-induced couplings of the Higgs boson to digluons ($gg$), diphotons ($\gamma \gamma$), and $Z \gamma$, and we compare our results to the projected sensitivities of the HL-LHC and future lepton colliders. This work naturally extends our previous analysis of Higgs couplings to weak dibosons ($WW$ and $ZZ$).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

160 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ATLAScollaboration, 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 [1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30 [1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Glashow,Partial-symmetries of weak interactions, Nucl

    S.L. Glashow,Partial-symmetries of weak interactions, Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961) 579

    1961

  4. [4]

    Weinberg,A Model of Leptons, Phys

    S. Weinberg,A Model of Leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett.19 (1967) 1264

    1967

  5. [5]

    Salam,Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions, Conf

    A. Salam,Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions, Conf. Proc. C680519 (1968) 367

    1968

  6. [6]

    Quevedo and A

    F. Quevedo and A. Schachner,Cambridge Lectures on The Standard Model, 2409.09211

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Nambu,Quasi-Particles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity, Phys

    Y. Nambu,Quasi-Particles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 117 (1960) 648

    1960

  8. [8]

    Schwinger,Gauge Invariance and Mass, Phys

    J.S. Schwinger,Gauge Invariance and Mass, Phys. Rev. 125 (1962) 397

    1962

Show all 160 references
  1. [9]

    Anderson,Plasmons, Gauge Invariance, and Mass, Phys

    P.W. Anderson,Plasmons, Gauge Invariance, and Mass, Phys. Rev. 130 (1963) 439

    1963

  2. [10]

    Higgs,Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys

    P.W. Higgs,Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132

    1964

  3. [11]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout,Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 321

    1964

  4. [12]

    Higgs,Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons, Phys

    P.W. Higgs,Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 508

    1964

  5. [13]

    Guralnik, C.R

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

    1964

  6. [14]

    Higgs,Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons, Phys

    P.W. Higgs,Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons, Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156

    1966

  7. [15]

    Migdal and A.M

    A.A. Migdal and A.M. Polyakov,Spontaneous breakdown of strong interaction symmetry and absence of massless particles, Sov.Phys.JETP 24 (1967) 91

    1967

  8. [16]

    Kibble,Symmetry Breaking in Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Phys

    T.W.B. Kibble,Symmetry Breaking in Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554

    1967

  9. [17]

    Guralnik,Gauge Invariance and the Goldstone Theorem, Mod

    G.S. Guralnik,Gauge Invariance and the Goldstone Theorem, Mod. Phys. Lett. A26 (2011) 1381 [1107.4592]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    CMS collaboration, A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature 607 (2022) 60 [2207.00043]. – 28 –

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    ATLAScollaboration, A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature 607 (2022) 52 [2207.00092]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gunion, H.E

    J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane and S. Dawson,The Higgs Hunter’s Guide, Front.Phys. 80 (2000) 1

    2000

  14. [22]

    Djouadi,The anatomy of electroweak symmetry breaking: Tome I: The Higgs boson in the Standard Model, Phys

    A. Djouadi,The anatomy of electroweak symmetry breaking: Tome I: The Higgs boson in the Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 457 (2008) 1 [hep-ph/0503172]

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dawson, C

    S. Dawson, C. Englert and T. Plehn,Higgs physics: It ain’t over till it is over, Phys. Rept. 816 (2019) 1 [1808.01324]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dawson et al.,Report of the Topical Group on Higgs Physics for Snowmass 2021: The Case for Precision Higgs Physics, in2022 Snowmass Summer Study, 9, 2022 [2209.07510]

    S. Dawson et al.,Report of the Topical Group on Higgs Physics for Snowmass 2021: The Case for Precision Higgs Physics, in2022 Snowmass Summer Study, 9, 2022 [2209.07510]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cho,Physicists’ Nightmare Scenario: The Higgs and Nothing Else, Science 315 (2007) 1657

    A. Cho,Physicists’ Nightmare Scenario: The Higgs and Nothing Else, Science 315 (2007) 1657

    2007

  18. [26]

    Wilson,Renormalization Group and Strong Interactions, Phys

    K.G. Wilson,Renormalization Group and Strong Interactions, Phys. Rev. D3 (1971) 1818

    1971

  19. [27]

    Weinberg,Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking, Phys

    S. Weinberg,Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 974

    1976

  20. [28]

    Gildener,Gauge-symmetry hierarchies, Phys

    E. Gildener,Gauge-symmetry hierarchies, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 1667

    1976

  21. [29]

    Susskind,Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg-Salam theory, Phys

    L. Susskind,Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg-Salam theory, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 2619

    1979

  22. [30]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci. Ser. B59 (1980) 135

    1980

  23. [31]

    Veltman,The Infrared-Ultraviolet Connection, Acta Phys

    M.J.G. Veltman,The Infrared-Ultraviolet Connection, Acta Phys. Polon. B12 (1981) 437

    1981

  24. [32]

    Kolda and H

    C.F. Kolda and H. Murayama,The Higgs mass and new physics scales in the minimal standard model, JHEP 07 (2000) 035 [hep-ph/0003170]

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Giudice,Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC, 0801.2562

    G.F. Giudice,Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC, 0801.2562

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Giudice,Naturalness after LHC8, PoS EPS-HEP2013 (2013) 163 [1307.7879]

    G.F. Giudice,Naturalness after LHC8, PoS EPS-HEP2013 (2013) 163 [1307.7879]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Giudice,The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era, 1710.07663

    G.F. Giudice,The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era, 1710.07663

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Craig,Naturalness: A Snowmass White Paper, inSnowmass 2021, 5, 2022 [2205.05708]

    N. Craig,Naturalness: A Snowmass White Paper, inSnowmass 2021, 5, 2022 [2205.05708]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Falkowski,Lectures on SMEFT, Eur

    A. Falkowski,Lectures on SMEFT, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 656

    2023

  30. [38]

    Bizot and M

    N. Bizot and M. Frigerio,Fermionic extensions of the Standard Model in light of the Higgs couplings, JHEP 01 (2016) 036 [1508.01645]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Branchina and E

    V. Branchina and E. Messina,Stability, Higgs Boson Mass, and New Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 241801 [1307.5193]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Messina and A. Platania,Top mass determination, Higgs inflation, and vacuum stability, JHEP 09 (2014) 182 [1407.4112]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Branchina and E

    V. Branchina and E. Messina,Stability and UV completion of the Standard Model, EPL 117 (2017) 61002 [1507.08812]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Messina and D. Zappala,Impact of gravity on vacuum stability, EPL 116 (2016) 21001 [1601.06963]. – 29 –

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bentivegna, V

    E. Bentivegna, V. Branchina, F. Contino and D. Zappalà,Impact of New Physics on the EW vacuum stability in a curved spacetime background, JHEP 12 (2017) 100 [1708.01138]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Branchina, F

    V. Branchina, F. Contino and A. Pilaftsis,Protecting the stability of the electroweak vacuum from Planck-scale gravitational effects, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 075001 [1806.11059]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Branchina, F

    V. Branchina, F. Contino and P.M. Ferreira,Electroweak vacuum lifetime in two Higgs doublet models, JHEP 11 (2018) 107 [1807.10802]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Bentivegna, F. Contino and D. Zappalà,Direct Higgs-gravity interaction and stability of our Universe, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 096029 [1905.02975]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gogoladze, N

    I. Gogoladze, N. Okada and Q. Shafi,Higgs boson mass bounds in the Standard Model with type III and type I seesaw, Phys. Lett. B668 (2008) 121 [0805.2129]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Chen and Y

    C.-S. Chen and Y. Tang,Vacuum stability, neutrinos, and dark matter, JHEP 04 (2012) 019 [1202.5717]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Joglekar, P

    A. Joglekar, P. Schwaller and C.E.M. Wagner,Dark Matter and enhancedh→γγ rate from vector-like Leptons, JHEP 12 (2012) 064 [1207.4235]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kearney, A

    J. Kearney, A. Pierce and N. Weiner,Vectorlike fermions and Higgs couplings, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 113005 [1207.7062]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Reece,Vacuum instabilities with a wrong-sign Higgs–gluon–gluon amplitude, New J

    M. Reece,Vacuum instabilities with a wrong-sign Higgs–gluon–gluon amplitude, New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 043003 [1208.1765]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Batell, S

    B. Batell, S. Gori and L.-T. Wang,Higgs couplings and precision electroweak data, JHEP 01 (2013) 139 [1209.6382]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Fairbairn and P

    M. Fairbairn and P. Grothaus,Baryogenesis and dark matter with vector-like fermions, JHEP 10 (2013) 176 [1307.8011]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Altmannshofer, M

    W. Altmannshofer, M. Bauer and M. Carena,Exotic leptons: Higgs, flavor and collider phenomenology, JHEP 01 (2014) 060 [1308.1987]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Xiao and J.-H

    M.-L. Xiao and J.-H. Yu,Stabilizing electroweak vacuum in a vectorlike fermion model, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 014007 [1404.0681]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ellis, R.M

    S.A.R. Ellis, R.M. Godbole, S. Gopalakrishna and J.D. Wells,Survey of vector-like fermion extensions of the Standard Model and their phenomenological implications, JHEP 09 (2014) 130 [1404.4398]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Angelescu and G

    A. Angelescu and G. Arcadi,Dark matter phenomenology of SM and enlarged Higgs sectors extended with vector-like leptons, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 456 [1611.06186]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Goswami, K.N

    S. Goswami, K.N. Vishnudath and N. Khan,Constraining the minimal type-III seesaw model with naturalness, lepton flavor violation, and electroweak vacuum stability, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 075012 [1810.11687]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gopalakrishna and A

    S. Gopalakrishna and A. Velusamy,Higgs vacuum stability with vectorlike fermions, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 115020 [1812.11303]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Borah, R

    D. Borah, R. Roshan and A. Sil,Sub-TeV singlet scalar dark matter and electroweak vacuum stability with vectorlike fermions, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 075034 [2007.14904]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    P. Bandyopadhyay, S. Jangid and M. Mitra,Scrutinizing vacuum stability in IDM with Type-III inverse seesaw, JHEP 02 (2021) 075 [2008.11956]. – 30 –

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hiller, T

    G. Hiller, T. Höhne, D.F. Litim and T. Steudtner,Portals into Higgs vacuum stability, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 115004 [2207.07737]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Arsenault, K.Y

    A. Arsenault, K.Y. Cingiloglu and M. Frank,Vacuum stability in the Standard Model with vectorlike fermions, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 036018 [2207.10332]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Cingiloglu and M

    K.Y. Cingiloglu and M. Frank,Vacuum stability and electroweak precision in the two-Higgs-doublet model with vectorlike quarks, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 036016 [2309.03700]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Adhikary, M

    A. Adhikary, M. Olechowski, J. Rosiek and M. Ryczkowski,Theoretical constraints on models with vectorlike fermions, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 075029 [2406.16050]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Cingiloglu and M

    K.Y. Cingiloglu and M. Frank,Stability of the standard model vacuum with vectorlike leptons: A critical examination, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 016025 [2408.10898]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Arkani-Hamed, K

    N. Arkani-Hamed, K. Blum, R.T. D’Agnolo and J. Fan,2:1 for naturalness at the LHC?, JHEP 01 (2013) 149 [1207.4482]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Blum, R.T

    K. Blum, R.T. D’Agnolo and J. Fan,Vacuum stability bounds on Higgs coupling deviations in the absence of new bosons, JHEP 03 (2015) 166 [1502.01045]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    D’Agnolo, F

    R.T. D’Agnolo, F. Nortier, G. Rigo and P. Sesma,The two scales of new physics in Higgs couplings, JHEP 08 (2023) 019 [2305.19325]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    de Blas, Y

    J. de Blas, Y. Du, C. Grojean, J. Gu, V. Miralles, M.E. Peskin et al.,Global SMEFT Fits at Future Colliders, inSnowmass 2021, 6, 2022 [2206.08326]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    ATLAS, CMS collaboration, Evidence for the Higgs Boson Decay to a Z Boson and a Photon at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 021803 [2309.03501]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Djouadi and G

    A. Djouadi and G. Moreau,Higgs production at the LHC in warped extra-dimensional models, Phys. Lett. B660 (2008) 67 [0707.3800]

    2008 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Krauss, T.E.J

    F. Krauss, T.E.J. Underwood and R. Zwicky,Processgg→h0→γγ in the Lee-Wick standard model, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 015012 [0709.4054]

    2008 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cacciapaglia, A

    G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea and J. Llodra-Perez,H→γγ beyond the Standard Model, JHEP 06 (2009) 054 [0901.0927]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bouchart and G

    C. Bouchart and G. Moreau,Higgs boson phenomenology and vacuum expectation value shift in the Randall-Sundrum scenario, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 095022 [0909.4812]

    2009 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Gopalakrishna, S.J

    S. Gopalakrishna, S.J. Lee and J.D. Wells,Dark matter and Higgs boson collider implications of fermions in an Abelian-gauged hidden sector, Phys. Lett. B680 (2009) 88 [0904.2007]

    2009 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Bhattacharyya and T.S

    G. Bhattacharyya and T.S. Ray,Probing warped extra dimension viagg→h and h→γγ at LHC, Phys. Lett. B675 (2009) 222 [0902.1893]

    2009 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Casagrande, F

    S. Casagrande, F. Goertz, U. Haisch, M. Neubert and T. Pfoh,The custodial Randall-Sundrum model: from precision tests to Higgs physics, JHEP 09 (2010) 014 [1005.4315]

    2010 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Azatov, M

    A. Azatov, M. Toharia and L. Zhu,Higgs boson production from gluon fusion in warped extra dimensions, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 056004 [1006.5939]

    2010 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Alves, E

    A. Alves, E. Ramirez Barreto, A.G. Dias, C.A. de S. Pires, F.S. Queiroz and P.S. Rodrigues da Silva,Probing 3-3-1 models in diphoton Higgs boson decay, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 115004 [1109.0238]. – 31 –

    2011 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Azatov and J

    A. Azatov and J. Galloway,Light Custodians and Higgs Physics in Composite Models, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 055013 [1110.5646]

    2012 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Goertz, U

    F. Goertz, U. Haisch and M. Neubert,Bounds on Warped Extra Dimensions from a Standard Model-like Higgs Boson, Phys. Lett. B713 (2012) 23 [1112.5099]

    2012 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Ishiwata and M.B

    K. Ishiwata and M.B. Wise,Higgs Properties and Fourth Generation Leptons, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 055025 [1107.1490]

    2011 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Azatov, O

    A. Azatov, O. Bondu, A. Falkowski, M. Felcini, S. Gascon-Shotkin, D.K. Ghosh et al., Higgs boson production via vectorlike top-partner decays: Diphoton or multilepton plus multijets channels at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 115022 [1204.0455]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Bonne and G

    N. Bonne and G. Moreau,Reproducing the Higgs boson data with vector-like quarks, Phys. Lett. B 717 (2012) 409 [1206.3360]

    2012 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Moreau,Constraining extra fermion(s) from the Higgs boson data, Phys

    G. Moreau,Constraining extra fermion(s) from the Higgs boson data, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 015027 [1210.3977]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Carena, I

    M. Carena, I. Low and C.E.M. Wagner,Implications of a modified Higgs to diphoton decay width, JHEP 08 (2012) 060 [1206.1082]

    2012 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Wang and X.-F

    L. Wang and X.-F. Han,The recent Higgs boson data and Higgs triplet model with vector-like quark, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 095007 [1206.1673]

    2012 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ajaib, I

    M.A. Ajaib, I. Gogoladze and Q. Shafi,Higgs Boson Production and Decay: Effects from Light Third Generation and Vectorlike Matter, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 095028 [1207.7068]

    2012 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Voloshin,CP violation in Higgs boson diphoton decay in models with vectorlike heavy fermions, Phys

    M.B. Voloshin,CP violation in Higgs boson diphoton decay in models with vectorlike heavy fermions, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 093016 [1208.4303]

    2012 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Frank, B

    M. Frank, B. Korutlu and M. Toharia,Saving the fourth generation Higgs with radion mixing, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 115025 [1204.5944]

    2012 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Carmi, A

    D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuflik and T. Volansky,Interpreting LHC Higgs Results from Natural New Physics Perspective, JHEP 07 (2012) 136 [1202.3144]

    2012 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Basso, O

    L. Basso, O. Fischer and J.J. van der Bij,A singlet-triplet extension for the Higgs search at LEP and LHC, EPL 101 (2013) 51004 [1212.5560]

    2013 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Kumar, R

    K. Kumar, R. Vega-Morales and F. Yu,Effects from New Colored States and the Higgs Portal on Gluon Fusion and Higgs Decays, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 113002 [1205.4244]

    2012 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Feng and P

    W.-Z. Feng and P. Nath,Higgs diphoton rate and mass enhancement with vectorlike leptons and the scale of supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 075018 [1303.0289]

    2013 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Chen, C.-Q

    C.-S. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, D. Huang and L.-H. Tsai,Correlation ofh→γγ and Zγ in Type-II seesaw neutrino model, Phys. Lett. B723 (2013) 156 [1302.0502]

    2013 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Frank, N

    M. Frank, N. Pourtolami and M. Toharia,Higgs Bosons in Warped Space, from the Bulk to the Brane, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 096003 [1301.7692]

    2013 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Englert and M

    C. Englert and M. McCullough,Modified Higgs Sectors and NLO Associated Production, JHEP 07 (2013) 168 [1303.1526]

    2013 arXiv

  91. [99]

    R. Malm, M. Neubert, K. Novotny and C. Schmell,5D perspective on Higgs production at the boundary of a warped extra dimension, JHEP 01 (2014) 173 [1303.5702]

    2014 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Dey and T.S

    U.K. Dey and T.S. Ray,Constraining minimal and nonminimal universal extra dimension models with Higgs couplings, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 056016 [1305.1016]. – 32 –

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    J. Hahn, C. Hörner, R. Malm, M. Neubert, K. Novotny and C. Schmell,Higgs decay into two photons in a warped extra dimension, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2857 [1312.5731]

    2014 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Dermisek and A

    R. Dermisek and A. Raval,Explanation of the Muon g-2 Anomaly with Vectorlike Leptons and its Implications for Higgs Decays, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 013017 [1305.3522]

    2013 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Aguilar-Saavedra, R

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer and M. Pérez-Victoria,Handbook of vectorlike quarks: Mixing and single production, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 094010 [1306.0572]

    2013 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Carmona and F

    A. Carmona and F. Goertz,Custodial Leptons and Higgs Decays, JHEP 04 (2013) 163 [1301.5856]

    2013 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Delaunay, C

    C. Delaunay, C. Grojean and G. Perez,Modified Higgs Physics from Composite Light Flavors, JHEP 09 (2013) 090 [1303.5701]

    2013 arXiv

  98. [106]

    R. Malm, M. Neubert and C. Schmell,Higgs couplings and phenomenology in a warped extra dimension, JHEP 02 (2015) 008 [1408.4456]

    2015 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Dey and T.S

    U.K. Dey and T.S. Ray,Higgs-Gluon Coupling in Warped Extra Dimensional Models with Brane Kinetic Terms, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 011901 [1507.04357]

    2016 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Angelescu, A

    A. Angelescu, A. Djouadi and G. Moreau,Vector-like top/bottom-quark partners and Higgs physics at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 99 [1510.07527]

    2016 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Lalak, M

    Z. Lalak, M. Lewicki and J.D. Wells,Higgs boson mass and high-luminosity LHC probes of supersymmetry with vectorlike top quark, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 095022 [1502.05702]

    2015 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Dermisek, E

    R. Dermisek, E. Lunghi and S. Shin,New decay modes of heavy Higgs bosons in a two Higgs doublet model with vectorlike leptons, JHEP 05 (2016) 148 [1512.07837]

    2016 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, S.J.D. King, B. Manaut, S. Moretti and C.S. Un,Phenomenology of 2HDM with vectorlike quarks, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 095015 [1607.08517]

    2018 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Hashimoto,Revisiting vectorlike quark models with enhanced top Yukawa coupling, Phys

    M. Hashimoto,Revisiting vectorlike quark models with enhanced top Yukawa coupling, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 035020 [1704.02615]

    2017 arXiv

  105. [113]

    C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson and E. Furlan,Vectorlike fermions and Higgs effective field theory revisited, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 015006 [1703.06134]

    2017 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Poh and S

    Z. Poh and S. Raby,Vectorlike leptons: Muong− 2 anomaly, lepton flavor violation, Higgs boson decays, and lepton nonuniversality, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 015032 [1705.07007]

    2017 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Aboubrahim, T

    A. Aboubrahim, T. Ibrahim, A. Itani and P. Nath,Observables of low-lying supersymmetric vectorlike leptonic generations via loop corrections, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 075009 [1808.00071]

    2018 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Barducci, L

    D. Barducci, L. Di Luzio, M. Nardecchia and C. Toni,Closing in on new chiral leptons at the LHC, JHEP 12 (2023) 154 [2311.10130]

    2023 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Isidori, G

    G. Isidori, G. Ridolfi and A. Strumia,On the metastability of the Standard Model vacuum, Nucl. Phys. B609 (2001) 387 [hep-ph/0104016]

    2001 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Elias-Miro, J.R

    J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto and A. Strumia,Higgs mass implications on the stability of the electroweak vacuum, Phys. Lett. B709 (2012) 222 [1112.3022]

    2012 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori et al.,Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP 08 (2012) 098 [1205.6497]. – 33 –

    2012 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Buttazzo, G

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, G.F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio et al., Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson, JHEP 12 (2013) 089 [1307.3536]

    2013 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Devoto, S

    F. Devoto, S. Devoto, L. Di Luzio and G. Ridolfi,False vacuum decay: an introductory review, J. Phys. G49 (2022) 103001 [2205.03140]

    2022 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Dreiner, H.E

    H.K. Dreiner, H.E. Haber and S.P. Martin,Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry, Phys. Rept. 494 (2010) 1 [0812.1594]

    2010 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Milagre and L

    A. Milagre and L. Lavoura,Unitarity constraints on large multiplets of arbitrary gauge groups, Nucl. Phys. B1004 (2024) 116542 [2403.12914]

    2024 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Wells,Introduction to Precision Electroweak Analysis, inTASI 2004: Physics in D≧ 4, World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, 7, 2006, DOI [hep-ph/0512342]

    J.D. Wells,Introduction to Precision Electroweak Analysis, inTASI 2004: Physics in D≧ 4, World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, 7, 2006, DOI [hep-ph/0512342]

    2004 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Albergaria, D

    F. Albergaria, D. Jurčiukonis and L. Lavoura,The oblique parameters from arbitrary new fermions, JHEP 05 (2024) 190 [2312.09099]

    2024 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Haller, A

    J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. Mönig, T. Peiffer and J. Stelzer,Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 675 [1803.01853]

    2018 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Patel,Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput

    H.H. Patel,Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.197 (2015) 276 [1503.01469]

    2015 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Patel,Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput

    H.H. Patel,Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.218 (2017) 66 [1612.00009]

    2017 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Sikivie, L

    P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M.B. Voloshin and V.I. Zakharov,Isospin breaking in technicolor models, Nucl. Phys. B173 (1980) 189

    1980

  122. [130]

    Appelquist and J

    T. Appelquist and J. Carazzone,Infrared singularities and massive fields, Phys. Rev. D11 (1975) 2856

    1975

  123. [131]

    Wilson,The renormalization group and critical phenomena, Rev

    K.G. Wilson,The renormalization group and critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys.55 (1983) 583

    1983

  124. [132]

    ATLAScollaboration, Exploration at the high-energy frontier: ATLAS Run 2 searches investigating the exotic jungle beyond the Standard Model, 2403.09292

    arXiv

  125. [133]

    CMS collaboration, Review of searches for vector-like quarks, vector-like leptons, and heavy neutral leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV at the CMS experiment, 2405.17605

    arXiv

  126. [134]

    CMS collaboration, Search for heavy long-lived charged particles with large ionization energy loss in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, 2410.09164

    arXiv

  127. [135]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for third-generation vector-like leptons inpp collisions at√s = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 07 (2023) 118 [2303.05441]

    2023 arXiv

  128. [136]

    CMS collaboration, Combined search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 03 (2018) 160 [1801.03957]

    2018 arXiv

  129. [137]

    CMS collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in final states with two oppositely charged same-flavor leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2021) 123 [2012.08600]

    2021 arXiv

  130. [138]

    CMS collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in final states with two or three soft leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2022) 091 [2111.06296]. – 34 –

    2022 arXiv

  131. [139]

    CMS collaboration, Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2022) 147 [2106.14246]

    2022 arXiv

  132. [140]

    CMS collaboration, Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos at s=13TeV in final states containing hadronic decays of WW, WZ, or WH and missing transverse momentum, Phys. Lett. B842 (2023) 137460 [2205.09597]

    2023 arXiv

  133. [141]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for chargino-neutralino production using recursive jigsaw reconstruction in final states with two or three charged leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 092012 [1806.02293]

    2018 arXiv

  134. [142]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two leptons and missing transverse momentum in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 123 [1908.08215]

    2020 arXiv

  135. [143]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for direct production of electroweakinos in final states with one lepton, missing transverse momentum and a Higgs boson decaying into twob-jets inpp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 691 [1909.09226]

    2020 arXiv

  136. [144]

    ATLAScollaboration, Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with compressed mass spectra in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 052005 [1911.12606]

    2020 arXiv

  137. [145]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for chargino–neutralino pair production in final states with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in√s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 1118 [2106.01676]

    2021 arXiv

  138. [146]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for charginos and neutralinos in final states with two boosted hadronically decaying bosons and missing transverse momentum inpp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 112010 [2108.07586]

    2021 arXiv

  139. [147]

    ATLAScollaboration, Searches for new phenomena in events with two leptons, jets, and missing transverse momentum in 139 fb−1 of√s = 13 TeVpp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 515 [2204.13072]

    2023 arXiv

  140. [148]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the W-boson mass in√s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 06 (2023) 031 [2209.13935]

    2023 arXiv

  141. [149]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for heavy long-lived multi-charged particles in the full LHC Run 2 pp collision data at s=13 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B847 (2023) 138316 [2303.13613]

    2023 arXiv

  142. [150]

    CMS collaboration, Search for heavy stable charged particles with12.9 fb −1 of 2016 data, 2016, https://inspirehep.net/literature/1479657

    2016

  143. [151]

    ATLAScollaboration, Reinterpretation of searches for supersymmetry in models with variable R-parity-violating coupling strength and long-livedR-hadrons, 2018, https://inspirehep.net/literature/1662545

    2018

  144. [152]

    Staub,SARAH, 0806.0538

    F. Staub,SARAH, 0806.0538

    arXiv

  145. [153]

    Staub,From Superpotential to Model Files for FeynArts and CalcHep/CompHep, Comput

    F. Staub,From Superpotential to Model Files for FeynArts and CalcHep/CompHep, Comput. Phys. Commun.181 (2010) 1077 [0909.2863]

    2010 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Staub,Automatic Calculation of supersymmetric Renormalization Group Equations and Self Energies, Comput

    F. Staub,Automatic Calculation of supersymmetric Renormalization Group Equations and Self Energies, Comput. Phys. Commun.182 (2011) 808 [1002.0840]. – 35 –

    2011 arXiv

  147. [155]

    Staub,SARAH 3.2: Dirac Gauginos, UFO output, and more, Comput

    F. Staub,SARAH 3.2: Dirac Gauginos, UFO output, and more, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1792 [1207.0906]

    2013 arXiv

  148. [156]

    Staub,SARAH 4: A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput

    F. Staub,SARAH 4: A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1773 [1309.7223]

    2014 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Staub,Exploring new models in all detail with SARAH, Adv

    F. Staub,Exploring new models in all detail with SARAH, Adv. High Energy Phys.2015 (2015) 840780 [1503.04200]

    2015 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Staub,Introduction to SARAH and related tools, PoS CORFU2015 (2016) 027 [1509.07061]

    F. Staub,Introduction to SARAH and related tools, PoS CORFU2015 (2016) 027 [1509.07061]

    2016 arXiv

  151. [159]

    Staub,Tutorial to SARAH, PoS CORFU2015 (2016) 058 [1603.05958]

    F. Staub,Tutorial to SARAH, PoS CORFU2015 (2016) 058 [1603.05958]

    2016 arXiv

  152. [160]

    Goodsell and F

    M.D. Goodsell and F. Staub,Unitarity constraints on general scalar couplings with SARAH, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 649 [1805.07306]. – 36 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.