Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Signals for a 2HDM with $Z'$ at the LHC

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A light, weakly coupled $Z'$ opens a four-lepton discovery channel for second-Higgs-doublet scalars at the LHC.

desk verdict A solid, honest first look at a new 4-lepton channel in a published model, but the discovery claim rests on an assumed mass ordering that the paper openly acknowledges. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06811 v1 pith:4CMMFY7J submitted 2025-01-12 hep-ph

Anjan Kumar Barik , Santosh Kumar Rai , Agnivo Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords two-Higgs-doubletmodelneutrinophilicU(1)extensionlightZ'bosonZ-Z'mixingfour-leptonfinalstatescalarpairproductioninverseseesawLHCdiscoverypotential
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 very light, very weakly coupled new gauge boson can give the LHC a new way to see the scalars of a second Higgs doublet. In the neutrinophilic $U(1)_X$ extension studied here, the $Z'$ couples to Standard Model particles only through tiny $Z$–$Z'$ mixing, so it is rarely produced directly; instead it appears in decays of the pair-produced scalars $H^\pm$, $h_2$, and $A_2$. The authors analyze the resulting four-lepton-plus-$X$ final state at the 14 TeV LHC and find that with $3\ \mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ of data, scalars above about 350 GeV could be discovered for $U(1)_X$ couplings $g_x$ around $0.2$–$0.5$. The point matters because this is a discovery channel for extended Higgs sectors that direct scalar searches largely miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the light $Z'$ gauge boson, which is charged under a $U(1)_X$ symmetry that only the second doublet and singlet scalars and fermions feel. Because its coupling to Standard Model fermions is generated entirely by $Z$–$Z'$ mixing, bounded by the mixing angle constraint $\theta'\le 10^{-3}$, the $Z'$ is too weakly coupled to be produced directly, but it is produced efficiently when the pair-produced scalars decay into it. The carrying mechanism is the chain: electroweak pair production of $H^\pm$, $h_2$, and $A_2$ through $\gamma/Z/W$ exchange, followed by cascade decays that put a $Z'$ (or $Z$) into each event, followed by $Z'\to \ell^+\ell^-$, giving four charged leptons plus anything. The analysis then uses kinematic cuts—lepton multiplicity, an opposite-sign-same-flavor pair mass window that excludes the $Z$ peak, missing transverse energy, and hard lepton $p_T$ thresholds—to suppress the Standard Model background, with the signal's sharp OSSF mass peak near 115 GeV as the discriminator.

What would settle it

In the $4\ell+X$ sample at 14 TeV with $3000\ \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, plot the opposite-sign same-flavor dilepton invariant mass: the scenario predicts a narrow peak near 115 GeV, and the absence of that peak with the expected event count would exclude the claimed discovery reach for second-doublet scalars in the 300–400 GeV window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the presence of a light $Z'$—one allowed by current precision and resonance searches—improves LHC sensitivity to the second doublet's scalars and gives discovery potential for scalars heavier than about 350 GeV with $3\ \mathrm{ab}^{-1}$. Concretely, the paper studies pair production of $H^\pm$, $h_2$, and $A_2$ at 14 TeV, with decays $H^\pm\to W^\pm Z'$, $h_2\to VV$ ($V=W,Z,Z'$), and $A_2\to h_1 Z'(Z)$, and uses the four-lepton-plus-$X$ state as the search channel. For $M_{Z'}=115$ GeV, benchmark points with scalar masses 300, 350, and 400 GeV and $g_x=0.3$–$0.5$ yield expected significances of about 3.6, 5.3, and 4.9$\sigma$ respectively after a cut-based selection, with the 350 GeV point most promising. The authors also map the constraints from existing multilepton searches, which exclude part of the light-mass region and make the heavier-mass window the viable discovery region.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the singlet heavy neutrinos are heavier than the scalars $H^\pm$, $h_2$, and $A_2$, so those scalars are free to decay into $Z'$ plus Standard Model bosons; if a heavy-neutrino decay channel were open, the $Z'$ branching fractions would drop to about 1% and the signal would essentially vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the high-luminosity LHC with $3000\ \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, the inclusive four-lepton-plus-$X$ search can reach $5\sigma$ for second-doublet scalars in the 350–400 GeV range for moderate $g_x$, making the HL-LHC itself a discovery machine for this model.
  • The same channel already constrains the model: the region near scalar masses around 240 GeV is excluded by existing four-lepton searches, and lowering $g_x$ evades the bound but also shrinks the reach.
  • A resonance in the opposite-sign-same-flavor dilepton invariant mass near 115 GeV, accompanied by extra leptons from the cascade, is a clean experimental signature that distinguishes this scenario from Standard Model four-lepton production.
  • If the heavy neutrino masses instead fell below the scalars, the scalar branching ratios into $Z'$ modes would collapse to roughly 1%, so observing the predicted signal would simultaneously support the assumed mass ordering.
  • Because direct production of these scalars in association with heavy quarks is suppressed by the small $ an\beta$, pair production followed by $Z'$ decay is the main route to discovery, and existing single-scalar searches do not cover it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's scenario is correct, the same events should contain a second, heavier resonance from the scalar pair itself, so a dedicated reconstruction of the full four-lepton system could measure $M_{h_2}$ or $M_{H^\pm}$ and effectively extract $g_x$; this goes beyond the paper's cut-based discovery study.
  • The paper notes that for vanishingly small kinetic mixing the $Z'$ becomes leptophilic and can decay with lepton-flavor violation; a dedicated search for $e^\pm\mu^\mp$ resonances in multilepton events would be a direct, testable extension of that limit.
  • The viable parameter window is narrow: $g_x$ must be small enough to evade existing multilepton constraints yet large enough for the scalar-to-$Z'$ branching fractions to be visible, so a null result at $3\ \mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ would squeeze the model between these two requirements.
  • The same pair-production-plus-light-$Z'$-decay logic should apply to other $U(1)$ extensions with a feebly coupled new gauge boson, making the four-lepton search strategy portable beyond this specific neutrino-mass model.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the LHC phenomenology of a neutrinophilic U(1)X extension of the Standard Model with a second Higgs doublet, two singlet scalars, and singlet fermions that generate neutrino masses via the inverse seesaw mechanism. The new Z′ boson is light and weakly coupled, so the dominant production at the LHC proceeds through decays of the second-doublet scalars (H±, h2, A2). The authors compute scalar branching ratios, evaluate constraints from existing ATLAS 4ℓ plus X searches using Rivet and Contur, and then present a cut-based 14 TeV LHC sensitivity study for the 4ℓ + X final state at 3000 fb−1. Three benchmark points are considered, with scalar masses 300, 350, and 400 GeV and gx = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 respectively, for MZ′ = 115 GeV. The reported significances after all cuts are 3.64, 5.28, and 4.88σ in Table IX, and the paper claims discovery potential for scalars above 350 GeV.

Significance. If the assumed mass ordering holds, the paper provides a useful and internally consistent phenomenological study: it maps a previously less explored corner of a 2HDM plus Z′ model into a concrete multilepton search strategy, and it quantifies existing constraints with standard public tools. The cut-flow table and benchmark definitions are clear, and the use of SARAH/SPheno, MadGraph, Pythia, Delphes, and MadAnalysis5 makes the analysis reproducible in principle. The main significance, however, is conditional: the discovery claim rests on an ad hoc kinematic assumption that the heavy neutrinos are heavier than the second-doublet scalars, and the paper itself notes that flipping this ordering reduces the relevant branching ratios to about 1%. There is also a quantitative mismatch between the abstract's 'mass greater than 350 GeV' claim and the tabulated significances. These issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the central conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, first paragraph of 'BSM scalar searches'] The analysis and all three benchmark points assume that the BSM neutrinos are heavier than H±, h2, and A2. This is an input choice, not a model prediction: the heavy-neutrino mass enters through the free parameter M̂N in Eq. (8), while the second-doublet scalar masses in Eqs. (19), (20), and (22) are controlled by independent quartic couplings and vevs. The paper itself states that for mN = 150 GeV and Yν ~ 0.1, scalars of mass ≥ 200 GeV decay to a heavy neutrino plus a lepton with branching ratio ~0.98, reducing the Z′-containing branching ratios to ~1% for gx = 0.575. In that alternative ordering, the 4ℓ + X yields in Table IX would be suppressed by roughly two orders of magnitude and the quoted significances would vanish. The manuscript should either identify a non-negligible region of parameter space, consistent with neutrino masses and the |VℓN|2 constraint, where the assumed ordering is realized, or explicitly reframe the entire analysis as conditional on this kinematic assumption and remove the unconditional discovery language from the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract and the concluding section state that the proposed search has 'discovery potential for scalars with mass greater than 350 GeV with 3 ab−1'. Table IX does not support this wording: BP2 with M = 350 GeV gives S = 5.28, but BP3 with M = 400 GeV gives S = 4.88, below the 5σ threshold. The statement should be weakened to 'scalars around 350 GeV' or additional benchmark points above 350 GeV that reach 5σ should be provided.
  3. [Section IV, Table IX and Eq. (25)] The significance is computed with the asymptotic formula in Eq. (25) using statistical uncertainties only, with no accounting for systematic uncertainties in the background estimate. After all cuts the total SM background is only 36.6 events at 3000 fb−1, and the dominant background (4ℓ+jets) is strongly shaped by the /ET and M4ℓ cuts, so the reach estimate is sensitive to the generator-level normalization and to detector modeling of those tails. A systematic uncertainty estimate, or at least a discussion of the dominant background uncertainties and a validation against the ATLAS control regions used in Section III, is needed before the quoted significances can be used as discovery projections.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table VIII and Eq. (12)] Table VIII lists quartic couplings λ3 and λ4, but these are not defined in the scalar potential in Eq. (12), which uses λ12 and λ12′ instead; please define λ3 and λ4 or rename them to match the potential so that the benchmark inputs are unambiguous.
  2. [Section IV, selection criteria] The ATLAS search description in Section III quotes a cut Mℓ−ℓ− > 5 GeV, while the paper's own cut in the bullet list of Section IV is Mℓ+ℓ− > 5 GeV; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Figure 3] The legend label 'SM SM' for the branching-ratio curves is unclear; please replace it with the explicit list of SM decay modes (for example 'b b̄, gg, h1Z, ...') or with 'Σ SM'.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The word 'Where' after the displayed equation for M2Z,Z′ should be lowercase, and the sentence should be integrated with the surrounding text.
  5. [Section III, text before Fig. 5] The sentence 'the invariant mass of the opposite-sign-same-flavor (OSSF) leptons constrain our parameter space' has a subject-verb agreement error; 'constrain' should be 'constrains'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the collider analysis uses independent Monte Carlo simulation and explicit model input assumptions, not predictions fitted to the target observable.

full rationale

The paper's central assertion is a conditional LHC sensitivity estimate for chosen benchmark points in a specified 2HDM+U(1)_X model. No model parameter is fitted to the 4-lepton data; the signal and background yields in Table IX are obtained by publicly available simulation tools (MadGraph, Pythia8, Delphes, MadAnalysis5) from cross sections and branching ratios computed from the Lagrangian presented in the paper. The paper reproduces the gauge mass matrix, scalar mass matrices, neutrino mass formulas, and decay-width expressions directly, so the prior self-citations to the authors' earlier model papers ([14], [25], [26]) are contextual rather than load-bearing for the collider claim. The external ATLAS 4-lepton constraints are implemented through Rivet and Contur, which are independent of the paper's own prediction chain. The key assumption that the BSM neutrinos are heavier than the scalars is explicitly stated in Section III rather than smuggled in, and the paper also quantifies the opposite region: with m_N = 150 GeV and Y_nu ~ 0.1, scalar decays to Z' modes fall to ~1%, which would suppress the signal. This is an input assumption and a stated limitation, not a circular reduction. The only internal concern is consistency, not circularity: BP3 (M = 400 GeV) gives S = 4.88 in Table IX, slightly below 5 sigma, while the conclusion says scalars above 350 GeV are discoverable; that is a strength-of-claim issue and does not make the derivation circular. No step reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The paper relies on a previously constructed U(1)X 2HDM and its parameter values; it introduces no new particles. The central collider analysis depends on a set of chosen benchmark parameters (gx, MZ', tan beta, vevs, quartics) that are not predicted by the model. The heavy-neutrino mass ordering is the most ad hoc input to the signal calculation.

free parameters (5)
  • gx (U(1)X gauge coupling) = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 for BP1, BP2, BP3
    Controls the Z' couplings to the new scalars and hence the branching ratios of h2, A2 and H± into Z'-containing modes; chosen per benchmark, not predicted.
  • MZ' (new gauge boson mass) = 115 GeV (representative)
    Sets the Z' mass and the position of dilepton invariant mass peaks; a single representative value is used and no scan over MZ' is made.
  • tan beta = 10^-4 in the benchmark analysis
    Ratio of vevs of the second and first Higgs doublets; small values keep scalar-fermion couplings small and suppress Z-Z' mixing, maximizing the Z' decay modes.
  • Singlet vevs vs and vs2 = vs = 10 GeV, vs2 = 229 GeV (also 97.98 GeV in Fig 1)
    Set the singlet scalar masses and contribute to the Z' mass; the hierarchy is chosen to keep singlet scalars heavier than doublet scalars.
  • Scalar quartic couplings and mu_ss2 = lambda1 = 0.129, lambda2 = 1.0, mu_ss2 = 150 GeV, etc. (Table VIII)
    Chosen to reproduce the SM-like Higgs mass, avoid large mixing, satisfy vacuum stability and perturbativity, and set the scalar mass spectrum.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard Model gauge structure and particle content with an added U(1)X symmetry.
    The analysis is performed in the context of the SM extended by U(1)X; all cross-sections and BRs are computed using the SM particles and couplings.
  • domain assumption The Z-Z' mixing angle theta' is small and constrained to be <= 10^-3.
    LEP and SLC measurements of Z properties, used in Section II to set limits on tan beta and g'_x.
  • domain assumption The SM-like Higgs h1 is obtained via the alignment limit.
    Section II states that the alignment limit is chosen so that h1 dominates from H1 and couples like the observed 125 GeV Higgs.
  • ad hoc to paper The heavy neutrinos are kinematically heavier than the scalars H±, h2, A2.
    Section III: 'We assume the BSM neutrinos to be heavier than the scalars'. This suppresses scalar decays to heavy neutrinos and makes the Z'-modes dominant. If lifted, the BR to Z' modes drops to about 1%.
  • domain assumption The Z' decays to SM fermions at tree level with the branching ratios in Table IV.
    The one-loop leptophilic decay is discussed in Section III but not included in the main analysis; if it dominates, constraints become stronger.
  • domain assumption The singlet scalars are heavier than the doublet scalars.
    Achieved by the hierarchy vs << vs2; prevents decays to singlet scalars that would dilute the multilepton signal.
invented entities (4)
  • Z' gauge boson (new U(1) gauge boson) independent evidence
    purpose: Couples to SM via Z-Z' mixing and appears in scalar decays to produce multilepton final states.
    Falsifiable via collider searches for Z' resonances and via the multilepton signatures computed here.
  • Second Higgs doublet H2 with scalars h2, A2, H± independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the new scalars whose pair production and subsequent decay to Z' drive the signal.
    Charged and neutral Higgs searches at the LHC constrain their masses and couplings.
  • Singlet scalars S and S2 independent evidence
    purpose: Break U(1)X, generate the Z' mass, and remove a would-be Goldstone boson.
    Their masses and mixings affect the model and can be searched for at colliders if kinematically accessible.
  • Vector-like fermions N_L, N_R (heavy neutrinos) independent evidence
    purpose: Generate light neutrino masses via the inverse seesaw mechanism.
    Constrained by electroweak precision and searches for heavy neutral leptons (ref [36]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signals for a 2HDM with $Z'$ at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CMMFY7J

@misc{pith2026250106811,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signals for a 2HDM with $Z'$ at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CMMFY7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06811}
}
abstract

We consider a neutrinophilic $U(1)$ extension of the Standard Model (SM) under which only a second Higgs doublet and SM singlet scalars and fermions are charged. The new gauge boson $Z'$ couples to SM minimally, generated by $Z-Z'$ mixing. As the $Z'$ is very weakly coupled, it can mostly be produced through the decay of the scalars from the second Higgs doublet at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). We discuss the scalar sector of the model in detail and consider decay modes such as $(H^{\pm} \to W^\pm Z', h_2 \to VV, (V = W^\pm, Z, Z'), A_2 \to h_1 Z'(Z))$ that lead to multilepton signals at the LHC from the pair production of the scalars. We analyze the signal with a representative value of the $Z'$ mass to show the discovery potential of the 2HDM scalars at the LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06811 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Variation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The mass difference between the pseudo scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Branching ratio of BSM scalars to different decay modes. The dashed and dotted lines correspond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The cross-section of the processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Exclusion plot from the ATLAS 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Normalized distribution of the kinematic variables for 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2502 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011121

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Gabriel and S

    S. Gabriel and S. Nandi, Phys. Lett. B 655, 141 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610253

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    S. M. Davidson and H. E. Logan, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095008 (2009), arXiv:0906.3335 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 73, 077301 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0601225

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Abdallah, A

    W. Abdallah, A. K. Barik, S. K. Rai, and T. Samui, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1087 (2024), arXiv:2405.15333 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rept. 150, 1 (1987). 24

    1987

  2. [10]

    Trodden, in 33rd Rencontres de Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories (1998) pp

    M. Trodden, in 33rd Rencontres de Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories (1998) pp. 471–480, arXiv:hep-ph/9805252

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. P. Martin, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18, 1 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709356

    1998 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Konetschny and W

    W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, Phys. Lett. B 70, 433 (1977)

    1977

  5. [13]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D 11, 566 (1975)

    1975

  6. [14]

    Abdallah, A

    W. Abdallah, A. K. Barik, S. K. Rai, and T. Samui, Phys. Rev. D 107, 015026 (2023), arXiv:2109.07980 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 01, 032 (2016), arXiv:1509.00389 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 775, 105 (2017), arXiv:1707.04147 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 06, 127 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 128 (2019)], arXiv:1804.01939 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 04, 171 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 187 (2022)], arXiv:1908.01115 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 564 (2019), arXiv:1903.00941 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D 102, 032004 (2020), arXiv:1907.02749 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 09, 139 (2018), arXiv:1807.07915 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 11, 085 (2018), arXiv:1808.03599 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 07, 005 (2021), arXiv:2103.01918 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    However, these constraints are much weaker than those in Fig

    mildly. However, these constraints are much weaker than those in Fig. 5. We briefly comment on other possibilities for the scalar search in the model at the LHC. In the scenario where the heavy neutrinos are lighter than A2, h2 and H ±, these scalars can decay to the heavy neu...

  17. [25]

    Abdallah, A

    W. Abdallah, A. K. Barik, S. K. Rai, and T. Samui, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095031 (2021), arXiv:2106.01362 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 03, 166 (2018), arXiv:1709.05406 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    A. K. Barik, S. K. Rai, and A. Srivastava, (2024), arXiv:2408.14396 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. K. Barik, N. Khan, and S. K. Rai, (2024), arXiv:2406.16546 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 2605 (2011), arXiv:1102.1898 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Haller, A

    J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, T. Peiffer, and J. Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 675 (2018), arXiv:1803.01853 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2711 (2014), arXiv:1305.1933 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Buckley, L

    A. Buckley, L. Corpe, M. Filipovich, C. Gutschow, N. Rozinsky, S. Thor, Y. Yeh, and J. Yellen, (2023), arXiv:2312.15070 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, L. Lonnblad, J. Monk, H. Schulz, and F. Siegert, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 2803 (2013), arXiv:1003.0694 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Drees, H

    M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall, and J. S. Kim, Comput. Phys. Commun. 187, 227 (2015), arXiv:1312.2591 [hep-ph]. 25

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Buckley et al

    A. Buckley et al. , SciPost Phys. Core 4, 013 (2021), arXiv:2102.04377 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Huitu, T

    K. Huitu, T. J. K¨ arkk¨ ainen, S. Mondal, and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D 97, 035026 (2018), arXiv:1712.00338 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 01, 122 (2019), arXiv:1806.10905 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Staub, Adv

    F. Staub, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 840780 (2015), arXiv:1503.04200 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 06, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Porod, Comput

    W. Porod, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153, 275 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301101

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The mass difference is controlled primarily by the λ2 parameter

    From the plot, one can see that for larger values of tan β a significant mass difference between the A2 and h2 can be possible. The mass difference is controlled primarily by the λ2 parameter. Here we have fixed λ′ 12 to be small so that the H ± mass will be nearly equal to th...

  37. [45]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J. Y. Araz, B. Fuks, and G. Polykratis, (2020), arXiv:2006.09387 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.