Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Dark clouds to silver linings over the hyperchargeless scalar triplets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that current constraints rule out the inert real-triplet dark matter and first-order phase transition, leaving the non-inert Higgs triplet a narrow, testable window.

desk verdict A useful constraints map for real triplet scalars, but the 'conclusive' ITM exclusion hinges on one halo-profile choice and needs a caveat and a typo fix before it is citable as a killer argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23257 v1 pith:X47PE2II submitted 2025-05-29 hep-ph

Priyotosh Bandyopadhyay , Snehashis Parashar This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords inerttripletmodelHiggsrealscalardarkmatterfirst-orderphasetransitiongravitationalwavescustodialsymmetrybreakingmuoncollider
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 asks whether the minimal real scalar triplet with zero hypercharge can still explain dark matter, produce a first-order electroweak phase transition, and leave a visible collider and gravitational-wave signature. Combining current Higgs signal-strength, direct-detection, indirect-detection, and collider limits, it finds that the $Z_2$-odd inert triplet model (ITM) cannot: the allowed corridor $M_{T^\pm}\in[275,1600]$ GeV with $0.02\le|\lambda_{ht}|_{\mathrm{max}}\le0.2$ yields at most about half of the observed dark-matter relic and no first-order transition. Dropping the $Z_2$ symmetry, the non-inert Higgs triplet model (HTM) keeps a narrow window $M_{H^\pm}\in[150,275]$ GeV where a strong two-step first-order transition works and produces gravitational waves within reach of planned space interferometers. The central message is a trade-off: for this minimal triplet sector, dark matter and electroweak baryogenesis cannot coexist, and the remaining observable signature is the custodial-symmetry-breaking charged Higgs of the HTM.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scalar potential of a real $SU(2)$ triplet with $Y=0$ coupled to the Higgs doublet through a portal $\lambda_{ht}\Phi^\dagger\Phi\,\mathrm{Tr}(T^\dagger T)$; adding a $Z_2$ symmetry makes the triplet inert (ITM), while replacing that symmetry with the trilinear term $A_{ht}\Phi^\dagger T\Phi$ and a small triplet VEV $v_t\lesssim3$ GeV gives the custodial-symmetry-breaking Higgs triplet model (HTM). The analysis works by overlaying the $2\sigma$ regions of the $h\to\gamma\gamma$ and $h\to Z\gamma$ signal strengths with false-vacuum stability, LZ, Fermi-LAT, HESS, LEP/CMS charged-Higgs, and recast disappearing-track exclusions in the $(M_{T^\pm/H^\pm},\lambda_{ht})$ plane. For the phase transition, the machinery is the finite-temperature effective potential with Coleman-Weinberg corrections, counterterms, and Parwani daisy resummation, evaluated with a multi-field cosmological phase-transition code to locate critical temperature, transition strength, and bubble parameters, which are then converted to a gravitational-wave spectrum.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to recompute the ITM relic-consistent region with a shallower dark-matter halo profile (for example Einasto with a smaller inner slope or NFW) for the HESS inner-galaxy analysis; if a relic-satisfying mass above about 1.6 TeV then survives the combined LZ and HESS constraints, the paper's central exclusion for ITM is overturned. On the gravitational-wave side, if LISA reaches its projected sensitivity and sees no stochastic signal in the frequency band predicted for the BP4-like transition, the claim that the HTM window produces detectable gravitational waves would be falsified for that benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that current data settle the fate of the hyperchargeless real triplet. For the ITM, the paper argues that the LZ direct-detection bound removes most relic-satisfying points, Fermi-LAT excludes $M_{T^\pm}\sim2-3.5$ TeV, HESS (Einasto-2) removes everything above $\sim1.6$ TeV, and disappearing-track searches remove $M_{T^\pm}\lesssim275$ GeV; the surviving strip can produce at most roughly half the Planck relic density, and the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ portal couplings needed for a first-order phase transition are excluded by $h\to\gamma\gamma$, $h\to Z\gamma$, and LZ. For the HTM, with the $Z_2$ absent and a tiny triplet VEV $v_t\lesssim3$ GeV, the paper finds that for $M_{H^\pm}\in[150,275]$ GeV and $1.0\le\lambda_{ht}^{\mathrm{max}}\le3.5$ a two-step first-order phase transition remains feasible, with benchmark transitions at $T_c\simeq119-135$ GeV and strengths $\Delta v(T_c)/T_c\simeq1.2-1.6$. These benchmarks produce stochastic gravitational waves with peak amplitudes roughly between $10^{-16}$ and $10^{-12}$, and the $v_t$-dependent $H^\pm W^\mp$ production at a 280 GeV lepton collider gives projected significances up to about $8\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire ITM insufficiency conclusion hinges on the HESS (Einasto-2) limit excluding all LZ-allowed dark-matter masses above about 1.6 TeV; if the assumed halo profile or the Sommerfeld-boosted annihilation cross section is relaxed, relic-satisfying points above 2.5 TeV could survive and the claim that the inert triplet cannot be WIMP dark matter would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The surviving inert-triplet strip, $M_{T^\pm}\in[275,1600]$ GeV with tiny portal couplings, is a target for disappearing-track and soft-pion searches at a future muon collider, not for dark-matter searches.
  • If the HTM window is real, the two-step first-order transition generates a stochastic gravitational-wave background with peak $\Omega_{GW}h^2$ between about $10^{-16}$ (BP1, only ALIA and U-DECIGO) and $10^{-12}$ (BP4, LISA and all studied detectors).
  • At a 280 GeV lepton collider, $v_t\simeq3$ GeV gives $\gtrsim3\sigma$ sensitivity for $M_{H^\pm}\lesssim190$ GeV and $\gtrsim5\sigma$ at $M_{H^\pm}\simeq150$ GeV, making custodial-symmetry breaking directly testable.
  • The same constraints imply that a minimal hyperchargeless triplet cannot simultaneously provide WIMP dark matter and strong electroweak baryogenesis, so any full theory needs an additional dark sector.
  • For masses up to about 200 GeV, the LHC $pp\to H^\pm W^\mp$ and $pp\to H^\pm H^0$ channels probe the same HTM window, although with larger backgrounds than the lepton collider.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, applying the same exclusion-map logic to the complex triplet or to a triplet-singlet model with current LZ and HESS data would test how generic the dark-matter/FOPT trade-off is.
  • Beyond the paper, improving gamma-ray indirect-detection sensitivity should push the inert-triplet strip's upper edge below 1.6 TeV, shrinking an already sub-relic region.
  • Beyond the paper, the gravitational-wave peak estimates inherit the chosen sound-wave and turbulence templates, so a different template set could shift the BP1-3 peaks relative to LISA and DECIGO sensitivities.
  • Beyond the paper, a dedicated recast of the LEP/CMS tau-lepton searches could raise the lower edge of the HTM FOPT window, altering the lepton-collider discovery significance.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Y=0 real scalar triplet extension of the Standard Model in two variants: the Z2-odd inert triplet model (ITM), with a DM candidate, and the non-inert Higgs triplet model (HTM), which breaks custodial symmetry. It applies constraints from h→γγ and h→Zγ signal strengths, vacuum stability and false-vacuum conditions, LZ direct detection, Fermi-LAT and HESS indirect detection, disappearing-track searches, and LEP/CMS charged-Higgs searches. It then computes the thermal effective potential with CosmoTransitions, identifies first-order phase transition (FOPT) benchmarks for HTM, evaluates gravitational-wave spectra, and estimates lepton-collider discovery prospects. The central conclusions are that ITM cannot provide the observed DM relic (with surviving parameter space M_T± in [275 GeV, 1.6 TeV] and |λ_ht| ≤ 0.2) and cannot achieve FOPT, while HTM retains a narrow 2-step FOPT window with M_H± in [150 GeV, 275 GeV] and 1.0 ≤ λ_ht ≤ 3.5, testable via gravitational waves and a high-luminosity lepton collider.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper is significant: it would exclude thermal real-triplet WIMP dark matter and identify a concrete, narrow HTM window for a two-step electroweak phase transition, with quantitative gravitational-wave and collider targets. The letter is well organised, provides explicit benchmark FOPT parameters (Table 1) and signal/background rates (Table 2), and includes analytic appendices for the h→γγ/Zγ widths and the thermal potential. The strengths are the breadth of combined constraints and the concrete, falsifiable predictions for future interferometers and lepton colliders. However, the headline ITM exclusion rests on a single halo-profile assumption for HESS, and the FOPT/GW results are not shown to be stable under renormalisation-scale variation; these points need to be strengthened before the letter's conclusions can be regarded as robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [3 (Fig. 1a) and 7] The conclusion that the ITM is 'conclusively' insufficient for WIMP DM rests on the HESS Einasto-2 limit excluding all LZ-allowed points above M_T± ≈ 1.6 TeV. The paper does not report any sensitivity of this limit to the assumed DM halo profile, velocity distribution, or Sommerfeld-boost treatment: the HESS J-factor for Einasto-2 differs from NFW or cored profiles, and the annihilation boost depends on the velocity dispersion and resonance treatment imported from ref. [8]. Since the relic-satisfying points above M_T± ≈ 2.5 TeV are LZ-allowed, a modest change in profile or velocity assumptions could move the HESS bound above those masses and invalidate the quoted exclusion. Please add a scan over at least two profile choices and document the Sommerfeld/velocity assumptions, or soften the 'conclusive' claim accordingly.
  2. [2 (after Eq. (2.2))] The statement 'confining λ_ht to the region 2.5 ≲ λ_ht ≤ 4π, where our further calculations will dwell' is internally inconsistent with the rest of the paper: BP1 has λ_ht = 1.00 (Table 1), the final HTM window is quoted as 1.0 ≤ λ_ht ≤ 3.5 (§7), and the ITM-allowed region has |λ_ht| ≤ 0.2 (§3). Please correct the stated range; as written it excludes the paper's own benchmark points and final conclusion.
  3. [4 and Appendix B (Table 1, Eq. B.2)] The effective-potential computation uses a benchmark-dependent renormalisation scale Q = 246 (340) GeV and no sensitivity scan. The FOPT parameters (T_c, α, β/H_n) in Table 1 and the GW spectra in Fig. 3 depend on Q through the log(m_i^2(φ)/Q^2) term in V_CW. Please show that the conclusions (strong FOPT in BP1–4 and the HTM window) are stable under a reasonable range of Q, e.g. Q ∈ [v_h/2, 2v_h] or a standard scale-choice criterion; otherwise the quoted transition strengths are not robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [7] The word 'inverstigation' should be 'investigation'.
  2. [6] The phrase 'the significances are be ∼7.8σ' should read 'are ∼7.8σ'.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The notation 'M_T±/T±' is unclear; it should be 'M_T±' for ITM and 'M_H±' for HTM.
  4. [3] 'The µγγ and µZγ measurements at 2σ excludes' should be 'exclude'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central ITM-exclusion and HTM-FOPT claims are derived from independent external constraints and public numerical tools, not from fitting the same observables they predict.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The ITM-insufficiency result (Sec. 3 and Sec. 7) is a conjunction of computed relic-density points, LZ direct-detection limits, Fermi-LAT and HESS (Einasto-2) indirect limits, and ATLAS disappearing-track bounds; none of these observables is fitted to another, and the paper's exclusion plots overlay independently measured constraints. The HTM FOPT/GW results are obtained by implementing the thermal effective potential in CosmoTransitions and comparing the resulting benchmark spectra to published power-law integrated sensitivity curves; no gravitational-wave or phase-transition datum is used as input, so the GW curves and collider rates are genuine model predictions. The paper leans on self-cited refs [9,12,16,23] for computational methods, relic-density evaluation, and a perturbativity upper limit λ_ht ~ 3.5, but these are published calculations whose stated assumptions (thermal WIMP relic, RG-running perturbativity, two-step FOPT in a real-triplet extension) do not encode this letter's target result, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The 'conclusive' exclusion of ITM depends on the HESS Einasto-2 halo-profile assumption and on the Sommerfeld-boost treatment; that is a model-dependence or robustness concern, not a definitional reduction. The Section 2 statement that the 125 GeV Higgs mass 'confining λ_ht to the region 2.5 ≲ λ_ht ≤ 4π' is internally inconsistent with benchmark BP1 (λ_ht = 1.00) and with the final HTM band 1.0–3.5, and the FOPT benchmarks lack a renormalisation-scale scan, but these are correctness/typo risks rather than circular reasoning. No step in the paper is equivalent by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scan imports several model-defining and calculational premises: the Y=0 triplet field content, perturbativity and vacuum stability criteria, the 2 sigma Higgs signal-strength window, the one-loop thermal effective potential and daisy resummation scheme, the standard GW parametrisation, and the DM relic and indirect detection treatment from ref [9]. Free parameters such as lambda_t, lambda_ht, v_t, and Q are chosen or scanned rather than fixed by data. No new particle or force is invented beyond the previously studied triplet itself.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_t (triplet self-coupling) at benchmarks = 0.383, 0.751, 0.800, 1.780 for BP1 to BP4
    Chosen to realise the 2-step FOPT; these values drive Tc, alpha, and beta/Hn but are not fixed by data.
  • lambda_ht (Higgs-triplet portal) at benchmarks = 1.00, 1.38, 1.70, 2.80 for BP1 to BP4
    Scanned and selected within the surviving region; key input to relic density and FOPT.
  • v_t (triplet VEV) = 3 GeV
    Set to the approximate upper limit from the rho parameter for all benchmarks; controls collider signal strength through custodial symmetry violation.
  • Q (renormalisation scale in VCW) = 246 GeV for BP1 to BP3, 340 GeV for BP4
    Chosen to avoid divergences in the Coleman-Weinberg potential; no scale-variation study is shown, so FOPT outputs carry scheme uncertainty.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The scalar sector consists of the SM Higgs doublet Phi and a real Y=0 triplet T with potentials in Eq (2.2); SM gauge and fermion content unchanged.
    The models are defined by this field content and tree-level potentials; the paper assumes these are the complete low-energy scalar sector.
  • domain assumption Perturbativity |lambda_i| <= 4pi and bounded-from-below conditions lambda_h,t > 0, lambda_ht + 2 sqrt(lambda_h lambda_t) > 0 define the allowed couplings.
    Standard theory-consistency criteria imposed to restrict the scans.
  • domain assumption The 2 sigma overlap of the ATLAS mu_gamma_gamma = 1.04 +0.10 -0.09 and combined ATLAS+CMS mu_Zgamma = 2.2 +/- 0.7 measurements defines the experimentally allowed region.
    These external measurements, taken at 2 sigma, set the exclusion maps in Figure 1.
  • domain assumption The one-loop thermal effective potential with Parwani daisy resummation, implemented in CosmoTransitions, gives reliable FOPT parameters.
    FOPT conclusions depend on this standard but scheme-dependent computation; Q is chosen per benchmark and no sensitivity check is provided.
  • domain assumption Bubble nucleation requires S/T_n about 140 and GW spectra follow the Caprini et al. parametrisation with alpha, beta/H_n, and T_n.
    Standard approximations for computing gravitational wave signals; no lattice or two-loop validation is attempted.
  • domain assumption DM relic density, Sommerfeld enhancement, and indirect detection rates follow the treatment of ref [9] and the public LZ, Fermi-LAT, and HESS limits.
    The ITM insufficiency conclusion imports the authors' earlier calculation without shipping its code or a detailed re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark clouds to silver linings over the hyperchargeless scalar triplets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X47PE2II

@misc{pith2026250523257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark clouds to silver linings over the hyperchargeless scalar triplets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X47PE2II}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23257}
}
abstract

A real scalar triplet with zero hypercharge offers a minimal non-trivial extension of the Standard Model (SM) with a charged Higgs and a possible dark matter or custodial symmetry breaking signature. The $Z_2$-odd inert triplet model (ITM) provides a dark matter, while the non-inert Higgs triplet model (HTM) breaks the custodial symmetry, enabling rich collider signatures. Both these models also promise the viability of a first-order phase transition (FOPT). This letter revisits both models under various theoretical and current experimental constraints, revealing a trade-off between DM and FOPT viability, and explores the resulting gravitational wave signals and collider prospects.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Thermal Real Scalar Triplet Dark Matter

    T. Katayose, S. Matsumoto, S. Shirai and Y. Watanabe,Thermal real scalar triplet dark matter,JHEP09(2021) 044, [2105.07650]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [3]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo and A. Strumia,Minimal dark matter,Nucl. Phys. B753(2006) 178–194, [hep-ph/0512090]

    arXiv 2006

  3. [4]

    Signatures of Dark Matter in Inert Triplet Models

    T. Araki, C. Q. Geng and K. I. Nagao,Signatures of Dark Matter in Inert Triplet Models,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20(2011) 1433–1440, [1108.2753]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  4. [5]

    Araki, C

    T. Araki, C. Q. Geng and K. I. Nagao,Dark Matter in Inert Triplet Models,Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 075014, [1102.4906]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [6]

    Constraining Inert Triplet Dark Matter by the LHC and FermiLAT

    S. Yaser Ayazi and S. M. Firouzabadi,Constraining Inert Triplet Dark Matter by the LHC and FermiLAT,JCAP11(2014) 005, [1408.0654]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  6. [7]

    Chiang, G

    C.-W. Chiang, G. Cottin, Y. Du, K. Fuyuto and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf,Collider Probes of Real Triplet Scalar Dark Matter,JHEP01(2021) 198, [2003.07867]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [9]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    P. Bandyopadhyay, S. Parashar, C. Sen and J. Song,Probing Inert Triplet Model at a multi-TeV muon collider via vector boson fusion with forward muon tagging,JHEP07(2024) 253, [2401.02697]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [10]

    Exploring the Hyperchargeless Higgs Triplet Model up to the Planck Scale

    N. Khan,Exploring the hyperchargeless Higgs triplet model up to the Planck scale,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 341, [1610.03178]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 47 references
  1. [11]

    Jangid and P

    S. Jangid and P. Bandyopadhyay,Distinguishing Inert Higgs Doublet and Inert Triplet Scenarios,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 715, [2003.11821]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Bandyopadhyay and P

    P. Bandyopadhyay and P. M. P. Robin,Fate of the scalar quartic couplings in the inert models, 2504.18086

    arXiv

  3. [13]

    H. H. Patel and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf,Stepping Into Electroweak Symmetry Breaking: Phase Transitions and Higgs Phenomenology,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 035013, [1212.5652]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [14]

    Niemi, H

    L. Niemi, H. H. Patel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir,Electroweak phase transition in the real triplet extension of the SM: Dimensional reduction,Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 035002, [1802.10500]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir,Thermodynamics of a Two-Step Electroweak Phase Transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 171802, [2005.11332]. – 15 –

    2021 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Bandyopadhyay and S

    P. Bandyopadhyay and S. Jangid,Discerning singlet and triplet scalars at the electroweak phase transition and gravitational wave,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 055032, [2111.03866]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Chabab, M

    M. Chabab, M. C. Peyran` ere and L. Rahili,Probing the Higgs sector ofY= 0Higgs Triplet Model at LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 873, [1805.00286]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Fileviez Perez, H

    P. Fileviez Perez, H. H. Patel and A. D. Plascencia,On the W mass and new Higgs bosons, Phys. Lett. B833(2022) 137371, [2204.07144]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [19]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, B. Mellado and A.-T. Mulaudzi,SU(2)L triplet scalar as the origin of the 95 GeV excess?,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) L091704, [2306.15722]

    2023

  10. [20]

    Butterworth, H

    J. Butterworth, H. Debnath, P. Fileviez Perez and F. Mitchell,Custodial symmetry breaking and Higgs boson signatures at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 095014, [2309.10027]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy and B. Mellado, Explaining theγγ+XExcesses at≈151.5 GeV via the Drell-Yan Production of a Higgs Triplet,2402.00101

    arXiv

  12. [22]

    Crivellin, S

    A. Crivellin, S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, S. P. Maharathy and B. Mellado, Growing Evidence for a Higgs Triplet,2404.14492

    arXiv

  13. [23]

    Bandyopadhyay and S

    P. Bandyopadhyay and S. Parashar,Probing a scalar singlet-triplet extension of the standard model via vector boson fusion at a muon collider,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 115032, [2410.06298]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy and B. Mellado, Anatomy of the real Higgs triplet model,JHEP04(2025) 003, [2411.18618]

    2025

  15. [25]

    N. F. Bell, M. J. Dolan, L. S. Friedrich, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and R. R. Volkas,Two-Step Electroweak Symmetry-Breaking: Theory Meets Experiment,JHEP05(2020) 050, [2001.05335]. [26]Particle Data Groupcollaboration, R. L. Workman et al.,Review of Particle Physics, PTEP2022(2022) 083C01

    2020 arXiv

  16. [27]

    Vaskonen,Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet,Phys

    V. Vaskonen,Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 123515, [1611.02073]. [28]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of the properties of Higgs boson production at √s= 13 TeV in theHtoγγchannel using 139 fb −1 of ...

    2017 arXiv

  17. [30]

    Chen, C.-Q

    C.-S. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, D. Huang and L.-H. Tsai,New Scalar Contributions toh→Zγ, Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 075019, [1301.4694]. – 16 – [31]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [Erratum...

    2013 arXiv

  18. [36]

    Capdevilla, F

    R. Capdevilla, F. Meloni and J. Zurita,Discovering Electroweak Interacting Dark Matter at Muon Colliders Using Soft Tracks,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 181802, [2405.08858]. [37]ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEPcollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combine...

    2025 arXiv

  19. [39]

    Chala, M

    M. Chala, M. Ramos and M. Spannowsky,Gravitational wave and collider probes of a triplet Higgs sector with a low cutoff,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 156, [1812.01901]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [40]

    C. L. Wainwright,CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields,Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 2006–2013, [1109.4189]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [41]

    Apreda, M

    R. Apreda, M. Maggiore, A. Nicolis and A. Riotto,Gravitational waves from electroweak phase transitions,Nucl. Phys. B631(2002) 342–368, [gr-qc/0107033]

    2002 arXiv

  22. [42]

    Chao, H.-K

    W. Chao, H.-K. Guo and J. Shu,Gravitational Wave Signals of Electroweak Phase Transition Triggered by Dark Matter,JCAP09(2017) 009, [1702.02698]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [43]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 2837–2851, [astro-ph/9310044]

    1994 arXiv

  24. [44]

    Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,JCAP04(2016) 001, [1512.06239]. – 17 –

    2016 arXiv

  25. [45]

    Thrane and J

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano,Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 124032, [1310.5300]. [46]LISAcollaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al.,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,1702.00786

    2013 arXiv

  26. [47]

    Gong et al.,Descope of the ALIA mission,J

    X. Gong et al.,Descope of the ALIA mission,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.610(2015) 012011, [1410.7296]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [48]

    Corbin and N

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish,Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2435–2446, [gr-qc/0512039]

    2006 arXiv

  28. [49]

    Kawamura et al.,Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,PTEP2021(2021) 05A105, [2006.13545]

    S. Kawamura et al.,Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,PTEP2021(2021) 05A105, [2006.13545]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [50]

    Kudoh, A

    H. Kudoh, A. Taruya, T. Hiramatsu and Y. Himemoto,Detecting a gravitational-wave background with next-generation space interferometers,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 064006, [gr-qc/0511145]. [51]CMScollaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al.,Observation of the Production of Three Massive Gauge...

    2006 arXiv

  30. [52]

    Bandyopadhyay, K

    P. Bandyopadhyay, K. Huitu and A. Sabanci Keceli,Multi-Lepton Signatures of the Triplet Like Charged Higgs at the LHC,JHEP05(2015) 026, [1412.7359]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [53]

    Bandyopadhyay, C

    P. Bandyopadhyay, C. Corian` o and A. Costantini,General analysis of the charged Higgs sector of theY= 0triplet-singlet extension of the MSSM at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 055030, [1512.08651]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [54]

    Bandyopadhyay and A

    P. Bandyopadhyay and A. Costantini,Obscure Higgs boson at Colliders,Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 015025, [2010.02597]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [55]

    Djouadi,The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

    A. Djouadi,The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I: The Higgs boson in the standard model,Phys. Rept.457(2008) 1–216, [hep-ph/0503172]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [56]

    Djouadi,The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

    A. Djouadi,The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model,Phys. Rept.459(2008) 1–241, [hep-ph/0503173]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [57]

    Degrande, K

    C. Degrande, K. Hartling and H. E. Logan,Scalar decays toγγ,Zγ, andW γin the Georgi-Machacek model,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 075013, [1708.08753]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 98, 019901 (2018)]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [58]

    L. T. Hue, A. B. Arbuzov, T. T. Hong, T. P. Nguyen, D. T. Si and H. N. Long,General one-loop formulas for decayh→Zγ,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 885, [1712.05234]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [59]

    Ghosh, T

    P. Ghosh, T. Ghosh and S. Roy,Interplay among gravitational waves, dark matter and collider signals in the singlet scalar extended type-II seesaw model,JHEP10(2023) 057, [2211.15640]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [60]

    R. R. Parwani,Resummation in a hot scalar field theory,Phys. Rev. D45(1992) 4695, [hep-ph/9204216]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 48, 5965 (1993)]. – 18 –

    1992 arXiv

  39. [61]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa,The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Beyond leading-order,Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 3546, [hep-ph/9212235]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 50, 6662 (1994)]. – 19 –

    1993 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.