Flavor Enhanced Chromomagnetic Dipole Moment in the Bestest Little Higgs Framework

A. Ramirez-Morales; C. Ortiz; R. Gamboa-Goni; T.Cisneros-P\'erez

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Flavor Enhanced Chromomagnetic Dipole Moment in the Bestest Little Higgs Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding flavor-changing couplings raises the Bestest Little Higgs top CMDM prediction to about $6\times 10^{-3}$, within the band probed by CMS.

desk verdict A competent one-loop CMDM calculation in the BLHM whose headline 10^-3 prediction rests on a scalar mass window the paper's own cited bounds exclude; the 'flavor enhancement' is not supported by its own results. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05560 v1 pith:NL4UFGKV submitted 2025-09-06 hep-ph hep-th

T.Cisneros-Pérez , A. Ramirez-Morales , R. Gamboa-Goni , C. Ortiz This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-th

keywords topquarkchromomagneticdipolemomentBestestLittleHiggsModelextendedCKMmatrixflavor-changingcouplingsone-loopformfactorheavypartnersLHCphenomenologybeyondStandard

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether the Bestest Little Higgs Model leaves a detectable imprint in the top quark's chromomagnetic dipole moment (CMDM), and argues that it does once the model's full flavor structure is included. The new ingredient is a pair of extended CKM-like matrices, $V_{Hu}$ and $V_{Hd}$, which generate flavor-changing couplings between the top quark, the heavy $B$ quark, and lighter quarks. Across a scan of the allowed parameter space, these couplings push the one-loop prediction to $|\hat{\mu}_t|\sim 6\times 10^{-3}$, roughly one to two orders of magnitude above the earlier BLHM estimate and inside the current CMS sensitivity band. The result matters because the top CMDM is an indirect probe of heavy partners and extra scalars that direct searches have not yet found.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended CKM structure: two unitary matrices, $V_{Hu}$ and $V_{Hd}$, satisfying $V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=V_{Hu}^\dagger V_{Hd}$, which rotate the BLHM flavor states and generate the flavor-changing vertices $W'^\pm$, $H^\pm$, $\phi^\pm$, $\eta^\pm$ connecting the heavy $B$ quark, the top, and the light quarks. These vertices are what the earlier CMDM calculation lacked, and they are the channel through which the numerical jump to $10^{-3}$ occurs. Because the six scanned matrices differ only mildly in the relevant entries, all six scenarios give nearly identical results and effectively collapse into two groups.

What would settle it

Apply the cited $A\to Zh$ and charged-Higgs exclusions directly to the BLHM spectrum of Table I: if the $(m_{A_0},m_{H^\pm})$ values near 155--409 GeV are covered, the parameter region carrying the $10^{-3}$ prediction is already disfavored and the calculation would have to be redone at higher masses. Independently, a top-CMDM measurement whose 95% C.L. interval excludes the range roughly $[-8,-4]\times 10^{-3}$ would contradict the central prediction of Table III.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that switching on the BLHM's extended flavor structure changes the predicted top CMDM from the $10^{-4}$--$10^{-6}$ range of the earlier calculation to order $10^{-3}$. The calculation is a one-loop evaluation of the chromomagnetic form factor $F_2$ from diagrams in which the top quark emits a gluon while a scalar ($A_0$, $H_0$, $h_0$, $H^\pm$, $\phi^\pm$, $\eta^\pm$, $\sigma$) or a vector ($Z$, $W^\pm$, $Z'$, $W'^\pm$) boson and a heavy partner quark ($T$, $T_5$, $T_6$, $T_{2/3}$, $T_{5/3}$, $B$) run inside the loop, with flavor-changing vertices carrying elements of $V_{Hu}$ and $V_{Hd}$. For six choices of those matrices and a scan over $\beta\in[1.10,1.40]\,\mathrm{rad}$ and $f\in[1,3]\,\mathrm{TeV}$, the total contribution sits at roughly $-(6.0\text{ to }6.7)\times 10^{-3}$, with 68% confidence-band widths near $10^{-4}$. The authors conclude that the flavor-enhanced BLHM prediction is competitive with other beyond-Standard-Model scenarios and compatible with the current CMS measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The $10^{-3}$ values come from a scanned region with pseudoscalar and charged-Higgs masses of 155--409 GeV, and the paper assumes that region is experimentally allowed even though it cites $A\to Zh$ and charged-Higgs searches that exclude those mass ranges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At the current CMS precision quoted in Eq. (1), the flavor-enhanced BLHM prediction $|\hat{\mu}_t|\sim 6\times 10^{-3}$ cannot be excluded, so the model remains consistent with existing top-dipole data.
A future CMDM measurement with uncertainty below roughly $2\times 10^{-3}$ would begin to separate this prediction from the earlier BLHM result, which lies one to two orders of magnitude lower.
Because all six flavor scenarios produce nearly identical CMDM values, the observable alone will not identify which extended-CKM structure is realized; complementary flavor observables would be needed.
Raising the symmetry-breaking scale $f$ from 1 to 3 TeV changes the prediction by only a few percent, making the $10^{-3}$ magnitude a stable feature across the allowed range.
The result puts the BLHM on par with other BSM scenarios such as 2HDM-II, technicolor, and extra-dimensional models for this observable, rather than far below them.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the same extended-CKM couplings drive flavor-changing top decays and can feed into $B$-meson processes, a consistent account of the $10^{-3}$ CMDM should also show up in those channels; the paper does not compute them, but they are the natural cross-checks.
The near-degeneracy of the six scenarios suggests the result is controlled by a single effective combination of matrix elements, essentially the top-heavy-$B$ entries; turning on mixing with first-generation quarks could move the prediction and deserves a dedicated scan.
The paper's own Table I puts $m_{A_0}=m_{H^\pm}$ between 155 and 409 GeV, below the 1 TeV threshold of the $A\to Zh$ exclusions it cites; applying those exclusions to the BLHM scalar sector would likely cut off the region where the $10^{-3}$ values are obtained.
A measurement with the same asymmetric-error structure as Eq. (1) but roughly half the current uncertainty would test the central prediction directly, since the model clusters at $-(6.0\text{ to }6.7)\times 10^{-3}$ with narrow confidence bands.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing to know: this is a legitimate one-loop calculation, but the central phenomenological claim is not established. The paper computes the top CMDM in the BLHM with an extended CKM structure and gets |mu_t| ~ 6x10^-3. That number is within the CMS sensitivity band, so the observable could be interesting. But the calculation is only shown for mA0 = mH± between 155 and 409 GeV, a region that the paper itself says ATLAS and CMS rule out via A->Zh for mA0 < 1 TeV (Refs. [33,34]) and that also conflicts with charged-Higgs searches. No recast of those bounds with BLHM couplings is attempted, and no result is shown for mA0 above 1 TeV. The stress-test note is right: the load-bearing premise of an 'experimentally allowed parameter space' is unsupported. That is a major flaw, not a cosmetic one.

What the paper does well: the amplitude setup in Eqs. (45)-(46) is standard, the Feynman rules are tabulated in the appendix, and the use of FeynCalc/Package-X is appropriate. It is a new computation in the sense that this extended-CKM contribution to the BLHM CMDM had not been reported. Credit where due: the numerical work is transparent enough that a motivated reader could reproduce it, and the paper honestly notes that the six flavor cases collapse into two groups.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. First, the flavor-enhancement framing: Case I has VHu = 1, no new mixing, and still gives the same 10^-3 magnitude. So the extended CKM is not what is driving the result. The paper admits this in Sec. VI B, but the abstract and title overclaim. That is a framing problem, not a math problem. Second, the uncertainty propagation: the abstract says model parameter uncertainties are propagated, but Table III shows uncertainties of a few percent, while the text says the main variation comes from beta, y1, y2, y3, and f. Those model variations are not in the quoted bands. Third, the extraction of F2 from the amplitudes is not shown, which makes the calculation harder to verify independently.

Who is this for? Someone doing BLHM phenomenology or top CMDM model discrimination would want to see this, but only after the parameter-space issue is fixed. As it stands, the headline result could be an artifact of an excluded mass window, so I would not cite it yet. It deserves a serious referee, because the computation is real and the issues are addressable with a recast of the Higgs searches and a high-mass scan. My recommendation: send to peer review, but expect the referee to require those changes before acceptance.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims a one-loop calculation of the top-quark chromomagnetic dipole moment (CMDM) in the Bestest Little Higgs Model (BLHM) augmented by an extended CKM flavor structure. Starting from generic one-loop scalar and vector amplitudes (Eqs. (45)-(46)) and using the Feynman rules tabulated in Appendix A, the authors scan the BLHM parameters beta, f, F, the Yukawa couplings, and six choices of V_Hu/V_Hd, propagate SM parameter uncertainties by Gaussian Monte Carlo sampling, and report |mu_t^{BLHM}| approximately 6 x 10^-3 in all six cases (Table III). They conclude that flavor mixing raises the BLHM prediction from the 10^-4-10^-6 range of Ref. [17] to a value within current CMS sensitivity (Eq. (1)).

Significance. The calculation addresses a quantity that is currently measured at the LHC with O(10^-3) sensitivity, and a robust prediction in that range would make the BLHM phenomenologically competitive with other BSM frameworks. The manuscript has clear strengths: the loop amplitudes are written in a standard form, the Feynman rules for the flavor-changing B-quark couplings are tabulated, six explicit flavor-mixing scenarios are defined, and the Monte Carlo error propagation is a reproducible procedure. However, the significance of the numerical result is conditional on two premises that the manuscript does not secure: the parameter region used is compatible with existing LHC Higgs searches, and the calculation is fully documented. As written, the central claim is therefore not yet established.

major comments (4)

[Sec. IV, Table I, Eq. (20), Refs. [33,34,37]] The parameter space used for the headline result conflicts with the experimental exclusions cited in the same paper. Table I and Eq. (20) fix mA0 = mH+/- in the range 155-409 GeV for all f and beta, while Sec. IV cites ATLAS and CMS A->Zh searches excluding mA0 < 1 TeV at 95% C.L. and charged-Higgs searches covering mH+/- up to 2000 GeV. No recast of those searches with the actual BLHM couplings is given, and no CMDM prediction is presented for mA0 above 1 TeV. The Abstract's claim of a 'broad region of the experimentally allowed parameter space' is therefore not supported, and the 10^-3 values in Table III could be an artifact of an excluded low-mass window.
[Sec. III, Eqs. (45)-(46)] The derivation of the central observable is incomplete. The manuscript states that the magnetic form factor F2 is computed from the amplitudes and that mu_t is extracted from F2, but it does not give the projection formula, the Passarino-Veltman reduction, the resulting analytic expressions, or any cross-check against the earlier BLHM result of Ref. [17] or the SM limit. Without these steps the numerical values in Table III cannot be independently verified or reproduced from the information provided.
[Sec. V.B and Table III] The Abstract's statement that 'model parameter uncertainties are considered and propagated' is not reflected in the calculation. The Monte Carlo procedure described in Sec. V.B samples only the experimental masses and SM parameters of Table II; the BLHM parameters beta, f, y1, y2, y3, gA, and gB are fixed. Consequently the 68% C.L. bands in Table III, of order +/-0.05 x 10^-3, do not include the sizable model-parameter dependence shown in Fig. 3(b), where the CMDM varies by roughly an order of magnitude over the allowed Yukawa range. The uncertainty propagation needs to include the BLHM parameters before the abstract's claim is justified.
[Sec. VI.B, Table III, title] The 'flavor enhanced' interpretation is not supported by the paper's own results. Table III gives |mu_t| approximately 6 x 10^-3 for every case, including Case I with V_Hu = 1, and Sec. VI.B states that the six cases collapse into two effectively indistinguishable groups. The comparison therefore does not demonstrate that the extended CKM flavor structure is responsible for the 10^-3 magnitude; the paper should identify the specific new vertices that drive the enhancement over Ref. [17] and show numerically how the result depends on them.

minor comments (6)

[Table III] The block headers 'Cases I,II,V,VI' and 'Cases II,IV' are inconsistent with the text's grouping into 'Case I,III,V,VI' and 'Case II,IV'; Case II appears in both blocks. Correct the labels.
[Table I] y3 is assigned the unit 'rad'; it is a Yukawa coupling and should be dimensionless.
[Sec. IV] The text says '1 < f < 3 TeV' while Table I uses f = 1, 2, 3 TeV; state explicitly whether the endpoints are included.
[Sec. V.B] The procedure is called a 'Monte Carlo bootstrap' but it is Gaussian sampling of input parameters rather than a bootstrap resampling; the terminology should be changed.
[Fig. 2 and text] The Fig. 2 caption identifies panel (b) as B_mu versus mH+/- while the text describes panel (b) as B_mu versus mH0; align the caption with the text.
[Throughout] Several typos and incomplete references remain, including 'diﬀiculties', 'the expresion', 'experimental allowed', 'it's spin properties', and the incomplete Ref. [16].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CMDM value is obtained from an explicit one-loop calculation with model inputs taken from prior work, and is not fitted to the CMDM measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical claim, |mu_t| ~ 6 x 10^-3, is obtained by an explicit one-loop computation (Eqs. 45-46) using Feynman rules for the BLHM extended flavor sector, with no parameter fitted to the CMDM measurement of Eq. (1). The extended CKM matrices VHu and VHd are model inputs adopted from Ref. [5], and the remaining Feynman rules are cited from Refs. [3,17]; these are independent model-building inputs that do not assume the target value 10^-3. The Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation samples SM parameters and propagates them through the formula; it is not an inverse fit. The six flavor cases are chosen as benchmark matrices and the paper itself notes they coalesce into two groups, which undermines the 'flavor enhanced' framing but is not circularity. The concern that the scanned scalar masses mA0 = mH± in 155-409 GeV may be excluded by the paper's own cited A->Zh and H±->tb searches is an experimental-consistency and correctness issue, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Self-citations are present, but none is load-bearing in the sense of replacing the calculation: Ref. [5] supplies the flavor structure, Refs. [3,17] supply vertex rules and the earlier BLHM estimate, and the comparison to Ref. [17] is a benchmark, not an input. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to the claimed CMDM result, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or symmetries. The extended CKM matrices are a reparametrization of quark mixing from Ref [5]. The calculation rests on a set of model parameters chosen by hand or bounded by experiments, plus the BLHM framework itself.

free parameters (11)

beta = 1.10 to 1.40 rad
Mixing angle between the two Higgs doublets; chosen from tan(beta)>1 and fine-tuning constraints; affects scalar masses and B_mu.
f = 1 to 3 TeV
First symmetry-breaking scale; scanned across the range consistent with heavy vector boson searches.
F = 5 TeV (central)
Second symmetry-breaking scale; chosen so that m_W' and m_Z' remain in the experimentally accessible window.
m4 = 500 GeV
Free BLHM mass parameter for the eta and phi scalar sector; fixed by hand with reference to new particle search scales.
gA = 2.1
Extended gauge coupling; chosen as an optimal value so that BLHM masses fall in the experimentally allowed range.
gB = 2.3
Extended gauge coupling; chosen together with gA to keep heavy vector masses consistent with bounds.
y1 = 0.5
Yukawa coupling; chosen as an optimal value in the allowed 0 to 1 range.
y2 = 0.9
Yukawa coupling; chosen as an optimal value; y3 is set by the top mass relation.
lambda0 = < 4 pi
Quartic Higgs coupling is only bounded above; no specific value is fixed, which affects the scalar mass spectrum.
K_sigma = implied by m_sigma in Table I
Free parameter in m_sigma^2 = 2 lambda0 K_sigma f^2; the paper does not state the chosen value explicitly.
Flavor mixing parameters for Cases III-VI = s12, s23, s13, deltas as listed in Sec V A
Ad hoc scenarios for the extended CKM matrix, chosen to probe large or SM-like mixing; not fitted to any observable.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The BLHM global symmetry breaking pattern SO(6)_A x SO(6)_B to SO(6)_V and the collective symmetry-breaking potentials are correct.
Section II defines the model; the central claim assumes this framework as the starting point.
ad hoc to paper The extended CKM structure of Ref [5] with VCKM = V_Hu^dagger V_Hd and the added B-quark couplings preserves the BLHM and avoids tree-level FCNCs.
Section II D imports this model-building assumption from a self-cited paper; it is a key input to the CMDM calculation.
domain assumption One-loop QCD chromomagnetic form factor extraction via the effective Lagrangian of Eq. (43) is a valid parametrization of the CMDM.
Section III asserts this standard effective operator treatment; the paper does not provide a derivation of its validity in the BLHM.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flavor Enhanced Chromomagnetic Dipole Moment in the Bestest Little Higgs Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NL4UFGKV

@misc{pith2026250905560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flavor Enhanced Chromomagnetic Dipole Moment in the Bestest Little Higgs Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NL4UFGKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05560}
}

abstract

We investigate the anomalous Chromomagnetic Dipole Moment (CMDM), $\hat{\mu}_t^{\mathrm{BLHM}}$, of the top quark within the Bestest Little Higgs Model (BLHM). Our study incorporates novel interactions arising from the extended CKM matrix in the BLHM and explores a broad region of the experimentally allowed parameter space, yielding CMDM values on the order of $10^{-3}$. This result represents an improvement over previous CMDM calculations within the BLHM and makes it competitive with other beyond the Standard Model scenarios. Experimental and model parameter uncertainties are considered and propagated through our calculations, using a Monte Carlo method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05560 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The left diagram shows the interactions of the SM top quark and the BLHM heavy quarks Qj = (T, T 5 , T 6 , T 2/3 , T 5/3 , B), with the scalar fields Si = (A 0 , H0 , h0 , H±, ϕ0 , η0 , σ, ϕ±, η±). The right diagram shows the interactions of the SM top quark and Qj with the vector fields Vi = (Z 0 , W±, γ, Z′ , W′±). Both diagrams also include the SM top and bottom quarks in the loop. q represents the initial gluon … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Contour plots of the dependence of some selected BLHM parameters on scalar boson masses, the mixing angle β, and the symmetry-breaking scales f and F. (a) The bilinear coupling Bµ as a function of the pseudoscalar mass mA0 and β. (b) Bµ as a function of the charged Higgs mass mH± and β. (c) Fine-tuning parameter Ψ as a function of f and β. (d) Charged gauge mass mW′ as a function of the two symmetry-breaking scales … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) Dependence of µˆ BLHM t on the parameters gA and gB. (b) CMDM dependence on the ratio between y1 and y2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Case I. Total contributions to the CMDMs with the CKM matrix VHu = 1 and four different β angles. from this, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Cases I-VI. Total contributions to the CMDMs with the full spectrum of possible CKM matrix (VHu) and β values. The solid lines represent Case I, III, V, VI, while the dashed ones represent Case II, IV. Note that in both effective cases, the error bands resulting from …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cases I, III, V, VI and II, IV . Total contributions to the CMDM for β angle indicated in each plot. Plots (a)-(d) refer to Case I, III, V, VI, while (e)-(h) plots are for Case II, IV. The solid reds lines correspond to the central values of our calculations. The orang…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[17]

Martinez and J

R. Martinez and J. A. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3212- 3214 (1997)

work page 1997
[1]

(31) The coupling yt is given by: y2 t = 9y2 1y2 2y2 3 (y2 1 + y2 2)(y2 1 + y2

work page
[2]

Cruz-Albaro, A

E. Cruz-Albaro, A. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, J. I. Aranda and F. Ramírez-Zavaleta, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1095 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

(33) Ψ serves as measure to quantify how sensitive the elec- troweak scale is to radiative corrections in different sec- tors [ 1]

, (32) that is part of the measure of fine-tuning, Ψ, in the BLHM [ 25], Ψ = 27f 2 8π2v2λ0 cos2 β |y1|2|y2|2|y3|2 |y2|2 − |y3|2 log |y1|2 + |y2|2 |y1|2 + |y3|2 . (33) Ψ serves as measure to quantify how sensitive the elec- troweak scale is to radiative corrections in different sec- tors [ 1]. D. Flavor mixing in the BLHM The authors of Ref. [ 17] consider...

work page 2000
[4]

This work

This choice, which departs from the standard CKM matrix, is expected to allow the inclusion of additional effects arising from mixing within the BLHM. The struc- ture of the VHd matrix implies that the first generation of the heavy quark sector does not mix, while maximal mixing is introduced between the second and third gen- erations by setting θ23 = π/4...

work page
[5]

− y2 1y4 2(y2 2 + 3y2 3) A3 −4mW y3 1y2y3 2y2 1 − y2 2 A4 8mW y3 1(y2 2 + y2 3) 2y2 1 − y2 2 A5 −4mW y3 1 2y2 1 − y2 2 A6 4mW y3 1y2 y3(2y2 1 − y2 2)

work page
[6]

Schmaltz, D

M. Schmaltz, D. Stolarski and J. Thaler, JHEP 09, 018 (2010)

2010
[7]

Cruz-Albaro, A

E. Cruz-Albaro, A. Gutierrez-Rodrıguez, M. A. Hernandez-Ruız and T. Cisneros-Perez, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 506 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 55 references

[8]

Cruz-Albaro and A

E. Cruz-Albaro and A. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 1295 (2022)

2022
[9]

Cisneros-Pérez, M

T. Cisneros-Pérez, M. A. Hernández-Ruíz, A. Gutiérrez- Rodríguez, E. Cruz-Albaro, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1093 (2023)

2023
[10]

Martinez, M

R. Martinez, M. A. Perez and N. Poveda, Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 221-230 (2008)

2008
[11]

J. I. Aranda, T. Cisneros-Pérez, J. Montaño, B. Quezadas-Vivian, F. Ramírez-Zavaleta and E. S. Tu- tuti, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 164 (2021)

2021
[12]

Martinez and J

R. Martinez and J. A. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D 65, 057301 (2002)

2002
[13]

J. I. Aranda, D. Espinosa-Gómez, J. Montaño, B. Quezadas-Vivian, F. Ramírez-Zavaleta and E. S. Tututi, Phys. Rev. D 98, 116003 (2018)

2018
[14]

Montano-Domínguez, F Ramŕez-Zavaleta, E

J. Montano-Domínguez, F Ramŕez-Zavaleta, E. S. Tututi and E. Urquiza-Trejo J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 50 115004 (2023). 16

2023
[15]

Ding and C

L. Ding and C. X. Yue, Commun. Theor. Phys. 50, 441- 444 (2008)

2008
[16]

A. I. Hernández-Juárez, G. Tavares-Velasco and A. Moy- otl, Chin. Phys. C 45, 113101 (2021)

2021
[18]

A. I. Hernández-Juárez, A. Moyotl and G. Tavares- Velasco, Phys. Rev. D 98, 035040 (2018)

2018
[19]

Martinez, M.A

R. Martinez, M.A. Perez, O.A. Sampayo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 1061 (2010), arXiv:0805.0371[hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[20]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14065 (2024)

Subhadip Bisal, arxiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14065 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[21]

J. I. Aranda, T. Cisneros-Pérez, E. Cruz-Albaro, J. Montaño-Domínguez and F. Ramírez-Zavaleta. arXiv:2111.03180 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[22]

Sirunyan, et al

A. Sirunyan, et al. , Phys. Rev. D 100, 072002 (2019)

2019
[23]

Sirunyan, et al

A. Sirunyan, et al. , JHEP 06, 146 (2020)

2020
[24]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973)

1973
[25]

The ATLAS collaboration., Aad, G., Abbott, B. et al. Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into a top quark and a bottom quark at s = 13 TeV with the AT- LAS detector. J. High Energ. Phys. 2021, 145 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2021)145

2021 doi
[26]

Aad, G., Aakvaag, E

The ATLAS collaboration. Aad, G., Aakvaag, E. et al. Search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons decay- ing into a top quark pair in 140 fb-1 of proton- proton collision data at = 13 TeV with the AT- LAS detector. J. High Energ. Phys. 2024, 13 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2024)013

2024 doi
[27]

Phys. Rev. D 101, 012002 - Published 3 January, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.012002

2020 doi
[28]

Schmaltz and J

M. Schmaltz and J. Thaler, JHEP 03, 137 (2009)

2009
[29]

doi: 10.22215/etd/2012-09748, (2012)

Moats, K. doi: 10.22215/etd/2012-09748, (2012)

2012 doi
[30]

T. A. W. Martin. doi:10.22215/etd/2012-09697, (2012)

2012 doi
[31]

Blanke, A

M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, A. Poschenrieder, S. Recksiegel, C. Tarantino, S. Uhlig and A. Weiler, Phys. Lett. B646, 253 (2007)

2007
[32]

Blanke, A

M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, A. Poschenrieder, S. Recksiegel, C. Tarantino, S. Uhlig and A. Weiler, JHEP 01, 066 (2007)

2007
[33]

Godfrey, T

S. Godfrey, T. Gregoire, P. Kalyniak, T. A. W. Martin and K. Moats, JHEP 04, 032 (2012)

2012
[34]

Kalyniak, T

P. Kalyniak, T. Martin and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 91, 013010 (2015)

2015
[35]

Reviews In Physics

Rappoccio, S. Reviews In Physics. 4 pp. 100027 (2019)

2019
[36]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 396 (2021)

2021
[37]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B744, 163 (2015)

2015
[38]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 03, 055 (2020)

2020
[39]

Hashemi and G

M. Hashemi and G. Haghighat, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 419 (2019)

2019
[40]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 09, 032 (2023)

2023
[41]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 06, 145 (2021)

2021
[42]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 09, 051 (2023)

2023
[43]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. D 105, 032008 (2022)

2022
[44]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 688 (2021)

2021
[45]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JHEP 08, 153 (2023)

2023
[46]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 719 (2023)

2023
[47]

Aaboud et al

M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 07, 089 (2018)

2018
[48]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 08, 177 (2018)

2018
[49]

& Paz, G

Hubisz, J., Lee, S. & Paz, G. Journal Of High Energy Physics. 2006, 041 (2006)

2006
[50]

& Weiler, Journal Of High Energy Physics

Blanke, M., Buras, A., Poschenrieder, A., Tarantino, C., Uhlig, S. & Weiler, Journal Of High Energy Physics . 2006, 003 (2006)

2006
[51]

Shtabovenko, R

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107478 (2020)

2020
[52]

H. H. Patel, Comput. Phys. Commun. 218, 66 (2017)

2017
[53]

Efron, R.J

B. Efron, R.J. Tibshirani, Mono. Stat. Appl. Probab. Chapman and Hall, London, (1993)

1993
[54]

Molina, M

D. Molina, M. De Sanctis, C. Fernández-Ramírez and E. Santopinto, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 526 (2020)

2020
[55]

R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

Martinez and J

R. Martinez and J. A. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3212- 3214 (1997)

work page 1997

[2] [1]

(31) The coupling yt is given by: y2 t = 9y2 1y2 2y2 3 (y2 1 + y2 2)(y2 1 + y2

work page

[3] [2]

Cruz-Albaro, A

E. Cruz-Albaro, A. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, J. I. Aranda and F. Ramírez-Zavaleta, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1095 (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [3]

(33) Ψ serves as measure to quantify how sensitive the elec- troweak scale is to radiative corrections in different sec- tors [ 1]

, (32) that is part of the measure of fine-tuning, Ψ, in the BLHM [ 25], Ψ = 27f 2 8π2v2λ0 cos2 β |y1|2|y2|2|y3|2 |y2|2 − |y3|2 log |y1|2 + |y2|2 |y1|2 + |y3|2 . (33) Ψ serves as measure to quantify how sensitive the elec- troweak scale is to radiative corrections in different sec- tors [ 1]. D. Flavor mixing in the BLHM The authors of Ref. [ 17] consider...

work page 2000

[5] [4]

This work

This choice, which departs from the standard CKM matrix, is expected to allow the inclusion of additional effects arising from mixing within the BLHM. The struc- ture of the VHd matrix implies that the first generation of the heavy quark sector does not mix, while maximal mixing is introduced between the second and third gen- erations by setting θ23 = π/4...

work page

[6] [5]

− y2 1y4 2(y2 2 + 3y2 3) A3 −4mW y3 1y2y3 2y2 1 − y2 2 A4 8mW y3 1(y2 2 + y2 3) 2y2 1 − y2 2 A5 −4mW y3 1 2y2 1 − y2 2 A6 4mW y3 1y2 y3(2y2 1 − y2 2)

work page

[7] [6]

Schmaltz, D

M. Schmaltz, D. Stolarski and J. Thaler, JHEP 09, 018 (2010)

2010

[8] [7]

Cruz-Albaro, A

E. Cruz-Albaro, A. Gutierrez-Rodrıguez, M. A. Hernandez-Ruız and T. Cisneros-Perez, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 506 (2023)

work page 2023