Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Discovery Prospects for the 150 GeV charged scalar at Future $e^+e^-$ Colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A 150 GeV charged scalar in the real Higgs triplet model can be discovered at a 350 GeV e+e- collider with under 1 fb^-1, and its mass measured to about 750 MeV.

desk verdict A useful, mostly standard e+e- projection for the 150 GeV charged triplet scalar, but the SR1 and SR3 background budgets are incomplete enough that the headline <1 fb^-1 claim needs a check before being quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.14378 v2 pith:Z4EGNTTD submitted 2025-09-17 hep-ph

Siddharth P. Maharathy , Phodiso Maroeshe , Paballo Ndhlovu , Srimoy Bhattacharya , Andreas Crivellin , Mukesh Kumar , Rachid Mazini , Bruce Mellado This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords realHiggstripletmodelchargedfuturee+e-collider152GeVexcessmulti-leptonanomaliessignalregionsmassreconstructionDrell-Yanproduction
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 argues that the charged scalar of the real Higgs triplet model, the $\Delta^\pm$, with mass around 150 GeV, can be discovered at a future $e^+e^-$ collider running at $\sqrt{s}=350$ GeV with remarkably little data: a $5\sigma$ discovery in the $\ge 3j+1\ell$ signal region with less than $1\text{ fb}^{-1}$, and a clean $\ge 3\ell+\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel for confirmation. It further argues that a fully hadronic signal region, $\ge 4j+\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$, allows the charged scalar mass to be reconstructed from the $W^\pm Z$ and $\tau\nu$ decays, with a statistical uncertainty of about 750 MeV at $500\text{ fb}^{-1}$. This matters because the LHC has difficulty seeing the $\Delta^\pm$: its $\tau\nu$ decays mimic stau-like signatures and its $WZ$ decays produce soft objects, so current data only exclude a narrow mass window around 200-220 GeV. If correct, a future lepton collider would not only discover the charged partner of the 152 GeV excesses but also measure its mass directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the charged scalar $\Delta^\pm$ of the $Y=0$ real Higgs triplet model, produced at an $e^+e^-$ collider through Drell-Yan pair production via $\gamma^*/Z^*$, and decaying predominantly to $W^\pm Z$, $\tau\nu$, and $tb$. The analysis is carried by three signal regions built from those decays: a high-rate hadronic-plus-lepton channel (SR1), a clean three-lepton-plus-tau channel (SR2), both classified with a deep neural network, and a fully hadronic four-jet-plus-tau channel (SR3) in which the four jets from $W^\pm Z\to4j$ are combined with the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ (plus missing transverse momentum) to reconstruct the $\Delta^\pm$ invariant mass. The significance formula of Eq. (4.4), with a conservatively assumed 20% background systematic, converts the simulated fiducial cross sections into the quoted discovery luminosities.

What would settle it

Run the SR1 selection on 1 $fb^{-1}$ of 350 GeV e+e- data and observe no excess: the claimed 5σ discovery would fail. Equally, a complete simulation of SM backgrounds for SR3 (including WW/WZ/ZZ, triboson, ttbar, and multi-jet production) that yields a post-cut background above the 0.41 fb used in Table 7 would invalidate the 17 $fb^{-1}$ discovery projection and the ≈750 MeV mass error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that, for $m_{\Delta^\pm}\approx150$ GeV, electroweak pair production $e^+e^-\to \gamma^*,Z^*\to \Delta^+\Delta^-$ at $\sqrt{s}=350$ GeV yields observable final states through the dominant decays $\Delta^\pm\to W^\pm Z$, $\tau^\pm\nu$, and $tb$. Using three signal regions—SR1 ($\ge3j+1\ell$, DNN-enhanced), SR2 ($\ge3\ell+\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$, DNN-enhanced), and SR3 ($\ge4j+\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$, cut-based)—the paper finds a $5\sigma$ significance with less than $1\text{ fb}^{-1}$ in SR1, a $5\sigma$ reach at $500\text{ fb}^{-1}$ in SR2, and, from the reconstructed invariant mass distribution in SR3, a statistical mass uncertainty of $\approx750$ MeV at $500\text{ fb}^{-1}$. The net claim is that a 350 GeV lepton collider can discover the charged Higgs and pin down its mass with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ GeV accuracy, something the LHC cannot currently do.

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume that after the preselections only the simulated Standard Model backgrounds matter—tri-boson events for SR1, vector-boson-plus-tau events for SR2, and a single aggregate background for SR3—and that a 20% background systematic covers reconstruction uncertainties; if additional backgrounds such as WW/WZ/ZZ or multi-jet events leak into SR3, the 5σ luminosity and the 750 MeV mass accuracy would be overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A future $e^+e^-$ collider at $\sqrt{s}=350$ GeV can discover the $\Delta^\pm$ with less than $1\text{ fb}^{-1}$ in SR1, making the charged scalar one of the first new-physics targets for such a machine.
  • SR3 provides a direct mass measurement of $\Delta^\pm$ with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ GeV accuracy, which would sharpen the connection to the observed 152 GeV resonance and test the quasi-degenerate mass spectrum of the $\Delta$SM.
  • The three signal regions offer complementary handles: SR1 for fast discovery, SR2 for a clean cross-check with small systematic uncertainties, and SR3 for kinematical reconstruction.
  • Because the production is via $\gamma^*/Z^*$, the analysis relies on electroweak couplings rather than the triplet vacuum expectation value, so it remains sensitive even for small $v_\Delta$, where vector-boson fusion at the LHC is suppressed.
  • The method generalises to other electroweak-scale masses, as the authors note, so the same strategy can map the charged-scalar discovery reach beyond the 150 GeV benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 152 GeV excesses are indeed the neutral component of the triplet, the charged partner should be visible in SR1 within the first 1 fb^-1; a null result there would count against the $\Delta$SM interpretation of those excesses.
  • Because the SR3 measurement is statistics-dominated at 750 MeV while the jet-energy-scale systematic is about 150 MeV, the quoted $\mathcal{O}(1)$ GeV mass accuracy is likely to persist, but not improve much, as more luminosity is accumulated.
  • The same DNN-plus-signal-region strategy could be reused, once a signal is established, to measure $\Delta^\pm$ branching ratios, a step the paper explicitly leaves for future work.
  • Running at a centre-of-mass energy of 500 GeV, where the production cross section is smaller (see Fig. 2), would offer an independent consistency check of the Drell-Yan production mechanism and help separate production from decay kinematics.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the discovery prospects of the charged scalar Δ± in the real Higgs triplet model (ΔSM) at a future e+e− collider with √s = 350 GeV, focusing on the benchmark mΔ± ≈ 150 GeV motivated by anomalies near 152 GeV. The authors define three signal regions: SR1 (≥3 jets + 1 lepton), SR2 (≥3 leptons + τhad), and SR3 (≥4 jets + τhad), corresponding to different decay chains of the pair-produced Δ±. Using MadGraph5, Pythia8, and Delphes3 with the ILC detector card, they compute signal and background cross sections, apply a DNN for SR1 and SR2, and a cut-based analysis for SR3. They report that a 5σ discovery can be reached in SR1 with less than 1 fb−1, that SR2 is very clean, and that SR3 allows the charged scalar mass to be measured with a statistical uncertainty of ≈750 MeV at 500 fb−1. The paper also provides analytic expressions for the relevant decay widths and normalized kinematic distributions in appendices.

Significance. If the background estimates are reliable, the paper makes a strong case that a 350 GeV e+e− collider can discover a 150 GeV charged scalar and measure its mass with O(1) GeV precision using far less data than needed at the LHC, where this state is difficult to detect because its WZ, tb, and τν decay modes produce soft or missing particles. The analysis uses standard, publicly available simulation tools, defines signal regions clearly, and provides explicit tables of fiducial cross sections, which is a strength and makes the claim falsifiable. The main caveat is that the background budget is incomplete: the argument used to dismiss di-boson and multi-jet backgrounds explicitly relies on a lepton requirement, yet SR3 has no such requirement, and the DNN for SR1 is trained only against VVV backgrounds. If additional backgrounds contribute at the level of a few fb, the claimed discovery luminosities and the mass-measurement accuracy would need revision. This concern is concrete and can be resolved by including a more complete set of background processes in the revised manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 7] The background budget for SR3 is incomplete and this directly undermines the claimed sensitivity. The text states that 'the presence of a lepton and at least 3j in the final state reduces the multi-jet and di-boson background significantly, and hence we do not consider them,' but SR3 (≥4j + τhad) has no lepton requirement. Table 7 reports a single total background number (1.25 fb after preselection, 0.41 fb after all cuts) with no process decomposition. At √s = 350 GeV, the e+e− → WW cross section is of order picobarn, and even a survival probability of 10^-3 after the four-jet and τhad selections would add roughly a femtobarn to the SR3 background, more than doubling the quoted 0.41 fb. This would inflate the luminosity needed for 5σ from the claimed L ≈ 17 fb−1 and could also affect the mass reconstruction if the additional background is not smooth. The authors should provide a table listing all simulated background processes (WW, WZ, ZZ, qqbar, etc.) with their cross sections before and after each SR3 cut, or give a quantitative argument for their absence.
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 3] The SR1 DNN is trained only against VVV backgrounds, so its rejection power for WW/WZ/ZZ and multi-jet events is unknown. The fiducial VVV background after the DNN score cut of 0.7 is 3.67 fb, but the cross section for e+e− → WW at 350 GeV is orders of magnitude larger; a survival probability of only 10^-3 would add several fb of background. Since the central claim is that 5σ is reached with less than 1 fb−1, this is load-bearing. The authors should include WW, WZ, ZZ, and multi-jet samples in the DNN training and report their efficiencies, or otherwise demonstrate that these processes do not populate the ≥3j + 1ℓ phase space. Without this, the claimed discovery luminosity cannot be taken at face value.
  3. [Table 1] The acceptance condition θ < 9.38° applied to jets, leptons, and τhad appears to be a typo. Taken literally, it restricts all objects to a 9.38° cone around the beam axis, which would exclude the central region where the signal predominantly lies; for a typical e+e− detector with |cosθ| < 0.99 the intended condition is presumably θ > 9.38°. This is not merely a cosmetic issue: the quoted cross sections in Tables 3, 5, and 7 depend on the actual angular acceptance used in the simulation. The authors should correct this definition and confirm that the numbers were obtained with the intended acceptance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract states that 5σ is achieved in SR1 with 'less than 1 fb−1', while the Conclusions state '0.3 fb−1'. These numbers should be harmonized, or the discrepancy should be explained (e.g., different benchmark mass or systematic assumptions).
  2. [Figure 10] The caption of Fig. 10 uses mΔ± = 152 GeV, while the body of the paper uses mΔ± ≈ 150 GeV as the benchmark. Please make the mass values consistent.
  3. [Table 2] In Table 2, the variable 'mj2,j3' is defined as the invariant mass of 'the 2nd and 2rd leading jets'; this should be '2nd and 3rd'.
  4. [Equation (4.4)] The systematic uncertainty δb is assumed to be 20% with the statement 'Without delving into the details of estimating δb, we conservatively assume it to be 20%.' Since the significance formula is sensitive to δb, a brief justification based on object reconstruction or a range of values (e.g., 10–30%) would strengthen the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: discovery and mass-resolution projections are independent Monte Carlo sensitivity estimates; self-citations are motivational, and the omitted-background issue is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The discovery and mass-resolution projections are conditional Monte Carlo calculations, not fitted claims. The signal and background yields in Tables 3, 5, and 7 are obtained from MadGraph5_aMC, Pythia 8, and Delphes using the ΔSM Lagrangian and Standard Model background processes, and the significances follow from the standard asymptotic formula of Eq. (4.4) with an assumed 20% background systematic. No parameter is fitted to the claimed 5σ luminosities; the benchmark mΔ±≈150 GeV and vΔ≈3.4 GeV are inputs taken from the same group's earlier anomaly and electroweak fits, but the conditional projection 'if mΔ±≈150 GeV and vΔ≈O(1) GeV, then 5σ in SR1 at <1 fb−1' does not reduce to those fits and would be recomputed for any benchmark. The mass-resolution claim is a Gaussian-width/sqrt(N) sensitivity estimate from the simulated signal, not a prediction obtained by inverting the input mass. The paper does contain an unquantified background assumption in Section 4 ('The presence of a lepton and at least 3j ... reduces the multi-jet and di-boson background significantly, and hence we do not consider them') and a 20% systematic in Eq. (4.4) without a detailed derivation; these are correctness risks that could change the absolute luminosities, but they are not circular because they do not define the prediction in terms of itself. The self-citations to Refs. [25,33-35] motivate the benchmark but are not load-bearing for the significance calculation. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central projection rests on four model or analysis parameters (mass, VEV, mixing angle, background systematic) and five assumptions: the ΔSM model itself, the reality of the 152 GeV excess, the correctness of cited decay formulas, the validity of Delphes ILC simulation, and the completeness of the background list. The paper does not introduce new particles; it studies a model from its own earlier work. The most fragile input is the background completeness for SR3.

free parameters (4)
  • charged scalar mass mΔ± = 150 GeV (152 GeV in Fig. 10)
    Benchmark mass chosen from the same group's fits to 152 GeV multi-lepton, di-photon, Zγ, and WW excesses; not independently measured and affects cross sections and acceptances.
  • triplet VEV vΔ = 3.4 ± 1.0 GeV (2.3 ± 1.7 GeV without CDF II)
    Taken from electroweak precision fits cited from Refs [64-68]; controls decay branching ratios and the hW mode; uncertainty not propagated into the significance curves.
  • neutral mixing angle α = 0 (assumed)
    Set to zero for the benchmark; affects the subdominant hW decay and the mass splitting, and is not varied in the analysis.
  • background systematic uncertainty δb = 20%
    Assumed in Eq. 4.4 for all signal regions without a detailed estimate; directly controls the luminosity required for 5σ discovery.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The real Higgs triplet ΔSM with the scalar potential in Eq. 2.3 is the correct extension of the Standard Model.
    The entire signal prediction depends on this model; it is motivated by anomalies but not established.
  • domain assumption The observed multi-lepton anomalies and 152 GeV excesses are real and originate from the ΔSM.
    Used to justify the 150 GeV benchmark; cited evidence includes preprints by the same group [33-35], not independent confirmations.
  • standard math The decay width formulas and kinematic functions in Section 3 and Appendix A, taken from Refs [46,70-74], are correct.
    Standard results invoked without re-derivation; if wrong, branching ratios and event yields change.
  • domain assumption Delphes with the ILC card gives a reliable detector response for the three signal regions.
    No validation against real ILC data; the acceptance table contains an apparent sign error in θ, casting doubt on this assumption.
  • domain assumption After preselection, only VVV (and VVτν for SR2) contribute; multi-jet and di-boson backgrounds are negligible.
    Stated in Section 4, but SR3 has no lepton requirement, so the stated reason does not directly apply; no background breakdown is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery Prospects for the 150 GeV charged scalar at Future $e^+e^-$ Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z4EGNTTD

@misc{pith2026250914378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery Prospects for the 150 GeV charged scalar at Future $e^+e^-$ Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z4EGNTTD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.14378}
}
abstract

The Real Higgs Triplet model, known as the $\Delta$SM, is a minimal extension of the Standard Model (SM) obtained by adding a hypercharge 0 triplet ($\Delta$). This simple model is motivated by the multi-lepton anomalies and excesses in di-photon, $Z\gamma$, and $WW$ spectra at $\approx152$ GeV. The model contains, in addition to the SM particle content, a $CP$-even neutral Higgs ($\Delta^0$) and a charged state ($\Delta^\pm$), which are quasi-degenerate in mass. Observing the charged scalar at the LHC and measuring its mass is very challenging, since it dominantly decays to $WZ$, $tb$, and $\tau\nu$. In this article, we consider the discovery prospects of the charged Higgs with mass 150 GeV at future electron-positron colliders. Taking into account $e^+e^- \to \gamma^*,Z^* \to \Delta^\pm \Delta^\mp$ as the production mechanism and the dominant decay modes, we define three signal regions (SR) to study the 150 GeV charged Higgs properties: SR1: $\ge 3j + 1\ell$, SR2: $\ge 3\ell + \tau_{\text{had}}$, SR3: $\ge 4j + \tau_{\text{had}}$. For $m_{\Delta^\pm}=150\text{ GeV}$, a $5\sigma$ significance can be achieved in SR1 with an integrated luminosity of less than $1\text{ fb}^{-1}$. SR2 is very clean with leptonic final states having low background and small systematic uncertainties. Furthermore, SR3 is crucial for reconstructing the charged scalar invariant mass, which can be measured with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ GeV accuracy with an integrated luminosity of $500\text{ fb}^{-1}$.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multi-Lepton Probes of the Drell-Yan Production of Triplet Higgses

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The ΔSM real Higgs triplet model is consistent with LHC triboson excesses but predicts more events than observed and is not preferred over the Standard Model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,

    P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,”Phys. Lett. 12(1964) 132–133

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321–323

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,

    P. W. Higgs, “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,”Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 508–509

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

    Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles,

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles,”Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 585–587

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Partial-symmetries of weak interactions,

    S. L. Glashow, “Partial-symmetries of weak interactions,”Nuclear Physics22no. 4, (1961) 579–588. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0029558261904692

    arXiv 1961

  6. [6]

    A Model of Leptons,

    S. Weinberg, “A Model of Leptons,”Phys. Rev. Lett.19(1967) 1264–1266

    1967

  7. [7]

    Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions,

    A. Salam, “Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions,”Conf. Proc. C680519(1968) 367–377. [8]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “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) 1–29,arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]. [9]CMSCollaboration, S. Chatrchyanet al., “Observation of a New ...

    arXiv 1968

  8. [10]

    SCALAR PHANTOMS,

    V. Silveira and A. Zee, “SCALAR PHANTOMS,”Phys. Lett. B161(1985) 136–140

    work page 1985

Show all 67 references
  1. [11]

    The Electroweak phase transition in a nonminimal supersymmetric model,

    M. Pietroni, “The Electroweak phase transition in a nonminimal supersymmetric model,”Nucl. Phys. B402(1993) 27–45,arXiv:hep-ph/9207227. – 15 –

    1993 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter,

    J. McDonald, “Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 3637–3649,arXiv:hep-ph/0702143

    1994 arXiv

  3. [13]

    A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,

    T. D. Lee, “A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,”Phys. Rev. D8(1973) 1226–1239

    1973

  4. [14]

    The Search for Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond the Standard Model,

    H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, “The Search for Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond the Standard Model,”Phys. Rept.117(1985) 75–263

    1985

  5. [15]

    Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cosmology,

    J. E. Kim, “Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cosmology,”Phys. Rept.150 (1987) 1–177

    1987

  6. [16]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  7. [17]

    Electroweak baryogenesis in the two doublet model,

    N. Turok and J. Zadrozny, “Electroweak baryogenesis in the two doublet model,” Nucl. Phys. B358(1991) 471–493

    1991

  8. [18]

    Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons,

    W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, “Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons,”Phys. Lett. B70(1977) 433–435

    1977

  9. [19]

    Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2)×U(1)Models of Electroweak Interactions,

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, “Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2)×U(1)Models of Electroweak Interactions,”Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2860

    1980

  10. [20]

    Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, “Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,”Nucl. Phys. B181(1981) 287–300

    1981

  11. [21]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,”Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2227

    1980

  12. [22]

    Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, “Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,”Phys. Lett. B94(1980) 61–64

    1980

  13. [23]

    Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,”Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 165

    1981

  14. [24]

    Phenomenological signatures of additional scalar bosons at the LHC,

    S. von Buddenbrock, N. Chakrabarty, A. S. Cornell, D. Kar, M. Kumar, T. Mandal, B. Mellado, B. Mukhopadhyaya, R. G. Reed, and X. Ruan, “Phenomenological signatures of additional scalar bosons at the LHC,”Eur. Phys. J. C76no. 10, (2016) 580,arXiv:1606.01674 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Multi-lepton signatures of additional scalar bosons beyond the Standard Model at the LHC,

    S. von Buddenbrock, A. S. Cornell, A. Fadol, M. Kumar, B. Mellado, and X. Ruan, “Multi-lepton signatures of additional scalar bosons beyond the Standard Model at the LHC,”J. Phys. G45no. 11, (2018) 115003,arXiv:1711.07874 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [26]

    The emergence of multi-lepton anomalies at the LHC and their compatibility with new physics at the EW scale,

    S. Buddenbrock, A. S. Cornell, Y. Fang, A. Fadol Mohammed, M. Kumar, B. Mellado, and K. G. Tomiwa, “The emergence of multi-lepton anomalies at the LHC and their compatibility with new physics at the EW scale,”JHEP10(2019) 157,arXiv:1901.05300 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Anatomy of inclusivet¯tW production at hadron colliders,

    S. von Buddenbrock, R. Ruiz, and B. Mellado, “Anatomy of inclusivet¯tW production at hadron colliders,”Phys. Lett. B811(2020) 135964, arXiv:2009.00032 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [28]

    The anomalous production of multi-lepton and its impact on the measurement ofWhproduction at the LHC,

    Y. Hernandez, M. Kumar, A. S. Cornell, S.-E. Dahbi, Y. Fang, B. Lieberman, B. Mellado, K. Monnakgotla, X. Ruan, and S. Xin, “The anomalous production of multi-lepton and its impact on the measurement ofWhproduction at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 4, (2021) 365,arXiv:1912.006...

    2021 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Searching for low-mass resonances decaying into W bosons,

    G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. Bhattacharya, and B. Mellado, “Searching for low-mass resonances decaying into W bosons,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 3, (2023) 035026, arXiv:2302.07276 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Uncovering new Higgses in the LHC analyses of differentialttcross sections,

    S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado, “Uncovering new Higgses in the LHC analyses of differentialttcross sections,”JHEP01(2025) 155, arXiv:2308.07953 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Combined explanation of LHC multilepton, diphoton, and top-quark excesses,

    G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado, “Combined explanation of LHC multilepton, diphoton, and top-quark excesses,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 7, (2024) 073001,arXiv:2312.17314 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Anomalies in particle physics and their implications for physics beyond the standard model,

    A. Crivellin and B. Mellado, “Anomalies in particle physics and their implications for physics beyond the standard model,”Nature Rev. Phys.6no. 5, (2024) 294–309, arXiv:2309.03870 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Accumulating evidence for the associated production of a new Higgs boson at the LHC,

    A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, O. Fischer, S. Bhattacharya, M. Kumar, E. Malwa, B. Mellado, N. Rapheeha, X. Ruan, and Q. Sha, “Accumulating evidence for the associated production of a new Higgs boson at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 11, (2023) 115031,arXiv:2109.02650 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Growing Excesses of New Scalars at the Electroweak Scale,

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S.-E. Dahbi, Y. Fang, M. Kumar, and B. Mellado, “Growing Excesses of New Scalars at the Electroweak Scale,” arXiv:2306.17209 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  25. [35]

    Emerging Excess Consistent with a Narrow Resonance at 152 GeV in High-Energy Proton-Proton Collisions,

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Lieberman, M. Kumar, A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, R. Mazini, and B. Mellado, “Emerging Excess Consistent with a Narrow Resonance at 152 GeV in High-Energy Proton-Proton Collisions,”arXiv:2503.16245 [hep-ph]. [36]CMSCollaboration, A. M. Sirunyanet al., “Measuremen...

    2021 arXiv

  26. [44]

    Explaining theγγ+X excesses at≈151.5 GeV via the Drell-Yan production of a Higgs triplet,

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, “Explaining theγγ+X excesses at≈151.5 GeV via the Drell-Yan production of a Higgs triplet,”Phys. Lett. B862(2025) 139298,arXiv:2402.00101 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [45]

    Growing evidence for a Higgs triplet*,

    A. Crivellin, S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, “Growing evidence for a Higgs triplet*,”Chin. Phys. C49no. 5, (2025) 053107,arXiv:2404.14492 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [46]

    Anatomy of the real Higgs triplet model,

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, “Anatomy of the real Higgs triplet model,”JHEP04(2025) 003, arXiv:2411.18618 [hep-ph]. [47]CMSCollaboration, A. Tumasyanet al., “Search for direct pair production of supersymmetric partners...

    2025

  29. [48]

    Custodial symmetry breaking and Higgs boson signatures at the LHC,

    J. Butterworth, H. Debnath, P. Fileviez Perez, and F. Mitchell, “Custodial symmetry breaking and Higgs boson signatures at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 9, (2024) 095014,arXiv:2309.10027 [hep-ph]. [49]CEPC Study GroupCollaboration, M. Donget al., “CEPC Conceptual Design Report: ...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [50]

    Precision Higgs physics at the CEPC,

    F. Anet al., “Precision Higgs physics at the CEPC,”Chin. Phys. C43no. 4, (2019) 043002,arXiv:1810.09037 [hep-ex]. [51]CLICdp, CLICCollaboration, T. K. Charleset al., “The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,”CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2(2018) 1–112, arXiv:1812.06...

    2019 arXiv

  31. [55]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.I: Accelerator \& in the Technical Design Phase,

    “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.I: Accelerator \& in the Technical Design Phase,”arXiv:1306.6353 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [56]

    Neutral currents and the Higgs mechanism,

    D. A. Ross and M. J. G. Veltman, “Neutral currents and the Higgs mechanism,” Nucl. Phys. B95(1975) 135–147. – 18 –

    1975

  33. [57]

    Higgs triplets in the standard model,

    J. F. Gunion, R. Vega, and J. Wudka, “Higgs triplets in the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 1673–1691

    1990

  34. [58]

    (Non)decoupling of the Higgs triplet effects,

    P. H. Chankowski, S. Pokorski, and J. Wagner, “(Non)decoupling of the Higgs triplet effects,”Eur. Phys. J. C50(2007) 919–933,arXiv:hep-ph/0605302

    2007 arXiv

  35. [59]

    Precision observables in SU(2) x U(1) models with an additional Higgs triplet,

    T. Blank and W. Hollik, “Precision observables in SU(2) x U(1) models with an additional Higgs triplet,”Nucl. Phys. B514(1998) 113–134, arXiv:hep-ph/9703392

    1998 arXiv

  36. [60]

    Mass bounds in a model with a triplet Higgs,

    J. R. Forshaw, A. Sabio Vera, and B. E. White, “Mass bounds in a model with a triplet Higgs,”JHEP06(2003) 059,arXiv:hep-ph/0302256

    2003 arXiv

  37. [61]

    Higgs triplets and limits from precision measurements,

    M.-C. Chen, S. Dawson, and T. Krupovnickas, “Higgs triplets and limits from precision measurements,”Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 035001,arXiv:hep-ph/0604102

    2006 arXiv

  38. [62]

    Low-energy effective theory, unitarity, and non-decoupling behavior in a model with heavy Higgs-triplet fields,

    R. S. Chivukula, N. D. Christensen, and E. H. Simmons, “Low-energy effective theory, unitarity, and non-decoupling behavior in a model with heavy Higgs-triplet fields,”Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 035001,arXiv:0712.0546 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [63]

    Obscure Higgs boson at Colliders,

    P. Bandyopadhyay and A. Costantini, “Obscure Higgs boson at Colliders,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 1, (2021) 015025,arXiv:2010.02597 [hep-ph]. [64]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, R. L. Workmanet al., “Review of Particle Physics,”PTEP2022(2022) 083C01

    2021 arXiv

  40. [65]

    Electroweak precision tests for triplet scalars,

    Y. Cheng, X.-G. He, F. Huang, J. Sun, and Z.-P. Xing, “Electroweak precision tests for triplet scalars,”Nucl. Phys. B989(2023) 116118,arXiv:2208.06760 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [66]

    Triplet Scalars and Dark Matter at the LHC,

    P. Fileviez Perez, H. H. Patel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and K. Wang, “Triplet Scalars and Dark Matter at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 055024,arXiv:0811.3957 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [67]

    Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in the Higgs triplet model and implication with the recent Higgs boson searches,

    S. Kanemura and K. Yagyu, “Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in the Higgs triplet model and implication with the recent Higgs boson searches,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 115009,arXiv:1201.6287 [hep-ph]. [68]CDFCollaboration, T. Aaltonenet al., “High-precision measuremen...

    2012 arXiv

  43. [69]

    Searching for a Charged Higgs Boson in Top-Quark Decays via theWZMode,

    S. Ashanujjaman, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado, “Searching for a Charged Higgs Boson in Top-Quark Decays via theWZMode,”arXiv:2509.07094 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  44. [70]

    Decays of Heavy Higgs Bosons,

    T. G. Rizzo, “Decays of Heavy Higgs Bosons,”Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 722

    1980

  45. [71]

    HIGGS SCALAR DECAYS:H→W±X,

    W.-Y. Keung and W. J. Marciano, “HIGGS SCALAR DECAYS:H→W±X,”Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 248

    1984

  46. [72]

    Decays of the Higgs bosons,

    A. Djouadi, “Decays of the Higgs bosons,” inInternational Workshop on Quantum Effects in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, pp. 197–222. 12, 1997. arXiv:hep-ph/9712334

    1997 arXiv

  47. [73]

    The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I: The Higgs boson in the standard model,

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

    2008 arXiv

  48. [74]

    The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons – 19 – in the minimal supersymmetric model,

    A. Djouadi, “The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons – 19 – in the minimal supersymmetric model,”Phys. Rept.459(2008) 1–241, arXiv:hep-ph/0503173. [75]LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking GroupCollaboration, J. R. Andersenet al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs ...

    2008 arXiv

  49. [76]

    MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, “MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,”JHEP06(2011) 128,arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [77]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,”JHEP07...

    2014 arXiv

  51. [78]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159–177,arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]. [79]DELPHES 3Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. De...

    2015 arXiv

  52. [80]

    The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,” JHEP04(2008) 063,arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  53. [81]

    FastJet User Manual,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual,”Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896,arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  54. [82]

    Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu),

    A. F. Agarap, “Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu),”CoRR abs/1803.08375(2018) ,1803.08375.http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08375

    2018 arXiv

  55. [83]

    The generalized sigmoid activation function: Competitive supervised learning,

    S. Narayan, “The generalized sigmoid activation function: Competitive supervised learning,”Information Sciences99no. 1, (1997) 69–82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025596002009

    1997

  56. [84]

    Bishop,Pattern recognition and machine learning, vol

    C. Bishop,Pattern recognition and machine learning, vol. 4. Springer New York, 2006.http://scholar.google.com/scholar.bib?q=info:jYxggZ6Ag1YJ:scholar. google.com/&output=citation&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&ct=citation&cd=0

    2006

  57. [85]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,”Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]

    2011 arXiv

  58. [86]

    Analysis methods for results in gamma-ray astronomy,

    T. P. Li and Y. Q. Ma, “Analysis methods for results in gamma-ray astronomy,” Astrophys. J.272(1983) 317–324

    1983

  59. [87]

    R. D. Cousins, J. T. Linnemann, and J. Tucker, “Evaluation of three methods for calculating statistical significance when incorporating a systematic uncertainty into a test of the background-only hypothesis for a Poisson process,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A595no. 2, (2008) 480–501,...

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

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