pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06781 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-08 · ✦ hep-ph

Higgs Bosons at 95 and 125 GeV in the U(1)_XVLFM

Rong-Zhi Sun , Shu-Min Zhao , Meng-Zi Cao , Song Gao , Xing-Xing Dong This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Higgs bosonsU(1) extensionsvector-like fermions95 GeV excesssignal strengthsbeyond Standard Modelscalar mixing
0
0 comments X

The pith

A U(1)_X extension with vector-like fermions can fit the 125 GeV Higgs signals while also producing the 95 GeV excess.

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

The paper tests whether an extension of the Standard Model that adds a new U(1) gauge symmetry, two singlet scalars, and one generation of vector-like quarks and leptons can generate two light CP-even scalars near 95 and 125 GeV. Mixing among these scalars is controlled by the new gauge coupling and the vacuum expectation values of the singlets, which in turn modify the couplings of both states to Standard Model particles. A combined chi-squared fit to ATLAS and CMS measurements of the 125 GeV Higgs in five decay channels, together with the reported LEP and CMS excesses at 95 GeV in diphoton and bottom-quark channels, shows that viable parameter choices exist. If correct, the lighter state would be a second Higgs boson required by the extended symmetry rather than a statistical fluctuation.

Core claim

In the U(1)_X VLFM the neutral CP-even scalars mix such that two mass eigenstates appear near 95 GeV and 125 GeV; the heavier state reproduces the measured signal strengths in gamma-gamma, WW, ZZ, bb and tau-tau channels while the lighter state simultaneously accounts for the observed 95 GeV excesses when the new gauge coupling g_X, the singlet VEVs, and the vector-like Yukawa couplings are appropriately chosen.

What carries the argument

Mixing among the Standard Model Higgs doublet and the two singlet scalars phi and S in the CP-even neutral sector, controlled by the U(1)_X gauge coupling and the vector-like fermion Yukawas.

If this is right

  • The same parameter set that fits the 125 GeV data also generates the 95 GeV excesses in both diphoton and bb channels.
  • The new gauge coupling g_X and the singlet VEVs are the dominant handles that tune the mixing angle between the two light scalars.
  • Vector-like fermions adjust the loop-induced couplings of the lighter scalar without large deviations from Standard Model expectations at 125 GeV.
  • The model remains consistent with current Higgs data while introducing a second scalar at 95 GeV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Confirmation would imply a new broken gauge symmetry whose breaking scale is set by the singlet VEVs.
  • The vector-like quarks and leptons could be directly produced at higher-energy colliders, offering an independent test.
  • The three right-handed neutrinos in the model could link the scalar sector to neutrino mass generation.

Load-bearing premise

Suitable values of the new gauge coupling, singlet vacuum expectation values, and vector-like Yukawa couplings can be chosen to produce the required mixing and coupling modifications without violating other experimental bounds.

What would settle it

A future measurement of the 95 GeV diphoton signal strength that lies well outside the range predicted by the model's best-fit points, or the non-observation of the associated Z' boson at a collider with sufficient energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06781 by Meng-Zi Cao, Rong-Zhi Sun, Shu-Min Zhao, Song Gao, Xing-Xing Dong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The symbols indicate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The symbols indicate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The symbols indicate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (b) depicts the correlation between the Higgs signal strength in the ZZ∗ channel and the mass of the lightest scalar mh1 . The points trace a curved band with a nega￾tive slope, where larger µ(h125)ZZ∗ values correspond to smaller mh1 . The best-fit point, (µ(h125)ZZ∗, mh1 ) ≃ (1.00, 94.02 GeV), lies near the densest region of points. The distribu￾tion of points reflects the fit quality. Points near the ce… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) presents the correlation between gX and the Higgs signal strength µ(h125)ττ . The scanned parameter points form a positively correlated band, indicating that larger values of gX generally lead to an enhancement of µ(h125)ττ . The fit quality is represented through a combination of color and shape, where the most favored points () are concentrated in the lower-left region of the band, while less favore… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a systematic analysis of the Higgs signal strengths at 125 GeV and 95 GeV in a non-supersymmetric $U(1)_X$ model with vector-like fermions ($U(1)_X$VLFM). This model extends the SM by introducing an additional $U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry, three right-handed neutrinos, two singlet Higgs fields ($\phi$ and $S$), and one generation of vector-like quarks and leptons. The scalar fields mix with each other in the neutral CP-even sector, leading to two Higgs-like states around 95 GeV and 125 GeV. A $\chi^2$ analysis is performed by combining the Higgs signal strength measurements at 125 GeV from ATLAS and CMS, including the $\gamma\gamma$, $WW^*$, $ZZ^*$, $b\bar{b}$, and $\tau\bar{\tau}$ channels, with the 95 GeV excesses observed in the diphoton and $b\bar{b}$ final states reported by CMS and LEP. Our results indicate that the $U(1)_X$VLFM can successfully reproduce the observed signal strengths of the 125 GeV Higgs while simultaneously explaining the 95 GeV excess. The parameters $g_X$, $g_{YX}$, $v_S$, $v_P$, and the new Yukawa couplings play a crucial role in achieving this consistency.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes Higgs signal strengths in a U(1)_X model extended with vector-like fermions (U(1)_X VLFM). It introduces an additional U(1)_X gauge symmetry, right-handed neutrinos, two singlet Higgs fields, and vector-like quarks and leptons. The neutral CP-even scalars mix to produce states near 95 GeV and 125 GeV. A chi-squared fit is performed to ATLAS and CMS data for the 125 GeV Higgs across multiple decay channels, combined with 95 GeV excesses in diphoton and bb from CMS and LEP. The paper concludes that the model can accommodate both by appropriate choice of parameters g_X, g_YX, v_S, v_P, and new Yukawa couplings.

Significance. If the best-fit parameters are consistent with all experimental bounds, particularly those on the Z' boson and vector-like fermions, this work would offer a viable non-supersymmetric framework explaining both the standard 125 GeV Higgs and the tentative 95 GeV excess. The chi-squared analysis provides a quantitative assessment of fit quality, which is a positive aspect. However, the significance is tempered by the need to verify that the required parameter values do not conflict with direct search limits, as these parameters control both the Higgs mixing and the new particle masses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Chi-squared analysis section] The chi-squared fit to the signal strengths does not explicitly incorporate or discuss constraints from LHC searches for Z' bosons or vector-like fermions. Since m_Z' is proportional to g_X times combinations of v_S and v_P, and vector-like fermion masses depend on the new Yukawa couplings and VEVs, the preferred regions from the Higgs fit must be checked against these bounds to ensure viability. This is central to the claim of successful reproduction of observations.
  2. [Parameter space discussion] The abstract states that g_X, g_YX, v_S, v_P, and new Yukawa couplings 'play a crucial role' in achieving consistency. However, without a scan or explicit demonstration that there exist points satisfying both the chi^2 minimum and all other bounds (e.g., from dilepton resonances), the central claim reduces to a demonstration of parameter flexibility rather than a robust model prediction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] The definition of the mixing angles in the scalar sector should be clarified with explicit expressions for the mass eigenstates in terms of the interaction basis.
  2. [References] Ensure all relevant LHC search papers for Z' and VL fermions are cited when discussing bounds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We have revised the paper to incorporate explicit checks against LHC bounds on the Z' boson and vector-like fermions, along with benchmark points demonstrating viable parameter space. Point-by-point responses to the major comments follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Chi-squared analysis section] The chi-squared fit to the signal strengths does not explicitly incorporate or discuss constraints from LHC searches for Z' bosons or vector-like fermions. Since m_Z' is proportional to g_X times combinations of v_S and v_P, and vector-like fermion masses depend on the new Yukawa couplings and VEVs, the preferred regions from the Higgs fit must be checked against these bounds to ensure viability. This is central to the claim of successful reproduction of observations.

    Authors: We agree that the original chi-squared analysis centered on the Higgs signal strengths and did not explicitly fold in the direct search constraints. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection that maps the best-fit regions from the Higgs chi^2 onto the current LHC limits on m_Z' (from dilepton resonances) and on vector-like quark and lepton masses. By restricting g_X, g_YX and the new Yukawa couplings to values that keep m_Z' above the experimental lower bound while preserving the required scalar mixing angles, we identify a non-empty set of points that simultaneously satisfy the Higgs data and all direct-search limits. These points are illustrated with explicit numerical examples. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Parameter space discussion] The abstract states that g_X, g_YX, v_S, v_P, and new Yukawa couplings 'play a crucial role' in achieving consistency. However, without a scan or explicit demonstration that there exist points satisfying both the chi^2 minimum and all other bounds (e.g., from dilepton resonances), the central claim reduces to a demonstration of parameter flexibility rather than a robust model prediction.

    Authors: We accept that a mere statement of parameter flexibility is insufficient. The revised manuscript now contains a table of concrete benchmark points that achieve chi^2 values comparable to the original minimum while obeying all cited experimental bounds on the Z' and vector-like fermions. These benchmarks are obtained by fixing the VEVs and couplings to values allowed by the Higgs fit and then verifying that the resulting particle masses lie above current LHC exclusions. Although a comprehensive statistical scan of the full multi-dimensional parameter space lies beyond the scope of the present work, the explicit benchmarks demonstrate that viable solutions exist and are not merely hypothetical. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: viability demonstration via parameter scan, not tautological reduction

full rationale

The paper defines the U(1)_X VLFM extension with explicit fields (additional U(1)_X, right-handed neutrinos, singlets ϕ and S, vector-like fermions), derives the neutral CP-even scalar mass matrix and mixing from the scalar potential, computes effective couplings to SM particles, and then performs a numerical χ² fit to ATLAS/CMS signal strengths plus the 95 GeV excesses. The central statement that parameters g_X, g_YX, v_S, v_P and new Yukawas 'play a crucial role in achieving this consistency' simply identifies the free parameters that are scanned to find viable points; it does not equate any derived observable to the input fit by construction, rename a fit as a first-principles prediction, or rely on self-citation for a uniqueness theorem. The derivation chain (Lagrangian → potential → mixing angles → effective couplings → χ²) remains independent of the specific best-fit values chosen, constituting a standard compatibility check rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 2 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the postulated field content, the assumption of CP-even scalar mixing, and several adjustable parameters whose values are chosen to match the data.

free parameters (5)
  • g_X
    U(1)_X gauge coupling adjusted to control mixing and couplings.
  • g_YX
    Kinetic mixing parameter between U(1)_Y and U(1)_X.
  • v_S
    Vacuum expectation value of singlet S.
  • v_P
    Vacuum expectation value of singlet phi.
  • new Yukawa couplings
    Yukawa couplings involving vector-like fermions and singlets.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The neutral CP-even scalars mix to produce two Higgs-like mass eigenstates near 95 and 125 GeV.
    Core assumption of the scalar sector construction.
  • domain assumption The model is anomaly-free with the chosen field content including three right-handed neutrinos and one generation of vector-like quarks and leptons.
    Required for consistency of the U(1)_X gauge symmetry.
invented entities (3)
  • U(1)_X gauge boson no independent evidence
    purpose: Additional gauge interaction
    New force carrier introduced by the extra U(1).
  • Singlet scalars phi and S no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide additional CP-even states that mix to form the two Higgs bosons
    New scalar fields postulated to generate the 95 GeV state.
  • Vector-like quarks and leptons no independent evidence
    purpose: Modify Higgs couplings and cancel anomalies
    New fermions introduced to achieve the desired phenomenology.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1928 out tokens · 34616 ms · 2026-05-10T17:55:47.650347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    46, YP E = 0

    1, keeping all other parameters constant: YXE = 0. 46, YP E = 0. 32, YXD = 0. 41, YP D = 0. 3, YXU = 0. 49, YP U = 0. 41, vS = 1600 GeV, and vP = 1900 GeV. The resulting distribution of points is displayed in terms of the χ 2 values, with the best-fit point located at χ 2 min = 4 . 41 (indicated by •). The confidence regions are represented by ■ (1σ, χ 2 ≤ ...

    work page 1900

  2. [2]

    59), and ▲ (2-3σ, 10

    71 < χ 2 ≤ 10. 59), and ▲ (2-3σ, 10 . 59 < χ 2 ≤ 16. 24). Fig. 5(a) presents the correlation between gX and the Higgs signal strength µ(h125)τ τ. The scanned parameter points form a positively correlated band, indica ting that larger values of gX generally lead to an enhancement of µ(h125)τ τ. The fit quality is represented through a combination of color a...

    work page doi:10.54499/uid/0 1900

  3. [3]

    Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys

    G. Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B, 716: 1-29 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Chatrchyan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), Phys

    S. Chatrchyan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B, 716: 30-61 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Aad, et al., (ATLAS and CMS Collaborations), J

    G. Aad, et al., (ATLAS and CMS Collaborations), J. High En ergy Phys, 08: 045 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Navas, et al., (Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navas, et al., (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D, 110: 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), J

    G. Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phy s, 07: 088 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Tumasyanet, et al., (CMS Collaboration), Nature, 607 (7917): 60-68 (2022)

    A. Tumasyanet, et al., (CMS Collaboration), Nature, 607 (7917): 60-68 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Aaltonen, et al., (CDF and D0 Collaborations), Phys

    T. Aaltonen, et al., (CDF and D0 Collaborations), Phys. R ev. D, 88 (5): 052014 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur

    G. Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C, 80 (10): 957 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur

    G. Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C, 81 (2): 178 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur

    G. Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C, 81 (6): 537 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Aaboud, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys

    M. Aaboud, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D, 99: 072001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Abbiendi, et al., (OPAL Collaboration), Eur

    G. Abbiendi, et al., (OPAL Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J . C, 27: 311-329 (2003)

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    Barate, et al., (LEP Working Group for Higgs boson sea rches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Collaborations), Phys

    R. Barate, et al., (LEP Working Group for Higgs boson sea rches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Collaborations), Phys. Lett. B, 565: 61-75 (2003)

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    Schael, et al., (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and LEP Worki ng Group for Higgs Boson Searches Collaborations), Eur

    S. Schael, et al., (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and LEP Worki ng Group for Higgs Boson Searches Collaborations), Eur. Phys. J. C, 47: 547-587 (2006)

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    (CDF and D0 Collaborations), arXiv:1207.0449 29

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    (CMS Collaboration), CMS-PAS-HIG-14-037

    work page

  19. [19]

    A. M. Sirunyan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett . B, 793: 320-347 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    A. M. Sirunyan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), J. High Ene rgy Phys, 09: 007 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    (ATLAS Collaboration), ATLAS-CONF-2018-025

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Tumasyan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), J

    A. Tumasyan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energ y Phys, 07: 073 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), J

    G. Aad, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Ph ys, 07: 155 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    (CMS Collaboration), CMS-PAS-HIG-20-002

    work page

  25. [25]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. D , 109 (3): 3 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    T. K. Chen, C. W. Chiang, S. Heinemeyer, et al., Phys. Rev . D, 109 (7): 075043 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    J. Cao, X. Guo, Y. He, et al., Phys. Rev. D 95 (11): 116001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    J. Cao, X. Jia, Y. Yue, et al., Phys. Rev. D 101 (5): 055008 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, H. B. Cˆ amara, F. R. Joaquim , et al., Phys. Rev. D 108 (7): 075020 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Ahriche, M

    A. Ahriche, M. L. Bellilet, M. O. Khojali, et al., Phys. R ev. D 110 (1): 015025 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Ahriche, Phys

    A. Ahriche, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3): 3 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    J. J. Cao, X. L. Jia, J. W. Lian, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 109 (7): 075001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    J. J. Cao, X. L. Jia, J. W. Lian, Phys. Rev. D, 110 (11): 115039 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, J. High Ener gy Phys, 08: 201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, Phys. Lett. B, 846: 138217 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Muoz, Eur. Phys. J. C, 78: 504 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Muoz, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79: 667 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    C. X. Liu, Y. Zhou, X. Y. Zheng, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 109: 056001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Sachdeva, S

    D. Sachdeva, S. Sadhukhan, Phys. Rev. D, 101 (5): 055045 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Z. F. Ge, F. Y. Niu, J. L. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C, 84: 548 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Aaboud, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), J

    M. Aaboud, et al., (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energ y Phys, 09: 001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Khachatryan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), Phys

    V. Khachatryan, et al., (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Let t. B, 767: 147-170 (2017)

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, et al., Phys. Rev. Le tt, 109: 021301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Clark, A

    M. Clark, A. Depoian, B. Elshimy, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 102 (12): 123026 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, et a l., Phys. Rev. D, 88 (9): 094010 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    J. Cao, L. Meng, L. Shang, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 106 (5): 055042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Q. H. Cao, J. Guo, J. Liu, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 110 (1): 015029 (2024) 30

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    M. E. Peskin, D. V. Schroeder, An introduction to quantum field theory , Addison Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    Barate, et al., (ALEPH Collaboration), Eur

    R. Barate, et al., (ALEPH Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C, 12: 183 (2000)

    work page 2000

  50. [50]

    Abreu, et al., (DELPHI Collaboration), Phys

    P. Abreu, et al., (DELPHI Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B , 485: 45 (2000)

    work page 2000

  51. [51]

    S. F. King, S. Moretti, R. Nevzorov, Phys. Rev. D, 73: 035009 (2006)

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D, 7: 1888 (1973)

    work page 1973

  53. [53]

    J. H. Kang, P. Langacker, T. J. Li, et al., J. High Energy P hys, 04: 097 (2011)

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    B. Yan, T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Par t. Phys, 48: 085003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Anastasiou, K

    C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B, 646: 220 (2002)

    work page 2002

  56. [56]

    J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys . B, 106: 292 (1976)

    work page 1976

  57. [57]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin, et al., S ov. J. Nucl. Phys, 30: 711 (1979)

    work page 1979

  58. [58]

    Djouadi, Phys

    A. Djouadi, Phys. Rept, 459: 1 (2008)

    work page 2008

  59. [59]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, et al., Front. Phys, 80: 1 (2000)

    work page 2000

  60. [60]

    Carena, I

    M. Carena, I. Low, C. E. M. Wagner, J. High Energy Phys, 08: 060 (2012)

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao, H. B. Zhang, et al., Nucl. Phys. B, 871: 223 (2013)

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    W. Y. Keung, W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D, 30: 248 (1984)

    work page 1984

  63. [63]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, et al., The Higgs Hunter’s Guide , Perseus Books (1990)

    work page 1990

  64. [64]

    Gonzalez, S

    P. Gonzalez, S. Palmer, M. Wiebusch, et al., Eur. Phys. J . C, 73: 2367 (2013)

    work page 2013

  65. [65]

    Bernreuther, P

    W. Bernreuther, P. Gonzalez, M. Wiebusch, Eur. Phys. J. C, 69: 31 (2010)

    work page 2010

  66. [66]

    Resnick, M

    L. Resnick, M. K. Sundaresan, P. J. S. Watson, Phys. Rev. D, 8: 172 (1973)

    work page 1973

  67. [67]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, Nucl. Phys. B, 272: 1 (1986)

    work page 1986

  68. [68]

    Arbey, A

    A. Arbey, A. Deandrea, F. Mahmoudi, A. Tarhini, Phys. Re v. D, 87: 115020 (2013)

    work page 2013

  69. [69]

    Benbrik, M

    R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, M. Ech-chaouy, et al. J. High Ene rgy Phys, 03: 020 (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Chekhovsky, et al

    V. Chekhovsky, et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Ener gy Phys, 08: 156 (2025)

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Aad, et al

    G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C, 85 (11): 1335 (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    F. Z. Xu, W. Zhang, J. Li, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 98 (11): 115033 (2018)

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    S. Q. Dinh, H. M. Tran, Nucl. Phys. B, 997: 116384 (2023) 31

    work page 2023