pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14284 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

A Busy Higgs Signal

Peiran Li , Zhen Liu , Lian-Tao Wang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Higgs bosonsresonanceseffective field theorybeyond Standard Modelcollider searchesmulti-Higgs productionelectroweak symmetry breaking
0
0 comments X

The pith

Higher-order Higgs couplings can selectively amplify Higgs-rich final states to become the leading discovery channels for new resonances.

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

The paper establishes that higher-order Higgs couplings can generate an electroweak-symmetry-breaking enhancement that boosts production and decay rates into states with multiple Higgs bosons more than into gauge-boson states. This breaks the usual expectation from SU(2) symmetry and the Goldstone equivalence theorem that Higgs and vector-boson channels should show comparable sensitivity in resonance searches. If correct, experimental priorities shift toward di-Higgs, tri-Higgs, and four-Higgs channels for heavy scalars, and toward associated Higgs channels for fermions and vectors. A sympathetic reader cares because the mechanism changes which final states are expected to reveal new physics first at colliders.

Core claim

In the conventional picture, SU(2) symmetry together with the Goldstone Equivalence Theorem correlates Higgs and gauge-boson final states, implying comparable sensitivity in channels such as hh, ZZ, and WW for heavy resonances. Higher-order Higgs couplings can induce an electroweak-symmetry-breaking enhancement that selectively amplifies Higgs-rich final states, allowing them to become the leading discovery channels of new resonances. For scalar resonances, this can make di-Higgs the dominant bosonic signal. For resonance masses higher than a couple of TeV, it also opens resonant tri-Higgs and four-Higgs channels as well-motivated search targets. The same underlying mechanism extends toheavy

What carries the argument

The electroweak-symmetry-breaking enhancement induced by higher-order Higgs couplings in an effective field theory, which parametrically violates the usual correlation between Higgs and gauge-boson rates.

If this is right

  • For scalar resonances, di-Higgs production becomes the dominant bosonic signal instead of ZZ or WW.
  • Resonant tri-Higgs and four-Higgs production open as viable search targets once resonance masses exceed roughly 2 TeV.
  • The enhancement applies equally to heavy fermionic resonances, boosting ht final states, and to vector resonances, boosting Zh and γh channels.
  • Collider search strategies should be redesigned to prioritize Higgs-rich final states when hunting for these resonances.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Existing limits on heavy resonances derived only from gauge-boson channels may need re-interpretation if the enhancement operates.
  • Dedicated multi-Higgs resonance searches at the LHC and future colliders could uncover signals missed by conventional analyses.
  • The mechanism offers a concrete way to test higher-dimensional Higgs operators through resonance phenomenology.

Load-bearing premise

The higher-order Higgs couplings are large enough and remain inside a valid effective field theory regime without violating unitarity or other constraints at the relevant energies.

What would settle it

Observation of a heavy resonance decaying into gauge bosons at rates matching standard predictions while showing no corresponding excess in di-Higgs or multi-Higgs channels would indicate the enhancement is absent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14284 by Lian-Tao Wang, Peiran Li, Zhen Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. BR of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Existing 95% C.L. upper limits on the heavy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Projected 95% C.L. mass reaches of heavy scalar at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Projected 95% C.L. mass reach at the LHC for heavy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Branching ratios (tree level) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Branching ratios (1-loop level) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Loop correction with insertion of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Higgs final states are prime targets in the search for physics beyond the Standard Model. In the conventional picture, $SU(2)$ symmetry together with the Goldstone Equivalence Theorem correlates Higgs and gauge-boson final states, implying comparable sensitivity in channels such as $hh$, $ZZ$, and $WW$ in searches for heavy resonances. In this work, we identify a mechanism to parametrically violate this expectation. We show that higher-order Higgs couplings can induce an electroweak-symmetry-breaking enhancement that selectively amplifies Higgs-rich final states, allowing them to become the leading discovery channels of new resonances. For scalar resonances, this can make di-Higgs the dominant bosonic signal. For resonance masses higher than a couple of TeV, it also opens resonant tri-Higgs and four-Higgs channels as well-motivated search targets. The same underlying mechanism extends to heavy fermionic and vector resonances, where it can similarly enhance channels such as $ht$, $Zh$, and $\gamma h$. We present this framework in effective field theory, demonstrate possible UV completions, and discuss its implications for collider searches.

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 paper claims that higher-order Higgs couplings in an EFT framework can induce an electroweak-symmetry-breaking enhancement that selectively amplifies Higgs-rich final states for heavy resonances, violating the conventional Goldstone Equivalence Theorem expectation of comparable Higgs and gauge-boson sensitivities. For scalar resonances this can make di-Higgs the dominant bosonic decay mode, with resonant tri-Higgs and four-Higgs channels becoming viable above a couple of TeV; the mechanism extends analogously to fermionic and vector resonances (e.g., enhancing ht, Zh, γh). The work presents the EFT construction, possible UV completions, and implications for collider searches.

Significance. If the required parameter regime can be shown to be consistent with unitarity and existing constraints, the result would meaningfully alter BSM resonance search strategies at the LHC and future colliders by elevating multi-Higgs channels over traditional VV modes. The explicit EFT formulation together with UV-completion examples is a positive feature that makes the proposal falsifiable and directly usable for phenomenology.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3–4] The central claim that O(1) or larger Wilson coefficients for higher-dimensional Higgs operators can produce the selective EWSB enhancement while preserving EFT validity for resonances ≳2 TeV is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not provide explicit partial-wave unitarity bounds on the multi-Higgs scattering amplitudes in the relevant kinematic regime (see the discussion following Eq. (12) and the parameter-space plots in §4).
  2. [§5] Existing Higgs and electroweak precision constraints on the same higher-dimensional operators are not quantitatively confronted with the benchmark values needed for di-Higgs dominance; a dedicated scan or exclusion plot is required to demonstrate that the proposed regime remains viable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the higher-dimensional operators is introduced without a compact summary table; adding one would improve readability when comparing to standard Higgs EFT bases.
  2. [Introduction] The abstract states that the mechanism 'parametrically violates' the GET expectation, but the text does not clarify whether this is a strict parametric violation or a numerical enhancement within a limited energy window.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us clarify the robustness of the proposed mechanism. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional material where needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3–4] The central claim that O(1) or larger Wilson coefficients for higher-dimensional Higgs operators can produce the selective EWSB enhancement while preserving EFT validity for resonances ≳2 TeV is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not provide explicit partial-wave unitarity bounds on the multi-Higgs scattering amplitudes in the relevant kinematic regime (see the discussion following Eq. (12) and the parameter-space plots in §4).

    Authors: We agree that explicit partial-wave unitarity bounds strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (now §4.3) together with Appendix B that computes the leading partial-wave amplitudes for the relevant multi-Higgs channels (hh→hh, hhh→hhh, etc.) in the high-energy limit. For the benchmark values of the Wilson coefficients used in our plots, the s-wave amplitudes remain below the unitarity bound |a_0|<1/2 up to scales well above 3 TeV, confirming that the EFT remains valid in the kinematic regime of the resonances considered. These bounds are shown explicitly as functions of the Wilson coefficients and resonance mass. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] Existing Higgs and electroweak precision constraints on the same higher-dimensional operators are not quantitatively confronted with the benchmark values needed for di-Higgs dominance; a dedicated scan or exclusion plot is required to demonstrate that the proposed regime remains viable.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. The revised manuscript now includes a new figure (Fig. 7) and accompanying text in §5 that overlays the benchmark parameter space required for di-Higgs dominance with the current 95% CL constraints from Higgs signal-strength measurements and electroweak precision observables (using the latest global fits). The scan shows that the O(1) Wilson-coefficient values needed for the selective EWSB enhancement lie comfortably inside the allowed regions. We have also added a short discussion of how future precision data could further test the scenario. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in the EFT mechanism for Higgs-rich resonance signals

full rationale

The paper's derivation introduces higher-order Higgs couplings as an independent EFT effect that parametrically violates the conventional GET correlation between Higgs and gauge-boson channels. This is presented via the structure of the effective Lagrangian without any reduction to self-definitional parameters, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. UV completions are shown separately as external support. No steps match the enumerated circularity patterns; the central claim remains a self-contained theoretical possibility rather than a tautology or statistical artifact. This is the expected honest non-finding for a proposal paper whose framework is not derived from its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence and size of higher-dimensional Higgs operators in an EFT description of resonances; these are free parameters not fixed by the Standard Model. No new particles or forces are invented beyond standard BSM resonances.

free parameters (1)
  • coefficients of higher-order Higgs couplings
    These are introduced ad hoc in the EFT to induce the electroweak-symmetry-breaking enhancement and are not determined by lower-order terms.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Validity of the effective field theory expansion at resonance masses of a few TeV
    Assumed to allow the higher-order operators to dominate the enhancement without unitarity violation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5485 in / 1294 out tokens · 26608 ms · 2026-05-10T12:38:29.792460+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Aadet al

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Nature607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Nature607, 60 (2022), [Er- ratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Nature607, 60 (2022), [Er- ratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    M. Ruan, Y. Fang, G. Li, and D. Yu, (2021), arXiv:2107.09820 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Anet al., Chin

    F. Anet al., Chin. Phys. C43, 043002 (2019), arXiv:1810.09037 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Tian and K

    J. Tian and K. Fujii (ILD), PoSEPS-HEP2013, 316 (2013), arXiv:1311.6528 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Barklow, K

    T. Barklow, K. Fujii, S. Jung, R. Karl, J. List, T. Ogawa, M. E. Peskin, and J. Tian, Phys. Rev. D97, 053003 (2018), arXiv:1708.08912 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    d’Enterria,Higgs physics at the Future Circular Collider,PoSICHEP2016(2017) 434 [1701.02663]

    D. d’Enterria, PoSICHEP2016, 434 (2017), arXiv:1701.02663 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Maura, B.A

    V. Maura, B. A. Stefanek, and T. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 141802 (2025), arXiv:2503.13719 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    de Blas, J

    J. de Blas, J. Gu, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. D106, 073007 (2022), arXiv:2203.04324 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, JHEP08, 185 (2022), arXiv:2203.09425 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, JHEP01, 182 (2024), arXiv:2308.02633 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    P. Li, Z. Liu, and K.-F. Lyu, Phys. Rev. D109, 073009 (2024), arXiv:2401.08756 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Di Vita, G

    S. Di Vita, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu, Z. Liu, G. Panico, M. Riembau, and T. Vantalon, JHEP02, 178 (2018), arXiv:1711.03978 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Cepedaet al.,Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,CERN Yellow Rep

    M. Cepedaet al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.7, 221 (2019), arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Alisonet al., Rev

    J. Alisonet al., Rev. Phys.5, 100045 (2020), arXiv:1910.00012 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Maltoni, G

    F. Maltoni, G. Ventura, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP12, 183 (2024), arXiv:2406.06670 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Aadet al.[CMS and ATLAS], [arXiv:2602.23991]

    G. Aadet al.(CMS, ATLAS), (2026), arXiv:2602.23991 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rept.1115, 368 (2025), arXiv:2403.16926 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 231801 (2024), arXiv:2311.15956 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1165 (2020), arXiv:2004.14636 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B798, 134952 (2019), arXiv:1906.00057 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, and M. P´ erez-Victoria, Phys. Rev. D88, 094010 (2013), arXiv:1306.0572 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    A First Top Partner Hunter's Guide

    A. De Simone, O. Matsedonskyi, R. Rattazzi, and A. Wulzer, JHEP04, 004 (2013), arXiv:1211.5663 [hep- ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Xiao and J.-H

    M.-L. Xiao and J.-H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D90, 014007 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 019901 (2014)], arXiv:1404.0681 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Heavy Vector Triplets: Bridging Theory and Data

    D. Pappadopulo, A. Thamm, R. Torre, and A. Wulzer, JHEP09, 060 (2014), arXiv:1402.4431 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Antipin, D

    O. Antipin, D. Atwood, and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B666, 155 (2008), arXiv:0711.3175 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    Agashe, H

    K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D76, 036006 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701186

    work page arXiv 2007

  30. [30]

    M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D87, 055002 (2013), arXiv:1210.8166 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    J. M. No and M. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D89, 095031 (2014), arXiv:1310.6035 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson, and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 91, 035015 (2015), arXiv:1410.5488 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    A. V. Kotwal, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, J. M. No, and P. Winslow, Phys. Rev. D94, 035022 (2016), arXiv:1605.06123 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    I. M. Lewis and M. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D96, 035037 (2017), arXiv:1701.08774 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Kumar, Phys

    R. Kumar, Phys. Rev.185, 1865 (1969)

    1969

  36. [36]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP09, 091 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP 06, 042 (2020)], arXiv:1906.08589 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP09, 091 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP 06, 042 (2020)], arXiv:1906.08589 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 293 (2018), arXiv:1712.06386 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B844, 137813 (2023), arXiv:2210.00043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP05, 088 (2018), arXiv:1802.09407 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for nonresonant triple Higgs boson production in the six b-quark final state in proton- proton collisions at 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG- 24-012 (CERN, 2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D111, 032006 (2025), arXiv:2411.02040 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP07, 020 (2023), arXiv:2209.07327 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP07, 020 (2023), arXiv:2209.07327 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 211801 (2018), arXiv:1808.02343 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 016 (2023), arXiv:2207.00230 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 016 (2023), arXiv:2207.00230 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 251802 (2020), arXiv:2008.05928 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP02, 089 (2025), arXiv:2411.00202 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP02, 089 (2025), arXiv:2411.00202 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2025), arXiv:2511.14583 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2025), arXiv:2511.14583 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    K. S. Babu and S. Nandi, Phys. Rev. D62, 033002 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907213

    work page arXiv 2000

  49. [49]

    G. F. Giudice and O. Lebedev, Phys. Lett. B665, 79 (2008), arXiv:0804.1753 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  50. [50]

    J. D. Lykken, Z. Murdock, and S. Nandi, Phys. Rev. D 79, 075014 (2009), arXiv:0812.1826 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  51. [51]

    Cohen, M

    T. Cohen, M. McCullough, and N. Weiner, (2025), arXiv:2512.04270 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    M. B. Gavela, K. Kanshin, P. A. N. Machado, and S. Saa, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 690 (2016), arXiv:1610.08083 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cata, A. Celis, and C. Krause, Nucl. Phys. B917, 209 (2017), arXiv:1608.03564 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a, and C. Krause, Nucl. Phys. B 880, 552 (2014), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 913, 475–478 (2016)], arXiv:1307.5017 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Hally, H

    K. Hally, H. E. Logan, and T. Pilkington, Phys. Rev. D 85, 095017 (2012), arXiv:1202.5073 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    H. E. Logan and V. Rentala, Phys. Rev. D92, 075011 (2015), arXiv:1502.01275 [hep-ph]. 7

    work page arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Hisano and K

    J. Hisano and K. Tsumura, Phys. Rev. D87, 053004 (2013), arXiv:1301.6455 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Alvarado, L

    C. Alvarado, L. Lehman, and B. Ostdiek, JHEP05, 150 (2014), arXiv:1404.3208 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Dawson and C

    S. Dawson and C. W. Murphy, Phys. Rev. D96, 015041 (2017), arXiv:1704.07851 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B147, 277 (1979). 8 Appendix A: Branching Ratio of the Busy Scalar In this section, we present the tree-level branching ratios generated by the busy-scalar operatorS(H †H) n, including final states up to four-body decays. Higher-multiplicity modes can be considered, but form S around the TeV scale, they are mo...

    1979

  61. [61]

    Calculation in Goldstone Basis The relevant interactions follow from L ⊃ cn Λ2n−3 S(H †H) n (A1) = cn 2nΛ2n−3 S " (v+h) 2 + 2X i−0 a2 i #n = cn 2nΛ2n−3 S   nX j=0 n j (Σia2 i )j(v+h) 2(n−j)   (A2) ⊃ cn 2nΛ2n−3 S 2n 2 h2v2n−2 + 2n 3 h3v2n−3 + 2n 4 h4v2n−4 +· · · +n(Σ ia2 i )v2n−2 + 2n(n−1)(Σ ia2 i )hv2n−3 +n 2n−2 2 (Σia2 i )h2v2n−4 +· · · + n 2 (Σia2 i...

  62. [62]

    flavoron

    Cross-check in Unitary Gauge It is also useful to estimate the amplitudes directly in unitary gauge. In unitary gauge, H= 1√ 2 0 v+h , H †H= (v+h) 2 2 ,(A6) so that L ⊃ cn Λ2n−3 S(H †H) n = cn 2nΛ2n−3 S(v+h) 2n.(A7) Expanding the operator gives L ⊃ cn 2nΛ2n−3 (2n)v2n−1Sh+ 2n 2 v2n−2Sh2 + 2n 3 v2n−3Sh3 +· · · .(A8) 3 One needs to suma 1a1 anda 2a2 partial ...

    2000