Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

The paper argues that NLO unitarity, perturbativity, and the latest data leave no room for a metastable electroweak vacuum in the Type-II two-Higgs-doublet model.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:35 UTC pith:HCKZ7PA4

load-bearing objection Probably right on the tree-level no-go; the one-loop exclusion is only proven for neutral vacua, so the abstract oversells it, but this is a useful, honest paper that deserves reviewing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18380 v1 pith:HCKZ7PA4 submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph hep-ex

Fate of Metastable Vacua in the Type-II Two-Higgs Doublet Model

Debtosh Chowdhury , Kirtimaan A. Mohan , Poulami Mondal , Subrata Samanta This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords two-Higgs-doublet modelvacuum stabilityelectroweak vacuummetastabilityperturbative unitarityColeman-Weinberg potentialflavor constraintsBayesian global fit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

In the two-Higgs-doublet model, the extra doublet can create additional minima, so the observed electroweak vacuum might be only locally stable. This paper asks whether a metastable vacuum can survive when the model is subjected to next-to-leading-order unitarity, perturbativity, and current Higgs and flavor data. Using a Bayesian global fit and a gauge-invariant one-loop comparison of vacuum depths, it finds that regions allowing a deeper coexisting minimum are driven apart: the multiple-minima region prefers a light charged Higgs, while B→X_sγ requires a heavy one. The paper concludes that the physical electroweak vacuum remains the global minimum at both tree and one-loop level throughout the allowed parameter space.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a metastable electroweak vacuum in the Type-II 2HDM is excluded (or confined to a tiny 99.7% probability sliver) once NLO unitarity, the perturbativity criterion R′1<1, and the latest Higgs and flavor data are imposed. In every viable benchmark point sampled, the physical EW vacuum is the global minimum at tree level, and the ℏ-expansion comparison of one-loop depths keeps it the global minimum at one-loop level as well.

What carries the argument

The multiple-extrema condition M̂0>0, expressed as m²_H± − Λ0 v² < 0 or equivalently m²₁₂ + (Λ1−Λ0) v₁v₂ < 0, is the criterion that a deeper neutral minimum can coexist; it links metastability to a light charged Higgs and to positive m²₁₂. The paper combines this with NLO unitarity bounds on the quartic couplings, the perturbativity criterion R′1<1, and a Bayesian fit to data, then uses the ℏ-expansion method to compare one-loop vacuum depths in a gauge-invariant way.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that loop corrections cannot generate a deeper charge-breaking or CP-breaking minimum than the physical electroweak vacuum, because it compares depths only at neutral, CP-conserving extrema — a possibility it leaves for future work.

What would settle it

Perform a direct numerical minimization of the one-loop effective potential, including charge-breaking and CP-breaking field directions, at the parameter points in the tiny 99.7%-probability overlap region that satisfies all constraints; finding a deeper stationary point than the electroweak vacuum would falsify the paper's conclusion.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A metastable electroweak vacuum in the Type-II 2HDM is not a viable explanation under current constraints; the observed vacuum should be treated as the global minimum.
  • The charged-Higgs mass lower bound from B→X_sγ, combined with the multiple-extrema condition, is what closes the metastable window; future flavor measurements that tighten this bound reinforce the conclusion.
  • NLO unitarity and perturbativity are decisive: tree-level-only analyses that found metastable vacua are not contradicted but superseded by the stronger theoretical constraints.
  • The Z₂-symmetric limit m²₁₂=0 is excluded by the fit, supporting a softly-broken Z₂ symmetry in the Type-II scalar sector.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct minimization of the one-loop effective potential including charge-breaking and CP-breaking field directions, carried out at the surviving benchmark points, would test the one part of the vacuum structure the paper deliberately sets aside.
  • Because the exclusion depends on the chosen m²₁₂ prior of [-0.2, 0.8] TeV², repeating the fit with a wider, more negative range would show whether the conclusion is robust or prior-driven.
  • The same constraint stack applied to the Type-I, Type-X, or Type-Y 2HDMs would likely give different outcomes, since the flavor observables that close the metastable window in Type-II are not equally restrictive there.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether the physical electroweak (EW) vacuum of the Type-II 2HDM can be metastable. Using the gauge-invariant bilinear formalism, the authors characterize the necessary condition for multiple extrema (M̂0 > 0) and translate it into constraints on m_{12}^2 and m_{H±}. They combine LO and NLO perturbative unitarity, the perturbativity criterion R'_1 < 1, bounded-from-below conditions, and a Bayesian global fit to Higgs signal strengths, B(\bar{B}→X_sγ), B_s mixing, and S,T,U. They find that, after NLO unitarity, the 95.4% credible region admitting multiple extrema and satisfying Higgs data does not overlap with the flavor-allowed region; only a tiny 99.7% overlap remains. For about 10^5 sampled points in this overlap, the physical EW vacuum is found to be the global minimum at tree level and in the ℏ-expanded one-loop potential. Imposing R'_1 < 1 removes the overlap. The paper concludes that metastable EW vacua in the Type-II 2HDM are excluded at both tree and one-loop levels.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, this is a significant sharpening of earlier tree-level vacuum-stability studies. The main strengths are the use of the established bilinear formalism for the tree-level analysis, the gauge-invariant ℏ-expansion method for one-loop depths, the simultaneous inclusion of NLO unitarity, perturbativity and current experimental likelihoods, and the explicit separation of the perturbativity criterion from the rigorous unitarity bound. The tree-level exclusion is on solid ground. However, the one-loop global-minimum claim is narrower than advertised: it is established only for neutral, CP-conserving tree-level extrema, and the possibility of loop-generated charge-breaking or CP-breaking minima is not searched. The paper's abstract and Sec. VII state the one-loop claim without this qualification, which is a load-bearing overstatement. The conclusion also depends on a finite prior range for m_{12}^2 and on Bayesian credible-region non-overlap being interpreted as exclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (21); abstract; Sec. VII] The one-loop comparison is performed only at neutral, CP-conserving tree-level extrema using the ℏ expansion. Eq. (21) computes V^(0)(φ_vac^(0)) + ℏ V^(1)(φ_vac^(0)); by construction this cannot detect a minimum that exists only in the one-loop effective potential. The authors acknowledge in Sec. V and footnote 4 that CB/CP-breaking loop-generated minima are left for future work, and they cite Ref. [25], which showed such minima can be deeper than the EW vacuum. Therefore the abstract's unqualified statement that metastable vacua are 'excluded at both the tree and one-loop levels' and the Sec. VII sentence that the EW vacuum 'remains the global minimum ... at one-loop level' are stronger than what is computed. The tree-level exclusion is sound, and the neutral one-loop comparison is valid, but the one-loop global exclusion requires either direct minimization of the full one-loop effectiv
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (22); Figs. 3–5] The prior for m_{12}^2 is restricted to [-0.2, 0.8] TeV^2. The multiple-extrema condition, Eq. (18), and the derived bounds on m_{H±} depend on m_{12}^2, and Fig. 3 even shows m_{12}^2 < 0 points re-entering after the M̂0 > 0 condition is imposed. A hard truncation at -0.2 TeV^2 is not itself an experimental constraint and can remove potentially metastable regions before the likelihood is evaluated. The central conclusion 'throughout the parameter space allowed by current data' therefore rests in part on this prior choice. The authors should test robustness by extending the lower bound (for example to -1 TeV^2 or wider) and showing that the posterior-overlap and exclusion conclusions are stable.
  3. [Sec. VII; Figs. 3–5] The word 'excluded' is used for non-overlap of 95.4% Bayesian credible regions. Non-overlap of credible intervals is not a rigorous exclusion, and the authors themselves find a 99.7% overlap in Fig. 4. The stronger claim that this overlap is eliminated relies on the R'_1 < 1 perturbativity criterion, which Sec. IV correctly describes as convention-dependent. The robust conclusion is that metastable EW vacua are strongly disfavored at 95.4%, and only excluded under an additional, less rigorous perturbativity criterion. This should be reflected in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VII, first paragraph] Typo: 'arsing' should be 'arising'.
  2. [Sec. V, footnote 4] The statement that loop-generated CB minima are 'numerically rare' would benefit from a quantitative citation or a rough rate from Ref. [25], since the rarity is otherwise anecdotal.
  3. [Sec. VII, paragraph on Fig. 2] The statement that the Z2-symmetric limit m_{12}^2 = 0 'is excluded' by Higgs signal strengths should be nuanced: at m_{12}^2 = 0 the tree-level neutral minima are exactly degenerate, and loop corrections can lift the degeneracy, so the exclusion refers to the sampled tree-level analysis rather than to the exact symmetry point in general.
  4. [Sec. V, renormalization scale] The choice μ = v is motivated, but since the one-loop potential is only computed to finite order, a brief numerical check of residual scale dependence of the depth differences would strengthen the claim.
  5. [Figures 3–5] The dark/light shading conventions are described in the text but are hard to follow in the captions; adding explicit legend entries would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the exclusion is a post-fit scan under independent theoretical and experimental constraints; the one-loop caveat is an acknowledged scope limit, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that, after imposing LO/NLO unitarity, perturbativity, BFB, and the latest Higgs, flavor, and EW precision data, no Type-II 2HDM point with a metastable physical EW vacuum survives. This is a derived intersection of constraints, not a parameter fitted to the target: the vacuum-stability property (global-minimum depth ordering) is not part of the likelihood and is checked afterwards using Eq. (21). The multiple-extrema condition (Eqs. 17-18) is a necessary condition from the tree-level potential, and the upper bound on m2_12 follows from unitarity/perturbativity bounds on quartics plus Eq. (18), while the lower bound from B→Xsγ is an independent experimental constraint; neither is constructed to force the conclusion. Self-citations [16], [38], [60] provide published RGE, NLO-unitarity, and Higgs-signal-strength inputs from external data/calculations; they are not used as an unverified uniqueness argument. The acknowledged restriction to neutral, CP-conserving vacua and tree-level extrema (Sec. V and footnote 4; Eq. 21 evaluates only at tree-level extrema) is an incompleteness/overstatement concern about the one-loop claim, not a reduction of the result to its inputs. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard 2HDM vacuum theorems, the ℏ-expansion effective potential, NLO unitarity conditions from the literature, and a hand-chosen set of priors and scales. No new entities are postulated. The main free choices are the m²₁₂ prior range, the two RG scales (v and 1 TeV), and the perturbativity threshold; each affects the reach of the 'exclusion' claim and should be disclosed in the scorecard.

free parameters (5)
  • m²₁₂ prior range = [-0.2, 0.8] TeV²
    Hand-chosen range over which the model is sampled (Sec. VI). The multiple-extrema condition (Eq. 18) linearly involves m²₁₂; a wider negative range could in principle host additional deeper vacua. No robustness test against extending this range is shown.
  • Perturbativity threshold R'_1 < 1 = < 1
    Conventional ratio of NLO to LO partial-wave amplitudes (Sec. IV). The complete removal of the overlapping region (Fig. 5) depends on this choice, which the authors themselves describe as 'a matter of convention.'
  • Renormalization scale µ = v for the one-loop vacuum analysis = 246.22 GeV
    Chosen for convenience to evaluate the Coleman-Weinberg potential (Sec. V). The paper states that extremal values are µ-independent, but the parameters entering are constrained at 1 TeV; no explicit running/matching between the two scales is presented.
  • Scale for NLO unitarity / BFB / perturbativity constraints = 1 TeV
    All theoretical constraints are imposed at 1 TeV (Sec. VI). Combined with µ = v for the vacuum analysis, this creates a scale gap whose quantitative effect on the vacuum-structure conclusion is not addressed.
  • Priors on tanβ and heavy scalar masses = tanβ ∈ [10^-0.3, 10^1.7]; m_H², m_A², m_H±² ∈ [(0.13 TeV)², (1.1 TeV)²]
    The Bayesian credible regions used for the non-overlap argument are shaped by these sampling volumes (Sec. VI, Eq. 22). The bounds on m_H± directly affect which regions are populated in the plane of Fig. 3-5.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Tree-level theorem: if an EW-breaking minimum exists, any CB or CP-breaking extremum is a saddle lying above it (Refs. [17, 18, 24]).
    Used in Sec. II and Sec. III to restrict attention to neutral EW-breaking extrema when assessing tree-level global stability.
  • domain assumption The ℏ-expansion method (Refs. [44-48]) yields gauge-invariant one-loop depths at extrema order by order.
    The one-loop comparison of Sec. V and Sec. VII rests on this formalism; it is applied only at tree-level extrema where the one-loop potential is real.
  • domain assumption NLO unitarity conditions of Refs. [37, 38] correctly bound the two-to-two scalar partial-wave amplitudes at one loop.
    The central theoretical constraint (Sec. IV, VI) is imported from the literature; the paper does not re-derive these bounds.
  • domain assumption The selected experimental likelihoods (Higgs signal strengths from Ref. [60], B→Xsγ and Δm_Bs from HFLAV, S,T,U from HEPfit) are the relevant constraints for this question.
    Other flavor observables and direct LHC searches are not included (Sec. VI); the authors justify this by saying only these two flavor observables are most relevant.
  • domain assumption Light fermion contributions to the one-loop effective potential are negligible.
    Only the top quark is retained in the Coleman-Weinberg potential (Eq. 20); lighter fermions are dropped.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 4704 in / 4642 out tokens · 199005 ms · 2026-08-01T15:35:13.625981+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The scalar potential of the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) can admit multiple non-degenerate vacua due to the presence of the two Higgs doublets unlike the Standard Model (SM). For a physically viable parameter point, one of these vacua must correspond to the physical electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking vacuum with the vacuum expectation value of about $246$ GeV. Given the complex structure of the scalar potential, the physical EW vacuum may be metastable in nature rather than the global minimum of the potential. In this work, we delineate regions of the parameter space in the Type-II 2HDM accommodating multiple extrema of the scalar potential and analyze, in a gauge-independent manner, the stability of the EW vacuum there at the tree level and beyond. A Bayesian global fit of the Type-II 2HDM, including next-to-leading-order unitarity constraints and the latest experimental measurements, indicates that parameter space regions leading to metastable EW vacua are excluded at both the tree and one-loop levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18380 by Debtosh Chowdhury, Kirtimaan A. Mohan, Poulami Mondal, Subrata Samanta.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. 95 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Allowed regions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Allowed regions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. One-dimensional marginalized posterior probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

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

65 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    We review these LO and NLO pertur- 5 bative unitarity constraints in the following section. IV. NEXT-TO-LEADING-ORDER PER TURBA TIVE UNIT ARITY Requiring theS-matrix to be unitary bounds the quar- tic couplings through the amplitudes for all 2→2 scat- terings among the scalar and would-be-Goldstone compo- nents of the two Higgs doublets. By the optical th...

  3. [3]

    Dark (light) yellow/grey shaded area corresponds to 95.4% (99.7%) probability

    The yellow region in the parameter space is allowed by theB( ¯B→X sγ) data. Dark (light) yellow/grey shaded area corresponds to 95.4% (99.7%) probability. (|λi|<4π). Imposing the Higgs signal strength data substantially reduces this region to the grey area. This is because the LO unitarity condition rules out large scalar quartic couplings in the regime w...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Alekhin, A

    S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch, Phys. Lett. B716, 214 (2012), arXiv:1207.0980 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, JHEP08, 098, arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Hiller, T

    G. Hiller, T. H¨ ohne, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner, Phys. Rev. D110, 115017 (2024), arXiv:2401.08811 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Buttazzo, G

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giu- dice, F. Sala, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, JHEP12, 089, arXiv:1307.3536 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Andreassen, W

    A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D97, 056006 (2018), arXiv:1707.08124 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Messina, and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D 91, 013003 (2015), arXiv:1408.5302 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Bezrukov, M

    F. Bezrukov, M. Y. Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Sha- poshnikov, JHEP10, 140, arXiv:1205.2893 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    In par- ticular, NLO perturbative unitarity constraints are more restrictive, and as a result lead to stronger upper bounds onm H ± andm 2

  13. [13]

    Branchina and E

    V. Branchina and E. Messina, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 241801 (2013), arXiv:1307.5193 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D8, 1226 (1973)

    1973

  15. [15]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D67, 075019 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0207010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  16. [16]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Re- belo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept.516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D15, 1958 (1977)

    1958

  18. [18]

    E. A. Paschos, Phys. Rev. D15, 1966 (1977)

    1966

  19. [19]

    Chowdhury and O

    D. Chowdhury and O. Eberhardt, JHEP11, 052, arXiv:1503.08216 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, and A. Barroso, Phys. Lett. B603, 219 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 629, 114–114 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ph/0406231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    Barroso, P

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, and R. Santos, Phys. Lett. B 632, 684 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0507224

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    Maniatis, A

    M. Maniatis, A. von Manteuffel, O. Nachtmann, and F. Nagel, Eur. Phys. J. C48, 805 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0605184

    arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    C. C. Nishi, Phys. Rev. D74, 036003 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 119901 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/0605153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    I. P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D75, 035001 (2007), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 039902 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/0609018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    I. P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D77, 015017 (2008), arXiv:0710.3490 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [26]

    Maniatis, A

    M. Maniatis, A. von Manteuffel, and O. Nachtmann, Eur. Phys. J. C57, 719 (2008), arXiv:0707.3344 [hep-ph]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Barroso, P

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov, and R. Santos, JHEP06, 045, arXiv:1303.5098 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    P. M. Ferreira, L. A. Morrison, and S. Profumo, JHEP 04, 125, arXiv:1910.08662 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  29. [29]

    Barroso, P

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, and R. Santos, Phys. Lett. B 652, 181 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [30]

    I. P. Ivanov and J. P. Silva, Physical Review D92, 10.1103/physrevd.92.055017 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.055017 2015

  31. [31]

    Barroso, P

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. Ivanov, R. Santos, and J. P. Silva, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.447, 012051 (2013), arXiv:1305.1906 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Branchina, F

    V. Branchina, F. Contino, and P. M. Ferreira, JHEP11, 107, arXiv:1807.10802 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Passarino, Physics Letters B156, 231 (1985)

    G. Passarino, Physics Letters B156, 231 (1985)

    1985

  34. [34]

    Dawson and S

    S. Dawson and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 1232 (1989)

    1989

  35. [35]

    Dawson and S

    S. Dawson and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D40, 2880 (1989)

    1989

  36. [36]

    Passarino, Nuclear Physics B343, 31 (1990)

    G. Passarino, Nuclear Physics B343, 31 (1990)

    1990

  37. [37]

    Durand, J

    L. Durand, J. M. Johnson, and J. L. Lopez, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 1215 (1990)

    1990

  38. [38]

    Lendvai, G

    E. Lendvai, G. Pocsik, and T. Torma, Mod. Phys. Lett. A6, 1195 (1991)

    1991

  39. [39]

    Durand, J

    L. Durand, J. M. Johnson, and J. L. Lopez, Phys. Rev. D45, 3112 (1992)

    1992

  40. [40]

    Grinstein, C

    B. Grinstein, C. W. Murphy, and P. Uttayarat, JHEP 06, 070, arXiv:1512.04567 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Cacchio, D

    V. Cacchio, D. Chowdhury, O. Eberhardt, and C. W. Murphy, JHEP11, 026, arXiv:1609.01290 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Chakraborty and A

    I. Chakraborty and A. Kundu, Phys. Rev. D92, 095023 (2015), arXiv:1508.00702 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    P. M. Ferreira and B. Swiezewska, JHEP04, 099, arXiv:1511.02879 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Basler and M

    P. Basler and M. M¨ uhlleitner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 237, 62 (2019), arXiv:1803.02846 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    W. G. Hollik, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, JHEP03, 109, arXiv:1812.04644 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Basler, L

    P. Basler, L. Biermann, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. M¨ uller, R. Santos, and J. Viana, Comput. Phys. Commun.316, 109766 (2025), arXiv:2404.19037 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    N. K. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B101, 173 (1975)

    1975

  48. [48]

    Fukuda and T

    R. Fukuda and T. Kugo, Phys. Rev. D13, 3469 (1976)

    1976

  49. [49]

    H. H. Patel and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP07, 029, arXiv:1101.4665 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Andreassen, W

    A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D91, 016009 (2015), arXiv:1408.0287 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Ekstedt and J

    A. Ekstedt and J. L¨ ofgren, JHEP01, 226, arXiv:1810.01416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Balui, J

    D. Balui, J. Chakrabortty, D. Dey, and S. Mohanty, Phys. Rev. D111, 085032 (2025), arXiv:2502.17156 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Barroso, P

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov, R. Santos, and J. P. Silva, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2537 (2013), arXiv:1211.6119 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    N. G. Deshpande and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D18, 2574 (1978)

    1978

  55. [55]

    I. F. Ginzburg and I. P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D72, 115010 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [56]

    J. S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D86, 035004 (2012), arXiv:1201.4891 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Q.-H. Cao, K. Cheng, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. D107, 015016 (2023), arXiv:2201.02989 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    E. J. Eichten and K. Lane, Phys. Rev. D107, 075038 (2023), arXiv:2209.06632 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    De Blaset al., Eur

    J. De Blaset al., Eur. Phys. J. C80, 456 (2020), arXiv:1910.14012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Caldwell, D

    A. Caldwell, D. Kollar, and K. Kroninger, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 2197 (2009), arXiv:0808.2552 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  61. [61]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS, CMS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS, CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 191803 (2015), arXiv:1503.07589 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    H. E. Haber, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute (TASI 92): From Black Holes and Strings to Particles (1993) pp. 589–686, arXiv:hep-ph/9306207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  63. [63]

    Chowdhury, P

    D. Chowdhury, P. Mondal, and S. Samanta, (2024), arXiv:2404.18996 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Banerjeeet al.(Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)), Phys

    S. Banerjeeet al.(Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)), Phys. Rev. D113, 012008 (2026), arXiv:2411.18639 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    de Blas, M

    J. de Blas, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, S. Mishima, M. Pierini, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, PoSEPS- HEP2017, 467 (2017), arXiv:1710.05402 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017