A light CP-odd Higgs boson of the MSSM Higgs sector extended by dimension-six operators

Elena Fedotova (Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics; Lomonosov Moscow State University); Mikhail Dubinin

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

A light CP-odd Higgs boson of the MSSM Higgs sector extended by dimension-six operators

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 28 GeV pseudoscalar Higgs can settle in the MSSM Higgs sector if dimension-six operators are added.

desk verdict A transparent but fragile scan claiming a 28 GeV MSSM CP-odd Higgs at alignment with a 125 GeV h; the parameter window is intriguing but the paper's own unitarity check is internally inconsistent and the rates underproduce the CMS excess. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05223 v1 pith:BMKLWY45 submitted 2019-08-14 hep-ph

Mikhail Dubinin , Elena Fedotova (Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics , Lomonosov Moscow State University) This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords MSSMHiggssectorlightCP-oddbosondimension-sixoperatorsalignmentlimit28GeVdimuonexcessperturbativeunitarityelectroweakvacuumstabilitychargedproduction

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

This paper tries to establish that the reported 28 GeV dimuon excess can be accommodated as a light CP-odd Higgs boson of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), provided the Higgs sector is extended by dimension-six effective operators and the model sits in a narrow, non-decoupling corner of parameter space. It identifies concrete benchmark points with a 28 GeV pseudoscalar alongside a 125 GeV scalar whose couplings are Standard-Model-like, i.e. the alignment limit, with superpartner masses around 1–2 TeV and the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters pushed to 3–9 TeV. The paper argues that these points satisfy perturbative unitarity and electroweak vacuum stability only marginally, that the 125 GeV Higgs acquires a width of order 1 GeV from its decay into two pseudoscalars, and that tree-level signal cross sections fall short of the observed excess by a factor of 2–5. A sympathetic reader would care because the result keeps open a supersymmetric interpretation of the excess that the usual MSSM parameter space excludes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop effective Higgs potential of the MSSM decomposed through dimension-six operators, $U=U^{(2)}+U^{(4)}+U^{(6)}$, with quartic couplings $\lambda_i$ and six-point couplings $\kappa_i$ receiving threshold corrections from stop and sbottom loops. The $\kappa_i$ corrections are what make the unusual regime possible: they become significant exactly when $|A_{t,b}|$ and $|\mu|$ are several times the common superpartner mass $M_S$, and they shift the Higgs masses, notably the charged-Higgs mass, so that a 28 GeV pseudoscalar can sit with a 125 GeV scalar in the alignment limit. The argument then runs through four selection requirements (positive mass eigenvalues, alignment of the 125 GeV couplings, the perturbative-unitarity eigenvalue bound $|\mathrm{Re}\,x_i|<1$, and electroweak vacuum existence), enforced numerically in a scan over $(A_{t,b},\mu)$ for fixed $(m_A,\tan\beta,M_S)$.

What would settle it

Measure the total width of the 125 GeV Higgs through off-shell production and interference: the benchmark points require $\Gamma_h\approx 1$ GeV from the $h\to AA$ channel, so an experimental bound excluding such a large width would rule out the scenario; a complementary calculation is a two-loop or non-degenerate-squark recomputation of the four benchmark spectra, checking that $m_h=125$ GeV and $m_A=28$ GeV survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dimension-six operators in the effective Higgs potential open a previously excluded region: a light CP-odd scalar $A$ with mass $m_A=28$ GeV can coexist with the observed 125 GeV CP-even Higgs $h$ while $h$'s couplings stay in the alignment limit. The paper scans the five-dimensional MSSM parameter space $(m_A,\tan\beta,M_S,A_{t,b},\mu)$, requiring positive squared masses, alignment, perturbative unitarity of the S-wave amplitudes, and existence of the electroweak vacuum, and finds four benchmark points with $m_A=28$ GeV and $m_h=125$ GeV. In all four points the superpartner mass scale $M_S$ is 1–2 TeV, $\tan\beta$ is 2–5, and $A_{t,b}$ and $\mu$ range from about 3.4 to 8.8 TeV, so the dimension-six threshold corrections are large and the heavy CP-even and charged Higgs bosons remain non-decoupled at 127–134 GeV. The paper's own cross-section calculation puts the $gg\to b\bar{b}A$ signal, with $A\to\mu^+\mu^-$, at 0.01–0.9 fb after the analysis cuts, a factor of 2–5 below the reported few-fb excess, while the induced $\Gamma_h\approx 1$ GeV sits at the edge of current width measurements and the charged-Higgs branching fractions stay inside LHC bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark points exist only if the one-loop threshold corrections remain accurate when the trilinear couplings and $\mu$ are several times larger than the common superpartner mass scale, and only if the approximate vacuum-stability inequality is not too permissive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A light CP-odd Higgs at 28 GeV is not automatically excluded in the MSSM once dimension-six threshold corrections are included; the common exclusion applies to the dimension-four potential.
The 125 GeV Higgs in these scenarios has a total width of about 1 GeV from $h\to AA$, which is compatible with on-shell width measurements but sits above the indirect off-shell bound derived under Standard-Model coupling assumptions.
The predicted $pp\to\mu^+\mu^-b\bar{b}$ signal from $gg\to b\bar{b}A$ with $A\to\mu^+\mu^-$ is 0.01–0.9 fb after the analysis cuts, a factor of 2–5 below the reported few-fb excess, so the scenario does not fully explain the observed rate.
The charged-Higgs branching fractions from top-quark decay, $t\to H^+b$, stay inside current LHC upper limits for the benchmark points.
The parameter region sits at the boundary of the unitarity and vacuum-stability constraints, so modest changes in those theoretical inputs can remove or shift the benchmark points.

Reading between the lines

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

If the excess is a statistical fluctuation, the benchmark region still serves as an existence proof: dimension-six threshold corrections can shift the light-pseudoscalar boundary of the MSSM, and the same scan could be repeated for other values of $m_A$ near the current search window.
The near-saturation of unitarity and vacuum-stability bounds means a full two-loop or non-degenerate-squark treatment is the most direct next test; the one-loop threshold corrections are the largest source of uncertainty in the benchmark masses.
The prediction $\Gamma_h\approx 1$ GeV gives an observable independent of the original excess: a precision Higgs-width measurement or a direct search for $h\to AA$ in four-muon or dimuon-tau final states would confirm or exclude the scenario.
The same machinery could naturally produce other light-spectrum configurations with different $m_A$ values, so the benchmarks found here are examples of a broader region that dedicated low-mass resonance searches should target.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read this one if you care about whether the CMS 28 GeV dimuon bump can be a light MSSM pseudoscalar. The paper's actual new content is a parameter scan using the authors' earlier dimension-six threshold corrections to find a small window (tanβ 2–5, M_S 1–2 TeV, At and μ in the multi-TeV range) where mA=28 GeV and mh=125 GeV coexist in the alignment limit, plus tree-level pp→μ+μ−bb̄ cross sections from CompHEP. That is a legitimate extension of their framework, and they are transparent: they state plainly that the signal rates are 2–5 times below the observed CMS excess and that the regime sits at the edge of theoretical constraints. The comparisons to top-decay charged Higgs limits are a nice touch.

The soft spot you should worry about is the unitarity check. Table 3 lists max|xi|=2.1, 1.6, 6.6, 1.9 for the four benchmarks, while Eq. (15) states the constraint |Re(xi)|<1. A bound violated by a factor of six is not "satisfactory fulfillment with approximations"; as written, requirement C is not met. I suspect they normalised the eigenvalues differently from the quoted bound — the canonical THDM condition is on quartic couplings at 8π, which all these points would pass — but they need to say so explicitly and re-check. Either way, the paper's own stated criterion is not satisfied, so the existence claim is unsupported as written.

The deeper issue is EFT control. With |At|/MS and |μ|/MS up to about 4.4, the one-loop threshold corrections from Ref. [28] are being used in a regime where the series in At/MS and μ/MS is not obviously convergent. The heuristic vacuum stability bound (17) is also only approximate. None of this is disqualifying, but it means the benchmark points are not established by the paper; they are a plausible-looking sketch.

The paper does not overclaim: it calls the scenario an identification possibility, reports rates below the excess, and flags the near-boundary status. If the unitarity normalization is clarified and the EFT validity addressed, it would be a useful precedent for other light-Higgs searches. As it stands, I would not cite it as evidence, but I would send it to a referee rather than desk-reject: the question is well-posed, the method is honestly presented, and the inconsistency is the kind a careful referee can pin down.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but with a request to fix the unitarity bound and quantify the EFT expansion parameter.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the 28 GeV dimuon excess observed by CMS in pp->mu+mu- b bbar events can be identified with a light CP-odd Higgs boson A of the MSSM Higgs sector extended by dimension-six effective operators. The authors fix mA=28 GeV and scan the five-dimensional parameter space (mA, tan beta, MS, A_t,b, mu), requiring additionally mh=125 GeV and approximate h-alignment. They present four benchmark points with tan beta about 2-5, MS about 1-2 TeV, and large A_t,b and mu (roughly 3-9 TeV), and they compute Higgs masses, couplings, perturbative unitarity eigenvalues, vacuum-stability status, and LHC cross sections for pp->mu+mu- b bbar. The central claim is that such a parameter space exists while satisfying the stated theoretical constraints, but the reported signal rates are below the CMS excess.

Significance. If the existence claim were established, the paper would provide a concrete non-decoupling MSSM scenario in which a 28 GeV pseudoscalar and a 125 GeV SM-like Higgs can coexist, with explicit benchmark points and cross sections that could be used in future LHC searches. The manuscript is transparent in its parameter choices, gives numerical benchmark tables, and candidly lists limitations such as the approximations in the unitarity and vacuum-stability checks. However, the central claim as written is not supported: the benchmark points violate the paper's own perturbative-unitarity criterion as stated, the vacuum-stability heuristic is exceeded by the same parameter values, and the computed signal rates do not reproduce the CMS excess. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract's identification claim, so the significance of the scenario remains conditional on a corrected and extended numerical analysis.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1, Table 3, and Eq. (15)] The text states the unitarity requirement as |Re(x_i)|<1 (Eq. (15)), but Table 3 reports max|xi| values of 2.1, 1.6, 6.6, and 1.9 for BP1-BP4. Therefore, under the criterion the paper itself imposes, all four benchmark points violate perturbative unitarity, and BP3 does so by a factor of 6.6. The sentence in Section 3.1 that 'satisfactory fulfillment of the perturbative unitarity conditions can be taken into account keeping in mind a number of approximations' does not resolve this numerical contradiction. The authors must either define the normalization of xi consistently with Eq. (15), recompute the eigenvalues with the correct bound, or state explicitly that the intended bound is the canonical |Re(x_i)|<8pi of Ref. [33] and justify that choice.
[Section 2.1, Eqs. (6)-(8), and Table 2] The dimension-six expansion is used precisely in the regime where the ratios |A_t,b|/MS and |mu|/MS are of order unity: for BP1-BP4 these ratios reach 4.4, 3.9, 3.4 and 5.0 for the trilinear terms and 2.7, 3.2, 5.0 and 4.0 for mu. The threshold corrections of Ref. [28] are written as power series in A_t,b/MS and mu/MS, and the paper does not estimate the size of neglected higher-order terms or provide an independent cross-check of those corrections. Because the mA=28 GeV and mh=125 GeV benchmark points are obtained from these corrections, the existence claim inherits an unquantified systematic uncertainty that is comparable to the claimed effect; an estimate of the truncation error, or a validation against a full one-loop effective-potential calculation, is needed before the parameter space can be considered demonstrated.
[Section 3.2, Table 4, and Summary] The computed signal cross sections sigma(gg->b bbar A) x BR(A->mu+mu-) listed in Table 4 are 0.009-0.388 fb at 8 TeV and 0.026-0.903 fb at 13 TeV, while the CMS excess cross sections quoted in the Introduction are 4.1 +/- 1.4 fb and 4.2 +/- 1.7 fb at 8 TeV and 1.4 +/- 0.9 fb at 13 TeV. In most configurations the calculated signal is an order of magnitude or more below the observed excess, and the Summary's statement that the signal cross sections are 'a factor of 2-5 smaller than the experimentally observed cross section' is not derived from the numbers in Table 4. The abstract's phrase 'identification of an observable CMS excess ... as a manifestation' is therefore stronger than the numerical results support; the paper should either reframe the result as a constraint or upper bound, or provide additional production/selection effects that bring the predicted yield into agreement with the observed excess.
[Section 2.2, Eq. (17), and Table 3] The heuristic vacuum-stability bound quoted in Eq. (17) is max(A_t,b, mu)/min(m_Q3,U_3) <= 3. For the benchmark points in Table 2 this ratio is 4.4 for BP1, 3.9 for BP2, 5.0 for BP3, and 4.0 for BP4, yet Table 3 marks 'EW vac' as positive for all four. The text says the condition is 'near the limit of execution,' but the values are not near the limit by the stated criterion. The authors need to reconcile the table's vacuum-stability status with Eq. (17), or state which additional analysis is used to declare the EW vacuum stable.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1] The phrase 'MS SM parameter space' appears to be a typo for 'MSSM parameter space' and should be corrected.
[Section 2.2] There is a typo in 'electroweak minimumum' near the vacuum-stability discussion; it should read 'electroweak minimum'.
[Table 1] The entries in Table 1 are strings of four plus/minus signs, but the caption does not define the order of the four requirements; adding a sentence such as 'the four signs refer to requirements (1)-(4) listed in the text' would improve reproducibility.
[Section 2.2, Eq. (13)] The footnote attached to the massless-limit approximate bound states that such approximations 'are often not suitable,' which conflicts with the later use of that approximation in the unitarity check; a short explanation of how this caveat is addressed would be useful.
[References] Reference [1] bundles two separate CMS papers under one citation number, and the text sometimes cites [1] for both the muon-pair excess and the light-pseudoscalar search; splitting these citations would make it easier for the reader to verify which data set is being compared with each cross-section row.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 28 GeV and 125 GeV masses are imposed constraints, the computed cross sections are compared (not fitted) to the CMS excess, and the author-overlap EFT corrections are independent parameter-free inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 3.1 fixes mA=28 GeV as an input ('when the CP-odd scalar mass is fixed at mA=28 GeV ... scan (At,b,mu) parameter space to find benchmark points when the mass of either h or H is equal to 125 GeV') and then checks requirements (A)-(D). The 28 GeV excess is therefore an imposed target, not an output. The cross-section results are compared with the CMS observation, not fitted to it; Section 4 explicitly states they are 'a factor of 2-5 smaller than the experimentally observed cross section of a few fb,' which is inconsistent with a forced reproduction. The radiative corrections from Refs. [6,28,35] originate from previous work by the same authors, but they are parameter-free analytic functions of the input soft parameters (e.g., Eqs. (7)-(8) display Delta-lambda and Delta-kappa as functions of MS, At,b, mu), with stated assumptions (common squark mass MS, degenerate squarks) that do not include the CMS 28 GeV signal or the fitted mh=125 value. They therefore qualify as independent support rather than as self-citation carrying the conclusion. The paper itself flags validity limits: Table 3 lists max|xi| values (1.6-6.6) exceeding the nominal unitarity bound of Eq. (15), and the text says 'Satisfactory fulfillment of the perturbative unitarity conditions can be taken into account keeping in mind a number of approximations'; Eq. (17) is called a 'heuristic' bound. These are correctness risks to the existence claim, not circularity, because the outputs are not equal to the inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Most of the quantitative input comes from the authors' earlier papers rather than from first principles derived here: the dimension-six threshold corrections [28], the vacuum stability treatment [35], and the benchmark scenario definitions [18]. The benchmark parameters are chosen ad hoc to hit mh=125 and alignment, with mA=28 fixed by the CMS anomaly. The only invented entity is the set of dimension-six operators themselves. No new particle is introduced.

free parameters (6)

mA (CP-odd Higgs mass) = 28 GeV
Chosen to match the CMS dimuon excess mass and used as an input for all benchmark points.
At,b (common trilinear soft parameter) = BP1 8800, BP2 7820, BP3 3385, BP4 6690 GeV
Scanned and selected per benchmark point to satisfy mh=125 GeV and the alignment limit.
mu (higgsino mass parameter) = BP1 5320, BP2 6450, BP3 5040, BP4 7960 GeV
Scanned and selected per benchmark point together with At,b.
tan beta = 2, 3, 5, 5
Selected from the scan; part of the benchmark point definition.
MS (SUSY scale) = 2000, 2000, 1000, 2000 GeV
Selected from the scan; all non-SM particles are assumed to share this common mass.
BR(A -> mu+ mu-) = 1.6e-4
Used in Table 4 to convert sigma(gg->bbA) into signal; the value is stated without derivation in this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption All non-SM particles share a common mass MS and below MS the theory is a two-Higgs-doublet model.
This defines the EFT setup used in Section 3 and the parameter scan coordinates (mA, tan beta, MS, At,b, mu).
domain assumption One-loop threshold corrections to the quartic and six-point couplings are dominated by the stop and sbottom sectors and are valid in the degenerate-squark approximation.
Taken from Refs. [25,26,28]; the mass relations that allow mA=28 GeV with mh=125 GeV are inherited from these corrections.
domain assumption The heuristic vacuum stability criterion max(At,b, mu)/min(mQ3,U3) <= 3 from Ref. [34] is sufficient to certify a long-lived electroweak vacuum.
Applied in Section 2.2 and Table 3; the paper does not perform a full stability analysis for the dimension-six potential.
standard math Perturbative unitarity can be checked by diagonalizing the S-wave scattering matrix in the massless limit with the bound |Re(xi)|<1 of Eq. (15).
Follows from the partial-wave analysis, but Table 3 lists max|xi| above 1 for all benchmark points, so the practical application of this axiom is in tension with the paper's own numbers.
domain assumption The alignment limit conditions beta-alpha approximately pi/2 for h and tan 2 alpha approximately tan 2 beta are applicable to the mass eigenstates.
Used in requirement (B) of Section 3 to keep the 125 GeV state Standard Model-like.

invented entities (1)

Dimension-six effective operators in the MSSM Higgs potential (kappa_i, i=1..13)
purpose: Alter the Higgs mass matrix enough to allow a 28 GeV CP-odd state alongside a 125 GeV SM-like Higgs in the alignment limit.
These operators are not observed directly; they parametrize unknown loop effects from heavy SUSY particles. No independent experimental handle is provided, and their coefficients are inherited from earlier model calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A light CP-odd Higgs boson of the MSSM Higgs sector extended by dimension-six operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMKLWY45

@misc{pith2026190805223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A light CP-odd Higgs boson of the MSSM Higgs sector extended by dimension-six operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMKLWY45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05223}
}

abstract

The possibility of identification of an observable CMS $\mu^+ \mu^-$ excess at 28 GeV in the channel $pp\to \mu^+ \mu^- b \bar b$ at $\sqrt{s}$=8 TeV and 13 TeV as a manifestation of one of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) Higgs bosons is investigated. The MSSM parametric scenarios in the regime of large threshold corrections involving low-mass CP-odd scalar, a 125 GeV CP-even scalar and other Higgs bosons with suitable masses are found, where the alignment limit conditions for the Higgs couplings are respected. Perturbative unitarity bounds and constraints on the electroweak vacuum stability are discussed in the regime of substantial couplings with the top- and bottom superpartners. LHC phenomenology including top-quark decay in such a regime is analyzed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05223 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[28]

M. N. Dubinin and E. Yu. Petrova, Radiative corrections to Higgs boson masses for the MSSM Higgs potential with dimension-six operators , Phys. Rev. D 95, 055021 (2017)

work page 2017
[33]

Kanemura and K

S. Kanemura and K. Yagyu, Unitarity bound in the most general two-Higgs doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 751, 289 (2015)

work page 2015
[1]

High Energy Phys

CMS Collaboration, Search for resonances in the mass spectrum of muon pairs prod uced in association with b quark jets in proton-proton collisions at √ s = 8 and 13 TeV , J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2018) 161; Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson produced in association with bottom quarks in pp collisions at √ s=8 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 1711 (2017) 010

work page 2018
[2]

ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

High Energy Phys

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at √ s=7 and 8 TeV , J. High Energy Phys. 1608 (2016) 045

work page 2016
[5]

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at √ s=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

M. N. Dubinin and E. Yu. Petrova, Scenarios with low mass Higgs bosons in the heavy supersymmetry, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1850150 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 42 references

[7]

Brandstetter, Higgs boson results on couplings to fermions, CP parameters and per- spectives for HL-LHC (ATLAS and CMS), arXiv:1801.07926v1 [hep-ex]

J. Brandstetter, Higgs boson results on couplings to fermions, CP parameters and per- spectives for HL-LHC (ATLAS and CMS), arXiv:1801.07926v1 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[8]

Malberti, SM Higgs boson measurements at CMS , Nuovo Cimento C 40, 182 (2017)

M. Malberti, SM Higgs boson measurements at CMS , Nuovo Cimento C 40, 182 (2017)

2017
[9]

Djouadi, The anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

A. Djouadi, The anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higg s bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model , Phys. Rept. 459, 1 (2008)

2008
[10]

Haber and G

H. Haber and G. Kane, The search for supersymmetry: probing physics beyond the Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 117, 75 (1985). 11

1985
[11]

Patrignany et al

C. Patrignany et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C 40, 100001 (2016)

2016
[12]

Misiak and M

M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, Weak radiative decays of the B meson and bounds on MH ± in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model , Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 201 (2017)

2017
[13]

High Energy Phys

CMS Collaboration, Search for a low-mass τ+τ− resonance in association with a bot- tom quark in proton-proton collisions at √ s=13 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 1905 (2019) 210

2019
[14]

High Energy Phys

CMS Collaboration, Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson produced in asso ci- ation with bottom quarks in pp collisions at √ s=8 TeV , J. High Energy Phys. 1711 (2017) 010

2017
[15]

Belle Collaboration, Search for a light CP-odd Higgs boson and low-mass dark matte r at the Belle experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011801 (2019)

2019
[16]

S. I. Godunov, V. A. Novikov, M. I. Vysotsky, and E. V. Zhemc hugov, Dimuon reso- nance near 28 GeV and the muon anomaly , JETP Lett. 109, 358 (2019)

2019
[17]

Beskidt, W

C. Beskidt, W. de Boer, and D.I. Kazakov, Can we discover a light singlet-like NMSSM Higgs boson at the LHC? , Phys. Lett. B 782, 69 (2018)

2018
[18]

Carena, S

M. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, C. E. M. Wagner, and G. Weig lein, MSSM Higgs boson searches at the LHC: benchmark scenarios after the dis covery of a Higgs-like particle, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2552 (2013)

2013
[19]

Coleman and E

S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous sym- metry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888 (1973)

1973
[20]

H. E. Haber and R. Hempﬂing, The Renormalization group improved Higgs sector of the minimal supersymmetric model , Phys. Rev. D 48, 4280 (1993)

1993
[21]

Carena, J

M. Carena, J. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis, and C. E. M. Wagner, Renormalization group im- proved eﬀective potential for the MSSM Higgs sector with exp licit CP violation , Nucl. Phys. B 586, 92 (2000)

2000
[22]

S. Y. Choi, M. Drees, and J. S. Lee, Loop corrections to the neutral Higgs boson sector of the MSSM with explicit CP violation , Phys. Lett. B 481, 57 (2000)

2000
[23]

Carena, M

M. Carena, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, Eﬀective potential methods and the Higgs mass spectrum in the MSSM , Nucl. Phys. B 461, 407 (1996)

1996
[24]

Carena, J

M. Carena, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, and C. E. M. Wagner, Analytical expressions for radiatively corrected Higgs masses and couplings in the MSSM, Phys. Lett. B 355, 209 (1995)

1995
[25]

Akhmetzyanova, M

E. Akhmetzyanova, M. Dolgopolov, and M. Dubinin, Higgs bosons in the two-doublet model with CP violation , Phys. Rev. D 71, 075008 (2005). 12

2005
[26]

Akhmetzyanova, M

E. Akhmetzyanova, M. Dolgopolov, and M. Dubinin, Violation of CP invariance in the two-doublet Higgs sector of the MSSM , Phys. Part. Nucl. 37, 677 (2006)

2006
[27]

M. N. Dubinin and E. Yu. Petrova, Simpliﬁed parametric scenarios of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model after the discovery of the Hi ggs boson, Yad. Phys. 79, 302 (2016)

2016
[29]

B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Weak interactions at very high-energies: the role of the Higgs boson mass , Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977)

1977
[30]

I. F. Ginzburg and I. P. Ivanov, Tree-level unitarity constraints in the most general 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D 72, 115010 (2005)

2005
[31]

A. G. Akeroyd, A. Arhrib, and E. Naimi, Note on tree level unitarity in the general two Higgs doublet model , Phys. Lett. B 490, 119 (2000)

2000
[32]

Staub, Theoretical constrants on supersymmetric models: perturb ative unitarity vs

F. Staub, Theoretical constrants on supersymmetric models: perturb ative unitarity vs. vacuum stability , Phys. Lett. B 789, 2013 (2019)

2019
[34]

W. G. Hollik, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, Impact of vacuum stability constraints on the phenomenology of supersymmetric models , J. High Energy Phys. 1903 (2019) 109

2019
[35]

M. N. Dubinin and E. Yu. Petrova, Vacuum stability with the eﬀective six-pointed couplings of the Higgs bosons in the heavy supersymmetry , EPJ Web Conf. 158, 02005 (2017)

2017
[36]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. E. Haber, I. Low, N. R. Shah, and C. E. M. Wagne r, Complementarity between nonstandard Higgs boson searches and precision Hig gs boson measurements in the MSSM , Phys. Rev. D 91, 035003 (2015)

2015
[37]

Asner et al

D. Asner et al. , ILC Higgs white paper, in 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississipp i (CSS2013), Minneapolis 2013, edited by N. A. Graf, M. E. Peskin, and J. L. Rosner (The Division of Particles and Fields of the American ...

2013
[38]

CompHEP Collaboration, CompHEP 4.4: Automatic computations from Lagrangians to events , Nucl. Instrum. Methods A534, 250 (2004); A. Pukhov et al. , CompHEP – a package for evaluation of Feynman diagrams and integration over multi-particle phase space. User’s manual for version...

2004 arXiv
[39]

High Energy Phys

ATLAS Collaboration, Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying via H ± → τ± ν in fully hadronic ﬁnal states using pp collision data at √ s=8 TeV with the ATLAS de- tector, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2015) 088; Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the decay channel H + → c¯s ...

2015
[40]

High Energy Phys

CMS Collaboration, Search for a charged Higgs boson in pp collisions at √ s=8 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 1511 (2015) 018

2015
[41]

High Energy Phys

CMS Collaboration, Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton ﬁnal state in pp collisions at √ s=13 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 1711 (2017) 047; ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H → γγ and H → ZZ ∗ → 4l channels w...

2017
[42]

J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, Bounding the Higgs width at the LHC using full analytic results for gg → e− e+µ − µ +, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 060; F. Caola and K. Melnikov, Constraining the Higgs boson width with ZZ production at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 88...

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

M. N. Dubinin and E. Yu. Petrova, Radiative corrections to Higgs boson masses for the MSSM Higgs potential with dimension-six operators , Phys. Rev. D 95, 055021 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [33]

Kanemura and K

S. Kanemura and K. Yagyu, Unitarity bound in the most general two-Higgs doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 751, 289 (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [1]

High Energy Phys

CMS Collaboration, Search for resonances in the mass spectrum of muon pairs prod uced in association with b quark jets in proton-proton collisions at √ s = 8 and 13 TeV , J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2018) 161; Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson produced in association with bottom quarks in pp collisions at √ s=8 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 1711 (2017) 010

work page 2018

[4] [2]

ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [3]

CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [4]

High Energy Phys

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at √ s=7 and 8 TeV , J. High Energy Phys. 1608 (2016) 045

work page 2016

[7] [5]

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at √ s=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [6]

M. N. Dubinin and E. Yu. Petrova, Scenarios with low mass Higgs bosons in the heavy supersymmetry, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1850150 (2018)

work page 2018