Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 13 cited by

Two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phenomenology and benchmark scenarios

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 In a minimal two-singlet extension of the Standard Model, the three Higgs bosons can decay into one another at rates that dominate their decays to ordinary particles, producing three- and four-Higgs final states at the LHC.

desk verdict First systematic LHC pheno study of the Z2 x Z2' two-real-singlet extension; the asymmetry/cascade signatures are new and the benchmark planes are useful, though the NWA-based rates need caveats near thresholds and broad widths. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08554 v2 pith:FNV7USVE submitted 2019-08-22 hep-ph hep-ex

Tania Robens , Tim Stefaniak , Jonas Wittbrodt This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords two-real-singletmodelHiggs-to-HiggsdecaysasymmetricscalarcascadeHiggssingletextensionLHCphenomenologybenchmarkscenariosresonantdi-Higgsproduction
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 argues that in a minimal extension of the Standard Model where two real scalar singlet fields mix with the ordinary Higgs doublet, the three resulting Higgs bosons can decay into one another at rates that often dominate their direct decays to Standard Model particles. That includes asymmetric decays, in which the produced scalar turns into two different lighter scalars, and cascade decays that ultimately give three- or four-Higgs final states. The authors determine which parameter choices survive current theoretical and experimental constraints and condense the results into six two-dimensional benchmark scenarios with near-maximal signal rates for each signature. A curious reader should care because most of these signatures have not been searched for at the LHC, so the model supplies concrete targets beyond the standard pair-production of two 125 GeV Higgs bosons.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the scalar spectrum of the model: three neutral CP-even Higgs states obtained by mixing the SM doublet with two singlet fields, with all couplings of a given mass eigenstate to SM particles rescaled by a single factor $\kappa_a = R_{a1}$ and obeying the sum rule $\sum_a \kappa_a^2 = 1$. The triple-scalar couplings that drive Higgs-to-Higgs decays are written directly in terms of the three masses, three mixing angles, and three vacuum expectation values, and the tree-level width for $h_a\to h_bh_c$ is given by the standard phase-space formula depending on those couplings. Production is then factorized through a narrow-width approximation, $\sigma(pp\to h_a) = \kappa_a^2 \sigma_{\rm SM}(M_a)$, with branching ratios built from the rescaled SM widths and the new scalar decay widths. That factorization is what lets the authors convert SM Higgs predictions into complete, surveyable collider phenomenology for all three states.

What would settle it

A dedicated LHC search for $pp\to h_3\to h_1h_2$ in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state across the BP2 plane ($M_3$ between 150 and 500 GeV, $M_1$ up to about 125 GeV) would confirm or exclude the predicted signal rates between roughly 50 fb and 0.6 pb, directly testing whether asymmetric Higgs-to-Higgs decays dominate as claimed. In BP6, a measurement of the $h_3$ line shape for $M_3\sim 400$--600 GeV would show whether the predicted $\Gamma_3/M_3$ up to about 14% is physically present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two-real-singlet model with a spontaneously broken $\mathbb{Z}_2\otimes\mathbb{Z}_2'$ symmetry contains three CP-even Higgs mass eigenstates, one of which is the observed 125 GeV boson, and that resonant Higgs-to-Higgs decays among them can be sizable, easily dominating the direct decays to SM states. The paper demonstrates branching ratios up to roughly 50--90% for channels such as $h_3\to h_1h_2$, $h_3\to h_{125}h_2$, and $h_3\to h_1h_1$, together with cascade chains like $h_3\to h_1h_2$ followed by $h_2\to h_1h_1$, or $h_3\to h_2h_2$ followed by $h_2\to h_{125}h_{125}$, producing three- and four-Higgs final states. Benchmark signal rates span from tens of picobarns for light scalars down to roughly 14 fb near threshold for the four-Higgs final state. The paper also finds that current LHC searches for $h_{125}h_{125}$ and for $h_{125}\to h_ah_a$ are not sensitive to most of these signatures, so the benchmark planes are largely untested.

Load-bearing premise

All quoted rates rely on treating each scalar as a narrow resonance whose production cross section is exactly the SM value times $\kappa_a^2$ and whose production and decay factorize, with interference and off-shell effects neglected; for the widest benchmark states $\Gamma/M$ reaches about 14--18%, where that treatment is not obviously reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resonant LHC searches should target asymmetric decays such as $h_3\to h_1h_2$ and $h_3\to h_{125}h_2$, which reach branching ratios of 40--55% and cross sections around 0.3--0.6 pb in the benchmarks, not just the $h_{125}h_{125}$ channel.
  • Cascade decays produce three- and four-Higgs final states; the double cascade $h_3\to h_2h_2\to h_{125}h_{125}h_{125}h_{125}$ gives about 14 fb near threshold, with $b$-rich final states that should be visible with Run-II data.
  • The six benchmark planes BP1--BP6 each maximize one novel signature while passing all applied constraints, so experimental results in those planes can be compared directly with model predictions or recast model-independently.
  • Because the sum rule forces the other scalars' couplings to be small whenever the 125 GeV state is SM-like, Higgs-to-Higgs decays frequently dominate over direct SM decays, so conventional single-resonance searches can miss the model entirely.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same asymmetric and cascade patterns should appear in other models with three or more Higgs bosons and comparable triple-scalar couplings, so model-independent limits on these planes would constrain a broader class of singlet and multi-Higgs extensions, not only this one.
  • The widest benchmark resonances reach $\Gamma_3/M_3\sim 14\%$, where the narrow-width approximation is stressed; finite-width and signal-signal interference effects could shift the quoted rates, and a line-shape measurement near threshold would settle how much the predictions move.
  • Because the singlet vacuum expectation values enter the triple-scalar couplings but are only weakly constrained by current data, a future measurement of any Higgs-to-Higgs rate would give a direct, novel handle on the vacuum structure of the singlet sector, which precision electroweak fits barely probe.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the Standard Model (TRSM), in which an imposed Z2⊗Z2′ symmetry is spontaneously broken by the singlet vevs, giving three CP-even neutral scalars h1,2,3, one of which is identified with the 125 GeV Higgs boson. The authors parametrize the scalar potential in terms of physical masses, mixing angles, and vevs, and derive the resulting couplings, partial widths, and LHC signal rates. They apply theoretical constraints (boundedness, perturbative unitarity), electroweak precision constraints, and the public codes HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals to map the allowed parameter space. The central phenomenological claim is that, in addition to standard direct decays to SM particles, the model generically produces sizable Higgs-to-Higgs decays, including asymmetric decays h3→h1h2, symmetric decays h3→h1h1, h2→h1h1, and cascades such as h3→h2h2→h1h1h1h1. Six two-dimensional benchmark planes (BP1–BP6) are proposed to target these signatures, with cross sections ranging from tens of picobarns for light states to about 14 fb for the four-Higgs cascade final state near threshold.

Significance. If the quantitative rates stand, the paper fills a genuine gap: LHC searches for Higgs-to-Higgs decays have so far concentrated on h125h125 and h125→light+light, while asymmetric decays and cascades involving only non-SM scalars have received little experimental attention. The paper's strengths are its transparent physical parametrization, the explicit coupling and width formulas, the use of state-of-the-art public constraints (HiggsBounds, HiggsSignals, electroweak precision data), and the concrete, reproducible six benchmark parameter sets that experimental collaborations can adopt directly. The qualitative conclusion that these signatures can dominate over direct SM decays is robust, and the benchmark definitions are a useful community resource even if some absolute rates require further refinement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B and Eq. (40)] The central numerical predictions are computed in the narrow-width approximation with the factorized formula σ(pp→ha→hbhc) = κa^2 σSM(Ma) BR(ha→hbhc), i.e. only the s-channel single-resonance contribution is included. The paper notes in Sec. IV B that box diagrams and signal-signal interference can significantly affect di-Higgs production, but asserts without a dedicated check that such configurations "play no important role for most of the scenarios." This assertion is load-bearing because the benchmark planes include exactly the configurations where interference is known to be important: BP5 allows M1 up to 124 GeV while h125≡h2 has M2=125.09 GeV, and BP1 has a sharp threshold M2=2M1 across which BR(h2→h1h1) jumps from ~0 to ~100%. I request a quantitative estimate of off-shell and interference effects for at least the representative benchmark points, or a clear restriction of the claimed benchmark rates to regions where the NWA is reliable.
  2. [Sec. V F and Fig. 14] The narrow-width approximation is violated in BP6, where the total width of h3 reaches Γ3/M3 ~ 14% near the unitarity bound. The paper itself advises that "it may be important to include finite width effects in experimental analyses of this scenario," yet the quoted benchmark cross sections, including the ~14 fb four-Higgs cascade rate near threshold, are obtained under the NWA. Since the cross section is proportional to the on-shell branching ratio divided by the width, a 14% width can shift rates by order-one factors and distort line shapes near thresholds. I ask the authors to provide finite-width corrected estimates, or at least to state the expected size of the correction for the quoted benchmark rates.
  3. [Eq. (22) and Sec. II B] The Higgs-to-Higgs partial widths are computed at leading order in the effective trilinear couplings, while the SM-like partial widths are taken from higher-order calculations. The branching ratios in Eqs. (26)–(28) therefore mix different perturbative orders. This is a standard limitation for benchmark studies, but it directly affects the quoted BR(h125→NP) limits and the benchmark BRs, especially in regions where a small change in a partial width can change the dominant decay mode. I ask the authors to state this limitation explicitly in Sec. II B or Sec. V, and, if feasible, to estimate the size of the leading QCD/electroweak corrections to the scalar trilinear couplings and widths.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V F] In the paragraph after Fig. 14 there is a typo: "the total width of of h3" should read "the total width of h3".
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The right panel caption says the color scale shows Γa/Ma as a function of Ma and BR(ha→NP), but the plotted quantity is not fully clear from the caption alone; please clarify the color-coding and the ordering of the points.
  3. [Tables III and IV] The notation F^4_SM, F^6_SM, and F^8_SM is used in Tables III and IV before it is explicitly defined in the text of Sec. V; please define the notation at first use in Sec. IV B.
  4. [Sec. V E and Fig. 13] In BP5, the statement that the h1h1 state is identical to that of BP4 is correct only because h1 always decays like a SM Higgs of the same mass; note this explicitly in the text to avoid confusion, since the two benchmarks have different h125 assignments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the TRSM rates are computed from scanned Lagrangian parameters and external LHC constraints, with no fitted input masquerading as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions are the branching ratios and cross sections for Higgs-to-Higgs decays in the two-real-singlet model. These are obtained by evaluating tree-level partial widths, Eq. (22), and rescaling SM Higgs production cross sections and widths by the mixing-factor kappa_a^2, Eqs. (24)-(26) and Eq. (40). All model parameters (masses, mixing angles, vevs) are scanned input parameters, not fitted to the predicted observables. The benchmarks define explicit parameter planes with all other parameters fixed, so the quoted rates are direct evaluations rather than fits renamed as predictions. The experimental constraints come from independent data applied through HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals, which are external validation tools; the author overlap in maintaining these codes does not make the constraints circular, since they encode external LHC and LEP measurements. The paper's own caveats about the narrow-width approximation, box-diagram interference, and finite-width effects are accuracy or validity concerns, not circularity: they do not show that any prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. No load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work to force the results. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The two real singlet fields S and X are the model content under study, not entities introduced to explain an external observation; no independent evidence for their existence is claimed. The model has seven explicit input parameters (masses, mixing angles, vevs) that are scanned, and the benchmark values are tabulated in Table II, so no hidden numerical parameters are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Benchmark fixed parameters (six scenarios) = Table II values (masses, theta_hS, theta_hX, theta_SX, vS, vX)
    Hand-picked per benchmark to make the target Higgs-to-Higgs decay near-maximal while respecting constraints; these choices are the load-bearing inputs for the quoted rates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Global minimum theorem for the TRSM vacuum (Ref. [39])
    Invoked in Sec. III A to exclude vacuum decay constraints; if the theorem does not cover the full TRSM parameter space, some scanned points could be metastable.
  • domain assumption Perturbative unitarity bound |M_i| < 8 pi
    Standard criterion used in Sec. III A to restrict scalar couplings; the paper states it but does not rederive the eigenvalues.
  • domain assumption Boundedness conditions of the scalar potential (Eq. 34, from Refs. [84,85])
    Taken from Kannike; used to enforce potential boundedness and to mark excluded regions in the benchmark planes.
  • domain assumption SM Higgs cross sections and decay tables from Refs. [77,114]
    External inputs used to rescale for new scalars via Eqs. (24) and (25); the paper does not derive these predictions.
  • domain assumption Narrow width approximation
    Used throughout (Sec. IV B and benchmark sections) to factorize production and decay; breaks down for wide states with Gamma over M up to about 14%.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phenomenology and benchmark scenarios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNV7USVE

@misc{pith2026190808554,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phenomenology and benchmark scenarios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNV7USVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08554}
}
abstract

We investigate the LHC phenomenology of a model where the Standard Model (SM) scalar sector is extended by two real scalar singlets. A $\mathbb{Z}_2\otimes\mathbb{Z}_2'$ discrete symmetry is imposed to reduce the number of scalar potential parameters, which is spontaneously broken by the vacuum expectation values of the singlet fields. As a result, all three neutral scalar fields mix, leading to three neutral CP-even scalar bosons, out of which one is identified with the observed Higgs boson at 125 GeV. We explore all relevant collider signatures of the three scalars in this model. Besides the single production of a scalar boson decaying directly to SM particle final states, we extensively discuss the possibility of resonant multi-scalar production. The latter includes decays of the produced scalar boson to two identical scalars ("symmetric decays"), as well as to two different scalars ("asymmetric decays"). Furthermore, we discuss the possibility of successive decays to the lightest scalar states ("cascade decays"), which lead to experimentally spectacular three- and four-Higgs final states. We provide six benchmark scenarios for detailed experimental studies of these Higgs-to-Higgs decay signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08554 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Decay branching ratios of a SM-like Higgs boson, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Constraints from Higgs signal rate measurements on the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. SM-normalized signal rate for additional Higgs bosons decaying to SM particle final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Possible Higgs-to-Higgs decay signatures involving three neutral (mass ordered) scalars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Benchmark plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (left) mostly stays above 20 % for M3 . 350 GeV, reaching maximal values of around 50 − 55 % in the low mass region, M3 ∼ 150 − 170 GeV. In this region, the corresponding signal rate in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Branching ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Benchmark plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Branching ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Benchmark plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Branching ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Benchmark plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Benchmark plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Branching ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 13 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards anomaly detection searches for new physics signatures including Higgs bosons with weakly supervised machine learning

    hep-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HAXAD, a weakly supervised anomaly-detection search for Higgs-plus-X new physics, is extended with new embeddings and limit-setting, and on 470 fb^-1 of pseudo-data it matches or exceeds the best single cut-based limi...

  2. Search for new scalars via $X \rightarrow SH \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    No excess over background is found in ATLAS's first search for X→SH→4b, which sets 95% CL upper limits of 0.7 fb–2.6 pb on the production cross-section times branching ratio.

  3. TRSMScans

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    TRSMScans is an automated zoom-optimization scanner that computes maximal allowed rates for asymmetric scalar production and decay chains in the TRSM (and potentially other ScannerS models) under all theoretical and e...

  4. Search for decays of the Higgs boson into scalar particles decaying into four or six $b$-quarks using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 13\,\mathrm{TeV}$ with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With 140 inverse femtobarns of 13 TeV LHC data, ATLAS finds no excess of Higgs decays to new scalars producing four or six bottom quarks, and sets 95% CL upper limits from 4% to 38% on the branching fractions.

  5. Primordial Black Hole Formation via Inverted Bubble Collapse

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Isolated bubbles from an incomplete phase transition, inverted into false-vacuum regions by a later bulk transition, collapse into nearly monochromatic primordial black holes up to about 10^-5 solar masses.

  6. Probing new physics in the Boosted $HH \to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ channel at the LHC

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A dedicated boosted-jet category in HH→bbγγ is projected to narrow the κ2V constraint to [-0.4, 2.6] at 95% CL and improve heavy-resonance limits by 1–2x at 308 fb⁻¹.

  7. From Qubits to Couplings: A Hybrid Quantum Machine Learning Framework for LHC Physics

    hep-ex 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A hybrid quantum-classical classifier on simulated HH→bbγγ events claims 95% CL limits of 1.9–2.1×SM, but the gain over XGBoost is 21–29%, not the advertised factor of two.

  8. Triple Higgs Boson Production with Two Heavy Scalars at the LHC via a Simplified Approach

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Double-resonant triple Higgs boson production at the LHC can be described by a single rescaling factor rho2, and projected 95% CL limits on rho2 over the (m2,m3) plane make the analysis applicable to any two-narrow-sc...

  9. Interference effects in new physics searches

    hep-ph 2026-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    Interference between new-physics resonances and Standard Model backgrounds must be included in collider searches; the review shows it can distort, enhance, or even cancel expected signals.

  10. Investigating extended scalar sectors at current and future colliders

    hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Current LHC data leave substantial room for singlet and inert doublet scalar extensions, and scalar-to-scalar decay signatures with rates up to tens of picobarns remain unexplored.

  11. Low mass scalars at $e^+e^-$ colliders

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper summarizes new developments in models and experimental searches for low-mass scalars at Higgs factories since prior reviews.

  12. Higgs physics beyond the Standard Model

    hep-ph 2019-08 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of BSM Higgs models concludes that current LHC data imply near-alignment, leaving room for lighter or heavier additional scalars and specific untested signatures.

  13. BSM: Extended Scalar Sectors

    hep-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    An updated review chapter on extended scalar sectors, their constraints, dark matter and CP violation links, and future collider searches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 13 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964)

    1964

  2. [2]

    P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964)

    1964

  3. [3]

    P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964)

    1964

  4. [4]

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964)

    1964

  5. [5]

    P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. 145, 1156 (1966)

    1966

  6. [6]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 155, 1554 (1967)

    1967

  7. [7]

    Aad et al

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

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Chatrchyan et al

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

    arXiv 2012

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS, CMS), JHEP 08, 045 (2016), arXiv:1606.02266 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B780, 501 (2018), arXiv:1709.07497 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 071802 (2018), arXiv:1709.05543 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    CMS collaboration, (2019), CMS-PAS-HIG-18-029

    2019

  5. [13]

    CMS collaboration, (2019), CMS-PAS-HIG-18-030

    2019

  6. [14]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 021801 (2019), arXiv:1807.06325 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 08, 066 (2018), arXiv:1803.05485 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B791, 96 (2019), arXiv:1806.05246 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    CMS collaboration, (2018), CMS-PAS-HIG-18-019

    2018

  10. [18]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), (2019), arXiv:1909.02845 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    CMS collaboration, (2019), CMS-PAS-HIG-19-001

    2019

  12. [20]

    CMS collaboration, (2019), CMS-PAS-HIG-18-032

    2019

  13. [21]

    G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura, and J. P. Silva, Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys. 103, 1 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    I. P. Ivanov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95, 160 (2017), arXiv:1702.03776 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Datta and A

    A. Datta and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D57, 2940 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9708444 [hep- ph]

    1998 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D72, 093007 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509209 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek, (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605188 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    O’Connell, M

    D. O’Connell, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D75, 037701 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611014 [hep-ph]. 31

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D77, 035005 (2008), arXiv:0706.4311 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson, and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D91, 035015 (2015), arXiv:1410.5488 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Robens and T

    T. Robens and T. Stefaniak, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 104 (2015), arXiv:1501.02234 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Robens and T

    T. Robens and T. Stefaniak, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 268 (2016), arXiv:1601.07880 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ilnicka, T

    A. Ilnicka, T. Robens, and T. Stefaniak, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1830007 (2018), arXiv:1803.03594 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D79, 015018 (2009), arXiv:0811.0393 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Alexander-Nunneley and A

    L. Alexander-Nunneley and A. Pilaftsis, JHEP 09, 021 (2010), arXiv:1006.5916 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Coimbra, M

    R. Coimbra, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2428 (2013), arXiv:1301.2599 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ahriche, A

    A. Ahriche, A. Arhrib, and S. Nasri, JHEP 02, 042 (2014), arXiv:1309.5615 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Costa, A

    R. Costa, A. P. Morais, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, Phys. Rev. D92, 025024 (2015), arXiv:1411.4048 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Costa, M

    R. Costa, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, JHEP 06, 034 (2016), arXiv:1512.05355 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    P. M. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D94, 096011 (2016), arXiv:1607.06101 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Chang, K

    J. Chang, K. Cheung, S.-C. Hsu, and C.-T. Lu, Phys. Rev. D95, 035012 (2017), arXiv:1607.07550 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M¨ uhlleitner, M

    M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos, and J. Wittbrodt, JHEP 08, 132 (2017), arXiv:1703.07750 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dawson and M

    S. Dawson and M. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D97, 015022 (2018), arXiv:1711.06683 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. N. Lerner and J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D80, 123507 (2009), arXiv:0909.0520 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Barger, M

    V. Barger, M. McCaskey, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D82, 035019 (2010), arXiv:1005.3328 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gonderinger, H

    M. Gonderinger, H. Lim, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D86, 043511 (2012), arXiv:1202.1316 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Belanger, K

    G. Belanger, K. Kannike, A. Pukhov, and M. Raidal, JCAP 1301, 022 (2013), arXiv:1211.1014 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ghorbani and H

    K. Ghorbani and H. Ghorbani, Phys. Rev. D93, 055012 (2016), arXiv:1501.00206 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jiang, L

    M. Jiang, L. Bian, W. Huang, and J. Shu, Phys. Rev. D93, 065032 (2016), arXiv:1502.07574 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Athron et al

    P. Athron et al. (GAMBIT), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 568 (2017), arXiv:1705.07931 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chiang, M

    C.-W. Chiang, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and E. Senaha, Phys. Rev. D97, 015005 (2018), arXiv:1707.09960 [hep-ph]. 32

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Athron, J

    P. Athron, J. M. Cornell, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Mckay, P. Scott, and S. Wild, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 830 (2018), arXiv:1806.11281 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Grzadkowski and D

    B. Grzadkowski and D. Huang, JHEP 08, 135 (2018), arXiv:1807.06987 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade, and C.-T. Yu, JHEP 11, 127 (2014), arXiv:1409.0005 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

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

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Beniwal, M

    A. Beniwal, M. Lewicki, J. D. Wells, M. White, and A. G. Williams, JHEP 08, 108 (2017), arXiv:1702.06124 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cheng and L

    W. Cheng and L. Bian, Phys. Rev. D98, 023524 (2018), arXiv:1801.00662 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ghorbani and P

    K. Ghorbani and P. H. Ghorbani, JHEP 12, 077 (2019), arXiv:1906.01823 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D94, 052002 (2016), arXiv:1606.04782 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 01, 054 (2018), arXiv:1708.04188 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B778, 101 (2018), arXiv:1707.02909 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 05, 124 (2019), arXiv:1811.11028 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 04, 092 (2019), arXiv:1811.04671 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 191801 (2018), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.122,no.8,089901(2019)], arXiv:1808.00336 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 1007 (2018), arXiv:1807.08567 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 11, 040 (2018), arXiv:1807.04873 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 121803 (2019), arXiv:1811.09689 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 08, 152 (2018), arXiv:1806.03548 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B788, 7 (2019), arXiv:1806.00408 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B800, 135103 (2020), arXiv:1906.02025 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 11, 018 (2018), arXiv:1805.04865 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B785, 462 (2018), arXiv:1805.10191 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 10, 031 (2018), arXiv:1806.07355 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B782, 750 (2018), arXiv:1803.11145 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B795, 398 (2019), arXiv:1812.06359 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B790, 1 (2019), arXiv:1807.00539 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B800, 135087 (2020), arXiv:1907.07235 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    de Florian et al

    D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), (2016), 10.23731/CYRM- 2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108, 56 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9704448 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  71. [79]

    J. M. Butterworth et al. , in Physics at TeV colliders. Proceedings, 6th Workshop, dedicated to Thomas Binoth, Les Houches, France, June 8-26, 2009 (2010) arXiv:1003.1643 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, M. Muehlleitner, and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 238, 214 (2019), arXiv:1801.09506 [hep-ph]. 33

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber, Phys. Rev. D74, 013004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604011 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber, Proceedings, 8th DESY Work- shop on Elementary Particle Theory: Loops and Legs in Quantum Field Theory: Eise- nach, Germany, 23-28 April 2006 , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 160, 131 (2006), [,131(2006)], arXiv:hep-ph/060706...

    2006 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber, JHEP 02, 080 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0611234 [hep-ph]

    2007

  76. [84]

    Kannike, Eur

    K. Kannike, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2093 (2012), arXiv:1205.3781 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Kannike, Eur

    K. Kannike, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 324 (2016), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J.C78,no.5,355(2018)], arXiv:1603.02680 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Altarelli and R

    G. Altarelli and R. Barbieri, Phys. Lett. B253, 161 (1991)

    1991

  79. [87]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 964 (1990)

    1990

  80. [88]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D46, 381 (1992)

    1992

  81. [89]

    Maksymyk, C

    I. Maksymyk, C. P. Burgess, and D. London, Phys. Rev. D50, 529 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9306267 [hep-ph]

    1994

  82. [90]

    Haller, A

    J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, T. Peiffer, and J. Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 675 (2018), arXiv:1803.01853 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Grimus, L

    W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, J. Phys. G35, 075001 (2008), arXiv:0711.4022 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Grimus, L

    W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, Nucl. Phys. B801, 81 (2008), arXiv:0802.4353 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Lopez-Val and T

    D. Lopez-Val and T. Robens, Phys. Rev. D90, 114018 (2014), arXiv:1406.1043 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Schael et al

    S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak), Phys. Rept. 532, 119 (2013), arXiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [95]

    T. A. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. D89, 072003 (2014), arXiv:1311.0894 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 110 (2018), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J.C78,no.11,898(2018)], arXiv:1701.07240 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  90. [98]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 138 (2010), arXiv:0811.4169 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 2605 (2011), arXiv:1102.1898 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and K. Williams, Proceedings, 4th International Workshop on Prospects for Charged Higgs Discovery at Col- liders (CHARGED 2012): Uppsala, Sweden, October 8-11, 2012 , PoS CHARGED2012, 024 (2012), arXiv:...

    2012 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2693 (2014), arXiv:1311.0055 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 421 (2015), arXiv:1507.06706 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  95. [103]

    HiggsBounds,

    P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, “HiggsBounds,” https://gitlab.com/higgsbounds/higgsbounds (2019)

    2019

  96. [104]

    St˚ al and T

    O. St˚ al and T. Stefaniak, Proceedings, 2013 European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS-HEP 2013): Stockholm, Sweden, July 18-24, 2013 , PoS EPS- HEP2013, 314 (2013), arXiv:1310.4039 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, Eur.Phys.J. C74, 2711 (2014), arXiv:1305.1933 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, JHEP 11, 039 (2014), arXiv:1403.1582 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [107]

    HiggsSignals,

    P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, “HiggsSignals,” https://gitlab.com/higgsbounds/higgssignals (2019)

    2019

  100. [108]

    ATLAS collaboration, (2019), ATLAS-CONF-2019-005

    2019

  101. [109]

    Cepeda et al

    M. Cepeda et al. (Physics of the HL-LHC Working Group), (2019), arXiv:1902.00134 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  102. [110]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B793, 520 (2019), arXiv:1809.05937 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 231801 (2019), arXiv:1904.05105 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  104. [112]

    P. M. Ferreira, R. Guedes, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, JHEP 12, 067 (2014), arXiv:1409.6723 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  105. [113]

    M¨ uhlleitner, M

    M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos, and J. Wittbrodt, JHEP 03, 094 (2017), arXiv:1612.01309 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  106. [114]

    J. R. Andersen et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), (2013), 10.5170/CERN- 2013-004, arXiv:1307.1347 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, T. Gehrmann, F. Herzog, A. Lazopoulos, and B. Mistlberger, JHEP 05, 058 (2016), arXiv:1602.00695 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Dawson and I

    S. Dawson and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D92, 094023 (2015), arXiv:1508.05397 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Carena, Z

    M. Carena, Z. Liu, and M. Riembau, Phys. Rev. D97, 095032 (2018), arXiv:1801.00794 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Alison et al

    J. Alison et al. , in Double Higgs Production at Colliders Batavia, IL, USA, September 4, 2018-9, 2019 , edited by B. Di Micco, M. Gouzevitch, J. Mazzitelli, and C. Vernieri (2019) arXiv:1910.00012 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Basler, S

    P. Basler, S. Dawson, C. Englert, and M. M¨ uhlleitner, (2019), arXiv:1909.09987 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Schael et al

    S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches), Eur. Phys. J. C47, 547 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0602042 [hep-ex]

    2006 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D98, 052008 (2018), arXiv:1808.02380 [hep-ex]. 35

    2018 arXiv

  114. [122]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 06, 127 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP03,128(2019)], arXiv:1804.01939 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D99, 012008 (2019), arXiv:1808.10515 [hep-ex]. 36

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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