Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 18 references

A flavor-dependent U(1) extension keeps the 125 GeV Higgs SM-like in couplings and matches LHC diphoton data while tightening charged-Higgs mass floors.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 14:42 UTC pith:KDK3QG4K

load-bearing objection Solid incremental κ_γ scan on the authors’ own U(1)_X model; new mass floors are real but rest on hand-fixed mixings and missing BFB/unitarity cuts. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24446 v1 pith:KDK3QG4K submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph

Constraints from the SM-like Higgs boson in a flavor-dependent U(1) extension of the Standard Model

Duong Van Loi , N. T. Duy This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords flavor-dependent U(1)_XSM-like Higgskappa_gammacharged Higgs bosonsHiggs signal strengthsdiphoton decaybeyond Standard Model
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.

The paper studies the light Higgs H in a flavor-dependent U(1)_X extension that already aims to explain three fermion generations, neutrino masses, dark matter, and flavor anomalies. It shows that H couples to SM fermions and to W and Z exactly as in the Standard Model, so the usual kappa modifiers for those channels stay equal to one. The only new handle is the one-loop H to gamma-gamma rate, which receives contributions from two new charged scalars. After scanning the relevant quartic couplings and mixing parameters under existing flavor, collider, and dark-matter bounds, the model still lands inside the ATLAS and CMS 1-sigma bands on kappa_gamma. The same requirement raises the lower limits on the charged-Higgs masses above the earlier literature values. A sympathetic reader cares because the construction remains viable under precision Higgs data without spoiling the mechanisms that motivated the extra U(1) in the first place.

Core claim

In this flavor-dependent U(1)_X model the SM-like Higgs H has tree-level couplings to fermions and to W/Z identical to the Standard Model, while its one-loop diphoton rate (parameterized by kappa_gamma) remains consistent with ATLAS and CMS 1-sigma measurements once the new charged scalars and the small H–heavy-Higgs mixings are included; the same 1-sigma window strengthens the charged-Higgs mass floors to roughly 650–700 GeV.

What carries the argument

The kappa_gamma modifier built from the one-loop H to gamma-gamma width, with extra contributions proportional to the couplings g_H H1+ H1- and g_H H2+ H2- that arise from the SM-doublet–odd-doublet quartics and from the small mixings epsilon_1,2.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical maps rest on setting several pairs of quartic couplings equal for simplicity, fixing the heavy-Higgs mixings to two discrete tiny values, and dropping the small corrections to the fermion Yukawas so that all other kappa factors equal one exactly.

What would settle it

A future LHC or HL-LHC measurement of kappa_gamma (or of the charged-Higgs masses) that falls outside the regions allowed by the paper’s 1-sigma scan for the quoted epsilon values would rule out the claimed consistency.

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

If this is right

  • Tree-level Higgs couplings to fermions, W and Z remain Standard-Model-like, so no tension is expected in those kappa channels.
  • Allowed quartic combinations must satisfy lambda_13 + lambda_14 greater than or equal to 5-4pi (or -4pi) according to the size of the mixings.
  • Charged-Higgs masses are pushed above approximately 650–700 GeV, stronger than earlier bounds from the same model.
  • The two heavy CP-even scalars and the new Z-prime remain at the multi-TeV scale set by the U(1)_X-breaking VEVs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because kappa_f = kappa_W = kappa_Z = 1 by construction, any future deviation in those modifiers would immediately exclude the present charge assignment or the assumed VEV hierarchy.
  • The diphoton channel is currently the only sensitive Higgs probe of the new charged scalars; improved kappa_Zgamma data could supply an independent cross-check once experimental precision improves.
  • The same charged scalars that correct kappa_gamma also mediate lepton-flavor violation, so a joint fit of diphoton and LFV rates could shrink the surviving parameter space further.

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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 125 GeV Higgs boson in a flavor-dependent U(1)_X extension of the SM previously proposed by (overlapping) authors in Ref. [13]. The scalar sector contains the SM-like doublet phi, two Z_2-odd doublets eta, rho, and two singlets chi_{1,2}; the light CP-even state H mixes with two heavy states via small parameters epsilon_{1,2}. The authors show that, neglecting O(epsilon v/Lambda) Yukawa corrections, all tree-level couplings of H to SM fermions and gauge bosons equal their SM values (kappa_f = kappa_W = kappa_Z = kappa_g = 1), so the only modified coupling is kappa_gamma, which receives charged-scalar loop contributions from H1± and H2± (Eqs. 42–45). Imposing the 1-sigma ATLAS (1.01±0.06) and CMS (1.10±0.08) kappa_gamma values, together with flavor/collider windows imported from Ref. [13] (57.09 TeV ≤ 2√(Λ1²+9Λ2²) ≤ 78.92 TeV, m_H± ∈ [0.5,1.2] TeV, small charged mixing angle theta), and perturbativity |lambda_ij| < 4π, a numerical scan yields a correlation lambda_13+lambda_14 ≥ 5−4π (epsilon=10⁻³) or ≥ −4π (epsilon=10⁻²), no constraint on lambda_17,18, and strengthened charged-Higgs floors m_H±1 ≥ 700 GeV, m_H±2 ≥ 660 GeV (epsilon=10⁻³) and 650/680 GeV (epsilon=10⁻²).

Significance. The core calculation is standard and appears correct: the kappa_gamma width formula and loop functions (Eqs. 43–44) are the textbook ones, and kappa_f=kappa_V=1 follows cleanly from the charge assignment X_phi=0 and the singlet nature of chi_{1,2}. The paper delivers falsifiable, quantitative outputs — a sharp portal-coupling correlation and charged-Higgs mass floors in the 650–700 GeV range, testable in direct H± searches at the (HL-)LHC — which is a genuine strength. The work is, however, incremental in method: it applies a well-known one-loop constraint to a specific model whose entire external input (charge assignment, mass spectra, flavor/collider/DM windows) is taken from Ref. [13]. The robustness of the headline numbers is limited by the absence of vacuum-stability and unitarity cuts on the scalar potential, by an underspecified scan, and by the ad-hoc fixation of epsilon_{1,2}; these are addressable and do not challenge the qualitative conclusion that the model is currently consistent with kappa_gamma data.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.A, Fig. 1 (left panel)] The only theoretical cut applied to the quartics is |lambda_ij| < 4π. For this potential (Eqs. 10–11) the bounded-from-below conditions are substantially stronger: e.g., along the neutral phi–eta direction, V contains lambda_1|phi|^4 + lambda_7|eta|^4 + (lambda_11+lambda_13)|phi|²|eta|², requiring lambda_11+lambda_13 ≥ −2√(lambda_1 lambda_7); with the scan assumption lambda_11=lambda_13 this bounds lambda_13 ≥ −√(lambda_1 lambda_7), i.e. of order −0.4 to −1.6 depending on lambda_7 — far above the quoted edge lambda_13+lambda_14 ≥ 5−4π ≈ −7.6. The left edge of Fig. 1 (and hence the correlation plot and any floors that derive from it) is populated by points that generically destabilize the potential. Copositivity conditions for the eta–rho subsystem and perturbative-unitarity limits on 2→2 scalar scattering must be imposed and the figures redone, or the allowed regions must be explicitly l
  2. [§III.A, Fig. 1 (right panel), Eqs. 27–31] The claim that 'the entire parameter space of lambda_17 and lambda_18 satisfies the 1-sigma bounds' is made without any physicality check. These couplings enter M²_eta = mu_4² + ... + lambda_17 Λ₂²/2 (and M²_rho similarly); with Λ₂ up to ~40 TeV and lambda_17 → −4π this is a shift of order −10⁷ GeV², which must be compensated by mu_4² to keep the charged-Higgs masses (Eqs. 30–31) and the R,I dark-scalar masses (Eqs. 27–28) positive and the Z_2-preserving vacuum a minimum. Since Fig. 2's mass floors are read off the same scan, the lambda_17,18 insensitivity conclusion and the floors are only as reliable as these unchecked tachyonic/vacuum constraints. A demonstration that all shown points correspond to physical spectra is needed.
  3. [§III.A, Fig. 2] The strengthened floors m_H±1 ≥ 700 GeV etc. are a headline result, but the scan producing Fig. 2 is not described: no sampling ranges or priors for (Λ₁, Λ₂) within the 57–79 TeV window, no lambda ranges beyond |lambda|<4π, no point count, no statement of how the floors are extracted (scatter-cloud edge vs. analytic minimization). The floors are presumably edges of point clouds and thus sensitive to scan density; the inverted ordering between the two epsilon choices (700/660 at 10⁻³ vs. 650/680 at 10⁻²) is unexplained and hints at scan artifacts. The scan must be documented sufficiently for reproduction, and the floors shown to be stable under denser sampling.
  4. [§II.B, Eqs. (18)–(19); §III.A] The results are quoted for epsilon_{1,2} fixed by hand to 10⁻³ or 10⁻², yet Eqs. (18)–(19) define epsilon_{1,2} as functions of the chi-sector quartics and the very scales Λ_{1,2} being scanned. It is presumably possible to realize epsilon ~ 10⁻³–10⁻² by choice of lambda_2,...,lambda_6, lambda, but this is not demonstrated, and it is not shown that the natural size of epsilon over the scanned window is consistent with the chosen values (a parametric estimate epsilon ~ (coupling ratios)·v/Λ suggests 10⁻² is near the upper edge for Λ ~ 20–60 TeV). A consistency argument or a scan over a continuous epsilon range, rather than two discrete values, would make the per-epsilon mass floors well-defined.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (46)] Eq. (46): m_Z = 91.67 GeV should read 91.19 GeV (PDG). Please correct.
  2. [Abstract; §IV] The abstract and conclusion state that the results satisfy 'constraints from ... dark matter studies,' but the scan imposes only the quark-flavor window, the cLFV mass window, and the small-theta condition; no dark-sector parameter (mu, lambda_19, M_eta,rho, relic density) enters the analysis. Either include the DM constraints explicitly or soften the claim.
  3. [§III, after Eq. (45)] The kappa_gamma inputs are cited to the PDG review [19]; the primary ATLAS and CMS kappa-framework combination papers should be cited directly. Since the ATLAS (1.01±0.06) and CMS (1.10±0.08) central values differ by ~1 sigma, please state whether the intersection or the union of the two 1-sigma bands defines the allowed region in Figs. 1–2.
  4. [§II.B] The notation t_{2ξ}, t_{2R,2I}, t_{2θ} (Eqs. 22, 29, 32) is used without definition; presumably t_{2x} ≡ tan(2x). Please define. Also 'mix through via a 2×2 matrix' (before Eq. 30) is garbled.
  5. [§III.A] The quark-flavor window is stated as 57.09 TeV ≤ 2√(Λ₁²+9Λ₂²) ≤ 78.92 TeV; given Eq. (36), m_Z' = 2 g_X z √(...), the factor of 2 suggests the bound is on m_Z'/(g_X z). Please state this explicitly and note the assumed g_X, z values inherited from Ref. [13].
  6. [§III, Eqs. (43)–(45)] In Eq. (43) only the top-quark loop is retained among fermions; this is standard but should be stated. Relatedly, kappa_gamma as defined in Eq. (45) is a partial-width ratio; using it as a signal-strength proxy assumes the total width is SM-like. Given TeV-scale Z_2-odd masses, exotic decays such as H→R₁R₁ are kinematically closed — please state this assumption explicitly.
  7. [§III, below Eq. (43)] kappa_S is normalized to g_S^SM = −g²v/2, which is not an SM quantity (the SM has no charged scalar). Please clarify that this is merely a normalization convention and give the explicit mapping from g_HSS to the amplitude coefficient.
  8. [§III; Figs. 1–2] The numerical kappa_g formula (1.042 kappa_t² − ...) is quoted without a source; please cite the kappa-framework/Higgs-cross-section-working-group origin. In Figs. 1–2 the two epsilon choices are distinguished only by color (blue/red); a marker-style distinction would survive grayscale printing.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Load-bearing self-citation to overlapping-author Ref. [13] supplies the model, residual Z2, mass formulas, and the flavor/collider/DM windows that define the scan; the κ_γ consistency check itself is an independent external comparison with free quartics.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sect. III.A (bullet list) and Introduction citing Ref. [13]]
    "we impose the following constraints derived from previous work: • Constraint from quark flavor-violating observables: 57.09 TeV ≤ 2√(Λ1²+9Λ2²) ≤ 78.92 TeV. • Small mixing angle in the charged Higgs sector: θ ∼ 0.5 × arctan(v²/|m²_H1± − m²_H±2|) < π/16. • Constraints from charged-lepton flavor–violating observables: m_H±1,2 ∈ [0.5,1.2] TeV."

    The entire prior volume of the numerical scan (U(1)X scale, charged-Higgs mass window, small θ) is taken from the overlapping-author paper [13] that defined the model. The claim that the model 'predicts κ_γ values consistent with ATLAS and CMS … while satisfying several bounds derived from flavor, collider and dark matter studies' is therefore the intersection of a self-supplied parameter region with external Higgs data, not a fully independent first-principles derivation. The κ_γ calculation itself is still new and externally anchored.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sect. II (throughout) and Eqs. (17)–(32)]
    "Recently, the authors in Ref. [13] proposed a BSM model based on a flavor-dependent U(1)_X gauge symmetry… In this section, we summarize the main results obtained from the diagonalization of the scalar potential, which were derived explicitly in Ref. [13]."

    Mass formulas for H, H1,2, A, R1,2, I1,2, H±1,2, the mixing parameters ε1,2 and θ, and the residual Z2 are not re-derived from independent principles; they are restated from the authors’ own prior work and then used as the starting point for the κ_i analysis. This is load-bearing for the setup but does not by itself force the κ_γ numerical output.

full rationale

The paper is a follow-on phenomenology note on the SM-like Higgs of a model introduced in Ref. [13] by overlapping authors. Particle content, X-charge assignment, residual Z2, scalar potential, mass matrices, mixing parameters ε1,2, and the numerical windows used in the scan (57–79 TeV on the U(1)X-breaking scale, m_H± ∈ [0.5,1.2] TeV, small θ) are imported wholesale from that reference and listed as bullet constraints in Sect. III.A. That is ordinary sequential model-building, not a closed logical loop: once those inputs are fixed, the one-loop κ_γ formula (Eqs. 43–45) is standard, the free portal quartics λ13,14 (and to a lesser extent λ17,18) are scanned under only |λ|<4π, and the output is the intersection of that scan with external ATLAS/CMS 1σ bands on κ_γ. The resulting allowed λ13+λ14 edges and the modestly raised charged-Higgs floors are therefore genuine (if limited) constraints from new data, not quantities forced by construction or by refitting the same observable. κ_f = κ_W = κ_Z = κ_g = 1 follows from neglecting O(ε v/Λ) Yukawa corrections and from the singlets carrying zero hypercharge—an approximation stated explicitly, not a circular redefinition of the target. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in as a theorem, and no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction of the same datum. Score 3 reflects one clear load-bearing self-citation chain that sets the prior volume, while the central κ_γ comparison remains an independent external check.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 4 invented entities

The central κ_γ claim rests on the pre-existing flavor-U(1)_X model (charges, scalars, Z_2, seesaw mixings), on standard one-loop Higgs diphoton technology, on external ATLAS/CMS κ_γ bands, and on a handful of hand-fixed mixings and equality assumptions among quartics that shrink the scan. Almost all invented particles and the prior experimental windows come from Ref. [13], not from independent evidence in this text.

free parameters (6)
  • ε_1, ε_2 (H–H_{1,2} mixing) = 10^{-3} or 10^{-2}
    Fixed by hand to the discrete values 10^{-3} or 10^{-2} rather than derived or scanned continuously; they control how much heavy-Higgs mixing cancels the charged-scalar contribution to κ_γ.
  • λ_13, λ_14 = scanned; preferred λ_13+λ_14 ≥ 5−4π (ε=10^{-3}) or ≥ −4π (ε=10^{-2})
    Leading quartics in g_HH±H± after small-θ approximation; scanned under |λ|<4π and retained only if κ_γ is inside 1σ.
  • λ_17, λ_18 = scanned inside |λ|<4π
    Singlet–odd-doublet quartics entering g_HH±H± via εΛ terms; scanned but found weakly constrained.
  • Λ_1, Λ_2 (U(1)_X breaking scales) = constrained by prior work to multi-10 TeV combination
    Enter mixings, Z' mass, and prior flavor bound 57.09–78.92 TeV on 2√(Λ1²+9Λ2²); not independently refit here.
  • m_H±1, m_H±2 = lower edges ~650–700 GeV after κ_γ cut
    Physical charged-Higgs masses in the loop functions A_S(x_S); scanned inside the prior [0.5,1.2] TeV window and cut by κ_γ.
  • θ (charged-scalar mixing) = θ < π/16
    Taken small (~0.5 arctan(v²/|Δm²|)<π/16) so cross terms are dropped in Eq. 47.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper X-charge assignment X=3z[B i_a 2(a−1)+L i_a(a−1)] cancels anomalies only for three generations and defines the model gauge symmetry.
    Core model postulate imported from Ref. [13]; Sect. II.A.
  • domain assumption Scalar potential boundedness and hierarchy v≪Λ_{1,2}, μ_{1,2,3}²<0, μ_{4,5}²>0, λ_{1,2,3,7,8}>0, with seesaw diagonalization of CP-even mass matrix.
    Standard BSM potential assumptions used to identify H as the 125 GeV state and keep ε small (Eqs. 12–19).
  • ad hoc to paper Residual discrete Z_2 (from broken U(1)_X) stabilizes dark sector and forbids η,ρ VEVs.
    Used to keep dark scalars inert and define the odd doublets that supply H± (Sect. II.A–B).
  • domain assumption One-loop H→γγ width is exhausted by top, W, and the two new charged scalars with standard A_f,W,S loop functions; no other light charged states.
    Eqs. 43–44; standard effective-κ framework from LHC Higgs working group / PDG.
  • ad hoc to paper Quartic equalities λ_11=λ_13, λ_12=λ_14, λ_15=λ_17, λ_16=λ_18 and neglect of O(ε v/Λ) Yukawa corrections so κ_f=κ_W=κ_Z=κ_g=1 exactly.
    Explicit simplifying assumptions in Sect. III.A that directly shape the numerical claim.
  • domain assumption Prior flavor, collider, and DM windows from Ref. [13] remain valid inputs to the scan.
    Bullet list in Sect. III.A; without them the allowed mass/coupling regions change.
invented entities (4)
  • Flavor-dependent U(1)_X gauge boson Z' and charge X(a) no independent evidence
    purpose: Explain three generations via anomaly cancellation and source flavor structure.
    Introduced in Ref. [13]; this paper does not re-derive or newly test Z' directly.
  • Scalar singlets χ_1, χ_2 and doublets η, ρ no independent evidence
    purpose: Break U(1)_X, generate mixings ε_{1,2}, and supply inert/dark charged and neutral scalars including H±_{1,2}.
    Field content of the parent model; H± loops are the new-physics handle on κ_γ.
  • Right-handed neutrino ν_R and singlet fermion N_R (scotoseesaw) no independent evidence
    purpose: Cancel anomalies and generate light neutrino masses / DM candidate.
    Stated in Sect. II.A; not used in the κ_γ calculation.
  • Physical charged Higgses H±_1, H±_2 and heavy neutrals H_{1,2}, A independent evidence
    purpose: Provide extra one-loop contributions to H→γγ and encode heavy-scale mixings.
    Mass eigenstates after diagonalization (Eqs. 20–32); κ_γ bounds are the falsifiable handle offered here.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 15973 in / 5080 out tokens · 101222 ms · 2026-07-31T14:42:53.953380+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This work presents a phenomenological study of the Standard Model-like Higgs boson $H$ in a flavor-dependent $U(1)_X$ extension of the Standard Model, where the $X$ charge is assigned according to fermion flavors. In particular, we analyze the interactions of $H$ with Standard Model particles as well as with new charged scalar bosons. In addition, the parameter $\ka_{\ga}$, which characterizes the $H\to \ga\ga$ decay at the one-loop level, is investigated. The results show that the model predicts $\ka_{\ga}$ values consistent with the ATLAS and CMS constraints at the $1\sigma$ level, while satisfying several bounds derived from flavor, collider and dark matter studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24446 by Duong Van Loi, N. T. Duy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Correlations between the scalar couplings constrained by the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Correlation between the charged Higgs masses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.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

18 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    1 2Λ2 (4λ3Λ3 2 −λΛ 3 1)   .(16) Due to the hierarchyv≪Λ 1,Λ 2, the mixing matrixM 2 S can be approximately diagonalized using the seesaw method, in which the stateSis the lightest and is separated from the heavy states 5 S1,2. We obtain the light physical state with its squared mass as H≃S−ϵ 1S1 −ϵ 2S2, m 2 H ≃2λ 1v2 −(ϵ 1λ4Λ1 +ϵ 2λ5Λ2)v,(17) with th...

  2. [2]

    For the charged scalar sector,ϕ ± is identified as a massless eigenstate,G ± W ≡ϕ ±, which acts as the Goldstone boson absorbed by the SMW ± boson

    The two mixing anglesθ R,I are defined by t2R,2I = √ 2µΛ2 ±λ 19v2 M 2ρ −M 2η ,(29) which are small becauseµΛ 2 ∼λ 19v2 ≪M 2 η,ρ ∼ ¯M 2 and ¯M∼ O(1) TeV. For the charged scalar sector,ϕ ± is identified as a massless eigenstate,G ± W ≡ϕ ±, which acts as the Goldstone boson absorbed by the SMW ± boson. The remaining fields,η ± andρ ±, mix through via a 2×2 m...

  3. [3]

    D. T. Huong, P. V. Dong, N. T. Duy, N. T. Nhuan and L. D. Thien,Investigation of Dark Matter in the 3-2-3-1 Model,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 055033 [1802.10402]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    N. T. Duy, P. N. Thu and D. T. Huong,New physics in b→s transitions in the MF331 model,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 966 [2205.02995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    D. T. Huong, D. N. Dinh, L. D. Thien and P. Van Dong,Dark matter and flavor changing in the flipped 3-3-1 model,JHEP08(2019) 051 [1906.05240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Van Dong, N

    P. Van Dong, N. T. K. Ngan, T. D. Tham, L. D. Thien and N. T. Thuy,Phenomenology of the simple 3-3-1 model with inert scalars,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 095031 [1512.09073]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Van Loi, C

    D. Van Loi, C. H. Nam and P. Van Dong,Dark matter in the fully flipped 3-3-1-1 model,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 591 [2012.10979]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Van Loi, P

    D. Van Loi, P. Van Dong and D. Van Soa,Neutrino mass and dark matter from an approximate B−L symmetry,JHEP2020(2020) 090 [1911.04902]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    P. N. Thu, N. T. Duy, A. E. Carcamo Hernandez and D. T. Huong,Lepton universality violation in the MF331 model,2304.03003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    D. T. Huong and N. T. Duy,Investigation of the Higgs boson anomalous FCNC interactions in the simple 3-3-1 model,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 439 [2002.01115]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Nguyen Tuan, T

    D. Nguyen Tuan, T. Inami and H. Do Thi,Physical constraints derived from FCNC in the 3-3-1-1 model,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 813 [2009.09698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    D. N. Dinh, D. T. Huong, N. T. Duy, N. T. Nhuan, L. D. Thien and P. Van Dong,Flavor changing in the flipped trinification,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 055005 [1901.07969]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    N. T. Duy, D. T. Huong and A. E. Carcamo Hernandez,Flavor phenomenology of an extended 2HDM with inverse seesaw mechanism,2404.15935

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Van Dong, D

    P. Van Dong, D. Van Loi, D. T. Huong, N. T. Duy and D. Van Soa,Dark symmetry implication for right-handed neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 035014 [2407.02324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Van Loi, N

    D. Van Loi, N. T. Duy, C. H. Nam and P. Van Dong,Scoto-seesaw model implied by flavor-dependent Abelian gauge charge,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 109 [2409.06393]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    N. T. Duy, D. T. Huong, D. Van Loi and P. Van Dong,Flavor-changing phenomenology in a U(1) model,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 1053 [2410.15635]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Van Loi, A

    D. Van Loi, A. E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez, V. Q. Tran and N. T. Duy,Tri-hypercharge versus tri-darkcharge,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 1160 [2506.12873]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Van Loi, P

    D. Van Loi, P. Van Dong, N. T. Duy and N. H. Thao,Questions of flavor physics and neutrino mass from a flipped hypercharge,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 115022 [2312.12836]. [17]ATLAScollaboration,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1 [1207.7214]. [18]CMScollabora...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024