Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 18 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read 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.

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

Duong Van Loi , N. T. Duy This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords flavor-dependentU(1)_XSM-likeHiggskappa_gammachargedbosonssignalstrengthsdiphotondecaybeyondStandardModel
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

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.

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.

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

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
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

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 · score 3.0 of 10

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.

  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.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 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.
assumptions (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)
    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
    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)
    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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints from the SM-like Higgs boson in a flavor-dependent $U(1)$ extension of the Standard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDK3QG4K

@misc{pith2026260724446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints from the SM-like Higgs boson in a flavor-dependent $U(1)$ extension of the Standard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDK3QG4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24446}
}
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 the authors.

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. FIG. 2: Correlation between the charged Higgs masses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [13]

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

    arXiv

  2. [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...

  3. [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...

  4. [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]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [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]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [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]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [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]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [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]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 18 references
  1. [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]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

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

    arXiv

  3. [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]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [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]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [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]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [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]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [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

    2025 arXiv

  8. [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]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [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]

    2025

  10. [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 ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.