Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 5 cited by

Contrasting Pseudoscalar Higgs and Toponium States at the LHC and Beyond

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interference between a 365 GeV pseudoscalar Higgs and the top-pair QCD continuum is large, measurable through mass-window and energy ratios, and absent for toponium.

desk verdict A transparent, well-crafted phenomenological study of pseudoscalar-vs-toponium discrimination for the CMS 365 GeV excess, but the central discrimination ratios come with an unquantified interference K-factor that deserves a systematic uncertainty estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15138 v2 pith:KVFEBPSU submitted 2024-12-19 hep-ph hep-ex

Abdelhak Djouadi , John Ellis , Jeremie Quevillon This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords pseudoscalarHiggstoponiumtopquarkpairproductionsignal-backgroundinterferencettbarthresholdexcessgluonfusionassociatedtwo-Higgs-doubletmodel
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 aims to settle how a future experiment can tell apart two explanations of an excess of top-quark-pair events near the pair-production threshold: a new pseudoscalar Higgs boson $A$ decaying to $t\bar t$, or a toponium quasi-bound state predicted by QCD. Working in an effective theory with $M_A=365$ GeV and a reduced top-quark coupling $g_{Att}=0.78$ chosen to match the observed rate, it shows that the interference between $gg\to A\to t\bar t$ and the QCD continuum $gg\to t\bar t$ is large, so ignoring it badly miscalculates the yield. The key discriminating observables are ratios of integrated cross sections: about 1.2 over a narrow mass window and about 4 over a wide window, with an additional ~20% growth when the collider energy rises from 13 to 30 TeV. Toponium, where the QCD continuum is itself the signal, has no equivalent interference. The paper also estimates that associated $hA$ and $t\bar t A$ production, although tiny at 13 TeV, would become observable at much higher energies, offering another route to distinguish the two scenarios.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the interference term between the $s$-channel pseudoscalar amplitude $gg\to A\to t\bar t$ and the QCD continuum amplitude $gg\to t\bar t$, computed following earlier work at leading order with full top-quark mass effects and with higher-order QCD corrections inserted as K-factors: about 2 for the signal, 1.3 for the background, and an assumed 1.6 for the interference (the geometric mean of the two), with the leading-order width $\Gamma_{\rm LO}^{A}\simeq 4.2$ GeV used in the interference term because the ratio $\Gamma_{\rm HO}^{A}/\Gamma_{\rm LO}^{A}\simeq 1.6$ compensates the K-factor. This interference term is what produces the peak-dip line shape and the large dependence of total rates on the $m_{t\bar t}$ integration window and on $\sqrt{s}$.

What would settle it

Measure the $t\bar t$ invariant-mass distribution with resolution improved toward 10% and integrate the cross section over $[345,375]$ GeV and over $[345,600]$ GeV. If the ratio of signal-only to signal-plus-interference is close to 1.2 in the narrow window and close to 4 in the wide window, the interference picture is supported; if the ratios come out near 1, or the wide-window ratio does not change with collision energy, the claimed discriminator is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a pseudoscalar $A$ with mass just above the $2m_t=345$ GeV threshold, the resonant electroweak process $gg\to A\to t\bar t$ and the QCD continuum process $gg\to t\bar t$ interfere coherently, and this interference is an essential part of the production rate rather than a small correction. For the parameter point $M_A=365$ GeV, $g_{Att}=0.78$, the total width is fixed to about 4.2 GeV at leading order, and the real part of the interference is negative for invariant masses above $M_A$ and extends far beyond the resonance width, while the imaginary part is always negative. The result is a strong suppression of the integrated yield: the signal-only to signal-plus-interference ratio is roughly 1.2 when $m_{t\bar t}$ is integrated over $[345,375]$ GeV and roughly 4 over $[345,600]$ GeV, and this ratio grows about 20% as the collision energy increases from 13 to 30 TeV. Because toponium production is itself the QCD continuum, it displays no such interference, so these rate ratios and their energy dependence offer a concrete experimental discriminator even though the peak/dip structure itself is smeared by the invariant-mass resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The size of the predicted interference effects assumes that the unknown higher-order QCD correction to the interference is a factor of 1.6 (the geometric mean of the signal and background corrections), and that using the leading-order width in the interference term with a compensating width ratio is valid; if the true correction differs, the quoted 1.2 and 4 ratios and the 20% energy dependence would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the excess is due to an $A$ boson, the observed $t\bar t$ yield in a wide invariant-mass window (345 to 600 GeV) is about a factor of 4 smaller than the signal-only estimate, while a narrow window (345 to 375 GeV) differs by only about 20%.
  • The signal-plus-interference rate has a distinctive energy scaling: the ratio of signal-only to signal-plus-interference increases by about 20% between 13 and 30 TeV, and similarly between 30 and 100 TeV, unlike toponium production.
  • With current invariant-mass resolution around 20%, the peak/dip structure is hidden, but comparing integrated yields in different $m_{t\bar t}$ windows is a practical substitute.
  • Associated production rates $gg\to hA$ and $gg/q\bar q\to t\bar t A$ are about 25 fb and 15 fb at 13 TeV, respectively; at a 100 TeV machine they rise by factors of roughly 50 and 200, making them detectable with high luminosity.
  • Subdominant $A$ decay channels such as $A\to\gamma\gamma, Z\gamma, ZZ, WW$ have small branching fractions in this scenario and would mimic toponium, so they are not a clean discriminator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct measurement of the narrow-to-wide integrated cross-section ratio at a hadron collider would act as a model-independent interference test, without needing to resolve the line shape; the paper's numbers imply a clean target.
  • The same mass-window ratio technique could be applied to any narrow spin-0 resonance decaying to $t\bar t$ well above threshold, not just the specific 365 GeV point, since the real-part interference always extends far beyond the width.
  • The energy-dependence test could be sharpened by measuring the same windowed ratio at two collider energies, which reduces dependence on absolute luminosity and acceptance uncertainties.
  • If a future two-loop calculation replaces the geometric-mean K-factor, the main qualitative conclusion (interference suppresses wide-window yields and grows with energy) is likely to survive, but the exact 1.2 and 4 numbers would shift.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies how to discriminate a pseudoscalar Higgs boson A from a toponium quasi-bound state as explanations of the CMS ttbar threshold excess. It works in an effective model with only a new CP-odd singlet A coupling to tops, fixes M_A=365 GeV and g_Att=0.78 to reproduce the CMS rate of 7.1 pb, and computes the line shape of gg->A->ttbar including its interference with the gg->ttbar QCD continuum, using K-factors K_s~2, K_b~1.3, K_i~1.6. It claims integrated-rate ratios signal-only over signal-plus-interference of ~1.2 in [345,375] GeV and ~4 in [345,600] GeV, with a ~20% increase of this ratio between 13 and 30 TeV, and argues these are discriminating observables absent for toponium. It also estimates associated hA and ttbar A production to be small at the LHC but observable at a 100 TeV collider.

Significance. The qualitative observation is useful: for a narrow pseudoscalar near the ttbar threshold the peak-dip interference may be unresolved, but integrated-rate and energy-dependence tests could in principle distinguish A from toponium. The paper is transparent about using SUSHI, HDECAY, HPAIR, and HQQ with stated inputs, and it credits the weakness of the CMS 20% mass resolution explicitly. However, the quantitative discrimination claims are not yet robust: they rest on an uncalculated NNLO K-factor for the interference, on a coupling fitted to the CMS central value, and on toponium inputs from another paper. The central idea is defensible, but the numerical headline numbers need a dedicated higher-order treatment or an uncertainty scan before they can support the stated conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'For consistency'] The values 1.2, 4, and the ~20% energy growth in Fig. 3 and the surrounding text are computed by multiplying the leading-order gg->A interference by an assumed constant NNLO K-factor K_i=1.6. The argument that the width ratio Gamma_HO/Gamma_LO ~ 1.6 compensates this K-factor is not valid in the off-shell region: for m_tt^2 - M_A^2 much larger than M_A Gamma_A the Breit-Wigner denominator is dominated by the real part, so the choice of width is irrelevant and the interference tail out to m_tt ~ 600 GeV is simply rescaled by the guessed K_i. Because the wide-window ratio and the energy dependence are controlled by exactly this tail, the quoted numbers scale with K_i and no uncertainty band is given. Please provide either a dedicated NLO interference calculation, a scan over K_i (e.g., 1.0-2.0), or an explicit estimate of the resulting uncertainty; as written, the quantitative discrimination claim is not supported.
  2. [Section 3, sentence 'In fact, the interference is crucial ...' and Fig. 3] As written this claim is circular. The parameter g_Att=0.78 has just been chosen so that the signal rate matches the CMS value 7.1 pb (with Gamma_LO=4.2 GeV following from that choice), so the statement that interference is needed to obtain 7.1 pb is true by construction rather than a predictive result. Please clarify what is fixed by CMS (signal-only cross section, signal-plus-interference cross section, or the coupling itself) and propagate the experimental uncertainty on the 7.1 pb normalisation through the quoted ratios.
  3. [Section 3, last paragraph and Fig. 3 (right)] The comparison of the energy dependence of A production with the toponium curve from Ref. [31] is presented without stating the common inputs (PDF set, m_t value, QCD scales, K-factors) used for both curves. To support the discrimination claim the two calculations should be matched in these inputs, or the sensitivity of the ~20% difference to the toponium calculation should be quantified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence introducing associated A production contains a stray 'A' after 't tbar'; it should read 'gg/q qbar -> t tbar A.'
  2. [Caption of Fig. 1 and Section 3 text] The caption quotes Gamma_A = 4.3 GeV while the text quotes Gamma_LO_A ~ 4.2 GeV for M_A=365 GeV and g_Att=0.78; please make these values consistent.
  3. [Section 2, text after Eq. (4)] The sentence 'the total width Gamma_A is completely fixed by this normalisation' should be qualified: CMS considered several ad hoc width choices, and here the width is fixed only after a specific interpretation of the CMS signal rate is adopted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interference ratios are derived consequences of the CMS best-fit point and openly stated K-factor approximations, not re-statements of the fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims (signal-only to signal-plus-interference ratios of about 1.2 and 4, and the about 20% growth with sqrt(s)) are model predictions computed for a benchmark point M_A=365 GeV, g_Att=0.78 taken from the CMS best fit. The coupling is an input adopted from CMS, not fitted inside this paper, and the quoted ratios are not equal to that input: they are integrated-window and energy-dependence observables that depend on the interference sign and magnitude. Fitting a parameter to one observable and then computing other observables is standard phenomenology, not circular reduction. The K_i=1.6 factor for the unknown NNLO interference is explicitly stated to be an assumption, adopted following CMS and earlier references; the paper even explains the LO-width choice and the numerical coincidence Gamma_HO/Gamma_LO~1.6. This transparency about a limitation is a correctness risk, not a circular step: the paper does not define K_i in terms of the predicted ratios, nor does it derive the ratios from the fitted rate by construction. The self-citations (Refs. [2,12]) provide the effective-theory setup and the interference formalism, but the paper presents its own numerical results, and the formalism is standard and shared with CMS's own analysis. No load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-cited uniqueness theorem. The toponium-versus-A contrast is definitional (no resonance-background interference when the QCD continuum is itself the signal), but that is an honest distinction rather than a concealed identification. No equation in the paper equals the fitted input to the predicted output by definition, so there is no circularity to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central phenomenological numbers depend on three fitted or hand-chosen parameters (g_Att, M_A, K_interference), several domain assumptions inherited from the 2HDM alignment limit and toponium theory, and one ad hoc assumption about the unknown interference K-factor. The invented entity A is a hypothesis invoked to explain the excess, with testable consequences.

free parameters (3)
  • g_Att (reduced pseudoscalar-top coupling) = 0.78 (M_A=365), 0.81 (M_A=350), 0.83 (M_A=380)
    Chosen so the gg→A→ttbar cross section reproduces the CMS signal rate σ=7.1 pb (Section 3). The size of the interference effect scales with g_Att, so the quantitative discrimination predictions inherit this fit.
  • M_A (pseudoscalar mass) = 365 GeV (also 350 and 380 GeV in illustrative cases)
    Set to the CMS excess mass; the paper does not scan the full mass plane, instead fixing the mass to the CMS best-fit point and considering nearby values for illustration.
  • K_interference (higher-order QCD correction to the interference) = 1.6 (geometric mean of signal K≈2 and background K≈1.3)
    Hand-assigned higher-order QCD correction for the interference, whose NNLO is unknown. The central ratios (1.2 and 4) and the energy-dependence shift depend on this number.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The A boson is an isospin-singlet pseudoscalar coupling only to top quarks, with g_Abb and g_Aττ negligible.
    Defines the effective scenario (Section 2). Relies on 2HDM alignment limit and negligible bottom/lepton couplings.
  • domain assumption M_H ≈ M_H± >> M_A and the alignment limit hold, so h has SM-like couplings and AZZ, AWW, and AhZ couplings vanish.
    Necessary to reduce a 2HDM to the single-A effective theory (Section 2, conditions a and b).
  • domain assumption Toponium (Sommerfeld) contribution to the ttbar cross section is negligible above the 2mt threshold of 345 GeV.
    Justifies treating QCD continuum as pure background above threshold (Section 3, footnote 5 and Ref. [7]).
  • ad hoc to paper The higher-order QCD correction to the interference is the geometric mean of the signal and background K-factors (K≈1.6).
    No NNLO interference calculation exists; this choice, inherited from CMS and Refs. [11,12], directly sets the magnitude of the predicted interference effects.
  • domain assumption BR(A→ttbar)≈1 and Γ_A is dominated by A→ttbar at leading order for M_A>350 GeV.
    Used to relate total width to the ttbar partial width (Section 2, Eq. 4).
invented entities (1)
  • Pseudoscalar Higgs boson A (mass ~365 GeV) independent evidence
    purpose: The tested beyond-SM hypothesis for the CMS ttbar threshold excess; its interference with QCD is the paper's subject.
    It yields concrete falsifiable predictions (interference rate ratios, hA and ttbar A cross sections, energy dependence) that could be tested at the LHC and at a 100 TeV collider, though the particle itself is not yet established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contrasting Pseudoscalar Higgs and Toponium States at the LHC and Beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVFEBPSU

@misc{pith2026241215138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contrasting Pseudoscalar Higgs and Toponium States at the LHC and Beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVFEBPSU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15138}
}
read the original abstract

We discuss ways to discriminate at hadron colliders between a quasi-bound toponium state and a pseudoscalar Higgs boson A, as predicted in many extensions of the Standard Model. We apply the discussion to the excess of t tbar threshold events recently observed at the LHC by the CMS collaboration \cite{CMS}, which could in principle be due to either possibility. Working in an effective theory in which only an additional pseudoscalar A boson is present in the spectrum, with a mass above the 2 m_t threshold and a significant coupling to top quarks, we discuss the interference between A production in the dominant gluon-fusion process gg \to A with subsequent A\to t tbar decays, and the QCD continuum background, gg\to t tbar. While this interference is absent in the case of toponium, it is essential for evaluating A production. It is difficult to resolve the peak/dip structure that it generates because of the experimental smearing of the t tbar invariant mass spectrum. However, by comparing the total A production rates for different integration domains of the t tbar invariant mass or, eventually, at different center of mass energies, one may be able to observe its effects. We then discuss additional mechanisms for A production in pp collisions, including loop-induced production in association with the lighter h boson, gg \to hA, and production in association with top-quark pairs, gg/q\bar q \to t tbar. A These mechanisms have small cross sections at the LHC, and their observation will necessitate higher luminosities or collider energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The contributions to the line–shape of a pseudoscalar A state with a mass MA = 365 GeV in the process gg→A→tt¯ at the √ s=13 TeV LHC. We show the contributions from the pure signal only (blue line), the continuum tt¯ background (brown line), the real and imaginary interference contributions (dashed and solid red lines) and the total cross section including the interference (green line). Also shown is the value of th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The contributions to the line–shape of a pseudoscalar A state with a mass (from left to right) MA =350, 365, 380 GeV in the process gg→A→tt¯ at the LHC with √ s = 13 TeV. We show the contributions from the pure signal only (blue lines), the real and imag￾inary interference contributions (dashed and solid red lines) and the total rates including the interference (green lines). The values of the gAtt couplings, chosen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The production cross sections at the c.m. energy √ s = 13 TeV for the A signal only and for the signal plus interference in the process gg → A → tt¯ for MA = 365 GeV and gAtt = 0.78. Left: when integrated in the mass window [2mt , mtt¯] for ranges mtt¯ ≤ 700 GeV. Right: as functions of the c.m. energy √ s from 13 TeV to 100 TeV after integration over the full mtt¯ range. The energy dependence of ηt production, taken… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The A production cross sections via the processes gg → hA and gg/qq¯ → ttA¯ as functions of the pp centre-of-mass energy √ s, for the inputs MA =365 GeV and gAtt = 0.78. and they could in fact mimic those of toponium. In other scenarios such as variants of the 2HDM, th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Extracting a Toponium Signal at the LHC with Spin and Quantum Information Tools

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spin and quantum-information observables add only marginal statistical power beyond kinematic variables for isolating toponium in near-threshold top-pair events, but improve interpretability.

  2. New physics in toponium's shadow?

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Consistently including toponium bound-state effects inside the new-physics amplitude, not just the Standard Model one, reshapes the allowed mass–coupling region for a top-philic pseudoscalar near the top-antitop threshold.

  3. Toponia at the HL-LHC and FCC-ee

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Toponium ηt and ψt states have promising discovery channels at HL-LHC (ηt b bbar, about 6σ) and FCC-ee (ψt interference in b bbar, about 14σ), while P-wave states remain out of reach.

  4. Measuring Quantum Discord at the LHC

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors derive closed-form formulas for quantum discord in the ttbar system and predict it can be measured at the LHC with sub-percent precision using the kinematic method.

  5. Triple top baryon $\Omega_{ttt}$

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The triple-top baryon Ωttt is predicted to have mass 513.58 GeV, binding energy 4.13 GeV, and a dominant W+W+W+bbb decay, with production cross sections too small to observe at near-future colliders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [31]

    S. J. Jiang, B. Q. Li, G. Z. Xu and K. Y. Liu, arXiv:2412.18527 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to top quark pairs in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13TeV, CMS-PAS-HIG-22-013, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2911775/files/HIG-22-013-pas.pdf

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Djouadi, R

    A. Djouadi, R. Godbole, J. Ellis and J. Quevillon, JHEP 03 (2016) 205

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    I. I. Y. Bigi, Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, J. H. Kuhn and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B181 (1986), 157-163; V. S. Fadin and V. A. Khoze, JETP Lett.46(1987), 525-529; 12 B. Chokouf´ e Nejad, W. Kilian, J. M. Lindert, S. Pozzorini, J. Reuter and C. Weiss, JHEP12(2016), 075; F. Bach, B. C. Nejad, A. Hoang, W. Kilian, J. Reuter, M. Stahlhofen, T. Teubner and...

    arXiv 1986

  5. [4]

    Exclusive top production at a Linear Collider at and off the threshold

    J. Reuter et al., arXiv:1801.08083 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [5]

    Y. Kiyo, J. H. Kuhn, S. Moch, M. Steinhauser and P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C60 (2009), 375-386

    work page 2009

  7. [6]

    Sumino and H

    Y. Sumino and H. Yokoya, JHEP09(2010), 034 [erratum: JHEP06(2016), 037]

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and Y. J. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.3, 034023; [arXiv:2411.18962 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Luo, arXiv:2401.08130 [hep-ph]

    F. Luo, arXiv:2401.08130 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29; CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61

    2012

  3. [10]

    Afik and J.R.M

    Y. Afik and J.R.M. de Nova, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136(2021) no.9, 907; Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Quantum6(2022), 820

    2021

  4. [11]

    Maltoni, C

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori and E. Vryonidou, JHEP03(2024), 099

    2024

  5. [12]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, and J. Quevillon, JHEP 07 (2016) 105, A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, A. Popov and J. Quevillon, JHEP 03 (2019) 119

    2016

  6. [13]

    Branco et al., Phys

    For a review on 2HDMs, see G. Branco et al., Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1

    2012

  7. [14]

    For a recent discussion see e.g. G. Arcadi, N. Benincasa, A. Djouadi and K. Kannike, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.5, 055010

    2023

  8. [15]

    C. T. Lu, K. Cheung, D. Kim, S. Lee and J. Song, arXiv:2410.08609 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Carena et al., JHEP 1404 (2014) 015; A

    See, e.g., M. Carena et al., JHEP 1404 (2014) 015; A. Penuelas and A. Pich, JHEP 12 (2017) 084

    2014

  10. [17]

    Kerstin Tackmann, Experimental Summary talk at Higgs Hunting, September 2024: https://indico.ijclab.in2p3.fr/event/10259/contributions/32995/ attachments/22704/34652/HiggsHuntingExperimentalSummary.pdf

    2024

  11. [18]

    ATLAS Collaboration, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/HDBSPublicResults; CMS Collaboration, https://cms-results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/public-results/ publications/HIG/SUS.html

  12. [19]

    Baak et al., Eur

    M. Baak et al., Eur. Phys. J. C, 72:2003, 2012; Eur. Phys. J. C, 74:3046, 2014. 13

    2003

  13. [20]

    Misiak and M

    M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, Eur. Phys. J., C77(3):201, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    Djouadi, Phys

    A. Djouadi, Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1

    2008

  15. [22]

    Harlander, S

    R. Harlander, S. Liebler and H. Mantler, Comp. Phys. Comm. 184 (2013) 1605

    2013

  16. [23]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B311 (1993) 255; M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P.M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B453 (1995) 17

    1993

  17. [24]

    Harlander and W

    R. Harlander and W. Kilgore, JHEP 10 (2002) 017; C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 037501; V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B665 (2003) 325–366

    2002

  18. [25]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) no.26, 261902

    2024

  19. [26]

    Djouadi, J

    The numerical analyses of Higgs decays are performed using the programHDECAY: A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 56; A. Djouadi, M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Acta. Phys. Polon. B38 (2007) 635; HDECAY Collaboration; Comput. Phys. Commun. 23...

    1998

  20. [27]

    K. J. F. Gaemers and F. Hoogeveen, Phys. Lett. 146B (1984) 347–349; D. Dicus, A. Stange and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 126–131; S. Moretti and D. A. Ross, Phys. Lett. B712 (2012) 245–249; R. Frederix and F. Maltoni, JHEP 01 (2009) 047; R. Barcelo and M. Masip, Ph...

    1984

  21. [28]

    Nason, S

    P. Nason, S. Dawson, and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303 (1988) 607–633; W. Beenakker, H. Kuijf, W. L. van Neerven and J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 54–82; M. Czakon, P. Fiedler and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 252004; M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185...

    1988

  22. [29]

    Drees and K

    See, e.g., M. Drees and K. Hikasa, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 1547; K. Melnikov, M. Spira and O. Yakovlev, Z. Phys. C64 (1994); U. Haisch, J. Kamenik, A. Malinauskas and M. Spira, JHEP 03 (2018) 178; F. J. Llanes-Estrada; arXiv:2411.19180 [hep-ph]

    1990 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Kauer and G

    N. Kauer and G. Passarino, JHEP 08 (2012) 116; F. Caola and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev., D88 (2013) 054024

    2012

  24. [32]

    A sum- mary is given in M

    See the websitehttp://mspira.home.cern.ch/mspira/proglist.html. A sum- mary is given in M. Spira, Fortschr. Phys. 46 (1998) 203

    1998

  25. [33]

    Baglio, A

    J. Baglio, A. Djouadi and J. Quevillon, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 (2016) 11, 116201

    2016

  26. [34]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 115012

    1998

  27. [35]

    Beenakker et al., Nucl

    W. Beenakker et al., Nucl. Phys. B653 (2003) 151–203; S. Dawson, L. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 071503. 14

    2003

  28. [36]

    Y. Yang, B. Yang, J. Li, Z. Lu and J. Sun, arXiv:2410.22841 [hep-ph]

  29. [37]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, J. List, G. Moortgat-Pick and G. Weiglein, arXiv:2410.16191 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. J. Aubertet al.[E598], Phys. Rev. Lett.33(1974), 1404-1406; J. E. Augustinet al.[SLAC-SP-017], Phys. Rev. Lett.33(1974), 1406-1408. 15

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.