Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 101 references

A 2 TeV same-sign muon collider can reach Type-II seesaw doubly charged scalars decaying to same-sign W pairs up to about 430 GeV.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:34 UTC pith:L5D6DJT5

load-bearing objection Useful sensitivity study for a doubly charged scalar at muTRISTAN, with a plausible reach claim that rests on a background estimate from unmerged parton-shower tails; worth refereeing, but the BDT reach should be stress-tested against background rescaling. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15356 v1 pith:L5D6DJT5 submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph

Multiboson Signatures of Doubly Charged Scalars at a Same-Sign Muon Collider

Mariana Frank , Benjamin Fuks , Chayan Majumdar , Supriya Senapati This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Type-II seesawdoubly charged scalarsame-sign muon colliderfully hadronic W reconstructionmulti-jet final stateboosted decision treesdiboson decaymuon collider physics
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.

Doubly charged scalars in the Type-II seesaw model decay predominantly to same-sign W-boson pairs when the triplet vacuum expectation value is large, around 1 GeV. The paper asks whether a proposed 2 TeV same-sign muon collider could observe these particles through the fully hadronic signature of two spectator muons plus eight jets, and develops a cut-based plus machine-learned search strategy. The best boosted-decision-tree analysis reaches a 2-sigma sensitivity for scalar masses up to about 425-430 GeV, extending the reach of current hadron-collider diboson searches by roughly 70-80 GeV. The central result is that the clean same-sign lepton environment and the high jet multiplicity suppress backgrounds to the attobarn level, making this multi-W topology a viable independent probe.

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the Type-II seesaw benchmark with a degenerate triplet spectrum and a 1 GeV triplet vev, the process mu+ mu+ -> mu+ mu+ Delta++ Delta-- -> mu+ mu+ W+W+W-W- -> mu+mu+ + 8j can be isolated at sqrt(s)=2 TeV with 1 ab^-1. After reconstructing four hadronic W candidates from the eight leading jets by a global chi-squared minimization over all 105 dijet pairings, the cut-based analysis gives evidence-level significance for masses up to about 300-350 GeV. The boosted-decision-tree analysis, trained separately for each mass and using reconstructed-W masses, kinematics, global event shape, and spectator-muon variables, raises the 2-sigma reach to 425-430 GeV in the N_j>=

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the doubly charged scalar Delta++ of the Type-II seesaw triplet, whose decay Delta++ -> W+W+ dominates once the triplet vev is around 1 GeV. The signal is pair production through electroweak gauge-boson fusion, mu+ mu+ -> mu+ mu+ Delta++ Delta--, leaving two spectator muons. The analysis reconstructs four hadronic W bosons from exactly eight jets by solving the combinatorial problem with a chi-squared minimization over the 105 dijet pairings, defining nested signal regions by the quality of the two, two-plus-one, or three best W candidates. The boosted decision trees then exploit reconstructed-W quality variables, multi-W invariant masses, global hadronic activity, eve

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated high-multiplicity background rate is close to correct, within a factor of two to three, because the dominant background sample's 7-8 jet events come almost entirely from parton showering rather than matched matrix elements, and beam-induced and double-parton-scattering effects are not simulated.

What would settle it

A matched, higher-order simulation of same-sign muon scattering with realistic beam-induced backgrounds and a full detector model, or ultimately a first measurement of the inclusive same-sign-dimuon plus 8-jet rate at a 2 TeV muon collider, would settle the claim. If the true 8-jet background exceeds the paper's estimate by more than a factor of about three, the 2-sigma reach drops below the existing hadron-collider exclusion around 350 GeV.

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

If this is right

  • If the analysis holds up in a full detector-level study, a same-sign muon collider at 2 TeV can probe Type-II seesaw doubly charged scalars in the diboson regime up to about 430 GeV at 2 sigma, beyond current hadron-collider limits.
  • The all-hadronic 8-jet channel is not hopeless: with high jet multiplicity and global W reconstruction, the total background in the signal regions drops to a few attobarns, making a counting experiment meaningful.
  • Multivariate selection mainly helps in the intermediate-mass range of about 350-500 GeV, where the signal is not yet rate-limited; at higher masses the search is limited by the rapidly falling production cross section rather than by background.
  • Reaching a 5-sigma discovery for a 400 GeV scalar would require roughly 6 ab^-1 of integrated luminosity if the same boosted-decision-tree selection is used, while a 700 GeV scalar is out of reach at 2 TeV with realistic luminosity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the selection is topological (two same-sign muons plus four resonant dijets) rather than model-specific beyond the Delta++ -> WW assumption, the same strategy could be re-interpreted for any doubly charged scalar decaying to same-sign W pairs, including non-degenerate triplet spectra, provided branching ratios and cross sections are recalculated.
  • Beyond the paper: if beam-induced backgrounds or double-parton scattering at a same-sign muon collider prove larger than the shower-only estimates, the 425-430 GeV reach would degrade; a detector-level simulation including beam backgrounds is the natural next check.
  • Beyond the paper: the luminosity scaling the paper quotes suggests that a modest high-luminosity upgrade, or a slightly higher center-of-mass energy, could turn the 2-sigma sensitivity at 400 GeV into a discovery and push the reach well beyond the current 430 GeV point.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the sensitivity of a same-sign muon collider (μTRISTAN-inspired, √s = 2 TeV, L = 1 ab⁻¹) to doubly charged scalars in the Type-II seesaw model, in the regime where Δ^{++} → W^+ W^+ dominates. The signal is μ⁺μ⁺ → μ⁺μ⁺ Δ^{++} Δ^{−−} → μ⁺μ⁺ + 8j, using fully hadronic W decays. The authors develop a cut-based analysis using global χ²-based W reconstruction and three nested signal regions, then improve it with XGBoost BDTs using reconstructed-W, global event, multi-boson, and spectator-muon observables. They find that the best BDT setup (N_j ≥ 8, p_T^j > 20 GeV) reaches 2σ sensitivity for m_{Δ^{++}} ≃ 425–430 GeV, extending the cut-based reach by a few tens of GeV and the current LHC diboson coverage by roughly 70–80 GeV. The paper is clearly written, uses a standard model implementation from the literature [14], and provides a useful comparison of cut-based and multivariate strategies.

Significance. If the sensitivity estimate is robust, the paper provides a genuinely interesting physics case for a same-sign muon collider: it shows that a clean leptonic environment can probe the diboson-dominated Type-II seesaw regime in a mass range beyond current ATLAS exclusions. The analysis is technically competent in its use of public tools (MadGraph5, Pythia, Delphes, XGBoost) and includes a careful study of feature importance and of the jet-multiplicity/p_T dependence. The explicit stress test of cut-based significances against background rescaling (Eq. 3.17) is a positive feature, as is the acknowledgment of beam-induced backgrounds as a limitation. However, the headline BDT reach is not subjected to the same stress test, and the statistical procedure for BDT threshold selection is questionable. These issues affect the central claim of extending LHC coverage, and therefore need to be addressed before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.3, Fig. 6; Eq. (3.17)] The background after the N_j ≥ 8 preselection (Table I, 8.22 ab) is dominated by extreme tails of unmerged inclusive Pythia samples: the μμ+2j and μμ+4j samples rely on parton-shower emission for 4–6 of the 8 jets, and the μμ+WW sample is also unmerged. The paper's stress test (Eq. 3.17) rescales background by κB = 2,3 but is applied only to the cut-based 2σ points; at m=400 GeV the cut-based significance drops below 2 for κB=2, and the BDT reach (Fig. 6, 425–430 GeV) is never shown under κB rescaling. Given that the BDT operates at even lower signal yields, a plausible factor-2 background uncertainty could erase or substantially shift the headline reach. Please demonstrate the BDT significance under κB=2,3 (and ideally under variations of the N_j≥8, p_T thresholds) or provide a quantitative argument why the BDT result is less sensitive to background normalization.
  2. [III.3, paragraph after Eq. (3.27)] The BDT threshold is chosen by maximizing the expected significance computed from Eq. (3.15) 'using the physical signal and background normalizations' on the independent test sample, and the same test sample is then used to report the final significance. Optimizing the threshold on the test set and evaluating on the same set introduces an upward bias that is not accounted for. A separate validation set (or a nested procedure) should be used for threshold selection, and the final significance should be reported on a sample not used in any optimization step, including threshold choice. This is particularly important because the claimed improvement of the BDT over the cut-based analysis is modest (a few tens of GeV in reach).
  3. [III.1, Table I and text] The text states that after the preselection the three background components are 'about 1.23 ab, 3.23 ab and 1.7 ab, respectively.' The first two values are consistent with Table I, but the μμ+WW rate is inconsistent: 68.43 fb × 0.0055% = 3.76 ab, and the total baseline rate of 8.22 ab can only be obtained with 3.76 ab, not 1.7 ab. This discrepancy matters because the WW contribution is not negligible in the 2tW region (1.89 ab total, with WW ≈ 0.75 ab from Table I). Please correct the text or the table, and ensure all composition numbers are internally consistent.
  4. [III.3, IV (comparison with LHC)] The headline statement that the μTRISTAN setup 'extends the direct diboson coverage by roughly 70–80 GeV' compares a 2σ expected sensitivity (425–430 GeV) with an LHC 95% CL exclusion (≈350 GeV). A 2σ sensitivity is not the same as a 95% CL exclusion; the comparison is statistically mismatched. Please either present the expected 95% CL exclusion reach of the proposed analysis (for example using CLs or S/sqrt(B) with appropriate treatment), or explicitly state that the comparison is an indicative sensitivity projection rather than a direct limit comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.1, Eq. (3.5) and text] The text before Eq. (3.5) says 'at least two reconstructed antimuons and at least two reconstructed jets', but the equation requires N_j ≥ 8. Please correct the prose.
  2. [III.2, Eq. (3.15)] The symbol S is used both for signal yield and significance. This is confusing in equations and tables (e.g., Table II column headers S_2tW). Consider using N_S for the yield and Z or Σ for the significance.
  3. [III.1, 'conservative treatment'] The statement that retaining unmerged inclusive samples independently gives a 'conservative treatment' is not self-evident: double counting can overestimate backgrounds, while missing hard emissions can underestimate them. Since this is central to the background estimate, a more careful justification (or a matched/merged validation sample) is needed.
  4. [III.3, Fig. 5] The feature importance is shown for one representative benchmark (m=400 GeV). The text notes this is not universal; it would be helpful to show at least one additional mass (e.g., 300 or 500 GeV) or a short discussion of how the ranking changes across the mass scan.
  5. [I, Introduction] The literature list is comprehensive, but Refs. [48] and [74] are arXiv preprints from 2026; please verify they have appeared in journals and update if possible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The analysis is largely self-contained, but the BDT sensitivity quoted as the headline reach is partially optimized on the same test sample used for evaluation: the BDT-score threshold is chosen there to maximize Eq. (3.15).

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.3, final paragraph of the BDT setup (after Table III, before Fig. 6)]
    "Finally, the independent test sample is kept aside and used only for performance evaluation. In this case, the event selection is obtained by applying a threshold on the BDT score, chosen by maximizing the expected significance computed from Eq. (3.15) using the physical signal and background normalizations."

    The BDT-score threshold is the analysis parameter that converts classifier scores into the signal and background counts entering Eq. (3.15). If, as written, this threshold is chosen on the independent test sample by maximizing the expected significance computed from that same sample, then the quoted S values and the resulting 2σ reach (m ≈ 425–430 GeV in Fig. 6) are maxima of the performance metric over thresholds evaluated on the prediction sample. The reported sensitivity is therefore partly fitted to the very events it is supposed to predict. A non-circular procedure would fix the threshold using only the training/validation split and evaluate it once on the untouched test sample.

full rationale

The paper's physics derivation is otherwise self-contained. The Type-II seesaw Lagrangian and the TypeIISeesaw UFO are standard and are not used as an external prediction; Ref. [14] being a same-author implementation does not make the model circular. The cut-based analysis uses a reconstruction σ_W = 12 GeV motivated by the signal W peak, which is an analysis-tuning choice rather than an input-output equivalence. The background estimate relies on unmerged parton-shower tails and the κ_B rescaling is applied only to the cut-based significances, but those are robustness gaps, not circularity. The only concrete circularity is the BDT threshold optimization on the test sample as literally described; this affects the central claim but leaves substantial independent content in the signal modeling, the cut-based analysis, and the BDT feature construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on a standard BSM model and on several tuned benchmark parameters (v_t, sigma_W, BDT threshold). The main free choices are the v_t benchmark and the reconstruction resolution. No new physics entities are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • triplet vev v_t = 1 GeV
    Benchmark value chosen to be in the diboson-dominated regime while respecting the rho-parameter constraint.
  • sigma_W (dijet mass resolution) = 12 GeV
    Set to the width of the reconstructed W peak in the signal simulation; used globally in the chi^2 definition.
  • BDT score threshold = not specified
    Chosen by maximizing the significance on the test sample, which is a mild fitting-to-the-test-sample procedure.
  • neutrino mass parameters = PDG central values, normal ordering, m_nu1=0, zero Majorana phases
    These affect only the subleading leptonic branching fractions; the conclusion is insensitive to them in the large-v_t regime.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Type-II seesaw Lagrangian and scalar potential (Eqs. 2.2-2.3) with the standard parameterization of Ref. [14].
    The whole analysis assumes this specific BSM model. It is standard but not proven by this paper.
  • domain assumption Unitarity, perturbativity, bounded-from-below and electroweak precision constraints are satisfied for the benchmark points.
    The paper declares this in Section II.1, citing Refs. [7,57,83], without a dedicated check.
  • domain assumption The Delphes detector card adapted to muTRISTAN is a faithful model of the future detector.
    The simulation chain relies on this for jet efficiencies and resolutions. The authors note that a complete detector-level study is beyond scope.
  • standard math The v_t <= 4.8 GeV constraint from Ref. [57] is correct.
    Used to justify the benchmark v_t = 1 GeV. This is a cited external result.
invented entities (1)
  • None no independent evidence
    purpose: No new particles or forces are introduced; the doubly charged scalar is from the existing Type-II seesaw model.
    The paper studies a known BSM state; it does not postulate a new entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27106 in / 7377 out tokens · 55863 ms · 2026-08-01T23:34:26.735210+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the sensitivity of a same-sign $\mu^+\mu^+$ collider to doubly charged scalars in the Type-II seesaw framework, focusing on the regime in which the doubly charged scalar decays dominantly into same-sign $W$-boson pairs. Motivated by the $\mu$TRISTAN proposal, for a benchmark we consider a degenerate triplet spectrum at a center-of-mass energy of $2~{\rm TeV}$ and an integrated luminosity of $1~{\rm ab}^{-1}$. The signal process is studied in the fully hadronic $W$-decay mode, leading to a characteristic $\mu^+\mu^+ + 8j$ final state. We develop a cut-based analysis based on high jet multiplicity and global hadronic $W$ reconstruction, and then improve its sensitivity with a multivariate strategy exploiting reconstructed $W$ observables, global event kinematics, multi-boson variables and spectator-muon information. The best-performing setup reaches a $2\sigma$ sensitivity level for doubly charged scalar masses up to $425-430~{\rm GeV}$, extending the cut-based reach by a few tens of GeV. This indicates an improvement over the current LHC coverage, while also providing an independent probe based on a qualitatively different production mode and collider environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15356 by Benjamin Fuks, Chayan Majumdar, Mariana Frank, Supriya Senapati.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Branching ratios of the doubly charged scalar ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Signal cross section for the fully hadronic process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Distributions of the reconstructed dijet invariant masses for the four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expected cut-based significance as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Gain-based feature importance of the input observables in the BDT classifiers for a representative signal benchmark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Expected signal significance as a function of the dou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.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

101 extracted references · 76 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons,

    W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, “Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons,”Phys. Lett. B70(1977) 433–435

    1977

  2. [2]

    Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions,

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, “Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions,”Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2860

    1980

  3. [3]

    Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, “Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,”Phys. Lett. B94(1980) 61–64

    1980

  4. [4]

    Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, “Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,” Nucl. Phys. B181(1981) 287–300

    1981

  5. [5]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,”Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2227

    1980

  6. [6]

    Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,”Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 165

    1981

  7. [7]

    The Higgs Potential in the Type II Seesaw Model,

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Chabab, G. Moultaka, M. C. Peyranere, L. Rahili, and J. Ramadan, “The Higgs Potential in the Type II Seesaw Model,”Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 095005, [1105.1925]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Consistency of the triplet seesaw model revisited,

    C. Bonilla, R. M. Fonseca, and J. W. F. Valle, “Consistency of the triplet seesaw model revisited,” Phys. Rev. D92no. 7, (2015) 075028, [1508.02323]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Lepton Number Violation: Seesaw Models and Their Collider Tests,

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li, and R. Ruiz, “Lepton Number Violation: Seesaw Models and Their Collider Tests,” Front. in Phys.6(2018) 40, [1711.02180]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    A Note on doubly charged Higgs pair production at hadron colliders,

    M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, “A Note on doubly charged Higgs pair production at hadron colliders,” Phys. Rev.D68(2003) 117701, [hep-ph/0305288]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Single and pair production of doubly charged Higgs bosons at hadron colliders,

    A. G. Akeroyd and M. Aoki, “Single and pair production of doubly charged Higgs bosons at hadron colliders,”Phys. Rev.D72(2005) 035011, [hep-ph/0506176]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Pair production of doubly-charged scalars: Neutrino mass constraints and signals at the LHC,

    T. Han, B. Mukhopadhyaya, Z. Si, and K. Wang, “Pair production of doubly-charged scalars: Neutrino mass constraints and signals at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 075013, [0706.0441]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Type-II Seesaw Model and Multilepton Signatures at Hadron Colliders,

    M. Mitra, S. Niyogi, and M. Spannowsky, “Type-II Seesaw Model and Multilepton Signatures at Hadron Colliders,”Phys. Rev. D95no. 3, (2017) 035042, [1611.09594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Doubly Charged Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders,

    B. Fuks, M. Nemevˇ sek, and R. Ruiz, “Doubly Charged Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 7, (2020) 075022, [1912.08975]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,”Phys. Rev. D10(1974) 275–289. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 703–703 (1975)]

    1974

  16. [16]

    A Natural Left-Right Symmetry,

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, “A Natural Left-Right Symmetry,”Phys. Rev. D11(1975) 2558

    1975

  17. [17]

    Left-Right Gauge Symmetry and an Isoconjugate Model of CP Violation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, “Left-Right Gauge Symmetry and an Isoconjugate Model of CP Violation,”Phys. Rev.D11(1975) 566–571

    1975

  18. [18]

    Exact Left-Right Symmetry and Spontaneous Violation of Parity,

    G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, “Exact Left-Right Symmetry and Spontaneous Violation of Parity,”Phys. Rev.D12(1975) 1502

    1975

  19. [19]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  20. [20]

    Left-Right Symmetric Electroweak Models with Triplet Higgs,

    N. G. Deshpande, J. F. Gunion, B. Kayser, and F. I. Olness, “Left-Right Symmetric Electroweak Models with Triplet Higgs,”Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 837–858

    1991

  21. [21]

    Exploring the doubly charged Higgs boson of the left-right symmetric model using vector boson fusionlike events at the LHC,

    B. Dutta, R. Eusebi, Y. Gao, T. Ghosh, and T. Kamon, “Exploring the doubly charged Higgs boson of the left-right symmetric model using vector boson fusionlike events at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 055015, [1404.0685]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Doubly-charged Higgs and vacuum stability in left-right supersymmetry,

    L. Basso, B. Fuks, M. E. Krauss, and W. Porod, “Doubly-charged Higgs and vacuum stability in left-right supersymmetry,”JHEP07(2015) 147, [1503.08211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Displaced photon signal from a possible light scalar in minimal left-right seesaw model,

    P. S. Bhupal Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, “Displaced photon signal from a possible light scalar in minimal left-right seesaw model,”Phys. Rev. D95 no. 11, (2017) 115001, [1612.09587]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Investigating the scalar sector of left-right symmetric models with leptonic probes,

    D. Borah, B. Fuks, D. Goswami, and P. Poulose, “Investigating the scalar sector of left-right symmetric models with leptonic probes,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 3, (2018) 035008, [1805.06910]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Displaced vertex signatures of doubly charged scalars in the type-II seesaw and its left-right extensions,

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and Y. Zhang, “Displaced vertex signatures of doubly charged scalars in the type-II seesaw and its left-right extensions,”JHEP10(2018) 199, [1808.00943]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Quantum Numbers of Majorana Neutrino Masses,

    A. Zee, “Quantum Numbers of Majorana Neutrino Masses,”Nucl. Phys. B264(1986) 99–110

    1986

  27. [27]

    Model of ’Calculable’ Majorana Neutrino Masses,

    K. S. Babu, “Model of ’Calculable’ Majorana Neutrino Masses,”Phys. Lett. B203(1988) 132–136

    1988

  28. [28]

    Prospects for the Zee-Babu Model at the CERN LHC and low energy experiments,

    M. Nebot, J. F. Oliver, D. Palao, and A. Santamaria, “Prospects for the Zee-Babu Model at the CERN LHC and low energy experiments,”Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 093013, [0711.0483]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    The Zee–Babu model revisited in the light of new data,

    J. Herrero-Garcia, M. Nebot, N. Rius, and A. Santamaria, “The Zee–Babu model revisited in the light of new data,”Nucl. Phys. B885(2014) 542–570, [1402.4491]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Status of the Zee–Babu model for neutrino mass and possible tests at a like-sign linear collider,

    D. Schmidt, T. Schwetz, and H. Zhang, “Status of the Zee–Babu model for neutrino mass and possible tests at a like-sign linear collider,”Nucl. Phys. B885 (2014) 524–541, [1402.2251]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    DOUBLY CHARGED HIGGS BOSONS,

    H. Georgi and M. Machacek, “DOUBLY CHARGED HIGGS BOSONS,”Nucl. Phys. B262(1985) 463–477

    1985

  32. [32]

    Higgs Boson Triplets With M(W) = M(Z) cos theta omega,

    M. S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, “Higgs Boson Triplets With M(W) = M(Z) cos theta omega,”Phys. Lett. B165(1985) 105–108

    1985

  33. [33]

    Searching for the doubly-charged Higgs bosons in the Georgi-Machacek model at the electron-proton colliders,

    H. Sun, X. Luo, W. Wei, and T. Liu, “Searching for the doubly-charged Higgs bosons in the Georgi-Machacek model at the electron-proton colliders,”Phys. Rev. D 96no. 9, (2017) 095003, [1710.06284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Global fits in the Georgi-Machacek model,

    C.-W. Chiang, G. Cottin, and O. Eberhardt, “Global fits in the Georgi-Machacek model,”Phys. Rev. D99 no. 1, (2019) 015001, [1807.10660]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Testing the Higgs triplet model with the mass difference at the LHC,

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, and K. Yagyu, “Testing the Higgs triplet model with the mass difference at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 055007, [1110.4625]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    Low- and high-energy phenomenology of a doubly charged scalar,

    A. Crivellin, M. Ghezzi, L. Panizzi, G. M. Pruna, and A. Signer, “Low- and high-energy phenomenology of a doubly charged scalar,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 3, (2019) 035004, [1807.10224]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Higgs triplets in the standard model,

    J. F. Gunion, R. Vega, and J. Wudka, “Higgs triplets in the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 1673–1691

    1990

  38. [38]

    Doubly charged scalar decays in a type II seesaw scenario with two Higgs triplets,

    A. Chaudhuri, W. Grimus, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, “Doubly charged scalar decays in a type II seesaw scenario with two Higgs triplets,”JHEP02(2014) 060, [1305.5761]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [39]

    Gravitational wave and collider probes of a triplet Higgs sector with a low cutoff,

    M. Chala, M. Ramos, and M. Spannowsky, “Gravitational wave and collider probes of a triplet Higgs sector with a low cutoff,”Eur. Phys. J. C79 no. 2, (2019) 156, [1812.01901]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Doubly charged Higgs at LHC,

    K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, A. Pietila, and M. Raidal, “Doubly charged Higgs at LHC,”Nucl. Phys. B487 (1997) 27–42, [hep-ph/9606311]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  41. [41]

    Testing a Neutrino Mass Generation Mechanism at the LHC,

    P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han, G.-Y. Huang, T. Li, and K. Wang, “Testing a Neutrino Mass Generation Mechanism at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 071301, [0803.3450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Neutrino Masses and the CERN LHC: Testing Type II Seesaw,

    P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han, G.-y. Huang, T. Li, and K. Wang, “Neutrino Masses and the CERN LHC: Testing Type II Seesaw,”Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 015018, [0805.3536]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [43]

    Leptonic signatures of doubly charged Higgs boson production at the LHC,

    A. G. Akeroyd, C.-W. Chiang, and N. Gaur, “Leptonic signatures of doubly charged Higgs boson production at the LHC,”JHEP11(2010) 005, [1009.2780]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Doubly-charged particles at the Large Hadron Collider,

    A. Alloul, M. Frank, B. Fuks, and M. Rausch de Traubenberg, “Doubly-charged particles at the Large Hadron Collider,”Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 075004, [1307.1711]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Exploring two component doublet dark matter,

    M. Frank, P. Ghosh, C. Majumdar, and S. Senapati, “Exploring two component doublet dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 5, (2025) 055014, [2505.02816]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    LHC bounds on Lepton Number Violation mediated by doubly and singly-charged scalars,

    F. del ´Aguila and M. Chala, “LHC bounds on Lepton Number Violation mediated by doubly and singly-charged scalars,”JHEP03(2014) 027, [1311.1510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    Effective theory of a doubly charged singlet scalar: complementarity of neutrino physics and the LHC,

    S. F. King, A. Merle, and L. Panizzi, “Effective theory of a doubly charged singlet scalar: complementarity of neutrino physics and the LHC,”JHEP11(2014) 124, [1406.4137]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    Search for a Doubly Charged Scalar at the LHC and FCC-hh,

    L. Guedes, G. Hoff, F. S. Queiroz, Y. M. Oviedo-Torres, and Y. Villamizar, “Search for a Doubly Charged Scalar at the LHC and FCC-hh,” [2601.00083]

    arXiv

  49. [49]

    Search for doubly charged Higgs bosons using the same-sign diboson mode at the LHC,

    C.-W. Chiang, T. Nomura, and K. Tsumura, “Search for doubly charged Higgs bosons using the same-sign diboson mode at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 095023, [1202.2014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    First constraint on the mass of doubly-charged Higgs bosons in the same-sign diboson decay scenario at the LHC,

    S. Kanemura, K. Yagyu, and H. Yokoya, “First constraint on the mass of doubly-charged Higgs bosons in the same-sign diboson decay scenario at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B726(2013) 316–319, [1305.2383]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  51. [51]

    Light Doubly Charged Higgs Boson via theW W ∗ Channel at LHC,

    Z. Kang, J. Li, T. Li, Y. Liu, and G.-Z. Ning, “Light Doubly Charged Higgs Boson via theW W ∗ Channel at LHC,”Eur. Phys. J. C75no. 12, (2015) 574, [1404.5207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    LHC Run-I constraint on the mass of doubly charged Higgs bosons in the same-sign diboson decay scenario,

    S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, H. Yokoya, and K. Yagyu, “LHC Run-I constraint on the mass of doubly charged Higgs bosons in the same-sign diboson decay scenario,” PTEP2015(2015) 051B02, [1412.7603]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Search for doubly charged Higgs bosons through vector boson fusion at the LHC and beyond,

    G. Bambhaniya, J. Chakrabortty, J. Gluza, T. Jelinski, and R. Szafron, “Search for doubly charged Higgs bosons through vector boson fusion at the LHC and beyond,”Phys. Rev. D92no. 1, (2015) 015016, [1504.03999]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    Testing tree level TeV scale seesaw scenarios in µTRISTAN,

    A. Das, J. Li, S. Mandal, T. Nomura, and R. Zhang, “Testing tree level TeV scale seesaw scenarios in µTRISTAN,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 3, (2025) 035008, [2410.21956]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Doubly charged Higgs boson at same-sign lepton colliders,

    C.-W. Chiang, K. Enomoto, and M.-Y. Liao, “Doubly charged Higgs boson at same-sign lepton colliders,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 11, (2025) 115003, [2506.17541]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Type II Seesaw at LHC: The Roadmap,

    A. Melfo, M. Nemevsek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanovic, and Y. Zhang, “Type II Seesaw at LHC: The Roadmap,” Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 055018, [1108.4416]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Scalar phenomenology in type-II seesaw model,

    R. Primulando, J. Julio, and P. Uttayarat, “Scalar phenomenology in type-II seesaw model,”JHEP08 (2019) 024, [1903.02493]. [58]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states using 139 fb −1 of proton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 7, (2023) 60...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [61]

    Vacuum Stability, Perturbativity, EWPD and Higgs-to-diphoton rate in Type II Seesaw Models,

    E. J. Chun, H. M. Lee, and P. Sharma, “Vacuum Stability, Perturbativity, EWPD and Higgs-to-diphoton rate in Type II Seesaw Models,” JHEP11(2012) 106, [1209.1303]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  59. [62]

    A New Approach for Measuring the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Electric Dipole Moment,

    M. Abeet al., “A New Approach for Measuring the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Electric Dipole Moment,”PTEP2019no. 5, (2019) 053C02, [1901.03047]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [63]

    µTRISTAN,

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, H. Takaura, and M. Yoshida, “µTRISTAN,”PTEP2022no. 5, (2022) 053B02, [2201.06664]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [64]

    Precisionµ+µ+ andµ+e−elastic scatterings,

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, and H. Takaura, “Precisionµ+µ+ andµ+e−elastic scatterings,” PTEP2023no. 1, (2023) 013B07, [2210.11083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [65]

    Lepton flavor physics atµ +µ+ colliders,

    K. Fridell, R. Kitano, and R. Takai, “Lepton flavor physics atµ +µ+ colliders,”JHEP06(2023) 086, [2304.14020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [66]

    Neutrino mass models atµTRISTAN,

    P. S. B. Dev, J. Heeck, and A. Thapa, “Neutrino mass models atµTRISTAN,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 2, (2024) 148, [2309.06463]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [67]

    Complementarity ofµTRISTAN and Belle II in searches for charged-lepton flavour violation,

    G. Lichtenstein, M. A. Schmidt, G. Valencia, and R. R. Volkas, “Complementarity ofµTRISTAN and Belle II in searches for charged-lepton flavour violation,”Phys. Lett. B845(2023) 138144, [2307.11369]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [68]

    Searching for Majorana neutrinos at a same-sign muon collider,

    R. Jiang, T. Yang, S. Qian, Y. Ban, J. Li, Z. You, and Q. Li, “Searching for Majorana neutrinos at a same-sign muon collider,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 3, (2024) 035020, [2304.04483]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [69]

    Searching for heavy neutral lepton and lepton number violation through VBS at high-energy muon colliders,

    T. Li, C.-Y. Yao, and M. Yuan, “Searching for heavy neutral lepton and lepton number violation through VBS at high-energy muon colliders,”JHEP09(2023) 131, [2306.17368]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [70]

    Probing lepton number violation at same-sign lepton colliders,

    C. H. de Lima, D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, M. Shamma, and D. Tuckler, “Probing lepton number violation at same-sign lepton colliders,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 7, (2025) 075002, [2411.15303]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [71]

    Probing ∆L=2 lepton number violating SMEFT operators at the same-sign muon collider,

    S. Bhattacharya, S. Datta, and A. Sarkar, “Probing ∆L=2 lepton number violating SMEFT operators at the same-sign muon collider,”Phys. Rev. D113no. 5, (2026) 055043, [2505.20936]

    arXiv 2026

  69. [72]

    Vector boson fusion signatures of superheavy Majorana neutrinos at muon colliders,

    P. Dehghani, M. Frank, and B. Fuks, “Vector boson fusion signatures of superheavy Majorana neutrinos at muon colliders,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 3, (2025) 035020, [2506.06159]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [73]

    Heavy Neutral Lepton at Same-Sign Muon Collider,

    R. Kitano, I. Low, R. Matsudo, S. Okawa, and S. Roy, “Heavy Neutral Lepton at Same-Sign Muon Collider,” [2510.18390]

    arXiv

  71. [74]

    Same-Sign Tetralepton Signature atµTRISTAN,

    L.-K. Yan, Z.-L. Han, F.-L. Shao, and F.-X. Yang, “Same-Sign Tetralepton Signature atµTRISTAN,” [2604.24383]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [75]

    Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in the Higgs triplet model and implication with the recent Higgs boson searches,

    S. Kanemura and K. Yagyu, “Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in the Higgs triplet model and implication with the recent Higgs boson searches,” Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 115009, [1201.6287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [76]

    Type-II seesaw triplet scalar effects on neutrino trident scattering,

    Y. Cheng, X.-G. He, Z.-L. Huang, and M.-W. Li, “Type-II seesaw triplet scalar effects on neutrino trident scattering,”Phys. Lett. B831(2022) 137218, [2204.05031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [77]

    Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, “Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,”Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 381–409

    1992

  75. [78]

    NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, “NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,”JHEP12(2024) 216, [2410.05380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [79]

    Neutrino mass hierarchy and Majorana CP phases within the Higgs triplet model at the LHC,

    J. Garayoa and T. Schwetz, “Neutrino mass hierarchy and Majorana CP phases within the Higgs triplet model at the LHC,”JHEP03(2008) 009, [0712.1453]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  77. [80]

    Direct determination of neutrino mass parameters at future colliders,

    M. Kadastik, M. Raidal, and L. Rebane, “Direct determination of neutrino mass parameters at future colliders,”Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 115023, [0712.3912]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  78. [81]

    Testing Higgs triplet model and neutrino mass patterns,

    E. J. Chun, K. Y. Lee, and S. C. Park, “Testing Higgs triplet model and neutrino mass patterns,”Phys. Lett. B566(2003) 142–151, [hep-ph/0304069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  79. [82]

    Doubly-Charged Scalars in the Type-II Seesaw Mechanism: Fundamental Symmetry Tests and High-Energy Searches,

    P. S. B. Dev, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and Y. Zhang, “Doubly-Charged Scalars in the Type-II Seesaw Mechanism: Fundamental Symmetry Tests and High-Energy Searches,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 5, (2018) 055013, [1806.08499]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [83]

    Radiative corrections to the Higgs boson couplings in the triplet model,

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, and K. Yagyu, “Radiative corrections to the Higgs boson couplings in the triplet model,”Phys. Rev. D87no. 1, (2013) 015012, [1211.6029]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.