Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Single Higgs boson production in association with a top quark through FCNSI

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A flavor-changing top-charm-Higgs coupling, absent in the Standard Model, can be probed through pp→th+X at the HL-LHC, where a BDT analysis predicts a 5σ reach for χ_tc=5.

desk verdict A legitimate 2HDM-III sensitivity study whose central numbers don't survive internal consistency checks: Table III violates the chi_tc^2 scaling required by Eq. (22), so the luminosity projections are unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20242 v2 pith:MPCB3XHB submitted 2024-12-28 hep-ph

V. M. López-Guerrero , M. A. Arroyo-Ureña , J. L. Díaz-Cruz , O. Félix-Beltrán , T. A. Valencia-Pérez This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords 2HDMtypeIIIflavor-changingneutralscalarinteractionstop-HiggsassociatedproductionHL-LHCboosteddecisiontreessignalsignificancetopquarkFCNC
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

In the two-Higgs-doublet model of type III (2HDM-III), the paper argues that a flavor-changing neutral scalar interaction (FCNSI) coupling the top quark, the charm quark, and the Higgs boson—absent in the Standard Model—can be probed through $pp\to th+X$ production at the High-Luminosity LHC. With the decay chain $t\to\ell\nu_\ell b$ and $h\to\gamma\gamma$, and separating signal from background using boosted decision trees, they predict a $5\sigma$ significance for $\tan\beta=1$, $\cos(\alpha-\beta)=0.1$, $\chi_{tc}=5$, at integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}\gtrsim 2700~\text{fb}^{-1}$ including a $5\%$ systematic uncertainty, and $\sigma\approx4.4$ for $\chi_{tc}=3$ at $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}=3000~\text{fb}^{-1}$ under the HL-LHC projection $\text{BR}(t\to ch)<10^{-4}$. This matters because it offers a direct search channel for a coupling that is otherwise constrained only indirectly through the decay $t\to ch$, and because the machine-learning approach extends the reach well beyond simple kinematic cuts.

What carries the argument

The flavor-violating top-charm-Higgs vertex $g_{tch}$ from Eq. (22) of the 2HDM-III, which is linear in the parameter $\chi_{tc}$ and scales as $1/\tan\beta$, is the object that drives $pp\to th+X$ production. On the analysis side, the workhorse is a boosted decision tree trained on photon $p_T$, lepton $p_T$, and jet pseudorapidity variables, which separates the signal from the dominant Standard Model backgrounds; the classifier output is then scanned to maximize the significance $S/\sqrt{S+B+(0.05B)^2}$.

What would settle it

Generate new signal samples for χ_tc=1 and χ_tc=5 with the same model implementation and event generator used in the paper, holding all other parameters fixed, and compare the cross-sections; if the ratio is not 25, the implementation does not follow the analytic coupling, and the reported 5σ reach at 2700 $fb^{-1}$ for χ_tc=5 would need to be recalculated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the two-Higgs-doublet model of type III, the authors claim that the flavor-changing neutral scalar coupling $g_{tch}$, derived in Eq. (22), is proportional to $\chi_{tc}/\tan\beta$, and that it controls the $pp\to th+X$ production cross-section. For their benchmark scenario S1 ($\tan\beta=1$, $\cos(\alpha-\beta)=0.1$), after applying a boosted decision tree to the decay chain $t\to\ell\nu_\ell b$ with $h\to\gamma\gamma$, they predict a signal significance of $5\sigma$ or more for $\chi_{tc}=5$ when the integrated luminosity reaches about $2700~\text{fb}^{-1}$ (with $5\%$ systematic uncertainty), and about $4.4\sigma$ ($4.2$ with systematics) for $\chi_{tc}=3$ at $3000~\text{fb}^{-1}$, which respects the HL-LHC projection $\text{BR}(t\to ch)<10^{-4}$. They conclude that the HL-LHC could find evidence for this new physics process, and that the BDT analysis substantially outperforms simple kinematic cuts.

Load-bearing premise

The reach projections stand on the Monte Carlo simulation implementing the model's coupling exactly as derived, so the signal rate grows with the square of the flavor parameter χ_tc; if the implementation drifts, every significance number changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 3000 fb^-1, the HL-LHC can search for the FCNSI coupling down to χ_tc≈3, a region consistent with the projected limit BR(t→ch)<10^-4, so pp→th+X becomes a complementary direct probe of the same physics that t→ch searches constrain indirectly.
  • The BDT-based selection roughly doubles the expected significance relative to the cut-based analysis described in the paper, so the classifier gain is a key part of the reach claim.
  • For the most favorable benchmark, a 3-sigma hint is predicted by about 1000 fb^-1, while 5-sigma discovery requires around 2700 fb^-1 once 5% background systematics are included.
  • At tanβ=3, the predicted significance is markedly lower, so the sensitivity is concentrated at small tanβ where g_tch ∝ 1/tanβ is largest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The signal cross-sections in Table III scale more slowly with χ_tc than Eq. (22) dictates (S1 moves from 0.01 fb to 0.025 fb when χ_tc goes from 1 to 5, whereas the square scaling implies a factor 25). If the table reflects the generated samples, the model implementation is inconsistent with the analytic coupling; if the table is a transcription error, the χ_tc=5 significance at 2700 fb^-1 would b
  • The same BDT pipeline, with the h→γγ resonance as the anchor, could be applied to flavor-violating decays of the heavier neutral scalars H0 and A0 in the same model, where the background composition is similar.
  • If the upper limit on BR(t→ch) tightens below 10^-4, the allowed χ_tc shrinks; the trend in the paper's parameter scan suggests the reach would degrade roughly in proportion, so the 5σ window for χ_tc=5 and tanβ=1 would close, leaving the process as an evidence-level probe only for the smallest couplings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies single Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, pp -> th + X, within the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model of type III, focusing on the final state t -> l nu b and h -> gamma gamma. The authors extract the flavor-changing coupling g_tch from the model, constrain the parameter space using the CMS upper limit on BR(t -> ch) and the projected HL-LHC limit, and perform a Monte Carlo analysis with FeynRules, MadGraph5, Pythia8, Delphes3, and a Boosted Decision Tree classifier. They claim that for tan(beta)=1, cos(alpha-beta)=0.1, and chi_tc=5, a 5-sigma signal can be reached at L_int >= 2700 fb^-1 with 5% systematic uncertainty, and that for chi_tc=3 the significance is about 4.4 at 3000 fb^-1 under the HL-LHC projection on BR(t -> ch).

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a concrete and testable HL-LHC prospect for a direct flavor-changing neutral scalar interaction involving the top quark and the 125 GeV Higgs boson. The use of both the current CMS bound and the projected HL-LHC bound on BR(t -> ch) as anchors is appropriate, and the paper makes the BDT-based analysis reproducible in broad outline. However, the central quantitative results are internally inconsistent: the signal cross-sections in Table III do not follow the chi_tc^2 scaling required by Eq. (22), and the reported chi_tc=3 significance cannot be derived from the chi_tc=5 results under the paper's own model. These issues affect the abstract, Fig. 6, and the conclusions, so the central claim is unsupported until the Monte Carlo normalization is verified and the numbers are corrected.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (22) and Table III] Eq. (22) defines g_tch as linear in the parameter chi_tc, and each diagram contributing to pp -> th + X contains one flavor-changing htc vertex, so for fixed tan(beta) and cos(alpha-beta) the signal cross-section must scale as chi_tc^2. Table III reports sigma(S1, chi_tc=5)/sigma(S1, chi_tc=1) = 0.025/0.01 = 2.5 and sigma(S2, chi_tc=5)/sigma(S2, chi_tc=1) = 0.014/0.004 = 3.5, both far below the required factor of 25. This is not a rounding issue; it indicates that the Monte Carlo normalization or model implementation does not follow Eq. (22). Because the luminosity projections in Fig. 6 and the abstract are built from these event samples, the absolute cross-sections and the derived significances are not credible without a corrected generation and an explicit check of the chi_tc^2 scaling.
  2. [Sec. III and Fig. 6] The text introduces chi_tc=3 for scenario S1 to satisfy the HL-LHC projection on BR(t -> ch), but Table III does not provide a cross-section for this value. Under the chi_tc^2 scaling that follows from Eq. (22), one would have sigma(chi_tc=3) = (3/5)^2 sigma(chi_tc=5) = 0.36 sigma(chi_tc=5). Starting from the paper's own chi_tc=5 result of a 5-sigma signal at L_int ~ 2700 fb^-1 with kappa=5%, the chi_tc=3 significance at 3000 fb^-1 should be approximately 2 sigma, not the quoted 4.4 (or 4.2 with systematics). The quoted values are part of the abstract and conclusions, so this inconsistency must be resolved by reporting the actual chi_tc=3 cross-section and recomputing the significance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (21)] Equation (21) is typeset incompletely: the line breaks after "-LY = - g/(2MW)" and several parentheses are unbalanced, which makes it difficult to verify the extraction of g_tch in Eq. (22).
  2. [Eq. (16)] In Eq. (16), the expression for B_f contains a repeated factor "(r2 + r2 - 1)" where one of the factors presumably should involve r1 or r3; please correct this typographical error.
  3. [Table III] Table III lists only chi_tc=1 and chi_tc=5, although chi_tc=3 is used later in Sec. III and in the abstract; a row for chi_tc=3 with its uncertainty should be added.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption of Fig. 6 does not state which curves correspond to kappa=0 and kappa=5% for both scenarios; the reader must infer this from the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: chi_tc is an externally constrained free parameter and the pp->th projection is an independent MC calculation; the Table III scaling violation against Eq. (22) is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The central prediction is a collider projection for pp->th+X in the 2HDM-III. The coupling g_tch in Eq. (22) is linear in the free parameter chi_tc, but chi_tc is not fitted to the predicted signal; it is constrained externally using the CMS upper limit BR(t->ch)<0.00046 and the HL-LHC projection BR(t->ch)<1e-4, then scanned at chi_tc=1,3,5. The signal cross-sections in Table III are Monte Carlo outputs from FeynRules/MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes, and the significance is computed with the standard formula S/sqrt(S+B+(0.05B)^2) using SM background cross-sections from MC. Thus no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is used to forbid alternatives. The earlier work by the same group cited for the four-zero texture ansatz and for parameter-space constraints (Refs. [13,28,30]) supplies stated assumptions and external-constraint summaries, not the target result itself, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. One genuine quantitative concern is internal consistency rather than circularity: Eq. (22) implies sigma ~ chi_tc^2 at fixed tan(beta) and cos(alpha-beta), yet Table III gives S1 0.01->0.025 fb and S2 0.004->0.014 fb when chi_tc goes 1->5, factors of roughly 2.5-3.5 instead of 25. This suggests a possible MC normalization or model-file implementation error and undermines the quoted luminosities, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The headline predictions rest on several unproved modeling assumptions plus hand-picked model parameters. The free parameters are the three 2HDM-III inputs chosen to optimize the significance. The axioms are the standard MC-chain fidelity, the BDT transferability, background completeness, SM-like Higgs decays, and the four-zero texture setup borrowed from previous papers by the same group. No new particle or new symmetry is introduced by this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • chi_tc (chi~u_tc) = 1, 3, 5
    Sets the flavor-changing top-charm-Higgs coupling; chosen by hand at values that give promising significances, with 3 selected to respect the HL-LHC BR(t to ch) projection.
  • tan(beta) = 1 and 3
    Ratio of Higgs doublet VEVs; small values enhance the htc coupling (1/tan(beta)); chosen for favorable signal cross-sections while allowed by Higgs data constraints from Ref. [30].
  • cos(alpha - beta) = 0.1
    Near the decoupling limit; chosen within the region allowed by LHC Higgs data, and affects the htc coupling through xi factors in Eq. (21).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FeynRules/MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes chain with the HL-LHC Delphes card gives an accurate simulation of signal and backgrounds at the HL-LHC.
    Invoked throughout Sec. III A; no detector-level validation or comparison with data is provided.
  • domain assumption The BDT trained on Monte Carlo transfers to real data without overtraining, validated by a KS value in [0,1].
    Sec. III A and Fig. 5; the KS argument is not a closure test.
  • domain assumption The backgrounds listed in Table IV are the dominant ones for the h to gamma gamma, lepton plus b-jet final state.
    No generator-level or data-driven estimate of other backgrounds, e.g. ttbar plus photons, is shown.
  • domain assumption The light Higgs h behaves as a SM-like Higgs for BR(h to gamma gamma) and kinematics.
    Used implicitly when scaling h to gamma gamma events; 2HDM modifications to the diphoton rate are not computed.
  • domain assumption The four-zero texture, Hermitian Yukawa ansatz from Refs. [27,28,13] and the constraints from Ref. [30] are valid.
    The model section relies on these prior results; the paper itself does not derive them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single Higgs boson production in association with a top quark through FCNSI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPCB3XHB

@misc{pith2026241220242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single Higgs boson production in association with a top quark through FCNSI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPCB3XHB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20242}
}
abstract

We study the production and possible detection of a single Higgs boson in association with a top quark in proton-proton collisions ($pp \to th + X$) at the High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider. This process absent in the Standard Model is predicted by other models such as the Two-Higgs Doublet Model of type III, which is the theoretical framework adopted in this work. Promising results are found for specific scenarios of the model parameter space, which consist mainly of the parameters $\tan\beta$, $\cos(\alpha-\beta)$ and the parameter $\chi_{tc}$, responsible for the Flavor-Changing Neutral Scalar Interactions (FCNSI). Using the machine learning \textit{Boosted Decision Trees} algorithm and considering a systematic uncertainty of $5\%$, we predict \textit{signal significances} at level of $5\sigma$ for $\tan\beta=1$, $\cos(\alpha-\beta)=0.1$, $\chi_{tc}=5$, and integrated luminosities {$\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}\gtrsim2700~fb^{-1}$}. Likewise, we also predict a \textit{signal significance} $\sigma\approx 4.4$ for $\tan\beta=1$, $\cos(\alpha-\beta)=0.1$, $\chi_{tc}=3$, and integrated luminosities $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int} = 3000~fb^{-1}$, which consider the upper limit given by HL-LHC projection on $\mathcal{BR}(t\to ch)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the allowed region by CMS and the HL-LHC projection (blue and green points, respectively). FIG. 1. Plot of χtc −cos(α−β) plane on BR(t → ch). The blue points are allowed by the upper limit given by CMS, while the green points correspond to the HL-LHC projection. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Model parameter space of the 2HDM-III in the cos( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Feynman diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plots for the signal and background variables: (a) Invariant mass of the two photons, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plot of the discriminant for signal and background data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cosine of the difference of mixing angles: cos( α − β),

    work page

  2. [2]

    Ratio of the VEV’s: tan β,

    work page

  3. [3]

    straight

    The parameter that changes flavor χtc (χtc ≡ ˜χu tc). The observables we consider to constraint are the following: • LHC Higgs boson data [31, 32], • Neutral meson physics B0 s → µ+µ− [33], B0 d → µ+µ− [33], • ℓi → ℓjℓk ¯ℓk and ℓi → ℓjγ [34], • Muon anomalous magnetic moment aµ [35]. The only parameter we did not consider in Ref. [30] is the matrix elemen...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    Georges Aad et al. Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Phys. Lett., B716:1–29, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 8 TeV

    Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 8 TeV. JHEP, 06:081, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Peter W. Higgs. Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 13:508–509, Oct 1964

    work page 1964

  7. [7]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout. Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 13:321–323, Aug 1964

    work page 1964

  8. [8]

    T. S. Virdee. Beyond the standard model of particle physics. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 374(2075):20150259, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Lectures on physics beyond the standard model

    Hyun Min Lee. Lectures on physics beyond the standard model. arXiv, 1907.12409, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Beyond the standard model

    Katrina Miller. Beyond the standard model. Symmetry Magazine, n.d

  3. [11]

    Beyond sm physics and searches for susy at the lhc

    Dris Boubaa, Gaber Faisel, and Shaaban Khalil. Beyond sm physics and searches for susy at the lhc. arXiv, 2005.08069, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Anomalies in particle physics and their implications for physics beyond the standard model

    Andreas Crivellin and Bruce Mellado. Anomalies in particle physics and their implications for physics beyond the standard model. Nature Rev. Phys., 6(5):294–309, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Atwood, L

    D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni. Flavor changing neutral currents in the two higgs doublet model type iii. Physical Review D, 55:3156–3176, 1997

    1997

  6. [14]

    F´ elix-Beltr´ an, F

    O. F´ elix-Beltr´ an, F. Gonz´ alez-Canales, J. Hern´ andez-S´ anchez, S. Moretti, R. Noriega-Papaqui, and A. Rosado. Analysis of the quark sector in the 2HDM with a four-zero Yukawa texture using the most recent data on the 13 CKM matrix. Phys. Lett. B, 742:347–352, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Generalized 2HDM with wrong-sign lepton-Yukawa coupling, in light of gµ − 2 and lepton flavor violation at the future LHC

    Nivedita Ghosh and Jayita Lahiri. Generalized 2HDM with wrong-sign lepton-Yukawa coupling, in light of gµ − 2 and lepton flavor violation at the future LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(12):1074, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Arroyo-Ure˜ na, J

    Marco A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, J. Lorenzo Diaz-Cruz, Enrique D ´ ıaz, and Javier A. Orduz-Ducuara. Flavor violating Higgs signals in the Texturized Two-Higgs Doublet Model (THDM-Tx). Chin. Phys. C, 40(12):123103, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani. Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry. Phys. Rev. D, 2:1285–1292, 1970

    1970

  10. [18]

    Georges Aad et al. Search for flavour-changing neutral current interactions of the top quark and the Higgs boson in events with a pair of τ -leptons in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP, 2306:155, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Search for flavor-changing neutral current interactions of the top quark mediated by a Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

    Aram Hayrapetyan et al. Search for flavor-changing neutral current interactions of the top quark mediated by a Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. 7 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco. Probing top flavor changing neutral scalar couplings at the CERN LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 495:347–356, 2000

    2000

  13. [21]

    Flavour-Changing Neutral Scalar Interactions of the Top Quark.Universe, 8(11):609, 2022

    Nuno Filipe Castro and Kirill Skovpen. Flavour-Changing Neutral Scalar Interactions of the Top Quark.Universe, 8(11):609, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Searches for the FCNC couplings from top-Higgs associated production signal with h → γγ at the LHC

    Yao-Bei Liu and Zhen-Jun Xiao. Searches for the FCNC couplings from top-Higgs associated production signal with h → γγ at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 763:458–464, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Apollinari, O

    G. Apollinari, O. Br¨ uning, T. Nakamoto, and Lucio Rossi. High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider HL-LHC. CERN Yellow Rep., (5):1–19, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, Marc Sher, and Joao P. Silva. Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models. Phys. Rept., 516:1–102, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Lorenzo D ´ ıaz-Cruz

    J. Lorenzo D ´ ıaz-Cruz. The Higgs profile in the standard model and beyond.Rev. Mex. Fis., 65(5):419–439, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    P. A. Zyla et al. Review of Particle Physics. PTEP, 2020(8):083C01, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Ashry, S

    M. Ashry, S. Khalil, and S. Moretti. Searching for a heavy neutral CP-even Higgs boson in the BLSSM at the LHC Run 3 and HL-LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(4):433, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Kuday, H

    S. Kuday, H. Saygın, ˙I. Ho¸ s, and F. C ¸ etin. Projections for Neutral Di-Boson and Di-Higgs Interactions at FCC-he Collider. Nucl. Phys. B, 932:1–14, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Hern´ andez-S´ anchez, Stefano Moretti, and Alfonso Rosado

    Siba Prasad Das, Marek Nowakowski, J. Hern´ andez-S´ anchez, Stefano Moretti, and Alfonso Rosado. Neutral and Charged Higgs boson phenomenology at the LHeC and FCC-eh. In 38th International Symposium on Physics in Collision, page 5, 12 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    J. L. D ´ ıaz-Cruz, R. Noriega-Papaqui, and A. Rosado. Mass matrix ansatz and lepton flavor violation in the two-higgs doublet model-iii. Phys. Rev. D, 69:095002, May 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    J. L. D ´ ıaz-Cruz, R. Noriega-Papaqui, and A. Rosado. Measuring the fermionic couplings of the higgs boson at future colliders as a probe of a nonminimal flavor structure. Physical Review D, 71(1), January 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Hernandez-Sanchez, S

    J. Hernandez-Sanchez, S. Moretti, R. Noriega-Papaqui, and A. Rosado. Off-diagonal terms in Yukawa textures of the Type-III 2-Higgs doublet model and light charged Higgs boson phenomenology. JHEP, 07:044, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    M. A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, E. A. Herrera-Chac´ on, S. Rosado-Navarro, and Humberto Salazar. Hunting for a charged Higgs boson pair in proton-proton collisions. Phys. Rev. D, 111(1):015023, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Search for lepton flavour violating decays of the Higgs boson to µτ and eτ in proton- proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    Albert M Sirunyan et al. Search for lepton flavour violating decays of the Higgs boson to µτ and eτ in proton- proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. JHEP, 06:001, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Searches for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs boson in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    Georges Aad et al. Searches for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs boson in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B, 800:135069, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Measurement of the B0 S → µ+µ− decay properties and search for the B0 → µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    Armen Tumasyan et al. Measurement of the B0 S → µ+µ− decay properties and search for the B0 → µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. Phys. Lett. B, 842:137955, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    R. L. Workman and others (Particle Data Group). Review of Particle Physics. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys., 2022:083C01, 2022. 14

    2022

  30. [38]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(14):141801, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Azzi et al

    P. Azzi et al. Report from Working Group 1: Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC. CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr., 7:1–220, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Artificial Intelligence for High Energy Physics, Chapter 2: Boosted Decision Trees, pages 9–58

    Yann Coadou. Artificial Intelligence for High Energy Physics, Chapter 2: Boosted Decision Trees, pages 9–58. World Scientific Publishing, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    The Elements of Statistical Learning

    Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Harlander, S.Y

    R.V. Harlander, S.Y. Klein, and M. Lipp. Feyngame. Computer Physics Communications, 256:107465, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Christensen, C´ eline Degrande, Claude Duhr, and Benjamin Fuks

    Adam Alloul, Neil D. Christensen, C´ eline Degrande, Claude Duhr, and Benjamin Fuks. FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology. Comput. Phys. Commun., 185:2250–2300, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP, 0...

    2014

  37. [45]

    Christiansen, Richard Corke, Nishita Desai, Philip Ilten, Stephen Mrenna, Stefan Prestel, Christine O

    Torbj¨ orn Sj¨ ostrand, Stefan Ask, Jesper R. Christiansen, Richard Corke, Nishita Desai, Philip Ilten, Stephen Mrenna, Stefan Prestel, Christine O. Rasmussen, and Peter Z. Skands. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2.Comput. Phys. Commun., 191:159–177, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi. DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment. JHEP, 02:057, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Beta card for HL-LHC and HE-LHC studies, 2017

    Michele Selvaggi. Beta card for HL-LHC and HE-LHC studies, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Salam, and Gregory Soyez

    Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez. FastJet User Manual. Eur. Phys. J. C, 72:1896, 2012

    2012

  41. [49]

    Salam, and Gregory Soyez

    Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez. The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm. JHEP, 04:063, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Fast b-tagging at the high-level trigger of the ATLAS experiment in LHC Run 3

    Georges Aad et al. Fast b-tagging at the high-level trigger of the ATLAS experiment in LHC Run 3. JINST, 18(11):P11006, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Framework for Collider Phenomenology

    Eric Conte, Benjamin Fuks, and Guillaume Serret. MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Framework for Collider Phenomenology. Comput. Phys. Commun., 184:222–256, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    Statistics, pages 117–143

    Glen Cowan. Statistics, pages 117–143. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Expected sensitivity of ATLAS to FCNC top quark decays t → Zu and t → Hq at the High Luminosity LHC

    Georges Aad et al. Expected sensitivity of ATLAS to FCNC top quark decays t → Zu and t → Hq at the High Luminosity LHC. Technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2016. All figures including auxiliary figures are available at https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PH...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.