Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Existing ATLAS top-plus-b-jet measurements already limit light charged Higgs bosons decaying through an off-shell top to a few-percent product of branching ratios.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 06:47 UTC pith:NU6IYKFW

load-bearing objection Clean first limits on the off-shell H± o t*b mode from public ATLAS ttbb data; useful complementary probe, not a field-changer. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05499 v1 pith:NU6IYKFW submitted 2026-07-06 hep-ph hep-ex

Searching for charged Higgs bosons in top decays via the t^*b channel

Saiyad Ashanujjaman , Guglielmo Coloretti , Andreas Crivellin , Benjamin Fuks , Yeonsu Heo This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords charged Higgs bosonrare top decayoff-shell topttbbtwo-Higgs-doublet modelLHC reinterpretationbranching-ratio limits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that a light charged Higgs boson produced in the rare top decay t → H±b and then decaying via the previously unconstrained off-shell mode H± → t*b produces a final state that looks like ordinary top-pair production plus extra bottom jets. By reinterpreting published ATLAS fiducial cross-section measurements of dileptonic events with three or more b-jets, the authors extract model-independent upper limits of 1.9 %–2.9 % on the product of the two branching ratios for charged-Higgs masses between 110 and 165 GeV. These limits become competitive with dedicated searches near the top-mass threshold in models where the charged Higgs couples mainly to up-type quarks, and they furnish the first direct constraint in a purely top-philic scenario. In the top-specific two-Higgs-doublet model they also close a low-tanβ corner that conventional τν, cs and cb searches miss. The work therefore turns an existing Standard-Model measurement into a new probe of non-standard top decays and light charged scalars.

Core claim

Reinterpretation of ATLAS dileptonic ttbb fiducial measurements yields observed 95 % CL upper limits of 1.9 %–2.9 % on Br(t → H±b) imes Br(H± → t*b) for charged-Higgs masses from 110 to 165 GeV, strongest in the inclusive ≥3b region; the same limits exclude previously open parameter space in top-philic and top-specific two-Higgs-doublet models.

What carries the argument

The signal topology t t-bar → (W b)(H± b) with H± → t*b → W b b-bar, whose rate is controlled by the product of branching ratios and whose acceptance is measured inside the same four ATLAS fiducial regions used for Standard-Model ttbb studies.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that interference between the Standard-Model ttbb amplitude and the resonant charged-Higgs cascade can be neglected after integration over the fiducial phase space.

What would settle it

A dedicated ATLAS or CMS search that reconstructs the same dileptonic multi-b final state with optimized multivariate discriminants and reports a significantly weaker (or stronger) limit on the same branching-ratio product for m_H± ≈ 140 GeV.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reinterprets ATLAS fiducial cross-section measurements of dileptonic ttbar production with additional b-jets (140 fb^{-1}, 13 TeV) to constrain light charged Higgs bosons (m_{H^\pm} < m_t) produced via the rare decay t \to H^\pm b followed by the off-shell mode H^\pm \to t^* b \to W b b-bar. This yields a ttbb-like final state. Model-independent 95% CL upper limits of 1.9%–2.9% are obtained on the product Br(t \to H^\pm b) \times Br(H^\pm \to t^* b) for masses 110–165 GeV (strongest in the inclusive \ge3b region). These are interpreted in top-philic, up-type aligned, top-specific, and canonical Z_2-symmetric 2HDM scenarios, demonstrating complementarity to existing cs, cb, and \tau\nu searches, particularly near threshold or when conventional modes are suppressed.

Significance. The work fills a genuine gap: the off-shell H^\pm \to t^* b channel, which can dominate below the tb threshold due to the large top Yukawa, has not been targeted by dedicated LHC searches. The model-independent limits are cleanly extracted from public data via a validated simulation chain (SM ttbb reproduces ATLAS Powheg+Pythia8 and data in Fig. 2) and a conservative R-fit treatment of the ~30% theory uncertainty. The subsequent 2HDM interpretations are standard and highlight concrete complementarity (e.g., low-tan\beta exclusion in the top-specific model, direct constraint in the top-philic case). The paper therefore supplies a useful, immediately usable probe of nonstandard top decays and motivates dedicated experimental analyses with Run 3/HL-LHC statistics and improved SM predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.1] Sec. III.1 (paragraph beginning “In doing so, we neglect the interference…”): the neglect of SM–BSM interference after fiducial integration is justified only qualitatively by resonant and kinematic mismatch. Because the extracted limits rest on adding a pure signal contribution to the SM prediction, a quantitative estimate (e.g., via MadGraph interference terms or a simple virtuality-window check) is needed to confirm that residual interference remains negligible compared with the 30% theory uncertainty; otherwise the model-independent bounds carry an unquantified systematic.
  2. [Sec. II] Sec. II and Eq. (2): the charged-Higgs signal is generated at LO while the SM ttbb sample is NLO. Acceptance differences or K-factors for the signal topology are not discussed. Given that the limits are driven by the absolute fiducial rate, a brief assessment of the LO-to-NLO correction (or a statement that it is absorbed into the conservative theory uncertainty) would strengthen the robustness claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] Fig. 3 caption and surrounding text: the mass dependence of the acceptance is explained clearly, but a short sentence quantifying the acceptance variation (or a supplementary plot of A(m_{H^\pm})) would help readers assess the kinematic competition between the two decay stages.
  2. [Appendix A] Appendix A, Eqs. (A5)–(A7): the three-body matrix element is given in full; a brief numerical cross-check against an independent tool (e.g., MadWidth) for a benchmark mass would increase confidence in the Br(H^\pm \to t^* b) evaluation used throughout Sec. III.2.
  3. [Table I] Table I and Fig. 2: the four overlapping fiducial regions are treated independently (justified by theory uncertainty). A parenthetical remark on the expected size of correlations, even if not used, would complete the statistical discussion.
  4. [Introduction] References [25–32]: the local excesses near 152 GeV are cited as motivation. A single clarifying sentence that the present limits do not claim to exclude or confirm those excesses would avoid any ambiguity of interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: model-independent limits are a standard recast of public ATLAS fiducial cross sections; model interpretations use textbook 2HDM widths.

full rationale

The central numerical claim (95% CL limits of 1.9–2.9% on Br(t→H±b)×Br(H±→t*b) in the inclusive ≥3b region) is obtained by generating a LO signal sample, applying the published ATLAS object and fiducial selections of Ref. [24], and comparing the resulting additional contribution against the measured fiducial cross sections after an R-fit treatment of the ~30% SM ttbb theory uncertainty. No parameter is fitted to the same data and then re-used as a prediction; the four overlapping regions are treated separately rather than combined; and interference is explicitly neglected with a kinematic argument that is independent of the extracted numbers. Subsequent translations into top-philic, up-type-aligned, top-specific and Z2-symmetric 2HDMs employ the standard partial-width formulae collected in Appendix A and the conventional Yukawa patterns of Eqs. (8)–(10) and Table II; these are not derived from the present limits. Self-citations to the authors’ earlier excess papers appear only as motivation and do not enter the limit-setting procedure. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external public data and standard model-building inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central limits rest on standard collider tools, published ATLAS data, and conventional 2HDM assumptions; no free parameters are fitted to obtain the model-independent bounds. The only non-standard modeling choices are the neglect of interference and the R-fit handling of theory uncertainty.

axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Interference between SM ttbb and the resonant H± cascade can be neglected after fiducial integration because of mismatched resonant structure and kinematics.
    Stated and justified in Sec. III.1; if false the extracted limits move.
  • domain assumption SM ttbb theory uncertainty is ~30% and is treated by the R-fit prescription (SM prediction free to float inside the band).
    Taken from Refs. [55,56] and applied in Sec. III.1; dominates the sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Additional neutral scalars are heavy enough that they do not open extra charged-Higgs decay modes.
    Explicitly assumed before model interpretations (Sec. III.2).
  • domain assumption Standard Model top-pair production cross section is 832±49 pb at 13 TeV for mt=172.5 GeV (NNLO).
    Taken from Top++ and used in the signal-rate formula (Eq. 2).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22433 in / 2405 out tokens · 22822 ms · 2026-07-11T06:47:07.312740+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Rare top-quark decays offer a sensitive probe of charged Higgs bosons with masses below the top mass, owing to the large $t\bar t$ production rate at the LHC and the distinctive final states involving leptons and $b$-jets. While existing searches target the $H^\pm\to \tau\nu$, $cs$, and $cb$ modes, the decay $H^\pm\to tb$ has been studied only for heavier charged Higgs bosons with an on-shell top quark in the final state. The low-mass off-shell channel $H^\pm\to t^*b$ therefore remains essentially unconstrained, even though it can become the dominant decay mode below the top-quark threshold owing to the large top Yukawa coupling. We study charged-Higgs production from the rare top decay $t\to H^\pm b$, followed by the decay $H^\pm\to t^*b$. Top-antitop production and decay hence give rise to a $t\bar t b\bar b$-like final state, which we constrain by reinterpreting recent ATLAS fiducial measurements in dileptonic events. We obtain model-independent limits of 1.9%-2.9% on the product of branching ratios ${\rm Br}(t\to H^\pm b)\times{\rm Br}(H^\pm\to t^*b)$ for charged-Higgs masses between 110 and 165 GeV, and interpret these bounds in several two-Higgs-doublet scenarios. While dedicated searches for conventional charged-Higgs decays dominate for canonical $Z_2$-symmetric models, the $t^*b$ reinterpretation becomes competitive near the top-quark threshold in the up-type aligned limit and provides relevant direct constraint in a top-philic scenario. In the top-specific Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, it additionally excludes a low-$\tan\beta$ region not covered by conventional searches. These results thus establish $t\bar t$ production with additional $b$-jets as a complementary probe of light charged Higgs bosons and nonstandard top-quark decays, and motivate dedicated analyses by the LHC collaborations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05499 by Andreas Crivellin, Benjamin Fuks, Guglielmo Coloretti, Saiyad Ashanujjaman, Yeonsu Heo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Representative Feynman diagram illustrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Measured fiducial cross sections in the four con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product Br( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the resulting product Br(t → H±b) × Br(H± → t ∗ b) in the (mH± , |ξt|) plane, together with the 68% and 95% CL exclusion contours obtained from the reinterpretation of the ttb¯ ¯b measurements. In the top￾philic benchmark model, the expression for Γ(t → H±b) reduces to a term proportional to |ξt| 2 , up to the charged￾Higgs mass dependence induced by the phase space and by the higher-order QCD correc… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the product Br(t → H±b) × Br(H± → t ∗ b) in the (mH± , |ξu|) plane, together with the exclusion contours obtained from the ttb¯ ¯b reinterpretation. Since the same coupling ξu controls both the top and charm charged-Higgs interactions, the production rate through t → H±b grows with |ξu| 2 , while the relative importance of the cs and t ∗ b decay modes is governed mainly by the charged-Higgs mass. At … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Product of branching ratios Br( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_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

51 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    T. G. Rizzo,Top Quark Decay in Models with Higgs Triplets,Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1504

    1990

  2. [2]

    J. A. Coarasa Perez, J. Guasch, J. Sola, and W. Hollik, Top quark decay into charged Higgs boson in a general two Higgs doublet model: Implications for the Tevatron data,Phys. Lett. B442(1998) 326–334, [hep-ph/9808278]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Bejar, J

    S. Bejar, J. Guasch, and J. Sola,Loop induced flavor changing neutral decays of the top quark in a general two Higgs doublet model,Nucl. Phys. B600(2001) 21–38, [hep-ph/0011091]. [6]ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEPCollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data,Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2463, [arXiv:1301.6065]...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Ashanujjaman, A

    S. Ashanujjaman, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado,Searching for a charged Higgs boson in top-quark decays via theW Zmode,Phys. Rev. D113 (2026), no. 11 115048, [arXiv:2509.07094]. [15]ATLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into a top quark and a bottom quark at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP06(202...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide, vol. 80. 2000

    2000

  6. [6]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva,Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,Phys. Rept.516(2012) 1–102, [arXiv:1106.0034]. [19]LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration, J. R. Andersen et al.,Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties, arXiv:1307.1347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    A. G. Akeroyd et al.,Prospects for charged Higgs searches at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017), no. 5 276, [arXiv:1607.01320]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Arbey, F

    A. Arbey, F. Mahmoudi, O. Stal, and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Charged Higgs Boson in Two Higgs Doublet Models,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018), no. 3 182, [arXiv:1706.07414]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Cheung, A

    K. Cheung, A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee, C.-T. Lu, and J. Song,Comprehensive study of the light charged Higgs boson in the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 9 095044, [arXiv:2201.06890]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado,Anatomy of the real Higgs triplet model,JHEP04(2025) 003, [arXiv:2411.18618]. [24]ATLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of ttproduction in association with additional b-jets in the eµfinal state in proton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,J...

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Crivellin, Y

    A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, O. Fischer, S. Bhattacharya, M. Kumar, E. Malwa, B. Mellado, N. Rapheeha, X. Ruan, and Q. Sha,Accumulating evidence for the associated production of a new Higgs boson at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 11 115031, [arXiv:2109.02650]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S.-E. Dahbi, Y. Fang, M. Kumar, and B. Mellado,Growing Excesses of New Scalars at the Electroweak Scale, arXiv:2306.17209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Ashanujjaman, S

    S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado,Explaining theγγ+X excesses at≈151.5 GeV via the Drell-Yan production of a Higgs triplet,Phys. Lett. B862(2025) 139298, [arXiv:2402.00101]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Lieberman, M. Kumar, A. Crivellin, Y. Fang, R. Mazini, and B. Mellado, Emerging Excess Consistent with a Narrow Resonance at 152 GeV in High-Energy Proton-Proton Collisions, arXiv:2503.16245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Banik, G

    S. Banik, G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado, Uncovering new Higgses in the LHC analyses of differentialt tcross sections,JHEP01(2025) 155, [arXiv:2308.07953]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Coloretti, A

    G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, and B. Mellado,Combined explanation of LHC multilepton, diphoton, and top-quark excesses,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 7 073001, [arXiv:2312.17314]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Crivellin, S

    A. Crivellin, S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, S. P. Maharathy, and B. Mellado,Growing evidence for a Higgs triplet,Chin. Phys. C49(2025), no. 5 053107, [arXiv:2404.14492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell, and T. Murphy,Monojets from compressed weak frustrated dark matter,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 5 055010, [arXiv:2409.03014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov,Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the Top-Pair Cross-Section at Hadron Colliders,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2930, [arXiv:1112.5675]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    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,JHEP07(2014) 079, [arXiv:1405.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao, and M. Zaro,The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,JHEP07(2018) 185, [arXiv:1804.10017]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)]. [36]NNPDFCollaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017), no. 10 663, [arXiv:1706.00428]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 132, [arXiv:1412.7420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk,Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations,JHEP03 (2013) 015, [arXiv:1212.3460]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Alwall, C

    J. Alwall, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, O. Mattelaer, D. G. ¨Ozt¨ urk, and C.-H. Shen,Computing decay rates for new physics theories with FeynRules and MadGraph 5 aMC@NLO,Comput. Phys. Commun.197(2015) 312–323, [arXiv:1402.1178]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022 (2022) 8, [arXiv:2203.11601]. [41]ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to 7 TeV data,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    N. D. Christensen et al.,A Comprehensive approach to new physics simulations,Eur. Phys. J.C71(2011) 1541, [arXiv:0906.2474]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2250–2300, [arXiv:1310.1921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output,Comput. Phys. Commun.183 (2012) 1201–1214, [arXiv:1108.2040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,Eur

    L. Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), no. 7 631, [arXiv:2304.09883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm,JHEP04(2008) 063, [arXiv:0802.1189]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896, [arXiv:1111.6097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Jeˇ zo, J

    T. Jeˇ zo, J. M. Lindert, N. Moretti, and S. Pozzorini, New NLOPS predictions fort ¯t+b-jet production at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018), no. 6 502, [arXiv:1802.00426]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    K. J. F. Gaemers and F. Hoogeveen,Higgs Production and Decay Into Heavy Flavors With the Gluon Fusion Mechanism,Phys. Lett. B146(1984) 347–349

    1984

  34. [34]

    D. A. Dicus and S. S. D. Willenbrock,Photon Pair Production and the Intermediate Mass Higgs Boson, Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 1801

    1988

  35. [35]

    Dicus, A

    D. Dicus, A. Stange, and S. Willenbrock,Higgs decay to top quarks at hadron colliders,Phys. Lett. B333(1994) 126–131, [hep-ph/9404359]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  36. [36]

    Bernreuther, M

    W. Bernreuther, M. Flesch, and P. Haberl,Signatures of Higgs bosons in the top quark decay channel at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 114031, [hep-ph/9709284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  37. [37]

    H. Bahl, R. Kumar, and G. Weiglein,Impact of interference effects on Higgs-boson searches in the di-top final state at the LHC,JHEP05(2025) 098, [arXiv:2503.02705]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Flacke, B

    T. Flacke, B. Fuks, D. Kim, J. Kim, S. J. Lee, and L. Munoz-Aillaud,New physics in toponium’s shadow?, Phys. Lett. B879(2026) 140613, [arXiv:2512.03220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Bevilacqua, H.-Y

    G. Bevilacqua, H.-Y. Bi, H. B. Hartanto, M. Kraus, M. Lupattelli, and M. Worek,t tbbat the LHC: on the size of corrections and b-jet definitions,JHEP08 (2021) 008, [arXiv:2105.08404]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Bevilacqua, H.-Y

    G. Bevilacqua, H.-Y. Bi, H. B. Hartanto, M. Kraus, M. Lupattelli, and M. Worek,tt¯bb¯at the LHC: On the size of off-shell effects and prompt b-jet identification,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 1 014028, [arXiv:2202.11186]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Hocker, H

    A. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, and F. Le Diberder, A New approach to a global fit of the CKM matrix,Eur. Phys. J. C21(2001) 225–259, [hep-ph/0104062]. [58]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 3 030001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  42. [42]

    Huang, X.-G

    X.-D. Huang, X.-G. Wu, J. Zeng, Q. Yu, X.-C. Zheng, and S. Xu,Determination of the top-quark M Srunning mass via its perturbative relation to the on-shell mass with the help of the principle of maximum conformality, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 11 114024, [arXiv:2005.04996]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Aparisi et al.,m b atm H: The Running Bottom Quark Mass and the Higgs Boson,Phys

    J. Aparisi et al.,m b atm H: The Running Bottom Quark Mass and the Higgs Boson,Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022), no. 12 122001, [arXiv:2110.10202]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Ma, X.-D

    S.-Y. Ma, X.-D. Huang, X.-C. Zheng, and X.-G. Wu, Precise Determination of the Bottom-Quark On-Shell Mass Using Its Four-Loop Relation to the MS¯-Scheme Running Mass,Chin. Phys. Lett.41(2024), no. 10 101201, [arXiv:2406.18025]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    X.-M. Shen, Y. Hu, C. Sun, and J. Gao,Decay of the charged Higgs boson and the top quark in two-Higgs-doublet model at NNLO in QCD,JHEP05 (2022) 157, [arXiv:2201.08139]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    L.-B. Chen, H. T. Li, J. Wang, and Y. Wang,Analytic result for the top-quark width at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD,Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 5 054003, [arXiv:2212.06341]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Misiak and M

    M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser,Weak radiative decays of theBmeson and bounds onM H± in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017), no. 3 201, [arXiv:1702.04571]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    M. Jung, A. Pich, and P. Tuzon,Charged-Higgs phenomenology in the Aligned two-Higgs-doublet model, JHEP11(2010) 003, [arXiv:1006.0470]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Enomoto and R

    T. Enomoto and R. Watanabe,Flavor constraints on the Two Higgs Doublet Models of Z 2 symmetric and aligned types,JHEP05(2016) 002, [arXiv:1511.05066]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [50]

    A. M. Coutinho, A. Karan, V. Miralles, and A. Pich, Light scalars within theCP-conserving Aligned-two-Higgs-doublet model,JHEP02(2025) 057, [arXiv:2412.14906]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Crivellin, A

    A. Crivellin, A. Kokulu, and C. Greub, Flavor-phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models with generic Yukawa structure,Phys. Rev. D87(2013), no. 9 094031, [arXiv:1303.5877]. [69]CMSCollaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Measurement of the RatioB(t→W b)/B(t→W q)in pp Collisions at √s= 8 TeV,Phys. Lett. B736(2014) 33–57, [arXiv:1404.2292]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013