Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

This paper claims that the unique kinetic Higgs portal operator Φ†Φ ∂μS∂μS leaves measurable radiative fingerprints in Higgs couplings and four-top production, even where invisible decays are cancelled, and opens a viable scalar dark-matter

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

2026-08-04 13:23 UTC pith:OI5MAYX2

load-bearing objection Systematic, honest phenomenology of a derivative Higgs portal; the four-top sensitivity is the real new result, but every claim is conditional on the single-singlet EFT. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.00686 v2 pith:OI5MAYX2 submitted 2025-10-01 hep-ph

Phenomenology of a Kinetic Higgs Portal

Anisha , Lisa Biermann , Christoph Englert , Margarete M\"uhlleitner This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords kinetic Higgs portalHiggs portalfour-top quark productionHiggs coupling precisioninvisible Higgs decayscalar dark matterelectroweak phase transitionmomentum-dependent EFT
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.

This paper sets out to show that a non-minimal, momentum-dependent Higgs portal is not a trivial extension of the usual scalar singlet portal. Its claim is that the leading-derivative interaction between the Higgs doublet and a hidden-sector scalar — Φ†Φ ∂μS∂μS/Λ² — generates loop-level, non-decoupling effects in Higgs observables that are absent in renormalisable portal models. These effects make four-top-quark production and precision single-Higgs coupling measurements the main discovery channels, especially in the parameter region where the standard and kinetic couplings interfere destructively and hide the scalar from invisible-decay searches. The same operator reshapes the finite-temperature potential and, for a light scalar, provides a dark-matter-viable window consistent with relic abundance and direct detection while remaining accessible to a future lepton collider. Why care: if true, current and near-future colliders can probe the composite/strongly-interacting structure of a hidden sector at the loop level even when direct signatures are obscured.

Core claim

Central claim: the unique leading-derivative Z2-symmetric portal interaction ηKS/Λ² Φ†Φ ∂μS∂μS produces radiative imprints the renormalisable portal ηS/2 Φ†Φ S² cannot. The hidden scalar's virtual exchange generates a momentum-dependent form factor in the Higgs two-point function, renormalised into universal Higgs coupling shifts of order ηKS² and into non-decoupling contributions to four-top, ZZ, and HH production. For mS below mH/2, tuning ηS ≈ ηKS (mH²−2mS²)/Λ² suppresses H→SS by destructive interference, so invisible-decay searches lose sensitivity; four-top and precision single-Higgs data carry the constraint. In the thermal potential the operator acts as a scale factor α² = 1 − ηKS φ_C

What carries the argument

The central object is the kinetic portal vertex ηKS/Λ² Φ†Φ ∂μS∂μS, shown in Appendix A to be the unique non-redundant two-derivative Z2-symmetric portal operator (competing forms reduce to it via equations of motion and integration by parts). In the paper it does three jobs. (i) It turns the HEFT coefficient a22 into a momentum-dependent form factor sourced by the S loop, which renormalises the Higgs two-point function and thereby generates universal shifts of all on-shell Higgs couplings at order ηKS². (ii) It introduces a momentum dependence that survives decoupling, producing the non-decoupling contributions to gg→tt̄tt̄, gg→ZZ, and gg→HH used to set constraints. (iii) In the thermal effe

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single interpolating scalar S with a 1 TeV cutoff describes the hidden sector completely, and that all renormalised HEFT coefficients are zero at the renormalisation scale so that every predicted effect is loop-generated by the kinetic portal alone; the authors explicitly note that extra hidden-sector degrees of freedom would change the conclusions.

What would settle it

Measure the four-top cross section at the HL-LHC together with the Higgs-strahlung coupling at a future e+e− collider. For the benchmark mS=55 GeV, ηKS=−0.3, the paper predicts a correlated deviation: a few-percent shift in the universal Higgs coupling and an enhanced gg→tt̄tt̄ rate. Observing one without the other — an SM-like four-top rate alongside a large coupling deviation, or a large four-top excess with no coupling shift — would break the predicted correlation. Independently, a WBF invisible-Higgs search at BR(H→inv) near 10.7% with no four-top deviation would show the destructive-inter

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

If this is right

  • Four-top production at the HL-LHC gives the strongest constraint on the kinetic coupling for light hidden scalars, nearly independent of mS, and stays effective when destructive interference suppresses invisible Higgs decays.
  • At a future e+e− Higgs factory, a few-per-mille determination of the universal Higgs coupling modification would probe parameter regions invisible to direct searches, including the dark-matter benchmark.
  • A strong first-order electroweak phase transition driven by ηS cannot be made compatible with collider and direct-detection data through perturbative ηKS choices; the viable SFOEWPT region is a tuned corner leaving no extra collider sensitivity.
  • For mS < mH/2, the model yields a small dark-matter-viable region — benchmark mS=55 GeV, ηKS=−0.3, ηS=0.003, BR(inv)≈1.9% — that reconciles relic abundance and direct detection within 10%.
  • With a single interpolating scalar at Λ=1 TeV, all quantitative conclusions are conditional; the authors note that additional hidden-sector states would change them.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if future four-top and Higgs-coupling measurements both come out SM-like at the projected sensitivities, the strongest surviving interpretation is a heavier effective cutoff (Λ > 1 TeV) or a hidden sector with several states whose radiative contributions partially cancel — either way the single-operator benchmark would be ruled out.
  • Editorial inference: because the interference line Eq. (3.2) is a fixed-order tuning, a natural follow-up is to study its one-loop renormalisation-group stability; if the cancellation is not radiatively stable, the hidden-decay suppression would be less robust than the tree-level formula suggests.
  • Editorial inference: replacing the delta-function spectral density of S by a continuum (unparticle-like) density would convert the four-top constraint into a probe of the spectral shape, potentially distinguishing a composite scalar from an elementary singlet with the same mass and coupling.
  • Editorial inference: the small DM window sits close to current direct-detection sensitivity; an experiment just below present limits could confirm or close it, since the cancellation relies on a tuned ηS ≈ 0.003.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a Z2-symmetric Higgs portal extended by a single momentum-dependent operator, Eq. (2.7): L = L_SM - Φ†Φ(ηS/2 S^2 + ηKS/Λ^2 ∂μS∂μS). It motivates this operator from chiral and AdS/CFT considerations and argues in Appendix A that it is the unique leading-derivative portal for a single hidden scalar. The paper computes one-loop radiative corrections to the Higgs two-point function in a HEFT framework, derives universal on-shell Higgs coupling modifications (Eq. 3.7), and projects constraints from single-Higgs coupling measurements, four-top production, ZZ and HH production at the HL-LHC and FCC-ee. It also analyzes invisible Higgs decays, the electroweak phase transition using BSMPTv3, and dark matter relic abundance/direct detection using micrOMEGAs, proposing a DM benchmark (Eq. 4.7). The paper reports negative results for ZZ/HH and for a ηS-driven SFOEWPT, and emphasizes a DM-viable region where destructive interference suppresses invisible decays while radiative Higgs coupling deviations remain potentially observable.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful first EFT exploration of a less-minimal Higgs portal. The paper's strengths are the explicit one-loop renormalization with counterterm relations, the claimed UV-finite amplitudes, the scale-variation bands on collider predictions, and the honest reporting of non-competitive channels and model-building caveats. It identifies four-top production as a promising indirect probe and shows how future e+e− Higgs factories could cover a DM-viable region. However, the central numerical claims are conditional on the single-singlet, portal-only EFT and on vanishing renormalized HEFT coefficients, and there are internal inconsistencies in the displayed renormalization and effective-potential formulas that must be corrected before the quantitative results can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.2, Eqs. (3.5) and (3.10)] The normalization of the HEFT coefficient a22 appears inconsistent. Eq. (3.5) gives a22 ~ v^4/Λ^4, which is dimensionless and consistent with the p^4 term 2a22/v^2 p^4 in Eq. (3.4). Eq. (3.10), however, gives δa22 ~ v^2/Λ^4, which has mass dimension -2. Since δa22 is used as the counterterm in the renormalized amplitudes, please provide the explicit derivation and correct the power of v (or the definition of δa22). This affects the claimed UV-finite result for off-shell Higgs propagation.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.2)–(4.5)] Eq. (4.2) sums a geometric series in the S two-point function. Summing the displayed insertions gives a logarithmic term ~ log[α^2 q^2 - m_S^2 - ηS φC^2] with α^2 = 1 - 2ηKS φC^2/Λ^2, not α^2 = 1 - ηKS φC^2/Λ^2 as written in Eq. (4.4). In Eq. (4.5), the first equality is not equal to the third: 1/α^4 V_{S,αT}(m/α) differs from V_{S,T}(m/α) by a factor 1/α^4. Since these formulas are implemented in BSMPTv3 to produce Fig. 7 and the phase-transition conclusions, the implementation should be corrected and the numerical results re-examined.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1, 4.1, and Appendix A] All quantitative constraints (Eq. 3.7, Figs. 3, 4, 8, and the DM benchmark Eq. 4.7) assume a single real scalar S with the local operator Eq. (2.7) and with the renormalized HEFT coefficients a22, add2, aHdd, aH22, κ3 set to zero at the renormalization scale. The paper acknowledges in Sec. 4.1 that 'more degrees of freedom can drastically change the conclusions,' and footnote 9 notes that EOM/IBP-reduced theories are not strictly identical. However, the abstract and conclusions present the four-top and FCC-ee constraints as constraints on the kinetic portal. Because all signals are loop-generated at O(ηKS^2), any additional operator or hidden state contributing to the Higgs two-point function at tree level or one loop can interfere with, or even cancel, the predicted deviations. I request either a quantitative assessment of this sensitivity (e.g., the allowed range of a22 at μ = mH) or a
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3.1) and (3.2)] Please state the Feynman-rule sign convention used for ηKS. The destructive-interference condition in Eq. (3.2) depends on the relative sign between the ηS and ηKS amplitudes, and although physical results are convention-independent, the displayed formula should be unambiguous.
  2. [Fig. 4] Please specify in the caption whether the projected four-top constraints are 95% CL or another confidence level, and how the theoretical scale variation (green bands) is combined with the experimental projection from Ref. [83].
  3. [Ref. [68]] The reference for FCC prospects ('Prospects in electroweak, Higgs and Top physics at FCC') is incomplete; please add an arXiv identifier or publication data.
  4. [Appendix A, footnote 9] The caveat that EOM/IBP reductions do not yield strictly identical theories is important for the off-shell Green's functions used in Sec. 3.2.2. Consider moving this caveat into the main text where the uniqueness of Eq. (2.7) is asserted.
  5. [Eq. (4.6)] The sign and normalization of the Daisy-resummation term Δm^2 should be checked against the corrected α^2 convention from Eqs. (4.2)–(4.5).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: explicit loop calculations from Eq. (2.7), with disclosed model assumptions and benchmark choices.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the Lagrangian Eq. (2.7) and computes radiative corrections explicitly. The universal coupling shift Eq. (3.7), the HEFT coefficient Eq. (3.5), the counterterm relations Eqs. (3.8)-(3.10), the invisible width Eq. (3.1), and the off-shell amplitudes of Sec. 3.2.2 are explicit functions of the input parameters (ηKS, ηS, mS, Λ) obtained with standard one-loop machinery (FeynArts/FormCalc/LoopTools, MadGraph, VBFNLO), not constructed from the observables they later constrain. The DM benchmark Eq. (4.7) is presented as a benchmark found by scanning to reproduce Ωh^2 ≈ 0.12 and evade direct detection, and the SFOEWPT regions are scan results; this is fitting/benchmark selection, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The operator-uniqueness argument in Appendix A is a derivation (IBP/EOM), and footnote 9 explicitly discloses the EOM-reduction caveat for off-shell Green's functions; that is a stated limitation, not a circular reduction. Likewise, setting renormalized HEFT coefficients to zero (Sec. 3.2.1) and the single-interpolating-field truncation are model assumptions the paper flags, including the concession in Sec. 4.1 that more degrees of freedom can drastically change the conclusions. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [24], [83]) are used for oblique-Higgs framing and projected luminosities, but the paper's quantitative constraints are independently computed and compared to external data/codes, so no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation. I therefore find no step in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is an EFT operator choice plus its phenomenology. The central results rest on (i) the single-singlet truncation with Λ=1 TeV fixed by hand, (ii) benchmark/tuned values of ηS and ηKS for DM and phase-transition statements, (iii) the stated renormalization boundary conditions (aij=0). No new particles or forces are invented. The DM benchmark is a fit to Ωh²≈0.12 disclosed as such; the perturbativity bound |ηKS|≤7 is used as a hard scan boundary.

free parameters (5)
  • ηKS (kinetic portal coupling) = −0.3 at DM benchmark; scanned up to |ηKS| ≤ 7 (Λ = 1 TeV)
    Kinetic portal coupling; DM benchmark point mS=55 GeV chosen via micrOMEGAs scan to reproduce relic abundance; upper bound from LO perturbative unitarity (Sec. 3.1).
  • ηS (standard portal coupling) = 0.003 at DM benchmark; tuned to ηKS(mH²−2mS²)/Λ² for invisible-decay suppression
    Standard portal coupling; chosen (fitted) to satisfy relic abundance/direct detection and to engineer the destructive-interference condition Eq. (3.2).
  • Λ (EFT cutoff) = 1 TeV
    Cut-off of the effective theory, fixed by hand: 'we will assume Λ = 1 TeV for definiteness' (Sec. 3.1). All constraints and DM/PT conclusions are shown for this scale.
  • mS (hidden scalar mass) = scanned, mS ≲ 200 GeV; DM benchmark 55 GeV
    Hidden scalar mass; restricted to ≲200 GeV where the direct-search constraints remain perturbatively sensitive (Sec. 3.1).
  • Renormalized HEFT coefficients a22, add2, aHdd, aH22, κ3 = 0
    Boundary condition at the renormalization scale: 'imagining there are no additional sources that lead to a finite contribution to a22' (Sec. 3.2.1). All signals assumed loop-sourced by the portal alone.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Unbroken Z2 symmetry, vS = 0 at T = 0 (no singlet VEV)
    Stated in Sec. 2: 'we will assume an unbroken Z2 symmetry; S does not obtain a vacuum expectation value vS at zero temperature.' The PT scan nevertheless finds two-step transitions with nonzero vS at Tp, so this boundary condition is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Single-singlet EFT truncation of Eq. (2.7) at cutoff Λ = 1 TeV
    All phenomenology computed with one interpolating field S and the unique leading derivative portal; operators (A.2)-(A.4) are dropped as EOM/IBP-redundant, with the authors' own footnote 9 noting such theories are 'not strictly identical'.
  • domain assumption Perturbative unitarity bound |ηKS|/Λ² ≲ 7/TeV² for HS→HS
    Sec. 3.1; used to delimit the scan regions and to declare the invisible-decay suppression region (Eq. 3.3) acceptable.
  • standard math O(ηKS²) radiative corrections fully captured by Higgs-field/W/t counterterms; Goldstone contributions cancel
    Sec. 3.2.1; the paper states this cancellation, computes in Feynman gauge, then decouples Goldstones — a technical assumption that justifies the renormalization program.
  • domain assumption S is the only stable state contributing to relic abundance and direct detection
    Sec. 4.2: 'we will assume here that S is indeed stable and the only relevant state' — the DM analysis is conditional on this.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17761 in / 17732 out tokens · 404159 ms · 2026-08-04T13:23:59.978660+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We explore the phenomenological consequences of non-minimal hidden sector interactions on observable correlations in the Higgs sector, mediated through the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-symmetric Higgs portal. Particular attention is given to non-standard momentum dependencies of the hidden sector scalar, which arise naturally in an effective field theory (EFT) framework, e.g. in Composite Scalar Dark Matter theories. We discuss the implications of such hidden sector interactions for the thermal history of the universe. We show that aspects of such non-standard momentum dependencies can be probed at future lepton colliders such as a FCC-ee, potentially also through radiative corrections. This gives rise to precision probes for regions where direct detection constraints and relic abundance can be accounted for as predicted in, e.g., Composite Scalar Dark Matter theories.

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

99 extracted references · 85 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]. 9As EOMs are not equivalent to redundant field redefinitions, the theories obtained this way are not strictly identical [105]. A complete renormalisation programme of off-shell Green’s functions at a given order requir...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    A. C. Longhitano,Low-Energy Impact of a Heavy Higgs Boson Sector,Nucl. Phys. B188(1981) 118–154

    1981

  3. [3]

    Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions,Int

    F. Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8(1993) 4937–4972, [hep-ph/9301281]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    Appelquist and G.-H

    T. Appelquist and G.-H. Wu,The Electroweak chiral Lagrangian and new precision measurements, Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 3235–3241, [hep-ph/9304240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin and J. Yepes,The Effective Chiral Lagrangian for a Light Dynamical ”Higgs Particle”,Phys. Lett. B722(2013) 330–335, [1212.3305]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Binoth and J

    T. Binoth and J. J. van der Bij,Influence of strongly coupled, hidden scalars on Higgs signals,Z. Phys. C75(1997) 17–25, [hep-ph/9608245]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek,Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors,hep-ph/0605188

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells,A Minimal spontaneously broken hidden sector and its impact on Higgs boson physics at the large hadron collider,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 093007, [hep-ph/0509209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  9. [9]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy,LHC Phenomenology of an Extended Standard Model with a Real Scalar Singlet,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 035005, [0706.4311]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    X.-G. He, T. Li, X.-Q. Li, J. Tandean and H.-C. Tsai,The Simplest Dark-Matter Model, CDMS II Results, and Higgs Detection at LHC,Phys. Lett. B688(2010) 332–336, [0912.4722]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  11. [11]

    Englert, T

    C. Englert, T. Plehn, D. Zerwas and P. M. Zerwas,Exploring the Higgs portal,Phys. Lett. B703 (2011) 298–305, [1106.3097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Profumo, M

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy,Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition,JHEP08(2007) 010, [0705.2425]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Biermann, M

    L. Biermann, M. M¨ uhlleitner and J. M¨ uller,Electroweak phase transition in a dark sector with CP violation,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 439, [2204.13425]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Ruhdorfer, E

    M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni and A. Weiler,A Global View of the Off-Shell Higgs Portal,SciPost Phys.8 (2020) 027, [1910.04170]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Englert, J

    C. Englert, J. Jaeckel, M. Spannowsky and P. Stylianou,Power meets Precision to explore the Symmetric Higgs Portal,Phys. Lett. B806(2020) 135526, [2002.07823]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Gross, O

    C. Gross, O. Lebedev and T. Toma,Cancellation Mechanism for Dark-Matter–Nucleon Interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 191801, [1708.02253]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    J. C. Criado, A. Djouadi, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago,A complete effective field theory for dark matter,JHEP07(2021) 081, [2104.14443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Brivio, M

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey et al.,Non-linear Higgs portal to Dark Matter,JHEP04(2016) 141, [1511.01099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Helset, A

    A. Helset, A. Martin and M. Trott,The Geometric Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP03 (2020) 163, [2001.01453]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Das Bakshi, C

    Anisha, S. Das Bakshi, C. Englert and P. Stylianou,Higgs boson footprints of hefty ALPs,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 095032, [2306.11808]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    H. Song, H. Sun and J.-H. Yu,Complete EFT operator bases for dark matter and weakly-interacting light particle,JHEP05(2024) 103, [2306.05999]. – 17 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    H. Song, H. Sun and J.-H. Yu,Effective field theories of axion, ALP and dark photon,JHEP01(2024) 161, [2305.16770]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Delaunay, T

    C. Delaunay, T. Kitahara, Y. Soreq and J. Zupan,Light scalar beyond the Higgs mixing limit, 2501.16477

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Englert, G

    C. Englert, G. F. Giudice, A. Greljo and M. McCullough,The ˆH-Parameter: An Oblique Higgs View, JHEP09(2019) 041, [1903.07725]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2247–2250

    1969

  26. [26]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,Phys. Rev.177 (1969) 2239–2247

    1969

  27. [27]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino,Consequences of anomalous Ward identities,Phys. Lett. B37(1971) 95–97

    1971

  28. [28]

    Witten,Global Aspects of Current Algebra,Nucl

    E. Witten,Global Aspects of Current Algebra,Nucl. Phys. B223(1983) 422–432

    1983

  29. [29]

    K¨ all´ en,On the definition of the Renormalization Constants in Quantum Electrodynamics,Helv

    G. K¨ all´ en,On the definition of the Renormalization Constants in Quantum Electrodynamics,Helv. Phys. Acta25(1952) 417

    1952

  30. [30]

    Lehmann,On the Properties of propagation functions and renormalization contants of quantized fields,Nuovo Cim.11(1954) 342–357

    H. Lehmann,On the Properties of propagation functions and renormalization contants of quantized fields,Nuovo Cim.11(1954) 342–357

    1954

  31. [31]

    Georgi,Unparticle physics,Phys

    H. Georgi,Unparticle physics,Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007) 221601, [hep-ph/0703260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [32]

    Arkani-Hamed, M

    N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Porrati and L. Randall,Holography and phenomenology,JHEP08(2001) 017, [hep-th/0012148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten,AdS / CFT correspondence and symmetry breaking,Nucl. Phys. B556 (1999) 89–114, [hep-th/9905104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  34. [34]

    Cacciapaglia, G

    G. Cacciapaglia, G. Marandella and J. Terning,The AdS/CFT/Unparticle Correspondence,JHEP02 (2009) 049, [0804.0424]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    P. J. Fox, A. Rajaraman and Y. Shirman,Bounds on Unparticles from the Higgs Sector,Phys. Rev. D 76(2007) 075004, [0705.3092]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  36. [36]

    Cacciapaglia, G

    G. Cacciapaglia, G. Marandella and J. Terning,Colored Unparticles,JHEP01(2008) 070, [0708.0005]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

    Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv

    E. Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253–291, [hep-th/9802150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  38. [38]

    Froissart,Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,Phys

    M. Froissart,Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,Phys. Rev.123 (1961) 1053–1057

    1961

  39. [39]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick,On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin,Annals Phys.7 (1959) 404–428

    1959

  40. [40]

    Di Luzio, J

    L. Di Luzio, J. F. Kamenik and M. Nardecchia,Implications of perturbative unitarity for scalar di-boson resonance searches at LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 30, [1604.05746]. [41]ATLAS, CMScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [42]

    Davoudiasl, T

    H. Davoudiasl, T. Han and H. E. Logan,Discovering an invisibly decaying Higgs at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 115007, [hep-ph/0412269]. – 18 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  42. [43]

    P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai,Missing Energy Signatures of Dark Matter at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 056011, [1109.4398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [44]

    Englert, J

    C. Englert, J. Jaeckel, E. Re and M. Spannowsky,Evasive Higgs Maneuvers at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D 85(2012) 035008, [1111.1719]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [45]

    Englert, K

    C. Englert, K. Nordstr¨ om and M. Spannowsky,Towards resolving strongly-interacting dark sectors at colliders,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 055028, [1606.05359]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [46]

    O. J. P. Eboli and D. Zeppenfeld,Observing an invisible Higgs boson,Phys. Lett. B495(2000) 147–154, [hep-ph/0009158]. [47]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B842(2023) 137963, [2301.10731]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  46. [48]

    Englert and M

    C. Englert and M. McCullough,Modified Higgs Sectors and NLO Associated Production,JHEP07 (2013) 168, [1303.1526]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [49]

    Craig, C

    N. Craig, C. Englert and M. McCullough,New Probe of Naturalness,Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 121803, [1305.5251]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [50]

    Alvarez, D

    E. Alvarez, D. A. Faroughy, J. F. Kamenik, R. Morales and A. Szynkman,Four tops for LHC,Nucl. Phys. B915(2017) 19–43, [1611.05032]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [51]

    Darm´ e, B

    L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks and M. Goodsell,Cornering sgluons with four-top-quark events,Phys. Lett. B784 (2018) 223–228, [1805.10835]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [52]

    Alvarez, A

    E. Alvarez, A. Juste and R. M. S. Seoane,Four-top as probe of light top-philic New Physics,JHEP12 (2019) 080, [1910.09581]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [53]

    Darm´ e, B

    L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks and F. Maltoni,Top-philic heavy resonances in four-top final states and their EFT interpretation,JHEP09(2021) 143, [2104.09512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [54]

    Blekman, F

    F. Blekman, F. D´ eliot, V. Dutta and E. Usai,Four-top quark physics at the LHC,Universe8(2022) 638, [2208.04085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [55]

    Atkinson, A

    Anisha, O. Atkinson, A. Bhardwaj, C. Englert, W. Naskar and P. Stylianou,BSM reach of four-top production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 035001, [2302.08281]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [56]

    Frederix, D

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani and M. Zaro,Large NLO corrections int ¯tW ± andt ¯tt¯thadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions,JHEP02(2018) 031, [1711.02116]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [57]

    Kauer and G

    N. Kauer and G. Passarino,Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal, JHEP08(2012) 116, [1206.4803]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [58]

    Englert and M

    C. Englert and M. Spannowsky,Limitations and Opportunities of Off-Shell Coupling Measurements, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 053003, [1405.0285]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [59]

    He and S.-h

    S.-P. He and S.-h. Zhu,One-loop radiative correction to the triple Higgs coupling in the Higgs singlet model,Phys. Lett. B764(2017) 31–37, [1607.04497]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [60]

    Voigt and S

    A. Voigt and S. Westhoff,Virtual signatures of dark sectors in Higgs couplings,JHEP11(2017) 009, [1708.01614]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [61]

    Englert and J

    C. Englert and J. Jaeckel,Probing the Symmetric Higgs Portal with Di-Higgs Boson Production,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 095017, [1908.10615]. – 19 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [62]

    Brivio, O

    I. Brivio, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. B. Gavela, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo and S. Rigolin,Higgs ultraviolet softening,JHEP12(2014) 004, [1405.5412]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [63]

    M. J. Herrero and R. A. Morales,One-loop renormalization of vector boson scattering with the electroweak chiral Lagrangian in covariant gauges,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 075013, [2107.07890]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [64]

    Domenech, C

    Anisha, D. Domenech, C. Englert, M. J. Herrero and R. A. Morales,Bosonic multi-Higgs correlations beyond leading order,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 095016, [2405.05385]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [65]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman,One Loop Corrections for e+e− Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model,Nucl. Phys. B160(1979) 151–207

    1979

  64. [66]

    Englert, T

    C. Englert, T. Ingebretsen Carlson, J. Sj¨ olin and M. Spannowsky,Harnessing Higgs Kinematics for HEFT Constraints,2506.19401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [67]

    Cepeda et al.,Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,CERN Yellow Rep

    M. Cepeda et al.,Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.7(2019) 221–584, [1902.00134]. [68]FCCcollaboration,Prospects in electroweak, Higgs and Top physics at FCC,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [69]

    Bambade et al.,The International Linear Collider: A Global Project,1903.01629

    P. Bambade et al.,The International Linear Collider: A Global Project,1903.01629. [70]CLICdp, CLICcollaboration, T. K. Charles et al.,The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2(2018) 1–112, [1812.06018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  67. [71]

    Abdallah et al.,CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Radiat

    CEPC Study Groupcollaboration, W. Abdallah et al.,CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods8(2024) 1–1105, [2312.14363]. [72]Linear Collider Visioncollaboration, D. Atti´ e et al.,A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics,2503.19983. [73]Linear Collidercollaboration, A. Subba et al.,The Linear Collider F...

    arXiv 2024

  68. [74]

    G. J. van Oldenborgh and J. A. M. Vermaseren,New Algorithms for One Loop Integrals,Z. Phys. C 46(1990) 425–438

    1990

  69. [75]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm and A. Denner,FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes,Comput. Phys. Commun.64(1991) 345–359

    1991

  70. [76]

    Hahn,Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,Comput

    T. Hahn,Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,Comput. Phys. Commun. 140(2001) 418–431, [hep-ph/0012260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [77]

    Hahn and M

    T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria,Automatized one loop calculations in four-dimensions and D-dimensions,Comput. Phys. Commun.118(1999) 153–165, [hep-ph/9807565]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  72. [78]

    Hahn,Automatic loop calculations with FeynArts, FormCalc, and LoopTools,Nucl

    T. Hahn,Automatic loop calculations with FeynArts, FormCalc, and LoopTools,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.89(2000) 231–236, [hep-ph/0005029]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  73. [79]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0,Comput. Phys. Commun.207(2016) 432–444, [1601.01167]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [80]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements,Comput. Phys. Commun.256(2020) 107478, [2001.04407]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [81]

    Aad et al.,Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector,Eur

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 496, [2303.15061]. [82]CMScollaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,First measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13.6 TeV,JHEP08(2023) 204, [2303.10680]. – 20 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [83]

    Belvedere, C

    A. Belvedere, C. Englert, R. Kogler and M. Spannowsky,Dispelling the √ Lmyth for the High-Luminosity LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 715, [2402.07985]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [84]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [85]

    Arnold et al.,VBFNLO: A Parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons,Comput

    K. Arnold et al.,VBFNLO: A Parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons,Comput. Phys. Commun.180(2009) 1661–1670, [0811.4559]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  79. [86]

    Denner,Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200,Fortsch

    A. Denner,Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200,Fortsch. Phys.41(1993) 307–420, [0709.1075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  80. [87]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier,Electroweak Radiative Corrections for Collider Physics,Phys. Rept.864 (2020) 1–163, [1912.06823]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.