Errata for "The Higgs Hunter's Guide"

Gordon L. Kane; Howard E. Haber; John F. Gunion; Sally Dawson

REVIEW

Errata for "The Higgs Hunter's Guide"

John F. Gunion, Howard E. Haber, Gordon L. Kane, Sally Dawson

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 18 Feb 1993 · 18 references

Pith's verdict: An errata sheet that is mostly typographical, but the two substantive items — the corrected charged-Higgs contribution to muon g-2 and the model-independent cubic Higgs-Goldstone rules — hold up when you actually do the integral.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 1 major objection · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9302272 (version 1)

Pith IDNBLJI7XB, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationGordon L. Kane, Howard E. Haber, John F. Gunion, Sally Dawson. "Errata for "The Higgs Hunter's Guide"." arXiv:hep-ph/9302272 (1993). https://pith.science/paper/NBLJI7XB

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Quick read on the Gunion-Haber-Kane-Dawson errata for the second printing of the Higgs Hunter's Guide. Most of it is housekeeping: a denominator, a page reference, a dropped author (Kakuto) in ref. 107, headline mass ranges, index entries. Two items are real physics, and both survive checking. That is the whole story, and it is a good enough story to be worth your time if you use the book. Item 3 is the one people will care about. The reader flagged the missing intermediate steps between the printed integral and eq. (3.9), and I went through it: set m_F = 0 for the neutrino, take C_S^2 = C_P^2 = C^2, and the integrand collapses to 2C^2 x(1-x)/m_H^2. The elementary integral is 1/6, so you get C^2/(3m_H^2), and with the -m_mu^2/(8 pi^2) prefactor and the Model-II coupling that is exactly the quoted -G_F m_mu^4 tan^2(beta)/(24 sqrt(2) pi^2 m_H^2). Sign and the 1/24 both fall out of what is printed. The reader's worry about unshown steps is misplaced; the derivation is closed. Eq. (3.11) is consistent too — 77/tan^2(beta) exceeds one at tan(beta) below about 8.8, matching the stated 'unless tan beta >~ 9'. Item 11 is the other keeper: model-independent cubic Higgs-Goldstone Feynman rules for the general CP-invariant two-doublet model, with the MSSM limit as an external benchmark. People re-derive these badly and often; having them in one place with a stated consistency check is genuinely useful. Item 7 also deserves more credit than the typo items — the extra lambda_7 term really does spoil the 'most general potential' claim on p. 195, and the phase-redefinition argument for dropping it is correct. The one soft spot is the dispute with Grifols-Pascual and Donoghue-Li. The authors assert a factor-of-two and a sign disagreement but never trace it to a specific step in either paper; the only diagnosis offered (their kappa <= 1 claim) is about the allowed range of tan(beta), not the coefficient. That is a claim about other people's algebra, not about the erratum's own correctness, so it does not undermine eq. (3.9). But since people quote the g-2 bound on m_H+, it is the thing I would most want nailed down. Who is this for? Anyone computing Higgs couplings who owns the book, which is most of us. It is not a research paper and should not be judged as one, but the two substantive items are checkable and checked. Send it out; a referee can verify the integral and the vertex list in an hour.

Referee report

Significance

Errata for a standard reference are only as valuable as they are precise and checkable, and this list is both: every item names a page and, where relevant, an equation or figure, so a reader can apply it mechanically to a copy of the book. The physics content is not trivial. The sign of the charged-Higgs two-loop contribution to a_mu is exactly the quantity that enters bounds on m_Hpm from muon g-2, and the authors do not merely assert the corrected sign but print the integral from which it follows, so the reader can close the derivation independently; I have checked that setting m_F = 0 and C_S^2 = C_P^2 = G_F m_mu^2 tan^2(beta)/sqrt(2) in the displayed integral, taking m_Hpm >> m_mu, and using the integral of x(1-x) over [0,1] equal to 1/6, reproduces the quoted coefficient -1/24 and the negative sign. Item 11 is a genuine addition to the book rather than a correction: the observation that the three-Higgs vertices with at least one Goldstone boson are model independent in any CP-invariant two-Higgs-doublet model, together with the explicit list and the MSSM limit as an external benchmark, is useful to anyone computing in a non-supersymmetric multi-Higgs model. The paper also does

Major objections (1)

[Item 3, p. 96, eq. (3.9)] The corrected result is stated to disagree with Grifols and Pascual (ref. [8] of Chapter 3) and with Donoghue and Li (ref. [20] of Chapter 4) 'both in magnitude (by a factor of 2) and in sign', and the authors note that Grifols and Pascual define kappa = tan(beta) but incorrectly state kappa <= 1. The derivation itself is sound and checkable from the printed integral, so this is not a challenge to eq. (3.9); it is a request that the errata say where the discrepancy comes from. As written, a reader who has previously used the Grifols-Pascual or Donoghue-Li number has no way to tell whether the difference is a convention (the sign of the charged-Higgs coupling, the fermion-flow direction, the definition of the Yukawa Lagrangian) or an error in the earlier work, and the two possibilities have different consequences for existing mass bounds. A single sentence identifying the origin of the factor of two and of the sign, in the same convention-fixing spirit as the remark already made about ref. [6] ('one must set the charged Higgs boson charge equal to -1 in units of e'), would make the item self-contained and would let a reader adjudicate the three results without redoing all three calculations.

Minor objections (8)

[Item 3, p. 96] 'Our calcuation agrees with that of Leveille [6]' should read 'Our calculation agrees with that of Leveille [6]'.
[Item 4, p. 98] In 'the two-loop charged Higgs contribution is larger than the the corresponding one-loop contribution', the doubled article 'the the' should be corrected.
[Item 7, p. 195] The argument that the lambda_7 term can be eliminated by redefining the phases of the scalar fields is compressed to the observation that the coefficient of (phi_1^dagger phi_2)^2 is complex when lambda_7 is nonzero and real when it vanishes. Since the item is specifically correcting an over-strong 'most general' claim, it would be worth writing the phase rotation explicitly, or at least stating which combination of the two scalar phases is being used, so that the reader can verify that the term is removed without disturbing the rest of the potential.
[Item 11, pp. 373-375] The overall factor in the vertex list should be typeset so that it cannot be misread: as printed, entries such as 'gh0G0G0 = -ig2mW m2h0 sin(beta - alpha)' are ambiguous between g/(2 m_W) and g^2 m_W, and only the former gives the correct mass dimension and the correct Standard-Model-like normalization. A note fixing the convention once for the whole list would remove the ambiguity.
[Item 11, pp. 373-375] The sign convention is stated only for the A0 H+- G-+ vertex ('the sign corresponds to H+- entering the vertex and G+- leaving the vertex'). Since the list is offered as a model-independent replacement for the MSSM rules, a single statement of the momentum and charge-flow convention applying to all nine vertices would make the list usable without cross-referencing the book's Appendix A.
[Items 13 and 14, pp. 404-407] The corrected rules for the H0 h0 squark-squark and G+- H-+ squark-squark vertices are given without the momentum/charge-flow convention or the definitions of D_k and H_k used in the brackets. A short pointer to where D_k and H_k are defined in Appendix A would make these two items applicable on their own.
[Item 16, p. 418] The correction 'F A0_{1/2} -> -2' should state the argument or limit in which this form factor value is taken, since the same symbol appears elsewhere in Appendix C with a different argument.
[General] The items are presented as an unnumbered list in the manuscript; numbering them would make it easier for readers and for the publisher to track which corrections have been incorporated into a future printing.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Eighteen errata correct equations, references, and Feynman rules in The Higgs Hunter's Guide, notably reversing the sign and doubling the size of the charged-Higgs contribution to the muon g-2.

The reading

The Higgs Hunter's Guide is a standard reference book on Higgs boson physics, published in 1990 with a corrected second printing in 1991. This short preprint is a list of eighteen further corrections to that second printing. Most items are small: a wrong denominator in one cross-section ratio, a mislabelled equation number, a missing author's name in a reference, a page number in the index, a headline on odd-numbered pages that names the wrong mass range. Those are bookkeeping fixes that matter only to people reading the book alongside the errata sheet. Two items carry real physics. Item 3 recomputes the contribution of a charged Higgs boson loop to the muon's anomalous magnetic moment and finds a result that differs in sign and by a factor of two from two published calculations. Item 11 gives Feynman rules for three-point Higgs vertices that involve at least one Goldstone boson, written so that they hold in any two-Higgs-doublet model rather than only in the minimal supersymmetric model, and notes that the minimal supersymmetric rules follow as a special case. The rest of the list is typographical. The document is not a research paper in the usual sense: it has no abstract of results, no figures, and no derivations beyond a single integral. Its value is entirely as a companion to a book that is not reproduced here, so a reader cannot check any correction without a copy of the book open to the cited page.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The corrected eq. (3.9): the two-loop charged-Higgs contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is Delta a_mu = -G_F m_mu^4 tan^2(beta) / (24 sqrt(2) pi^2 m_Hpm^2), which the authors state disagrees with Grifols and Pascual and with Donoghue and Li both in magnitude (by a factor of 2) and in sign, and which they say makes the two-loop piece larger than the one-loop piece unless tan beta is greater than about 9 (eq. 3.11). If correct, this reverses the sign of a contribution used to bound charged Higgs masses from muon g-2 data.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of eq. (3.9) assumes the interaction of eq. (3.7) with h taken as the charged Higgs and F a neutral fermion, and then inserts the Model-II couplings C_S^2 = C_P^2 = G_F m_mu^2 tan^2(beta)/sqrt(2) with F identified as the neutrino, before taking m_Hpm much greater than m_mu. If the coupling assignment, the diagram set, or the identification of F is wrong, the sign and the factor of two both change. The paper asserts the sign has been checked ('We have carefully checked that the sign of Delta a_mu in eq. (3.9) is indeed opposite to that of the standard QED one-loop correction') but does not display the intermediate steps that establish it.

Original abstract

Errata are given for "The Higgs Hunter's Guide". These errata should be applied to the second printing of the book, dated 1991. The second printing has already corrected numerous errors and misprints contained in the originally published 1990 edition.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,825 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.30 · human participants 0.03 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.05 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Errata are given for "The Higgs Hunter's Guide". These errata should be applied to the second printing of the book, dated 1991. The second printing has already corrected numerous errors and misprints contained in the originally published 1990 edition.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Errata are given for "The Higgs Hunter's Guide".	contribution 0.97	0.59	0.35	asserted 1.00
s1	These errata should be applied to the second printing of the book, dated 1991.	background 0.63	0.15	0.11	asserted 0.88
s2	The second printing has already corrected numerous errors and misprints contained in the originally published 1990 edition.	background 0.99	0.10	0.08	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 1.00 · evidence from literature 0.90.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (18)

[8]

On p. 209, in the text ﬁve lines above eq. (4.46), replace th e reference to eq. (2.29) with eq. (2.30)

View on Pith
[6]

On p. 155 in the line right above eq. (3.94), the text should read: “Before applying any cuts, reaction (3.92) overtakes reaction (3.9 3) at roughly”

View on Pith
[1]

On p. 30, eq. (2.25) should read: limmf →∞ I1(τf , λf ) − I2(τf , λf ) = − 13

View on Pith
[2]

On p. 62, in eq. (2.131), the denominator on the right hand s ide should read σ0(νµN → µ−X)

View on Pith
[3]

On p. 96, eq. (3.9) is not correct. To obtain the correct ans wer, we must compute the contribution of ﬁg. (3.7) to ∆ aµ. Assuming that the interaction is speciﬁed in eq. (3.7), where h is now the negatively charged Higgs boson (H ±), and F is now a neutral-charged fermion, we ﬁnd: ∆aµ|ﬁg. 3.7 = −m2µ8π2 1∫ 0 x(1 − x) dx { C2S(x + mF /mµ) + C2P (x − mF /mµ...

View on Pith
[4]

In view of the previous erratum, eq. (3.11) on p. 98 is not co rrect. It should read: ∆aµ|ﬁg. 3.8 ∆aµ|ﬁg. 3.7 ≃ 77tan2 β . (3.11) In obtaining this result, we have also made use of the most rec ent Particle Data Book values for the fundamental constants. Therefore, the two-loop charged Higgs contribution is larger than the the corresponding one-loop contr...

View on Pith
[5]

In chapter 3, there is a typographical error in some of the h eadlines appearing on odd-numbered pages. Headlines on pp. 109, 111, 113, 115, a nd 129 should read “Very Light Higgs Bosons (mass <∼ 5 GeV)”. Headlines on pp. 137 and 139 should read “Light Higgs Bosons (5 <∼ mφ0 <∼ 85 GeV)”

View on Pith
[7]

On p. 195, we state that eq. (4.8) is the most general two-Hi ggs doublet scalar potential subject to a discrete symmetry φ1 → − φ1 which is only softly violated by dimension-two terms. This is not strictl y correct. There is one additional term that can be added: λ7 [ Re φ†1φ2 − v1v2 cos ξ] [Im φ†1φ2 − v1v2 sin ξ] . However, this term can be eliminated b...

View on Pith
[9]

On p. 264, the reference to Witten in ref. 106 is incorrect. It should read: E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 513

View on Pith 1981
[10]

On p. 264, there are some errors in ref. 107. First, A. Kaku to’s name was mistakenly omitted. Second, a reference to one paper was acc idently left out. The corrected reference should read: K. Inoue, A. Kakut o, A. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 67 (1982) 1889; 68 (1982) 927 [E: 70 (1983) 330]; 71 (1984) 413

View on Pith 1982
[11]

Here is a clariﬁcation regarding the Feynman rules for cu bic Higgs vertices involving at least one Goldstone ﬁeld, which appear on pp. 37 3–375. The rules for cubic and quartic scalar interactions given in App endix A are spe- ciﬁc to the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM), since the M SSM im- poses speciﬁc constraints on the Higgs potential. Neverthe l...

View on Pith
[12]

On p. 375, in the caption to Fig. A.17, on the third line, re place the reference to eq. (A.10) with eq. (A.9)

View on Pith
[13]

On pp. 404–405, in Fig. A.35(c) and (d), the Feynman rules for the H 0h0~qkL~qkL and H 0h0~qkR ~qkR vertices are incorrect. The correct Feynman rules are: H 0h0~qkL~qkL ig2 sin 2α2 [T3k − ek sin2 θWcos2 θW − m2q2m2W Dk] , H 0h0~qkR ~qkR ig2 sin 2α2 [ek tan2 θW − m2q2m2W Dk]

View on Pith
[14]

On p. 407, in Fig. A.36(f), the Feynman rule for the G±H ∓~qkR ~qkR vertex is incorrect. The corrected rule is: G±H ∓~qkR ~qkR ig22 sin 2β ek tan2 θW − ig2m2q2m2W Hk

View on Pith
[15]

On p. 417, in eq. (C.1), replace Γ( φ0 → γγ ) with Γ( h → γγ ), in order to be consistent with the notational conventions of Table 1.1 on p . 4

View on Pith
[16]

On p. 418, in the second line below eq. (C.3), it should rea d: “ F A01/2 → −2”

View on Pith
[17]

On p. 421, in the index listing for “Decays of A0. . . to Zh”, replace 413 with 412

View on Pith
[18]

On p. 422, in the index listing for “Decays of neutral Higg s bosons . . . to W +W −; ZZ ”, replace 413 with 412

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 16 Pith papers

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

The Two-Higgs Doublet Model beyond tree-level: A gauge-invariant formalism
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The bilinear formalism of the two-Higgs-doublet model is extended to one-loop order, yielding gauge-invariant expressions for the quantum-corrected scalar masses and vacuum shift.
On the CP Nature of the `95 GeV' Anomalies
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A projection study showing that HL-LHC tau-pair data could determine the CP mixing angle of a hypothetical 95 GeV resonance to within roughly 0.27 to 0.47 radians at 90% confidence.
Little Higgs Dark Matter
hep-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The T-odd heavy photon in the Littlest Higgs model with T parity is a viable WIMP dark matter candidate whose relic abundance matches WMAP data in two Higgs-resonance bands and a coannihilation tail, with gamma-ray si...
On the two-loop sbottom corrections to the neutral Higgs boson masses in the MSSM
hep-ph 2002-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Explicit two-loop O(alpha_b alpha_s) corrections to the MSSM neutral CP-even Higgs mass matrix are derived, together with a sbottom-sector renormalization scheme that absorbs the large tan(beta)-enhanced bottom-mass t...
Analysis of Neutral Higgs-Boson Contributions to the Decays B_s -> l^+l^- and B -> K l^+l^-
hep-ph 2001-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Existing B_s -> mu+ mu- data already bound scalar and pseudoscalar new physics in b -> s l+ l- tightly enough that the forward-backward asymmetry in B -> K mu+ mu- cannot exceed about 4%.

Show 11 more citing papers

Cosmological Bounds on Non-Abelian Dark Forces
hep-ph 2017-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Cosmological and astrophysical data exclude a broad range of glueball masses and connector-operator scales for a pure SU(3) dark Yang-Mills sector, while the lightest C-odd glueball can survive as dark matter.
Two Higgs Doublet Models and $b\to s$ exclusive decays
hep-ph 2017-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A corrected set of one-loop Wilson coefficients for b to s lepton-pair decays in Two Higgs Doublet Models, plus a scan showing that only a narrow Type II window survives current B_s to mu mu and B to K mu mu data.
The Constrained Exceptional Supersymmetric Standard Model
hep-ph 2009-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the constrained E6SSM, renormalisation group running drives the gluino and the lightest neutralinos and chargino to be light, while squarks, sleptons and the Z-prime stay heavy.
Unitarity bounds in the Higgs model including triplet fields with custodial symmetry
hep-ph 2007-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Imposing S-wave unitarity on all 91 two-body scalar scattering channels in the Georgi-Machacek model bounds every Higgs mass from above, with the lightest scalar below about 269 GeV.
Broadening the Higgs Boson with Right-Handed Neutrinos and a Higher Dimension Operator at the Electroweak Scale
hep-ph 2007-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A dimension-five operator H†H N N at the TeV scale can make the Higgs boson decay into long-lived right-handed neutrinos, producing pairs of displaced, lepton-number-violating vertices at colliders.
Stability and Symmetry Breaking in the General Two-Higgs-Doublet Model
hep-ph 2006-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The general Two-Higgs-Doublet potential's stability and electroweak symmetry breaking can be decided by evaluating two rational functions at a finite set of at most ten points.
On the two-loop Yukawa corrections to the MSSM Higgs boson masses at large tan(beta)
hep-ph 2003-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors compute the O(alpha_t alpha_b + alpha_b^2) two-loop Yukawa corrections to the MSSM neutral Higgs masses and tadpoles, finding shifts of several GeV in the lightest Higgs mass at large tan(beta).
Exploring Potential Higgs Resonances at 650 GeV and 95 GeV in the 2HDM Type III
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In a 2HDM Type III, a 650 GeV CP-odd Higgs decaying via H(125)Z with H->γγ and Z->bb, plus a 95 GeV light Higgs, can accommodate both the CMS 650 GeV and the 95 GeV diphoton excesses at about 2.5 sigma.
NNLO corrections to the total cross section for Higgs boson production in hadron-hadron collisions
hep-ph 2003-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

An independent phase-space evaluation confirms the published NNLO Higgs production cross section, extends the coefficient functions to general colour factors, and shows the soft-plus-virtual approximation degrades at NNLO.
Unitarity constraints on scalar parameters of the Standard and Two Higgs Doublets Model
hep-ph 2000-12 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Tree-level unitarity caps the lightest CP-even Higgs mass in the two-Higgs-doublet model, forcing it below roughly 100 GeV once tan beta exceeds 7, unless a discrete-symmetry-breaking coupling lambda5 is added.
A Supersymmetry Primer
hep-ph 1997-09 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

A self-contained pedagogical introduction to supersymmetry and the MSSM, from Lagrangian construction through soft breaking to collider phenomenology.

How the literature uses it

47 arXiv papers cite this in 76 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 35 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

For this purpose, as we already mentioned, it is useful to work in the extended Higgs basis [ref] , given as:

Electroweak Phase Transition in a Right-Handed Neutrino Superfield Extended NMSSM · A convenient basis choice · 0.96
We will, however, introduce the important formulae, following the notation of [ref] .

Top quark rare decays in a two Higgs doublet model for the top · Results for the 1-loop Higgs rare decay $H^0→t̅c$ · 0.82

Uses its data or values 1 paper

In table [ref] we give the vector-vector-scalar couplings, common to all 2HDM's, from [ref] .

Top quark rare decays in a two Higgs doublet model for the top · Results for the 1-loop Higgs rare decay $H^0→t̅c$ · 0.97

Cites it as background 29 papers

The scalar potential of this model can be written as [ref] : [equation] where $Φ_1$ and $Φ_2$ denote the two $SU(2)_L$ doublets.

Role of $\lambda_{hH^+H^-}$ in Higgs boson decays $h$ to $bs$ in the 2HDM · The Two Higgs Doublet Model · 0.93
The Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) [ref] provides a well-motivated extension, predicting additional Higgs bosons: a heavy CP-even scalar ($H$), a CP-odd pseudoscalar ($A$), and a charged Higgs pair ($H^±$).

Impact of hidden heavy Higgs channels of VLB-Quarks below 1 TeV in 2HDM · Introduction · 0.98
The Yukawa couplings $𝒴_u^H^+$, $𝒴_d^H^+$ and $𝒴_ℓ^H^+$ in each type of model are characterized by the parameters $β$, which determines the mixing between the physical states and EW ones (mentioned previously), and $α$, which determines the mixing in the neutral CP-even (scalar) sector [ref] .

Enhanced Four-Body Decays of Charged Higgs Bosons into Off-Shell Pseudoscalar Higgs and $W^\pm$ Boson Pairs in a Lepton-Specific 2-Higgs Doublet Model · Charged Higgs Bosons in the Lepton-Specific 2HDM · 0.93

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [8]

On p. 209, in the text ﬁve lines above eq. (4.46), replace th e reference to eq. (2.29) with eq. (2.30)

View on Pith

[2] [6]

On p. 155 in the line right above eq. (3.94), the text should read: “Before applying any cuts, reaction (3.92) overtakes reaction (3.9 3) at roughly”

View on Pith

[3] [1]

On p. 30, eq. (2.25) should read: limmf →∞ I1(τf , λf ) − I2(τf , λf ) = − 13

View on Pith

[4] [2]

On p. 62, in eq. (2.131), the denominator on the right hand s ide should read σ0(νµN → µ−X)

View on Pith

[5] [3]

On p. 96, eq. (3.9) is not correct. To obtain the correct ans wer, we must compute the contribution of ﬁg. (3.7) to ∆ aµ. Assuming that the interaction is speciﬁed in eq. (3.7), where h is now the negatively charged Higgs boson (H ±), and F is now a neutral-charged fermion, we ﬁnd: ∆aµ|ﬁg. 3.7 = −m2µ8π2 1∫ 0 x(1 − x) dx { C2S(x + mF /mµ) + C2P (x − mF /mµ...

View on Pith

[6] [4]

In view of the previous erratum, eq. (3.11) on p. 98 is not co rrect. It should read: ∆aµ|ﬁg. 3.8 ∆aµ|ﬁg. 3.7 ≃ 77tan2 β . (3.11) In obtaining this result, we have also made use of the most rec ent Particle Data Book values for the fundamental constants. Therefore, the two-loop charged Higgs contribution is larger than the the corresponding one-loop contr...

View on Pith

[7] [5]

In chapter 3, there is a typographical error in some of the h eadlines appearing on odd-numbered pages. Headlines on pp. 109, 111, 113, 115, a nd 129 should read “Very Light Higgs Bosons (mass <∼ 5 GeV)”. Headlines on pp. 137 and 139 should read “Light Higgs Bosons (5 <∼ mφ0 <∼ 85 GeV)”

View on Pith

[8] [7]

On p. 195, we state that eq. (4.8) is the most general two-Hi ggs doublet scalar potential subject to a discrete symmetry φ1 → − φ1 which is only softly violated by dimension-two terms. This is not strictl y correct. There is one additional term that can be added: λ7 [ Re φ†1φ2 − v1v2 cos ξ] [Im φ†1φ2 − v1v2 sin ξ] . However, this term can be eliminated b...

View on Pith

[9] [9]

On p. 264, the reference to Witten in ref. 106 is incorrect. It should read: E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 513

View on Pith 1981

[10] [10]

On p. 264, there are some errors in ref. 107. First, A. Kaku to’s name was mistakenly omitted. Second, a reference to one paper was acc idently left out. The corrected reference should read: K. Inoue, A. Kakut o, A. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 67 (1982) 1889; 68 (1982) 927 [E: 70 (1983) 330]; 71 (1984) 413

View on Pith 1982

[11] [11]

Here is a clariﬁcation regarding the Feynman rules for cu bic Higgs vertices involving at least one Goldstone ﬁeld, which appear on pp. 37 3–375. The rules for cubic and quartic scalar interactions given in App endix A are spe- ciﬁc to the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM), since the M SSM im- poses speciﬁc constraints on the Higgs potential. Neverthe l...

View on Pith

[12] [12]

On p. 375, in the caption to Fig. A.17, on the third line, re place the reference to eq. (A.10) with eq. (A.9)

View on Pith

[13] [13]

On pp. 404–405, in Fig. A.35(c) and (d), the Feynman rules for the H 0h0~qkL~qkL and H 0h0~qkR ~qkR vertices are incorrect. The correct Feynman rules are: H 0h0~qkL~qkL ig2 sin 2α2 [T3k − ek sin2 θWcos2 θW − m2q2m2W Dk] , H 0h0~qkR ~qkR ig2 sin 2α2 [ek tan2 θW − m2q2m2W Dk]

View on Pith

[14] [14]

On p. 407, in Fig. A.36(f), the Feynman rule for the G±H ∓~qkR ~qkR vertex is incorrect. The corrected rule is: G±H ∓~qkR ~qkR ig22 sin 2β ek tan2 θW − ig2m2q2m2W Hk

View on Pith

[15] [15]

On p. 417, in eq. (C.1), replace Γ( φ0 → γγ ) with Γ( h → γγ ), in order to be consistent with the notational conventions of Table 1.1 on p . 4

View on Pith

[16] [16]

On p. 418, in the second line below eq. (C.3), it should rea d: “ F A01/2 → −2”

View on Pith

[17] [17]

On p. 421, in the index listing for “Decays of A0. . . to Zh”, replace 413 with 412

View on Pith

[18] [18]

On p. 422, in the index listing for “Decays of neutral Higg s bosons . . . to W +W −; ZZ ”, replace 413 with 412

View on Pith