How ResonanceContinuum Interference Changes 750 GeV Diphoton Excess:
Signal Enhancement and Peak Shift
Abstract
The new scalar resonance contribution to the 750 GeV diphoton excess observed at the LHC 13 TeV necessarily interferes with the continuum background in the . The interference has two considerable effects: (1) enhancing or suppressing diphoton signal rate due to the imaginarypart interference and (2) distorting resonance shape due to the realpart interference. From the bestfit study of two benchmark models (two Higgs doublets with 50 GeV widths and a singlet scalar with 5 GeV width, both extended with vectorlike fermions), we find that the resonance contribution to the 750 GeV excess can be enhanced by a factor of 2(1.6) for 3(6) fb signal rate and the 68%(95%) CL bestfit mass range can shift by 1–4 (any ) GeV. If the bestfit excess rate decreases with future data, the interference effects will become more significant. The inevitable interferences can also provide a consistency check of a resonance hypothesis, whether or not future precision shape measurements confirm a BreitWigner shape or discover interesting deviations.
SLACPUB16447
1 Introduction
Recently, mild excesses in diphoton invariant mass distribution have been observed in both ATLAS atlas:excess () and CMS cms:excess () experiments at Large Hadron Collider (LHC) 13 TeV running. The excesses are 3.6 and 2.6 significant from Standard Model (SM) hypothesis, respectively, and are found to prefer a new resonance at around 750 GeV decaying to diphotons atlas:excess (); cms:excess (); Falkowski:2015swt (). The excesses at LHC 13 are currently not completely inconsistent with no significant excesses at LHC 8 TeV data, e.g. Falkowski:2015swt (), and more data are needed to confirm or disfavor the resonance interpretation. The tantalizing hint of a new resonance triggered various theoretical proposals DiChiara:2015vdm (); Angelescu:2015uiz (); Buttazzo:2015txu (); Pilaftsis:2015ycr (); Franceschini:2015kwy (); Ellis:2015oso (); Gupta:2015zzs (); Higaki:2015jag (); McDermott:2015sck (); Low:2015qep (); Petersson:2015mkr (); Dutta:2015wqh (); Cao:2015pto (); Kobakhidze:2015ldh (); Cox:2015ckc (); Martinez:2015kmn (); Becirevic:2015fmu (); No:2015bsn (); Demidov:2015zqn (); Chao:2015ttq (); Fichet:2015vvy (); Curtin:2015jcv (); Bian:2015kjt (); Chakrabortty:2015hff (); Csaki:2015vek (); Bai:2015nbs (); Benbrik:2015fyz (); Kim:2015ron (); Gabrielli:2015dhk (); Alves:2015jgx (); Carpenter:2015ucu (); Bernon:2015abk (); Chao:2015nsm (); Han:2015cty (); Dhuria:2015ufo (); Han:2015dlp (); Luo:2015yio (); Chang:2015sdy (); Bardhan:2015hcr (); Feng:2015wil (); Cho:2015nxy (); Barducci:2015gtd (); Chakraborty:2015jvs (); Han:2015qqj (); Antipin:2015kgh (); Wang:2015kuj (); Cao:2015twy (); Huang:2015evq (); Heckman:2015kqk (); Bi:2015uqd (); Kim:2015ksf (); Cline:2015msi (); Bauer:2015boy (); Chala:2015cev (); Boucenna:2015pav (); deBlas:2015hlv (); Murphy:2015kag (); Hernandez:2015ywg (); Dey:2015bur (); Huang:2015rkj (); Patel:2015ulo (); Chakraborty:2015gyj (); Altmannshofer:2015xfo (); Cvetic:2015vit (); Allanach:2015ixl (); Cheung:2015cug (); Liu:2015yec (); Hall:2015xds (); Kang:2015roj () allegedly regarded to fit the 750 GeV excess rate fb. Also, both a narrow and a somewhat broad resonance with GeV can fit the data similarly well atlas:excess (); Falkowski:2015swt ().
The interference between a resonance and the SM continuum background, however, is inevitable Dicus:1987fk (); Dixon:2003yb (); Martin:2012xc (); Dixon:2013haa (); Martin:2013ula (); Coradeschi:2015tna (); Jung:2015gta (); Jung:2015sna () but has been ignored so far. The interference can have two considerable effects (see, e.g. Ref. Jung:2015gta ()):

Enhancing or suppressing diphoton signal rate,

Distorting resonance shape.
The effects can be especially sizable if the resonance width is at least comparable to experimental resolutions or bin sizes, GeV. For the 125 GeV SM Higgs boson, for example, even though it is narrow, the resulting peakshift is MeV Dixon:2013haa (); Martin:2012xc () and will be comparable to the polemass measurement uncertainty soon (currently MeV Aad:2015zhl ()). For a 750 GeV fused scalar resonance with fb diphoton rate, the resonancecontinuum interference is generally large: the resonancesquared fb and the continuum background fb/40 GeV naively generate % relative interference effect. The interference is particularly large in the diphoton channel because the scalar resonance contribution is twoloop suppressed while the interfering continuum background is only oneloop as shown in Fig. 1, so that the above naive estimation of the relative interference is generally loopfactor enhanced Jung:2015gta (); Jung:2015sna ().
The two main interference effects are induced by different relative phases bewteen the resonance and the continuum processes. The realpart interference ( as will be defined and discussed) induces either peakdip or dippeak pattern added to a resonance peak, hence distorting the resonance shape from a pure resonance peak. On the other hand, the imaginarypart interference () simply rescales the resonance peak, hence enhancing or suppressing the resonance peak. The nonzero phase is generated when some particles running in loops are lighter than 375 GeV.
In this paper, we investigate each interference effect on the current 750 GeV excess data by considering two benchmark models that exhibit maximally enhanced signals (from the purely imaginarypart interference) or maximally distorted resonance shape (from the purely realpart interference) in the process. We first describe our method of calculating resonance shapes including interferences in Sec. 2.1 and the diphoton datasets and bestfit analysis method in Sec. 2.2. The two benchmark models are introduced and our main results are discussed in Sec. 3 and Sec. 4. Then we conclude and discuss prospects in Sec. 5.
2 Formalism and Analysis Method
2.1 Diphoton Rate and Resonance Shape
We consider a scalar resonance in the . It interferes with the oneloop continuum backgrounds shown in Fig. 1. The total differential cross section including the interference is written as
where is the parton luminosity (we use CT10NNLO PDF set Gao:2013xoa ()) and are the partonlevel cross sections. The signal crosssection , the deviation from the SM background, consists of the resonancesquared and the resonancecontinuum interference Jung:2015gta (),
(2) 
where and , and we factor out BreitWigner (BW) parts. We define and the relative phase in terms of phasespace integrated squared amplitudes ()
(3) 
and similarly for . The summation is over helicity and color indices, and is the scattering angle in the c.m. frame. We introduce a key parameter , defined by
(4) 
which measures the relative size of interference.
For a narrow resonance (whose width is not much larger than experimental resolutions or bin sizes), the real part interference, the term proportional to in Eq. (2), is washed out after the integration over . Since the invariant mass distribution is highly accumulated near the resonance peak, we can consider parameters , and parton luminosity as constant values. Then the total signal rate with the interference effect, defined as , is obtained as Jung:2015gta ()
(5) 
where quantifies the strength of the imaginarypart interference. Note that the terms inside the square bracket corresponds to the usual total rate in the narrow width approximation (NWA), production cross section times branching ratio. The subscript mNWA represents modified NWA. It is useful to express in terms of which is measured in experiments:
(6) 
This is our resonance shape function for a narrow resonance.
For a broad resonance, with GeV, we now need to take into account the dependence of , and parton luminosity; they are not constant in anymore in broad resonance region. We redefine the total rate for a broad resonance by integrated differential rate, Eq. (2.1), around the resonance mass :
(7) 
We set for our broad resonance example. We also use the following ratio
(8) 
to quantify the strength of the imaginarypart interference for a broad resonance. This factor is approximately equal to the factor for a narrow resonance in Eq. (5).
The resonance shape function is parameterized not only by usual mass , width and the total rate but also by the relative interference phase . is not a completely independent parameter as shall be discussed. The purely realpart (imaginarypart) interference corresponds to (). The realpart interference induces peakdip or dippeak structure in addition to a BW peak while the imaginarypart interference either enhances or reduces the BW peak or convert the peak to a BW dip (without associated peak) Jung:2015gta (). Thus, the purely realpart interference can most significantly change the resonance shape from a BW peak while the purely imaginarypart interference can most significantly enhance the signal rate (or peak height). These two effects are our main topics; we will study two benchmark models for each of them.
It is hard to carry out a modelindependent bestfit analysis including interference effects based on Eq. (2) and Eq. (6). The interference depends not only on , , , which are usually chosen in modelindependent analysis without interference effects, but also on and . In particular, is correlated with , which is hard to obtain the analytic relation. In this regard we use two benchmark models to numerically discuss the interference effects. For the (purely) realpart interference, we consider a singlet model which introduces a CPodd SM singlet scalar with a minimal set of vectorlike quarks and vectorlike leptons: see Sec. 3. For the (purely) imaginarypart interference, Type II 2HDM with vectorlike leptons is to be studied: Sec. 4.
There is an important assumption in our implementation of higherorder corrections. We first normalize the total rate without interferences (equivalent to multiplying the correction factor to ) to the result obtained by HIGLU fortran package Spira:1995mt () which includes nexttonexttoleadingorder QCD and nexttoleadingorder EW contributions. Then we multiply the same correction factor to the interference term , as no results are available. Although this assumption approximately accounts for higherorder corrections to the total rate, it implies that does not receive appreciable higherorder corrections. This may not be an unreasonable assumption since higherorder corrections to the resonancesquared and the resonancecontinuum interference can be similar, hence cancelling out in their ratio . In any case, both the purely realpart and the purely imaginarypart interferences approximately grow with . Thus, any corrections to would directly affect what we discuss in this paper.
2.2 Dataset and Method
In order to quantitatively study interference effects on the 750 GeV diphoton excess data, we perform a Poissonian likelihood analysis to find the best fit. The dataset is from the latest LHC 8 and 13 TeV diphoton resonance search data at around GeV from both ATLAS and CMS experiments. We read in the predicted backgrounds and observed data from the reported plots in Refs. atlas:excess (); cms:excess (); Aad:2015mna (); Khachatryan:2015qba (). The total uncertainty in each bin is assumed to be statistical uncertainty for LHC 13 (8) TeV data.
The fit ranges considered in this paper are
(9) 
We choose ATLAS 8 data bins closest to 630 and 830 GeV. The range is somewhat broad so that we can consider a broad resonance as well. CMS 13 dataset is divided into CMS EBEB 13 and CMS EBEE 13 categories depending on which parts of detectors identify photons. We consider them as independent datasets. Fiducial signal efficiencies are taken from the experimental references and Ref. Falkowski:2015swt ().
We carry out a fit to all the data bins within the range, and take the total change of compared to the SMfit (backgroundonly), , as a measure of how well the model fits the data. Our SMfit (backgroundonly) results are:
(10) 
for ATLAS 13, CMS EBEB 13, CMS EBEE 13, ATLAS 8, and CMS 8, respectively. The results are, of course, sensitive to the assumption of total uncertainties. As will be discussed, although CMS EBEE 13 and CMS 8 show worst fits, these data do not strongly support a 750 GeV resonance – various excesses and deficits around 750 GeV are not significantly fitted better with new resonance contributions. However, ATLAS 13 and CMS EBEB 13 data are fitted better with a new resonance at around 750 GeV. Our readin data and modelindependent fit results without interferences approximately agree with those in Ref. Falkowski:2015swt (); assuming a BW peak with both fixed GeV and with varying .
3 Singlet Model: RealPart Interference
3.1 Singlet Model
Consider a CPodd SMsinglet scalar , coupling to vectorlike quarks and vectorlike leptons
(11) 
where are real Yukawa couplings, mass eigenvalues, number of fermions, and electric charges. We choose and from the minimal matter list DelNobile:2009st () – the list of new particles that can eventually decay to SM particles – since they have the largest electric charges. We consider , but shall also exhibit similar effects.
In the quark sector, we introduce a single vectorlike with fixed parameters
(12) 
We still have enough lepton sector free parameters that we can use to fit the data and to illustrate interference effects.
In the lepton sector, we consider
(13) 
The sign of the Yukawa determines the sign of the relative phase: approximately changes the relative phase . It is an approximate relation because also contributes to the part although it is subdominant to the contribution. We will compare the results with positive and negative (as well as with the results without any interference accounted for) to see how the bestfit changes with interference effects.
Another important parameter is the width. In the above model, the width is typically too small ( GeV) to make interference effects apparent in current experiments; mainly decays to loopinduced and
(14)  
(15) 
where loop functions are defined as in Ref. Djouadi:2005gi (), and other signals such as are currently well below their LHC 8 sensitivities. If such a narrow resonance falls within a single experimental bin, the realpart interference (although itself is independent on the width) is cancelled out; in addition, the imaginarypart interference is small since it is directly proportional to the width as . Thus, to illustrate possible impacts of interference effects, we assume a bigger constant width
(16) 
It is easy to add extra hidden decay modes of , not constrained at all, to make so. If the assumed width were much bigger than the true width, diphoton signal will be suppressed; but if the true width is bigger, the interference will become more relevant. Also, if the were smaller, although one can still have almost 100% BR(), the total width decreases and the interference effects will be less significant. Meanwhile, for , the decays into vectorlike leptons dominate and the diphoton signal becomes too suppressed. Although such light leptons can change the phase and introduce different interference effects, we cannot fit the diphoton excess data well and do not discuss this possibility further.
An important feature of the singlet scalar model is that the relative phase is small:
(17) 
which induces almost purely realpart interference. This is the case in which resonance shape is maximally distorted from pure BW shape (and the peak location is maximally shifted), for the given total rate. The small but nonzero phase is generated from the SM quark loops in background box diagrams.
3.2 Results – Singlet Model
In Fig. 2 we show an example of the SMsinglet scalar resonance shapes for (bluesolid) and (reddashed) with full interference effects. For comparison, we also show the resonance shape without any interferences taken into account (greendotted). All three cases have the same NWA rates and the width . But induces a small dippeak (peakdip) interference pattern added to the BW peak, so that a long tail toward a high (low) invariant mass region appears and the peak shifts toward the same direction. As a result, the bestfit results change, even though the NWA rates, masses and widths are all the same. We quantify such interference effects in this subsection. The small but nonzero imaginarypart interference, Eq. (26), actually makes (true observable rate slightly different from the NWA rate; see Eq. (5)) and the peak heights slightly different among the three shapes.
Fig. 3 shows the bestfit results to ATLAS 13 (left) and CMS EBEB 13 (right) datasets individually, for a singlet scalar model with (upper) and (lower). For comparison, we also show the results without any interferences accounted for (dashed). These datasets are the ones that most strongly prefer the existence of a 750 GeV resonance, and the interference effect does not change the preference of the resonance existence; the data fit much better with a new resonance around 750 GeV even with interferences. Comparing the upper panels for with the lower panels for , we find that the 68% CL bestfit mass parameter is shifted by about 1–4 GeV while a much bigger shift GeV is expected for the 95% CL region or for weaker couplings . Meanwhile, similar magnitudes of couplings are preferred regardless of interference effects. For with dippeak interference, the peak shifts toward highmass region and the highmass region is more accumulated (see Fig. 2); consequently, somewhat smaller masses are preferred compared to the case (and to the case without interferences).
The interference effects are still apparent, even after including all other LHC 13 and LHC 8 datasets that do not strongly prefer the existence of an additional resonance. This is shown in Fig. 4; the 68% CL bestfit regions again shift by about 1–4 GeV and a bigger shift is expected for the 95% CL region or for weaker couplings . The preference of an additional resonance also still exists with interference effects.
There is a noticeable tendency that interference effects become stronger with a weaker , as can be deduced from a wider bestfit mass shift with a weaker in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. This is a general result of interference; the realpart interference approximately grows with amplitude ratio, which measures the backgroundresonance interference contribution compared to the resonancesquared contribution. If future data prefer to a weaker signal, the interference effects will be larger and more important.
Finally, we briefly compare bestfit results to various datasets. that compared to the ATLAS 13 result in Fig. 3, the CMS EBEB 13 prefers to a resonance with a slightly higher mass and weaker coupling. But the preferences of a new resonance around 750 GeV from both data are consistent with each other. Including LHC 8 datasets in Fig. 4 significantly prefers to a weaker coupling and actually worsens the bestfit (total in the right panel decreased from the left panel). This may imply that the LHC 8 datasets do not strongly favor the resonance contribution. Future data can only clarify the origin of the excess.
4 VLL2HDM: ImaginaryPart Interference
4.1 VLL2HDM Model
We consider the Type II twoHiggsDoubleModel (2HDM) in the alignment limit extended with extra vectorlike leptons (VLL). We first summarize the (heavy) Higgs sector and then introduce the VLL sector.
The Higgs sector consists of three neutral Higgs bosons, , (scalar), (pseudoscalar) and two charged Higgs bosons . In the alignment limit, the is the 125 GeV SM Higgs boson, and the heavier Higgs bosons, and , are our focus in this paper. To be consistent with electroweak precision data and to explain the diphoton excess, we consider a degenerate heavy Higgs bosons
(18) 
In the alignment limit with small as we will focus in this paper^{1}^{1}1The parameter space of at is excluded by the 8 TeV LHC data large:tb:exclusion:LHC ()., the 2HDM alone cannot explain the diphoton excess. It is mainly because the heavy Higgs bosons dominantly decay to the top pair (the decays to and are forbidden in the alignment limit), and the relevant the diphoton branching ratio is only for , leading to too small signal rates . Thus, we extend the model by extra VLL to achieve the needed 400 enhancement of diphoton signal.
(1, 2, )  
(1, 1, )  
(1, 1, ) 
We now introduce VLLs, , , , , , of which the quantum numbers are summarized in Table 1. Note that the electric charges of and are and , respectively. All of the VLLs in Table 1 are imbedded in one family. The Lagrangian of the VLLs in Type II 2HDM is
(19)  
The mass matrix in the basis of is
(20) 
We have similar form of by changing . We focus on the nomixing case, which is possible if and . Then the light masses of and are degenerate as . The heavy masses are and , which suppresses the contribution from and . We do not consider the mass below since the new decay channels of raise the total width quickly. We also assume that and for simplicity.
The Yukawa terms for the VLLs in the mass eigenstate basis become
(21)  
where and .
The partial decay widths of in the VLL2HDM are
(22)  
where , the relative Yukawa couplings normalized by the SM values are , and for Type II in the aligned 2HDM, and the loop functions are referred to Ref. Djouadi:2005gi (). The VLL contributions in Eq. (22) are given as
(23) 
In order to greatly enhance the partial decay width through VLL loop one needs multiple number of VLL families. In the following analysis we introduce 3 VLL families. We vary from to and from to .
The final comment is on the constraint from the Higgs precision data. As shown Eq. (22), the VLL loop also contributes to , which is already very limited by the 8 TeV LHC data. If two Yukawa couplings and are tuned as
(24) 
new contribution to the Higgs precision data vanishes if and are degenerate in mass . If , the cancellation of the VLL contributions to equally happens to the decay. Since the diphoton signal is usually larger than the one if no cancellation occurs, we choose in the analysis. Other exclusion limits from Zr (), bb (), tautau (), and jj () channels at the 8 TeV LHC are satisfied in the parameter space under consideration.
4.2 Results – VLL2HDM Model
We first discuss the total widths of and , both of which are dominated by the decay channel. Using the running top quark mass Chetyrkin:2000yt (), we have . Since the degenerate and do not interfere, we treat them as BW peaks. We perform a minimum analysis (see Sec. 2.2) and find the bestfit signal rates to the LHC 13+8 datasets
(25) 
which are in agreement with Ref. Falkowski:2015swt ().
In our scenario of VLL2HDM the relative interference phase corresponds to almost imaginary interference:
(26) 
The reasons are as follows. The complex phase from the continuum background amplitude is minor Jung:2015sna (). But the production part is dominated by top quark loop and the loop function generate large complex phase: for . In addition, the decay part , dominated by VLL loop contribution, is also real since in our scenario. Depending on the sign of Yukawa coupling , the whole complex phase is changed by . It maximally enhances the signal rate for (constructive interference) and maximally suppress the signal rate for (destructive interference).
Figure 5 shows our results in the parameter space for the VLL2HDM: the in Eq. (8) (upper panels) and the allowed parameter space by the 750 GeV diphoton excess data (lower panels). It is of great interest that quite large interference effects (large ) appear around the measured total signal rate, as shown in Figs. 5(a) and (b). For , and thus constructive interference occurs: the interference effect can make even factor 2 for the total rate. Within the 68% CL bestfit signal rate the interference effect ranges from to when . For , so that destructive interference occurs: in order to explain the signal rate, we need quite large magnitude of and thus very limited parameter space is allowed. Figures 5(c) and (d) show that the allowed parameter space significantly change by including the interference effect. For comparison, we show the allowed parameter region without including interference effects. With positive and , for example, required for the signal rate is reduced from to by including the interference effects. Equivalently, the change of required number of VLL family is from 3 to 4. In all, interference effects have significant implications on the underlying physics.
457  2  99  123  2.6  5.9  3.5  1 
413  4  93  108  1.6  3.0  2.0  3 
400  6  91  104  1.3  2.1  1.6  6 
385  0.38  0.20  0.32  1  
395  0.54  0.21  0.43  3 
In Table 2, we present the numerical values for , , and . The benchmark parameter points are chosen to yield total signal rates of . In order to see the individual interference effects, we show and for and separately. For both and , the relative interference phase is about : almost purely imaginary interference occurs. and show that the interference effects are larger for than for . This is attribute to different loop functions and thus different positions for the vanishing real part of the corresponding loop functions. One crucial result is that the interference effects become larger with decreasing signal rate . For 1 fb signal rate, for example, the enhancement factor due to the interference can be as large as a factor of three. It is very possible that the current signal rate is fluctuated up and the future precision measurement may lead to lower signal rate. Then the interference effects become crucial.
5 Conclusions and Discussions
We have investigated the impacts of the resonancecontinuum interference in the process on the the recently observed 750 GeV diphoton excess. The two most important interference effects – maximal signal enhancement from the purely imaginarypart interference and maximal shape distortion from the purely realpart interference – have been studied in two benchmark models. First, a CPodd singlet scalar (extended with vectorlike fermions) represents the purely realpart interference case, and it predicts that the 68%(95%) CL bestfit mass range shifts by 1–4 (any ) GeV. The shift is expected to be larger with a weaker coupling parameter space, which will be more preferred if the excess rate decreases in the future. Second, the heavy Higgs bosons in the twoHiggsdoubletmodel (extended with vectorlike leptons) represent the purely imaginarypart interference case, and the diphoton resonance signal is found to be enhanced or suppressed by a factor of 2(1.6) for 3(6) fb signal rate. Again, the effect is bigger for a weaker coupling parameter space.
Although our results are obtained with benchmark models, any scalar resonance in the process with similar widths and total rates would exhibit similar sizes of interference effects; and the relative phase between the resonance and the continuum will determine the type of interference effects. For the given diphoton rate and the phase , the total width is the most important parameter. If the width is much smaller than the current resolution GeV, the realpart interference will cancel out and the imaginarypart interference will be small in proportion to the width. If a resonance is very broad, a careful study of resonance shape including its dependence shall be carried out, regardless of interference effects, based on our formalism and method presented in this paper.
The future precision shape measurements and interpretations taking into account the resonancecontinuum interference can provide important information and consistency check of a new resonance. One can not only test a BW resonance hypothesis but also measure (and the rate, mass, width). Such precision observables, in particular , can subsequently be interpreted in terms of the properties of new particles running in loops. Remarkably, if any noticeable deviations from a BW shape can be fit well with the realpart interference, this would just be another convincing evidence of a new resonance.
The work of SJ is supported by the US Department of Energy under contract DEAC0276SF00515. The work of JS is supported by NRF2013R1A1A2061331. The work of YWY is supported by NRF2012R1A2A1A01006053. We thank KIAS Center for Advanced Computation for providing computing resources.
References
 (1) ATLAS Collaboration, ATLASCONF2015081
 (2) CMS Collaboration, CMSPASEXO15004
 (3) A. Falkowski, O. Slone and T. Volansky, arXiv:1512.05777 [hepph].
 (4) S. Di Chiara, L. Marzola and M. Raidal, arXiv:1512.04939 [hepph].
 (5) A. Angelescu, A. Djouadi and G. Moreau, arXiv:1512.04921 [hepph].
 (6) D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo and D. Marzocca, arXiv:1512.04929 [hepph].
 (7) A. Pilaftsis, arXiv:1512.04931 [hepph].
 (8) R. Franceschini et al., arXiv:1512.04933 [hepph].
 (9) J. Ellis, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, V. Sanz and T. You, arXiv:1512.05327 [hepph].
 (10) R. S. Gupta, S. JÃ¤ger, Y. Kats, G. Perez and E. Stamou, arXiv:1512.05332 [hepph].
 (11) T. Higaki, K. S. Jeong, N. Kitajima and F. Takahashi, arXiv:1512.05295 [hepph].
 (12) S. D. McDermott, P. Meade and H. Ramani, arXiv:1512.05326 [hepph].
 (13) M. Low, A. Tesi and L. T. Wang, arXiv:1512.05328 [hepph].
 (14) C. Petersson and R. Torre, arXiv:1512.05333 [hepph].
 (15) B. Dutta, Y. Gao, T. Ghosh, I. Gogoladze and T. Li, arXiv:1512.05439 [hepph].
 (16) Q. H. Cao, Y. Liu, K. P. Xie, B. Yan and D. M. Zhang, arXiv:1512.05542 [hepph].
 (17) A. Kobakhidze, F. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and M. Zhang, arXiv:1512.05585 [hepph].
 (18) P. Cox, A. D. Medina, T. S. Ray and A. Spray, arXiv:1512.05618 [hepph].
 (19) R. Martinez, F. Ochoa and C. F. Sierra, arXiv:1512.05617 [hepph].
 (20) D. Becirevic, E. Bertuzzo, O. Sumensari and R. Z. Funchal, arXiv:1512.05623 [hepph].
 (21) J. M. No, V. Sanz and J. Setford, arXiv:1512.05700 [hepph].
 (22) S. V. Demidov and D. S. Gorbunov, arXiv:1512.05723 [hepph].
 (23) W. Chao, R. Huo and J. H. Yu, arXiv:1512.05738 [hepph].
 (24) S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff and C. Royon, arXiv:1512.05751 [hepph].
 (25) D. Curtin and C. B. Verhaaren, arXiv:1512.05753 [hepph].
 (26) L. Bian, N. Chen, D. Liu and J. Shu, arXiv:1512.05759 [hepph].
 (27) J. Chakrabortty, A. Choudhury, P. Ghosh, S. Mondal and T. Srivastava, arXiv:1512.05767 [hepph].
 (28) C. Csaki, J. Hubisz and J. Terning, arXiv:1512.05776 [hepph].
 (29) Y. Bai, J. Berger and R. Lu, arXiv:1512.05779 [hepph].
 (30) R. Benbrik, C. H. Chen and T. Nomura, arXiv:1512.06028 [hepph].
 (31) J. S. Kim, J. Reuter, K. Rolbiecki and R. R. de Austri, arXiv:1512.06083 [hepph].
 (32) E. Gabrielli, K. Kannike, B. Mele, M. Raidal, C. Spethmann and H. VeermÃ¤e, arXiv:1512.05961 [hepph].
 (33) A. Alves, A. G. Dias and K. Sinha, arXiv:1512.06091 [hepph].
 (34) L. M. Carpenter, R. Colburn and J. Goodman, arXiv:1512.06107 [hepph].
 (35) J. Bernon and C. Smith, arXiv:1512.06113 [hepph].
 (36) W. Chao, arXiv:1512.06297 [hepph].
 (37) C. Han, H. M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, arXiv:1512.06376 [hepph].
 (38) M. Dhuria and G. Goswami, arXiv:1512.06782 [hepph].
 (39) H. Han, S. Wang and S. Zheng, arXiv:1512.06562 [hepph].
 (40) M. x. Luo, K. Wang, T. Xu, L. Zhang and G. Zhu, arXiv:1512.06670 [hepph].
 (41) J. Chang, K. Cheung and C. T. Lu, arXiv:1512.06671 [hepph].
 (42) D. Bardhan, D. Bhatia, A. Chakraborty, U. Maitra, S. Raychaudhuri and T. Samui, arXiv:1512.06674 [hepph].
 (43) T. F. Feng, X. Q. Li, H. B. Zhang and S. M. Zhao, arXiv:1512.06696 [hepph].
 (44) W. S. Cho, D. Kim, K. Kong, S. H. Lim, K. T. Matchev, J. C. Park and M. Park, arXiv:1512.06824 [hepph].
 (45) D. Barducci, A. Goudelis, S. Kulkarni and D. Sengupta, arXiv:1512.06842 [hepph].
 (46) I. Chakraborty and A. Kundu, arXiv:1512.06508 [hepph].
 (47) X. F. Han and L. Wang, arXiv:1512.06587 [hepph].
 (48) O. Antipin, M. Mojaza and F. Sannino, arXiv:1512.06708 [hepph].
 (49) F. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and M. Zhang, arXiv:1512.06715 [hepph].
 (50) J. Cao, C. Han, L. Shang, W. Su, J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, arXiv:1512.06728 [hepph].
 (51) F. P. Huang, C. S. Li, Z. L. Liu and Y. Wang, arXiv:1512.06732 [hepph].
 (52) J. J. Heckman, arXiv:1512.06773 [hepph].
 (53) X. J. Bi, Q. F. Xiang, P. F. Yin and Z. H. Yu, arXiv:1512.06787 [hepph].
 (54) J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki and R. R. de Austri, arXiv:1512.06797 [hepph].
 (55) J. M. Cline and Z. Liu, arXiv:1512.06827 [hepph].
 (56) M. Bauer and M. Neubert, arXiv:1512.06828 [hepph].
 (57) M. Chala, M. Duerr, F. Kahlhoefer and K. SchmidtHoberg, arXiv:1512.06833 [hepph].
 (58) S. M. Boucenna, S. Morisi and A. Vicente, arXiv:1512.06878 [hepph].
 (59) J. de Blas, J. Santiago and R. VegaMorales, arXiv:1512.07229 [hepph].
 (60) C. W. Murphy, arXiv:1512.06976 [hepph].
 (61) A. E. C. HernÃ¡ndez and I. Nisandzic, arXiv:1512.07165 [hepph].
 (62) U. K. Dey, S. Mohanty and G. Tomar, arXiv:1512.07212 [hepph].
 (63) W. C. Huang, Y. L. S. Tsai and T. C. Yuan, arXiv:1512.07268 [hepph].
 (64) K. M. Patel and P. Sharma, arXiv:1512.07468 [hepph].
 (65) S. Chakraborty, A. Chakraborty and S. Raychaudhuri, arXiv:1512.07527 [hepph].
 (66) W. Altmannshofer, J. Galloway, S. Gori, A. L. Kagan, A. Martin and J. Zupan, arXiv:1512.07616 [hepph].
 (67) M. CvetiÄ, J. Halverson and P. Langacker, arXiv:1512.07622 [hepph].
 (68) B. C. Allanach, P. S. B. Dev, S. A. Renner and K. Sakurai, arXiv:1512.07645 [hepph].
 (69) K. Cheung, P. Ko, J. S. Lee, J. Park and P. Y. Tseng, arXiv:1512.07853 [hepph].
 (70) J. Liu, X. P. Wang and W. Xue, arXiv:1512.07885 [hepph].
 (71) L. J. Hall, K. Harigaya and Y. Nomura, arXiv:1512.07904 [hepph].
 (72) S. K. Kang and J. Song, arXiv:1512.08963 [hepph].
 (73) S. Di Chiara, L. Marzola and M. Raidal, arXiv:1512.04939 [hepph].
 (74) D. A. Dicus and S. S. D. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1801 (1988).
 (75) L. J. Dixon and M. S. Siu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 252001 (2003) [hepph/0302233].
 (76) S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 86, 073016 (2012) [arXiv:1208.1533 [hepph]].
 (77) S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 1, 013004 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.013004 [arXiv:1303.3342 [hepph]].
 (78) L. J. Dixon and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 111802 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.111802 [arXiv:1305.3854 [hepph]].
 (79) F. Coradeschi, D. de Florian, L. J. Dixon, N. Fidanza, S. HÃ¶che, H. Ita, Y. Li and J. Mazzitelli, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 1, 013004 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.013004 [arXiv:1504.05215 [hepph]].
 (80) S. Jung, J. Song and Y. W. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 5, 055009 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.055009 [arXiv:1505.00291 [hepph]].
 (81) S. Jung, J. Song and Y. W. Yoon, arXiv:1510.03450 [hepph].
 (82) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803 [arXiv:1503.07589 [hepex]].
 (83) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 3, 032004 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.032004 [arXiv:1504.05511 [hepex]].
 (84) V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 750, 494 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.062 [arXiv:1506.02301 [hepex]].
 (85) E. Del Nobile, R. Franceschini, D. Pappadopulo and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 826, 217 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.10.004 [arXiv:0908.1567 [hepph]].
 (86) L. Bergstrom and G. Hulth, Nucl. Phys. B 259, 137 (1985) [Nucl. Phys. B 276, 744 (1986)]. doi:10.1016/05503213(85)903025
 (87) J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 67, 075019 (2003); G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. 516, 1 (2012).
 (88) M. Spira, hepph/9510347.
 (89) A. Djouadi, Phys. Rept. 457, 1 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.10.004 [hepph/0503172].
 (90) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1411, 056 (2014) [arXiv:1409.6064 [hepex]]; V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1410, 160 (2014) [arXiv:1408.3316 [hepex]]; A. Djouadi, L. Maiani, A. Polosa, J. Quevillon and V. Riquer, JHEP 1506, 168 (2015) [arXiv:1502.05653 [hepph]].
 (91) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 738, 428 (2014) [arXiv:1407.8150 [hepex]].
 (92) V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1511, 071 (2015) [arXiv:1506.08329 [hepex]].
 (93) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1411, 056 (2014) [arXiv:1409.6064 [hepex]].
 (94) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 5, 052007 (2015) [arXiv:1407.1376 [hepex]].
 (95) J. Gao et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 3, 033009 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.033009 [arXiv:1302.6246 [hepph]].
 (96) K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 133, 43 (2000) doi:10.1016/S00104655(00)001557 [hepph/0004189].