Precision Higgs Constraints in U(1) Extensions of the Standard Model with a Light Z′-Boson
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI included my report in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are grateful to the referee for the constructive comments.
Comment: The authors have given the definitions of the β at the end of the manuscript. I suggest that it should be put at the bottom of Eq. (2.8).Answer: Done as requested.
Comment: In Eq. (3.1), the production cross section of s is proportional to tan2(θs). It is not obvious to me. I would be grateful if you could add more detail on how the authors obtained this expression. Or in the right-hand side, σSM(gg → h) should be σ(gg → h), isn’t it?
Answer: Thank you for spotting this typo error, corrected
Comment: In Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4), it seems that the replacement of the mass: Mh → Ms is needed.
Answer: Thank you for spotting this typo error, corrected.
Comment: It seems a bit weird to me that the authors have chosen BP1 nevertheless, it is already excluded by μtot. It would be better for the authors to describe why BP1 was chosen in the manuscript.
Answer: Reason added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary:
The authors Z. Péli and Z. Trócsányi describe in their article "Collider Search Strategies for a New Scalar in U(1) Extensions of the Standard Model" calculations and limitations for the production of a beyond-standard-model additional hypothetical pair of gauge boson and real scalar, accessible by Higgs decay modes. The concept is well-structured and sufficiently complex to provide meaningful deviations from the standard model, specifically with respect to the Higgs decay width. While the inclusion of a light Z'-boson is relatively common in U(1) extensions, such as B-L or hidden-sector models, the authors develop their model based on simplified constraints in order to derive actual measureable changes to the expected Higgs decay width - as a first order production cross-section scaling predictor. The provided Mathematica notebook is of high quality and is an ideal basis for cross-checking the calculations and increasing the outreach of their model.
Article scope:
- The manuscript fits the scope of the journal.
Quality:
- The manuscript is written in a straight forward way and can be easily followed. The Mathematica Notebook supplied with the manuscript is of excellent quality.
General comments:
- mathematical expressions are consistent and of excellent quality.
Typography:
- (4.3): point missing.
- (7.2): comma and point in line 2 and 3 incorrectly set.
- (7.3): point in line 2 incorrectly set.
- (7.5): point missing.
- Table 1: right-aligning for numbers is recommended - in the best case with the same number of decimal digits.
Comments to the figures:
- Fig. 1: the exclusion plots for ATLAS and CMS can be merged into one figure. Specifically as both exclusion zones can be drawn in different colors/shading and then the total overlap from both experiments for the 95% CL would be directly visible.
- a Feynman diagram plot in the introduction would be a nice addition.
Technical comments:
- the manuscript lacks line numbers, which is considered a standard for peer-review drafts.
Keywords:
- "signal strength" is a bit vague, exclusion limit would be a better suitable expression
Comments to the text body:
- my only main concern is that the title and the abstract are too generic or partially misleading.
- Title: "Collider Search Strategies" implies to me (as an experimentalist) that the manuscript will detail methodologies or new techniques for experimental searches. The work of the authors, however, is about theoretical calculations and exclusion limits. One could even argue that with the given phrase it downplays the theoretical contribution from the authors. The term "New Scalar" is vague, a descriptive addition would make it more specific (e.g., "Higgs-like Scalar" or "Singlet Scalar"). The title could be for example "Precision Higgs Constraints in U(1) Extensions of the Standard Model with a Light Z'-Boson"
- Abstract: While it provides clearly the context for the relevance of the work, for example the phrase "stricter exclusion bounds" in combination with the title might suggest a detailed comparison with other models. For the "benchmark points" one might assume that these are 'benchmarks' - results linked specifically to a given experimental methodology - yet, they are exemplary calculations of the two-dimensional parameter space of the model.
References:
- the number of self-citations is on a level of concern. The addition of a singlet scalar and its mixing with the SM Higgs boson is not entirely novel. The inclusion of works dealing with similar problems would strengthen the manuscript.
- [10] lacks a title
Author Response
We are grateful to the referee for the constructive comments.
Typography:
- (4.3): point missing.
- (7.2): comma and point in line 2 and 3 incorrectly set.
- (7.3): point in line 2 incorrectly set.
- (7.5): point missing.
- Table 1: right-aligning for numbers is recommended - in the best case with the same number of decimal digits.
Answer: All corrected
Comments to the figures:
- Fig. 1: the exclusion plots for ATLAS and CMS can be merged into one figure. Specifically as both exclusion zones can be drawn in different colors/shading and then the total overlap from both experiments for the 95% CL would be directly visible.
a Feynman diagram plot in the introduction would be a nice addition.
Answer: Combined/added.
Keywords:
- "signal strength" is a bit vague, exclusion limit would be a better suitable expression
Comments to the text body:
- my only main concern is that the title and the abstract are too generic or partially misleading.
- Title: "Collider Search Strategies" implies to me (as an experimentalist) that the manuscript will detail methodologies or new techniques for experimental searches. The work of the authors, however, is about theoretical calculations and exclusion limits. One could even argue that with the given phrase it downplays the theoretical contribution from the authors. The term "New Scalar" is vague, a descriptive addition would make it more specific (e.g., "Higgs-like Scalar" or "Singlet Scalar"). The title could be for example "Precision Higgs Constraints in U(1) Extensions of the Standard Model with a Light Z'-Boson"
Answer: Changed as suggested
- Abstract: While it provides clearly the context for the relevance of the work, for example the phrase "stricter exclusion bounds" in combination with the title might suggest a detailed comparison with other models. For the "benchmark points" one might assume that these are 'benchmarks' - results linked specifically to a given experimental methodology - yet, they are exemplary calculations of the two-dimensional parameter space of the model.
Answer: Changed as expected
Technical comments:
the manuscript lacks line numbers, which is considered a standard for peer-review drafts.
Answer: Our version contained the line numbers, so we do not know what could happen.
References:
the number of self-citations is on a level of concern. The addition of a singlet scalar and its mixing with the SM Higgs boson is not entirely novel. The inclusion of works dealing with similar problems would strengthen the manuscript.
Answer: We have removed self citations that were not essential and added two other citations .
[10] lacks a title
Answer: Citation removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
