A Concise Review on Some Higgs-Related New Physics Models in Light of Current Experiments
Shoaib Munir
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Report on universe-2248285
This paper gives a short review of previous work by the authors on
four different Higgs-related new physics models and their capabilities to
address naturalness, dark matter, first order EW phase transitions,
muon g-2 and the new CDF W mass measurement.
It is submitted as part of the
Special Issue: Higgs and BSM Physics:
10th Anniversary of the Discovery of the Higgs Boson
As such, it is necessarily slanted to the author's selected topics and
some selection of specific phenomenological/theoretical problems.
As a contribution to the Special Issue, it seems it can pass muster,
albeit subject to the author's idiosyncratic selections.
But I would ask the authors to consider some additions/modifications
to their work.
1. The phenomenological/theory issues: some additional discussion as to
why the authors select these topic is warranted. For instance, the FOPT
is necessary for EW baryogenesis, but there are also a variety of other,
perhaps more attractive, baryogenesis mechanisms that don't require a FOPT.
The authors can at least mention this, with perhaps a citation to one of the several more general baryogenesis reviews, e.g. hep-ph/0303065 .
The W-mass issue: the new CDF measurement may well turn out to be an outlier
since it conflicts with recent LHC measurements.
Probably some mention of this is needed.
Likewise, the muon g-2 may be a non-issue in that lattice calculations of
the HVP seem to imply there is no discrepancy. Mention should be made of this
so the reader is aware that these are not established results.
2. As the authors note, two of their models do not address naturalness,
and two do. At the end of the SUSY discussion, the authors claim SUSY
is finetuned at percent level in MSSM and even worse in CMSSM. These
results are controversial and probably wrong. The authors should mention
at least the controversy. See Ref. 2 for detailed discussion on this.
Also, Ref. 1 is far out of date and should be replaced with something
more recent. The discussion of FOPT in the MSSM is inconsequential
in light of several other MSSM baryogenesis mechanisms.
3. The discussion in Sec. 3 about Fig. 6 looks outdated and the text claims
the LHT p-space is almost excluded by Xenon 1-ton.
Those latter results have been superseded by LZ.
Does LZ now exclude all the p-space?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Attached as a PDF.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of manuscript ID: universe 2248285
In this manuscript, the authors have presented a summary of Higgs-related “Beyond the Standard Model (BSM)” physics models which still have available parameter space to explain some of the outstanding issues concerning the physics in this sector. Main focus has been put on dark matter candidates and the possibility of explaining the experimentally observed W-boson mass anomaly and the g-2 anomaly of the muon. Overall, the authors have done a good job at providing a concise summary with appropriate citations. However there are many changes which need to be made before considering this manuscript for final publication in the journal. Below we have tried our best to mention these. We hope that the authors take this as constructive criticism and implement them in their revised draft.
-
A very broad comment would be to make the review more organised, with a glossary of abbreviations, notations used and a much clearer explanation of the underlying theory behind many of the models presented. While reading the review, we could sense that there is an inherent assumption about the reader being familiar with not some but all of the physics introduced in this review. While this would be ok for a different category of publication, a review on this subject necessitates that the manuscript is accessible to a broader audience, particularly those who might be working on disparate sectors mentioned in this article. We therefore expect that the authors make the text much clearer, explaining everything in somewhat more detail rather than focusing on summarising the main points.
-
The abstract needs to be rewritten completely. It looks like an outline of the paper which is typically provided at the end of the Introduction section. This is further clear from the fact that there is significant overlap between Lines 49-56 of the Introduction and the abstract section.
-
Line 12: The references to the Higgs discovery papers are missing and must be cited at this point
-
Line 14: Despite the fact… not despite of the fact
-
Line 17: please also mention the non-zero neutrino masses which is also not predicted correctly by the SM
-
Line 22: the figure number has not been correctly compiled.
-
Line 23: Please provide references to the naturalness problem due to Higgs.
-
Line 60: Please refrain from quoting other researchers in the review. It merely adds to the length of the text and does not add any value. Since this whole field is still evolving, no single person’s comment should be considered sacred and cited as a justification to your statements.
-
In sub-section 2.1, we feel that there are many quantities that are not defined properly. Since this is a review, we would suggest elaborating a bit on the various physical and mathematical quantities that have been used in the text. For example, between Lines 80 and 81 and particularly in Eq. 1, the quantities X_t, m_\tilde{t_{1,2}} have not been defined. Similarly , the authors should briefly explain the parameter \beta and what does \tan (\beta) mean in this context. Also, why is this particular range for \tan(\beta) chosen? In Eq. (2), the parameter \mu also remains undefined. Please do not assume that the general reader will be familiar with your notations. Same comment goes for LSP which has been introduced in Lines 94 and 95. Our suggestion would be to provide a summary of all the abbreviations used in the text at the end of the paper, just before the references section.
-
In sub-section 2.2, there is much less discussion on dark matter within the framework of SUSY compared to muon g-2 and W-boson mass. We would advise the authors to present the discussion more coherently and give equal weightage to each of these topics. In its current form, the section looks very rushed and either assumes a lot of familiarity on specific topics in this field or the reader is directed to a plethora of references on the subject. For example, in Line 110, a total of 29 papers have been cited to support the fact that the g-2 anomaly, modulo the W-boson mass anomaly, can be explained by various low-energy SUSY theories. Clearly this is not useful to the reader who can then in principle browse the literature rather than reading this review. Please provide a brief, meaningful summary that explains the extant results as well as why this should be interesting in the light of future experiments.
-
Please try to avoid personal remarks like the one in Line 218.
-
The summary section needs to be modified a lot. Again, there is a feeling of a hastily finished draft while reading this section. Throughout the main body of the paper, the authors have described a lot of the main features of different BSM models. Hence, this would be a good section to put their outlook on which of these models will be most promising in the light of future experimental runs of the LHC and other collider facilities. For example, will any of the interesting physics be captured by a future linear collider or an electron ion collider facility in the US or China. What is the current state-of-the art for these BSM models and their predictions? The authors also passively mention Gravitational Wave searches; how do these aid in understanding Higgs-like BSM physics? In short, there are many promising avenues in the future which need to be coherently put together in this section. Another suggestion is to discuss the realistic possibility of testing the predictions of the models that are cited in this paper at a future collider facility - this can be explained both in terms of energy needs or the actual time of data gathering for such tests. We think this is very important particularly for young physicists entering the field so as to have a right idea about the timeline of the theory-experiment corroboration.
We sincerely hope that incorporation of all these changes/modifications will add to the value of this review and interest readers more in learning about this exciting field of research.
Regards,
The Reviewers
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for positively taking the reviewer criticisms and suggestions and making the necessary changes in their draft. I am satisfied with the present version and would recommend it for publication after minor corrections mainly concerning English language usage. In terms of scientific soundness, the review looks very coherent now and will serve as a concise reference for interested readers. Below are some suggested changes. The authors should do an English quality assurance check on top of the points mentioned below, before submitting it for publication.
1. Second line of footnote 1: please add a 'be' in...might not (be) the whole story...
2. Line 53, after "However, It is..." the i in it is capitalized by mistake. Please correct it in the final draft.
3. Line 83, please correct ..."electroweak symmetry broken" to electroweak symmetry breaking.
4. Line 86: Please define m_A.
5. Line 91: Please define A_t in the formula for X_t. Similarly define \mu.
Also please mention somewhere in the paragraph that m_Z is the Z-boson mass and m_t is the top mass (defined in some renormalization scheme (Specify)).
Regards,
The Reviewers
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
