- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Impact of quark flavor violating SUSY on h(125) decays at future lepton colliders

Helmut Eberl1, Keisho Hidaka2, and Elena Ginina1

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 015011 – Published 9 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8tsj-8tpc

Abstract

We study the CP-even neutral Higgs boson decays h0→cc¯,bb¯,bs¯,γγ,gg in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with a general quark flavor violation (QFV) due to squark generation mixings, identifying the h0 as the Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV. We compute the widths of the h0 decays to cc¯,bb¯,bs¯ at the full one-loop level. For the h0 decays to γγ and gg, we compute the widths at NLO QCD level. For the first time, we perform a systematic MSSM parameter scan for these widths, respecting all the relevant theoretical and experimental constraints, such as those from B-meson data, and the 125 GeV Higgs boson data from recent LHC experiments, as well as the limits on supersymmetric (SUSY) particle (sparticle) masses from the LHC experiments. We also take into account the expected sparticle mass limits from the future HL-LHC experiment in our analysis. In strong contrast to the usual studies in the MSSM with minimal flavor violation (MFV), we find that the deviations of these MSSM decay widths from the Standard Model (SM) values can be quite sizable and that there are significant correlations among these deviations. All of these sizable deviations in the h0 decays are mainly due to large scharm-stop mixing and large sstrange-sbottom mixing. Such sizable deviations from the SM can be observed at high signal significance in future lepton colliders such as ILC, CLIC, CEPC, FCC-ee, and muon collider even after the failure of SUSY particle discovery at the HL-LHC. In case the deviation pattern shown here is really observed at the lepton colliders, then it would strongly suggest the discovery of QFV SUSY (the MSSM with general QFV).

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (103)

  1. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012).
  2. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012).
  3. T. Barklow, K. Fujii, S. Jung, R. Karl, J. List, T. Ogawa, M. E. Peskin, and J. Tian, Phys. Rev. D 97, 053003 (2018).
  4. A. Bartl, H. Eberl, E. Ginina, K. Hidaka, and W. Majerotto, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015007 (2015).
  5. H. Eberl, E. Ginina, A. Bartl, K. Hidaka, and W. Majerotto, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2016) 143.
  6. H. Eberl, K. Hidaka, and E. Ginina, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1950120 (2019).
  7. M. Cahill-Rowley, J. Hewett, A. Ismail, and T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 90, 095017 (2014).
  8. M. Endo, T. Moroi, and M. Nojiri, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 176.
  9. A. Arbey et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, 055002 (2022).
  10. J. Dickinson et al., arXiv:2207.05103.
  11. T. Bose et al., arXiv:2209.13128.
  12. M. Narain et al., arXiv:2211.11084.
  13. A. Brignole, Nucl. Phys. B898, 644 (2015).
  14. S. Bejar, F. Dilme, J. Guasch, and J. Sola, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2004) 018.
  15. A. Curiel, M. Herrero, and D. Temes, Phys. Rev. D 67, 075008 (2003).
  16. D. Demir, Phys. Lett. B 571, 193 (2003).
  17. A. Curiel, M. Herrero, W. Hollik, F. Merz, and S. Peñaranda, Phys. Rev. D 69, 075009 (2004).
  18. G. Barenboim, C. Bosch, J. Lee, M. López-Ibáñez, and O. Vives, Phys. Rev. D 92, 095017 (2015).
  19. M. E. Gómez, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Rehman, Phys. Rev. D 93, 095021 (2016).
  20. Jorge de Blas et al., J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2020) 139.
  21. Jorge de Blas et al., arXiv:2206.08326.
  22. M. Cepeda et al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7, 221 (2019).
  23. B. C. Allanach et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 8 (2009).
  24. F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B477, 321 (1996).
  25. P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020).
  26. A. Dedes et al., J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2014) 137.
  27. W. Porod, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153, 275 (2003).
  28. W. Porod and F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 2458 (2012).

  29. For details, see spheno home page: https://spheno.hepforge.org/.

  30. D. M. Pierce et al., Nucl. Phys. B491, 3 (1997).
  31. D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 2, 1 (2017).
  32. L. G. Almeida, S. J. Lee, S. Pokorski, and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 89, 033006 (2014).
  33. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Nature (London) 607, 52 (2022); 612, E24 (2022).
  34. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Nature (London) 607, 60 (2022); A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2021) 027.
  35. L. G. Benitez-Guzman et al., J. Phys. G 42, 085002 (2015).
  36. J. F. Kamenik et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, L011301 (2024).
  37. Junping Tian (private communication).
  38. D. Barducci and A. J. Helmboldt, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2017) 105.
  39. M. Selvaggi, Talk at FCC Physics Performance Meeting (2024), https://indico.cern.ch/event/1392261/.
  40. H. Liang, Y. Zhu, Y. Wang, Y. Che, C. Zhou, H. Qu, and M. Ruan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 221802 (2024); M. Ruan, Plenary Talk at Higgs2023 Conference, 2023, Beijing, https://indico.ihep.ac.cn/event/18025/contributions/133704/attachments/74198/90943/Physics%20of%20Higgs%20factory%20-%20v2.pdf.
  41. M. Carena et al., Nucl. Phys. B577, 88 (2000); J. Guasch et al., Phys. Rev. D 68, 115001 (2003).
  42. E. Ginina, A. Bartl, H. Eberl, K. Hidaka, and W. Majerotto, Proc. Sci., EPS-HEP2015 (2016) 146 [arXiv:1510.03714].
  43. X. Cid Vidal et al., CERN Yellow Rep: Monogr. 7, 585 (2019), https://e-publishing.cern.ch/index.php/CYRM/article/view/953/770.
  44. T. Bose et al., arXiv:2209.13128.
  45. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Notes ATL-PHYS-PUB-2012-001, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2013-002, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-010, and ATL-PHYS-PUB-2018-048.
  46. C. M. Berggren, Talk at The European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS-HEP2023) (Hamburg, Germany, 2023), https://indico.desy.de/event/34916/contributions/147692/attachments/83876/111001/berggren-eps-hep-susy-aug23.pdf.
  47. H. Gilmer, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2020 (2021) 247, https://indico.cern.ch/event/868940/contributions/3815948/attachments/2081333/3495936/ICHEP_2020-Gilmer.pdf.
  48. M. Narain et al., arXiv:2211.11084.
  49. H. Bahl, P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, S. Liebler, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 916 (2020).
  50. J. Brod and M. Gorbahn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 121801 (2012).
  51. Y. Amhis et al. (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLAV) Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 226 (2021).
  52. T. Jubb, M. Kirk, A. Lenz, and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, Nucl. Phys. B915, 431 (2017); M. Artuso, G. Borissov, and A. Lenz, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 045002 (2016).
  53. M. Misiak et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 221801 (2015).
  54. J. P. Lees et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 211802 (2014).
  55. T. Huber, T. Hurth, and E. Lunghi, Nucl. Phys. B802, 40 (2008).
  56. Y. Amhis, Proc. Sci., ICHEP2020 (2021) 3, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2727203/files/ICHEP_Yasmine.pdf.
  57. C. Bobeth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101801 (2014).
  58. J. M. Roney, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430048 (2014).
  59. ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015).
  60. S. Borowka, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, G. Heinrich, and W. Hollik, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 424 (2015).
  61. H. Eberl, E. Ginina, and K. Hidaka, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 189 (2017).
  62. B. C. Allanach, A. Djouadi, J. L. Kneur, W. Porod, and P. Slavich, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2004) 044.
  63. T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 141801 (2014).
  64. P. Wu et al., Phys. Lett. B 618, 209 (2005); S. Dittmaier et al., Phys. Rev. D 90, 035010 (2014).
  65. U. Nierste, S. Trine, and S. Westhoff, Phys. Rev. D 78, 015006 (2008).
  66. C. Lazzeroni, Plenary Talk at The European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS-HEP2023) (Hamburg, 2023), https://indico.desy.de/event/34916/contributions/142205/attachments/83911/111164/EPS_Lazzeroni_final.pdf.
  67. LHCb Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 051803 (2023).
  68. D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 66, 093005 (2002).
  69. R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022) and 2023 update.
  70. D. P. Aguillard et al. (The Muon g-2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161802 (2023).
  71. T. Aoyama et al., Phys. Rep. 887, 1 (2020).
  72. S. Borsanyi et al., Nature (London) 593, 51 (2021).
  73. G. Venanzoni, Plenary Talk at The European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS-HEP2023) (Hamburg, 2023), https://pos.sissa.it/449/037/.
  74. F. V. Ignatov et al. (CMD-3 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 109, 112002 (2024).
  75. T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Science 376, 170 (2022).
  76. G. Wilson, Talk at ECFA Higgs Factory Seminars: Precision Physics in the e+e−→W+W− Region (2022), https://indico.cern.ch/event/1163667/.
  77. S. Heinemeyer, Talk at IDT-WG3-Phys Open Meeting on mW (2022), https://agenda.linearcollider.org/event/9357/.
  78. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Note ATLAS-CONF-2023-004, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2853290; M. Schott, Talk at 57th Recontres de Moriond—Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, La Thuile (2023).
  79. ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 110 (2018).
  80. F. Moortgat, Proc. Sci., LeptonPhoton2019 (2019), https://indico.cern.ch/event/688643/contributions/3410366/attachments/1891440/3120151/LeptonPhoton_SUSY_Filip.pdf.
  81. C. Botta, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2020 (2021) 6, https://indico.cern.ch/event/868940/contributions/3905701/attachments/2084745/3502248/ICHEP2020_SUSYOverview_CBotta.pdf; S. Alderweireldt, ICHEP2020 (2021) 224, https://indico.cern.ch/event/868940/contributions/3815895/attachments/2083268/3499407/ATLAS_EWKSUSY_SAlderweireldt.pdf.
  82. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS PUB Note, SUSY May 2020 Summary Plot Update, Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-013; See also the following Web Page: Summary plots from the ATLAS Supersymmetry physics group, https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CombinedSummaryPlots/SUSY/.

  83. See the following Web Page: Run 2 Summary plots—13 TeV, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS#Run_2_Summary_plots_13_TeV.

  84. ATLAS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2021) 143.
  85. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 051801 (2020).
  86. CMS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2018) 007.
  87. ATLAS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2018) 085.
  88. ATLAS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2021) 145.
  89. ATLAS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2018) 139.
  90. CMS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2020) 096.
  91. CMS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2019) 142.
  92. ATLAS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2024) 097.
  93. ATLAS Note, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2024-008, Summary Plots for Beyond SM Higgs boson searches at ATLAS (See Fig. 1(a) ).
  94. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 111, 072006 (2025).
  95. CMS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2023) 073.
  96. G. Altarelli, R. Barbieri, and F. Caravaglios, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13, 1031 (1998).
  97. J. A. Casas and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 387, 107 (1996).

  98. Private communication with Jorge de Blas who computed the expected relative 1σ errors of the measured width ratios Γ(X)/Γ(Y) denoted by δ[Γ(X)/Γ(Y)] at future lepton colliders by using the same program code as that used in Ref. [21], where Γ(X)≡Γ(h0→XX¯). The expected experimental absolute 1σ errors ΔDEV(X/Y) at future lepton colliders are obtained by using the following relation: ΔDEV(X/Y)≃δ[Γ(X)/Γ(Y)].

  99. T. Barklow et al., arXiv:1506.07830.
  100. I. Adachi et al. (ILC International Development Team Collaboration), arXiv:2203.07622.
  101. A. Djouadi, Phys. Rep. 459, 1 (2008).
  102. A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, F. Mahmoudi, M. Muhlleitner, and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 106, 055002 (2022).
  103. H. Eberl, K. Hidaka, and E. Ginina (to be published).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 015011– Published 9 January, 2026
  • Received 28 May 2024
  • Accepted 8 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation