Hints of a new leptophilic Higgs sector?
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2305.19314
\documentclass[prd,twocolumn,preprintnumbers,nofootinbib]{revtex4-2}
\usepackage{slashed}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{bbold}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage[hyperfootnotes=false,colorlinks,citecolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{pifont}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{orcidlink}
\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\ena}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}
\newcommand{\ii}{{\rm i}}
\newcommand{\RD}{\textcolor{cyan}}
\let \Lold \L
\def \L {\mathcal{L}}
\let \epsilonold \epsilon
\def \epsilon {\varepsilon}
\let \arrowvec \vec
\def \vec#1{{\boldsymbol{#1}}}
\newcommand{\hc}{\ensuremath{\text{h.c.}}}
\newcommand{\tr}{\ensuremath{\text{tr}}}
\newcommand{\BR}{\ensuremath{\text{BR}}}
\newcommand{\avb}[1]{\big\langle #1 \big\rangle}
\newcommand{\eq}{\mathrm{eq}}
\newcommand{\ie}{\emph{i.e.}}
\newcommand{\eg}{\emph{e.g.}}
\newcommand{\cf}{\emph{cf.}}
\newcommand{\diff}{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\D}{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\Neff}{N_\mathrm{eff}}
\newcommand{\YX}{Y_{\!X}}
\newcommand\scalemath[2]{\scalebox{#1}{\mbox{\ensuremath{\displaystyle #2}}}}
\newcommand{\matrixx}[1]{\begin{pmatrix} #1 \end{pmatrix}}
\newcommand{\cmark}{\ding{51}}%
\newcommand{\xmark}{\ding{55}}%
% \newcommand{\AT}[1]{{\color{red}AT:~#1}}
% \newcommand{\ya}[1]{{\color{orange}YA:~#1}}
% \newcommand{\BD}{\textcolor{magenta}}
%\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{document}
\title{Hints of a new leptophilic Higgs sector?}
\author{Yoav Afik$^{1,2,\orcidlink{0000-0001-8102-356X}}$, P. S. Bhupal Dev$^{3,\orcidlink{0000-0003-4655-2866}}$, Anil Thapa$^{4,\orcidlink{0000-0003-4471-2336}}$}
\affiliation{$^1$Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA\\
$^2$Experimental Physics Department, CERN, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland\\
$^3$Department of Physics and McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA\\
$^4$Department of Physics, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22904-4714, USA}
%\email{yoavafik@gmail.com, bdev@wustl.edu, wtd8kz@virginia.edu}
\hypersetup{
pdftitle={},
pdfauthor={ Anil Thapa}}
\begin{abstract}
We show that a new leptophilic Higgs sector can resolve some intriguing anomalies in current experimental data across multiple energy ranges. Motivated by the recent CMS excess in the resonant $e\mu$ channel at 146~GeV, we consider a leptophilic two-Higgs-doublet model, and propose a novel resonant production mechanism for the neutral components of the second Higgs doublet at the LHC using the lepton content of the proton. Interestingly, the same Yukawa coupling $Y_{e\mu}\sim 0.65-0.81$ that explains the CMS excess also addresses the muon $(g-2)$ anomaly. Moreover, the new Higgs doublet also resolves the recent CDF $W$-boson mass anomaly. The relevant model parameter space will be completely probed by future LHC data.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
%\noindent
%\textbf {\textit {Introduction.--}}
Using the Higgs boson as the keystone for new physics searches is well-motivated~\cite{Dawson:2022zbb}, as an extended Higgs sector could potentially address some of the pressing issues plaguing the Standard Model (SM), including the gauge hierarchy problem, stability of the electroweak vacuum, mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, origin of the fermion masses and mixing, matter-antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter. Therefore, even though the measured properties of the 125-GeV Higgs boson discovered at the LHC~\cite{ATLAS:2012yve, CMS:2012qbp} are thus far consistent with the SM expectations~\cite{CMS:2022dwd, ATLAS:2022vkf}, further precision Higgs studies, as well as direct searches for additional Higgs bosons, must continue.
An interesting aspect of beyond-the-SM (BSM) physics is lepton flavor violation (LFV), which is forbidden in the SM by an accidental global symmetry. In fact, the observation of neutrino oscillations~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:1998kpq,SNO:2001kpb,DoubleChooz:2011ymz,DayaBay:2012fng,RENO:2012mkc} necessarily implies LFV. However, despite intense experimental efforts, no corresponding LFV in the charged lepton sector has been observed~\cite{Calibbi:2017uvl}. Therefore, alternative searches for LFV involving exotic Higgs decays ($h\to e\mu, e\tau, \mu\tau$) could be powerful probes of BSM physics~\cite{Diaz-Cruz:1999sns, Blankenburg:2012ex, Harnik:2012pb, Crivellin:2015hha, Herrero-Garcia:2016uab,Endo:2020mev, Barman:2022iwj}. Both ATLAS and CMS Collaborations have performed such LFV Higgs searches with the $\sqrt s=13$~TeV LHC Run-2 data~\cite{ATLAS:2019old,CMS:2019pex, CMS:2021rsq, ATLAS:2023mvd, CMS:2023pte}. Although no evidence for LFV decays of the 125~GeV Higgs boson was found, CMS has reported an intriguing $3.8\sigma$ local ($2.8\sigma$ global) excess in the resonant $e\mu$ search around 146~GeV, with a preferred cross section of $\sigma(pp\to H \to e\mu)=3.89^{+1.25}_{-1.13}$~fb~\cite{CMS:2023pte}. If confirmed, this would be a clear sign of BSM physics. In this letter, we take the CMS $e\mu$ excess at face value and provide the {\it simplest} possible interpretation in terms of leptophilic neutral scalars within a two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM). In this context, we propose a {\it novel} resonant production channel for the leptophilic neutral (pseudo)scalars at the LHC using the lepton parton distribution function (PDF) of the proton~\cite{Bertone:2015lqa, Buonocore:2020nai, Buonocore:2021bsf,Dreiner:2021ext}; see Fig.~\ref{fig:feynman}. We show that this scenario can explain the CMS excess with a Yukawa coupling $Y_{e\mu}\sim 0.55-0.81$, while being consistent with all existing constraints.
Another interesting feature of our solution is its intimate connection to two other outstanding anomalies in current experimental data, namely, the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly~\cite{Muong-2:2006rrc, Muong-2:2021ojo, Muong-2:2023cdq} and the CDF $W$-mass anomaly~\cite{CDF:2022hxs}.
We emphasize that the prospects of probing a leptophilic light Higgs sector at the energy and intensity frontiers is a worthwhile study in its own right, irrespective of the future status of these anomalies.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Model Setup}
%\medskip
%\noindent
%\textbf {\textit {Model Setup.--}}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{tree.pdf}
\caption{A representative Feynman diagram for resonant production of leptophilic scalar fields at hadron colliders through lepton PDF. }
\label{fig:feynman}
\end{figure}
Here we propose an economical scenario with a leptophilic 2HDM to explain the CMS excess. We work in the Higgs basis~\cite{Davidson:2005cw}, where only one neutral Higgs acquires a nonzero vacuum expectation value, $v$. In this basis, the scalars fields can be parameterized as
\begin{equation}
H_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
G^{+} \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(v+H_{1}^{0}+i G^{0}\right)
\end{array}\right), \ H_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
H^{+} \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(H_{2}^{0}+i A\right)
\end{array}\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $(G^+,G^0)$ are the Goldstone modes, eaten up by $W$ and $Z$ after electroweak symmetry breaking, $(H^0_1,H^0_2)$ and $A$ are the neutral $\mathcal{CP}$-even and $\mathcal{CP}$-odd scalars respectively, and $H^+$ is a charged scalar field. In the alignment/decoupling limit~\cite{Gunion:2002zf, Carena:2013ooa, Dev:2014bir, Das:2015mwa}, we identify $H_1^0\equiv h$ as the observed $125$~GeV SM-like Higgs boson, whereas the $H_2$-sector does not couple to the SM gauge bosons. This is in agreement with the LHC data~\cite{Haller:2018nnx, Eberhardt:2020dat, Karan:2023kyj}. We assume the mixing angle $\theta$ between the $\mathcal{CP}$-even scalar $H_2^0 \equiv H$ and the SM Higgs boson is small, and the only relevant production mechanism for $H$ (and $A$) at colliders is via its leptonic Yukawa interactions:
\begin{equation}
- {\cal L}_Y \supset Y_{\alpha\beta} \bar{L}_\alpha H_2 \ell_{\beta,R} + {\rm H.c.}
\label{eq:Yuk2HDM}
\end{equation}
For either $Y_{e\mu}\neq 0$ or $Y_{\mu e}\neq 0$, with all other $Y_{\alpha\beta}$ involving electrons or muons assumed to be small, the dominant contribution to the $pp\to H/A\to e\mu$ signal comes from the $s$-channel Feynman diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:feynman}, where the $H/A$ is produced resonantly using the lepton PDF of the proton, and then decays to $e^\mp\mu^\pm$ final states with a branching ratio (BR) determined by the structure of the Yukawa coupling matrix $Y$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Yuk2HDM}. There is a sub-dominant contribution to the same final-state from a $t$-channel exchange of $H/A$, not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:feynman}, but included in our calculation.
We estimate the signal cross section numerically using {\sc MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO}~\cite{Alwall:2014hca} at leading order (LO) parton-level with the {\sc LUXlep-NNPDF31} PDF ({\sc 82400})~\cite{Manohar:2016nzj,Manohar:2017eqh,Bertone:2017bme,Buonocore:2020nai}. The default {\sc MadGraph5} cuts are applied at parton-level, and the default LO dynamical scale is used, which is the transverse mass calculated by a $k_t$-clustering of the final-state partons~\cite{Catani:1993hr}. The cross section result including both $H$ and $A$ contributions is shown by the blue curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2} left panel as a function of $|Y_{e\mu}|$ (also applicable for $|Y_{\mu e}|$) for $m_{H/A}=146$~GeV and assuming ${\rm BR}(H/A\to e\mu)=70\%$ (explained below), where the thickness accounts for the theory uncertainty due to scale ($^{+39.4\%}_{-30.3\%}$) and PDF ($\pm 4.5\%$) variation. The horizontal green (yellow) shaded region explains the CMS excess at $1\sigma$ ($2\sigma$). The corresponding ATLAS search~\cite{ATLAS:2019old} is not directly comparable with the CMS analysis, but a back-of-the-envelope calculation from the sideband data mildly disfavors a narrow-width excess at 146~GeV, and a rough scaling of background gives a ballpark upper limit of about 3.0~fb on the cross section~\cite{Leney}, as shown by the horizontal dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2}. We find that $Y_{e\mu}\sim 0.55-0.81$ can explain the CMS excess at $2\sigma$. For such values of the leptonic Yukawa coupling, any quark Yukawa couplings of the second Higgs doublet $H_2$ must be small; otherwise, it will be ruled out by the chirality enhanced meson decays, such as $\pi^+\to e^+\nu$. Thus our proposal is different from other scalar interpretations of the CMS excess~\cite{Primulando:2023ugc, Koivunen:2023led}, which used quark couplings to enhance the production cross section.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.482\textwidth]{case_one_Y.pdf} \hspace{2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.482\textwidth]{case_two_Y.pdf}
\caption{{\it Left:} Total $e\mu$ production cross section from $H/A$ (blue band) at $\sqrt s=13$~TeV LHC as a function of the Yukawa coupling $Y_{e\mu}$ (or $Y_{\mu e}$) in our leptophilic 2HDM with $m_H\simeq m_A=146$~GeV. %The green (yellow) band is the $1\sigma$ ($2\sigma$) CMS excess region. The horizontal dashed line is the suggested ATLAS upper limit (but not conclusive). The LEP exclusion (gray-shaded) as well as the $1\sigma$ $(g-2)_\mu$-preferred regions are also shown. The purple dashed line is the muonium-antimuonium oscillation constraint, but is not applicable when $m_H\simeq m_A$. \\
{\it Right:} Same as left panel but in the $Y_{e\mu}-Y_{\mu e}$ plane. See text for details.
% The purple-shaded region is excluded from muonium oscillation, whereas the dashed line shows the future MACE sensitivity. The horizontal cyan-shaded region is excluded from a combination of the EW precision fit and global NSI constraints.
}
\label{fig:p2}
\end{figure*}
%\medskip
%\noindent
%\textbf {\textit {Constraints.--}}
\section{Constraints}
The large $Y_{e\mu/\mu e}$ couplings of the neutral components, as well as the charged component, of the leptophilic Higgs doublet, are subject to a number of other constraints, and also give rise to other interesting phenomena, as discussed below.
%\medskip
%\noindent
%{\it Neutral sector:}
\subsection{Neutral sector}
Even if we choose only the off-diagonal entries $Y_{e\mu/\mu e}\neq 0$, small diagonal entries $Y_{\ell\ell}\sim \sin\theta y_\ell$ (with $\ell=e,\mu$) will be induced via the $h-H$ mixing and the SM Yukawa couplings $y_\ell\equiv \sqrt 2m_\ell/v$ (with $y_\mu\simeq 6\times 10^{-4}$ and $y_e\simeq 3\times 10^{-6}$). But the products $Y_{e\mu}Y_{ee}$ and $Y_{e\mu}Y_{\mu\mu}$ are subject to strong LFV constraints~\cite{Babu:2019mfe}. Using the general LFV formula~\cite{Lavoura:2003xp} and the current MEG limit on $\mu\to e\gamma$~\cite{MEG:2016leq}, we require $Y_{ee}\lesssim 9\times 10^{-5}$ and $Y_{\mu\mu}\lesssim 6\times 10^{-5}$, which gives an upper limit of $\sin\theta\lesssim 0.1$ on the Higgs mixing. %With this choice, the LHC Higgs constraints are automatically satisfied~\cite{Karan:2023kyj}.}
%\subsection{Constraints on neutral scalars}
The same $Y_{e\mu \ (\mu e)}$ coupling gives an additional contribution to the $e^+ e^- \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ cross section via $t$-channel $H/A$ exchange, and therefore, is constrained by LEP measurements, which are in good agreement with the SM prediction~\cite{OPAL:2003kcu, Electroweak:2003ram}. Naively, the contact interaction bounds from LEP data would kill the parameter space for ${\cal O}(1)$ Yukawa couplings~\cite{Babu:2019mfe}. However, this bound is not directly applicable, if neutral scalars are lighter than the LEP center-of-mass energy $\sqrt s=209$~GeV. A dedicated analysis~\cite{Barman:2021xeq} comparing the 2HDM cross section, which includes the interference between the $H/A$-mediated diagrams with the SM processes, against the LEP dimuon data imposes the constraint $Y_{e\mu}<0.8$, thus ruling out the parameter space shown by the brown-shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2}. The same bounds are also applicable to the $Y_{\mu e}$ coupling; see Fig.~\ref{fig:p1} for different masses. The LEP limit can be significantly improved at future lepton colliders, such as the $\sqrt{s}=1$~TeV ILC~\cite{Barklow:2015tja} with integrated luminosity $L=500~{\rm~fb}^{-1}$ (cf. the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:p1}), which can probe $Y_{e\mu}$ (or $Y_{\mu e}$) up to 0.1~\cite{Barman:2021xeq, Dev:2017ftk, Dev:2018vpr}.
%%%%
As for the hadron collider constraints on light neutral scalars, most of the Tevatron/LHC searches are done in the context of either MSSM or general 2HDM, and rely on the gluon fusion or vector boson fusion production mechanisms. None of these searches are applicable for us, because the leptophilic $H/A$ does not directly couple to the quarks, and in the alignment limit ($\theta\to 0$), also does not couple to the $W/Z$ bosons. This also suppresses other production channels like pair-production of $HA$.
%Moreover, since these limits depend on the decay BR of $H/A$, they can be further weakened in presence of other Yukawa couplings (say $Y_{\tau \tau}$, which is safe from charged LFV constraints).
The most important constraint on the neutral scalar sector comes from low-energy process of muonium ($M_\mu=e^-\mu^+$)-antimuonium ($\overline{M}_\mu=e^+\mu^-$) oscillation~\cite{Pontecorvo:1957cp, Jentschura:1997tv, Clark:2003tv, Fukuyama:2021iyw}. The MACS experiment at PSI puts an upper bound on the oscillation probability $P(M_\mu\leftrightarrow\overline{M}_\mu) < 8.2 \times 10^{-11}$ at $90\%$ CL~\cite{Willmann:1998gd}, while a sensitivity at the level of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-14})$ is expected at the proposed MACE experiment~\cite{Bai:2022sxq}. In our 2HDM setup, the oscillation probability gets contribution from both $H$ and $A$~\cite{Conlin:2020veq, Fukuyama:2021iyw}; {see {\it Appendix A}.
If $H$ and $A$ are highly non-degenerate, i.e. only either $H$ or $A$ dominantly contributes, the MACS bound requires $Y_{e\mu}<0.18$ for $m_{H/A}=146$~GeV, as shown (for illustration only) by the vertical purple line in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2} left panel, which rules out the LFV coupling needed to explain the CMS excess with a single scalar/pseudoscalar. However, for $m_H\simeq m_A$, there is a cancellation in the $M_\mu\leftrightarrow\overline{M}_\mu$ amplitude which allows for either $Y_{e\mu}$ or $Y_{\mu e}$ to be large, but not both. This is depicted by the gray-shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2} right panel for $m_H\simeq m_A=146$~GeV. In this limit, even the future MACE sensitivity cannot rule out the CMS excess region.
Thus far, it seems either $Y_{e\mu}$ or $Y_{\mu e}$ coupling can be taken to be large for explaining the CMS excess, while being consistent with the current constraints. However, as discussed below, a combination of the LHC charged Higgs constraints and the global fit to non-standard neutrino interactions (NSI), preclude the possibility of a large $Y_{\mu e}$ coupling, as shown by the horizontal purple-shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2} right panel. Therefore, the only viable possibility is to have a large $Y_{e\mu}$ coupling and small $Y_{\mu e}$ coupling (the lower right band of the CMS excess region in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2} right panel).
\subsection{Charged sector}
%\medskip
%\noindent
%{\it Charged sector:}
At LEP, $H^\pm$ can be pair produced through either $s$-channel Drell-Yan process via $\gamma/Z$, or $t$-channel via light neutrino. It can also be singly produced either in association with a $W$ boson or through the Drell-Yan channel in association with the leptons~\cite{Babu:2019mfe}. Once produced, the charged scalar decays into $\nu_\alpha \ell_{\beta,R}$ through the Yukawa coupling $Y_{\alpha \beta}$, which has the same signature as the right-handed slepton decay into lepton plus massless neutralino in SUSY models: $e^+e^- \to \tilde{\ell}_R^+ \tilde{\ell}_R^- \to \ell_R^+ \tilde{\chi}^0 \ell_R^- \tilde{\chi}^0$. We can therefore reinterpret the LEP slepton searches~\cite{ALEPH:2001oot,ALEPH:2003acj,DELPHI:2003uqw,L3:2003fyi,OPAL:2003nhx} to derive a bound on light charged scalars. Depending on the branching ratio ${\rm BR}(H^+\to \ell^+ \nu)$ the LEP limit on the charged scalar varies from $80-100$~GeV~\cite{Babu:2019mfe}.
Similarly at the LHC, a pair of charged scalars can be produced through $s$-channel Drell-Yan process via $\gamma/Z$, followed by decays into $\nu_\alpha \ell_{\beta,R}$. By reinterpreting the LHC searches for right-handed sleptons, one can therefore put bounds on the charged scalar mass as a function of BR in the massless neutralino limit. From an ATLAS analysis of the LHC Run-2 data~\cite{ATLAS:2019lff},%\footnote{The corresponding CMS analysis~\cite{CMS:2020bfa} did not quote a separate limit on right-handed sleptons.}
we obtain a lower bound of $m_{H^+}>425$~GeV at 90\% CL for ${\rm BR}(H^+\to \mu^+\nu_e)=1$. As we will see below, for $m_H=m_A=146$~GeV, the charged Higgs boson cannot be too much heavier due to the electroweak precision data (EWPD) constraints. Therefore, we would need additional decay channels in order to make ${\rm BR}(H^+\to \mu^+\nu_e)<1$ and relax the LHC constraints.
\section{Resolving the \texorpdfstring{$W$}{W}-boson mass anomaly}
%\medskip
%\noindent
%\textbf {\textit {Resolving the \texorpdfstring{$W$}{W}-boson mass anomaly.--}}
The mass splitting between the neutral and charged components of the $SU(2)_L$ doublet $H_2$ breaks the custodial symmetry of the SM at the loop level. The change in the relationship between the $W$ and $Z$ boson masses can be used to accommodate the recent CDF $W$-mass anomaly, which currently stands at $7\sigma$~\cite{CDF:2022hxs}. This effect can be parameterized by the oblique parameters $S$ and $T$~\cite{Peskin:1990zt,Peskin:1991sw}, which modifies~\cite{Maksymyk:1993zm}
\begin{align}
m_W \simeq m_W^{\rm SM} \left[1 - \frac{\alpha (S-2 \cos^2{\theta_w} T)}{4(\cos^2{\theta_w}-\sin^2{\theta_w})} \right] ,
\label{eq:MW-STU}
\end{align}
where $\theta_w$ is the electroweak mixing angle.
%Note that the correction to $U$ at one-loop level is suppressed compared to $S$ and $T$.
We incorporate the global electroweak fit~\cite{Lu:2022bgw} with the new CDF data to show allowed ranges for the scalar masses $(m_A, m_{H^+})$ with the choice of $m_H=146$~GeV in Fig.~\ref{fig:ST} (blue band). %\footnote{Note that $m_H\simeq m_A=146$ is actually consistent with the CDF result within $2.1\sigma$ instead of $2.0\sigma$.}
In spite of explaining the CDF $W$ mass shift, the model is mildly consistent with the PDG global fit~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2022pth}, as can be seen from the red region in Fig.~\ref{fig:ST}. We find that the CDF anomaly prefers significant splitting between $m_A$ and $m_{H^+}$. For $m_H=m_A=146$~GeV, we require $m_{H^+}\simeq$ 228--234 GeV to explain the CDF anomaly at $2\sigma$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{STU.pdf}
\caption{$2\sigma$ allowed ranges from EWPD global fit for the charged and neutral Higgs masses in the alignment limit of our 2HDM scenario.
}
\label{fig:ST}
\end{figure}
To reconcile the CDF-preferred $m_{H^+}$ region with the LHC constraint $m_{H^+}>425$~GeV, we reinterpret the slepton search limit as a function of the charged Higgs mass and ${\rm BR}(H^+\to \mu^+\nu_e)$, using the publicly available cross section limits given as a function of the slepton mass from the auxiliary material of Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:2019lff}, as well as from an earlier ATLAS analysis~\cite{ATLAS:2018ojr}. We find that to lower the $m_{H^+}$ bound to $\sim 230$~GeV, as required by the CDF anomaly, we need ${\rm BR}(H^+\to \mu^+\nu_e)<0.7$ (0.95) according to the cross section limits reported in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:2018ojr} (\cite{ATLAS:2019lff}). We therefore fix ${\rm BR}(H^+\to \mu^+\nu_e)=0.7$ for our analysis of the CMS excess in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2}.
For the purpose of our discussion here, we are agnostic about the detailed structure of the Yukawa coupling matrix, which could account for the remaining 30\% BR. Additional nonzero entries in the Yukawa matrix are viable, albeit requiring potential adjustments to suppress LFV. One example texture that fits our branching ratio requirement is $Y_{e\mu}=0.71$, $Y_{\tau\tau}=0.46$, and all other Yukawa entries negligible. This choice does not lead to trilepton LFV decays but does induce the radiative LFV decay $\mu \to e \gamma$ via a two-loop process involving the tauon in the Barr-Zee diagram~\cite{Ilisie:2015tra,Crivellin:2015hha}. However, it is also important to consider other diagrams such as the two-loop Barr-Zee diagram from the charged Higgs, which depends on the quartic coupling $\lambda (H_2^\dagger H_2) (H_1^\dagger H_2)$, and depending on the sign of $\lambda$, can destructively interfere with the tau-loop-induced diagram. We find that the LFV constraints can be satisfied for the above choice of Yukawa couplings for a relatively small quartic coupling of order $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$.
We note here that instead of a large $Y_{e\mu}$ coupling, if we had allowed a large $Y_{\mu e}$ coupling, it would imply the coupling of charged Higgs $H^-$ to electrons and muon neutrinos. This leads to a $\nu_\mu-e$ coherent scattering in matter via $t$-channel exchange of the charged Higgs, and hence, generates an NSI of the type $\epsilon_{\mu\mu}=|Y_{\mu e}|^2/(4\sqrt 2 G_Fm_{H^+}^2)$~\cite{Babu:2019mfe}.
%\begin{align}
% \epsilon_{\mu\mu}=\frac{1}{4\sqrt 2 G_F} \frac{|Y_{\mu e}|^2}{m_{H^+}^2} .
% \label{eq:NSI}
%\end{align}
From a recent global analysis of NSI constraints, we get a 90\% CL bound of $\epsilon_{\mu\mu}< 0.015$~\cite{Coloma:2023ixt}.\footnote{This is derived from the bound on $\epsilon_{\tau\tau}-\epsilon_{\mu\mu}$~\cite{Coloma:2023ixt} (see also Ref.~\cite{IceCube:2022pbe}), which is stronger than the individual bound on $\epsilon_{\mu\mu}$. In our model, both $\epsilon_{\mu\mu}$ and $\epsilon_{\tau\tau}$ cannot be simultaneously large due to strong charged LFV constraints; therefore, the bound on $\epsilon_{\tau\tau}-\epsilon_{\mu\mu}$ is also applicable for $\epsilon_{\mu\mu}$.} For $m_{H^+}\sim 230$~GeV, this gives an upper bound of $Y_{\mu e}\simeq 0.23$, which is shown by the purple-shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2} right panel.
\section{Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment}
%\medskip
%\noindent
%\textbf {\textit {Muon anomalous magnetic moment.--}}
The same $Y_{e\mu}$ coupling also contributes to the $(g-2)_\mu$ via the neutral and charged Higgs loops~\cite{Leveille:1977rc, Lindner:2016bgg}; see {\it Appendix B}.
The combined result of the Brookhaven~\cite{Muong-2:2006rrc} and Fermilab~\cite{Muong-2:2021ojo} $(g-2)_\mu$ experiments is $4.2\sigma$ away from the 2020 global average of the SM prediction~\cite{Aoyama:2020ynm}: $\Delta a_\mu ({\rm WP}) = (251\pm 59)\times 10^{-11}$.\footnote{This was recently updated to $\Delta a_\mu ({\rm WP}) = (249\pm 48)\times 10^{-11}$~\cite{Muong-2:2023cdq}, but there is no noticeable change in our results.}
%\begin{align}
% \Delta a_\mu ({\rm WP}) = (251\pm 59)\times 10^{-11} \, .
%\end{align}
This discrepancy is however reduced to only $1.5\sigma$, if we use the ab-initio lattice calculation from the BMW collaboration~\cite{Borsanyi:2020mff}\footnote{Other lattice calculations now agree with the BMW result in the "intermediate distance regime"~\cite{Ce:2022kxy, ExtendedTwistedMass:2022jpw, Bazavov:2023has, Blum:2023qou}, but a more thorough and complete analysis is ongoing.}, which gives $ \Delta a_\mu ({\rm BMW}) = (107\pm 70)\times 10^{-11}$~\cite{Wittig:2023pcl}.
%\begin{align}
% \Delta a_\mu ({\rm BMW}) = (107\pm 70)\times 10^{-11} \, .
% \label{eq:BMW}
%\end{align}
The extra contribution from the neutral Higgs sector in our 2HDM scenario can explain the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly at $1\sigma$, as shown by the red (orange) shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:p2}, using the BMW (WP) value for the SM prediction. We find that the $1\sigma$ WP-preferred region is excluded by LEP constraint on $Y_{e\mu}$ for $m_H\simeq m_A=146$~GeV, whereas part of the $1\sigma$ BMW-preferred region is still allowed, while simultaneously explaining the CMS excess and the CDF $W$-mass anomaly.
Fig.~\ref{fig:p1} shows the range of the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly-preferred region at $1\sigma$ in the neutral Higgs mass-coupling plane. For comparison, the green bar at 146~GeV shows the CMS excess region, whereas the purple shaded region around it is the exclusion region derived from CMS data~\cite{CMS:2023pte}. The gray-shaded region shows the LEP exclusion from $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ data~\cite{Barman:2021xeq}. The magenta region is excluded at $2\sigma$ from the precision $Z$-width measurements~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2022pth}, because for $m_{H/A}<m_Z$, an additional decay mode $Z\to \ell_\alpha^+\ell_\beta^- H/A\to 4\ell$ opens up. The vertical cyan (blue) line is the indirect lower bound on the neutral Higgs mass, derived using a combination of the electroweak precision constraint on the mass splitting between the neutral and charged Higgs sectors using the CDF (PDG) value of $m_W$, and the LEP lower limit of $\sim 100$~GeV on the charged Higgs mass. %We do not show the LHC limit on charged Higgs mass in this plot, because as mentioned before, it strongly depends on the BRs, and hence, on the choice of the full Yukawa coupling matrix, not just the $e\mu$ entry.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Yeu_mH.pdf}
\caption{The CMS excess at $1\sigma$ (green) and 95\% CL exclusion (purple) in the mass-coupling plane, contrasted with the $1\sigma$ regions preferred by $(g-2)_\mu$. Also shown are the constraints from LEP dilepton, $Z\to 4\ell$, EWPD, and the future ILC and HL-LHC sensitivities.
}
\label{fig:p1}
\end{figure}
From Fig.~\ref{fig:p1}, we find that if we use the WP value for $g-2$, only a narrow band around $m_{H/A}\simeq 25$~GeV can explain the $g-2$ anomaly at $1\sigma$. On the other hand, if we use the BMW value, most of the parameter space for $m_{H/A}>25$~GeV is currently allowed. Future sensitivity projections from HL-LHC~\cite{ZurbanoFernandez:2020cco} and ILC~\cite{Barklow:2015tja} can cover most of the remaining allowed parameter space, irrespective of the status of the CMS excess. In general, a dedicated neutral scalar search in the LFV dilepton channels beyond 160~GeV could completely probe the $(g-2)_\mu$-allowed region.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
%\medskip
%\noindent
%\textbf {\textit {Discussion and Conclusion.--}}
Both ATLAS and the CMS collaborations searched for new bosons decaying into opposite-sign and different flavor light leptons ($e^\pm\mu^\mp$)~\cite{ATLAS:2019old,CMS:2023pte}.
In the CMS analysis,
%an excess is observed, with a local $3.8\sigma$ and global $2.8\sigma$ significance, around a mass of 146~GeV, where the best fit corresponds to a cross section of $3.89^{+1.25}_{-1.13}$~fb~\cite{CMS:2023pte}. In the CMS analysis,
machine-learning techniques are used to enhance the sensitivity where an excess is observed. ATLAS, on the other hand, did not perform such a dedicated, BDT-optimized resonance search, and did not interpret the results for masses which are different than the SM value of $\sim 125$~GeV.
Therefore, naively, it could be that the CMS analysis is sensitive to a signal hypothesis which was not reachable by ATLAS.
Although a similar excess at 146~GeV is disfavored by ATLAS at $1\sigma$ (as shown in our Fig.~\ref{fig:p2})~\cite{Leney}, it is a ballpark estimate only and not entirely conclusive; a dedicated interpretation of the ATLAS results is required.
%In the CMS analysis, limits were set on the cross section of signal hypotheses with mass of 110--160~GeV.
%We use the upper limits on the cross section for each mass in order to set limits on our model.
%For the special case of a mass of 146~GeV, we show limits both from CMS and ATLAS, with upper limits of $6.0$~fb and $3.0$~fb, respectively~\cite{Leney}.
Both analyses generated signal samples with two mechanisms: gluon-fusion (ggH) and vector-boson-fusion (VBF).
The contribution of the ggH mechanism to the total cross section is significantly higher~\cite{CMS:2023pte}, and therefore it has the dominant effect on the results.
In order to validate the use of the results by simply comparing cross sections, we compared the kinematic distributions of the leptons between the ggH mechanism and a direct production with leptons from the proton, and found good agreement.
It is also interesting that CMS reported excesses in the diphoton~\cite{CMS:2023yay} and ditau~\cite{CMS:2022goy} channels at 95 GeV, but only with $2.9\sigma$ local ($1.3\sigma$ global) and $2.6\sigma$ local ($2.3\sigma$ global) significances, respectively. These can be accommodated with an extended Higgs sector~\cite{Biekotter:2023jld, Azevedo:2023zkg, Escribano:2023hxj, Biekotter:2023oen, Bhattacharya:2023lmu}, but a common explanation together with the 146 GeV $e\mu$ excess seems difficult, and requires further investigation.
In conclusion, the leptophilic 2HDM provides the simplest explanation for the CMS $e\mu$ excess at 146 GeV. It also simultaneously resolves the CDF $W$-mass and the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomalies. A minimal extension of this 2HDM by a singlet charged scalar leads to the Zee model of radiative neutrino mass generation~\cite{Zee:1980ai}. Should the CMS excess be confirmed, a detailed neutrino oscillation fit (similar to what was done in Ref.~\cite{Babu:2019mfe}) with large $Y_{e\mu}$ entry could be performed, which might also lead to concrete predictions in the neutrino sector, including NSI, as well as for charged LFV decays.
%\section*{Acknowledgments}
%\medskip
\acknowledgments
%%\textbf {\textit {Acknowledgments.--}}
We thank Saurabh Nangia for valuable technical help with using lepton PDF. AT thanks Julian Heeck for valuable discussion. BD thanks Ashutosh Kotwal and David Toback for convincing him that the CDF $W$-mass anomaly should be taken seriously. BD also thanks the Mitchell Institute at Texas A\&M University for local hospitality, where part of this work was done. BD is supported in part by the US Department of Energy grant No. DE-SC 0017987 and by a URA VSP fellowship. The work of AT is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-2210428.
YA is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-2013010.
\appendix
%\textbf{\textit {A. Muonium-antimuonium oscillation.--}}
\section{Muonium-antimuonium oscillation}
The muonium-antimuonium oscillation probability in our 2HDM scenario is given by~\cite{Conlin:2020veq, Fukuyama:2021iyw}
\begin{equation}
P(M_\mu\to \overline{M}_\mu) \simeq \frac{64 \alpha^6 m_{\rm red}^6 \tau_\mu^2}{\pi^2} G_{M\overline{M}}^2 \,,
\label{eq:probmm}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant, $m_{\rm red}=m_em_\mu/(m_e+m_\mu)$ is the reduced mass of the electron-muon system, $\tau_\mu$ is the muon lifetime, and $G_{M\overline{M}}$ is the Wilson coefficient which, in our 2HDM scenario, is given by~\cite{Fukuyama:2021iyw}
\begin{equation}
G_{M\overline{M}}^2 \simeq 0.32\, \left| \frac{3 G_3}{2} + \frac{G_{45}}{4} \right|^2 + 0.13\, \left| \frac{G_{45}}{4}-0.68\, G_3 \right|^2 ,
\end{equation}
with the following coefficients in the alignment limit:
\begin{align}
G_{45} &\equiv - \frac{Y_{e\mu}^{*2} + Y_{\mu e}^2}{8 \sqrt{2}} \left( \frac{1}{m_H^2} - \frac{1}{m_A^2} \right) , \\
%%%%%
G_{3} &\equiv - \frac{Y_{e\mu}^{*} Y_{\mu e}} {8 \sqrt{2}} \left( \frac{1}{m_H^2} + \frac{1}{m_A^2} \right) .
\end{align}
We find that for $m_H\simeq m_A$, there is a cancellation in the $G_{45}$ amplitude (at the level of 6\%), while the $G_3$ amplitude vanishes if we consider only $Y_{e\mu}$ (or $Y_{\mu e}$).
%\medskip
%\noindent
%\textbf{\textit {B. Lepton anomalous magnetic moment.--}}
\section{Lepton anomalous magnetic moment}
The expression for one-loop contribution of neutral and charged scalars to $(g-2)_\mu$ is given by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\Delta a_\mu & \simeq \frac{m_\mu^2}{16\pi^2}\left[\frac{1}{m_H^2}\left\{\frac{|Y_{e\mu}|^2+|Y_{\mu e}|^2}{6}-2\frac{m_e}{m_\mu}\left(\frac{3}{4}+\log\left(\frac{m_e}{m_H}\right) \right)\Re(Y_{\mu e }Y_{e \mu}) \right\}\right.\nonumber\\
& \left. \qquad \qquad + \frac{1}{m_A^2}\left\{\frac{|Y_{e\mu}|^2+|Y_{\mu e}|^2}{6}+2\frac{m_e}{m_\mu}\left(\frac{3}{4}+\log\left(\frac{m_e}{m_A}\right) \right)\Re(Y_{\mu e }Y_{e \mu})\right\}
\right.
\nonumber \\
& \left. \qquad \qquad - \frac{1} {m_{H^+}^2}\frac{|Y_{e\mu}|^2}{6}\right] .
\label{eq:gm1}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
In the limit of $m_H\simeq m_A$, the terms proportional to $m_e m_\mu$ cancel. These terms also vanish in the limit of $Y_{\mu e}\to 0$, or if the Yukawa couplings are real. For complex Yukawa couplings, there will be additional strong constraints from electron electric dipole moment~\cite{Roussy:2022cmp}. For our scenario with small $Y_{\mu e}$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:gm1} reduces to the simple expression
\begin{align}
\Delta a_\mu & \simeq \frac{m_\mu^2 |Y_{e\mu}|^2}{96\pi^2 } \left(\frac{1}{m_{H}^2}+\frac{1}{m_{A}^2}-\frac{1}{m_{H^+}^2}\right) .
\label{eq:gm2}
\end{align}
The same Yukawa coupling $Y_{e\mu}$ also contributes to $(g-2)_e$, and $\Delta a_e$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:gm2} with the replacement $m_\mu\leftrightarrow m_e$. Due to the $m_e^2$ suppression, the corresponding bound on $Y_{e\mu}$ is much weaker. Moreover, it is not clear whether the $(g-2)_e$ result is anomalous. Although the experimental value of $a_e$ has been measured very precisely~\cite{Fan:2022eto}, the SM prediction~\cite{Aoyama:2019ryr} relies on the measurement of the fine-structure constant, and currently there is a $5.5\sigma$ discrepancy between the Paris Rb determination of $\alpha$~\cite{Morel:2020dww} and the Berkeley Cs determination~\cite{Parker:2018vye}. The recent Northwestern result sits in between~\cite{Fan:2022eto}. Until the discrepant $\alpha$ measurements are resolved, we cannot draw any meaningful constraints from $(g-2)_e$.
\bibliographystyle{utcaps_mod}
\bibliography{bib.bib}
\end{document}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{100}
\bibitem{Dawson:2022zbb}
S.~Dawson {\em et~al.}, ``{Report of the Topical Group on Higgs Physics for
Snowmass 2021: The Case for Precision Higgs Physics},'' in {\em {Snowmass
2021}}.
\newblock 9, 2022.
\newblock \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07510}{[{\ttfamily 2209.07510}]}.
\bibitem{ATLAS:2012yve}
{\bfseries ATLAS} Collaboration, G.~Aad {\em et~al.}, ``{Observation of a new
particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS
detector at the LHC},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 716} (2012) 1--29},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214}{[{\ttfamily 1207.7214}]}.
\bibitem{CMS:2012qbp}
{\bfseries CMS} Collaboration, S.~Chatrchyan {\em et~al.}, ``{Observation of a
New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 716} (2012) 30--61},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235}{[{\ttfamily 1207.7235}]}.
\bibitem{CMS:2022dwd}
{\bfseries CMS} Collaboration, A.~Tumasyan {\em et~al.}, ``{A portrait of the
Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x}{{\em Nature} {\bfseries
607} no.~7917, (2022) 60--68},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00043}{[{\ttfamily 2207.00043}]}.
\bibitem{ATLAS:2022vkf}
{\bfseries ATLAS} Collaboration, ``{A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions
by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w}{{\em Nature} {\bfseries
607} no.~7917, (2022) 52--59},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00092}{[{\ttfamily 2207.00092}]}. [Erratum:
Nature 612, E24 (2022)].
\bibitem{Super-Kamiokande:1998kpq}
{\bfseries Super-Kamiokande} Collaboration, Y.~Fukuda {\em et~al.}, ``{Evidence
for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562}{{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 81} (1998) 1562--1567},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9807003}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/9807003}]}.
\bibitem{SNO:2001kpb}
{\bfseries SNO} Collaboration, Q.~R. Ahmad {\em et~al.}, ``{Measurement of the
rate of $\nu_e+d \to p+p+e^-$ interactions produced by $^8$B solar neutrinos
at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.071301}{{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 87} (2001) 071301},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0106015}{[{\ttfamily nucl-ex/0106015}]}.
\bibitem{DoubleChooz:2011ymz}
{\bfseries Double Chooz} Collaboration, Y.~Abe {\em et~al.}, ``{Indication of
Reactor $\bar{\nu}_e$ Disappearance in the Double Chooz Experiment},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.131801}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 108} (2012) 131801},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.6353}{[{\ttfamily 1112.6353}]}.
\bibitem{DayaBay:2012fng}
{\bfseries Daya Bay} Collaboration, F.~P. An {\em et~al.}, ``{Observation of
electron-antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.171803}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 108} (2012) 171803},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1669}{[{\ttfamily 1203.1669}]}.
\bibitem{RENO:2012mkc}
{\bfseries RENO} Collaboration, J.~K. Ahn {\em et~al.}, ``{Observation of
Reactor Electron Antineutrino Disappearance in the RENO Experiment},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.191802}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 108} (2012) 191802},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0626}{[{\ttfamily 1204.0626}]}.
\bibitem{Calibbi:2017uvl}
L.~Calibbi and G.~Signorelli, ``{Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An
Experimental and Theoretical Introduction},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1393/ncr/i2018-10144-0}{{\em Riv. Nuovo Cim.}
{\bfseries 41} no.~2, (2018) 71--174},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00294}{[{\ttfamily 1709.00294}]}.
\bibitem{Diaz-Cruz:1999sns}
J.~L. Diaz-Cruz and J.~J. Toscano, ``{Lepton flavor violating decays of Higgs
bosons beyond the standard model},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.116005}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 62} (2000) 116005},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910233}{[{\ttfamily hep-ph/9910233}]}.
\bibitem{Blankenburg:2012ex}
G.~Blankenburg, J.~Ellis, and G.~Isidori, ``{Flavour-Changing Decays of a 125
GeV Higgs-like Particle},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.05.007}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 712} (2012) 386--390},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5704}{[{\ttfamily 1202.5704}]}.
\bibitem{Harnik:2012pb}
R.~Harnik, J.~Kopp, and J.~Zupan, ``{Flavor Violating Higgs Decays},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2013)026}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 03}
(2013) 026}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1397}{[{\ttfamily 1209.1397}]}.
\bibitem{Crivellin:2015hha}
A.~Crivellin, J.~Heeck, and P.~Stoffer, ``{A perturbed lepton-specific
two-Higgs-doublet model facing experimental hints for physics beyond the
Standard Model},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.081801}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 116} no.~8, (2016) 081801},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07567}{[{\ttfamily 1507.07567}]}.
\bibitem{Herrero-Garcia:2016uab}
J.~Herrero-Garcia, N.~Rius, and A.~Santamaria, ``{Higgs lepton flavour
violation: UV completions and connection to neutrino masses},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2016)084}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 11}
(2016) 084}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06091}{[{\ttfamily
1605.06091}]}.
\bibitem{Endo:2020mev}
M.~Endo, S.~Iguro, and T.~Kitahara, ``{Probing $e\mu$ flavor-violating ALP at
Belle II},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2020)040}{{\em JHEP}
{\bfseries 06} (2020) 040},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05948}{[{\ttfamily 2002.05948}]}.
\bibitem{Barman:2022iwj}
R.~K. Barman, P.~S.~B. Dev, and A.~Thapa, ``{Constraining lepton flavor
violating Higgs couplings at the HL-LHC in the vector boson fusion
channel},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.075018}{{\em Phys.
Rev. D} {\bfseries 107} no.~7, (2023) 075018},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.16287}{[{\ttfamily 2210.16287}]}.
\bibitem{ATLAS:2019old}
{\bfseries ATLAS} Collaboration, G.~Aad {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for the Higgs
boson decays $H \to ee$ and $H \to e\mu$ in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =
13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135148}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 801} (2020) 135148},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.10235}{[{\ttfamily 1909.10235}]}.
\bibitem{CMS:2019pex}
{\bfseries CMS} Collaboration, A.~M. Sirunyan {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for
lepton flavour violating decays of a neutral heavy Higgs boson to $\mu\tau$
and e$\tau$ in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2020)103}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 03}
(2020) 103}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.10267}{[{\ttfamily
1911.10267}]}.
\bibitem{CMS:2021rsq}
{\bfseries CMS} Collaboration, A.~M. Sirunyan {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for
lepton-flavor violating decays of the Higgs boson in the $\mu\tau$ and
e$\tau$ final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.032013}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 104} no.~3, (2021) 032013},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.03007}{[{\ttfamily 2105.03007}]}.
\bibitem{ATLAS:2023mvd}
{\bfseries ATLAS} Collaboration, G.~Aad {\em et~al.}, ``{Searches for
lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs boson into $e\tau$ and $\mu\tau$
in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2023)166}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 07}
(2023) 166}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05225}{[{\ttfamily
2302.05225}]}.
\bibitem{CMS:2023pte}
{\bfseries CMS} Collaboration, A.~Hayrapetyan {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for the
lepton-flavor violating decay of the Higgs boson and additional Higgs bosons
in the e$\mu$ final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13
TeV},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.072004}{{\em Phys. Rev.
D} {\bfseries 108} no.~7, (2023) 072004},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18106}{[{\ttfamily 2305.18106}]}.
\bibitem{Bertone:2015lqa}
V.~Bertone, S.~Carrazza, D.~Pagani, and M.~Zaro, ``{On the Impact of Lepton
PDFs},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2015)194}{{\em JHEP}
{\bfseries 11} (2015) 194},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07002}{[{\ttfamily 1508.07002}]}.
\bibitem{Buonocore:2020nai}
L.~Buonocore, P.~Nason, F.~Tramontano, and G.~Zanderighi, ``{Leptons in the
proton},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2020)019}{{\em JHEP}
{\bfseries 08} no.~08, (2020) 019},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06477}{[{\ttfamily 2005.06477}]}.
\bibitem{Buonocore:2021bsf}
L.~Buonocore, P.~Nason, F.~Tramontano, and G.~Zanderighi, ``{Photon and leptons
induced processes at the LHC},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2021)073}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 12}
(2021) 073}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.10924}{[{\ttfamily
2109.10924}]}.
\bibitem{Dreiner:2021ext}
H.~K. Dreiner, V.~M. Lozano, S.~Nangia, and T.~Opferkuch, ``{Lepton PDFs and
multipurpose single-lepton searches at the LHC},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.035011}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 107} no.~3, (2023) 035011},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12755}{[{\ttfamily 2112.12755}]}.
\bibitem{Muong-2:2006rrc}
{\bfseries Muon g-2} Collaboration, G.~W. Bennett {\em et~al.}, ``{Final Report
of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.072003}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 73} (2006) 072003},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0602035}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/0602035}]}.
\bibitem{Muong-2:2021ojo}
{\bfseries Muon g-2} Collaboration, B.~Abi {\em et~al.}, ``{Measurement of the
Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 126} no.~14, (2021) 141801},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03281}{[{\ttfamily 2104.03281}]}.
\bibitem{Muong-2:2023cdq}
{\bfseries Muon g-2} Collaboration, D.~P. Aguillard {\em et~al.},
``{Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20~ppm},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 131} no.~16, (2023) 161802},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06230}{[{\ttfamily 2308.06230}]}.
\bibitem{CDF:2022hxs}
{\bfseries CDF} Collaboration, T.~Aaltonen {\em et~al.}, ``{High-precision
measurement of the $W$ boson mass with the CDF II detector},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abk1781}{{\em Science} {\bfseries
376} no.~6589, (2022) 170--176}.
\bibitem{Davidson:2005cw}
S.~Davidson and H.~E. Haber, ``{Basis-independent methods for the
two-Higgs-doublet model},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.099902}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 72} (2005) 035004},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0504050}{[{\ttfamily hep-ph/0504050}]}.
[Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 099902 (2005)].
\bibitem{Gunion:2002zf}
J.~F. Gunion and H.~E. Haber, ``{The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The
Approach to the decoupling limit},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.075019}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 67} (2003) 075019},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207010}{[{\ttfamily hep-ph/0207010}]}.
\bibitem{Carena:2013ooa}
M.~Carena, I.~Low, N.~R. Shah, and C.~E.~M. Wagner, ``{Impersonating the
Standard Model Higgs Boson: Alignment without Decoupling},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2014)015}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 04}
(2014) 015}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2248}{[{\ttfamily 1310.2248}]}.
\bibitem{Dev:2014bir}
P.~S.~B. Dev and A.~Pilaftsis, ``{Maximally Symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model
with Natural Standard Model Alignment},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2014)024}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 12}
(2014) 024}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3405}{[{\ttfamily 1408.3405}]}.
[Erratum: JHEP 11, 147 (2015)].
\bibitem{Das:2015mwa}
D.~Das and I.~Saha, ``{Search for a stable alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet
models},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.095024}{{\em Phys.
Rev. D} {\bfseries 91} no.~9, (2015) 095024},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02135}{[{\ttfamily 1503.02135}]}.
\bibitem{Haller:2018nnx}
J.~Haller, A.~Hoecker, R.~Kogler, K.~M\"onig, T.~Peiffer, and J.~Stelzer,
``{Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet
models},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6131-3}{{\em Eur.
Phys. J. C} {\bfseries 78} no.~8, (2018) 675},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01853}{[{\ttfamily 1803.01853}]}.
\bibitem{Eberhardt:2020dat}
O.~Eberhardt, A.~P.~n. Mart\'\i{}nez, and A.~Pich, ``{Global fits in the
Aligned Two-Higgs-Doublet model},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2021)005}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 05}
(2021) 005}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09200}{[{\ttfamily
2012.09200}]}.
\bibitem{Karan:2023kyj}
A.~Karan, V.~Miralles, and A.~Pich, ``{Updated global fit of the ATHDM with
heavy scalars},'' \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15419}{[{\ttfamily
2307.15419}]}.
\bibitem{Alwall:2014hca}
J.~Alwall {\em et~al.}, ``{The automated computation of tree-level and
next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to
parton shower simulations},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 07}
(2014) 079}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0301}{[{\ttfamily 1405.0301}]}.
\bibitem{Manohar:2016nzj}
A.~Manohar, P.~Nason, G.~P. Salam, and G.~Zanderighi, ``{How bright is the
proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution
function},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.242002}{{\em
Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bfseries 117} no.~24, (2016) 242002},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04266}{[{\ttfamily 1607.04266}]}.
\bibitem{Manohar:2017eqh}
A.~V. Manohar, P.~Nason, G.~P. Salam, and G.~Zanderighi, ``{The Photon Content
of the Proton},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2017)046}{{\em JHEP}
{\bfseries 12} (2017) 046},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01256}{[{\ttfamily 1708.01256}]}.
\bibitem{Bertone:2017bme}
{\bfseries NNPDF} Collaboration, V.~Bertone, S.~Carrazza, N.~P. Hartland, and
J.~Rojo, ``{Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global PDF
analysis},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.1.008}{{\em
SciPost Phys.} {\bfseries 5} no.~1, (2018) 008},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07053}{[{\ttfamily 1712.07053}]}.
\bibitem{Catani:1993hr}
S.~Catani, Y.~L. Dokshitzer, M.~H. Seymour, and B.~R. Webber, ``{Longitudinally
invariant $K_t$ clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(93)90166-M}{{\em Nucl. Phys. B}
{\bfseries 406} (1993) 187--224}.
\bibitem{Leney}
K.~Leney, ``{Searches in the BSM Higgs sector}.''
\newblock
\url{https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/29681/contributions/122562/attachments/76697/111308/02-KLeney-V1.pdf}.
57th Rencontres de Moriond, Electroweak Interactions \& Unified Theories, La
Thuile, Italy (2023).
\bibitem{Primulando:2023ugc}
R.~Primulando, J.~Julio, N.~Srimanobhas, and P.~Uttayarat, ``{A new Higgs boson
with electron-muon flavor-violating couplings},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138129}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 845} (2023) 138129},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13757}{[{\ttfamily 2304.13757}]}.
\bibitem{Koivunen:2023led}
N.~Koivunen and M.~Raidal, ``{Production and decays of 146 GeV flavons into
e\ensuremath{\mu} final state at the LHC},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2023)014}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 11}
(2023) 014}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00014}{[{\ttfamily
2305.00014}]}.
\bibitem{Babu:2019mfe}
K.~S. Babu, P.~S.~B. Dev, S.~Jana, and A.~Thapa, ``{Non-Standard Interactions
in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2020)006}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 03}
(2020) 006}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09498}{[{\ttfamily
1907.09498}]}.
\bibitem{Lavoura:2003xp}
L.~Lavoura, ``{General formulae for f(1) ---\ensuremath{>} f(2) gamma},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2003-01212-7}{{\em Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 29} (2003) 191--195},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0302221}{[{\ttfamily hep-ph/0302221}]}.
\bibitem{MEG:2016leq}
{\bfseries MEG} Collaboration, A.~M. Baldini {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for the
lepton flavour violating decay $\mu ^+ \rightarrow \mathrm {e}^+ \gamma $
with the full dataset of the MEG experiment},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4271-x}{{\em Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 76} no.~8, (2016) 434},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05081}{[{\ttfamily 1605.05081}]}.
\bibitem{OPAL:2003kcu}
{\bfseries OPAL} Collaboration, G.~Abbiendi {\em et~al.}, ``{Tests of the
standard model and constraints on new physics from measurements of fermion
pair production at 189-GeV to 209-GeV at LEP},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2004-01595-9}{{\em Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 33} (2004) 173--212},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0309053}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/0309053}]}.
\bibitem{Electroweak:2003ram}
{\bfseries LEP, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD
Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavor Group} Collaboration, t.~S. Electroweak,
``{A Combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on
the standard model},'' \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0312023}{[{\ttfamily
hep-ex/0312023}]}.
\bibitem{Barman:2021xeq}
R.~K. Barman, R.~Dcruz, and A.~Thapa, ``{Neutrino masses and magnetic moments
of electron and muon in the Zee Model},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2022)183}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 03}
(2022) 183}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04523}{[{\ttfamily
2112.04523}]}.
\bibitem{Barklow:2015tja}
T.~Barklow, J.~Brau, K.~Fujii, J.~Gao, J.~List, N.~Walker, and K.~Yokoya,
``{ILC Operating Scenarios},''
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07830}{[{\ttfamily 1506.07830}]}.
\bibitem{Dev:2017ftk}
P.~S.~B. Dev, R.~N. Mohapatra, and Y.~Zhang, ``{Lepton Flavor Violation Induced
by a Neutral Scalar at Future Lepton Colliders},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.221804}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 120} no.~22, (2018) 221804},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08430}{[{\ttfamily 1711.08430}]}.
\bibitem{Dev:2018vpr}
P.~S.~B. Dev, R.~N. Mohapatra, and Y.~Zhang, ``{Probing TeV scale origin of
neutrino mass at future lepton colliders via neutral and doubly-charged
scalars},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.075028}{{\em Phys.
Rev. D} {\bfseries 98} no.~7, (2018) 075028},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.11167}{[{\ttfamily 1803.11167}]}.
\bibitem{Pontecorvo:1957cp}
B.~Pontecorvo, ``{Mesonium and anti-mesonium},'' {\em Sov. Phys. JETP}
{\bfseries 6} (1957) 429.
\url{http://jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_006_02_0429.pdf}.
\bibitem{Jentschura:1997tv}
U.~D. Jentschura, G.~Soff, V.~G. Ivanov, and S.~G. Karshenboim, ``{The Bound
mu+ mu- system},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.56.4483}{{\em
Phys. Rev. A} {\bfseries 56} (1997) 4483},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9706026}{[{\ttfamily physics/9706026}]}.
\bibitem{Clark:2003tv}
T.~E. Clark and S.~T. Love, ``{Muonium - anti-muonium oscillations and massive
Majorana neutrinos},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217732304013143}{{\em Mod.The second-order
weak correction to (g - 2) of the muon in arbitrary gauge models Phys. Lett.
A} {\bfseries 19} (2004) 297--306},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0307264}{[{\ttfamily hep-ph/0307264}]}.
\bibitem{Fukuyama:2021iyw}
T.~Fukuyama, Y.~Mimura, and Y.~Uesaka, ``{Models of the muonium to antimuonium
transition},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.015026}{{\em
Phys. Rev. D} {\bfseries 105} no.~1, (2022) 015026},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10736}{[{\ttfamily 2108.10736}]}.
\bibitem{Willmann:1998gd}
L.~Willmann {\em et~al.}, ``{New bounds from searching for muonium to
anti-muonium conversion},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.49}{{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 82} (1999) 49--52},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9807011}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/9807011}]}.
\bibitem{Bai:2022sxq}
A.-Y. Bai {\em et~al.}, ``{Snowmass2021 Whitepaper: Muonium to antimuonium
conversion},'' in {\em {Snowmass 2021}}.
\newblock 3, 2022.
\newblock \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11406}{[{\ttfamily 2203.11406}]}.
\bibitem{Conlin:2020veq}
R.~Conlin and A.~A. Petrov, ``{Muonium-antimuonium oscillations in effective
field theory},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001}{{\em
Phys. Rev. D} {\bfseries 102} no.~9, (2020) 095001},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10276}{[{\ttfamily 2005.10276}]}.
\bibitem{ALEPH:2001oot}
{\bfseries ALEPH} Collaboration, A.~Heister {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for scalar
leptons in e+ e- collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209-GeV},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01494-0}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 526} (2002) 206--220},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0112011}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/0112011}]}.
\bibitem{ALEPH:2003acj}
{\bfseries ALEPH} Collaboration, A.~Heister {\em et~al.}, ``{Absolute mass
lower limit for the lightest neutralino of the MSSM from e+ e- data at
s**(1/2) up to 209-GeV},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.12.066}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 583} (2004) 247--263}.
\bibitem{DELPHI:2003uqw}
{\bfseries DELPHI} Collaboration, J.~Abdallah {\em et~al.}, ``{Searches for
supersymmetric particles in e+ e- collisions up to 208-GeV and interpretation
of the results within the MSSM},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2003-01355-5}{{\em Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 31} (2003) 421--479},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0311019}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/0311019}]}.
\bibitem{L3:2003fyi}
{\bfseries L3} Collaboration, P.~Achard {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for scalar
leptons and scalar quarks at LEP},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.010}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 580} (2004) 37--49},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0310007}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/0310007}]}.
\bibitem{OPAL:2003nhx}
{\bfseries OPAL} Collaboration, G.~Abbiendi {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for
anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in
e+ e- collisions at s**(1/2) = 183-Gev to 209-GeV},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2003-01466-y}{{\em Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 32} (2004) 453--473},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0309014}{[{\ttfamily hep-ex/0309014}]}.
\bibitem{ATLAS:2019lff}
{\bfseries ATLAS} Collaboration, G.~Aad {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for electroweak
production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two
leptons and missing transverse momentum in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions
using the ATLAS detector},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7594-6}{{\em Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 80} no.~2, (2020) 123},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.08215}{[{\ttfamily 1908.08215}]}.
\bibitem{Peskin:1990zt}
M.~E. Peskin and T.~Takeuchi, ``{A New constraint on a strongly interacting
Higgs sector},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.964}{{\em
Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bfseries 65} (1990) 964--967}.
\bibitem{Peskin:1991sw}
M.~E. Peskin and T.~Takeuchi, ``{Estimation of oblique electroweak
corrections},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.381}{{\em Phys.
Rev. D} {\bfseries 46} (1992) 381--409}.
\bibitem{Maksymyk:1993zm}
I.~Maksymyk, C.~P. Burgess, and D.~London, ``{Beyond S, T and U},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.529}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 50} (1994) 529--535},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9306267}{[{\ttfamily hep-ph/9306267}]}.
\bibitem{Lu:2022bgw}
C.-T. Lu, L.~Wu, Y.~Wu, and B.~Zhu, ``{Electroweak precision fit and new
physics in light of the W boson mass},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.035034}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 106} no.~3, (2022) 035034},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.03796}{[{\ttfamily 2204.03796}]}.
\bibitem{ParticleDataGroup:2022pth}
{\bfseries Particle Data Group} Collaboration, R.~L. Workman {\em et~al.},
``{Review of Particle Physics},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptac097}{{\em PTEP} {\bfseries 2022}
(2022) 083C01}.
\bibitem{ATLAS:2018ojr}
{\bfseries ATLAS} Collaboration, M.~Aaboud {\em et~al.}, ``{Search for
electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with two
or three leptons at $\sqrt{s}=13\,$TeV with the ATLAS detector},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6423-7}{{\em Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 78} no.~12, (2018) 995},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.02762}{[{\ttfamily 1803.02762}]}.
\bibitem{Ilisie:2015tra}
V.~Ilisie, ``{New Barr-Zee contributions to $\mathbf{(g-2)_\mu}$ in
two-Higgs-doublet models},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)077}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 04}
(2015) 077}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04199}{[{\ttfamily
1502.04199}]}.
\bibitem{Coloma:2023ixt}
P.~Coloma, M.~C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M.~Maltoni, J.~a.~P. Pinheiro, and S.~Urrea,
``{Global constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions with quarks and
electrons},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2023)032}{{\em JHEP}
{\bfseries 08} (2023) 032},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07698}{[{\ttfamily 2305.07698}]}.
\bibitem{IceCube:2022pbe}
{\bfseries IceCube} Collaboration, R.~Abbasi {\em et~al.}, ``{Non-standard
neutrino interactions in IceCube},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.22323/1.398.0245}{{\em PoS} {\bfseries
EPS-HEP2021} (2022) 245}.
\bibitem{Leveille:1977rc}
J.~P. Leveille, ``{The Second Order Weak Correction to (G-2) of the Muon in
Arbitrary Gauge Models},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(78)90051-2}{{\em Nucl. Phys. B}
{\bfseries 137} (1978) 63--76}.
\bibitem{Lindner:2016bgg}
M.~Lindner, M.~Platscher, and F.~S. Queiroz, ``{A Call for New Physics : The
Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Lepton Flavor Violation},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.001}{{\em Phys. Rept.}
{\bfseries 731} (2018) 1--82},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06587}{[{\ttfamily 1610.06587}]}.
\bibitem{Aoyama:2020ynm}
T.~Aoyama {\em et~al.}, ``{The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the
Standard Model},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006}{{\em Phys. Rept.}
{\bfseries 887} (2020) 1--166},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04822}{[{\ttfamily 2006.04822}]}.
\bibitem{Borsanyi:2020mff}
S.~Borsanyi {\em et~al.}, ``{Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic
moment from lattice QCD},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1}{{\em Nature} {\bfseries
593} no.~7857, (2021) 51--55},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.12347}{[{\ttfamily 2002.12347}]}.
\bibitem{Ce:2022kxy}
M.~C\`e {\em et~al.}, ``{Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization
contribution to the muon g-2 from lattice QCD},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.114502}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 106} no.~11, (2022) 114502},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.06582}{[{\ttfamily 2206.06582}]}.
\bibitem{ExtendedTwistedMass:2022jpw}
{\bfseries Extended Twisted Mass} Collaboration, C.~Alexandrou {\em et~al.},
``{Lattice calculation of the short and intermediate time-distance hadronic
vacuum polarization contributions to the muon magnetic moment using
twisted-mass fermions},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.074506}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 107} no.~7, (2023) 074506},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.15084}{[{\ttfamily 2206.15084}]}.
\bibitem{Bazavov:2023has}
{\bfseries Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD,, MILC} Collaboration, A.~Bazavov {\em
et~al.}, ``{Light-quark connected intermediate-window contributions to the
muon g-2 hadronic vacuum polarization from lattice QCD},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.114514}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 107} no.~11, (2023) 114514},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08274}{[{\ttfamily 2301.08274}]}.
\bibitem{Blum:2023qou}
{\bfseries RBC, UKQCD} Collaboration, T.~Blum {\em et~al.}, ``{Update of
Euclidean windows of the hadronic vacuum polarization},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054507}{{\em Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 108} no.~5, (2023) 054507},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08696}{[{\ttfamily 2301.08696}]}.
\bibitem{Wittig:2023pcl}
H.~Wittig, ``{Progress on $(g-2)_\mu$ from Lattice QCD},'' in {\em {57th
Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories}}.
\newblock 6, 2023.
\newblock \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.04165}{[{\ttfamily 2306.04165}]}.
\bibitem{ZurbanoFernandez:2020cco}
I.~Zurbano~Fernandez {\em et~al.},
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.23731/CYRM-2020-0010}{``{High-Luminosity Large
Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report},''} tech. rep., CERN,
Geneva, 12, 2020.
\bibitem{CMS:2023yay}
{\bfseries CMS} Collaboration, ``{Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson
in the mass range between 70 and 110$~\mathrm{GeV}$ in the diphoton final
state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mathrm{TeV}$},''.
CMS-PAS-HIG-20-002.
\bibitem{CMS:2022goy}
{\bfseries CMS} Collaboration, A.~Tumasyan {\em et~al.}, ``{Searches for
additional Higgs bosons and for vector leptoquarks in $\tau\tau$ final states
in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2023)073}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 07}
(2023) 073}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02717}{[{\ttfamily
2208.02717}]}.
\bibitem{Biekotter:2023jld}
T.~Biek\"otter, S.~Heinemeyer, and G.~Weiglein, ``{The CMS di-photon excess at
95 GeV in view of the LHC Run 2 results},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138217}{{\em Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 846} (2023) 138217},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12018}{[{\ttfamily 2303.12018}]}.
\bibitem{Azevedo:2023zkg}
D.~Azevedo, T.~Biek\"otter, and P.~M. Ferreira, ``{2HDM interpretations of the
CMS diphoton excess at 95 GeV},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2023)017}{{\em JHEP} {\bfseries 11}
(2023) 017}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19716}{[{\ttfamily
2305.19716}]}.
\bibitem{Escribano:2023hxj}
P.~Escribano, V.~M. Lozano, and A.~Vicente, ``{Scotogenic explanation for the
95~GeV excesses},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.115001}{{\em
Phys. Rev. D} {\bfseries 108} no.~11, (2023) 115001},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03735}{[{\ttfamily 2306.03735}]}.
\bibitem{Biekotter:2023oen}
T.~Biek\"otter, S.~Heinemeyer, and G.~Weiglein, ``{The 95.4 GeV di-photon
excess at ATLAS and CMS},''
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03889}{[{\ttfamily 2306.03889}]}.
\bibitem{Bhattacharya:2023lmu}
S.~Bhattacharya, G.~Coloretti, A.~Crivellin, S.-E. Dahbi, Y.~Fang, M.~Kumar,
and B.~Mellado, ``{Growing Excesses of New Scalars at the Electroweak
Scale},'' \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17209}{[{\ttfamily 2306.17209}]}.
\bibitem{Zee:1980ai}
A.~Zee, ``{A Theory of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, and
Oscillation},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(80)90349-4}{{\em
Phys. Lett. B} {\bfseries 93} (1980) 389}. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 95, 461
(1980)].
\bibitem{Roussy:2022cmp}
T.~S. Roussy {\em et~al.}, ``{An improved bound on the
electron\textquoteright{}s electric dipole moment},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.adg4084}{{\em Science} {\bfseries
381} (2023) 46}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11841}{[{\ttfamily
2212.11841}]}.
\bibitem{Fan:2022eto}
X.~Fan, T.~G. Myers, B.~A.~D. Sukra, and G.~Gabrielse, ``{Measurement of the
Electron Magnetic Moment},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.071801}{{\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bfseries 130} no.~7, (2023) 071801},
\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13084}{[{\ttfamily 2209.13084}]}.
\bibitem{Aoyama:2019ryr}
T.~Aoyama, T.~Kinoshita, and M.~Nio, ``{Theory of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment
of the Electron},'' \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atoms7010028}{{\em Atoms}
{\bfseries 7} no.~1, (2019) 28}.
\bibitem{Morel:2020dww}
L.~Morel, Z.~Yao, P.~Clad\'e, and S.~Guellati-Kh\'elifa, ``{Determination of
the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2964-7}{{\em Nature} {\bfseries
588} no.~7836, (2020) 61--65}.
\bibitem{Parker:2018vye}
R.~H. Parker, C.~Yu, W.~Zhong, B.~Estey, and H.~M\"uller, ``{Measurement of the
fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model},''
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aap7706}{{\em Science} {\bfseries
360} (2018) 191}, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04130}{[{\ttfamily
1812.04130}]}.
\end{thebibliography}\endgroup