**The Physics of the Higgs-like Boson**

Antonio Pich1,a

1_{Departament de Física Teòrica, IFIC, Universitat de València – CSIC, Apt. Correus 22085, 46071 València, Spain}

Abstract.The present knowledge on the Higgs-like boson discovered at the LHC is summarized. The data accu-mulated so far are consistent with the Standard Model predictions and put interesting constraints on alternative scenarios of electroweak symmetry breaking. The measured couplings to gauge bosons and third-generation fermions indicate that a Higgs particle has indeed been found. More precise data are needed to clarify whether it is the unique Higgs boson of the Standard Model or the first member of a new variety of dynamical (either elementary or composite) fields.

**1 Introduction**

The data accumulated so far [1–5] confirm the Higgs-like
nature [6–9] of the new boson discovered at the LHC, with
a spin/parity consistent with the Standard Model (SM)
0+ assignment [10–12]. The observation of its 2γ
de-cay mode demonstrates that it is a boson with J , 1,
while the JP = 0− and 2+ hypotheses have been
al-ready excluded at confidence levels above 99%, analysing
the distribution of its decay products. The masses
mea-sured by ATLAS (MH =125.5±0.2+_{−}0_{0}._{.}5_{6} GeV) and CMS
(MH = 125.7±0.3±0.3 GeV) are in good agreement,
giving the average value

MH=125.64±0.35 GeV. (1)

Although its properties are not well measured yet, it complies with the expected behaviour and, therefore, it is a very compelling candidate to be the SM Higgs. An ob-vious question to address is whether it corresponds to the unique Higgs boson incorporated in the SM, or it is just the first signal of a much richer scenario of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB). Obvious possibilities are an extended scalar sector with additional fields or dynamical (non-perturbative) EWSB generated by some new under-lying dynamics. While more experimental analyses are needed to assess the actual nature of this boson, the present data give already very important clues, constraining its couplings in a quite significant way.

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the LHC findings represent a truly fundamental discovery with far reaching implications. If it is an elementary scalar (the first one), one would have established the existence of a bosonic field (interaction) which is not a gauge force. If it is instead a composite object, there should be a completely new under-lying interaction.

a_{e-mail: Antonio.Pich@ific.uv.es}

Figure 1.SM scalar potential. The Goldstone (~ϕ) and Higgs (H) fields parameterize the directions indicated by the arrows.

**2 Standard Model Higgs Mechanism**

A massless (massive) spin-1 gauge boson has two (three)
polarizations. To generate the missing longitudinal
polar-izations of theW±_{and}_{Z}_{bosons, without breaking gauge}
invariance, one needs to incorporate three additional
de-grees of freedom. The SM adds a complex scalar doublet

Φ(x) = exp

_{i}

v~σ·~ϕ(x)

_{1}

√ 2

"

0 v+H(x)

# , (2)

with a non-trivial potential generating the wanted EWSB:

Lφ = (DµΦ)†DµΦ−λ |Φ|2−v 2

2

!2 +λ

4v

4_{.} _{(3)}

In the unitary gauge, ~ϕ(x)=~0, the three Goldstone fields are removed and the SM Lagrangian describes massiveW± andZ fields; their masses being generated by the deriva-tive term in (3): MW = MZcosθW = gv/2. A massive scalar field H(x), the Higgs, remains because Φ(x) con-tains a fourth degree of freedom, which is not needed for the EWSB. The scalar doublet structure provides a renor-malizable model with good unitarity properties.

© Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2013

** [GeV]**

**t**

**m**

**140** **150** **160** **170** **180** **190** **200**

** [GeV]**

**W**

**M**

**80.25**
**80.3**
**80.35**
**80.4**
**80.45**
**80.5**

**=50 GeV**

**H**

**M** **MH=125.7** **MH=300 GeV** **MH=600 GeV**

σ

** 1**

±

** Tevatron average **
**kin**

**t**
**m**

σ

** 1**

±

** world average **
**W**

**M**

**=50 GeV**

**H**

**M** **MH=125.7** **MH=300 GeV** **MH=600 GeV**

**68% and 95% CL fit contours **
** measurements**
**t**
** and m**
**W**
**w/o M**

**68% and 95% CL fit contours **
** measurements**

**H**

** and M**

**t**

**, m**

**W**

**w/o M**

GfitterSM

May 1

3

Figure 2. SM electroweak fit in themt–MW plane, with (blue)

and without (gray) the Higgs mass, compared with the direct measurements of the top andWmasses (green) [13].

While the vacuum expectation value (the electroweak scale) was already known,v = (√2GF)−1/2 = 246 GeV, the measured Higgs mass determines the last free parame-ter of the SM, the quartic scalar coupling:

λ = M

2

H

2v2 = 0.13. (4)

As shown in figure 2, the measured Higgs mass is in beau-tiful agreement with the expectations from global fits to precision electroweak data [13].

Quantum corrections toM_{H}2 are dominated by positive
contributions from heavy top loops, which grow
logarith-mically with the renormalization scaleµ. Since the
physi-cal value ofMHis fixed, the tree-level contribution 2v2λ(µ)
decreases with increasingµ. Figure 3 shows the evolution
of λ(µ) up to the Planck scale (MPl = 1.2×1019 GeV),

varying mt, αs(MZ) and MH by ±3σ [14]. The Higgs quartic coupling remains weak in the entire energy do-main below MPl and crosses λ = 0 at very high

ener-gies around 1010 GeV. The values of MH andmt appear to be very close to those needed for absolute stability of the potential (λ > 0) up to MPl, which would require

MH>(129.6±1.5) GeV [14, 15] (±5.6 GeV if more con-servative uncertainties on the top mass are adopted [16]). Moreover, even ifλbecomes slightly negative at very high energies, the resulting potential instability leads to an elec-troweak vacuum lifetime much larger than any relevant as-trophysical or cosmological scale. Thus, the Higgs and top masses result in a metastable vacuum [14, 15] and the SM could be valid up to MPl. The possibility of some

new-physics threshold at scalesΛ∼MPl, leading to the

match-ing conditionλ(Λ)=0, is obviously intriguing.

**3 Higgs Signal Strengths**

The data on the Higgs-like boson are conveniently ex-pressed in terms of the so-called Higgs signal strengths, which measure the product of the Higgs production cross section times its decay branching ratio into a given fi-nal state, in units of the corresponding SM prediction: µ ≡ σ·Br/(σSM·BrSM). Thus, the SM corresponds to

102 _{10}4 _{10}6 _{10}8 _{10}10 _{10}12 _{10}14 _{10}16 _{10}18 _{10}20

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

RGE scaleΜin GeV

Higgs

quartic

coupling

Λ

3Σbands in

*Mt*=173.4± 0.7 GeVHgrayL
Α3HM*Z*L=0.1184±0.0007HredL

*Mh*=125.7± 0.3 GeVHblueL

*Mt*=171.4 GeV

Α*s*H*MZ*L=0.1163

Α*s*H*MZ*L=0.1205

*Mt*=175.3 GeV

Figure 3.Evolution ofλ(µ) with the renormalization scale [14].

Table 1.Measured Higgs Signal Strengths [2, 4, 5].

Decay Mode ATLAS CMS Tevatron

H→bb 0.2+_{−}0_{0}._{.}7_{6} 1.15±0.62 1.59+_{−}0_{0}._{.}69_{72}
H→ττ 0.7+0.7

−0.6 1.10±0.41 1.68+ 2.28

−1.68

H→γγ 1.55+_{−}0_{0}._{.}33_{28} 0.77±0.27 5.97+_{−}3_{3}._{.}39_{12}
H→WW∗ _{0}_{.}_{99}+0.31

−0.28 0.68±0.20 0.94+ 0.85

−0.83

H→ZZ∗ 1.43+0.40

−0.35 0.92±0.28

Combined 1.23±0.18 0.80±0.14 1.44+0.59

−0.56

µ=1. Table 1 summarizes the present ATLAS [2], CMS [4] and Tevatron [5] results. The new boson appears to couple to the known gauge bosons (W±, Z,γ, Ga) with the strength expected for the SM Higgs. A slight excess of events (2σ) in the 2γdecay channel is observed by AT-LAS, but the CMS data no-longer confirm this trend. The global LHC (world) average,

µ = 0.96±0.11 (0.98±0.11), (5)

is in perfect agreement with the SM.

The sensitivity to the different Higgs couplings is in-creased disentangling the different production channels: gluon fusion (GG → tt¯ → H), vector-boson fusion (VV → H,V =W,Z) and associatedV H orttH¯ produc-tion. At the LHC, the dominant contribution comes from the gluon-fusion mechanism which gives access to the top Yukawa. Evidence for vector-boson fusion production has been already reported with a significance above 3σ. Com-plementary information is provided by the Tevatron data, specially in theV H→Vbb¯mode.

The agreement of the measured Higgs production cross section with the SM prediction confirms the exis-tence of a top Yukawa coupling with the expected size. Moreover, it excludes the presence of additional fermionic contributions to gluon-fusion production. A fourth quark generation would increase the cross section by a factor of nine, and much larger enhancements (∼ 4T2

R/T

2

### G

### G

## X

_{H}

∼ 8 X

a=1

Tr_{t}a
Rt

a R

= _{8T}

R

Figure 4.GG→Hproduction through a heavy fermion loop.

H

γ

γ

W± t _{H}±

Figure 5.One-loop contributions toH→γγ.

result from exotic fermions in higher-colour representa-tions, coupled to the Higgs [17]. Thus, the present Higgs data exclude a fourth SM generation [5, 18, 19], while exotic strongly-interacting fermions could only exist pro-vided their masses are not generated by the SM Higgs [17] (or with fine-tuned cancelations with scalar loops).

The decay H → γγoccurs in the SM through inter-mediateW+W−andtt¯triangular loops, which interfere de-structively. Therefore, it is sensitive to new physics contri-butions such as the charged-scalar loop shown in figure 5. The decay width roughly scales as

Γ(H→γγ) ∼

−8.4κW+1.8κt+CNP 2

, (6)

whereκ_{W}andκtdenote theHW+W−andHt¯tcouplings in
SM units, andC_{NP} accounts for any additional decay
am-plitude beyond the SM. An enhanced rate with respect to
the SM prediction (κ_{W} =κt = 1,CNP =0) could be

ob-tained either flipping the relative sign of theW±_{and top}
amplitudes (κ_{W}κt < 0) or through an additional
contribu-tion withCNP <0. Many models have been discussed to

explain the 2γexcess in this way, but the present disagree-ment between ATLAS and CMS does not allow to extract significant conclusions.

Taking world averages (LHC and Tevatron) for the Higgs signal strengths in the different decay and produc-tion channels, the SM provides a perfect descripproduc-tion of the experimental data. A fit to the measured rates gives MH=(124.5±1.7) GeV [20], which agrees with the value extracted from the peak position in Eq. (1). The fermionic (τ, b, t) and bosonic (W±, Z) couplings of the H boson seem compatible with a linear and quadratic, respectively, dependence with their masses, scaled by the electroweak scale. Fitting the data with the parameterization

λf = √

2

m_{f}

M

1+

, g_{HVV} = 2

M2(1_{V} +)

M1+2 , (7)

leads to [21]

= −0.022_{−}+0_{0}_{.}.042_{021}, M = 244+_{−}20_{10}GeV, (8)

**ò**
**ò**
**ø**
**ø**

**ø**** : SM**

**ò**** : Fit**

**Χ****2**_{/dof =0.66}

**0.0** **0.2** **0.4** **0.6** **0.8** **1.0** **1.2** **1.4**
**-****2**

**-****1**
**0**
**1**
**2**

**a**
**c**

Figure 6.Two-parameter fit to the Higgs signal strengths, at 68% (orange), 90% (yellow) and 99% (gray) CL [22].

in excellent agreement with the SM values=0 andM= v = 246 GeV. Thus,H has the properties expected for a Higgs-like particle, related with the EWSB.

Figure 6 [22] shows an equivalent two-parameter fit in terms of the more usual a = κV andc = κF parame-terization of the bosonic and fermionic couplings in SM units; i.e., the HW+W− and HZZ couplings of the SM are rescaled with a common factor a and all fermionic Yukawas are multiplied byc. One obtains [22],

a = 1.01±0.07, c = 0.97+_{−}0_{0}._{.}20_{17}. (9)

The SM pointa =c=1 is right at the center of the 68% CL region. A second solution with a flipped Yukawa sign appears only at 99% CL; the confidence level of this solu-tion increases to 68% if only the ATLAS data is included in the fit, owing to the enhancedH→γγrate.

**4 Two-Higgs Doublet Models**

Two-Higgs-doublet models provide a minimal extension
of the SM scalar sector that naturally accommodates the
electroweak precision tests. The enlarged scalar
spec-trum contains one charged (H±_{) and three neutral (}_{ϕ}0

i = {h,H,A}) Higgs bosons. In full generality, one can choose a basis in the scalar space so that only the first doublet acquires a vacuum expectation value, playing the role of the SM scalar doublet with one Higgs-like CP-even neu-tral field (S1) and the 3 Goldstones. The second doublet

contains theH±boson and two neutral fields, one of them CP-even (S2) and the other CP-odd (S3). The neutral mass

eigenstatesϕ0

Figure 7.Allowed 68% and 90% CL regions in theyh u–y

h dplane

[22, 23], within the CP-conserving A2HDM. The small black areas correspond to the usual type II model at 90% CL.

Sinceg_{ϕ}0

iVV=Ri1g SM

HVV, the strength of the SM gauge coupling is shared by the three neutral scalars:

g2

hVV+g

2

HVV+g

2

AVV =

gSM

HVV

2

. (10)

Therefore, the gauge coupling of each scalar is predicted to
be smaller than the SM one (gAVV =0 if CP is conserved).
Generic multi-Higgs doublet models give rise to
un-wanted flavour-changing neutral-current (FCNC)
interac-tions, through non-diagonal couplings of neutral scalars
to fermions. The tree-level FCNCs can be eliminated,
re-quiring the alignment in flavour space of the two Yukawa
matrices coupling to a given right-handed fermion state.
The Yukawa couplings of the aligned two-Higgs-doublet
model (A2HDM) [24] are fully characterized by the three
complex alignment parametersς_{f} (f =u,d, `), which
pro-vide new sources of CP violation. For particular (real)
values ofς_{f}, one recovers the usual models with natural
flavour conservation, based on discreteZ2symmetries.

Let us assume the 126 GeV boson to be the light-est neutral state h. Neglecting CP-violation effects, its fermionic and gauge couplings are given, in SM Higgs units, by

κf = yhf = cos ˜α+ςf sin ˜α , κV = cos ˜α . (11)

A global fit to the Higgs data [22, 23], obeying the known flavour constraints [25], results in four possible regions in the (yh

u, yhd, y h

`) space, which in figure 7 are projected into the plane yh

u–yhd. Since the H

± _{contribution to} _{h} _{→} _{2}_{γ}

has been assumed to be negligible, the fit requires the top
andW±amplitudes to have the same relative sign as in the
SM;i.e.,κt ≡κuandκV are forced to have identical signs.
Moreover, |cos ˜α| > 0.80 at 90% CL. The figure shows
also how the allowed regions shrink in the particular case
of the type II model (ς_{d}_{,`} = −1/ςu = −tanβ), usually
assumed in the literature and realized in minimal
super-symmetric scenarios. This clearly illustrates that there is
a much wider range of open phenomenological
possibil-ities waiting to be explored. The couplings of the
miss-ing Higgs bosons H±_{,}_{H} _{and}_{A, and therefore their }
phe-nomenology, are very different in each of the allowed
re-gions shown in figure 7 [22, 23].

**5 Custodial Symmetry**

It is convenient to collect the SM Higgs doubletΦand its
charge-conjugateΦc_{=}_{i}_{σ}_{2Φ}∗_{into the 2}_{×}_{2 matrix}

Σ ≡ (Φc,Φ) = Φ

0∗ _{Φ}_{+}

−Φ− Φ0 !

= √1 2

(v+H)U(~ϕ),

(12) where the 3 Goldstone bosons are parameterized through

U(~ϕ) ≡ exp

_{i}

v~σ·~ϕ(x)

. (13)

Dropping the constant term λv4_{/}_{4, the SM scalar }

La-grangian (3) takes the form

L_{φ} = 1
2 Tr

h

(DµΣ)†DµΣi− λ 16

TrhΣ†Σi−v22

= v2

4 Tr

h

(DµU)†DµUi + O(H/v). (14)

This expression makes manifest the existence of a global SU(2)L⊗SU(2)R symmetry (Σ→ gLΣg

†

R,gX ∈ SU(2)X) which is broken by the vacuum to the diagonal SU(2)L+R. The SM promotes the SU(2)Lto a local gauge symmetry, while only the U(1)Y subgroup of SU(2)Ris gauged; thus, the SU(2)Rsymmetry is explicitly broken atO(g0) through the U(1)Yinteraction in the covariant derivative. The sec-ond line in (14), without the Higgs field, is the generic Goldstone Lagrangian associated with this type of symme-try breaking, which is responsible for the successful gen-eration of the W± andZ masses. The same Lagrangian describes the low-energy chiral dynamics of the QCD pi-ons, with the notational changesv→ fπand~ϕ→~π.

**6 Strongly-Coupled Scenarios**

The recently discovered boson could be a first experimen-tal signal of a new strongly-interacting sector: the light-est state of a large variety of new resonances of diff er-ent types as happens in QCD. Among the many possibil-ities (technicolour, walking technicolour, conformal tech-nicolour, higher dimensions . . . ), the relatively light mass of the discovered Higgs candidate has boosted the interest on strongly-coupled scenarios with a composite pseudo-Goldstone Higgs boson [26], where the Higgs mass is pro-tected by an approximate global symmetry and is only generated via quantum effects. A simple example is pro-vided by the popular SO(5)/SO(4) minimal composite Higgs model [27, 28]. Another possibility would be to interpret the Higgs-like scalar as a dilaton, the pseudo-Goldstone boson associated with the spontaneous break-ing of scale invariance at some scale fϕv[29–32].

The dynamics of Goldstones and massive resonances can be analyzed in a model-independent way by using a low-energy effective Lagrangian based on the known pat-tern of EWSB, SU(2)L⊗SU(2)R →SU(2)L+R. To lowest order in derivatives and number of resonance fields [33],

L = v

2

4 Tr

h

(DµU)†DµUi 1+2ω v H

!

(15)

+ FA 2

√ 2Tr

h

Aµνf−µν

i + FV

2 √

2Tr

h

The first term gives the (gauged) Goldstone Lagrangian,
plus their interactions with the SU(2)L+R singlet
Higgs-like particle H. For ω = 1 one recovers the Hϕϕ
ver-tex of the SM;i.e., the SM Higgs coupling to the gauge
bosons (ω = a = κV). The effective Lagrangian also
in-corporates the lightest vector and axial-vector resonance
multipletsVµν andAµνwith masses MV andMA. TheFV
andFAterms couple these resonances with the gauge and
Goldstone fields through f_{±}µν.

We have already seen in Eq. (9) that the LHC data requires ω to be within 10% of its SM value. A much stronger constraint is obtained from the measured Z and W±self-energies [33–35], which are modified by the pres-ence of massive resonance states coupled to the gauge bosons. The effect is characterized by the so-called oblique parameters [36]; the global fit to electroweak pre-cision data determines the values S = 0.03±0.10 and T =0.05±0.12 [13]. S receives tree-level contributions from vector and axial-vector exchanges, whileT is iden-tically zero at lowest-order (it measures the breaking of custodial symmetry).

Imposing a good short-distance behaviour of the eff
ec-tive theory,1_{the tree-level contribution to}_{S} _{is determined}

by the resonance masses. The experimental constraint on S implies that MV,A are larger than 1.8 (2.4) TeV at 95% (68%) CL. Thus, strongly-coupled models of EWSB should have a quite high dynamical mass scale. While this was often considered to be an undesirable property, it fits very well with the LHC findings which are pushing the scale of new physics beyond the TeV region. It also jus-tifies our approximation of only considering the lightest resonance multiplets. The NLO contributions toS from ϕϕ,VϕandAϕloops are small and make slightly stronger the lower bound on the resonance mass scale [33].

Much more important is the presence of a light scalar
resonance withMH=126 GeV. Although it does not
con-tribute at LO, there exist sizeableHB (Hϕ) loop
contri-butions toT (S), which are proportional to ω2 _{(B}_{is the}

U(1)Y gauge field). Figure 8 compares the NLO theo-retical predictions with the experimental bounds [33]. At 68% (95%) CL, one getsω∈ [0.97,1] ([0.94,1]), in nice agreement with the present LHC evidence but much more restrictive. Moreover, the vector and axial-vector states should be very heavy (and quite degenerate); one finds MA ≈MV >5 TeV (4 TeV) at 68% (95%) CL [33].

These conclusions are quite generic, since only rely
on mild assumptions about the ultraviolet behaviour of
the underlying strongly-coupled theory, and can be easily
particularized to more specific models. The dilaton
cou-pling to the electroweak bosons corresponds toω =v/fϕ,
which makes this scenario quite unlikely. More plausible
could be the pseudo-Goldstone Higgs identification. In the
SO(5)/SO(4) minimal models,ω=(1−v2_{/}_{f}2

ϕ)1/2[27, 28] with fϕ the typical scale of the Goldstone bosons of the

1_{One requires the validity of the two Weinberg sum rules [37], which}

are known to be true in asymptotically-free gauge theories. The results are slightly softened if one only imposes the first sum rule, which is also valid in gauge theories with non-trivial ultraviolet fixed points.

*MV*

Ω

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

-0.4

-0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4

**S**

**T**

Figure 8.NLO determination ofS andT. The grid lines corre-spond toMV values from 1.5 to 6.0 TeV, at intervals of 0.5 TeV,

andω=0,0.25,0.5,0.75,1. The arrows indicate the directions of growingMV andω. The ellipses give the experimentally

al-lowed regions at 68%, 95% and 99% CL [33].

strong sector, which is then tightly constrained by elec-troweak (and LHC) data.

Thus, strongly-coupled electroweak models are al-lowed by current data provided the resonance mass scale stays above the TeV and the light Higgs-like boson has a gauge coupling close to the SM one. This has obvious implications for future LHC studies, since it leads to a SM-like scenario. A possible way out would be the existence of additional light scalar degrees of freedom, sharing the strength of the SM gauge coupling as happens in (weakly-coupled) two-Higgs-doublet models.

Values ofω ,1 lead to tree-level unitarity violations in the scattering of two longitudinal gauge bosons. The present experimental constraints on ωimply already that the perturbative unitarity bound is only reached at very high energies above 3 TeV. Unitarity violations could also originate from anomalous gauge self-interactions, which are again bounded by collider data [38]. A recent study of the implications of unitarity in the strongly-interacting electroweak context has been given in Ref. [39].

**7 Discussion**

The successful discovery of a boson state at the LHC brings a renewed perspective in particle physics. The new boson behaves indeed as the SM Higgs and its mass fits very well with the expectations from global fits to preci-sion electroweak data. Thus, the SM appears to be the right theory at the electroweak scale and all its parameters and fields have been finally determined. In fact, with the measured Higgs and top masses, the SM could be a valid theory up to the Planck scale.

missing. The dynamics of flavour and the origin of CP vi-olation are also related to the mass generation. The Higgs-like boson could be a window into unknown dynamical territory. Thus, its properties must be analyzed with high precision to uncover any possible deviation from the SM. The present data are already putting stringent constraints on alternative scenarios of EWSB and pushing the scale of new physics to higher energies. How far this scale could be is an open question of obvious experimental relevance. If new physics exits at some scaleΛNP, quantum cor-rections of the type δM2

H ∼ g

2_{/}_{(4}_{π}_{)}2_{Λ}2
NPlog (Λ

2 NP/M

2

H) could bringMH to the heavy scaleΛNP. Which symme-try keeps MHaway fromΛNP? Fermion masses are pro-tected by chiral symmetry, while gauge symmetry protects the gauge boson masses; those particles are massless when the symmetry becomes exact. Supersymmetry was origi-nally advocated to protect the Higgs mass, but according to present data this no-longer works ‘naturally’. Another possibility would be scale symmetry, which is broken by the Higgs mass; a naive dilaton is basically ruled out, but there could be an underlying conformal theory atΛNP. Dy-namical EWSB with light pseudo-Goldstone particles at low energies remains also a viable scenario. Future dis-coveries at the LHC should bring a better understanding of the correct dynamics above the electroweak scale.

**Acknowledgments**

I would like to thank A. Celis and V. Ilisie for their help and useful comments. This work has been supported in part by the Spanish Government and EU funds for re-gional development [grants FPA2007-60323, FPA2011-23778 and CSD2007-00042 (Consolider Project CPAN)], and the Generalitat Valenciana [PrometeoII/2013/007].

**References**

[1] ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]].

[2] ATLAS Collaboration„ arXiv:1307.1427 [hep-ex]; ATLAS-CONF-2013-079 (July 19, 2013).

[3] CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]].

[4] CMS Collaboration, JHEP 06 (2013) 081 [arXiv:1303.4571 [hep-ex]]; CMS-PAS-HIG-13-005 (April 17, 2013).

[5] CDF and D0 Collaborations, Phys. Rev. Lett.

109 (2012) 071804 [arXiv:1207.6436 [hep-ex]]; arXiv:1303.6346 [hep-ex].

[6] P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 508; Phys. Lett.12(1964) 132; Phys. Rev.145(1966) 1156. [7] F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964)

321.

[8] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 585.

[9] T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev.155(1967) 1554. [10] ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1307.1432 [hep-ex]. [11] CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013)

081803 [arXiv:1212.6639 [hep-ex]].

[12] D0 Collaboration, D0 Note 6387-CONF (July 22, 2013).

[13] M. Baak et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2205 [arXiv:1209.2716 [hep-ph]]; http://gfitter.desy.de/. [14] D. Buttazzoet al., arXiv:1307.3536 [hep-ph]. [15] G. Degrassi et al., JHEP 1208 (2012) 098

[arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]].

[16] S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi and S. Moch, Phys. Lett. B

716(2012) 214 [arXiv:1207.0980 [hep-ph]]. [17] V. Ilisie and A. Pich, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 033001

[arXiv:1202.3420 [hep-ph]].

[18] G. Aadet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C

71(2011) 1728 [arXiv:1106.2748 [hep-ex]]. [19] S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys.

Lett. B725(2013) 36 [arXiv:1302.1764 [hep-ex]]. [20] P. P. Giardinoet al., arXiv:1303.3570 [hep-ph]. [21] J. Ellis and T. You, JHEP 1306 (2013) 103

[arXiv:1303.3879 [hep-ph]].

[22] A. Celis, V. Ilisie and A. Pich, to appear.

[23] A. Celis, V. Ilisie and A. Pich, JHEP1307(2013) 053 [arXiv:1302.4022 [hep-ph]].

[24] A. Pich and P. Tuzón, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 091702 [arXiv:0908.1554 [hep-ph]].

[25] M. Jung, A. Pich and P. Tuzón, JHEP1011(2010) 003 [arXiv:1006.0470 [hep-ph]].

[26] J. R. Espinosa, C. Grojean and M. Muhlleitner, JHEP

1005(2010) 065 [arXiv:1003.3251 [hep-ph]]. [27] K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys.

B719(2005) 165 [hep-ph/0412089].

[28] R. Contino, L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 055014 [hep-ph/0612048].

[29] W. D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein and W. Skiba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 111802 [arXiv:0708.1463 [hep-ph]].

[30] S. Matsuzaki and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D 86

(2012) 115004 [arXiv:1209.2017 [hep-ph]]; Phys. Lett. B719(2013) 378 [arXiv:1207.5911 [hep-ph]]. [31] B. Bellazziniet al., Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2333

[arXiv:1209.3299 [hep-ph]].

[32] Z. Chacko, R. Franceschini and R. K. Mishra, JHEP

1304(2013) 015 [arXiv:1209.3259 [hep-ph]]. [33] A. Pich, I. Rosell and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 110 (2013) 181801 [arXiv:1212.6769 [hep-ph]]; JHEP1208(2012) 106 [arXiv:1206.3454 [hep-ph]]; arXiv:1307.1958 [hep-ph].

[34] J. R. Espinosa et al., JHEP 1205 (2012) 097 [arXiv:1202.3697 [hep-ph]].

[35] A. Falkowski, F. Riva and A. Urbano, arXiv:1303.1812 [hep-ph].

[36] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65

(1990) 964; Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 381. [37] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.18(1967) 507. [38] T. Corbett et al., arXiv:1304.1151 [hep-ph].

arXiv:1306.0006 [hep-ph].