# Additional Higgs Bosons near 95 and 650 GeV in the NMSSM

Ulrich Ellwanger, Cyril Hugonie

► To cite this version:

Ulrich Ellwanger, Cyril Hugonie. Additional Higgs Bosons near 95 and 650 GeV in the NMSSM. European Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields, 2023, 83 (12), pp.1138. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12315-y. hal-04212737

HAL Id: hal-04212737

https://hal.science/hal-04212737v1

Submitted on 24 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Additional Higgs Bosons near 95 and 650 GeV in the NMSSM

Ulrich Ellwanger¹,ª, Cyril Hugonie²,ᵇ

¹ IJCLab, CNRS/IN2P3, University Paris-Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France

² LUPM, UMR 5299, CNRS/IN2P3, Université de Montpellier, 34095 Montpellier, France

Received: 24 September 2023 / Accepted: 1 December 2023 / Published online: 15 December 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

**Abstract** Hints for an additional Higgs boson with a mass of about 95 GeV originate from LEP and searches in the diphoton channel by CMS and ATLAS. A search for resonant production of SM plus BSM Higgs bosons in the diphoton plus $b\bar{b}$ channel by CMS showed some excess for a 650 GeV resonance decaying into the SM Higgs plus a 95 GeV Higgs boson. We investigate whether these phenomena can be interpreted simultaneously within the NMSSM subject to the latest constraints on couplings of the SM Higgs boson, on extra Higgs bosons from the LHC, and on dark matter direct detection cross sections. We find that the hints for a 95 GeV Higgs boson in the diphoton channel by CMS and ATLAS and in the diphoton plus $b\bar{b}$ channel by CMS can be fitted simultaneously within the $2\sigma$ level.

## 1 Introduction

Various well-motivated extensions of the Standard Model (SM) predict additional Higgs bosons, and the search for them is one of the tasks of earlier, present and future experiments in particle physics. These have provided some hints at where such additional Higgs bosons may exist.

The combination of searches for the SM Higgs boson at the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments at LEP [1] showed some mild excess of events in the $Z^* \to Z + b\bar{b}$ channel in the mass region of 95–100 GeV.

Searches for Beyond-the-Standard Model (BSM) Higgs bosons at the LHC in the diphoton channel were performed by CMS and ATLAS. A search at run 1 by CMS showed a ~2 $\sigma$ excess at 97 GeV [2], which was confirmed by CMS later in [3] and in [4] for a mass hypothesis of 95.4 GeV. A somewhat less sensitive search in the diphoton channel by ATLAS in [5] lead to an upper limit on the fiducial cross

section which did not contradict the possible excess observed by CMS, a recent analysis by ATLAS in the diphoton channel in [6] showed a mild excess of $1.7\sigma$ at 95 GeV. A search for BSM Higgs bosons in the di-tau channel by CMS in [7] showed an excess of $2.6\sigma$ (local) for a mass of 95–100 GeV. Finally a search for resonant production via a heavy boson X of a SM Higgs boson together with a BSM Higgs boson Y in the diphoton plus $b\bar{b}$ channel by CMS in [8] showed an excess of $3.8\sigma$ (local) for $M_X \sim 650$ GeV, $M_Y \sim 90–100$ GeV.

The hints for an additional Higgs boson in the mass range of 95–98 GeV have already lead to numerous explanations within Two-Higgs-Doublet models (2HDM), 2HDMs extended by singlets, radions, pseudo-Goldstone bosons, the Next-to-Minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (NMSSM) and the $\mu\nu$SSM [9–46].

The ~2 $\sigma$ excess at LEP was quantified in [10]. Let us denote the extra (lighter) Higgs boson by $H_1$, with a reduced coupling to vector bosons $W^{\pm}$, Z (relative to the coupling of a SM-like Higgs boson of corresponding mass) given by $C_V(1)$. Then the authors in [10] define (see also [31])

$$ \mu_{b\bar{b}}^{\text{LEP}} \equiv C_V(1)^2 \times \frac{\text{BR}(H_1 \to b\bar{b})}{\text{BR}(H_{SM}^{95} \to b\bar{b})} = 0.117 \pm 0.057 \qquad (1.1) $$

where $H_{SM}^{95}$ denotes a SM-like Higgs boson with a mass of 95 GeV.

The best fits for a diphoton signal of $H_1$ in CMS and ATLAS were combined in [41]. The authors in [41] obtain

$$ \mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}} = \frac{\sigma(gg \to H_1 \to \gamma\gamma)}{\sigma(gg \to H_{SM}^{95} \to \gamma\gamma)} = 0.24^{+0.09}_{-0.08} \qquad (1.2) $$

Again, $H_{SM}^{95}$ denotes a SM-like Higgs boson with a mass of 95 GeV.

The best fit for the excess in the di-tau channel at 95 GeV observed by CMS in [7] corresponds to a cross section times branching fraction

<footnote>ª e-mail: ulrich.ellwanger@ijclab.in2p3.fr (corresponding author)</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇ e-mail: cyril.hugonie@umontpellier.fr</footnote>
$$ \sigma(gg \to H_1 \to \tau\tau) = 7.8_{-3.1}^{+3.9} \text{ pb}. \qquad (1.3) $$

For $H_{SM}^{95}$ we obtain

$$ \mu_{\tau\tau}^{LHC} = \frac{\sigma(gg \to H_1 \to \tau\tau)}{\sigma(gg \to H_{SM}^{95} \to \tau\tau)} = 1.38_{-0.55}^{+0.69}. \qquad (1.4) $$

Finally the best fit for the excess in the search for $X \to (H_{SM} \to \gamma\gamma) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b})$ for $M_X \simeq 650$ GeV and $M_{H_1} = 90-100$ GeV observed by CMS in [8] is a cross section times branching fraction given by

$$ \begin{aligned} \sigma_{b\gamma\gamma} &= \sigma(gg \to X_{650} \to (H_1 \to b\bar{b}) + (H_{SM} \to \gamma\gamma)) \\ &= 0.35_{-0.13}^{+0.17} \text{ fb}. \end{aligned} \qquad (1.5) $$

In fact, a search for $X \to (H_1 \to b\bar{b}) + (H_{SM} \to \tau\tau)$ has been carried out by CMS in [50], without an excess for $M_{H_1} = 90-100$ GeV and $M_X = 600$ GeV or $M_X = 700$ GeV. Instead, an upper 95% CL limit of $\sim 3$ fb was obtained for $\sigma_{b\gamma\tau\tau}$ for these choices of masses. For $H_{SM}$, the $BR(H_{SM} \to \tau\tau)$ is about 30 times larger than the $BR(H_{SM} \to \gamma\gamma)$. Accordingly, assuming 3 fb as upper limit on $X_{650} \to (H_{SM} \to \tau\tau) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b})$ implies an upper 95% CL limit of $\sim 0.1$ fb on $X_{650} \to (H_{SM} \to \gamma\gamma) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b})$ which is barely (but still) compatible with the lower $2\sigma$ boundary of 0.09 fb of the fit in Eq. (1.5). (The 650 GeV excess in [8] had already been discussed in connection with the 95 GeV excesses in [37,39].)

The aim of the present paper is to verify in how far the previous excesses can be described simultaneously within the NMSSM [51,52] subject to the most recent constraints from the LHC, notably the recent measurements of Higgs couplings by CMS [47] and ATLAS [48], the upper limit on the dark matter relic density (allowing for additional contributions beyond the lightest supersymmetric particle) and searches for direct detection of dark matter [53–59]. To this end we employ the public codes NMSSMTo01s-6.0.2 [60–62] and MicrOMEGAs [63]. Similar studies of excesses within the NMSSM have been performed before in [9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 29, 35] without, however, the most recent constraints from the LHC and, notably, without considering the possible excess in $X_{650} \to (H_{SM} \to \gamma\gamma) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b})$. Given the above constraints, we find that the hints for a 95 GeV Higgs boson at LEP and in the diphoton channel by CMS and ATLAS and in the diphoton plus $b\bar{b}$ channel by CMS can be fitted simultaneously within the $2\sigma$ level.

In the next section we summarize the relevant features of the NMSSM, and the constraints which we apply to our scan of the parameter space of the NMSSM. In Sect. 3 we show the results of scans of the NMSSM parameter space in the form of figures showing correlations among masses and production cross sections relevant for searches for additional heavy resonances in various channels. We conclude in Sect. 4.

## 2 Applied constraints to the NMSSM

The Higgs sector of the NMSSM consists in two SU(2) doublets and a complex SU(2) singlet. In the CP-conserving NMSSM, the physical scalars can be decomposed into three neutral CP-even states, two neutral CP-odd states and one complex charged state. One of the three neutral CP-even states has to correspond to the SM-like Higgs boson. A priori the masses and couplings of the remaining states can assume a large range of values, depending on the five NMSSM-specific parameters $\lambda, \kappa, A_\lambda, A_\kappa, \mu_{eff}$ as well as on $\tan \beta$ [51,52].

In general, the three neutral CP-even states as well as the two neutral CP-odd states are mixtures of SU(2) doublets and a SU(2) singlet; thereby all scalars obtain couplings to SM fermions and gauge bosons (originally reserved to the SU(2) doublets). Still, in most of the parameter space one can denote each of the three CP-even scalars $H_1, H_2$ and $H_3$ (ordered in mass) as either mostly singlet-like, or mostly SM-like, or mostly MSSM-like. (Pure singlet-like, SM-like or MSSM-like states represent the so-called Higgs basis.)

The mostly singlet-like state is a candidate for an extra BSM Higgs boson $H_1$ near 95 GeV [9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 29, 35]. However, as discussed below, the recent combinations of CMS [47] and ATLAS [48] of the couplings of the SM Higgs boson in the $\kappa$ framework limit the couplings of the singlet-like state. Consequently, its remaining allowed production cross sections at LEP and the LHC contradict some of the scenarios proposed earlier.

The notion MSSM-like refers to a nearly degenerate SU(2) doublet (if much heavier than the SM-like Higgs boson) consisting in a neutral CP-even, a neutral CP-odd and a charged complex state. The CP-even state $H_3$ is a candidate for a heavy resonance $X$ near 650 GeV generating the excess in $X \to (H_{SM} \to \gamma\gamma) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b})$ observed by CMS [8]. Expressions for triple Higgs couplings in the NMSSM have been given in [65]; for the triple Higgs coupling relevant here (recall that $H_{SM} = H_2$) one finds at tree level

$$ -H_1 H_2 H_3 \left( \sqrt{2}\kappa\mu_{\text{eff}} + \frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}A_{\lambda} \right) + \dots, \qquad (2.1) $$

where the dots denote relatively small corrections originating from the rotation from the Higgs basis to the physical basis. The production of $X = H_3$ at the LHC can well take place via gluon fusion. We recall, however, that the production cross section times branching fraction for $X \to (H_{SM} \to \gamma\gamma) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b})$ is limited to $\sim 0.1$ fb by upper limits on $X \to (H_{SM} \to \tau\tau) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b})$ from CMS in [50].

The scan of the general NMSSM parameter space is performed with help of the codes NMSSMTo01s-6.0.2 [60–62] and MicrOMEGAs [63].

For the SM-like Higgs boson we require a mass within $125.2 \pm 3$ GeV (allowing for theoretical uncertainties), and that the couplings in the $\kappa$-framework satisfy combined lim-
its of CMS [47] and ATLAS [48]. In the NMSSM, the reduced couplings of $H_{SM}$ to W and Z bosons are the same, whereas they are measured separately by ATLAS and CMS. However, since the corresponding uncertainties are correlated, one cannot consider these measurements as independent. Given that the measurements of $\kappa_Z$ are slightly more precise, we combine the corresponding results of ATLAS and CMS and ignore the measurements of $\kappa_W$ in order to remain conservative. From Fig.6 in [48] we find including $1\sigma$ uncertainties $\kappa_Z = 0.99 \pm 0.057$, from Fig. 4a in [47] we use $\kappa_Z = 1.04 \pm 0.07$. Combining both measurements one obtains $\kappa_Z > 0.923$ at the $2\sigma$ level. This value of $\kappa_Z$ close to 1.00 corresponds to the so-called alignment limit of the NMSSM discussed in [49], and the values of $\lambda$ and $\tan \beta$ are indeed in the range found in [49]. It has been proposed previously in [29] that the alignment limit of the NMSSM can accomodate an extra Higgs boson near 95 GeV. In BSM models with an arbitrary number of Higgs doublets and singlets one obtains the sum rule $\sum_i C_V(i)^2 = 1$, hence

$$C_V(1)^2 < 0.148 \qquad (2.2)$$

at the $2\sigma$ level.

In addition we impose constraints from b-physics, constraints from searches for BSM Higgs bosons by ATLAS and CMS as implemented in NMSSMTools-6.0.2, and constraints from the absence of a Landau singularity for the Yukawa couplings below the GUT scale. It confines values of the NMSSM-specific coupling $\lambda$ to $\lambda \lesssim 0.7$. Constraints from the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon as in [64] are left aside as these concern the smuon/gaugino sector which is irrelevant here. (Constraints from the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon can always be satisfied by choosing the soft supersymmetry breaking trilinear coupling $A_\mu$ large enough.) The constraint on $M_W$ as applied in [64] is not used since it relies on a single experimental result which differs significantly from many others. The references to constraints from BSM Higgs-boson searches, b-physics (of little relevance here) are listed on the web page https://www.lupm.in2p3.fr/users/nmssm/history.html. All soft supersymmetry breaking terms are taken below 3 TeV. Constraints on the sparticle spectrum are taken into account using the code SModels-2.2.0 [66-69].

We require that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is neutral (the lightest neutralino), since it is stable and contributes necessarily to the relic density of the universe. We do not require that it accounts for all of the observed dark matter relic density as there may exist additional contributions from physics far above the weak scale. However, the stable lightest neutralino unavoidably contributes to dark matter direct detection experiments, and must satisfy corresponding constraints which are imposed since the properties of the lightest neutralino (its mass and its annihilation rate typically via the CP-odd scalar $A_1$ in the s-channel) depend on parameters

which play also a role in the NMSSM Higgs sector. We find that the LSP is a higgsino-singlino mixture, with a relic density $\Omega h^2 \approx 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$.

For the calculation of the cross sections $ggF \to H/A$ we start with the BSM Higgs production cross sections at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV from the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group [70] (CERN Yellow Report 4 2016). These are multiplied by the reduced couplings squared of $H/A$. Thereby we capture most of the radiative QCD corrections in the form of K-factors; the remaining theoretical uncertainties are at most of $O(10\%)$.

For the purpose of this paper we require that the singlet-like scalar has a mass in the range $95.4 \pm 3$ GeV (allowing for a theoretical uncertainty of 3 GeV), $\mu_{bb}^{\text{LEP}}$ in the $2\sigma$ range of (1.1), and $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ in the $2\sigma$ range of (1.2). In order to describe the excess in $\sigma_{bb\gamma\gamma}$, we require that the MSSM-like scalar $H_3$ has a mass in the range $650 \pm 25$ GeV (given that the mass $M_X$ in [8] is given in steps of $650 \pm n \times 50$ GeV), and $\sigma_{bb\gamma\gamma}$ in the $2\sigma$ range of (1.5).

Let us discuss in how far the excesses $\mu_{bb}^{\text{LEP}}$ in (1.1), $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ in (1.2), $\mu_{\tau\tau}^{\text{LHC}}$ in (1.4) and $\sigma_{bb\gamma\gamma}$ in (1.5) can be described simultaneously. First, once the contribution of ATLAS to $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ from [6] is combined with the corresponding contributions from CMS implying a lower central value as in [41], the excesses $\mu_{bb}^{\text{LEP}}$ and $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ can be described simultaneously at the $2\sigma$ level in the NMSSM with its type II Yukawa structure. Within the $2\sigma$ level, a suppression of the $BR(H_1 \to b\bar{b})$ in order to enhance the $BR(H_1 \to \gamma\gamma)$ (as argued earlier in [31]) is then no longer necessary. Also the excess in $\sigma_{bb\gamma\gamma}$ in (1.5) can be fitted simultaneously at the $2\sigma$ level.

However, a description of the di-tau excess $\mu_{\tau\tau}^{\text{LHC}}$ in (1.4) would require a large $BR(H_1 \to \tau^+\tau^-)$ (or a large $H_1$ production cross section) which is incompatible with present constraints on the $H_1 - H_{SM}$ mixing angle. The incompatibility of the $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ and $\mu_{\tau\tau}^{\text{LHC}}$ for a type II Yukawa structure was also underlined in [41]. Thus we will not require a description of the di-tau excess $\mu_{\tau\tau}^{\text{LHC}}$ in the following.

Then, all constraints from Eqs. (1.1), (1.2) and (1.5) can be satisfied simultaneously. However, the upper $2\sigma$ limit on $\kappa_\tau$ from the combination of [47,48],

$$\kappa_\tau < 1.033, \qquad (2.3)$$

constrains the parameters and the cross sections to very narrow ranges around values corresponding to those of the benchmark point BP1 shown in the next section.

We found it appropriate to show the possible parameters and cross sections after relaxing the constraint (2.3). Then the input parameters assume values within the ranges shown in Table 1. We show $\mu_{bb}^{\text{LEP}}$ and $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ for viable points as function of $M_{H_3}$ in Fig. 1, and $\sigma_{bb\gamma\gamma}$ and $\sigma_{bb\tau\tau}$ in Fig. 2. Within these and the subsequent figures, the light blue regions contain points which satisfy the constraint (2.3) on $\kappa_\tau$. As
<table><caption>**Table 1** Range of input parameters for our scan (dimensionful parameters in GeV)</caption><thead><tr><th>λ</th><th>κ</th><th>A<sub>λ</sub></th><th>A<sub>κ</sub></th><th>μ<sub>eff</sub></th><th>tan β</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.610–0.687</td><td>0.307–0.391</td><td>400–480</td><td>−621 to (−402)</td><td>238–291</td><td>1.97–2.58</td></tr><tr><td>M<sub>1</sub></td><td>M<sub>2</sub></td><td>M<sub>3</sub></td><td>A<sub>t</sub></td><td>M<sub>Q3</sub></td><td>M<sub>U3</sub></td></tr><tr><td>255–3000</td><td>338–2800</td><td>423–3000</td><td>−2222 to 1288</td><td>825–3000</td><td>857–3000</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** $\mu_{b\bar{b}}^{\text{LEP}}$ as function of $M_{H_3}$ (left), $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ as function of $M_{H_3}$ (right). The coloured dots here and the subsequent figures denote six benchmark points whose properties are given in the Tables 2 and 3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$ as function of $M_{H_3}$ (left), $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\tau\tau}$ as function of $M_{H_3}$ (right). $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$ and $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\tau\tau}$ are limited from above by constraints from the search by CMS in [50]</figcaption></figure>

discussed in the Introduction, both $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$ and $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\tau\tau}$ are limited from above by constraints from the search by CMS in [50]. The coloured dots in all figures indicate six benchmark points (BPs) BP1 (red), BP2 (green), BP3 (blue), BP4 (yellow), BP5 (violet) and BP6 (orange), whose properties are given in the Tables 2 and 3 in the next Section.

As a consequence of the freedom in the elements of the $3 \times 3$ mass matrix in the CP-even Higgs sector, the coupling of $H_S$ to b-quarks and thus the branching fraction $BR(H_S \to b\bar{b})$ is variable. Since this branching fraction is dominant, its reduction implies an increase of others like the diphoton rate

$BR(H_S \to \gamma\gamma)$. At first sight, an increase of the diphoton rate is welcome in order to fit the central value of $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$ [29]. However, since the increase of the diphoton rate comes hand-in-hand with a reduced $BR(H_S \to b\bar{b})$, it becomes difficult to obtain a large enough $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$, which is left aside in [29]. In fact, since $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$ decreases with $M_{H_3}$ for kinematic reasons, larger values of $M_{H_3}$ require larger values of the $BR(H_S \to b\bar{b})$ and thus smaller values of the $BR(H_S \to \gamma\gamma)$ or $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{\text{LHC}}$. This explains the shape of Fig. 1 (right). Actually we find that the desired cross section for $\sigma_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$ can be achieved only for $M_{H_3} \lesssim 645$ GeV.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Left: coupling strength modifier $g_{H_{3tt}}$ as a function of the heavy scalar boson mass $M_{H_3}$. Right: coupling strength modifier $g_{A_{2tt}}$ as a function of the heavy pseudo-scalar boson mass $M_{A_2}$. The upper limits from [71] are ~.735 on $g_{H_{3tt}}$ and ~.675 on $g_{A_{2tt}}$.</figcaption></figure>

Relatively large cross sections of ≈ 10 fb are found within the allowed regions of the parameter space of the NMSSM for the process $ggF → H_3 → H_1 + H_1$, with branching ratios of $H_1$ into $b\bar{b}$, $τ^+τ^−$ and $γγ$ ~ 20% larger than for $H_{SM}$. We find it worthwhile to perform corresponding searches in channels with low enough SM backgrounds; they may lead to hints for or the discovery of two BSM Higgs bosons at a time. Corresponding cross sections times branching fractions are shown in Fig. 4. (No upper limits exist on these processes at present.)

Also the heavy pseudoscalar $A_2$ with its mass close to $M_{H_3}$ gives rise to interesting signatures. Searches for $ggF → A_2 → Z + H_{SM}$ and for $ggF → A_2 → Z + H_1$ have been performed by CMS in [76,77] and by ATLAS in [78]. For $A_2$ masses relevant here, upper limits on the cross sections for $ggF → A_2 → Z + (H_{SM} → b\bar{b})$ from CMS [76] and from ATLAS [78] are ~ 30 fb, upper limits on cross sections for $ggF → A_2 → (Z → ℓℓ) + (H_1 → b\bar{b})$ from CMS [77] are ~ 20 fb. In Fig. 5 we show, both as function of $M_{A_2}$, $σ(ggF → A_2 → Z + (H_{SM} → b\bar{b}))$ on the left, and $σ(ggF → A_2 → (Z → ℓℓ) + (H_1 → b\bar{b}))$ on the right. Both cross sections are factors of 20 (for $Z + H_{SM}$) or 5 (for $Z + H_1$) below the limits from ATLAS/CMS, but since the limits from CMS are based on 35.9 fb⁻¹ of integrated luminosity the cross section from Fig. 5 are not out of reach in the future. Note that once one multiplies the cross sections into $H_1$ on the right hand side by 1/0.0673 in order to compensate the $BR(Z → ℓℓ)$, one finds that these are by a factor ~ 30 – 40 larger than the cross sections into $H_{SM}$ on the left and side.

Finally the charged Higgs boson with its mass similar to $M_{H_3}$ might be observable via its dominant decay channel $H^± → t+b$. Recent searches in this channel have been performed by CMS in [79] (based on 35.9 fb⁻¹) and by ATLAS in [80] (based on 139 fb⁻¹). For $M_{H^±}$ ~ 600–650 GeV, the upper limit on $σ(pp → tbH^±) × Br(H^± → tb)$ obtained in [80] is of the order of 150 fb. We have computed the charged Higgs production cross section using results from the LHC

Higgs Cross Section Working Group [70] (CERN Yellow Report 4 2016) based on results in [81–85]. In Fig. 6 we show $σ(pp → tbH^±) × Br(H^± → tb)$ as function of $M_{H^±}$; we see that the possible values in the NMSSM scenario presented here are still below the present sensitivities. Actually the branching ratio $Br(H^± → W^± + H_1)$ is in the 10–20% range. A search for $σ(pp → (H^± → W^± + H))$ has been carried out by CMS in [86] assuming, however, $M_H = 200$ GeV and not 95 GeV as it would be the case here.

We end this section with Tables giving details of some benchmark points satisfying all of the imposed constraints. The benchmark points are chosen such that they cover various regions visible in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. NMSSM specific input parameters, $M_{H_3}$, stop masses and $A_t$ are given in Table 2. The not too large values for the stop masses and $A_t$ indicate that, compared to the MSSM, less contributions from stop loops are necessary in order to lift the SM Higgs mass to 125.2 ± 3 GeV.

In Table 3 we show the corresponding (reduced) cross sections as defined in (1.1), (1.2) and (1.5), reduced couplings of $H_3$ and $A_2$ to top quarks, as well as cross sections times branching fractions for additional processes involving $H_3$ or $A_2$. The ratio of the cross sections $σ_{ZH_1}^{A_2}$ to $σ_{ZH_{SM}}^{A_2}$ shows more clearly the factor ~ 30–40 in favour of $σ_{ZH_1}^{A_2}$.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

In the present paper we have shown which sparticle spectra in the NMSSM can simultaneously describe an extra Higgs boson near 95 GeV, and an excess in the resonant production of SM plus BSM Higgs bosons in the diphoton plus $b\bar{b}$ channel by CMS in [8] for a heavy resonance of a mass near ~ 650 GeV. This region of the parameter space of the NMSSM is limited, amongst others, by a search for $X → (H_{SM} → ττ) + (H_1 → b\bar{b})$ by CMS in [50] for $M_X = 600, 700$ GeV. Still, we find viable regions in the
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Upper left: $\sigma(\text{ggF} \to H_3 \to H_1 H_1 \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b})$, upper right: $\sigma(\text{ggF} \to H_3 \to H_1 H_1 \to b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)$, lower left: $\sigma(\text{ggF} \to H_3 \to H_1 H_1 \to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma)$, lower right: $\sigma(\text{ggF} \to H_3 \to H_1 H_1 \to \gamma\gamma\tau^+\tau^-)$, all cross sections as a function of the heavy scalar boson mass $M_{H_3}$</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Left: $\sigma(\text{ggF} \to A_2 \to Z + (H_{SM} \to b\bar{b}))$, right: $\sigma(\text{ggF} \to A_2 \to (Z \to \ell\ell) + (H_1 \to b\bar{b}))$, both as function of $M_{A_2}$</figcaption></figure>

parameter space at the 2$\sigma$ level. Admittedly this is perhaps not the strongest hint for new physics at present, but we find it worthwhile to underline that this region exists even in the light of the latest results from the LHC, notably in light of the measurements of CMS [47] and ATLAS [48] of the couplings of the SM Higgs boson.

One interesting feature is that relatively light higgsino-like charginos with masses below ~400 GeV can help to enhance the $BR(H_1 \to \gamma\gamma)$ via loops to the level required by Eq. (1.2), at least within the 2$\sigma$ level. This also implies

relatively light neutralinos, which is visible in the form of $\mu_{\text{eff}}$ for the benchmark points shown.

In the NMSSM, the spectrum of additional Higgs bosons near 650 GeV is necessarily MSSM-like, i.e. consists in nearly degenerate scalars, pseudo-scalars and charged scalars. However, their branching fractions into standard search channels are reduced by their decays into light Higgs bosons, higgsinos and charginos. Searches for the $b\bar{b}$ final state are disfavoured by the low value of $\tan\beta$, searches for the $t\bar{t}$ channel are more promising. Likewise, searches for
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6 $\sigma(pp \to t\bar{b}H^\pm) \times Br(H^\pm \to tb)$ as function of $M_{H^\pm}$</figcaption></figure>

the charged Higgs in the $t\bar{b} + c.c.$ channel can be promising, although the corresponding branching fraction can be somewhat reduced by the decays $H^+ \to W^+ + H_S$.

Cross sections times branching fractions for the production of the MSSM-like sector are shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which should help to verify or exclude the NMSSM scenarios presented here in the future. Some of the available searches by ATLAS and CMS already touch the parameter space of the NMSSM, and our tables allow to estimate which future searches can be promising not only using available data, but also after the upgrade of the LHC to high luminosity after a suitable rescaling. The parameters shown in Table 1 help to clarify which range of NMSSM parameters correspond to these scenarios. It is remarkable that the relevant ranges of large $\lambda$ and small $\tan \beta$ coincide with the ones where a NMSSM-specific uplift of the SM Higgs mass at tree level helps to explain its value well above $M_Z$ [51,52].

**Acknowledgements** U.E. acknowledges motivating and helpful discussions with members of the LHC-HXSWG3-NMSSM working group.

**Data availability** This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors' comment: This manuscript has no associated data.]

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Funded by SCOAP³. SCOAP³ supports the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.

## References

1. R. Barate et al. [LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL], Phys. Lett. B 565, 61–75 (2003). [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033]

2. CMS Collaboration, Search for new resonances in the diphoton final state in the mass range between 80 and 115 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV, CMS-PAS-HIG-14-037

3. A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Lett. B 793, 320–347 (2019). [arXiv:1811.08459 [hep-ex]]

4. CMS Collaboration, Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV, CMS-PAS-HIG-20-002

5. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for resonances in the 65 to 110 GeV diphoton invariant mass range using 80 fb⁻¹ of pp collisions collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2018-025

6. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for diphoton resonances in the 66 to 110 GeV mass range using 140 fb⁻¹ of 13 TeV pp collisions collected with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2023-035

7. A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 07, 073 (2023). [arXiv:2208.02717 [hep-ex]]

8. A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], arXiv:2310.01643 [hep-ex]

9. G. Belanger, U. Ellwanger, J.F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, S. Kraml, J.H. Schwarz, JHEP 01, 069 (2013). arXiv:1210.1976 [hep-ph]

10. J. Cao, X. Guo, Y. He, P. Wu, Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 95(11), 116001 (2017). arXiv:1612.08522 [hep-ph]

11. P.J. Fox, N. Weiner, JHEP 08, 025 (2018). arXiv:1710.07649 [hep-ph]

12. F. Richard, arXiv:1712.06410 [hep-ex]

13. U. Haisch, A. Malinauskas, JHEP 03, 135 (2018). arXiv:1712.06599 [hep-ph]

14. T. Biekötter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Muñoz, Eur. Phys. J. C 78(6), 504 (2018). arXiv:1712.07475 [hep-ph]

15. D. Liu, J. Liu, C.E.M. Wagner, X.P. Wang, JHEP 06, 150 (2018). arXiv:1805.01476 [hep-ph]

16. F. Domingo, S. Heinemeyer, S. Paßehr, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 78(11), 942 (2018). arXiv:1807.06322 [hep-ph]

17. W.G. Hollik, S. Liebler, G. Moortgat-Pick, S. Paßehr, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 79(1), 75 (2019). arXiv:1809.07371 [hep-ph]

18. K. Wang, F. Wang, J. Zhu, Q. Jie, Chin. Phys. C 42(10), 103109 (2018). arXiv:1811.04435 [hep-ph]

19. T. Biekötter, M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, Eur. Phys. J. C 80(1), 2 (2020). arXiv:1903.11661 [hep-ph]

20. J.M. Cline, T. Toma, Phys. Rev. D 100(3), 035023 (2019). arXiv:1906.02175 [hep-ph]

21. K. Choi, S.H. Im, K.S. Jeong, C.B. Park, Eur. Phys. J. C 79(11), 956 (2019). arXiv:1906.03389 [hep-ph]

22. A. Kundu, S. Maharana, P. Mondal, Nucl. Phys. B 955, 115057 (2020). arXiv:1907.12808 [hep-ph]

23. D. Sachdeva, S. Sadhukhan, Phys. Rev. D 101(5), 055045 (2020). arXiv:1908.01668 [hep-ph]

24. J. Cao, X. Jia, Y. Yue, H. Zhou, P. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 101(5), 055008 (2020). arXiv:1908.07206 [hep-ph]

25. J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, F.R. Joaquim, Eur. Phys. J. C 80(5), 403 (2020). arXiv:2002.07697 [hep-ph]

26. W.G. Hollik, C. Li, G. Moortgat-Pick, S. Paasch, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.2, 141 (2021). [arXiv:2004.14852 [hep-ph]]

27. A.A. Abdelalim, B. Das, S. Khalil, S. Moretti, Nucl. Phys. B 985, 116013 (2022). arXiv:2012.04952 [hep-ph]

28. T. Biekötter, M.O. Olea-Romacho, JHEP 10, 215 (2021). arXiv:2108.10864 [hep-ph]
29. T. Biekötter, A. Grohsjean, S. Heinemeyer, C. Schwanenberger, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C **82**(2), 178 (2022). arXiv:2109.01128 [hep-ph]

30. S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, F. Lika, G. Moortgat-Pick, S. Paasch, Phys. Rev. D **106**(7), 075003 (2022). arXiv:2112.11958 [hep-ph]

31. T. Biekötter, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, JHEP **08**, 201 (2022). arXiv:2203.13180 [hep-ph]

32. T. Biekötter, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C **83**(5), 450 (2023). arXiv:2204.05975 [hep-ph]

33. R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, S. Moretti, S. Semlali, Phys. Lett. B **832**, 137245 (2022). arXiv:2204.07470 [hep-ph]

34. R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, B. Manaut, W-mass and 96 GeV excess in type-III 2HDM, arXiv:2204.11755 [hep-ph]

35. W. Li, J. Zhu, K. Wang, S. Ma, P. Tian, H. Qiao, A light Higgs boson in the NMSSM confronted with the CMS di-photon and di-tau excesses, arXiv:2212.11739 [hep-ph]

36. G. Coloretti, A. Crivellin, S. Bhattacharya, B. Mellado, Searching for Low-Mass Resonances Decaying into W Bosons, arXiv:2302.07276 [hep-ph]

37. S. Banik, A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, Asymmetric Di-Higgs Signals of the N2HDM-U(1), arXiv:2303.11351 [hep-ph]

38. T. Biekötter, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, The CMS di-photon excess at 95 GeV in view of the LHC Run 2 results, arXiv:2303.12018 [hep-ph]

39. D. Azevedo, T. Biekötter, P.M. Ferreira, 2HDM interpretations of the CMS diphoton excess at 95 GeV, arXiv:2305.19716 [hep-ph]

40. P. Escribano, V.M. Lozano, A. Vicente, A Scotogenic explanation for the 95 GeV excesses, arXiv:2306.03735 [hep-ph]

41. T. Biekötter, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, The 95.4 GeV di-photon excess at ATLAS and CMS, arXiv:2306.03889 [hep-ph]

42. A. Belyaev, R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, M. Chakraborti, S. Moretti, S. Semlali, Explanation of the Hints for a 95 GeV Higgs Boson within a 2-Higgs Doublet Model, arXiv:2306.09029 [hep-ph]

43. J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, H.B.Câmara, F.R. Joaquim, J.F. Seabra, Confronting the 95 GeV excesses within the UN2HDM, arXiv:2307.03768 [hep-ph]

44. J. Dutta, J. Lahiri, C. Li, G. Moortgat-Pick, S.F. Tabira, J.A. Ziegler, Dark Matter Phenomenology in 2HDMS in light of the 95 GeV excess, arXiv:2308.05653 [hep-ph]

45. M. Maniatis, O. Nachtmann, CMS results for the γγ production at the LHC: do they give a hint for a Higgs boson of the maximally CP symmetric two-Higgs-doublet model? arXiv:2309.04869 [hep-ph]

46. J. Cao, X. Jia, J. Lian, L. Meng, 95 GeV Diphoton and $b\bar{b}$ Excesses in the General Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, arXiv:2310.08436 [hep-ph]

47. A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], Nature **607**(7917), 60–68 (2022). arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

48. [ATLAS], Nature **607**(7917), 52–59 (2022). [Erratum: Nature **612**(7941), E24 (2022)]. arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

49. M. Carena, H.E. Haber, I. Low, N.R. Shah, C.E.M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D **93**(3), 035013 (2016). arXiv:1510.09137 [hep-ph]

50. A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS]. JHEP **11**, 057 (2021). arXiv:2106.10361 [hep-ex]

51. M. Maniatis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **25**, 3505–3602 (2010). arXiv:0906.0777 [hep-ph]

52. U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, A.M. Teixeira, Phys. Rep. **496**, 1 (2010). arXiv:0910.1785 [hep-ph]

53. G. Angloher et al. [CRESST], Eur. Phys. J. C **76**(1), 25 (2016). arXiv:1509.01515 [astro-ph.CO]

54. P. Agnes et al. [DarkSide], Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**(8), 081307 (2018). arXiv:1802.06994 [astro-ph.HE]

55. E. Aprile et al. [XENON], Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**(11), 111302 (2018). arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

56. E. Aprile et al. [XENON], Phys. Rev. Lett. **122**(14), 141301 (2019). arXiv:1902.03234 [astro-ph.CO]

57. C. Amole et al. [PICO], Phys. Rev. D **100**(2), 022001 (2019). arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]

58. Y. Meng et al. [PandaX-4T], Phys. Rev. Lett. **127**(26), 261802 (2021). arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

59. J. Aalbers et al. [LZ], Phys. Rev. Lett. **131**(4), 041002 (2023). arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

60. U. Ellwanger, J.F. Gunion, C. Hugonie, JHEP **02**, 066 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0406215

61. U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, Comput. Phys. Commun. **175**, 290–303 (2006). arXiv:hep-ph/0508022

62. https://www.lupm.in2p3.fr/users/nmssm/index.html

63. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. **185**, 960–985 (2014). arXiv:1305.0237 [hep-ph]

64. F. Domingo, U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, Eur. Phys. J. C **82**(11), 1074 (2022). arXiv:2209.03863 [hep-ph]

65. U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, Eur. Phys. J. C **82**(5), 406 (2022). arXiv:2203.05049 [hep-ph]

66. S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, W. Magerl, D. Proschofsky-Spindler, W. Waltenberger, Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 2868 (2014). arXiv:1312.4175 [hep-ph]

67. J. Dutta, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, W. Waltenberger, LHEP **1**(1), 5–12 (2018). arXiv:1803.02204 [hep-ph]

68. C.K. Khosa, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, P. Neuhuber, W. Waltenberger, LHEP **2020**, 158 (2020). arXiv:2005.00555 [hep-ph]

69. G. Alguero, J. Heisig, C. Khosa, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, A. Lessa, H. Reyes-González, W. Waltenberger, A. Wongel, Constraining new physics with SModelS version 2. arXiv:2112.00769 [hep-ph]]

70. https://wiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/CERNYellowReportPageBSMAT13TeV

71. A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP **04**, 171 (2020). [Erratum: JHEP **03**, 187 (2022)]. arXiv:1908.01115 [hep-ex]

72. ATLAS Collaboration, Combination of searches for non-resonant and resonant Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$, $b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-$ and $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ decay channels using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2021-052

73. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D **106**, no.5, 052001 (2022). [arXiv:2112.11876 [hep-ex]]

74. CMS Collaboration, Search for a massive scalar resonance decaying to a light scalar and a Higgs boson in the four $b$ quark final state with boosted topology, CMS-PAS-B2G-20-007

75. A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS]. JHEP **05**, 005 (2022). arXiv:2112.03161 [hep-ex]

76. A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C **79**(7), 564 (2019). arXiv:1903.00941 [hep-ex]

77. A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS]. JHEP **03**, 055 (2020). arXiv:1911.03781 [hep-ex]

78. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS]. JHEP **06**, 016 (2023). arXiv:2207.00230 [hep-ex]

79. A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS]. JHEP **07**, 126 (2020). arXiv:2001.07763 [hep-ex]

80. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS]. JHEP **06**, 145 (2021). arXiv:2102.10076 [hep-ex]

81. M. Flechl, R. Klees, M. Kramer, M. Spira, M. Ubiali, Phys. Rev. D **91**(7), 075015 (2015). arXiv:1409.5615 [hep-ph]

82. C. Degrande, M. Ubiali, M. Wiesemann, M. Zaro, JHEP **10**, 145 (2015). arXiv:1507.02549 [hep-ph]

83. D. de Florian et al. [LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group], arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

84. S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, M. Spira, M. Walser, Phys. Rev. D **83**, 055005 (2011). arXiv:0906.2648 [hep-ph]

85. E.L. Berger, T. Han, J. Jiang, T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D **71**, 115012 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0312286

86. A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS]. JHEP **09**, 032 (2023). arXiv:2207.01046 [hep-ex]