The Contribution of Charged Bosons with Right-Handed Neutrinos to the Muon g − 2 Anomaly in the Twin Higgs Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the layout of the paper . pdf should be reviewed.
Figs. 4-7 are too small and therefore difficult to read.
in Fig. 7 probabily the figure caption is cut
In addition, other little things:
1) In equ. (1) and in equ.(2) what is the meaning of aFNAL+BNL ? Have the results been added up, have you averaged or anythings?
2) line 52: explain Neff
3)line 254: are eaten is double written
In “The Contribution of Charged bosons with Right-Handed Neutrinos to the Muon g-2 Anomaly in the Twin Higgs Models” by Guo-Li Liu and Ping Zhou the contribution of charged bosons with Right-Handed Neutrinos to the Muon g-2 Anomaly in the Twin Higgs Models is considered.
The topic is relevant in the field because the combined constraints of the Higgs global fit data, the precision electroweak data, the leptonic flavor changing decay and the mass requirement of the heavy gauge bosons are used in the twin Higgs models.
This paper has a good introduction with a lot of references. The authors found that the muon g - 2 anomaly can be explained in the TH model in some parameter spaces. The Higgs direct search limits from LHC contribute most largely in all the constraints. With the joint constraints from the 125 GeV Higgs signal data, the precision electroweak data, and the leptonic decay, the authors found that the muon g-2 anomaly constrains the parameters yμ (Yukawa coupling) ,yt (top Yukawa) and Vm (heavy
gauge boson couplings to the lepton).
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence arguments presented .
The references are appropriate.
I suggest to publish in MDPI Universe after some minor revisions.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors study a particular model of beyond standard model physics and the constraints that can be obtained by the g-2 measurement. The paper seems sound and the research well-designed. However, the paper cannot be publish in the present state due to its bad writing.
-There are arbitrary line breaks and the figures are hardly visible. I assume that this should be corrected in the edition stage.
-In line 31, the authors could review in more detail the twin Higgs model.
-In line 50, the SM prediction of what?
-In line 52, what is N_{eff}?
-In line 64, it should be explained what is a Barr-Zee diagram or at least provide a citation.
-Line 118 is hard to understand, it seems that it is the Higgs mass the one that can be as large as 10 TeV.
-"are eaten" appears twice, in line 153 and 154.
-It would be good if it were explained the meaning of every type of lines in the Feynman diagrams, for example, what is the meaning of the dashed line in Fig. 1?
-It is not explained why other 2-loop diagrams can be ignored.
-The title of section V can be improved.
-There are many english errors in the text, it cannot be published like this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors address the issue of charged boson and right-handed neutrino contributions to the muon g-2 anomaly, in the twin-Higgs model with the joint constraints of the Higgs global fit data, precision electroweak data, leptonic flavor changing decays and the mass requirement of the heavy gauge boson.
The main outcome is that the muon g-2 anomaly can be described within the twin-Higgs model in some parameter spaces.
Limits on Higgs direct searches coming from studies at the LHC contribute most largely in all the constraints.
New constraints on the parameters investigated are found and reported.
The article contains sufficiently original results to be published in Universe.
While the methodology employed is adequately described, and the found results meet the criteria of scientific quality and relevance for this journal, the presentation of text and figures makes it very difficult to read the paper and pass from a section to another one.
Therefore, as a major request, I ask Authors to improve the layout of the manuscript, even before a possible acceptance.
This is needed to help other reviewers to read the manuscript.
Then, parameter constrains should not be reported in the abstract, while a general description of the physical meaning of those parameters should be present instead.
Moreover, in the Conclusion section, could the Authors elaborate more on their results and what previously found in the literature?
Finally, there some minor aspects to be addressed:
- line 13: it seems that decay(s) is written twice.
- line 39: the Authors should verify the validity of the word 'quarkic'. I believe that simply saying 'quark' will do a better job.
- line 303: {p,s} and {p',s'} should be written in math mode.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the Authors for taking care of all the raised points. I recommend the manuscript for publication.
