pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09225 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · ✦ hep-ph

Constraining new physics in charm quark associated Higgs boson production events using the Standard Model effective field theory approach

Nordin Breugelmans , Felix Heyen , Jorgen D'Hondt , Michael Tytgat , Gerrit Van Onsem This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords charm quarkHiggs productioneffective field theorydimension-six operatorsWilson coefficientsLHCCMSnew physics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Measurements of Higgs production with charm quarks can set new upper limits on dimension-six effective field theory operators.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper explores the ability of charm quark associated Higgs boson production events at the LHC to constrain possible new physics effects parametrized by dimension-six operators in the Standard Model effective field theory. It focuses on the four-muon decay channel and uses a simulated detector response to estimate how well the rates and shapes in the four-muon mass and jet transverse momentum spectra can bound the relevant Wilson coefficients. Expected 95% confidence level limits are derived both for individual operators and for pairs of operators acting together. This approach provides a previously unexamined experimental handle on new physics that could complement existing Higgs studies.

Core claim

The authors carry out the first dedicated study of charm quark associated Higgs boson production as a probe for dimension-six EFT operators. They examine the relevant phenomenology, propose an analysis strategy centered on H to ZZ* to 4mu decays, employ a generic detector simulation matched to CMS performance, and extract expected 95% CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients from yield and shape information in the m4mu and leading-jet pT distributions. Scenarios with simultaneous contributions from two operators are also examined.

What carries the argument

Charm-Higgs associated production (cH) modified by dimension-six EFT operators, with constraints extracted from kinematic distributions in the four-muon final state.

If this is right

  • Expected 95% CL upper limits can be placed on the Wilson coefficients of individual dimension-six operators using cH events.
  • Scenarios with simultaneous contributions from two operators can be analyzed to derive joint constraints.
  • The analysis strategy can incorporate potential experimental improvements such as better background rejection or higher luminosity data.
  • The cH channel supplies a distinct sensitivity profile compared with other Higgs production modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Combining cH constraints with those from other Higgs production channels could produce tighter overall bounds on the same operators.
  • Deviations observed specifically in cH events would suggest new interactions that couple preferentially to the charm quark.
  • The method could be extended to higher-luminosity LHC runs or to related rare Higgs production processes once larger datasets become available.

Load-bearing premise

The generic detector simulation accurately reflects the response of the CMS detector at the LHC, and the effects of the EFT operators on the cH process are correctly modeled without significant contributions from higher-dimensional operators or unaccounted backgrounds.

What would settle it

If LHC data on cH events show yields or spectral shapes that lie outside the predicted 95% CL ranges for the EFT operators, or if background levels prevent the expected sensitivity from being reached.

read the original abstract

As the search for observable deviations from the Standard Model of particle physics remains to be of significant interest, effective field theory (EFT) continues to be a popular method to parametrize such effects. In this work, a first-time investigation is performed of the unique capability of measurements of charm quark associated Higgs boson production (cH) in proton-proton collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider to constrain a set of dimension-six EFT operators. The phenomenology of these operators is discussed and a proposed analysis strategy is presented, with a focus on $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}^{*}\rightarrow 4\mu$ decays, using a generic detector simulation that is parametrized to reflect the response of the CMS detector at the LHC. From this, expected 95% CL upper limits are derived for the Wilson coefficients of individual operators by considering yield and shape effects in the spectra of the four-muon invariant mass $m_{4\mu}$ and leading jet transverse momentum $p_{T}$. Scenarios with simultaneous contributions from two operators are also considered. Finally, potential analysis improvements that may be implemented in an experimental context are outlined.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a first-time simulation study of charm-quark associated Higgs production (cH) at the LHC in the H→ZZ*→4μ channel to constrain a set of dimension-six SMEFT operators. Using a generic detector simulation parametrized to CMS response, expected 95% CL limits on Wilson coefficients are extracted from yield and shape information in the m_{4μ} and leading-jet p_T distributions, for both single-operator and two-operator scenarios.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the work opens a new channel for EFT constraints in the charm sector, complementing top-associated and light-quark processes. The inclusion of shape information alongside yields and the consideration of simultaneous operator contributions are positive methodological features. The study is exploratory and simulation-only, so its impact depends on future experimental validation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and analysis strategy description: the central limits rest on a generic parametrized detector simulation tuned to CMS without reported validation of charm-jet tagging efficiency, fake rate, or p_T resolution in the 4μ + jet final state. If these modeling inaccuracies exceed the 15-20% level or distort the p_T spectrum, the derived Wilson-coefficient bounds become unreliable; this is load-bearing for the claimed constraints.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract refers to 'potential analysis improvements that may be implemented in an experimental context' but provides no concrete examples or quantitative estimates of their impact on the limits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and have revised the paper accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our simulation-based study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and analysis strategy description: the central limits rest on a generic parametrized detector simulation tuned to CMS without reported validation of charm-jet tagging efficiency, fake rate, or p_T resolution in the 4μ + jet final state. If these modeling inaccuracies exceed the 15-20% level or distort the p_T spectrum, the derived Wilson-coefficient bounds become unreliable; this is load-bearing for the claimed constraints.

    Authors: We agree that the reliability of the expected limits depends on the fidelity of the detector parametrization. Our simulation employs a generic, publicly documented parametrization tuned to CMS performance in comparable final states (muon reconstruction, jet energy scale, and b/c-tagging), drawing on CMS technical reports for efficiencies and resolutions. However, we acknowledge that the manuscript does not include a dedicated validation subsection for the specific cH → 4μ + jet topology. In the revised version we have added a new paragraph in the analysis strategy section that (i) explicitly references the CMS performance papers used for the parametrization, (ii) quantifies the typical uncertainties on charm-jet tagging (∼10–15 %) and p_T resolution (∼5–10 %) reported by CMS in similar kinematics, and (iii) shows that even a conservative 20 % overall systematic on the jet-related observables leaves the Wilson-coefficient bounds within a factor of ∼1.5 of the statistical-only results. We also note that a full experimental analysis would require dedicated data-driven validation, but for this exploratory phenomenological study the current approach follows standard practice in the literature. The abstract has been updated to reflect this added discussion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulation of EFT effects yields independent expected limits

full rationale

The paper performs a Monte Carlo simulation of the cH process (pp → cH) including dimension-6 SMEFT operators, applies a parametrized generic detector model tuned to CMS response, and extracts expected 95% CL limits on Wilson coefficients from the resulting yields and shapes in m_{4μ} and leading-jet p_T. This is a standard forward-modeling projection with no fitted parameters reinterpreted as predictions, no self-definitional loops, no load-bearing self-citations, and no ansatz or uniqueness claims imported from prior author work. The central result (projected constraints from cH) remains independent of the simulation inputs and does not reduce to them by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard EFT assumptions and the validity of the Monte Carlo simulation for limit setting.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dimension-six operators in the Standard Model effective field theory can parametrize new physics effects relevant at LHC energies.
    Core to the EFT approach used throughout.
  • domain assumption The simulation of the detector response and event kinematics accurately represents real experimental conditions.
    Required for deriving expected limits from the generic CMS parametrization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5522 in / 1469 out tokens · 57394 ms · 2026-05-10T17:48:53.432769+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. Aad, B. Abbott, J. Abdallah, O. Abdinov, B. Abeloos, R. Aben et al.,Measurements of the higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined atlas and cms analysis of the lhc pp collision data at √s= 7and 8 tev,Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    G. Aad, B. Abbott, D.C. Abbott, K. Abeling, S.H. Abidi, A. Aboulhorma et al.,A detailed map of higgs boson interactions by the atlas experiment ten years after the discovery,Nature 607(2022) 52–59

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Tumasyan, W

    A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, J.W. Andrejkovic, T. Bergauer, S. Chatterjee, K. Damanakis et al., A portrait of the higgs boson by the cms experiment ten years after the discovery,Nature607 (2022) 60–68. – 16 – [7]CMScollaboration,Combined measurements of higgs boson couplings in proton–proton collisions at √s= 13TeV,The European Physical Journal C79(2019) . [8]CM...

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Brivio, F

    I. Brivio, F. Goertz and G. Isidori,Probing the charm quark yukawa coupling in higgs + charm production,Physical Review Letters115(2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Perez, Y

    G. Perez, Y. Soreq, E. Stamou and K. Tobioka,Constraining the charm yukawa and higgs-quark coupling universality,Physical Review D92(2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Coyle, C.E

    N.M. Coyle, C.E. Wagner and V. Wei,Bounding the charm yukawa coupling,Physical Review D100(2019) . [16]CMScollaboration,Search for a higgs boson produced in association with a charm quark and decaying to a w boson pair in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 tev, 2025. [17]CMScollaboration,Search for a ch signal in the associated production of at least one ...

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Bar-Shalom and A

    S. Bar-Shalom and A. Soni,Universally enhanced light-quarks yukawa couplings paradigm, Physical Review D98(2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Erdelyi, R

    B.A. Erdelyi, R. Gr¨ ober and N. Selimovi´ c,How large can the light quark yukawa couplings be?,Journal of High Energy Physics2025(2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Egana-Ugrinovic, S

    D. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Homiller and P. Meade,Higgs bosons with large couplings to light quarks,Physical Review D100(2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Giannakopoulou, P

    A.S. Giannakopoulou, P. Meade and M. Valli,How charming can the higgs be?, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Cisneros-P´ erez, E

    T. Cisneros-P´ erez, E. Cruz-Albaro, A.Y. Ojeda-Casta˜ neda and S.E. Sol´ ıs-N´ u˜ nez, Chromomagnetic dipole moments of light quarks in the bestest little higgs model, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzy´ nski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-six terms in the standard model lagrangian,Journal of High Energy Physics2010(2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Kobach,Baryon number, lepton number, and operator dimension in the standard model, Physics Letters B758(2016) 455–457

    A. Kobach,Baryon number, lepton number, and operator dimension in the standard model, Physics Letters B758(2016) 455–457

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Bramante, A

    J. Bramante, A. Delgado, L. Lehman and A. Martin,Boosted higgs bosons from chromomagneticb’s:b ¯bhat high luminosity,Physical Review D93(2016) . – 17 –

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Hayreter and G

    A. Hayreter and G. Valencia,Constraints on anomalous color dipole operators from higgs boson production at the lhc,Physical Review D88(2013) . [27]CMScollaboration,Combined measurements and interpretations of Higgs boson production and decay at sqrt(s)=13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-21-018, CERN, Geneva (2025)

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014)

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Brivio, Y

    I. Brivio, Y. Jiang and M. Trott,The smeftsim package, theory and tools,Journal of High Energy Physics2017(2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Brivio,Smeftsim 3.0 — a practical guide,Journal of High Energy Physics2021(2021)

    I. Brivio,Smeftsim 3.0 — a practical guide,Journal of High Energy Physics2021(2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Contino, A

    R. Contino, A. Falkowski, F. Goertz, C. Grojean and F. Riva,On the validity of the effective field theory approach to sm precision tests,Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016)

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Elias-Mir´ o, J.R

    J. Elias-Mir´ o, J.R. Espinosa, E. Masso and A. Pomarol,Higgs windows to new physics through d = 6 operators: constraints and one-loop anomalous dimensions,Journal of High Energy Physics2013(2013)

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Mattelaer,On the maximal use of monte carlo samples: re-weighting events at nlo accuracy,The European Physical Journal C76(2016)

    O. Mattelaer,On the maximal use of monte carlo samples: re-weighting events at nlo accuracy,The European Physical Journal C76(2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. Helenius, P. Ilten et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of pythia 8.3, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaˆ ıtre, A. Mertens et al., Delphes 3: a modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    E. Bols, J. Kieseler, M. Verzetti, M. Stoye and A. Stakia,Jet flavour classification using deepjet,Journal of Instrumentation15(2020) P12012–P12012

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset VBF HToZZTo4L M125 TuneCP5 13TeV powheg2 JHUGenV7011 pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset tqH HToZZTo4L M125 TuneCP5 13TeV-jhugenv7011-pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset WminusH HToZZTo4L M125 TuneCP5 13TeV powheg2-minlo-HWJ JHUGenV7011 pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset WplusH HToZZTo4L M125 TuneCP5 13TeV powheg2-minlo-HWJ JHUGenV7011 pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset ZH HToZZ 4LFilter M125 TuneCP5 13TeV powheg2-minlo-HZJ JHUGenV7011 pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset ttH HToZZ 4LFilter M125 TuneCP5 13TeV powheg2 JHUGenV7011 pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal. – 18 –

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset GluGluHToZZTo4L M125 TuneCP5 13TeV powheg2 JHUGenV7011 pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated datasetZZTo4L TuneCP5 13TeV powheg pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset GluGluToContinToZZTo4mu TuneCP5 13TeV-mcfm701-pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    CMS Collaboration (2024),Simulated dataset DYJetsToLL M-50 TuneCP5 13TeV-amcatnloFXFX-pythia8in MINIAODSIM format for 2016 collision data,CERN Open Data Portal

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Cascioli, T

    F. Cascioli, T. Gehrmann, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, P. Maierh¨ ofer, A. von Manteuffel et al., Zz production at hadron colliders in nnlo qcd,Physics Letters B735(2014) 311–313

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Caola, K

    F. Caola, K. Melnikov, R. R¨ ontsch and L. Tancredi,Qcd corrections to zz production in gluon fusion at the lhc,Physical Review D92(2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Sirunyan, A

    A. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer et al., Performance of the cms muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 tev,Journal of Instrumentation13(2018) P06015–P06015. [50]CMScollaboration,Pileup Jet Identification, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-JME-13-005, CERN, Geneva (2013). [51]CMScollaboration,Meas...

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Read,Presentation of search results: the CLs technique,Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics28(2002) 2693

    A.L. Read,Presentation of search results: the CLs technique,Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics28(2002) 2693

    work page 2002

  39. [39]

    Apollinari, O

    G. Apollinari, O. Br¨ uning, T. Nakamoto and L. Rossi,High luminosity large hadron collider hl-lhc, 2015. 10.5170/CERN-2015-005.1. [55]CMScollaboration,The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool:Combine,Comput. Softw. Big Sci.8(2024) 19 [2404.06614]

    work page doi:10.5170/cern-2015-005.1 2015

  40. [40]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,The European Physical Journal C71(2011) . [57]CMScollaboration,Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 TeV data collected by CMS in 2016-2018,

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Hayrapetyan, A

    A. Hayrapetyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, J. Andrejkovic, T. Bergauer, S. Chatterjee et al., Muon identification using multivariate techniques in the cms experiment in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 tev,Journal of Instrumentation19(2024) P02031. [59]CMScollaboration,CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s= 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. ...

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    R.D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, L.D. Debbio, S. Forte, P. Groth-Merrild et al.,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data: Nnpdf collaboration,The European Physical Journal C77(2017) . – 19 –

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    CERN,Cern yellow reports: Monographs, vol 2 (2017): Handbook of lhc higgs cross sections:

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector

    deciphering the nature of the higgs sector, 2017. 10.23731/CYRM-2017-002

    work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2017-002 2017

  45. [45]

    Tomei,Cms upgrades for the high-luminosity lhc era, 2025

    T.R.F.P. Tomei,Cms upgrades for the high-luminosity lhc era, 2025

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    H. Qu, C. Li and S. Qian,Particle transformer for jet tagging, 2024. – 20 –

    work page 2024