Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

High Energy Vector Boson Scattering in Four-Body Final States to Probe Higgs Cubic, Quartic, and HEFT interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Four-body vector boson scattering may reveal modified Higgs self-couplings at energy scales about ten times lower than three-body scattering.

desk verdict The E* hierarchy for modified Higgs potentials is plausible and useful, but the 'more signal events' claim rests on parton-level cross sections only and needs flux/luminosity/background convolution before it can be supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16439 v2 pith:DZBGP4W5 submitted 2025-01-27 hep-ph hep-ex

Shameran Mahmud , Kohsaku Tobioka This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords vectorbosonscatteringHiggsself-couplingsperturbativeunitarityeffectivefieldtheorySMEFTlongitudinalWandZbosonsfuturecollidersequivalencetheorem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that four-body vector boson scattering ($V_L V_L \to h^4$, $V_L V_L \to V_L V_L h h$, $V_L V_L \to V_L^4$) is a sharper probe of deformed Higgs self-couplings than three-body scattering. The central quantitative claim is that when the Higgs cubic or quartic couplings deviate from the Standard Model, the unitarity-violation scale drops by roughly an order of magnitude when the final state gains one particle, $E^{*}_{2\to3}\sim 10\,E^{*}_{2\to4}$. Because the four-body BSM cross section grows with energy while the three-body one stays flat, the four-body channels overtake the three-body channels at parton energies of order 2\text{--}5 TeV, which future high-energy colliders could reach. The same advantage does not generally hold for derivative-dominated Higgs effective field theories (HEFT), where the two scales stay comparable and only the $V_L V_L \to h^4$ channel keeps the multiplicity benefit. If the argument holds, these channels give independent handles on the cubic, quartic, and even quintic Higgs couplings and a way to distinguish HEFT from Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) potential modifications.

What carries the argument

The engine is the phase-space averaged s-wave amplitude $\hat M$ of Eq. (3.1), normalized so that unitarity is violated when $|\hat M|^2\simeq 1$. For a momentum-independent contact term, the $n$-body phase space integral scales as $\int d\text{LIPS}_n \propto E_{cm}^{2(n-2)}/[(n-1)!(n-2)!]$, so each added final-state particle adds $E_{cm}^2$ to $|\hat M|^2$; this produces the general formula for $E^{*}_{2\to n}$ in Eq. (3.9) and the cross-section scalings $\sigma_3\propto 1/E^{*2}_{2\to3}$, $\sigma_4\propto E_{cm}^2/E^{*4}_{2\to4}$. The equivalence theorem lets the longitudinal $W$ and $Z$ be treated as the eaten Nambu-Goldstone bosons, and only the highest-energy six-point contact diagram is kept. For derivative HEFT benchmarks, the kinetic functions $K(h)$ and $F(h)$ and their sectional curvatures $K_h$ and $K_\pi$ encode non-canonical normalization and generate matrix elements with momentum dependence.

What would settle it

Simulate $W_LW_L\to h^4$ and $W_LW_L\to hhh$ at a few TeV of parton energy including the effective-$W$ fluxes and Standard Model backgrounds; if the four-body yield is not above the three-body yield where the paper predicts the crossover, the claim fails. Equivalently, a full tree-level computation retaining propagator diagrams could check whether the six-point contact term really sets the unitarity scale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a hierarchy of unitarity-violation scales driven by final-state multiplicity. Working at tree level, replacing longitudinal gauge bosons with their Nambu-Goldstone partners, and keeping only the six-point contact term, the authors compute the phase-space-averaged s-wave amplitude and find, for example, $E^{*}(W_LW_L\to h^4) = 21\,\text{TeV}/|\delta_3-\tfrac13\delta_4+\tfrac{10v^2}{3m_h^2}\delta_5|^{1/2}$, $E^{*}(W_LW_L\to W_LW_Lhh)=12\,\text{TeV}/|\delta_3-\tfrac15\delta_4|^{1/2}$, and $E^{*}(W_LW_L\to W_L^4)=19\,\text{TeV}/|\delta_3|^{1/2}$, compared with $E^{*}(W_LW_L\to hhh)=120\,\text{TeV}/|\delta_3-\tfrac13\delta_4|$ and $E^{*}(W_LW_L\to W_LW_Lh)=71\,\text{TeV}/|\delta_3|$. The four-body scales are about ten times lower because the phase space supplies an extra $E_{cm}^4$ growth that outweighs the larger final-state suppression. For HEFT operators with derivatives, the matrix element itself grows as $E_{cm}^2$, so $E^{*}_{2\to3}\sim E^{*}_{2\to4}$ and the cross-section advantage mostly disappears.

Load-bearing premise

The parton-level cross-section ordering is assumed to survive convolution with the fluxes that produce energetic longitudinal gauge bosons and with collider luminosity and backgrounds; if those suppress the four-body events, the claimed advantage may not appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For modified Higgs potentials, the unitarity-violation scale of $2\to4$ VBS is about ten times lower than its $2\to3$ counterpart, for example $E^{*}(W_LW_L\to W_LW_Lhh)\simeq12\,\text{TeV}/|\delta_3-\delta_4/5|^{1/2}$.
  • The four-body BSM cross sections grow as $E_{cm}^2$ and exceed the three-body ones at parton energies $\sqrt{\hat{s}}\simeq2\text{--}5$ TeV, which future high-energy colliders could reach.
  • The three final states have different coupling dependences: $V_LV_L\to V_LV_Lhh$ is sensitive to $\delta_3$ and $\delta_4$, $V_LV_L\to V_L^4$ only to $\delta_3$, and $V_LV_L\to h^4$ also to $\delta_5$, so measuring them together can disentangle the potential.
  • For the dimension-six SMEFT operator $(H^\dagger H)^3$, the correlations $\delta_4=6\delta_3$ and related relations weaken the energy growth in $h^4$ and $V_LV_Lhh$, changing the predicted cross-over energies and making the distinction from HEFT observable.
  • For derivative-dominated HEFT operators, $E^{*}_{2\to3}\sim E^{*}_{2\to4}$ and the vector-boson $2\to4$ cross sections stay below their $2\to3$ counterparts, so the multiplicity benefit survives mainly in $V_LV_L\to h^4$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper stops at parton level, so the event-level crossover could shift once effective-$W$ fluxes, luminosity, and detector cuts are included; a full collider simulation is the natural test.
  • The factor-of-ten gap in Eq. (3.10) assumes order-one deviations; for smaller $\delta$ the ratio shrinks because $E^{*}_{2\to4}\propto|\delta|^{-1/2}$ while $E^{*}_{2\to3}\propto|\delta|^{-1}$, so the advantage is largest precisely when the modification is large.
  • If four-body backgrounds are smaller, as the paper speculates, the significance crossover could occur below the cross-section crossover; background estimates for the $h^4$, $V_LV_Lhh$, and $V_L^4$ final states would decide this.
  • The same phase-space mechanism implies $2\to5$ VBS would lower $E^{*}$ by another factor of about two, but the cross-over energy rises; whether $2\to5$ is preferable depends on a collider's energy and luminosity reach.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes tree-level perturbative-unitarity-violation scales E* for a set of 2->4 vector-boson-scattering processes (V_L V_L -> h^4, V_L V_L h h, and V_L^4) under modified Higgs potentials and HEFT derivative operators, and compares them with the corresponding 2->3 VBS processes. It presents analytic formulas for E* in terms of the Higgs self-coupling deviations (Eq. (4.2)), tabulated values in Appendices A and B, and parton-level cross-section comparisons (Sec. 6). The central quantitative claim is that, for potential modifications, E*_{2->4} is about an order of magnitude smaller than E*_{2->3} (Eq. (3.10)), and that the 2->4 parton-level cross sections overtake the 2->3 ones at sqrt(s_hat) = O(2-5) TeV, so that 2->4 VBS would be a more sensitive probe of cubic and quartic Higgs self-couplings at future colliders. For HEFT derivative interactions, the paper argues that this advantage is largely absent for final states with vector bosons.

Significance. If the E* hierarchy and the parton-level cross-section ordering survive a realistic embedding into collider processes, the paper would provide a useful guide for future high-energy VBS searches. The work is commendable for giving closed-form E* formulas (Eq. (4.2)) that make the parametric dependence on delta3, delta4, and delta5 explicit, for exposing the SMEFT correlations (Eqs. (2.7)-(2.8)), and for tabulating many processes in the appendices so that the results are directly reusable. The internal consistency of the E* calculation, based on the phase-space-averaged amplitude of Eq. (3.1) and the contact-term approximation, appears sound. The main weakness is that the headline claim about 'more signal events' is based entirely on parton-level cross sections, without folding in effective-W or PDF fluxes, luminosity, or backgrounds; the paper itself acknowledges in Sec. 7 that a detailed background analysis is beyond its scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 6.1] The claim that 2->4 VBS processes 'generate more signal events' above sqrt(s_hat) ~ O(2-5) TeV rests on parton-level comparisons (Eqs. (6.4)-(6.5)) with no convolution with the effective-W/PDF flux or luminosity. At a real collider, the 2->3 yield is dominated by low sqrt(s_hat), where the longitudinal-W luminosity is enhanced by roughly ln(1/tau)/tau, whereas the 2->4 BSM cross section grows as E^2 and therefore receives its main contribution from high sqrt(s_hat), where the flux is suppressed. The ordering of event yields after convolution could weaken or reverse; this is a load-bearing omission for the paper's phenomenological message and should be addressed quantitatively or the language softened accordingly.
  2. [Eq. (3.10) and Sec. 4.3] The schematic relation E*_{2->3} ~ 10 * E*_{2->4} overstates the actual ratios obtained from the analytic formulas in Eq. (4.2). For example, E*(WW->WWh)/E*(WW->W4_L) ~ 71/19 ~ 3.7, E*(WW->hhh)/E*(WW->h4) ~ 120/21 ~ 5.7 (for delta5 = 0), and E*(WW->WWh)/E*(WW->WWhh) ~ 71/12 ~ 5.9. Since the crossover energy E_sigma = E*_{2->4}^2/E*_{2->3} (Eq. (6.6)) depends quadratically on E*_{2->4}, an overestimate of the ratio by a factor of 2-3 translates into an E_sigma that is too low by a similar factor; explicit values give E_sigma(WW->h4/hhh) ~ 3.7 TeV and E_sigma(WW->W4/WWh) ~ 5.1 TeV, which are at or above the upper end of the stated O(2-5) TeV range.
  3. [Sec. 4.3 and Eq. (4.2)] The E* formulas for 2->4 processes are derived by retaining only the six-point contact term, neglecting propagator diagrams on the grounds that they are subleading in energy. This approximation becomes unreliable when the contact-term coefficient is suppressed by cancellations, e.g., for WW->WWhh when delta3 - delta4/5 is near zero, or for WW->h4 when delta3 - delta4/3 + 10 v^2/(3 m_h^2) delta5 is near zero. Such cancellations are precisely what occurs in the SMEFT correlation benchmark shown in Fig. 5, so the corresponding E* values and the resulting cross-section conclusions for that case carry an unquantified uncertainty. The paper should estimate the parameter region where the contact-term dominance fails and state the resulting error in E*.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1] The phrase 'thase SU (2) scalar doublet' should read 'the SU(2) scalar doublet'.
  2. [Sec. 6.2] The phrase 'in addition in addition' should read 'in addition'.
  3. [Eq. (2.9)] The expansion after 'h^3 -> ...' is notationally dense; a more standard presentation with explicit sums over n or a reference to a supplemental file would improve readability.
  4. [References] Several references contain typographical errors, e.g., 'A TLAS' for 'ATLAS' in [1] and 'Similar plot' in the caption of Fig. 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the E* values and parton-level cross-section comparisons are derived from stated benchmark inputs rather than fitted to the target observables.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no circular step of any of the enumerated kinds. The Lagrangian deformations (delta3, delta4, delta5, y, kappa, lambda, M) are chosen as benchmark values or from published UV-model constraints, and they are not fitted to E* or to the cross-section ratios. The E* values in Eq. (4.2) and Tables 1-4 follow from the phase-space-averaged matrix element in Eq. (3.1), with contact-term amplitudes evaluated under the equivalence theorem; those are explicit calculations, not restatements of the desired conclusion. The 2->3 comparison values either are rederived in the same framework or are quoted transparently from prior work, including the authors' own Ref. [16], which is independent support rather than a circular load-bearing citation. The crossover formula E_sigma = E*_{2->4}^2 / E*_{2->3} in Eq. (6.6) is a direct algebraic consequence of Eqs. (6.1)-(6.5), so its use in Figs. 3-5 is a legitimate derived relation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The claim that 2->4 processes 'generate more signal events' is explicitly made at the parton level: Sec. 6.1 states that the E_sigma value is before background is taken into account, and Sec. 7 acknowledges that a detailed background analysis is beyond the scope of the work and that comparing final states with different numbers of Higgs and gauge bosons requires a thorough background study. These are genuine completeness limitations of the collider extrapolation, but they are not circularity. No quoted text exhibits an equation reducing by construction to its own input, no fitted observable is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise depends solely on a self-citation chain. The main scientific risk is the unvalidated step from parton-level cross sections to collider event yields, which the paper itself flags rather than conceals.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or fields; all EFT operators are either standard SMEFT/HEFT forms or derived from known UV models in Refs. [27, 44]. The free parameters listed are benchmark inputs or Wilson coefficients, not quantities fitted to the paper's own target observables. The main assumptions are methodological: the phase-space-averaged unitarity criterion, the equivalence theorem, contact-term dominance, and the O(R^2) geometric truncation. None of these assumptions is hidden; each is stated in the relevant section, but their quantitative impact on the quoted E* values is not estimated.

free parameters (10)
  • delta3 (cubic Higgs coupling deviation) = 0 or 1 in benchmarks; E* formulas scale as 1/delta3 or 1/sqrt(delta3)
    Introduced in Eq. (4.1) as a HEFT potential modification. O(1) values are chosen for display and are not fitted to experimental data.
  • delta4 (quartic Higgs coupling deviation) = 0 or 1 in benchmarks; E* formulas scale as 1/sqrt(delta4) in some channels
    Introduced in Eq. (4.1). Set independently in HEFT scenarios and correlated with delta3 in SMEFT via Eq. (2.7).
  • delta5 (quintic Higgs coupling deviation) = set to 0 unless predicted by the UV model; SMEFT predicts delta5 = 3 m_h^2 delta3 / (8 v^2)
    The h^4 channel depends on delta5 in Eq. (4.2c), but experimental constraints are absent, so it is turned off in most benchmarks.
  • kappa_{2/3} for (H^dagger H)^(2/3) potential = (80 GeV)^(8/3)
    Chosen in Sec. 4.2 based on bounds for the UV model in Eq. (5.1), giving delta3 ~ -0.1.
  • kappa_{1/2} for sqrt(H^dagger H) potential = (80 GeV)^3
    Chosen in Sec. 4.2 to have the same scale as kappa_{2/3} for simplicity, giving delta3 ~ -0.3.
  • y (fermion coupling in loryon model) = 1, 1.4, or 2.6
    Used for the loop-level fermion HEFT in Sec. 5.1. Values are selected based on bounds from Ref. [44] and the m = 0 limit, not fitted to the paper's observables.
  • lambda (singlet scalar coupling) = 8.3
    Chosen for the scalar singlet model in Sec. 5.1 within allowed bounds from Ref. [44] for m = 0.
  • M (scalar doublet mass parameter) = 45 GeV
    Defined as M = (kappa^2 / lambda_Sigma)^(1/2) in Eq. (5.2); chosen to lie within HEFT-regime bounds from Ref. [44] and to keep lambda_Sigma perturbative.
  • c6 / Lambda^2 (SMEFT Wilson coefficient) = 1/(1 TeV)^2
    Chosen for the SMEFT benchmark plot in Fig. 1; the paper notes that the crossover energy E_sigma does not depend on its value.
  • mu (renormalization scale) = m_f = y v / sqrt(2) for the fermion model
    Set to minimize the logarithmic term in Eq. (5.7), as stated in Sec. 5.1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Unitarity violation is identified by |Mhat|^2 ~ 1 using the phase-space-averaged amplitude, Eq. (3.3).
    This criterion from Refs. [17, 27, 28] replaces a full partial-wave unitarity analysis. E* is an estimate of the scale where tree-level unitarity breaks, not an exact bound.
  • standard math The equivalence theorem applies, so longitudinal vector bosons are replaced by Nambu-Goldstone bosons at the energies of interest.
    Invoked in Sec. 3. It is standard and justified for E >> m_V, which is satisfied at most E* values, but it is an approximation near a few TeV.
  • domain assumption For 2-to-4 potential modifications, only the six-point constant contact term contributes; diagrams with propagators are subdominant.
    Stated in Sec. 4.3. True at high energy when the contact term does not cancel, but potentially unreliable in SMEFT cancellation regions where the contact term is suppressed.
  • domain assumption The geometric HEFT formalism is truncated at O(R^2), and covariant derivatives are assumed to commute on the Riemann tensor.
    From Sec. 5.2, Eq. (5.15). Valid when the new coupling, including numerical factors, is much smaller than O(1); for y = 2.6 the expansion parameter y^2/(4 pi^2) ~ 0.17 is moderate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High Energy Vector Boson Scattering in Four-Body Final States to Probe Higgs Cubic, Quartic, and HEFT interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZBGP4W5

@misc{pith2026250116439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High Energy Vector Boson Scattering in Four-Body Final States to Probe Higgs Cubic, Quartic, and HEFT interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZBGP4W5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16439}
}
abstract

We compute the energy scales of perturbative unitarity violation in various $2 \to 4$ vector boson scattering (VBS) processes and compare them to lower multiplicity processes. The final states include $h^4$, $V_L V_L h h$, and $V_L^4$, where $V_L$ represents the longitudinal mode of $Z$ or $W$ boson, and $h$ the Higgs boson. We consider scenarios with modified cubic and quartic Higgs self-couplings, including those derived from the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT), as well as scenarios involving derivative operators from Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT). Modified Higgs self-couplings typically lead to perturbative unitarity violation in at least the $2\to 3$ VBS; however, the corresponding energy scales of unitarity violation are often very high. Our analysis reveals that, in the case of modified Higgs potentials, $2\to4$ processes exhibit significantly lower energy scales of unitarity violation compared to $2 \to 3$ processes. This, combined with the fact that the cross sections of $2 \to 4$ processes increase with energy, suggests they generate more signal events at high energies, $\sqrt{\hat{s}} \gtrsim 2$ TeV, which could be achieved in future colliders. In contrast, for HEFT derivative interactions, higher multiplicity offers diminished benefits, as $2 \to 4$ cross sections are often smaller than those of related $2 \to 3$ processes within the valid energy range. This study shows that $2 \to 4$ VBS processes are particularly compelling for probing Higgs potential modification, including the cubic and quartic couplings, but are less advantageous when derivative interactions dominate.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Positivity and partial wave unitarity bounds on ALP theories via amplitude methods

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Complete partial-wave unitarity and positivity bounds are derived for ALP effective interactions up to dimension 8, with new SMEFT positivity constraints as a byproduct.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [30]

    R. L. Delgado, R. Gómez-Ambrosio, J. Martínez-Martín, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Production of two, three, and four Higgs bosons: where SMEFT and HEFT depart, JHEP 03 (2024) 037, [arXiv:2311.04280]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Aad et al.,A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature 607 (2022), no

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature 607 (2022), no. 7917 52–59, [arXiv:2207.00092]. [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]. – 27 –

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Aad et al.,Characterising the Higgs boson with ATLAS data from Run 2 of the LHC, arXiv:2404.05498

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Characterising the Higgs boson with ATLAS data from Run 2 of the LHC, arXiv:2404.05498

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Tumasyan et al.,A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery., Nature 607 (2022), no

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery., Nature 607 (2022), no. 7917 60–68, [arXiv:2207.00043]. [Erratum: Nature 623, (2023)]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    Baglio, A

    J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gröber, M. M. Mühlleitner, J. Quevillon, and M. Spira,The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status, JHEP 04 (2013) 151, [arXiv:1212.5581]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky,New Physics in LHC Higgs boson pair production, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013), no. 5 055002, [arXiv:1210.8166]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Davies, G

    J. Davies, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Mishima, M. Steinhauser, and D. Wellmann,Double Higgs boson production at NLO: combining the exact numerical result and high-energy expansion, JHEP 11 (2019) 024, [arXiv:1907.06408]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    L.-B. Chen, H. T. Li, H.-S. Shao, and J. Wang,Higgs boson pair production via gluon fusion at N3LO in QCD, Phys. Lett. B803 (2020) 135292, [arXiv:1909.06808]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Grazzini, G

    M. Grazzini, G. Heinrich, S. Jones, S. Kallweit, M. Kerner, J. M. Lindert, and J. Mazzitelli,Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects, JHEP 05 (2018) 059, [arXiv:1803.02463]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg,Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at N3LO, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 11 114016, [arXiv:1811.07906]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A TLASCollaboration, Combination of searches for non-resonant and resonant Higgs boson pair production in theb¯bγγ, b¯bτ +τ − and b¯bb¯b decay channels usingpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

  4. [11]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Studies of new Higgs boson interactions through nonresonant HH production in thebbγγ final state in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01 (2024) 066, [arXiv:2310.12301]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Tumasyan et al.,Search for Nonresonant Pair Production of Highly Energetic Higgs Bosons Decaying to Bottom Quarks, Phys

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,Search for Nonresonant Pair Production of Highly Energetic Higgs Bosons Decaying to Bottom Quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023), no. 4 041803, [arXiv:2205.06667]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Tumasyan et al.,Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final state with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final state with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023) 137531, [arXiv:2206.09401]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Di Luzio, R

    L. Di Luzio, R. Gröber, and M. Spannowsky,Maxi-sizing the trilinear Higgs self-coupling: how large could it be?, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017), no. 11 788, [arXiv:1704.02311]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Cepeda et al.,Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, CERN Yellow Rep

    M. Cepeda et al.,Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.7 (2019) 221–584, [arXiv:1902.00134]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Mahmud and K

    S. Mahmud and K. Tobioka,Energy growth in VLVL→ VLVL, VLVLh scattering to probe Higgs cubic and HEFT interactions, JHEP 09 (2024) 073, [arXiv:2406.03522]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Chang and M

    S. Chang and M. A. Luty,The Higgs Trilinear Coupling and the Scale of New Physics, JHEP 03 (2020) 140, [arXiv:1902.05556]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Abu-Ajamieh, S

    F. Abu-Ajamieh, S. Chang, M. Chen, and M. A. Luty,Higgs coupling measurements and the scale of new physics, JHEP 07 (2021) 056, [arXiv:2009.11293]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Stylianou and G

    P. Stylianou and G. Weiglein,Constraints on the trilinear and quartic Higgs couplings from triple Higgs production at the LHC and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024), no. 4 366, [arXiv:2312.04646]. – 28 –

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Papaefstathiou and G

    A. Papaefstathiou and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi,Multi-Higgs boson production with anomalous interactions at current and future proton colliders, JHEP 06 (2024) 124, [arXiv:2312.13562]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    B. Fuks, J. H. Kim, and S. J. Lee,Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton–proton collider with taus and b-jets, Phys. Lett. B771 (2017) 354–358, [arXiv:1704.04298]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Plehn and M

    T. Plehn and M. Rauch,The quartic higgs coupling at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 053008, [hep-ph/0507321]

    2005 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Bizoń, U

    W. Bizoń, U. Haisch, and L. Rottoli,Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders, JHEP 10 (2019) 267, [arXiv:1810.04665]. [Addendum: JHEP 02, 170 (2024)]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Bizoń, U

    W. Bizoń, U. Haisch, L. Rottoli, Z. Gillis, B. Moser, and P. Windischhofer,Addendum to: Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders [JHEP 10 (2019) 267], JHEP 02 (2024) 170, [arXiv:2402.03463]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Liu, K.-F

    T. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, J. Ren, and H. X. Zhu,Probing the quartic Higgs boson self-interaction, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 9 093004, [arXiv:1803.04359]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Chiesa, F

    M. Chiesa, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, B. Mele, F. Piccinini, and X. Zhao,Measuring the quartic Higgs self-coupling at a multi-TeV muon collider, JHEP 09 (2020) 098, [arXiv:2003.13628]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Falkowski and R

    A. Falkowski and R. Rattazzi,Which EFT, JHEP 10 (2019) 255, [arXiv:1902.05936]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland,Unitarity violation and the geometry of Higgs EFTs, JHEP 12 (2021) 003, [arXiv:2108.03240]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Gómez-Ambrosio, F

    R. Gómez-Ambrosio, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero,Distinguishing electroweak EFTs with WLWL→n×h, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022), no. 5 053004, [arXiv:2204.01763]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Henning, D

    B. Henning, D. Lombardo, M. Riembau, and F. Riva,Measuring Higgs Couplings without Higgs Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019), no. 18 181801, [arXiv:1812.09299]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chen, C.-T

    J. Chen, C.-T. Lu, and Y. Wu,Measuring Higgs boson self-couplings with 2→ 3 VBS processes, JHEP 10 (2021) 099, [arXiv:2105.11500]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Belyaev, A

    A. Belyaev, A. C. A. Oliveira, R. Rosenfeld, and M. C. Thomas,Multi Higgs and Vector boson production beyond the Standard Model, JHEP 05 (2013) 005, [arXiv:1212.3860]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions, Int

    F. Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8 (1993) 4937–4972, [hep-ph/9301281]

    1993 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bagger, V

    J. Bagger, V. D. Barger, K.-m. Cheung, J. F. Gunion, T. Han, G. A. Ladinsky, R. Rosenfeld, and C. P. Yuan,The Strongly interacting W W system: Gold plated modes, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 1246–1264, [hep-ph/9306256]

    1994 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Koulovassilopoulos and R

    V. Koulovassilopoulos and R. S. Chivukula,The Phenomenology of a nonstandard Higgs boson in W(L) W(L) scattering, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 3218–3234, [hep-ph/9312317]

    1994 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268 (1986) 621–653

    1986

  30. [38]

    C. N. Leung, S. T. Love, and S. Rao,Low-Energy Manifestations of a New Interaction Scale: Operator Analysis, Z. Phys. C31 (1986) 433

    1986

  31. [39]

    Weinberg,Baryon- and lepton-nonconserving processes, Phys

    S. Weinberg,Baryon- and lepton-nonconserving processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.43 (Nov, 1979) 1566–1570. – 29 –

    1979

  32. [40]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar,A Geometric Formulation of Higgs Effective Field Theory: Measuring the Curvature of Scalar Field Space, Phys. Lett. B754 (2016) 335–342, [arXiv:1511.00724]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar,Geometry of the Scalar Sector, JHEP 08 (2016) 101, [arXiv:1605.03602]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland,Is SMEFT Enough?, JHEP 03 (2021) 237, [arXiv:2008.08597]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gómez-Ambrosio, F

    R. Gómez-Ambrosio, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero,SMEFT is falsifiable through multi-Higgs measurements (even in the absence of new light particles), Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 (2023), no. 9 095202, [arXiv:2207.09848]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Banta, T

    I. Banta, T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland,Non-decoupling new particles, JHEP 02 (2022) 029, [arXiv:2110.02967]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kanemura and R

    S. Kanemura and R. Nagai,A new Higgs effective field theory and the new no-lose theorem, JHEP 03 (2022) 194, [arXiv:2111.12585]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Garcia-Garcia, M

    C. Garcia-Garcia, M. Herrero, and R. A. Morales,Unitarization effects in EFT predictions of WZ scattering at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 9 096003, [arXiv:1907.06668]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. M. Dávila, D. Domenech, M. J. Herrero, and R. A. Morales,Exploring correlations between HEFT Higgs couplings κV and κ2V via HH production ate+e− colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024), no. 5 503, [arXiv:2312.03877]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Englert, R

    Anisha, C. Englert, R. Kogler, and M. Spannowsky,Higgs boson off-shell measurements probe nonlinearities, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 9 095033, [arXiv:2402.06746]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Galloway, M

    J. Galloway, M. A. Luty, Y. Tsai, and Y. Zhao,Induced Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Supersymmetric Naturalness, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 7 075003, [arXiv:1306.6354]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dawson,The effective w approximation, Nuclear Physics B249 (1985), no

    S. Dawson,The effective w approximation, Nuclear Physics B249 (1985), no. 1 42–60

    1985

  43. [51]

    G. Kane, W. Repko, and W. Rolnick,The effective w±, z0 approximation for high energy collisions, Physics Letters B148 (1984), no. 4 367–372

    1984

  44. [52]

    R. Ruiz, A. Costantini, F. Maltoni, and O. Mattelaer,The Effective Vector Boson Approximation in high-energy muon collisions, JHEP 06 (2022) 114, [arXiv:2111.02442]. – 30 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.