Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

An analytic result for the $0 \to ggHHH$ amplitude

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the full one-loop amplitude for triple-Higgs production in gluon fusion in closed analytic form, with exact dependence on the loop-quark mass.

desk verdict A genuinely useful analytic one-loop amplitude for gg->HHH, well cross-checked, with an acknowledged but minor completeness gap in the reconstruction and a small unresolved sign discrepancy. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19313 v1 pith:Y5ZROXEP submitted 2025-07-25 hep-ph

John M. Campbell , Giuseppe De Laurentis , R. Keith Ellis This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords tripleHiggsproductiongluonfusionone-loopamplitudeanalyticreconstructionself-couplingsspinor-helicityformalismpentagonreductionfinite-fieldmethods
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

The paper establishes that the leading-order one-loop amplitude for triple Higgs production in gluon fusion, $gg\to HHH$, can be written in closed analytic form with exact dependence on the mass of the quark circulating in the loop. The full amplitude is organized into triangle, box, and pentagon sub-amplitudes, and the pentagon contribution, the genuinely new part, is reduced to compact coefficients built from spinor brackets and the parity-odd trace $\mathrm{tr}_5$. This matters because $gg\to HHH$ is a direct probe of the triple and quartic Higgs self-couplings, and a fast closed form replaces repeated numerical loop integrations. The paper reports exact numerical agreement with independent fully numerical one-loop programs and a speed gain of more than an order of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is analytic reconstruction in a covariant polynomial quotient ring (eqs. 2.15 and 2.16), in which the on-shell Higgs momenta are treated as variables modulo the mass-shell relations; finite-field and $p$-adic evaluations at carefully chosen slices determine the coefficient functions. The simplification step uses the Cayley-matrix pentagon reduction, with coefficients $c^{(i)}=-\frac12\sum_j S^{-1}_{ij}$, plus a rewriting that inserts a factor of unity built from the relation between the Cayley and Gram determinants, converting pentagon coefficients into 'effective pentagon' coefficients in which powers of $\mathrm{tr}_5^2$ cancel explicitly. Primary decompositions of ideals of spinor-string expressions, such as those in eqs. (2.17) and (2.19), expose common numerator factors, and the resulting compact coefficients are assembled with a library of scalar one-loop integrals.

What would settle it

Evaluate the closed-form amplitude against an independent direct numerical evaluation of the one-loop Feynman diagrams at an ensemble of random phase-space points in high precision, especially near $\mathrm{tr}_5\to0$ and $\Delta_{12\times3\times4}\to0$; any mismatch beyond integration accuracy would show that the reconstruction missed a term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the complete one-loop QCD amplitude for $0\to ggHHH$, written as $A_{\mathrm{tot}}=\delta^{AB}\frac{g_s^2}{16\pi^2}\frac{m^4}{v^3}(A_3+A_4+A_5)$, is reproduced exactly by the analytic formulas of Sections 2 and 3: explicit spinor-helicity expressions for the triangle coefficients (eqs. 2.21 and 2.24), the box coefficients (eqs. 2.23 and 2.24), the effective pentagon coefficients (eqs. 3.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.23), and the box and triangle remainder coefficients (eqs. 3.31 through 3.49). The formulas keep full dependence on the loop-quark mass $m$ and the Higgs mass $M_H$, and the resulting matrix element reproduces the one-loop result at any phase-space point, with cross-checks against fully numerical one-loop programs. Evaluated at $M_H=125$ GeV with top and bottom quarks, the Standard Model cross sections are $0.0512$ fb at 14 TeV and $2.76$ fb at 100 TeV, and the dependence on the Higgs self-coupling deviations $\Delta\kappa_3$, $\Delta\kappa_4$ is compressed into the polynomial parametrizations of eqs. (4.3) and (4.4).

Load-bearing premise

The formulas are guaranteed only if every coefficient is a rational function of the listed spinor and invariant variables; the paper itself notes it could not find compact generators for one algebraic component arising in the reconstruction, so an undocumented square-root or algebraic factor there would make the expressions incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The exact leading-order matrix element can serve directly as the Born term in a future NLO calculation of triple-Higgs production, replacing the heavy-top-limit reweighting that the paper argues distorts mass effects in double-Higgs production.
  • The Standard Model cross sections at this order, $0.0512$ fb at 14 TeV and $2.76$ fb at 100 TeV, together with the polynomial fits in eqs. (4.3) and (4.4), allow experimental groups to convert limits on $\kappa_3$ and $\kappa_4$ into cross-section constraints without recomputing the loop amplitude.
  • Because full quark-mass dependence is retained, approximate NLO predictions can be reweighted with the exact mass dependence rather than with $m\to\infty$ effective-theory factors.
  • The compact formula evaluates more than an order of magnitude faster than fully numerical one-loop programs, making it practical for event generation and large Monte Carlo samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: expanding the analytic coefficients in inverse powers of $m^2$ would give the exact heavy-top-limit corrections order by order, providing a direct test of how much the $m\to\infty$ approximation shifts kinematic distributions.
  • Editorial extension: the same reduction-and-reconstruction machinery is directly applicable to the real-radiation processes $0\to q\bar q gHHH$ and $0\to gggHHH$, so the method likely supplies all the pieces needed for an exact NLO calculation of triple-Higgs production.
  • Editorial extension: the quartic-coupling sensitivity visible in the parametrizations is mild (coefficient of $\Delta\kappa_4$ near $-0.1$), suggesting that extracting $\kappa_4$ from inclusive $gg\to HHH$ will require differential measurements or higher energy, both of which become cheaper with an analytic amplitude.
  • Editorial extension: at phase-space boundaries where $\mathrm{tr}_5$ or the Gram determinants vanish, the explicit cancellations in these formulas could be validated in high precision; if they hold, the amplitude should remain stable in double-precision Monte Carlo without numerical rescue.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper presents a compact analytic result for the leading-order one-loop amplitude for gg -> HHH, retaining full dependence on the mass of the heavy quark in the loop. The amplitude is decomposed into triangle, box, and pentagon contributions, each reduced to scalar integrals with coefficients obtained by Passarino-Veltman reduction and simplified by finite-field and p-adic analytic reconstruction, partial fraction decomposition, and primary decomposition. The central result is the set of coefficient formulas in Sections 2 and 3, together with a Fortran implementation and a Python-readable version of the coefficients. The authors report full agreement with OpenLoops and Recola2 for the matrix element, an order-of-magnitude speed improvement, and cross-section parametrizations at 14 and 100 TeV. The paper also provides a script checking two of the three displayed primary decompositions used in the reconstruction.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant technical achievement: it provides the first compact analytic representation of a 2 -> 3 one-loop amplitude with three massive external scalars and full heavy-quark mass dependence, relevant for probes of the triple and quartic Higgs self-couplings. The result is supported by genuinely independent numerical cross-checks against two public one-loop codes, and the ancillary code and validation scripts are valuable reproducibility artifacts. The claimed speed and stability of the analytic expression could be important for future NLO computations and for phenomenological studies of triple Higgs production. The main caveat is a formally unproved completeness conjecture in the primary decomposition used by the reconstruction; this does not invalidate the numerical cross-checks, but it does bear directly on the 'fully analytic' claim and should be addressed explicitly in a revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, eqs. (2.19)-(2.20)] The completeness of the coefficient reconstruction rests on the conjecture, stated immediately after eq. (2.20), that the remaining primary component of the ideal in eq. (2.19) is primary and admits no compact generating set. The box remainders in eqs. (3.35) and (3.40) carry explicit factors of Delta_12x3x4 and are precisely the terms exposed to this gap: if the true numerator has support on the unknown component in a way not captured by the finite-field and p-adic evaluations, the ansatz could miss a denominator or a term at isolated phase-space points. The attached script test_primary_decompositions.py checks eqs. (2.18) and (2.20) but not the fourth component, so this gap is acknowledged but not closed. I ask the authors to either prove the needed completeness statement or, failing that, to state the conditional nature of the 'fully analytic' claim explicitly and to add targeted numerical checks of eqs. (3.35) and (3.40) at phase-space points lying on the variety of the unknown component.
  2. [Section 4, eqs. (4.3)-(4.4)] The 14 TeV cross-section parametrization in eq. (4.3) differs from the result quoted in Ref. [1] in the sign of the Delta_kappa_4 term, while the 100 TeV parametrization in eq. (4.4) agrees with Ref. [34]. A sign difference in a small coefficient can change the qualitative interpretation of quartic-coupling sensitivity, so this is not a purely typographical matter. Please verify the cross-section evaluation, identify the source of the difference (input conventions, PDFs, scale choices, or an error), and correct or explicitly discuss the discrepancy in the revised manuscript.
  3. [Section 4, after eq. (4.1)] The abstract and Section 4 claim that evaluation of the new amplitude is 'an order of magnitude or more faster' than OpenLoops and Recola2, but no benchmark protocol is provided. Please report the hardware, compiler, number of phase-space points, whether the comparison is for a single phase-space evaluation or for an integrated cross section, and the numerical precision achieved. The speed and stability claims are part of the advertised value of the result and should be reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, eq. (2.14)] The sign convention for tr5 as Tr{p1 p2 p3 p4 gamma5} should be stated explicitly, since the transformation rule in eq. (3.21) flips its sign and subsequent formulas depend on this convention.
  2. [Section 4, eq. (4.1)] The notation '|M^2|' is an abuse of notation; please write |\mathcal{M}|^2 and define \mathcal{M} once, for clarity.
  3. [Section 3.3, eq. (3.41)] The trace notation 'tr(5|4|3|1-2)' is introduced in eq. (3.41) just before its use in eq. (3.40); consider defining it before the first occurrence and use 'cf.' instead of 'c.f.'.
  4. [Section 2.3, eqs. (2.25)-(2.28)] The mapping from the permutations in eqs. (2.26)-(2.28) to the coefficient labels in eq. (2.25) is implicit; one sentence stating that each coefficient inherits the momentum ordering of the corresponding integral would make the sums unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the analytic amplitude is reconstructed from exact finite-field evaluations and independently cross-checked against OpenLoops and Recola2; the unproved primary-decomposition conjecture is a completeness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the expressions in Sections 2 and 3 constitute a fully analytic one-loop amplitude for gg -> HHH. The derivation chain starts from standard Passarino-Veltman reduction and unitarity, and the coefficients are then simplified or reconstructed using finite-field and p-adic evaluations. This is an exact analytic-reconstruction/interpolation procedure when the underlying ansatz is complete; it is not a fit of a physical parameter to a subset of data followed by a prediction of a closely related quantity. The reconstructed amplitude is checked against OpenLoops and Recola2, which are independent external numerical codes, and the paper reports full agreement. The only substantive gap is the paper's own conjecture that the fourth primary component of the ideal in eq. (2.19) has no compact generators; this is an openly acknowledged completeness/rigor limitation, not an equivalence between the output and an input. The cross-section parametrizations in eqs. (4.3)-(4.4) are explicitly fits to the computed code's output and are not used as evidence for the amplitude derivation. Self-citations to refs. [54,55,59] provide methodology rather than a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and the cited methods are not used to forbid alternative forms. Therefore no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the central result has independent numerical support.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central amplitude claim rests on no fitted free parameters; the masses MH, mt and mb are external inputs taken from prior literature. The primary-component conjecture is the most exposed ad hoc mathematical assumption in the paper. The cross-section interpolation polynomials in eqs. (4.3)-(4.4) are fits to computed cross sections, but they do not enter the central amplitude derivation.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The amplitude coefficients are rational functions in the covariant polynomial quotient ring defined in eqs. (2.15) and (2.16), so a finite ansatz from finite-field and p-adic evaluations reconstructs them exactly.
    Section 2, after eq. (2.20). This is the core assumption of the analytic reconstruction method; if coefficients involved algebraic functions outside this ring, the ansatz could miss terms. The p-adic sampling strategy is designed to detect this, but the assumption remains.
  • ad hoc to paper The remaining primary component of the ideal in eq. (2.19) is primary and can be computed via ideal quotients, though no compact generating set is presented.
    Section 2, after eq. (2.20). Explicitly stated as a conjecture. It is used in the simplification chain; the supplied test script checks eqs. (2.18) and (2.20) but not this component.
  • standard math Standard one-loop integral reduction identities, including Passarino-Veltman reduction and the pentagon-to-box reduction of ref. [58], apply in all kinematic regions sampled.
    Sections 3.1 and Appendix A. These are established results and are not the source of new uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An analytic result for the $0 \to ggHHH$ amplitude." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5ZROXEP

@misc{pith2026250719313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An analytic result for the $0 \to ggHHH$ amplitude},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5ZROXEP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19313}
}
abstract

We present a fully analytic calculation of the leading-order one-loop amplitude for triple Higgs production via gluon fusion, $gg \to HHH$, retaining full dependence on the mass of the heavy quark circulating in the loop. This amplitude provides a direct probe of the triple and quartic Higgs self-couplings, the measurement of which is a central goal of current and future colliders. The amplitude can be presented in compact form thanks to the use of analytic reconstruction techniques, based on finite-field and $p$-adic evaluations, partial fraction decompositions, and primary decompositions to identify common numerator factors. Our results provide a compact and efficient representation of the matrix element for this process, enabling evaluations that are more than an order of magnitude faster than existing numerical alternatives.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abouabid et al.,HHH whitepaper, Eur

    H. Abouabid et al.,HHH whitepaper, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) 1183 [2407.03015]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [34]

    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 [1810.04665]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [2]

    Plehn and M

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

    arXiv 2005

  4. [3]

    Binoth, S

    T. Binoth, S. Karg, N. Kauer and R. Ruckl,Multi-Higgs boson production in the Standard Model and beyond, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 113008 [hep-ph/0608057]

    arXiv 2006

  5. [4]

    A. Huss, J. Huston, S. Jones, M. Pellen and R. Röntsch,Les Houches 2023 – Physics at TeV Colliders: Report on the Standard Model Precision Wishlist, 2504.06689

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Maltoni, E

    F. Maltoni, E. Vryonidou and M. Zaro,Top-quark mass effects in double and triple Higgs production in gluon-gluon fusion at NLO, JHEP 11 (2014) 079 [1408.6542]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    Two-loop corrections to the triple Higgs boson production cross section

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli,Two-loop corrections to the triple Higgs boson production cross section, JHEP 02 (2017) 107 [1610.05012]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    de Florian, I

    D. de Florian, I. Fabre and J. Mazzitelli,Triple Higgs production at hadron colliders at NNLO in QCD, JHEP 03 (2020) 155 [1912.02760]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al.,Full top quark mass dependence in Higgs boson pair production at NLO, JHEP 10 (2016) 107 [1608.04798]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Abreu, G

    S. Abreu, G. De Laurentis, H. Ita, M. Klinkert, B. Page and V. Sotnikov,Two-loop QCD corrections for three-photon production at hadron colliders, SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 157 [2305.17056]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Agarwal, F

    B. Agarwal, F. Buccioni, A. von Manteuffel and L. Tancredi,Two-Loop Helicity Amplitudes for Diphoton Plus Jet Production in Full Color, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 262001 [2105.04585]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Badger, M

    S. Badger, M. Czakon, H.B. Hartanto, R. Moodie, T. Peraro, R. Poncelet et al.,Isolated photon production in association with a jet pair through next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, JHEP 10 (2023) 071 [2304.06682]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Agarwal, F

    B. Agarwal, F. Buccioni, F. Devoto, G. Gambuti, A. von Manteuffel and L. Tancredi, Five-parton scattering in QCD at two loops, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 094025 [2311.09870]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    De Laurentis, H

    G. De Laurentis, H. Ita, M. Klinkert and V. Sotnikov,Double-virtual NNLO QCD corrections for five-parton scattering. I. The gluon channel, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 094023 [2311.10086]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    De Laurentis, H

    G. De Laurentis, H. Ita and V. Sotnikov,Double-virtual NNLO QCD corrections for five-parton scattering. II. The quark channels, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 094024 [2311.18752]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Badger, H.B

    S. Badger, H.B. Hartanto and S. Zoia,Two-Loop QCD Corrections to Wbb¯ Production at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 012001 [2102.02516]. – 19 –

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Abreu, F

    S. Abreu, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, M. Klinkert, B. Page and V. Sotnikov,Leading-color two-loop amplitudes for four partons and a W boson in QCD, JHEP 04 (2022) 042 [2110.07541]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Badger, H.B

    S. Badger, H.B. Hartanto, Z. Wu, Y. Zhang and S. Zoia,Two-loop amplitudes forO α2 s corrections to Wγγ production at the LHC, JHEP 12 (2025) 221 [2409.08146]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Badger, H.B

    S. Badger, H.B. Hartanto, J. Kryś and S. Zoia,Two-loop leading-colour QCD helicity amplitudes for Higgs boson production in association with a bottom-quark pair at the LHC, JHEP 11 (2021) 012 [2107.14733]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Hartanto, R

    H.B. Hartanto, R. Poncelet, A. Popescu and S. Zoia,Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to Wbb¯ production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 074016 [2205.01687]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Badger, H.B

    S. Badger, H.B. Hartanto, J. Kryś and S. Zoia,Two-loop leading colour helicity amplitudes for Wγ + j production at the LHC, JHEP 05 (2022) 035 [2201.04075]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Badger, H.B

    S. Badger, H.B. Hartanto, R. Poncelet, Z. Wu, Y. Zhang and S. Zoia,Full-colour double-virtual amplitudes for associated production of a Higgs boson with a bottom-quark pair at the LHC, JHEP 03 (2025) 066 [2412.06519]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    De Laurentis, H

    G. De Laurentis, H. Ita, B. Page and V. Sotnikov,Compact two-loop QCD corrections for Vjj production in proton collisions, JHEP 06 (2025) 093 [2503.10595]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    McCullough,An Indirect Model-Dependent Probe of the Higgs Self-Coupling, Phys

    M. McCullough,An Indirect Model-Dependent Probe of the Higgs Self-Coupling, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 015001 [1312.3322]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Gorbahn and U

    M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch,Indirect probes of the trilinear Higgs coupling:gg→h and h→γγ, JHEP 10 (2016) 094 [1607.03773]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Degrassi, P.P

    G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, F. Maltoni and D. Pagani,Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC, JHEP 12 (2016) 080 [1607.04251]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bizon, M

    W. Bizon, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch and G. Zanderighi,Constraints on the trilinear Higgs coupling from vector boson fusion and associated Higgs production at the LHC, JHEP 07 (2017) 083 [1610.05771]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Degrassi, M

    G. Degrassi, M. Fedele and P.P. Giardino,Constraints on the trilinear Higgs self coupling from precision observables, JHEP 04 (2017) 155 [1702.01737]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Di Vita, C

    S. Di Vita, C. Grojean, G. Panico, M. Riembau and T. Vantalon,A global view on the Higgs self-coupling, JHEP 09 (2017) 069 [1704.01953]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kribs, A

    G.D. Kribs, A. Maier, H. Rzehak, M. Spannowsky and P. Waite,Electroweak oblique parameters as a probe of the trilinear Higgs boson self-interaction, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 093004 [1702.07678]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji and X. Zhao,Trilinear Higgs coupling determination via single-Higgs differential measurements at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 887 [1709.08649]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Di Vita, G

    S. Di Vita, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu, Z. Liu, G. Panico et al.,A global view on the Higgs self-coupling at lepton colliders, JHEP 02 (2018) 178 [1711.03978]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani and X. Zhao,Constraining the Higgs self-couplings at e+e− colliders, JHEP 07 (2018) 087 [1802.07616]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Gorbahn and U

    M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch,Two-loop amplitudes for Higgs plus jet production involving a modified trilinear Higgs coupling, JHEP 04 (2019) 062 [1902.05480]. – 20 –

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Liu, K.-F

    T. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, J. Ren and H.X. Zhu,Probing the quartic Higgs boson self-interaction, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 093004 [1803.04359]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Borowka, C

    S. Borowka, C. Duhr, F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji and X. Zhao,Probing the scalar potential via double Higgs boson production at hadron colliders, JHEP 04 (2019) 016 [1811.12366]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    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 [2003.13628]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Gonzalez-Lopez, M.J

    M. Gonzalez-Lopez, M.J. Herrero and P. Martinez-Suarez,Testing anomalousH−W couplings and Higgs self-couplings via double and triple Higgs production ate+e− colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 260 [2011.13915]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    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) 366 [2312.04646]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    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 [2312.13562]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. Jones, M. Kerner, T. Stone and A. Vestner,Electroweak corrections to Higgs boson pair production: the top-Yukawa and self-coupling contributions, JHEP 11 (2024) 040 [2407.04653]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Z. Dong, X. Sun, B. Guo, L. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Wang et al.,Probing triple Higgs production via 4τ2b decay channel at a 100 TeV hadron collider, 2504.04037

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Haisch, A

    U. Haisch, A. Sankar and G. Zanderighi,A new probe of the quartic Higgs self-coupling, 2505.20463

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Higgs Properties, 1307.1347

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group collaboration, Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties, 1307.1347

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, CERN Yellow Rep

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group collaboration, Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2 (2017) 1 [1610.07922]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    ATLAScollaboration, Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 843 (2023) 137745 [2211.01216]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for triple Higgs boson production in the 6b final state using pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 032006 [2411.02040]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    CMS collaboration, Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from the combination of single and double Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139210 [2407.13554]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    CMS collaboration, Highlights of the HL-LHC physics projections by ATLAS and CMS, 2504.00672

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    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) 788 [1704.02311]. – 21 –

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Laurentis and D

    G. Laurentis and D. Maître,Extracting analytical one-loop amplitudes from numerical evaluations, JHEP 07 (2019) 123 [1904.04067]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    De Laurentis and B

    G. De Laurentis and B. Page,Ansätze for scattering amplitudes from p-adic numbers and algebraic geometry, JHEP 12 (2022) 140 [2203.04269]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    G. De Laurentis,Lips: p-adic and singular phase space, in21th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research: AI meets Reality, 5, 2023 [2305.14075]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Campbell, G

    J.M. Campbell, G. De Laurentis and R.K. Ellis,Analytic amplitudes for a pair of Higgs bosons in association with three partons, JHEP 10 (2024) 230 [2408.12686]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Campbell, G

    J.M. Campbell, G. De Laurentis and R.K. Ellis,Analytic reconstruction with massive particles: one-loop amplitudes for0→ ¯qqt¯tH, 2504.19909

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Passarino and M.J.G

    G. Passarino and M.J.G. Veltman,One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 151

    1979

  49. [57]

    Ellis, Z

    R.K. Ellis, Z. Kunszt, K. Melnikov and G. Zanderighi,One-loop calculations in quantum field theory: from Feynman diagrams to unitarity cuts, Phys. Rept. 518 (2012) 141 [1105.4319]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and D.A. Kosower,Dimensionally regulated pentagon integrals, Nucl. Phys. B 412 (1994) 751 [hep-ph/9306240]

    1994 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Budge, J.M

    L. Budge, J.M. Campbell, G. De Laurentis, R.K. Ellis and S. Seth,The one-loop amplitudes for Higgs + 4 partons with full mass effects, JHEP 05 (2020) 079 [2002.04018]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    van Hameren,OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions, Comput

    A. van Hameren,OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2427 [1007.4716]

    2011 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Buccioni, J.-N

    F. Buccioni, J.-N. Lang, J.M. Lindert, P. Maierhöfer, S. Pozzorini, H. Zhang et al., OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 866 [1907.13071]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Denner, J.-N

    A. Denner, J.-N. Lang and S. Uccirati,Recola2: REcursive Computation of One-Loop Amplitudes 2, Comput. Phys. Commun.224 (2018) 346 [1711.07388]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/antares-results: v0.0.3; see also gdelaurentis.github.io/antares-results, Apr., 2025

    G. De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/antares-results: v0.0.3; see also gdelaurentis.github.io/antares-results, Apr., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15276726

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Campbell and R.K

    J.M. Campbell and R.K. Ellis,An Update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 113006 [hep-ph/9905386]

    1999 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Campbell, R.K

    J.M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis and C. Williams,Vector Boson Pair Production at the LHC, JHEP 07 (2011) 018 [1105.0020]

    2011 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Campbell, R.K

    J.M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis and W.T. Giele,A Multi-Threaded Version of MCFM, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 246 [1503.06182]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Campbell and T

    J. Campbell and T. Neumann,Precision Phenomenology with MCFM, JHEP 12 (2019) 034 [1909.09117]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    PDF4LHC Working Group collaboration, The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III, J. Phys. G 49 (2022) 080501 [2203.05506]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Frank, S

    M. Frank, S. Heinemeyer, M. Mühlleitner and K. Radchenko,Experimental Determination of BSM Triple Higgs Couplings at the HL-LHC with Neural Networks, 2506.18981. – 22 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.