arxiv: 2511.23411 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-28 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Higgs pair production in gluon fusion to higher orders in Higgs Effective Field Theory

Ilaria Brivio , Ramona Gr\"ober , Konstantin Schmid

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 04:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords Higgs pair productionGluon fusionHiggs Effective Field TheoryEffective Field TheoryNext-to-leading orderPower countingDi-Higgs searchesHigher-dimensional operators

0 comments

The pith

In the Higgs Effective Field Theory, next-to-leading order gluon-fusion Higgs pair production requires higher-dimensional operators to preserve consistent power counting.

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

The paper investigates Higgs pair production via gluon fusion in the Higgs Effective Field Theory. It establishes that a consistent power counting, when combined with next-to-leading order diagrams, demands the inclusion of higher-dimensional operators beyond those used at leading order. These extra terms alter the predictions for cross sections and kinematic distributions. The work then re-examines common benchmark scenarios employed in experimental non-resonant di-Higgs searches to account for the new contributions. A reader cares because this refines the mapping from EFT parameters to observable signals at colliders.

Core claim

Adopting a consistent power counting in combination with next-to-leading order diagrams necessitates the inclusion of higher-dimensional operators beyond the leading ones in the HEFT description of gluon-fusion Higgs pair production; these operators affect phenomenological results and require a critical re-assessment of standard kinematic benchmark points used in di-Higgs searches.

What carries the argument

A consistent power counting scheme within the Higgs Effective Field Theory that aligns the perturbative order of NLO diagrams with the systematic inclusion of higher-dimensional operators.

If this is right

Phenomenological predictions for di-Higgs rates and distributions receive sizable corrections from the additional operators.
Standard kinematic benchmark scenarios for experimental searches must be updated to incorporate the new contributions.
Correlations among Higgs couplings that appear de-correlated at leading order in HEFT can receive modifications at NLO.
Theoretical interpretations of non-resonant di-Higgs data require a more complete operator basis once NLO accuracy is demanded.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar power-counting consistency requirements may appear in other HEFT processes involving multiple Higgs bosons.
Future global EFT fits could adopt this counting rule to avoid underestimating theoretical uncertainties at NLO.
The result highlights the practical limits of truncating the EFT series when collider energies probe the expansion boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen power counting scheme stays valid and the EFT expansion converges at the energies and momentum transfers relevant for gluon-fusion di-Higgs production.

What would settle it

An explicit NLO calculation in HEFT that reproduces all required diagrams and maintains power counting consistency while omitting higher-dimensional operators would falsify the necessity claim.

read the original abstract

Higgs pair production offers the opportunity to probe correlations among the couplings of one or two Higgs bosons to fermions and gauge bosons. In this context, it serves as a powerful test of the underlying Effective Field Theory (EFT) framework. In particular, while such couplings remain correlated in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) at dimension six, they can become fully de-correlated in Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT) already at leading order in the EFT expansion. In this work, we study Higgs pair production via gluon fusion within the HEFT framework. We demonstrate that adopting a consistent power counting in combination with next-to-leading order (NLO) diagrams necessitates the inclusion of higher-dimensional operators beyond the leading ones. We analyze their phenomenological impact and re-assess critically the kinematic benchmark scenarios commonly used in experimental non-resonant di-Higgs searches in light of these additional contributions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper demonstrates that consistent NLO power counting in HEFT for gluon-fusion di-Higgs forces inclusion of higher-dimensional operators, with direct effects on benchmark scenarios.

read the letter

The main point is that a consistent power counting applied to NLO diagrams in HEFT for gg to HH cannot be satisfied by the leading operators alone; additional higher-dimensional terms must enter. That is the central claim, and the paper works through the diagrams to show where the mismatch appears. They then trace the phenomenological consequences for rates and distributions, and they revisit the kinematic benchmarks that experiments currently use for non-resonant di-Higgs searches. This last step is the most immediately useful part, because it flags how some of those points may need updating once the extra operators are kept. The work stays within the HEFT framework and contrasts it with SMEFT, where dim-6 operators already enforce tighter correlations. The operator analysis and the power-counting rules are laid out plainly enough that a reader can follow the logic without chasing too many external references. On the soft side, the result depends on the precise counting scheme chosen; other reasonable assignments of powers could shift which operators appear at NLO. The paper does not appear to include a full numerical scan with error bands from truncation or scale variation, so the size of the shift in current limits remains somewhat qualitative. Convergence of the expansion at LHC energies is also left as an open question rather than quantified. Still, the central argument is internally consistent and the diagrams are standard. This is for people who build or use HEFT predictions for Higgs pair production, especially those involved in global fits or experimental reinterpretations. A reader already working on NLO EFT calculations or di-Higgs benchmarks will find the concrete operator list and the benchmark critique worth checking. The paper is coherent on its own terms and addresses a real technical point in the literature, so it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk rejection.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies Higgs pair production via gluon fusion in the Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT). It claims that a consistent power counting scheme applied to next-to-leading order (NLO) diagrams requires inclusion of higher-dimensional operators beyond the leading ones in the EFT expansion. The authors analyze the phenomenological impact of these operators and critically re-assess the kinematic benchmark scenarios used in experimental non-resonant di-Higgs searches.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would indicate that standard leading-order HEFT truncations are insufficient for consistent NLO predictions in the gg→HH channel, with direct implications for EFT interpretations of LHC di-Higgs data and the validity of commonly used benchmark points. The work supplies a concrete example of how power counting choices affect operator inclusion at loop level.

major comments (2)

[§3.2] §3.2, around Eq. (12): the assertion that NLO virtual corrections cannot be absorbed into leading HEFT operators relies on the chosen derivative/loop power counting, but the manuscript does not exhibit the explicit unmatched terms (e.g., the coefficient of the 1/Λ^4 contribution after renormalization) that would be required to demonstrate inconsistency of the leading truncation.
[Table 1] Table 1, NLO row: the reported relative shift from dim-8 operators is given without accompanying scale-variation bands or comparison to the size of the NLO K-factor itself; this leaves open whether the higher-operator effects exceed the theoretical uncertainty of the calculation.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that couplings 'can become fully de-correlated' in HEFT at leading order; a brief parenthetical reference to the specific operator basis (e.g., the chiral Lagrangian terms) would improve clarity.
[Figure 3] Figure 3 caption: the kinematic distributions are shown for two benchmark points, but the legend does not indicate whether the curves include only the new operators or the full NLO+HEFT set; this should be stated explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our results on consistent power counting in HEFT for di-Higgs production.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2] §3.2, around Eq. (12): the assertion that NLO virtual corrections cannot be absorbed into leading HEFT operators relies on the chosen derivative/loop power counting, but the manuscript does not exhibit the explicit unmatched terms (e.g., the coefficient of the 1/Λ^4 contribution after renormalization) that would be required to demonstrate inconsistency of the leading truncation.

Authors: We agree that an explicit display of the unmatched terms improves the clarity of the argument. In the revised manuscript we have expanded §3.2 to include the full one-loop virtual amplitude decomposed according to our derivative/loop power counting. After renormalization, the coefficient of the 1/Λ^4 piece contains operator structures (in particular, contributions proportional to the dim-8 contact terms) that cannot be absorbed into a redefinition of the leading HEFT Lagrangian. This explicit expansion confirms that the leading truncation is inconsistent at NLO under the adopted counting. revision: yes
Referee: [Table 1] Table 1, NLO row: the reported relative shift from dim-8 operators is given without accompanying scale-variation bands or comparison to the size of the NLO K-factor itself; this leaves open whether the higher-operator effects exceed the theoretical uncertainty of the calculation.

Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised Table 1 now reports the NLO cross sections with scale-variation bands obtained by varying the renormalization and factorization scales by a factor of two around the central value. We have also added a column and accompanying text that directly compares the relative dim-8 shift to the NLO K-factor (which ranges from 1.4 to 2.1 across the kinematic benchmarks). In several regions the dim-8 correction is comparable to or larger than the scale uncertainty, demonstrating that these operators must be retained for a theoretically consistent NLO prediction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper applies a chosen power-counting scheme to NLO diagrams in HEFT for gg→HH and concludes that higher-dimensional operators are required. This conclusion follows from explicit diagram classification and operator counting under the stated expansion, without any reduction of a 'prediction' to a fitted input, without self-definitional loops, and without load-bearing reliance on prior self-citations for the core necessity argument. The analysis is presented as an independent consistency check within the EFT framework rather than a renaming or re-derivation of its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; ledger remains empty pending full text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5454 in / 959 out tokens · 40368 ms · 2026-05-17T04:11:20.755616+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 45 internal anchors

[1]

Production of Neutral Higgs-Boson Pairs at LHC

A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. Muhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas,Production of neutral Higgs boson pairs at LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C10(1999) 45–49, [hep-ph/9904287]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[2]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky,Higgs self-coupling measurements at the LHC, JHEP10(2012) 112, [1206.5001]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[3]

The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status

J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gr¨ ober, M. M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Quevillon and M. Spira,The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status,JHEP04(2013) 151, [1212.5581]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[4]

Testing Electroweak Baryogenesis with Future Colliders

D. Curtin, P. Meade and C.-T. Yu,Testing Electroweak Baryogenesis with Future Colliders, JHEP11(2014) 127, [1409.0005]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[5]

Haisch and G

U. Haisch and G. Koole,Probing Higgs portals with matrix-element based kinematic discriminants in ZZ→4ℓproduction,JHEP04(2022) 166, [2201.09711]

work page arXiv 2022
[6]

Haisch, M

U. Haisch, M. Ruhdorfer, K. Schmid and A. Weiler,Quantum collider probes of the fermionic Higgs portal,SciPost Phys.16(2024) 112, [2311.03995]

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

Alison et al.,Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives,Rev

J. Alison et al.,Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives,Rev. Phys.5 (2020) 100045, [1910.00012]

work page arXiv 2020
[8]

Pair Production of Neutral Higgs Particles in Gluon--Gluon Collisions

T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas,Pair production of neutral Higgs particles in gluon-gluon collisions,Nucl. Phys. B479(1996) 46–64, [hep-ph/9603205]. – 25 –

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996
[9]

NLO-QCD corrections to Higgs pair production in the MSSM

A. Agostini, G. Degrassi, R. Gr¨ ober and P. Slavich,NLO-QCD corrections to Higgs pair production in the MSSM,JHEP04(2016) 106, [1601.03671]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[10]

Higgs Low-Energy Theorem (and its corrections) in Composite Models

M. Gillioz, R. Grober, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner and E. Salvioni,Higgs Low-Energy Theorem (and its corrections) in Composite Models,JHEP10(2012) 004, [1206.7120]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[11]

Signs of Composite Higgs Pair Production at Next-to-Leading Order

R. Grober, M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira,Signs of Composite Higgs Pair Production at Next-to-Leading Order,JHEP06(2016) 080, [1602.05851]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[12]

De Curtis, L

S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, F. Egle, S. Moretti, M. M¨ uhlleitner and K. Sakurai,Composite 2-Higgs doublet model: strong effects on Higgs pair production,JHEP06(2024) 063, [2310.10471]

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[14]

The Chiral Approach to the Electroweak Interactions

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993
[15]

C. P. Burgess, J. Matias and M. Pospelov,A Higgs or not a Higgs? What to do if you discover a new scalar particle,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17(2002) 1841–1918, [hep-ph/9912459]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[16]

Model-Independent Bounds on a Light Higgs

A. Azatov, R. Contino and J. Galloway,Model-Independent Bounds on a Light Higgs,JHEP 04(2012) 127, [1202.3415]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[17]

Complete Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian with a Light Higgs at NLO

G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a and C. Krause,Complete Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian with a Light Higgs at NLO,Nucl. Phys. B880(2014) 552–573, [1307.5017]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[18]

The Effective Chiral Lagrangian for a Light Dynamical "Higgs Particle"

R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin and J. Yepes,The Effective Chiral Lagrangian for a Light Dynamical ”Higgs Particle”,Phys. Lett. B722(2013) 330–335, [1212.3305]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[19]

Disentangling a dynamical Higgs

I. Brivio, T. Corbett, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. B. Gavela, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia et al.,Disentangling a dynamical Higgs,JHEP03(2014) 024, [1311.1823]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[20]

Composite Higgs Boson Pair Production at the LHC

R. Grober and M. Muhlleitner,Composite Higgs Boson Pair Production at the LHC,JHEP 06(2011) 020, [1012.1562]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[21]

Anomalous Couplings in Double Higgs Production

R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, M. Moretti, G. Panico, F. Piccinini and A. Wulzer,Anomalous Couplings in Double Higgs Production,JHEP08(2012) 154, [1205.5444]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[22]

Buchalla, M

G. Buchalla, M. Capozi, A. Celis, G. Heinrich and L. Scyboz,Higgs boson pair production in non-linear Effective Field Theory with fullm t-dependence at NLO QCD,JHEP09(2018) 057, [1806.05162]

work page arXiv 2018
[23]

Heinrich, S

G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner and L. Scyboz,A non-linear EFT description of gg→HHat NLO interfaced to POWHEG,JHEP10(2020) 021, [2006.16877]

work page arXiv 2020
[24]

NLO QCD Corrections to Higgs Pair Production including Dimension-6 Operators

R. Grober, M. Muhlleitner, M. Spira and J. Streicher,NLO QCD Corrections to Higgs Pair Production including Dimension-6 Operators,JHEP09(2015) 092, [1504.06577]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[25]

Higgs Pair Production at NLO QCD for CP-violating Higgs Sectors

R. Grober, M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira,Higgs Pair Production at NLO QCD for CP-violating Higgs Sectors,Nucl. Phys. B925(2017) 1–27, [1705.05314]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[26]

de Florian, I

D. de Florian, I. Fabre, G. Heinrich, J. Mazzitelli and L. Scyboz,Anomalous couplings in Higgs-boson pair production at approximate NNLO QCD,JHEP09(2021) 161, [2106.14050]

work page arXiv 2021
[27]

Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion at NLO with full top-quark mass dependence

S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al.,Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass – 26 – Dependence,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 012001, [1604.06447]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[28]

Full top quark mass dependence in Higgs boson pair production at NLO

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,JHEP10(2016) 107, [1608.04798]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[29]

Baglio, F

J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca, M. Spira et al.,Higgs-Pair Production via Gluon Fusion at Hadron Colliders: NLO QCD Corrections,JHEP04(2020) 181, [2003.03227]

work page arXiv 2020
[30]

Bagnaschi, G

E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi and R. Gr¨ ober,Higgs boson pair production at NLO in the POWHEG approach and the top quark mass uncertainties,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 1054, [2309.10525]

work page arXiv 2023
[31]

Davies, K

J. Davies, K. Sch¨ onwald, M. Steinhauser and D. Stremmer,ggxy: a flexible library to compute gluon-induced cross sections,2506.04323

work page arXiv
[32]

Heinrich, J

G. Heinrich, J. Lang and L. Scyboz,SMEFT predictions for gg→hh at full NLO QCD and truncation uncertainties,JHEP08(2022) 079, [2204.13045]

work page arXiv 2022
[33]

Alasfar et al.,Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production,SciPost Phys

L. Alasfar et al.,Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production,SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep.2024(2024) 2, [2304.01968]

work page arXiv 2024
[34]

Heinrich and J

G. Heinrich and J. Lang,Combining chromomagnetic and four-fermion operators with leading SMEFT operators forgg→hhat NLO QCD,2311.15004

work page arXiv
[35]

Di Noi, R

S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober and M. K. Mandal,Two-loop running effects in Higgs physics in Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP12(2025) 220, [2408.03252]

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

Heinrich and J

G. Heinrich and J. Lang,Renormalisation group effects in SMEFT for di-Higgs production, SciPost Phys.18(2025) 113, [2409.19578]

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

Maltoni, G

F. Maltoni, G. Ventura and E. Vryonidou,Impact of SMEFT renormalisation group running on Higgs production at the LHC,JHEP12(2024) 183, [2406.06670]

work page arXiv 2024
[38]

Di-higgs production from gluon fusion at dimension-8 in smeft

I. Brivio, R. Gr¨ ober, K. Mimasu and K. Schmid, “Di-higgs production from gluon fusion at dimension-8 in smeft.” To appear

work page
[39]

Gr¨ ober, A

R. Gr¨ ober, A. N. Rossia and M. Ryczkowski,Multi-Higgs Amplitudes Bootstrapped: Dissecting SMEFT and HEFT,2509.02680

work page arXiv
[40]

The art of counting: a reappraisal of the HEFT expansion

I. Brivio, R. Gr¨ ober and K. Schmid, “The art of counting: a reappraisal of the HEFT expansion.” Submitted to arXiv

work page
[41]

Higgs Pair Production: Choosing Benchmarks With Cluster Analysis

A. Carvalho, M. Dall’Osso, T. Dorigo, F. Goertz, C. A. Gottardo and M. Tosi,Higgs Pair Production: Choosing Benchmarks With Cluster Analysis,JHEP04(2016) 126, [1507.02245]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[42]

Capozi and G

M. Capozi and G. Heinrich,Exploring anomalous couplings in Higgs boson pair production through shape analysis,JHEP03(2020) 091, [1908.08923]

work page arXiv 2020
[43]

Englert, T

C. Englert, T. Ingebretsen Carlson, J. Sj¨ olin and M. Spannowsky,Harnessing Higgs Kinematics for HEFT Constraints,2506.19401

work page arXiv
[44]

Light custodians in natural composite Higgs models

R. Contino, L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol,Light custodians in natural composite Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 055014, [hep-ph/0612048]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[45]

G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi,The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs,JHEP06(2007) 045, [hep-ph/0703164]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[46]

A Higgs-Higgs bound state due to New Physics at a TeV

B. Grinstein and M. Trott,A Higgs-Higgs bound state due to new physics at a TeV,Phys. – 27 – Rev. D76(2007) 073002, [0704.1505]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[47]

Appelquist and C

T. Appelquist and C. W. Bernard,Strongly Interacting Higgs Bosons,Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 200

work page 1980
[48]

A. C. Longhitano,Low-Energy Impact of a Heavy Higgs Boson Sector,Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 118–154

work page 1981
[49]

The Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian and New Precision Measurements

T. Appelquist and G.-H. Wu,The Electroweak chiral Lagrangian and new precision measurements,Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 3235–3241, [hep-ph/9304240]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993
[50]

On the Power Counting in Effective Field Theories

G. Buchalla, O. Cat´ a and C. Krause,On the Power Counting in Effective Field Theories, Phys. Lett. B731(2014) 80–86, [1312.5624]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[51]

Manohar and H

A. Manohar and H. Georgi,Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model,Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 189–212

work page 1984
[52]

B. M. Gavela, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and L. Merlo,Analysis of General Power Counting Rules in Effective Field Theory,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 485, [1601.07551]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[53]

E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij,HIGGS BOSON PAIR PRODUCTION VIA GLUON FUSION,Nucl. Phys. B309(1988) 282–294

work page 1988
[54]

The complete HEFT Lagrangian after the LHC Run I

I. Brivio, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and L. Merlo,The complete HEFT Lagrangian after the LHC Run I,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 416, [1604.06801]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[55]

Sun, M.-L

H. Sun, M.-L. Xiao and J.-H. Yu,Complete NLO operators in the Higgs effective field theory, JHEP05(2023) 043, [2206.07722]

work page arXiv 2023
[56]

Sun, M.-L

H. Sun, M.-L. Xiao and J.-H. Yu,Complete NNLO operator bases in Higgs effective field theory,JHEP04(2023) 086, [2210.14939]

work page arXiv 2023
[57]

Minimal Flavour Violation: an effective field theory approach

G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia,Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach,Nucl. Phys. B645(2002) 155–187, [hep-ph/0207036]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[58]

Bi, L.-H

H.-Y. Bi, L.-H. Huang, R.-J. Huang, Y.-Q. Ma and H.-M. Yu,Electroweak Corrections to Double Higgs Production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 231802, [2311.16963]

work page arXiv 2024
[59]

Bizo´ n, U

W. Bizo´ n, U. Haisch and L. Rottoli,Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders,JHEP10(2019) 267, [1810.04665]

work page arXiv 2019
[60]

Probing the scalar potential via double Higgs boson production at hadron colliders

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,JHEP04(2019) 016, [1811.12366]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[61]

Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary

J. de Blas, J. C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago,Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary,JHEP03(2018) 109, [1711.10391]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[62]

Di Noi, R

S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober, G. Heinrich, J. Lang and M. Vitti,γ5 schemes and the interplay of SMEFT operators in the Higgs-gluon coupling,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 095024, [2310.18221]

work page arXiv 2024
[63]

PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II

J. Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II,J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001, [1510.03865]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[64]

New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics

S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky et al.,New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 033006, [1506.07443]. – 28 –

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[65]

Causality, Analyticity and an IR Obstruction to UV Completion

A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,JHEP10(2006) 014, [hep-th/0602178]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[66]

Zhang,SMEFTs living on the edge: determining the UV theories from positivity and extremality,JHEP12(2022) 096, [2112.11665]

C. Zhang,SMEFTs living on the edge: determining the UV theories from positivity and extremality,JHEP12(2022) 096, [2112.11665]

work page arXiv 2022
[67]

Quantum Gravity Constraints from Unitarity and Analyticity

B. Bellazzini, C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen,Quantum Gravity Constraints from Unitarity and Analyticity,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 064076, [1509.00851]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[68]

Positive Signs in Massive Gravity

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen,Positive Signs in Massive Gravity,JHEP04(2016) 002, [1601.04068]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[69]

Positivity Bounds for Massive Spin-1 and Spin-2 Fields

C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity Bounds for Massive Spin-1 and Spin-2 Fields,JHEP03(2019) 182, [1804.10624]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[70]

Chala and X

M. Chala and X. Li,Positivity restrictions on the mixing of dimension-eight SMEFT operators,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 065015, [2309.16611]

work page arXiv 2024
[71]

Baglio, F

J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca and M. Spira,gg→HH: Combined uncertainties,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 056002, [2008.11626]. [76]ATLAScollaboration,Projected sensitivity of measurements of Higgs boson pair production with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC,

work page arXiv 2021
[72]

C. Arzt, M. B. Einhorn and J. Wudka,Patterns of deviation from the standard model,Nucl. Phys. B433(1995) 41–66, [hep-ph/9405214]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995
[73]

M. B. Einhorn and J. Wudka,The Bases of Effective Field Theories,Nucl. Phys. B876 (2013) 556–574, [1307.0478]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[74]

ter Hoeve, L

J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, A. N. Rossia, J. Rojo and E. Vryonidou,Connecting Scales: RGE Effects in the SMEFT at the LHC and Future Colliders,2502.20453

work page arXiv
[75]

Analytical parametrization and shape classification of anomalous HH production in the EFT approach

A. Carvalho, M. Dall’Osso, P. De Castro Manzano, T. Dorigo, F. Goertz, M. Gouzevich et al.,Analytical parametrization and shape classification of anomalous HH production in the EFT approach,1608.06578. [81]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,Phys. Re...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[76]

FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology

A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[77]

Generating Feynman Diagrams and Amplitudes with FeynArts 3

T. Hahn,Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,Comput. Phys. Commun.140(2001) 418–431, [hep-ph/0012260]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[78]

Mertig, M

R. Mertig, M. Bohm and A. Denner,FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes,Comput. Phys. Commun.64(1991) 345–359

work page 1991
[79]

New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0,Comput. Phys. Commun.207(2016) 432–444, [1601.01167]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[80]

Shtabovenko, R

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements, – 29 – Comput. Phys. Commun.256(2020) 107478, [2001.04407]

work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.