Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

This paper projects that the rare pp → t tbar h h process at the HL-LHC can set 95% CL limits on four HEFT couplings, giving the first sensitivity estimates for the double top-Higgs, gluon-gluon-hh, and top-gluon operators.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 04:48 UTC pith:IHDHD7RY

load-bearing objection A solid first HL-LHC projection for three HEFT couplings in ttHH, but the quoted 95% CL limits are statistical-only and will likely widen once systematics are included. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.03842 v2 pith:IHDHD7RY submitted 2026-02-03 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Exploring Higgs EFT in tbar{t}hh at High Luminosity LHC

Ricardo D'Elia Matheus , Oscar J. P. Eboli , Rafiqul Rahaman , Aurore Savoy Navarro This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-th
keywords higgs effective field theoryt tbar h h productionHL-LHCparametric boosted decision treetop-Higgs couplingHiggs self-couplingEFT constraintsrare processes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper studies the rare process pp → t tbar h h as a probe of non-standard Higgs and top-quark interactions. Within Higgs Effective Field Theory, it simulates the process at the HL-LHC and derives 95% CL intervals on four couplings: the Higgs self-coupling modifier δκλ, the double top-Higgs coupling c2, the gluon-gluon-hh coupling c2g, and the top-gluon dipole ctg. A parametric boosted decision tree that uses the coupling values as training features outperforms a cut-based approach, and combining single-lepton and dilepton channels yields the tightest intervals. The projected limit on δκλ is weaker than current experimental bounds, but the paper argues that δκλ reshapes the allowed regions of the other couplings in multidimensional fits. For c2, c2g, and ctg, no direct experimental limits exist, so these are the first sensitivity projections in this channel.

Core claim

The paper claims that t tbar h h production, despite its tiny SM rate, can probe HEFT couplings once BSM enhancements are included. A parametric BDT on simulated events yields 95% CL intervals for δκλ, c2, c2g, and ctg from 3 ab−1 with no systematics: c2 ∈ [−1.47, 1.68], c2g ∈ [−25.6, 23.7], ctg ∈ [−0.019, 0.018], δκλ ∈ [−16.5, 12.9]. For the first three couplings these are the first sensitivity projections in this channel. δκλ, though more weakly bounded than by existing experiments, strongly affects the allowed regions of the other couplings when varied jointly.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parametric boosted decision tree (PM:BDT), a multi-class classifier that takes the numerical values of the HEFT couplings as additional input features alongside kinematic observables. Training on discrete benchmark points lets the classifier interpolate smoothly across coupling space, so binned output scores can be turned into a continuous χ² curve via χ²(C) = Σ_i (N_i(C) − N_i^SM)² / N_i^B. The HEFT Lagrangian treats the Higgs as a singlet, making the four couplings independent; this is what allows the multi-parameter fits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the leading-order simulated event yields, with the background treated as exactly known and no systematic uncertainties, reproduce the real HL-LHC event rates and shapes closely enough that the resulting 95% CL intervals are meaningful.

What would settle it

Recalculate the limits with a 20% background normalization uncertainty applied to the dominant tt+jets component and a flat 5% systematic per bin; if the 95% intervals for c2, c2g, or ctg widen by more than a factor of two, the quoted sensitivity projections are not reliable.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If these projections are correct, t tbar h h becomes a viable channel for constraining the double top-Higgs Yukawa coupling c2, which appears at tree level only in this process.
  • The parametric BDT technique generalizes to other rare processes with continuous model parameters and small signal yields.
  • The two-parameter correlations imply that measurements of δκλ in other channels can sharpen expectations for c2 and c2g in t tbar h h.
  • The combined SL+DL limits give a concrete benchmark for future experimental analyses to aim at.
  • The weaker δκλ bound, despite being superseded by direct measurements, still helps shape the multidimensional parameter space.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Since the quoted intervals assume zero systematic uncertainties, real-world limits will degrade; the paper's numbers are optimistic upper bounds on sensitivity.
  • The interpolation between benchmark points assumes the fitted cross-section polynomial is accurate; sparse sampling near the quartic ctg term could bias the limits.
  • The method could be extended to CP-violating operators or to the SMEFT-to-HEFT mapping, where coupling relations appear and the fit structure changes.
  • One could validate the approach by adding a signal at a known coupling value and checking that the fitted interval brackets it; the paper does not report such an injection test.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a phenomenological sensitivity study of non-resonant pp → t-tbar hh production at the HL-LHC (3 ab^-1) within the HEFT framework. Four couplings are considered: δκλ, c2, c2g, and ctg. Two analysis strategies are compared: a cut-and-count analysis in the single-lepton channel using HT binning, and a parametric boosted decision tree (PM:BDT) analysis in both single-lepton and dilepton channels. The authors derive 95% CL intervals for each coupling and two-dimensional contours, with the strongest combined PM:BDT (SL+DL) limits quoted in Table 6: δκλ ∈ [-16.5, 12.9], c2 ∈ [-1.47, 1.68], c2g ∈ [-25.6, 23.7], ctg ∈ [-0.019, 0.018]. The paper claims first sensitivity projections for c2, c2g, and ctg in the t-tbar hh channel.

Significance. If taken at face value, these are useful projections for a channel that has received relatively little attention, and the detailed simulation chain, benchmark-point choices, and explicit cross-section parametrization are commendable. The BDT setup is described in enough detail to be broadly reproducible. However, the central quantitative claim is not yet supported because the quoted limits are computed without systematic uncertainties and rely on LO normalizations whose k-factors are unspecified in the multivariate analysis. These deficiencies affect the headline numbers directly, so the significance of the paper is contingent on a substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (9), Table 6] The χ² in Eq. (9) uses only the statistical uncertainty of the background, with denominator N_B, and Table 6 explicitly states that limits are obtained 'without systematic uncertainty'. This is the load-bearing assumption of the paper. In typical bins after selection, N_B ~ 10^3–10^4 (e.g., Table 4), while the signal is O(1–10) events; a 10% background-normalization or b-tagging systematic contributes (0.1 N_B)^2, which exceeds N_B by one to two orders of magnitude. The quoted intervals would widen substantially — possibly becoming unbounded — under a realistic profile-likelihood treatment. Nuisance parameters for background normalization, b-tagging efficiency, and theory uncertainties must be included before the numbers in Table 6 can be presented as sensitivity projections.
  2. [Secs. 3 and 5.4] The event generation is performed at LO in QCD (Sec. 3), and the cross-section parametrizations in Eqs. (5) and (6) are LO fits. For the cut-based analysis the text states that NLO k-factors are incorporated (Sec. 5.3), but for the PM:BDT analysis — which provides the final limits — no k-factors are specified. The dominant backgrounds (t-tbar+jets, t-tbar+2b) and the signal likely have different NLO/LO ratios, so the BDT score distributions and bin yields may be mis-normalized. The authors should state the k-factor applied to each process in the PM:BDT chain, or include normalization uncertainties that cover the NLO/LO difference.
  3. [Sec. 5.4.2, Fig. 7] The conversion from discrete benchmark-point BDT outputs to a continuous χ²(C) is not described. The text says the parametric BDT interpolates in coupling space, but it does not specify how expected yields are evaluated at arbitrary values of δκλ, c2, c2g, or ctg — e.g., by reweighting, histogram interpolation, or by running the classifier on events from a continuum of generator-level samples. This information is essential for reproducing Fig. 7 and Table 6. A closure test at intermediate coupling values should be provided.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract lists 'c_tg2' as one of the constrained couplings, but Eq. (4) defines only c_tg; there is no c_tg2 operator in the Lagrangian. This appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2] The formatting of Table 2 is badly garbled: process rows, cross-section values, and the SL/DL columns for the different jet/b-jet categories are nearly impossible to parse. The table should be restructured so that the event yields are unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. 6 and Abstract] The claim that the c2, c2g, and ctg limits are 'the first sensitivity projections in the t-tbar hh channel' should be checked against Refs. [5,6,9], which study t-tbar hh at the HL-LHC and future colliders. If those references already contain EFT sensitivity estimates for these couplings, the novelty statement must be softened or properly qualified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the ttbar-hh sensitivity projections are simulation-driven, use external anchors, and contain no step that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: Eq. (4) defines the HEFT couplings; MadGraph/Delphes simulations at benchmark points enter the cross-section fits Eqs. (5)/(10); cut-based chi2 (Eq. 9) and PM:BDT binned yields produce the Table 6 intervals. No target limit is used as an input to derive itself. The PM:BDT includes coupling values as features, but the paper explicitly randomizes them for background: 'we randomly assign to each background event a coupling value drawn from the same set of benchmark points' (Sec. 5.4.2), preventing the coupling node from being a trivial discriminator. The fitted cross-section functions are interpolations of generator outputs, not fitted to the final limits; the limits depend on the independent BDT/cut discrimination and background yields. External anchors are present: delta_kappa_t and c_g are fixed using the CMS global fit [35], and the delta_kappa_lambda result is compared with ATLAS [41]. The self-citation [11] appears only as general composite-Higgs motivation and is not load-bearing. The only self-identified limitation, Table 6's 'without systematic uncertainty', is a realism caveat about statistical-only projections, not a circular reduction: it weakens the experimental claim but does not make the construction self-referential. No circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The HEFT couplings themselves are parameters of an existing EFT and are being constrained, not invented. The main burden falls on the background model, the fast simulation, and the neglect of systematic uncertainties.

free parameters (2)
  • Cross-section polynomial coefficients (Eq. 5 and Eq. 10) = Eq. (5): 0.914, -0.207, 0.0391, -0.891, 1.79, 0.0281, 0.0062, -0.0052, 590, 0.0833, 1781; mixed terms in Eq. (10)
    Fitted to LO MadGraph cross-section samples at benchmark points; used to choose benchmark points and to interpolate signal yields in the χ² extraction. These are internal interpolation parameters, not physical constants, but the limit extraction depends on them.
  • PM:BDT hyperparameters = not reported
    The classifier uses optimized hyperparameters with 'conservative regularization' (Sec. 5.4.2), but the exact values are not given, so the trained model is not reproducible without contacting the authors.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Eq. (4) contains the complete set of HEFT operators relevant to ttbar hh at the considered order.
    Other HEFT structures (e.g., different Lorentz or contact operators) could alter the cross-section dependence and the limits. Invoked in Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption δκ_t and c_g can be fixed to zero because the CMS global fit [35] constrains them near their SM values.
    If these couplings were non-zero within HEFT, the ttbar hh signal and the limits for the remaining couplings could shift. Invoked in Sec. 5.2.
  • domain assumption Fast detector simulation with the modified Delphes CMS card faithfully models HL-LHC object reconstruction and b-tagging.
    Projected yields depend on jet/b-tag efficiencies and fake rates. Invoked in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption Backgrounds are described by the listed LO samples with MLM matching and unspecified NLO k-factors, with no systematic uncertainties.
    The χ² of Eq. (9) treats background yields as exactly known. Invoked in Sec. 5.3 and Table 6.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21991 in / 14413 out tokens · 138833 ms · 2026-08-03T04:48:22.744740+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The non-resonant production of a Higgs boson pair in association with a top-antitop quark pair ($pp\rightarrow t\bar{t}hh$) has only recently begun to be explored at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and provides a unique and largely uncharted probe of the top-Higgs sector, offering complementary sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling and higher-dimensional interactions beyond the Standard Model. In this work, we present a detailed study of this process within the framework of Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT) at the High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC). A comparative analysis is performed using a traditional cut-based approach in the single-lepton channel and a multivariate parametric boosted decision tree method in both single-lepton and dilepton final states. We derive one- and two-parameter limits at 95\% confidence level on the HEFT couplings $\delta\kappa_\lambda$, $c_2$, $c_{2g}$, $c_{tg}$, and $c_{tg2}$. The projected bound on $\delta\kappa_\lambda$ is weaker than current experimental constraints from dedicated Higgs-pair measurement; however, this coupling plays a critical role in shaping the multidimensional allowed parameter space. For the remaining HEFT couplings, where no direct experimental limits currently exist, our results provide the first sensitivity projections in the $t\bar{t}hh$ channel. Overall, this study demonstrates the strong potential of the $t\bar{t} hh$ production process to probe extended Higgs and top-quark interactions beyond the Standard Model through the exploitation of the $t\bar{t}hh$ data at the HL-LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.03842 by Aurore Savoy Navarro, Oscar J. P. Eboli, Rafiqul Rahaman, Ricardo D'Elia Matheus.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Normalized distributions for some sensitive variables are shown, for the four main back [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Production cross section of tthh ¯ at LO in QCD as a function of HEFT couplings as given in Eq. (5). The lines represent the fitted functions, whereas the blobs on the curve represent the benchmark points (BPs) where simulations are performed. The SM prediction is represented by the horizontal dashed black lines. constraints force δκt and cg so close to their SM values that their variation in the allowed r… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized distributions for some HEFT-sensitive variables are shown for the combined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation among the global event variables, reconstructed di-boson topological variables, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confusion matrix (left-top), ROC curves (right-top), BDT score for HEFT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The χ 2 as a function of the HEFT Wilson coefficients for the cut-based analysis (Cut:HT - bin) in the SL channel, the PM:BDT analysis in the SL and DL channels, and the combined SL+DL PM:BDT analysis are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3 ab−1 . The horizontal gray dashed line indicates the 95% CL interval on the HEFT couplings. which the limits are slightly stronger in the DL channel. Furthermore th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 95% CL contours (χ 2 = 5.99) showing the allowed regions of the HEFT couplings obtained using a cut-based analysis (Cut:HT -bin) and a parametric BDT analysis (PM:BDT) in the single-lepton (SL) channel are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3 ab−1 . The light-blue bands for δκλ represents the available experimental 95% CL allowed ranges on the couplings [41]; see the text for details. 18 [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A HEFT Perspective on the Type-II Seesaw Model and the Complete Basis of Lepton-Number-Violating Operators

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0

    First complete tree-level HEFT matching of the type-II seesaw and a Hilbert-series-checked, flavor-complete basis of lepton-number-violating HEFT operators through O(p^4).

  2. Exotic Higgs Decays at a Muon Collider

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Muon colliders at 3 TeV and 10 TeV can probe branching ratios for h to SS decays in 4b and 2b2μ channels down to 10^{-3}–10^{-5}, improving on HL-LHC projections using machine learning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. A. Dobrescu and C. T. Hill,Electroweak symmetry breaking via top condensation seesaw, Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 2634–2637,arXiv:hep-ph/9712319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    R. S. Chivukula, B. A. Dobrescu, H. Georgi, and C. T. Hill,Top Quark Seesaw Theory of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 075003,arXiv:hep-ph/9809470. [3]CMSCollaboration,Technical Proposal for the Phase-II Upgrade of the CMS Detector, (6,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [5]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Krauss, and M. Spannowsky,Revisiting thet¯thhchannel at the FCC-hh,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 073012,arXiv:1904.07886 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [6]

    Li, Y.-Y

    L. Li, Y.-Y. Li, and T. Liu,Anatomy oftthhphysics at the HL-LHC,Phys. Rev. D101no. 5, (2020) 055043,arXiv:1905.03772 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [7]

    Englert, F

    C. Englert, F. Krauss, M. Spannowsky, and J. Thompson,Di-Higgs phenomenology int¯thh: The forgotten channel,Phys. Lett. B743(2015) 93–97,arXiv:1409.8074 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [8]

    Liu and H

    T. Liu and H. Zhang,Measuring Di-Higgs Physics via thet¯thh→t ¯tb¯bb¯bChannel, arXiv:1410.1855 [hep-ph]. [9]A TLASCollaboration,Prospects for Observingt ¯tHHProduction with the ATLAS Experiment at the HL-LHC, tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2016.https://cds.cern.ch/record/2220969. All figures including auxiliary figures are available at https://atlas.web.cern.c...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [10]

    Bhardwaj, C

    A. Bhardwaj, C. Englert, D. Gonçalves, and A. Navarro,Nonlinear CP violation in the top-Higgs sector,Phys. Rev. D108no. 11, (2023) 115006,arXiv:2308.11722 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [11]

    Bautista, L

    C. Bautista, L. de Lima, R. D. Matheus, E. Pontón, L. A. Fernandes do Prado, and A. Savoy-Navarro,Probing the top-Higgs sector with composite Higgs models at present and future hadron colliders,JHEP03(2021) 049,arXiv:2008.13026 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [12]

    Appelquist and C

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

    1980

  10. [13]

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

    1981

  11. [14]

    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,arXiv:hep-ph/9301281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  12. [15]

    Brivio, J

    I. Brivio, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and L. Merlo,The complete HEFT Lagrangian after the LHC Run I,Eur. Phys. J. C76no. 7, (2016) 416,arXiv:1604.06801 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [16]

    Buchalla, G

    G. Buchalla, G. Heinrich, C. Müller-Salditt, and F. Pandler,Loop counting matters in SMEFT, SciPost Phys.15no. 3, (2023) 088,arXiv:2204.11808 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [17]

    Brivio, R

    I. Brivio, R. Gröber, and K. Schmid,The Art of Counting: a reappraisal of the HEFT expansion, arXiv:2511.23410 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [18]

    Carvalho, M

    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, arXiv:1507.02245 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [19]

    P. L. Cho and E. H. Simmons,Searching for G3 int¯tproduction,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 2360–2370,arXiv:hep-ph/9408206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  17. [20]

    Azatov, R

    A. Azatov, R. Contino, G. Panico, and M. Son,Effective field theory analysis of double Higgs boson production via gluon fusion,Phys. Rev. D92no. 3, (2015) 035001,arXiv:1502.00539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [21]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, P. Torrielli, E. Vryonidou, and M. Zaro,Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects,Phys. Lett. B 732(2014) 142–149,arXiv:1401.7340 [hep-ph]. [22]LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking GroupCollaboration, D. de Florianet al.,Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Decipheri...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [27]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079,arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [28]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk,Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations,JHEP03(2013) 015,arXiv:1212.3460 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [29]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands,An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,Comput. Phys. Commun. 191(2015) 159–177,arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [30]

    Hoeche, F

    S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, N. Lavesson, L. Lonnblad, M. Mangano, A. Schalicke, and S. Schumann, Matching parton showers and matrix elements, inHERA and the LHC: A Workshop on the Implications of HERA for LHC Physics: CERN - DESY Workshop 2004/2005 (Midterm Meeting, CERN, 11-13 October 2004; Final Meeting, DESY, 17-21 January 2005), pp. 288–289. 2005.arXiv:hep-...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  23. [31]

    Alwall, S

    J. Alwall, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, N. Lavesson, L. Lonnblad, F. Maltoni, M. Mangano, M. Moretti, C. Papadopoulos, F. Piccinini, S. Schumann, M. Treccani, J. Winter, and M. Worek, Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions,Eur. Phys. J. C53(2008) 473,arXiv:0706.2569 [hep-ph]. [32]DELPH...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [33]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [34]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam,Event shapes in e+ e- annihilation and deep inelastic scattering, J. Phys. G30(2004) R143,arXiv:hep-ph/0312283. [35]CMSCollaboration, V. Chekhovskyet al.,Combined effective field theory interpretation of Higgs boson, electroweak vector boson, top quark, and multi-jet measurements, arXiv:2504.02958 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [36]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin,Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system, inProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’16, p. 785–794. ACM, Aug., 2016.arXiv:1603.02754 [cs.LG]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [37]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi,Phenomenology of event shapes at hadron colliders, JHEP06(2010) 038,arXiv:1001.4082 [hep-ph]. [38]CMSCollaboration, M. A. Weber,Hadronic Event Shapes at CMS, in17th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, p. 82. Science Wise Publ., Berlin, Germany, 2009.https://cds.cern.ch/record/1199948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [39]

    Baldi, K

    P. Baldi, K. Cranmer, T. Faucett, P. Sadowski, and D. Whiteson,Parameterized neural networks for high-energy physics,Eur. Phys. J. C76no. 5, (2016) 235,arXiv:1601.07913 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [40]

    Chatterjee, N

    S. Chatterjee, N. Frohner, L. Lechner, R. Schöfbeck, and D. Schwarz,Tree boosting for learning EFT parameters,Comput. Phys. Commun.277(2022) 108385,arXiv:2107.10859 [hep-ph]. 21 [41]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al.,Study of Higgs boson pair production in theHH→b bγγ final state with 308 fb−1 of data collected at√s= 13TeV and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experim...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [2015]

    CERN-LHCC-2015-010, LHCC-P-008, CMS-TDR-15-02

    https://cds.cern.ch/record/2020886. CERN-LHCC-2015-010, LHCC-P-008, CMS-TDR-15-02. [4]CMSCollaboration,Search for the nonresonantt ¯tHHproduction in the semileptonic decay of the top pair and the Higgs pair decay into b quarks at the HL-LHC, . https://cds.cern.ch/record/2804085

    arXiv 2015