pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19935 · v1 · pith:7YLQ4KO6new · submitted 2026-05-19 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· hep-th

Probing the Rare Four-Bottom Higgs Decay Hto bbar b bbar b at the HL-LHC and ILC

Alexander Belyaev , Eduard Boos , Vyacheslav Bunichev , Guliya Nurbakova , Saniya Rustembayeva This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 04:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exhep-th
keywords Higgs bosonrare decayfour-bottom final statebranching ratioHL-LHCILCmultivariate analysisdestructive interference
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Standard Model predicts a branching ratio of order 1.6 times 10 to the minus 3 for the rare Higgs decay to four bottom quarks, with destructive interference among amplitudes, and shows this channel can reach observable significance at a

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

The paper proposes the decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson into four bottom quarks as a probe of Higgs interactions with bottom quarks and gauge bosons and as a baseline for new physics searches in similar final states. The authors compute the dominant contributions from the H to b bbar g to b bbar b bbar topology, the H to Z Z star to b bbar b bbar channel, and the loop-induced H to g g to b bbar b bbar process. They obtain a branching ratio of order 1.6 times 10 to the minus 3 and demonstrate that destructive interference between the leading amplitudes is important for the rate. Simulations of associated production show that a boosted decision tree multivariate analysis can achieve a statistical significance of about 3.5 at the high-luminosity LHC with 3000 inverse femtobarns and above 5 sigma at the ILC with 300 inverse femtobarns, enabling a several-percent measurement of the branching ratio at higher ILC luminosities.

Core claim

The central claim is that the rare decay H to b bbar b bbar has a branching ratio of order 1.6 times 10 to the minus 3 when all leading amplitudes are included, with destructive interference playing a phenomenologically relevant role. This decay can be probed in associated production modes, yielding a statistical significance of approximately 3.5 in pp to W H to W b bbar b bbar at 14 TeV with the full HL-LHC dataset and a significance above 5 sigma in e plus e minus to Z H to Z b bbar b bbar at 250 GeV with only 300 inverse femtobarns using a boosted decision tree analysis that exploits four-b kinematic correlations.

What carries the argument

The boosted decision tree multivariate analysis that exploits kinematic correlations among the four-bottom final state in associated Higgs production to separate signal from backgrounds.

Load-bearing premise

The multivariate boosted decision tree analysis can reliably exploit kinematic correlations among the four-b final state without significant mismodeling of backgrounds or detector effects in the high-purity working points.

What would settle it

An observed event rate in the four-bottom final state from W H or Z H production that deviates by more than the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties from the rate expected for a branching ratio of 1.6 times 10 to the minus 3 would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19935 by Alexander Belyaev, Eduard Boos, Guliya Nurbakova, Saniya Rustembayeva, Vyacheslav Bunichev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams contributing to the Higgs boson decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Squared diagrams for non-zero interference between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Normalized invariant mass distribution for subprocesses: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Normalized invariant mass distribution for subprocesses: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Normalized double-differential distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Normalized double-differential invariant mass distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Normalized angular distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Normalized distribution of the four- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Normalized parton-level distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Normalized double-differential distributions in the reconstructed Higgs rest frame: signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Probability-density maps: signal (left), background (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Normalized distribution of the four- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Normalized detector-level distributions of the selected kinematical variables for the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Left: BDTG classifier response for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Normalized parton-level distributions for the dominant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Normalized distribution of the reconstructed four- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Normalized distributions after Delphes detector simulation and built-in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Left: BDTG classifier response for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Expected statistical accuracy of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose the rare SM Higgs decay $H\to b\bar b b\bar b$ as a probe of the structure of Higgs interactions with bottom quarks and gauge bosons, and as a baseline for searches for new physics producing four-bottom final states in Higgs decays. We compute the leading contributions to this decay, including the dominant $H\to b\bar b g\to b\bar b b\bar b$ topology, the sizeable $H\to ZZ^\ast\to b\bar b b\bar b$ channel, and the loop-induced $H\to gg\to b\bar b b\bar b$ contribution. We find a branching ratio of order $1.6\times10^{-3}$ and show that destructive interference among the leading amplitudes is phenomenologically relevant. We demonstrate that this decay can be probed in associated Higgs production at both the HL-LHC and the ILC. For $pp\to WH\to Wb\bar b b\bar b$ at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV, we use a multivariate analysis based on boosted decision trees to exploit correlations among the four-$b$ kinematic observables. At $3000~{\rm fb}^{-1}$, the statistical significance reaches about $3.5$, while a tighter high-purity working point gives $S/B\simeq5\%$ with significance close to $3\sigma$. A combined high-luminosity LHC dataset could therefore make this rare decay observable. For $e^+e^-\to ZH\to Zb\bar b b\bar b$ at the ILC with $\sqrt{s}=250$ GeV, we demonstrate that the cleaner collider environment gives a high-purity signal sample. In the nominal setup, the multivariate analysis gives a significance above $5\sigma$ already at $300~{\rm fb}^{-1}$. At integrated luminosities of order $1-3~{\rm ab}^{-1}$, the branching ratio can be measured with several-percent precision.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper computes the leading amplitudes for the rare SM Higgs decay H→bbbb, including the dominant H→bbg→bbbb topology, H→ZZ*→bbbb, and loop-induced H→gg→bbbb, reporting a branching ratio of order 1.6×10^{-3} with phenomenologically relevant destructive interference. It then presents multivariate BDT analyses for associated production pp→WH→Wbbbb at the HL-LHC (√s=14 TeV) and e+e−→ZH→Zbbbb at the ILC (√s=250 GeV), projecting statistical significances of ~3.5σ at 3000 fb^{-1} (or ~3σ in a high-purity S/B≃5% working point) and >5σ already at 300 fb^{-1}, respectively.

Significance. If the BDT-based projections are robust, the work supplies a useful SM baseline for four-bottom final states and a probe of Higgs-bottom and Higgs-gauge couplings. The explicit inclusion of interference among amplitudes is a positive feature of the theoretical calculation.

major comments (2)
  1. [HL-LHC analysis] HL-LHC analysis section: The quoted 3.5σ significance (and the high-purity ~3σ point) is obtained from a BDT trained on simulated four-b kinematics; no systematic variations of jet energy scale, b-tagging, or irreducible backgrounds (tt̄, Z+bb) are reported, nor is any data-driven validation of the background modeling in the high-purity region described. This directly affects the load-bearing observability claim.
  2. [Theoretical calculation] Branching-ratio calculation: While destructive interference is stated to be relevant, the manuscript does not provide the explicit interference terms or the relative sizes of the H→bbg, H→ZZ*, and loop-induced contributions in a single equation or table, making it difficult to verify the net 1.6×10^{-3} result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the ILC significance is “above 5σ already at 300 fb^{-1}” but does not specify the exact working point or luminosity scaling used for the 1–3 ab^{-1} precision projection.
  2. Notation for the four-b final state is occasionally inconsistent (b b-bar b b-bar vs. bbbb); a single convention should be adopted throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [HL-LHC analysis] HL-LHC analysis section: The quoted 3.5σ significance (and the high-purity ~3σ point) is obtained from a BDT trained on simulated four-b kinematics; no systematic variations of jet energy scale, b-tagging, or irreducible backgrounds (tt̄, Z+bb) are reported, nor is any data-driven validation of the background modeling in the high-purity region described. This directly affects the load-bearing observability claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this observation. Our analysis focuses on the potential statistical significance using a BDT on simulated signal and background samples to demonstrate the feasibility of observing this rare decay. However, we agree that a complete assessment requires consideration of systematic uncertainties. In the revised manuscript, we will add a paragraph discussing the expected systematic uncertainties based on current LHC performance (e.g., jet energy scale uncertainties of a few percent, b-tagging efficiencies), and note that the quoted significances are statistical. We will also clarify that a full experimental analysis would incorporate data-driven background estimation. This revision will better contextualize the observability claims without altering the core methodology. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theoretical calculation] Branching-ratio calculation: While destructive interference is stated to be relevant, the manuscript does not provide the explicit interference terms or the relative sizes of the H→bbg, H→ZZ*, and loop-induced contributions in a single equation or table, making it difficult to verify the net 1.6×10^{-3} result.

    Authors: We appreciate this suggestion for improving transparency. In the updated version of the paper, we will introduce a new table that lists the individual branching ratios for each contributing process (H→bbg, H→ZZ*, loop-induced H→gg), the pairwise interference terms, and the total after interference. This will explicitly demonstrate the destructive interference and allow readers to verify the net branching ratio of approximately 1.6×10^{-3}. We believe this addition will address the concern directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; SM amplitudes and MC-based significances are independent of target observables

full rationale

The paper computes the H→bbbb branching ratio from explicit leading-order SM amplitudes (H→bbg, H→ZZ*, loop-induced gg) with interference, using standard Feynman rules and external parameters. Collider projections (3.5σ at HL-LHC, >5σ at ILC) follow from BDT classification on simulated event kinematics for associated production, without fitting any parameter to the four-b final state or renaming fitted inputs as predictions. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatze are invoked to force the central results. The derivation remains self-contained against SM benchmarks and standard simulation tools.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard model Feynman diagram calculations for the three topologies and on the assumption that multivariate classifiers trained on simulated events accurately reflect real detector performance.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Model Feynman rules and parton shower modeling for b-quark fragmentation are accurate for this process.
    Invoked when computing the leading H→bbg, H→ZZ*, and H→gg contributions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5918 in / 1333 out tokens · 35398 ms · 2026-05-20T04:25:07.902546+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We compute the leading contributions to this decay, including the dominant H→b¯bg→b¯bb¯b topology, the sizeable H→ZZ∗→b¯bb¯b channel, and the loop-induced H→gg→b¯bb¯b contribution. We find a branching ratio of order 1.6×10−3 and show that destructive interference among the leading amplitudes is phenomenologically relevant.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    For pp→WH→Wb¯bb¯b at √s=14 TeV, we use a multivariate analysis based on boosted decision trees to exploit correlations among the four-b kinematic observables.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    ForH→b ¯b→b ¯bg→b ¯bb¯b, the distribution is stretched horizontally, withMb1b2 concentrated in the 80–115 GeV range whileMb3b4 peaks at 10–20 GeV

    work page

  2. [2]

    ForH→ZZ ∗ →b ¯bb¯b, the distribution is vertical, withMb1b2 clustering around theZresonance andM b3b4 in the 10–35 GeV range

    work page

  3. [3]

    Altogether, the two-dimensional approach reveals distinctive horizontal, vertical, and diagonal patterns for the three subprocesses

    ForH→gg→b ¯bb¯b, thedistributionformsanarrowdiagonalstripextendingfrom(M b1b2, Mb3b4) = (115,10)GeV to(70,60)GeV. Altogether, the two-dimensional approach reveals distinctive horizontal, vertical, and diagonal patterns for the three subprocesses. These features, largely washed out in one-dimensional projections, provide clear discrimination and underscore...

    work page

  4. [4]

    the transverse momenta of the four selectedb-tagged jets,pT b1,p T b2,p T b3, andp T b4

    work page

  5. [5]

    These energies are ordered asE1 > E2 > E3 > E4, where the ordering refers to the reconstructed Higgs rest frame:E1,E 2,E 3, andE 4

    the energies of the four selectedb-tagged jets in the reconstructed Higgs rest frame, defined as the centre-of-mass frame of the selected four-bsystem. These energies are ordered asE1 > E2 > E3 > E4, where the ordering refers to the reconstructed Higgs rest frame:E1,E 2,E 3, andE 4

    work page

  6. [6]

    the minimum and maximum invariant masses among all possible two-bcombinations,Mmin bibj and M max bibj

    work page

  7. [7]

    the invariant mass of the two most energeticbjets in the reconstructed Higgs rest frame,M12

    work page

  8. [8]

    the invariant mass of the two least energeticbjets in the reconstructed Higgs rest frame,M34

    work page

  9. [9]

    the invariant mass of the three least energeticbjets in the reconstructed Higgs rest frame,M234

    work page

  10. [10]

    the invariant mass of the selected four-bsystem,M4b

    work page

  11. [11]

    Altogether, the BDTG is trained using4 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 6 = 20input variables

    the cosines of the angles between all pairs of the four selectedbjets in the reconstructed Higgs rest frame,cosθ ij, giving six variables. Altogether, the BDTG is trained using4 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 6 = 20input variables. The left panel of Fig. 15 shows the BDTG response for the full signal and full background samples. The two distributions are clear...

    work page 2041

  12. [12]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    Georges Aad et al. Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC.Phys. Lett., B716:1–29, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 2012

  13. [13]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Phys. Lett., B716:30–61, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012

  14. [14]

    Observation of the Diphoton Decay of the Higgs Boson and Measurement of Its Properties

    Vardan Khachatryan et al. Observation of the Diphoton Decay of the Higgs Boson and Measurement of Its Properties. Eur. Phys. J., C74(10):3076, 2014. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3076-z

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3076-z 2014

  15. [15]

    Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector.Phys

    Georges Aad et al. Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector.Phys. Rev., D90(11):112015, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.112015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.112015 2014

  16. [16]

    Measurement of the Properties of a Higgs Boson in the Four-Lepton Final State

    Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Measurement of the Properties of a Higgs Boson in the Four-Lepton Final State. Phys. Rev., D89(9):092007, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.092007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.092007 2014

  17. [17]

    Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the four-lepton channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector.Phys

    Georges Aad et al. Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the four-lepton channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector.Phys. Rev., D91(1): 012006, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.012006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.012006 2015

  18. [18]

    Measurement of Higgs Boson Production and Properties in the WW Decay Channel with Leptonic Final States.JHEP, 01:096, 2014

    Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Measurement of Higgs Boson Production and Properties in the WW Decay Channel with Leptonic Final States.JHEP, 01:096, 2014. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)096

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2014)096 2014

  19. [19]

    Observation and measurement of Higgs boson decays toWW ∗ with the ATLAS detector

    Georges Aad et al. Observation and measurement of Higgs boson decays to WW∗ with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev., D92(1):012006, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.012006 2015

  20. [20]

    Study of (W/Z)H production and Higgs boson couplings usingH→W W∗ decays with the ATLAS detector.JHEP, 08:137, 2015

    Georges Aad et al. Study of (W/Z)H production and Higgs boson couplings usingH→W W∗ decays with the ATLAS detector.JHEP, 08:137, 2015. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)137. 32

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2015)137 2015

  21. [21]

    Sirunyan et al

    Albert M. Sirunyan et al. Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV. Phys. Lett., B791:96, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073 2019

  22. [22]

    Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair ofτleptons.JHEP, 05:104, 2014

    Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair ofτleptons.JHEP, 05:104, 2014. doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)104

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)104 2014

  23. [23]

    Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector

    Georges Aad et al. Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector. JHEP, 04:117, 2015. doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)117

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)117 2015

  24. [24]

    Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair ofτleptons with the CMS detector

    Albert M Sirunyan et al. Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair ofτleptons with the CMS detector. Phys. Lett., B779:283–316, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004 2018

  25. [25]

    Observation ofH→b¯bdecays andV Hproduction with the ATLAS detector

    Morad Aaboud et al. Observation ofH→b¯bdecays andV Hproduction with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett., B786:59–86, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.013 2018

  26. [26]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(12): 121801, 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.121801 2018

  27. [27]

    de Florian et al

    D. de Florian et al. Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector. CERN YellowRep. Monogr., 2:1–869, 2017. doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002

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

  28. [28]

    David B. Kaplan. Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses. Nucl. Phys. B, 365:259–278, 1991. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(05)80021-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(05)80021-5 1991

  29. [29]

    Inclusive search for a highly boosted Higgs boson decaying to a bottom quark- antiquark pair.Phys

    Albert M Sirunyan et al. Inclusive search for a highly boosted Higgs boson decaying to a bottom quark- antiquark pair.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(7):071802, 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.071802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.071802 2018

  30. [30]

    Measurement of the Higgs boson production via vector boson fusion and its decay into bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    Aram Hayrapetyan et al. Measurement of the Higgs boson production via vector boson fusion and its decay into bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV. JHEP, 01:173, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2024)173

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2024)173 2024

  31. [31]

    Higgs boson decay into four bottom quarks in the SM and beyond

    Jun Gao. Higgs boson decay into four bottom quarks in the SM and beyond. JHEP, 08:174, 2019. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2019)174

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2019)174 2019

  32. [32]

    Christensen, and Alexander Pukhov

    Alexander Belyaev, Neil D. Christensen, and Alexander Pukhov. CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model. Comput. Phys. Commun., 184:1729–1769, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.01.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2013.01.014 2013

  33. [33]

    E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin, L. Dudko, V. Ilyin, A. Kryukov, V. Edneral, V. Savrin, A. Semenov, and A. Sherstnev. CompHEP 4.4: Automatic computations from Lagrangians to events.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 534:250–259, 2004. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.07.096

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.07.096 2004

  34. [34]

    An introduction toPYTHIA8.2

    Torbj˜A¶rn Sj˜A¶strand, Stefan Ask, Jesper R. Christiansen, Richard Corke, Nishita Desai, Philip Il- ten, Stephen Mrenna, Stefan Prestel, Christine O. Rasmussen, and Peter Z. Skands. An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2.Comput. Phys. Commun., 191:159–177, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 2015

  35. [35]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema˜A®tre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi. DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment.JHEP, 02:057,

    work page

  36. [36]

    doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/jhep02(2014)057 2014

  37. [37]

    AssociatedW Hproduction at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO.Phys

    Giancarlo Ferrera, Massimiliano Grazzini, and Francesco Tramontano. AssociatedW Hproduction at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO.Phys. Rev. Lett., 107:152003, 2011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.152003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.152003 2011

  38. [38]

    Higher-order QCD effects for asso- ciated WH production and decay at the LHC.JHEP, 04:039, 2014

    Giancarlo Ferrera, Massimiliano Grazzini, and Francesco Tramontano. Higher-order QCD effects for asso- ciated WH production and decay at the LHC.JHEP, 04:039, 2014. doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)039

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2014)039 2014

  39. [39]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 14 TeV Report.https: //twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/CERNYellowReportPageAt14TeV

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group. Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 14 TeV Report.https: //twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/CERNYellowReportPageAt14TeV. Accessed: 2025-01-20

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    HAWK 2.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs production in vector-boson fusion and Higgs strahlung at hadron colliders.Comput

    Ansgar Denner, Stefan Dittmaier, Stefan Kallweit, and Alexander M¨ uck. HAWK 2.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs production in vector-boson fusion and Higgs strahlung at hadron colliders.Comput. Phys. Commun., 195:161–171, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.04.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.04.021 2015

  41. [41]

    Harlander, Anna Kulesza, Vincent Theeuwes, and Tom Zirke

    Robert V. Harlander, Anna Kulesza, Vincent Theeuwes, and Tom Zirke. Soft gluon resummation for gluon-induced Higgs Strahlung.JHEP, 11:082, 2014. doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)082

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2014)082 2014

  42. [42]

    Harlander, Heidi Rzehak, and Tom J

    Lukas Altenkamp, Stefan Dittmaier, Robert V. Harlander, Heidi Rzehak, and Tom J. E. Zirke. Gluon-induced Higgs-strahlung at next-to-leading order QCD. JHEP, 02:078, 2013. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2013)078

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2013)078 2013

  43. [43]

    Electroweak corrections to Higgs-strahlung off W/Z bosons at the Tevatron and the LHC with HAWK.JHEP, 03:075, 2012

    Ansgar Denner, Stefan Dittmaier, Stefan Kallweit, and Alexander Muck. Electroweak corrections to Higgs-strahlung off W/Z bosons at the Tevatron and the LHC with HAWK.JHEP, 03:075, 2012. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2012)075

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2012)075 2012

  44. [44]

    NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron colliders.Phys

    Oliver Brein, Abdelhak Djouadi, and Robert Harlander. NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron colliders.Phys. Lett. B, 579:149–156, 2004. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.112. 33

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.112 2004

  45. [45]

    M. L. Ciccolini, S. Dittmaier, and M. Kramer. Electroweak radiative corrections to associated WH and ZH production at hadron colliders.Phys. Rev. D, 68:073003, 2003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.073003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.073003 2003

  46. [46]

    Campbell, R

    John M. Campbell, R. Keith Ellis, and David L. Rainwater. Next-to-Leading Order QCD Predictions forW+ 2 Jet andZ+ 2 Jet Production at the CERN LHC. Phys. Rev. D, 68:094021, 2003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.094021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.094021 2003

  47. [47]

    Fernando Febres Cordero, Laura Reina, and Doreen Wackeroth.w- andz-boson production with a massive bottom-quark pair at the large hadron collider. Phys. Rev. D, 74:034007, 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.034007 2006

  48. [48]

    F. R. Anger, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, and V. Sotnikov. NLO QCD predictions forW b ¯bproduc- tion in association with up to three light jets at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D, 97(3):036018, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.036018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.036018 2018

  49. [49]

    Associated production of a W boson and massive bottom quarks at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD

    Luca Buonocore, Simone Devoto, Stefan Kallweit, Javier Mazzitelli, Luca Rottoli, and Chiara Savoini. Associated production of a W boson and massive bottom quarks at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD. Phys. Rev. D, 107(7):074032, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.074032

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.074032 2023

  50. [50]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, et al. The automated computation of tree- level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP, 1407:079, 2014. doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014

  51. [51]

    TMVA: Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis

    TMVA Collaboration. TMVA: Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis. 2007

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    and Rademakers, F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers. ROOT: An object oriented data analysis framework.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 389:81–86, 1997. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(97)00048-x 1997

  53. [53]

    Zerlauth

    M. Zerlauth. Hl-lhc operational scenarios and performance outlook. Presentation at Linear Collider Work- shop (LCWS 2025), 2025. URLhttps://agenda.linearcollider.org/event/10594/contributions/ 56953/attachments/40557/64535/LCWS-2025-(HL-)LHC-v0.2.pdf. Slides include integrated luminosity scenarios up to 4000 fb−1

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Brau, Brian Foster, Juan Fuster, Mike Harrison, James McEwan Paterson, Michael Peskin, Marcel Stanitzki, Nicholas Walker, and Hitoshi Yamamoto

    Ties Behnke, James E. Brau, Brian Foster, Juan Fuster, Mike Harrison, James McEwan Paterson, Michael Peskin, Marcel Stanitzki, Nicholas Walker, and Hitoshi Yamamoto. The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary. 2013

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    F. Garwood. Fiducial limits for the poisson distribution. Biometrika, 28(3/4):437–442, 1936. doi: 10.1093/biomet/28.3-4.437

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/28.3-4.437 1936