Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 119 references

CMS sets the strongest limits yet on triple Higgs production and excludes part of the unitarity-allowed space of Higgs self-couplings.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 08:06 UTC pith:FPLTHPAJ

load-bearing objection Solid CMS 6b HHH search that delivers the strongest existing limit (588×SM) and the first experimental bite into unitarity-allowed (κ3,κ4) space; technical execution is clean and the central claim holds. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05145 v1 pith:FPLTHPAJ submitted 2026-07-06 hep-ex

Search for nonresonant triple Higgs boson production in the final state with six bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 14.80.Bn13.85.Rm12.60.Fr
keywords triple Higgs productionHiggs self-couplingsκ_{3}κ_{4}six-bottom final stateSPANetCMS13 TeV
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.

After the discovery of the Higgs boson, the shape of the Higgs potential remains largely untested. That shape is fixed by the trilinear and quartic self-couplings, which can be probed only by measuring double and triple Higgs production. Triple Higgs production is extremely rare in the Standard Model (about 0.08 fb) but grows rapidly if those couplings deviate from their predicted values. This analysis searches for nonresonant triple Higgs production decaying to six bottom quarks in the full 138 fb^{-1} Run-2 data set. No excess is observed. The resulting 95% confidence upper limit is 44 fb (588 times the Standard Model rate). The same data exclude a slice of the (trilinear, quartic) coupling plane that had still been allowed by perturbative unitarity of HH scattering. The result is the tightest experimental bound on triple Higgs production to date and the first direct exclusion of unitarity-allowed parameter space.

Core claim

No significant excess of nonresonant HHH o6b events is observed. The observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section is 44 (43) fb, or 588 (572) times the Standard Model expectation. With the quartic modifier fixed to its Standard Model value the trilinear modifier is constrained to -7.4 < κ_{3} < 12.4; with the trilinear fixed, the quartic modifier is constrained to -177 < κ_{4} < 185. The two-dimensional scan excludes, for the first time, a portion of the (κ_{3}, κ_{4}) region still permitted by the perturbative unitarity bound.

What carries the argument

A two-stage symmetry-preserving attention network (SPANet) that simultaneously classifies events as HHH, HH, QCD multijet or tt and assigns jets to three Higgs candidates across resolved, partially-merged and fully-merged topologies; the final discriminant is the high-score region of ProbMultiH = Prob(HHH)+Prob(HH).

Load-bearing premise

The dominant multijet background in the signal region is taken from data events that fail the inclusive classifiers, after their b-tagging scores have been replaced by scores sampled from the signal region; any residual correlation between kinematics and flavor tags that is not captured by this embedding would bias the high-score bins that set the limit.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the same six-b final state (or a re-analysis of the same data set) that finds a statistically significant excess above the background model in the highest ProbMultiH bins, or that obtains a substantially weaker limit once residual kinematic-flavor correlations are corrected.

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

If this is right

  • The excluded slice of the (κ_{3}, κ_{4}) plane is no longer theoretically consistent for models that rely on large deviations of the Higgs potential while remaining unitary.
  • Future HL-LHC projections based on the same analysis strategy already improve the expected μ_HHH limit by a factor of roughly four.
  • Any beyond-Standard-Model scenario that predicts an HHH cross section above ~44 fb is now ruled out at 95% CL in the six-b channel.
  • The same SPANet architecture and data-driven embedding method can be reused for other multi-Higgs or multi-b final states with only modest re-training.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the analysis already excludes part of the unitarity-allowed region, any remaining theoretical loophole that would restore those points must either soften the HHH kinematics or introduce new production modes not captured by the present signal model.
  • The residual sensitivity of HH production to κ_{4} through electroweak corrections, currently treated only as a normalization effect, will become a limiting systematic once the HHH limit improves by another factor of a few.
  • A combined HHH + HH likelihood that fully profiles both the rate and the shape dependence on κ_{3} and κ_{4} would tighten the present one-dimensional intervals by an amount comparable to the 9% gain already obtained by including the HH rate alone.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This CMS Letter reports a search for nonresonant triple Higgs production (HHH) in the six-bottom-quark final state with 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV pp data. Events are reconstructed in resolved, partially merged, and fully merged topologies using ParticleNet b/bb tagging and a two-stage SPANET attention network that both classifies signal versus QCD/tt/HH backgrounds and assigns jets to Higgs candidates. Signal extraction is a binned profile-likelihood fit to the high-score ProbMultiH distribution in seven 3H/2H signal-region categories, with a data-driven multijet background obtained by embedding SR b-tagging scores into classifier-failing events. No excess is observed. The observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the HHH cross section is 44 (43) fb, or 588 (572) times the SM prediction. One-dimensional scans give -7.4 < κ3 < 12.4 (-6.4 < κ3 < 11.2) for κ4 = 1 and -177 < κ4 < 185 (-180 < κ4 < 190) for κ3 = 1; the two-dimensional (κ3, κ4) contour excludes, for the first time, a portion of the region still allowed by the perturbative unitarity bound on HH o HH scattering.

Significance. The result is the most stringent direct constraint on nonresonant HHH production to date and improves substantially on the previous ATLAS 6b limit (μ HHH < 760). The first exclusion of unitarity-allowed (κ3, κ4) parameter space is a genuine advance for Higgs-potential studies. Methodologically the work is strong: SPANET-based inclusive reconstruction across all resolved/merged combinations, a carefully validated data-driven background embedding, and a full HL-LHC projection are all valuable contributions. Statistical uncertainties dominate (~52% of the expected limit) and observed/expected limits are nearly identical, supporting robustness of the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. Background modeling (paragraphs describing the embedding procedure and its validation): the data-driven replacement of discretized b/bb-tagging scores in classifier-failing events is the load-bearing modeling choice for the high-ProbMultiH bins that set the limit. The manuscript already validates the method in HH-enriched categories and multijet-mass sidebands and assigns a decorrelated shape uncertainty taken from the 1H category. To make residual kinematic–flavor correlation bias fully transparent, the final paper should quantify the largest residual non-closure observed in those validation regions (as a fraction of the statistical uncertainty in the highest-purity bins) and confirm that the assigned shape uncertainty covers it.
  2. Coupling interpretation (text discussing kinematic reweighting and the statement that inclusion of shape effects worsens the expected κ3 boundary by 12–15%): the published 1D and 2D contours are obtained under a pure cross-section scaling assumption that neglects κ-dependent kinematic changes. Because the paper already estimates a non-negligible degradation, the main result figures (or at least a clear statement in the abstract/conclusions) should either (i) present the more conservative bounds that include the reweighting or (ii) explicitly label the quoted intervals as “normalization-only” and quote the degraded numbers side-by-side. This is required for a fair comparison with future HH and HHH analyses that do include shape effects.
minor comments (4)
  1. Figure 1 caption and axis labels: the binning of ProbMultiH (ten intervals of the high-score range 0.8–1.0) is described in the text but not restated on the figure itself; adding a short note would aid readability.
  2. End Matter A.2: the acceptance after the HT > 450 GeV requirement is quoted as ~80%; a brief statement of the corresponding efficiency for the SM HHH sample (including trigger) would help the reader assess the overall selection power.
  3. References: the recent HHH whitepaper (Ref. [27]) and the unitarity bound paper (Ref. [47]) are appropriately cited; a short parenthetical note that the unitarity contour shown in Fig. 2 (right) is taken directly from Ref. [47] would remove any ambiguity.
  4. Notation consistency: both κ3/κ4 and λ3/λ4 appear; a single sentence early in the introduction equating the two conventions would avoid confusion for non-specialist readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental upper limits and coupling constraints are extracted from collision data against external SM cross sections and an independent unitarity bound.

full rationale

This is a standard CMS search paper. The observed/expected 95% CL limits on the HHH cross section (44/43 fb, or 588/572 times SM) and the 1D/2D constraints on (κ3, κ4) are obtained from a binned profile-likelihood fit to the ProbMultiH distribution in data, using the asymptotic CLs method. The SM HHH and HH normalizations are external NNLO theory inputs (not fitted to the present dataset); the unitarity boundary is taken from an independent calculation [47] and is not derived or adjusted inside the analysis. The data-driven QCD multijet background (embedding of b/bb-tagging scores from SR into failing events, with normalization fixed to data yields) is validated in HH-enriched categories and multijet-mass sidebands and is assigned a residual shape uncertainty; it does not redefine the signal strength. Fixing μHH = 1 (with profiled uncertainty) is a modeling choice, not a circular definition of the HHH signal. No equation, fit, or self-citation reduces the reported limits to their own inputs by construction. The result is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a data-driven experimental search, the paper inherits the Standard Model Lagrangian, NNLO cross-section calculations, and CMS detector calibrations as external inputs. The only analysis-specific modeling choices that function as free parameters or axioms are the background-embedding procedure, the SM K-factor applied uniformly to BSM points, and the decision to fix μHH=1 while profiling its uncertainty. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • SM K-factor for HHH = NNLO/LO ratio for SM HHH (~ few units)
    A single next-to-next-to-leading-order K-factor derived for the SM point is applied to all (κ3, κ4) samples; intermediate points are obtained by event reweighting. The value is taken from external theory and is not refitted, but its universality is an assumption.
  • Background normalization per category = data yield in category
    In each signal-region category the data-driven QCD+tt background template is normalized exactly to the observed data yield. This is a free scale parameter fixed by construction.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model top-Yukawa coupling is fixed to its SM value; only κ3 and κ4 are varied.
    Stated explicitly in the statistical-model section; required for the one- and two-dimensional coupling scans.
  • domain assumption Other single-H and HH production modes (VBF HH, ttH, ttHH, VH, VHH) remain negligible even under large κ3/κ4 variations.
    Justified by weak dependence on the self-couplings and by explicit checks; used to omit them from the likelihood.
  • ad hoc to paper The data-driven embedding of b-tagging scores preserves all relevant kinematic–flavor correlations of the multijet background.
    Core of the background model; validated in control regions but remains an unproven modeling assumption for the highest-purity bins.
  • domain assumption Perturbative unitarity of HH→HH scattering supplies the theoretically allowed region in the (κ3, κ4) plane.
    Taken from external theory (Stylianou & Weiglein); used only for interpretation, not for the limit extraction itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 45215 in / 2904 out tokens · 26842 ms · 2026-07-11T08:06:01.134470+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search for nonresonant triple Higgs boson (HHH) production in the final state with six bottom quarks is performed using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ recorded by the CMS experiment. No significant excess of events over the background prediction is seen. Observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper limits on the signal cross section are set at 44 (43) fb, corresponding to 588 (572) times the standard model expectation. The observed (expected) constraint on the trilinear coupling modifier $\kappa_3$ is $-$7.4 $\lt$ $\kappa_3$ $\lt$ 12.4 ($-$6.4 $\lt$ \kappa_3 $\lt$ 11.2), assuming the quartic coupling modifier $\kappa_4$ = 1. The corresponding constraint on $\kappa_4$ is $-$177 $\lt$ $\kappa_4$ $\lt$ 185 ($-$180 $\lt$ $\kappa_4$ $\lt$ 190), assuming $\kappa_3$ = 1. This analysis provides the most stringent constraint to date on nonresonant HHH production and excludes, for the first time, part of the $(\kappa_3,\kappa_4)$ space allowed by the perturbative unitarity bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05145 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Post-fit yields in the SR categories with three reconstructed H. Bins correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Expected and observed ULs on the HHH signal strength shown separately for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for nonresonant HHH production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the HHH signal strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Expected 68 and 95% CL constraints in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.321 1964

  2. [2]

    Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,Phys. Lett.12 (1964) 132,doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9

    doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9 1964

  3. [3]

    Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 508,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.508 1964

  4. [4]

    Global conservation laws and massless particles

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 585,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.585 1964

  5. [5]

    Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,Phys. Rev. 145(1966) 1156,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156

    doi:10.1103/physrev.145.1156 1966

  6. [6]

    Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories”,Phys. Rev.155 (1967) 1554,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554

    doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1554 1967

  7. [7]

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

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020,arXiv:1207.7214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 2012

  8. [8]

    Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021,arXiv:1207.7235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012

  9. [9]

    Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV”,JHEP06(2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081,arXiv:1303.4571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2013)081 2013

  10. [10]

    The Higgs field and early universe cosmology: A (brief) review

    B. Horn, “The Higgs field and early universe cosmology: A (brief) review”,Physics2 (2020) 503,doi:10.3390/physics2030028,arXiv:2007.10377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/physics2030028 2020

  11. [11]

    Probing baryogenesis through the Higgs boson self-coupling

    M. Reichert et al., “Probing baryogenesis through the Higgs boson self-coupling”, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 075008,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.075008, arXiv:1711.00019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.075008 2018

  12. [12]

    Higgs self-coupling as a probe of the electroweak phase transition

    A. Noble and M. Perelstein, “Higgs self-coupling as a probe of the electroweak phase transition”,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 063518,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.063518, arXiv:0711.3018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.063518 2008

  13. [13]

    Cosmological Aspects of Higgs Vacuum Metastability

    T. Markkanen, A. Rajantie, and S. Stopyra, “Cosmological Aspects of Higgs Vacuum Metastability”,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5(2018) 40, doi:10.3389/fspas.2018.00040,arXiv:1809.06923

    doi:10.3389/fspas.2018.00040 2018

  14. [14]

    Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects

    M. Grazzini et al., “Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects”, JHEP05(2018) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)059,arXiv:1803.02463

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep05(2018)059 2018

  15. [15]

    Neutral Higgs-boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections

    S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira, “Neutral Higgs-boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections”,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 115012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.115012,arXiv:hep-ph/9805244. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.115012 1998

  16. [16]

    Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading order with full top-quark mass dependence

    S. Borowka et al., “Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading order with full top-quark mass dependence”,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 012001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.012001,arXiv:1604.06447. [Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.079901]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.012001 2016

  17. [17]

    Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme

    J. Baglio et al., “Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme”, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 459,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6973-3, arXiv:1811.05692

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6973-3 2019

  18. [18]

    Higgs boson pair production at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, “Higgs boson pair production at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD”,Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 201801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.201801,arXiv:1309.6594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.201801 2013

  19. [19]

    Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC

    D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li, and J. Wang, “Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC”,JHEP07(2013) 169, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)169,arXiv:1301.1245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2013)169 2013

  20. [20]

    Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, “Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC”,JHEP09(2015) 053, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)053,arXiv:1505.07122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2015)053 2015

  21. [21]

    gg→HH: Combined uncertainties

    J. Baglio et al., “gg→HH: Combined uncertainties”,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 056002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.056002,arXiv:2008.11626

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.056002 2021

  22. [22]

    SMEFT predictions for gg→HH at full NLO QCD and truncation uncertainties

    G. Heinrich, J. Lang, and L. Scyboz, “SMEFT predictions for gg→HH at full NLO QCD and truncation uncertainties”,JHEP08(2022) 079, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)079,arXiv:2204.13045. [Erratum: doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)086]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep08(2022)079 2022

  23. [23]

    Higgs boson pair production at NLO in the POWHEG approach and the top quark mass uncertainties

    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,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12238-8,arXiv:2309.10525

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12238-8 2023

  24. [24]

    Top-quark mass effects in double and triple Higgs production in gluon-gluon fusion at NLO

    F. Maltoni, E. Vryonidou, and M. Zaro, “Top-quark mass effects in double and triple Higgs production in gluon-gluon fusion at NLO”,JHEP11(2014) 079, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)079,arXiv:1408.6542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep11(2014)079 2014

  25. [25]

    Multi-Higgs boson production with anomalous interactions at current and future proton colliders

    A. Papaefstathiou and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, “Multi-Higgs boson production with anomalous interactions at current and future proton colliders”,JHEP06(2024) 124, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2024)124,arXiv:2312.13562

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2024)124 2024

  26. [26]

    Triple Higgs production at hadron colliders at NNLO in QCD

    D. de Florian, I. Fabre, and J. Mazzitelli, “Triple Higgs production at hadron colliders at NNLO in QCD”,JHEP03(2020) 155,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)155, arXiv:1912.02760

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep03(2020)155 2020

  27. [27]

    HHH whitepaper

    H. Abouabid et al., “HHH whitepaper”,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1183, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13376-3,arXiv:2407.03015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13376-3 2024

  28. [28]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs properties

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs properties”,CERN Y ellow Rep. Monogr.(2013)doi:10.5170/CERN-2013-004, arXiv:1307.1347. References 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.5170/cern-2013-004 2013

  29. [29]

    Studies of new Higgs boson interactions through nonresonant HH production in the bbγγfinal state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Studies of new Higgs boson interactions through nonresonant HH production in the bbγγfinal state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP01(2024) 066,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)066, arXiv:2310.12301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep01(2024)066 2024

  30. [30]

    Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the bbb b final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the bbb b final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D 108(2023) 052003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.052003,arXiv:2301.03212

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.052003 2023

  31. [31]

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the nonresonant production of Higgs boson pairs via gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion in the bbτ +τ− final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 032012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.032012,arXiv:2404.12660

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.032012 2024

  32. [32]

    Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with leptons, taus, and photons in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with leptons, taus, and photons in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP08(2024) 164,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)164, arXiv:2405.20040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep08(2024)164 2024

  33. [33]

    Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the 2b+2ℓ+E miss T final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the 2b+2ℓ+E miss T final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP02(2024) 037,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)037,arXiv:2310.11286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2024)037 2024

  34. [34]

    Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final state with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final state with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B842(2023) 137531, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137531,arXiv:2206.09401

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137531 2023

  35. [35]

    Search for Higgs boson pair production with one associated vector boson in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production with one associated vector boson in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP10(2024) 061, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)061,arXiv:2404.08462

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2024)061 2024

  36. [36]

    Search for Higgs boson pairs decaying to WW*WW*, WW*ττ, and ττττin proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pairs decaying to WW*WW*, WW*ττ, and ττττin proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP07(2023) 095, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)095,arXiv:2206.10268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2023)095 2023

  37. [37]

    Search for Higgs boson pair production in the b bW+W− decay mode in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in the b bW+W− decay mode in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP07(2024) 293, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)293,arXiv:2403.09430

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2024)293 2024

  38. [38]

    Combination of searches for Higgs boson pair production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for Higgs boson pair production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 101801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.101801,arXiv:2406.09971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.101801 2024

  39. [39]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery

    CMS Collaboration, “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 60,doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x, arXiv:2207.00043. [Corrigendum:doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06164-8]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x 2022

  40. [40]

    Search for pair production of boosted Higgs bosons via vector-boson fusion in the bbb b final state using pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of boosted Higgs bosons via vector-boson fusion in the bbb b final state using pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B858(2024) 139007, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139007,arXiv:2404.17193. 14

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139007 2024

  41. [41]

    Search for Higgs boson pair production in the four b quark final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in the four b quark final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 081802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.081802,arXiv:2202.09617

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.081802 2022

  42. [42]

    Search for nonresonant pair production of highly energetic Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quarks

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for nonresonant pair production of highly energetic Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quarks”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 041803, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041803,arXiv:2205.06667

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041803 2023

  43. [43]

    Search for triple Higgs boson production in the 6b final state using pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “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,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.032006,arXiv:2411.02040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.032006 2025

  44. [44]

    Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders

    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, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)267,arXiv:1810.04665

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2019)267 2019

  45. [45]

    Addendum to: Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders

    W. Bizo ´n et al., “Addendum to: Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders”,JHEP02(2024) 170, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)170,arXiv:2402.03463

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2024)170 2024

  46. [46]

    Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”, 2025.arXiv:2510.07527. Submitted toJ. Phys. G

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Constraints on the trilinear and quartic Higgs couplings from triple Higgs production at the LHC and beyond

    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, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12722-9,arXiv:2312.04646

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12722-9 2024

  48. [48]

    Double and triple Higgs boson production to probe the electroweak phase transition

    L. Biermann et al., “Double and triple Higgs boson production to probe the electroweak phase transition”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 095012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.095012,arXiv:2408.08043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.095012 2024

  49. [49]

    Aligned and spontaneous flavor violation

    D. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Homiller, and P . Meade, “Aligned and spontaneous flavor violation”,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 031802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.031802,arXiv:1811.00017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.031802 2019

  50. [50]

    Higgs bosons with large couplings to light quarks

    D. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Homiller, and P . R. Meade, “Higgs bosons with large couplings to light quarks”,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 115041, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115041,arXiv:1908.11376

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.115041 2019

  51. [51]

    Probing Higgs self-interactions in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 100 TeV

    B. Fuks, J. H. Kim, and S. J. Lee, “Probing Higgs self-interactions in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 100 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 035026, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.035026,arXiv:1510.07697

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.035026 2016

  52. [52]

    Triple Higgs boson production to six b-jets at a 100 TeV proton collider

    A. Papaefstathiou, G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, and M. Zaro, “Triple Higgs boson production to six b-jets at a 100 TeV proton collider”,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 947, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7457-1,arXiv:1909.09166

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7457-1 2019

  53. [53]

    Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 800, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2,arXiv:2104.01927

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2 2015

  54. [54]

    CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018. References 15

    2017

  55. [55]

    CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019

    2018

  56. [56]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  57. [57]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05064 2024

  58. [58]

    Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017,arXiv:2006.10165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/p10017 2020

  59. [59]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/p01020 2017

  60. [60]

    Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC run 2”, JINST19(2024) P11021,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/P11021, arXiv:2410.17038

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/p11021 2024

  61. [61]

    Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014,arXiv:2012.06888

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/p05014 2021

  62. [62]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015 2018

  63. [63]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/p10009 2014

  64. [64]

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

    J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,JHEP07 (2014) 079,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079,arXiv:1405.0301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014

  65. [65]

    A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms

    P . Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,JHEP11(2004) 040,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040 2004

  66. [66]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,JHEP11(2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070,arXiv:0709.2092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070 2007

  67. [67]

    A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: thePOWHEGbox

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: thePOWHEGbox”,JHEP06(2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043,arXiv:1002.2581

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2010)043 2010

  68. [68]

    Higgs production via gluon fusion in thePOWHEGapproach in the SM and in the MSSM

    E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P . Slavich, and A. Vicini, “Higgs production via gluon fusion in thePOWHEGapproach in the SM and in the MSSM”,JHEP02(2012) 088, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2012)088,arXiv:1111.2854. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2012)088 2012

  69. [69]

    NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers

    G. Heinrich et al., “NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers”,JHEP08(2017) 088, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)088,arXiv:1703.09252

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep08(2017)088 2017

  70. [70]

    Parton shower and NLO-matching uncertainties in Higgs boson pair production

    S. Jones and S. Kuttimalai, “Parton shower and NLO-matching uncertainties in Higgs boson pair production”,JHEP02(2018) 176,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)176, arXiv:1711.03319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2018)176 2018

  71. [71]

    Higgs boson pair production in non-linear effective field theory with fullm t-dependence at NLO QCD

    G. Buchalla et al., “Higgs boson pair production in non-linear effective field theory with fullm t-dependence at NLO QCD”,JHEP09(2018) 057, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057,arXiv:1806.05162

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2018)057 2018

  72. [72]

    Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects

    G. Heinrich et al., “Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects”,JHEP06(2019) 066, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2019)066,arXiv:1903.08137

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2019)066 2019

  73. [73]

    A non-linear EFT description of gg→HH at NLO interfaced toPOWHEG

    G. Heinrich, S. P . Jones, M. Kerner, and L. Scyboz, “A non-linear EFT description of gg→HH at NLO interfaced toPOWHEG”,JHEP10(2020) 021, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)021,arXiv:2006.16877

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2020)021 2020

  74. [74]

    Double Higgs boson production at NLO: Combining the exact numerical result and high-energy expansion

    J. Davies et al., “Double Higgs boson production at NLO: Combining the exact numerical result and high-energy expansion”,JHEP11(2019) 024, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)024,arXiv:1907.06408

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep11(2019)024 2019

  75. [75]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 2015

  76. [76]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4 2020

  77. [77]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5 2017

  78. [78]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/p10003 2017

  79. [79]

    Pileup removal algorithms

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup removal algorithms”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-14-001, 2014

    2014

  80. [80]

    Pileup per particle identification

    D. Bertolini, P . Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran, “Pileup per particle identification”,JHEP 10(2014) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)059,arXiv:1407.6013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2014)059 2014

Showing first 80 references.