Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 140 references

ATLAS measures Higgs pair production at 2.6 times the Standard Model rate in the bbττ channel, with a 2.6σ excess over no-pair production and first evidence for ZH in the same final state.

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

2026-07-30 18:20 UTC pith:CZRL3K2Q

load-bearing objection Solid ATLAS incremental update: Run-3 data + transformer MVA + first evidence for ZH in bbττ; μ_HH excess is real but still SM-compatible and stats-limited.

arxiv 2607.26879 v1 pith:CZRL3K2Q submitted 2026-07-29 hep-ex

Improved analysis of non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the bbar{b}τ^+τ^- final state with 196 fb⁻¹ of data collected at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 14.80.Bn13.85.Rm12.60.Fr
keywords Higgs boson pair productionHiggs self-couplingbbττ final stateATLASRun 2 and Run 3transformer multivariate analysisκ_λZH validation
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.

This ATLAS analysis searches for pairs of Higgs bosons produced together and decaying to bottom quarks plus tau leptons, combining the full Run 2 dataset with early Run 3 data. The measured rate is 2.6 times the Standard Model expectation, with an observed significance of 2.6 standard deviations above a pure-background hypothesis and 1.65 standard deviations above the Standard Model itself. The same analysis yields the first evidence (3.5σ) for associated ZH production in this final state and a consistent ZZ measurement, validating the selection and background methods. Under the assumption that all other Higgs couplings stay Standard-Model-like, the data constrain the Higgs self-coupling modifier to two disjoint intervals. The result tightens earlier limits by adding luminosity, better flavour tagging, a transformer-based multivariate classifier, and expanded triggers.

Core claim

Using 196 fb^{-1} of 13 and 13.6 TeV proton–proton collisions, ATLAS finds the non-resonant Higgs-pair signal strength μ_HH = 2.6^{+1.4}_{-1.0} in the bbτ^{+}τ^{-} final state. That corresponds to 2.6 (1.2) observed (expected) standard deviations above background-only and yields the observed 95 % CL interval κ_λ ∈ [−3.4, 1.6] ∪ [5.5, 10.1] when other couplings are fixed to their Standard Model values. Parallel fits in the identical selection give μ_ZH = 1.52^{+0.52}_{-0.48} (3.5σ observed) and μ_ZZ = 0.64^{+0.39}_{-0.36} (1.8σ observed), confirming the analysis chain.

What carries the argument

A transformer multivariate analysis that simultaneously categorises events into ggF-like, VBF-like, high-m_HH and low-m_HH signal regions and supplies the final discriminants, trained jointly on SM and κ_λ = 5 kinematics plus auxiliary parentage tasks, and fed by improved GN2 b-tagging, muon-in-jet corrections and Run-3 delayed-stream triggers.

Load-bearing premise

The leading single-Higgs-plus-heavy-flavour background is assigned a flat 100 % normalisation uncertainty taken from earlier measurements rather than a first-principles calculation, and that uncertainty directly affects the most signal-like classifier bins.

What would settle it

A larger Run-3 or HL-LHC dataset analysed with the same selection would show whether the excess in the highest-score SR-Hi bins persists at μ_HH ≈ 1 or disappears toward the background-only hypothesis; inconsistency of the ZH or ZZ validation strengths with their Standard Model predictions would also invalidate the claimed sensitivity.

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

If this is right

  • The observed 95 % CL interval on the Higgs self-coupling modifier κ_λ is tightened relative to the previous ATLAS bbττ result and remains compatible with the Standard Model value of 1.
  • The same dataset and selection now provide the first evidence above 3σ for ZH → bbττ, establishing a calibration process for future HH searches in this channel.
  • Expected sensitivity to μ_HH improves by up to 65 % over the prior ATLAS analysis through the combination of extra luminosity, transformer classification and object-reconstruction upgrades.
  • Separate limits on ggF and VBF production modes remain only weakly correlated, allowing independent tests of κ_λ and κ_2V.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mild excess is a statistical fluctuation, the next 100–200 fb^{-1} of Run 3 data should pull μ_HH back toward 1 and close the secondary high-κ_λ island in the likelihood scan.
  • The successful ZH evidence suggests that the same transformer architecture and fake-τ methods can be ported with little change to other multi-boson final states that share heavy-flavour and τ backgrounds.
  • The 100 % ggH+HF uncertainty will become the dominant systematic once statistical errors shrink; a dedicated differential measurement of single-Higgs plus heavy flavour in the same phase space would therefore unlock the next sensitivity gain.

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This ATLAS paper presents an updated search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the bbτ+τ− final state, combining the full Run 2 dataset (140 fb−1 at 13 TeV) with early Run 3 data (56 fb−1 at 13.6 TeV). Relative to the previous ATLAS result in the same channel, the analysis incorporates a transformer-based multivariate classifier, the GN2 flavour tagger, extended Run 3 triggers (including delayed-stream DBT), and refined object and background treatments. The measured signal strength is μ_HH = 2.6^{+1.4}_{-1.0}, corresponding to an observed (expected) significance of 2.6 (1.2) σ over the background-only hypothesis and 1.65 σ above the SM prediction. Profile-likelihood constraints yield observed 95% CL intervals κ_λ ∈ [−3.4, 1.6] ∪ [5.5, 10.1] and κ_2V ∈ [−0.2, 2.4] (other couplings fixed to SM). The same selection is used to extract μ_ZZ = 0.64^{+0.39}_{-0.36} and μ_ZH = 1.52^{+0.52}_{-0.48}, the latter providing first evidence (3.5 σ observed) for ZH → bbττ.

Significance. The result is a solid incremental advance in the most sensitive HH final states. The expected sensitivity gain of ~65% over the prior ATLAS bbττ analysis is well documented and arises from a combination of additional luminosity, improved b-tagging and τ reconstruction, and a carefully designed multi-task transformer MVA with auxiliary parentage heads. The simultaneous ZH and ZZ validation measurements in the identical selection constitute a particularly strong methodological check; the first evidence-level observation of ZH → bbττ is itself a noteworthy byproduct. Systematic uncertainties are broken down transparently (Table 5), floating normalisations are used for the dominant backgrounds, and the statistical component remains dominant. The paper therefore supplies a reliable, well-validated input for future HH combinations and for constraints on the Higgs self-coupling.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 8.2] Section 8.2 and Table 5: the 100% normalisation uncertainty assigned to ggH+HF (and similarly large envelopes for other single-H+HF components) is the leading background-modelling term. While conservative and sub-dominant to statistics, a short quantitative statement of how the envelope was derived from the cited ATLAS measurements would help the reader assess residual model dependence in the highest-score bins.
  2. [Section 10] Section 10: the goodness-of-fit probability of 6.1% is driven primarily by the SR Lo regions. A brief remark on whether any localised mismodelling was investigated (or simply accepted as a statistical fluctuation) would improve transparency.
  3. [Section 10] Figures 7–8 and 12–13: the vertical scales and binning of the classifier-score distributions make it difficult to judge the data/MC agreement in the most sensitive high-score bins by eye. Consider adding inset zooms or a supplementary table of yields in the last few bins.
  4. [Section 7.2] Section 7.2: the loss-function weights (Eq. 1) and the decision to train on κ_λ = 5 events are stated without a quantitative ablation. A one-sentence summary of the sensitivity gain from each choice would be useful for reproducibility.
  5. [Abstract] Abstract and Introduction: the total integrated luminosity is quoted as 196 fb−1, while the body consistently separates 140 + 56 fb−1. Aligning the wording would avoid minor confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: conventional profile-likelihood extraction of μ_HH and κ_λ against external SM theory predictions and data-driven backgrounds.

full rationale

This is a standard ATLAS hep-ex search. The central results (μ_HH = 2.6^{+1.4}_{-1.0}, observed 2.6σ over background-only, κ_λ 95% CL intervals under SM-fixed other couplings) are obtained by maximising a binned profile likelihood that compares collision data to SM signal templates normalised to external theory cross-sections (NNLO FTApprox ggF, N3LO VBF, etc.) and to backgrounds estimated from simulation plus independent data-driven fake-factor and CR-constrained normalisations. Floating NFs for Z+HF, ttbar and tW are constrained by dedicated control regions and are not re-labelled as signal predictions. The κ_λ (and κ_2V) scans use the established theoretical dependence of the HH cross-section and kinematics on the coupling modifiers; that functional form is an external input, not fitted from the same data and then called a prediction. ZH/ZZ validation fits reuse the selection but treat those processes as the POIs with HH fixed to SM, providing an external consistency check rather than a self-definitional loop. Prior ATLAS citations supply methodology and conservative 100% ggH+HF modelling uncertainties; they do not force the measured μ_HH by construction. No step reduces the claimed result to its inputs by definition, fit-renaming, or load-bearing self-citation uniqueness.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental HEP search. Central claims rest on Standard Model cross-section and branching-ratio calculations taken from the literature, on the validity of MC generators and detector simulation, and on data-driven background estimates whose transferability from control to signal regions is assumed. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are the usual floating normalisations and the signal-strength / coupling modifiers that are the fit parameters of interest.

free parameters (4)
  • μ_HH (signal strength) = 2.6^{+1.4}_{-1.0}
    Primary parameter of interest; floated in the likelihood and fitted to data.
  • NF_Z+HF, NF_tt, NF_tW (Run 2 and Run 3) = Z+HF ~1.11–1.21; tt ~0.96–0.97; tW ~1.05–1.34
    Unconstrained normalisation factors for the three largest backgrounds, determined in the global fit (Table 3).
  • κ_λ, κ_2V = κ_λ best-fit near values giving ~2.6× SM rate; 95% CL intervals reported
    Coupling modifiers scanned in profile-likelihood fits with other couplings fixed to SM; not free in the baseline μ_HH fit but are the secondary POIs.
  • Fake-factor and tt fake-τ scale factors = binned in pT, η, track multiplicity (values not tabulated numerically in text)
    Data-derived correction factors for misidentified hadronic taus, extracted in control regions and applied in signal regions.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption SM HH production cross-sections and H→bb, H→ττ branching ratios are correctly given by the cited NNLO/N3LO calculations (Refs. [20–33], [27,132]).
    Used to normalise the signal templates and to define μ_HH = σ/σ_SM; any theory error is assigned as a systematic but the central value is taken from external theory.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo generators (Powheg, MadGraph, Sherpa, Pythia) plus Geant4 detector simulation adequately model acceptance and kinematics once experimental scale factors are applied.
    Standard LHC assumption; residual mismodelling is covered by generator-variation and scale/PDF systematics (Sec. 8.2).
  • domain assumption Fake-factor and same-sign control-region methods correctly extrapolate the fake-τ and multijet backgrounds into the opposite-sign signal regions.
    Data-driven background estimate; closure and composition uncertainties are assigned but the method itself is an unproved transfer assumption (Sec. 6, 8.3).
  • ad hoc to paper 100% normalisation uncertainty on ggH+HF (and large uncertainties on other single-H+HF) is a conservative envelope of true modelling error.
    Explicitly described as a conservative choice motivated by prior ATLAS measurements rather than a calculated uncertainty (Sec. 8.2); it is the leading background-modelling uncertainty.
  • standard math Profile-likelihood ratio with asymptotic formulae and CLs prescription yields correctly calibrated confidence intervals and significances.
    Standard statistical framework (Cowan et al., Read); bins required to have ≥3 expected background events to support asymptotics (Sec. 9).

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 77676 in / 3425 out tokens · 68023 ms · 2026-07-30T18:20:05.058468+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production (HH) in the $b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-$ final state is performed using 140 $fb^{-1}$ and 56 $fb^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at centre-of-mass energies of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV, respectively, recorded by the ATLAS detector during 2015-2023 at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Relative to the previous ATLAS searches in the same final state, the analysis benefits from the additional dataset collected at 13.6 TeV and from improvements in both event reconstruction and analysis techniques. The Higgs boson pair production cross-section divided by the Standard Model (SM) prediction is found to be $\mu_{HH}= 2.6^{+1.4}_{-1.0}$, consistent with the SM expectation. This corresponds to an observed (expected) significance of 2.6 (1.2) standard deviations over the background-only hypothesis of no HH production and 1.65 standard deviations with respect to the SM prediction. Under the assumption that all other Higgs boson couplings take their SM values, the observed (expected) 95% confidence level interval for the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier is found to be $\kappa_{\lambda} \in [-3.4, 1.6] \cup [5.5, 10.1]$ ($\kappa_{\lambda} \in[-1.7, 8.5]$). As a validation of the analysis strategy, measurements of the ZH and ZZ processes are performed in the same final state using the same event selection, yielding observed (expected) significances of 3.5 (2.4) and 1.8 (2.7) standard deviations, respectively, relative to the background-only prediction.

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

140 extracted references · 113 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3(2008) S08001

    2008

  4. [4]

    Higgs,Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys

    P. Higgs,Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys. Lett.12(1964) 132

    1964

  5. [5]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout,Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321

    1964

  6. [6]

    P. W. Higgs,Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 508

    1964

  7. [7]

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 585

    1964

  8. [8]

    P. W. Higgs,Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons, Phys. Rev.145(1966) 1156

    1966

  9. [9]

    T. W. B. Kibble,Symmetry Breaking in Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev.155(1967) 1554

    1967

  10. [10]

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations,Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in𝑝𝑝 Collisions at√𝑠=7and8TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 191803, arXiv:1503.07589 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the𝐻→𝛾𝛾 and𝐻→𝑍𝑍 ∗→4ℓ Decay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using√𝑠=7,8,and13TeV𝑝𝑝Collision Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 251802, arXiv:2308.04775 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Study of the spin and parity of the Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 476, arXiv:1506.05669 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    ATLAS Collaboration,𝐶𝑃 Properties of Higgs Boson Interactions with Top Quarks in the𝑡¯𝑡𝐻 and 𝑡𝐻Processes Using𝐻→𝛾𝛾with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 061802, arXiv:2004.04545 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    CMS Collaboration,Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons and fermions in its production and decay using the four-lepton final state, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 052004, arXiv:2104.12152 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Evidence of off-shell Higgs boson production from𝑍𝑍leptonic decay channels and constraints on its total width with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B846(2023) 138223, arXiv:2304.01532 [hep-ex], Erratum: Phys. Lett. B854(2024) 138734

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    CMS Collaboration, MeasurementoftheHiggsbosonwidthandevidenceofitsoff-shellcontributionsto 𝑍𝑍 production, Nature Phys.18(2022) 1329, arXiv:2202.06923 [hep-ex]. 39

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    ATLAS Collaboration, A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607(2022) 52, arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex], Erratum: Nature612(2022) E24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    CMS Collaboration, A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607(2022) 60, arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex], Erratum: Nature623(2023) E4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Agrawal, D

    P. Agrawal, D. Saha, L.-X. Xu, J.-H. Yu and C.-P. Yuan, Determining the shape of the Higgs potential at future colliders, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 075023, arXiv:1907.02078 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Dawson, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  21. [21]

    Borowka et al.,Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass Dependence, Phys

    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, arXiv:1604.06447 [hep-ph], Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 079901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Baglio et al.,Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme, Eur

    J. Baglio et al.,Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 459, arXiv:1811.05692 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    de Florian and J

    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, arXiv:1309.6594 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    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, arXiv:1301.1245 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC, JHEP09(2015) 053, arXiv:1505.07122 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Grazzini et al.,Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects, JHEP05(2018) 059, arXiv:1803.02463 [hep-ph]

    M. Grazzini et al.,Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects, JHEP05(2018) 059, arXiv:1803.02463 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Baglio et al.,𝑔𝑔→𝐻𝐻: Combined uncertainties, Phys

    J. Baglio et al.,𝑔𝑔→𝐻𝐻: Combined uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 056002, arXiv:2008.11626 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Baglio et al.,The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status, JHEP04(2013) 151, arXiv:1212.5581 [hep-ph]

    J. Baglio et al.,The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status, JHEP04(2013) 151, arXiv:1212.5581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Frederix et al.,Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects, Phys

    R. Frederix et al.,Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects, Phys. Lett. B732(2014) 142, arXiv:1401.7340 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Ling et al., NNLO QCD corrections to Higgs pair production via vector boson fusion at hadron colliders, Phys

    L.-S. Ling et al., NNLO QCD corrections to Higgs pair production via vector boson fusion at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 073001, arXiv:1401.7754 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, Fully differential vector-boson fusion Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 074028, arXiv:1811.07918 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg,Vector-boson fusion Higgs pair production at N3LO, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 114016, arXiv:1811.07906 [hep-ph]. 40

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Bagnaschi, G

    E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi and R. Gröber,Higgs boson pair production at NLO in the POWHEG approach and the top quark mass uncertainties, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 1054, arXiv:2309.10525 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for Higgs Boson Pair Production in the Four𝑏Quark Final State in Proton–Proton Collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 081802, arXiv:2202.09617 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the𝑏 ¯𝑏𝑏 ¯𝑏 final state in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 052003, arXiv:2301.03212 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for pair production of boosted Higgs bosons via vector-boson fusion in the𝑏¯𝑏𝑏 ¯𝑏final state using𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B858(2024) 139007, arXiv:2404.17193 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    CMS Collaboration,Improved results on Higgs boson pair production in the4𝑏 final state, (2026), arXiv:2604.27044 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP03(2021) 257, arXiv:2011.12373 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Studies of new Higgs boson interactions through nonresonant𝐻𝐻 production in the𝑏¯𝑏𝛾𝛾final state in𝑝𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP01(2024) 066, arXiv:2310.12301 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Study of Higgs boson pair production in the𝐻𝐻→𝑏 ¯𝑏𝛾𝛾 final state with 308fb−1 of data collected at√𝑠=13TeV and13.6TeV by the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B876(2026) 140280, arXiv:2507.03495 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the 𝑏 ¯𝑏𝜏+𝜏− decay channel using13TeV𝑝𝑝collision data from the ATLAS detector, JHEP07(2023) 040, arXiv:2209.10910 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    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=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B842(2023) 137531, arXiv:2206.09401 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for the non-resonant production of Higgs boson pairs via gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion in the𝑏¯𝑏𝜏+𝜏− final state in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 032012, arXiv:2404.12660 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with leptons, taus, and photons in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP08(2024) 164, arXiv:2405.20040 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for Higgs boson pairs decaying to𝑊𝑊∗𝑊𝑊∗,𝑊𝑊 ∗𝜏𝜏, and𝜏𝜏𝜏𝜏in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP07(2023) 095, arXiv:2206.10268 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the 2𝑏+2ℓ+𝐸 miss T final state in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP02(2024) 037, arXiv:2310.11286 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for Higgs boson pair production in the𝑏¯𝑏𝑊+𝑊− decay mode in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP07(2024) 293, arXiv:2403.09430 [hep-ex]. 41

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in𝑝𝑝 Collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 101801, arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    CMS Collaboration,Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, (2025), arXiv:2510.07527 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Combination of ATLAS and CMS searches for Higgs boson pair production at√𝑠=13TeV, (2026), arXiv:2602.23991 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Transforming jet flavour tagging at ATLAS, Nature Commun.17(2026) 541, arXiv:2505.19689 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    CMS Collaboration,Study of ZZ and ZH production in the bb𝜏𝜏final state and search for high-mass spin-0 and spin-1 resonances in proton-proton collisions at√𝑠= 13 TeV, 2026, arXiv:2607.01589 [hep-ex],url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01589

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008) S08003

    2008

  54. [54]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: a description of the detector configuration for Run 3, JINST19(2024) P05063, arXiv:2305.16623 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS trigger system for LHC Run 3 and trigger performance in 2022, JINST19(2024) P06029, arXiv:2401.06630 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 234, arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking, JINST15(2020) P04003, arXiv:1911.04632 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv:1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

    2003

  62. [62]

    ATLAS Collaboration,AtlFast3: The Next Generation of Fast Simulation in ATLAS, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.6(2022) 7, arXiv:2109.02551 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Emulating the impact of additional proton–proton interactions in the ATLAS simulation by presampling sets of inelastic Monte Carlo events, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.6(2022) 3, arXiv:2102.09495 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06(2010) 043, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]. 42

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

    R. D. Ball et al.,The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III, J. Phys. G49(2022) 080501, arXiv:2203.05506 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codebases (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    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, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP04(2015) 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [71]

    Frixione, G

    S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi and P. Nason, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction, JHEP09(2007) 126, arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  72. [72]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re, NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG:𝑠- and𝑡-channel contributions, JHEP09(2009) 111, arXiv:0907.4076 [hep-ph], Erratum: JHEP02(2010) 011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  73. [73]

    Re, Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur

    E. Re, Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1547, arXiv:1009.2450 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [74]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  75. [75]

    Frixione, E

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, C. White and B. R. Webber, Single-top hadroproduction in association with a𝑊boson, JHEP07(2008) 029, arXiv:0805.3067 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  76. [76]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP04(2013) 027, arXiv:1207.5030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  78. [78]

    Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur

    F. Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 866, arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  80. [80]

    Buccioni, S

    F. Buccioni, S. Pozzorini and M. Zoller,On-the-fly reduction of open loops, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 70, arXiv:1710.11452 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.