Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Multi-Channel Di-Higgs Production in the scNMSSM: From Exotic 8b to Boosted 8tau Signatures at the HL-LHC

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the scNMSSM produces a boosted eight-tau di-Higgs signature that existing LHC searches would miss, and that an eight-bottom channel could be 5-sigma visible.

desk verdict A genuinely new boosted 8tau channel from the scNMSSM, honestly simulated, but the 'no existing search covers this' claim outruns the citation base and the significance numbers are indicative only. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11040 v1 pith:IT6ITW5J submitted 2026-08-11 hep-ph

Marwa Telba This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords di-Higgsproductionsemi-constrainedNMSSMHigh-LuminosityLHCexoticHiggsdecaysmulti-bfinalstatesboostedmulti-tautopologyself-couplinglightpseudoscalar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that di-Higgs production in the semi-constrained Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (scNMSSM) at large $\lambda$ and low $\tan\beta$ generates new final states that current LHC di-Higgs searches do not target. When the lightest pseudoscalar is heavy enough to decay to bottom pairs, the chain $h_1h_1 \to 4a_1 \to 8b$ produces up to eight $b$-jets, and the paper estimates signal yields around 14,000–16,000 events at 3000 fb$^{-1}$, potentially a 5-$\sigma$ discovery if backgrounds behave as assumed. The more novel case is a pseudoscalar of 8.2 GeV that decays to taus: it is boosted by $\gamma \approx 7.5$, so 82.4% of same-$a_1$ tau pairs have $\Delta R < 0.4$ and merge inside the standard jet cone. That makes the eight-tau topology invisible to resolved-tau searches and motivates a dedicated boosted-$a_1$ tagger.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the light CP-odd pseudoscalar $a_1$ of the scNMSSM, whose decay kinematics decide the final-state topology. The exotic chain $h_1 \to a_1 a_1$ with branching ratio near 99%, followed by $a_1 \to b\bar{b}$ above threshold or $a_1 \to \tau^+\tau^-$ below it, is what turns a standard di-Higgs event into an eight-parton or eight-tau event. For $m_{a_1} = 8.2$ GeV the important mechanism is the simple two-body boost relation $\gamma \approx m_{h_1}/(2m_{a_1}) \approx 7.5$ and $\Delta R(\tau,\tau) \approx 2/\gamma \approx 0.27$, which predicts that the vast majority of tau pairs from one $a_1$ fit within a cone of radius 0.4. This merging is what both suppresses standard tau-tagging efficiency and creates the invariant-mass handle $m_{\tau\tau} \approx m_{a_1}$ that a dedicated sub-jet tagger could exploit.

What would settle it

A concrete test: run a full background Monte Carlo for the paper's exact object definitions at 3000 fb$^{-1}$. If the $\ge 4b$ background exceeds about 16,000 events, or the $\ge 3\tau$ background exceeds about 9,100 events, the claimed 5-$\sigma$ sensitivity for BP1/BP3 and BP2 disappears. Independently, recompute the same-$a_1$ tau-pair $\Delta R$ distribution with an alternative shower and detector simulation; if fewer than about 82% of pairs fall below 0.4, the central merging claim of BP2 would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the light-pseudoscalar regime of the scNMSSM produces a boosted eight-tau di-Higgs signature that no existing LHC di-Higgs search covers. For the benchmark with $m_{a_1} = 8.2$ GeV, the pseudoscalar receives a Lorentz boost of roughly $\gamma = m_{h_1}/(2m_{a_1}) \approx 7.5$, giving a characteristic tau-pair separation $\Delta R(\tau,\tau) \approx 0.27$. In the full $10^5$-event sample, 82.4% of same-$a_1$ tau pairs have $\Delta R < 0.4$, below the standard jet cone radius, so most tau pairs are reconstructed as one merged object rather than two. The resulting $\ge 2\tau$ efficiency is 38.4%, about 21 times the SM $HH \to \tau\tau\tau\tau$ baseline, but the paper finds that standard resolved-tau selection alone would not establish the signal against the estimated $Z/\gamma^* \to \tau\tau$ + jets and $t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. For the $8b$ benchmarks, $\varepsilon(\ge 4b) \approx 14\%$ gives $S \approx 14{,}000$ to $16{,}000$ events, which the paper describes as compatible with $5\sigma$ sensitivity under its simplified background model with 20% systematic uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity claims assume that background rates taken from published LHC analyses remain valid under the paper's different event selections, with only a 20% systematic uncertainty; if a proper background simulation puts the $\ge 4b$ background above about 16,000 events or the $\ge 3\tau$ background above about 9,100 events, the 5-$\sigma$ projections fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing LHC di-Higgs searches, which assume resolved $b$ or $\tau$ objects, would not count most BP2 events, so a search built on boosted-$a_1$ sub-jet tagging is needed to see this topology.
  • The $8b$ chain yields around 14,000–16,000 signal events at 3000 fb$^{-1}$, so a $5\sigma$ observation would be within reach if the true background in the $\ge 4b$ region stays within the quoted 3,000–6,000 events.
  • The $\kappa_\lambda$ suppression of 5–12% below the SM value is a shared prediction of all four benchmarks, implying that a HL-LHC measurement of the Higgs self-coupling would see a deficit in this model.
  • Because $h_1 \to a_1 a_1$ dominates the Higgs width here, ordinary $HH \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ searches would see this model only through the small SM-like fraction, making dedicated searches for the exotic topologies essential.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the $5\sigma$ projections should be read as upper limits, since the background estimates are borrowed from analyses with different selections; a full background simulation could move the rates by more than 20%.
  • Editorial inference: the same merged-tau-pair mechanism should apply to any model with a light scalar decaying to tau pairs, not only the scNMSSM, so a boosted-$a_1$ tagger would have broad discovery power.
  • Editorial inference: a clean experimental test of the BP2 claim would be a search for a narrow resonance near 8.2 GeV in the invariant mass of sub-jets inside fat jets; the $ZZ \to 4\tau$ background has no such peak.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's $\Delta R$ distribution implies that tau-tagging efficiency rises steeply with the cone radius; a scan over cone sizes between 0.2 and 0.6 would map the merging fraction and test the prediction directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies di-Higgs prospects in the semi-constrained NMSSM at the HL-LHC (13.6 TeV, 3000/fb) using four benchmark points from a previous parameter scan. It simulates the signal chains h1h1 -> 4a1 -> 8b (BP1, BP3), h1h1 -> 4a1 -> 8tau (BP2), and SM-like h1h1 -> bbbb / bbtautau (BP4) with MadGraph5+Pythia8+Delphes3. For BP2, with m_a1 = 8.2 GeV, it reports that 82.4% of same-a1 tau pairs have Delta R < 0.4, producing a merged, boosted topology. Signal efficiencies and yields are given, and significances are estimated using literature background yields. The central claim is that the boosted 8tau topology is not covered by existing ATLAS/CMS di-Higgs searches and requires dedicated sub-jet taggers.

Significance. If the benchmark points are representative of the viable scNMSSM parameter space, the paper gives a useful taxonomy of di-Higgs final states at large lambda / low tan beta. The simulation chain is standard and the reported Delta R distribution and efficiency numbers are internally consistent; the paper is also honest in Sec. 5.4 about the limitations of its background model. The identification of a boosted 8tau topology with a high merging fraction is a genuine observation that could be of interest for HL-LHC searches. However, the significance projections rest on unmatched literature backgrounds, and the assertion that the topology is 'not covered' by existing searches is broader than the citation base supports. With those issues repaired or appropriately qualified, the paper would be a solid phenomenological contribution; as it stands, the strength of some claims exceeds the evidence presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 4.5; Sec. 6.2] The abstract states that the BP2 boosted 8tau topology 'is not covered by any existing ATLAS or CMS di-Higgs search', and Sec. 6.2 states it is 'not addressed by any existing ATLAS or CMS search strategy'. The only searches cited in support are Refs. [14-16], which are standard di-Higgs analyses. The paper does not survey ATLAS/CMS searches for exotic Higgs decays h -> aa -> 4tau or for low-mass resonances decaying to tau pairs; such searches target exactly the a1 -> tau+tau- decay with a light a1 and face the same merged-tau challenge. If any of these has non-negligible acceptance for BP2, the 'not covered' claim is overstated. Because this novelty claim is a central advertised result, please either provide a systematic literature survey showing that no existing search has relevant acceptance, or qualify the claim to 'not covered by the di-Higgs searches cited here'. The discrepancy between 'di-Higgs search' in the abstract and 'any existing ... search strategy' in the conclusion should also be resolved.
  2. [Sec. 5.2-5.4; Table 6] All significance projections in Table 6 use background yields taken from published ATLAS/CMS analyses whose event selections are, as Sec. 5.4 explicitly admits, not identical to the selections used in this paper; no background Monte Carlo, trigger model, or pileup treatment is included. The paper calls the estimates 'indicative', yet the abstract and Sec. 6.1 state that BP1/BP3 are 'potentially compatible with 5-sigma sensitivity' based on these numbers. Since the background yields are not derived for the present selections, the 5-sigma statements are not established. Please either simulate (or otherwise derive) backgrounds under the analysis selections used in Table 5, or clearly downgrade the 5-sigma language to a signal-to-background check with the explicit caveat that no discovery significance can be concluded. The current wording overstates the strength of the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 6.2] The sentence beginning 'However, even after applying HT > 100 GeV and >=3tau requirements, the estimated ZZ -> 4tau background alone The total background...' is incomplete and should be rewritten.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The factor-of-~21 enhancement of the BP2 >=2tau efficiency over the 'SM HH baseline of ~1.8%' is quoted in the abstract, but the baseline is not defined or derived in the paper. Ref. [1] is a theory paper rather than a detector-level SM HH -> 4tau simulation; please state the exact selection that gives 1.8% or remove this comparison.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] Sec. 3.3 does not state whether the Delphes CMS card includes pileup; Sec. 5.4 later says pileup is not modelled, so the two sections should be made consistent.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] For the ZZ -> 4tau background, the text reports a total cross section of ~18 fb and then O(50) events after selections; this implies an acceptance of about 0.1%, which should be stated explicitly or supported by a citation.
  5. [Fig. 4] The Delta R distribution in Fig. 4 is shown only for BP2; overlaying the distribution for an unboosted a1 decay or for SM tau pairs would help demonstrate that the 82.4% threshold is a distinctive feature of the boosted topology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detector-level efficiencies, DeltaR distribution, and significance projections are obtained by direct simulation and transparently borrowed background estimates; self-citations to Ref. [1] supply model inputs rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: take benchmark points and Higgs-sector parameters from the prior scan in Ref. [1], generate gg->h1h1 events, shower and decay through Pythia, simulate the detector with Delphes, compute selection efficiencies and the truth-level DeltaR distribution, and then combine the resulting signal yields with background estimates taken from published ATLAS/CMS analyses. No claimed result is fitted to the data that it then predicts. The 82.4% DeltaR<0.4 fraction for BP2 is a direct Monte Carlo output, not an input imposed by construction; it follows from the assumed m_a1=8.2 GeV but is a genuine kinematic consequence, not a tautology. The kappa_lambda values and cross-section normalizations are imported from the author's previous work, but they are explicitly stated as inputs ('Building on Ref. [1]') and are not re-derived by fitting to the present signal simulation. The background-based significances are explicitly labeled as indicative and non-official, with the paper itself noting that the event selections differ from the published analyses. The literature-coverage claim that the boosted 8tau topology is not addressed by existing ATLAS/CMS di-Higgs searches may be broader than the cited references support, but that is a scoping and support concern, not circularity. There is no equation in the paper that reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is used to suppress alternative interpretations of the simulation results. The central new content -- detector-level efficiencies and the boosted-tau DeltaR characterization -- is self-contained with respect to the simulation pipeline.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is conditional on the standard scNMSSM framework, the NMSSMTools spectrum, the Carvalho cross-section parametrization, and literature-based backgrounds. The only hand-chosen numeric inputs are the benchmark points and the illustrative 20% systematic. No free parameters are fitted to make the predictions come out.

free parameters (4)
  • m_a1 benchmark masses = 47.4, 8.2, 51.9, 228.6 GeV
    Selected by hand from the 66 viable points of Ref [1] to represent distinct topologies; they set the decay kinematics but are not fitted to the signal claims in this paper.
  • kappa_lambda inputs = 0.943, 0.907, 0.951, 0.884
    Taken from the previous scan [1] and used in the Carvalho cross-section normalization; they are inputs, not measured here.
  • systematic uncertainty delta = 20%
    Chosen by hand as an illustrative background systematic in Equations (7) to (9); the paper admits it is not a full systematic budget.
  • background yield estimates B = B_low and B_high per channel, e.g. 3000 to 6000 for 8b, 40000 to 70000 for 2tau, 5000 to 15000 for 3tau
    Adopted from published LHC analyses rather than simulated; they directly control the significance numbers in Table 6.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scNMSSM at large lambda and low tan beta is a valid model framework.
    Used throughout as the theoretical setting; standard for this phenomenological programme.
  • domain assumption NMSSMTools 6.1.2 correctly computes masses, branching ratios, and kappa_lambda for the scanned parameter space.
    Benchmark point properties in Table 1 and the branching ratios in Section 3 rely on this code.
  • domain assumption The Carvalho parametrization gives an adequate estimate of gg to h1h1 cross sections at 13.6 TeV.
    Used to normalize signal yields in Section 3.1; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Published 13 TeV ATLAS/CMS backgrounds can be extrapolated to the HL-LHC selections used in this study.
    This is the weakest assumption; explicitly flagged in Section 5.4 as a limitation.
  • domain assumption LO HEFT matrix elements plus Pythia and Delphes fast simulation adequately capture signal efficiencies.
    Standard for fast phenomenological studies, but higher-order and detector-modelling uncertainties are not assessed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Channel Di-Higgs Production in the scNMSSM: From Exotic 8b to Boosted 8tau Signatures at the HL-LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IT6ITW5J

@misc{pith2026260811040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Channel Di-Higgs Production in the scNMSSM: From Exotic 8b to Boosted 8tau Signatures at the HL-LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IT6ITW5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11040}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate multi-channel di-Higgs signal prospects in the semi-constrained Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (scNMSSM) at large-lambda/low-tan(beta) at the HL-LHC with sqrt(s) = 13.6 TeV and L = 3000 fb^{-1}. Building on our previous work, four benchmark points are selected from 66 viable SM-like candidates, spanning three di-Higgs topologies: exotic multi-b (h1h1 -> 4a1 -> 8b, BP1/BP3), boosted multi-tau (h1h1 -> 4a1 -> 8tau, BP2), and SM-like (BP4). A complete signal simulation chain (MadGraph5_aMC@NLO + Pythia 8.316 + Delphes 3) is employed for 10^5 signal events per benchmark point. Background yields are estimated from published LHC analyses and are used only for indicative sensitivity projections. For the 8b topology (BP1: m_{a1} = 47.4 GeV, BP3: m_{a1} = 51.9 GeV), b-jet efficiencies of epsilon(>=4b) ~ 14% yield S ~ 14,000-16,000 events, potentially compatible with 5-sigma sensitivity under the simplified background model adopted. For the boosted 8tau topology (BP2: m_{a1} = 8.2 GeV), 82.4% of same-a1 tau-pairs have Delta R(tau,tau) < 0.4, below the standard jet cone radius, due to the large Lorentz boost gamma ~ 7.5. This topology yields epsilon(>=2tau) = 38.4%, a factor of ~21 above the SM baseline, but requires dedicated boosted a1 taggers due to irreducible multi-tau backgrounds. BP4 serves as a SM-like reference, consistent with existing HL-LHC HH projections. The Higgs self-coupling modifier kappa_lambda in [0.884, 0.951] is universally suppressed below unity. The boosted a1 topology of BP2 is not covered by any existing ATLAS or CMS di-Higgs search, strongly motivating dedicated sub-jet analysis strategies at the HL-LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11040 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scalar transverse energy HT distributions for all four benchmark points after requiring ≥ 2 jets with pT > 25 GeV and |η| < 2.5. The vertical dashed lines indicate the HT > 150 GeV and HT > 200 GeV selection thresholds applied in the analysis. All distributions are normalized to unity. visible: BP1 and BP3 produce the highest b-jet multiplicities, with distributions ex￾tending to Nb ≥ 6, while BP2 dominates in τ -je… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of the number of b-tagged jets (Nb, left) and τ -tagged jets (Nτ , right) for all four benchmark points after basic object selection. The vertical dashed lines indicate the Nb = 4 and Nτ = 2 selection thresholds used in the analysis. BP1 (blue dashed) and BP3 (green) overlap in the b-jet distribution, reflecting their similar a1 masses. All distributions are normalized to unity. 4.4.3 Transverse Moment… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the transverse momentum distributions of the leading b-tagged and τ -tagged jets. For the b-jet pT (left panel), BP1 and BP3 show harder spectra than BP4, consistent with the higher b-jet multiplicity and the boost imparted by the h1h1 → 4a1 decay chain. For the τ -jet pT (right panel), BP2 peaks at lower values than the other benchmarks, reflecting the soft momentum spectrum of the boosted and partially merge… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Truth-level ∆R(τ, τ ) distribution for τ pairs originating from the same a1 decay in BP2 (ma1 = 8.2 GeV, 105 events). The vertical dashed line indicates the standard jet cone radius R = 0.4. A total of 82.4% of τ pairs fall below this threshold, demonstrating the highl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Telba, Di-Higgs production and trilinear Higgs self-coupling in the scNMSSM: Qualitative implications for the electroweak phase transition at large and low , Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A (2026) 2650207, DOI:10.1142/S021773232650207X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021773232650207x 2026

  2. [2]

    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.\ B 716 (2012) 1, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys.\ Lett.\ B 716 (2012) 30, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    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]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    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]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Cepeda et al., Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]

    M. Cepeda et al., Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1902

  7. [7]

    A Spectral Characterization of Absolutely Norming Operators on S.N. Ideals

    D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, CERN-2017-002, arXiv:1610.02095 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Ellwanger, C

    U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie and A.M. Teixeira, The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, Phys.\ Rept.\ 496 (2010) 1, arXiv:0910.1785 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    L. Wu, J.M. Yang, C.-P. Yuan and M. Zhang, Higgs self-coupling in the MSSM and NMSSM after the LHC Run 1, Phys.\ Lett.\ B 747 (2015) 378, arXiv:1504.06932 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ellwanger, Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC, JHEP 08 (2013) 077, arXiv:1306.5541 [hep-ph]

    U. Ellwanger, Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC, JHEP 08 (2013) 077, arXiv:1306.5541 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cao et al., Pair Production of a 125 GeV Higgs Boson in MSSM and NMSSM at the LHC, JHEP 04 (2013) 134, arXiv:1301.6437 [hep-ph]

    J. Cao et al., Pair Production of a 125 GeV Higgs Boson in MSSM and NMSSM at the LHC, JHEP 04 (2013) 134, arXiv:1301.6437 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Curtin et al., Exotic decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson, Phys.\ Rev.\ D 90 (2014) 075004, arXiv:1312.4992 [hep-ph]

    D. Curtin et al., Exotic decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson, Phys.\ Rev.\ D 90 (2014) 075004, arXiv:1312.4992 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ellwanger and C

    U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, Higgs boson pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 75 (2015) 77, arXiv:1408.6194 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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, arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    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, arXiv:2202.09617 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the b b ^+ ^- decay channel using pp collisions at s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 07 (2023) 040, arXiv:2209.10910 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. Alwall et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton showers, JHEP 07 (2014) 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

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

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

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    de Favereau et al

    J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast detector simulation, JHEP 02 (2014) 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Binjonaid and S.F

    M. Binjonaid and S.F. King, Naturalness of the constrained and semi-constrained NMSSM, Phys.\ Rev.\ D 90 (2014) 055020, arXiv:1403.2088 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ellwanger and C

    U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, NMHDECAY 2.0: An Updated Program for Sparticle Masses, Higgs Masses, Couplings and Decay Widths in the NMSSM, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 175 (2006) 290, arXiv:hep-ph/0507288

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. Das, U. Ellwanger and A.M. Teixeira, NMSDECAY: A Fortran Code for Supersymmetric Particle Decays in the NMSSM, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 183 (2012) 774, arXiv:1106.5633 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector, Phys.\ Lett.\ B 843 (2023) 137745, arXiv:2211.01216 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Carvalho et al., Higgs pair production: choosing benchmarks with cluster analysis, JHEP 04 (2016) 126, arXiv:1507.02245 [hep-ph]

    A. Carvalho et al., Higgs pair production: choosing benchmarks with cluster analysis, JHEP 04 (2016) 126, arXiv:1507.02245 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    NNPDF Collaboration, Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 867 (2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pivarski et al., uproot: ROOT I/O in pure Python and NumPy, version 4.0 (2021), DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4340632

    J. Pivarski et al., uproot: ROOT I/O in pure Python and NumPy, version 4.0 (2021), DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4340632

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Harris et al., Array programming with NumPy, Nature 585 (2020) 357, arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

    C.R. Harris et al., Array programming with NumPy, Nature 585 (2020) 357, arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the b b b b final state with the ATLAS detector , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 108 (2023) 052003, arXiv:2301.03212 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Thaler and K

    J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, Identifying Boosted Objects with N-subjettiness, JHEP 03 (2011) 015, arXiv:1011.2268 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Prospects for HH measurements at the HL-LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-005 (2022), https://cds.cern.ch/record/2803254

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.