Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Adding a boosted, merged-jet category to the HH→bbγγ search improves the LHC's sensitivity to non-standard quartic gauge-Higgs couplings and to heavy resonances decaying to Higgs pairs.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:09 UTC pith:N5XXQ7XW

load-bearing objection Useful first projection of a boosted bbγγ category, but the κ2V numbers are not apples-to-apples and the fast-simulation assumptions need scrutiny. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.17874 v1 pith:N5XXQ7XW submitted 2025-12-19 hep-ph hep-ex

Probing new physics in the Boosted HH to bbar{b}γγ channel at the LHC

Mohamed Belfkir This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords di-Higgs productionboosted jet reconstructionbbγγ final statequartic gauge-Higgs coupling (κ2V)vector-boson fusionheavy scalar resonancetwo-Higgs-doublet modelLHC searches
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 paper argues that the standard way of reconstructing double-Higgs events in the bbγγ channel, which resolves the two b-quark jets separately, systematically misses the high-energy events where new physics would show up. It proposes a second, boosted category in which the collimated b-quark pair is caught in a single large-radius jet, and shows, with fast simulation at 13.6 TeV and 308 fb⁻¹, that adding this category sharpens the bound on the quartic gauge-Higgs coupling modifier from [-1.4, 3.7] to [-0.4, 2.6] at 95% CL and improves limits on a heavy scalar decaying to Higgs pairs by a factor of one to two across masses 1–5 TeV. If right, it means a merged-jet category is a cheap and effective extension of existing searches, recovering acceptance that resolved selections lose.

Core claim

The central claim is that the boosted topology—where H→bb is reconstructed as one large-radius jet with a two-prong substructure—carries most of the sensitivity to deviations of κ2V from its Standard-Model value and to resonant X→HH production at high invariant mass. Using two orthogonal categories, a resolved one and this new boosted one, the paper shows that the boosted category alone constrains κ2V to [-0.6, 2.7] at 95% CL, whereas the resolved category alone gives [-1.4, 3.7]; the combination gives [-0.4, 2.6]. For a scalar resonance produced in vector-boson fusion, the boosted category sets 95% CL limits on σ(VBF X→HH) from about 1 fb at 1 TeV to 100 fb at 5 TeV, one to two times strong

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the large-radius jet that captures both b-quarks when the Higgs is boosted: the characteristic b-quark separation shrinks as ≈ 2mH/pT^H, so once it falls below the jet radius the two small-radius jets merge into one jet with a two-prong substructure. The analysis defines two mutually exclusive categories—resolved (two small-R b-tagged jets) and boosted (one large-R double-b-tagged jet)—and uses a gradient-boosted classifier in the non-resonant search to define signal-enriched bins; the resonant search uses rectangular cuts because the high-mass signal is sparse but distinctive. The comparison between the two categories is what carries the argument: the same simulat

Load-bearing premise

The whole boost in sensitivity rests on the fast-simulation parameters for the merged jet: 75% double-b tagging efficiency with about 6% mis-tag probability, and a single 10% background normalization uncertainty, with no cross-section correction factor for the dominant γγ+jets background; if any of these is optimistic, the quoted intervals and limits shift.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis with a double-b tagging efficiency of 60% and mis-tag probability of 10%, keeping everything else fixed: if the combined 95% interval on κ2V widens to overlap the resolved-only interval, the claimed boost is an artifact of the tagging assumption. Conversely, compare the predicted boosted-category event yield in a high-mHH window with public LHC data from a resolved bbγγ search; a significant deficit would indicate the background normalization is too low.

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

If this is right

  • Existing bbγγ analyses that run only a resolved selection are leaving a detectable high-mass region unused; adding a boosted category costs little and tightens κ2V constraints by roughly a factor of two in interval width.
  • The boosted category gives VBF-resonant searches sensitivity to mX up to 5 TeV, where the resolved selection has near-zero acceptance once the b-quarks merge.
  • The combined category keeps the strong SM sensitivity of the resolved selection (µHH limit of 2.3) while gaining the BSM tail sensitivity, so future Run-3 and HL-LHC analyses should quote both categories.
  • The method transfers directly to other di-Higgs final states that already use boosted jets, and can be combined with more advanced taggers.
  • The quoted 95% interval still contains the Standard-Model value 1, but excludes zero, consistent with earlier LHC results that rule out a vanishing quartic gauge-Higgs coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not explored in the paper, would be to apply the same two-category logic to the HL-LHC full dataset, where the boosted category's statistical deficit at lower mass is reduced; the resonant gain may grow with luminosity.
  • The 75% double-b tagging efficiency with 6% mis-tag probability assumed here is generous; if real performance is closer to 60%/10%, the boosted limits in this paper degrade, though the qualitative conclusion that boosted helps at high mass likely survives.
  • The comparison with the resolved category is not fully apples-to-apples: the resolved analysis here is inclusive and does not require VBF forward jets, whereas the boosted category requires two VBF jets; a dedicated resolved-plus-VBF category might recover some of the high-mass sensitivity the paper attributes to boosting.
  • The paper restricts itself to rate-only κ2V effects and ignores shape modifications; including kinematic shapes in the likelihood, or adding interference effects, could change the derived interval and is a testable extension.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fast-simulation study of the HH→bbγγ final state at √s=13.6 TeV with 308 fb⁻¹, introducing a new boosted category in which the H→bb decay is reconstructed as a single large-radius jet. It defines resolved and boosted categories, trains separate XGBoost classifiers for the non-resonant analysis, and uses rectangular cuts for resonant VBF X→HH production. The central claims are that the boosted category improves sensitivity to κ2V, with a combined 95% CL interval [-0.4, 2.6] versus [-1.4, 3.7] for the resolved category alone, and improves expected 95% CL limits on σ(VBF X→HH) by a factor of 1–2 for mX = 1–5 TeV. The paper concludes that boosted reconstruction should be part of future bbγγ Higgs-pair searches.

Significance. If the projections are reliable, this is a useful phenomenological demonstration that a merged-jet category can recover acceptance at high mHH in the golden bbγγ channel, and it provides a clear template for experimental searches. The use of external higher-order cross-section normalizations and the pyhf statistical framework are strengths. The central qualitative conclusion—that boosted reconstruction helps at high mass—is plausible and likely robust. However, the quantitative comparison and the specific non-resonant claim are weakened by an asymmetric classifier training choice, a rate-only κ2V scan, and unvalidated fast-simulation assumptions for the boosted tagger and continuum background. The code and datasets are not public, which limits reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Fig. 5] The resolved XGBoost classifier is trained only on SM ggF+VBF HH events, while the boosted classifier's signal definition includes VBF HH with κ2V=0 and 0.5 (Sec. V). The κ2V scan in Sec. VI.A uses the score bins of these classifiers. This asymmetric training is a direct confound: the boosted category's bins are optimized to retain the very BSM samples used to claim superior constraints. Please retrain the resolved classifier on the same extended signal set and repeat the Fig. 5 scan, or quote results with a common classifier-agnostic rectangular selection. This is needed to validate the non-resonant half of the central claim.
  2. [Section VI.A] The κ2V scan explicitly considers only the overall rate ('without modeling shape modification'), yet the abstract's central claim is that the boosted category is sensitive to effects 'that populate the high-mHH tail.' A rate-only fit cannot distinguish a tail-populating signal from a flat rate increase. The generated κ2V=0,0.5,1.5,-1,-2.5 samples should be used to fit shape-sensitive observables (mHH or classifier output that includes mass information) and the profile-likelihood result shown. If shape information is intentionally not used, the tail-specific claim should be softened.
  3. [Section IV.A, Table I, Sec. VI] The boosted-category projections rest on a double-b tagging efficiency of 75% with 6% light/gluon mis-tag probability, and a γγ+jets continuum normalized to an LO MadGraph cross-section of 48.1 pb with only a 10% normalization nuisance. Since the boosted category is the paper's new contribution, these assumptions directly set the quoted κ2V intervals and resonant limits. Please add a robustness scan varying the double-b efficiency/mis-tag over a realistic range, increasing the background normalization uncertainty, and comparing with ATLAS merged-jet tagger performance. The qualitative conclusion may survive, but the numerical claims must be shown not to depend on optimistic settings.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VI.B] Typo: 'relay' should be 'rely' in 'the resonant analysis will relay only on the rectangular cuts'.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The approximate relation ΔR_bb ≈ 2mH/pH_T should define pH_T clearly as the transverse momentum of the H→bb system and state the high-boost regime in which the approximation holds.
  3. [Fig. 3] The y-axis label 'Fraction of Events' is appropriate for normalized distributions, but the text should clarify that the limits use absolute yields and how the normalization affects the displayed shapes.
  4. [Section V] The description of the random grid search for XGBoost hyperparameters is brief; reporting the chosen hyperparameters or code repository would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the claimed boosted-category sensitivity is a Monte Carlo projection normalized to external cross-sections, not a quantity defined by its own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The boosted-category advantage at high mHH follows from the kinematic relation ΔR_bb ≃ 2mH/pH_T and the reconstruction definitions (large-R jet for merged b bbar, resolved small-R jets otherwise), and is then evaluated with MC samples normalized to external cross-section predictions from Powheg, MadGraph, and the LHC Higgs Working Group. No fitted parameter is recycled as a prediction: the κ2V scan is an Asimov expected limit based on generator-level cross-section dependence, and the classifier results are quoted on a held-out 25% subset. The resonant limits use rectangular cuts rather than the ML classifier. The only mild caveats are (i) the boosted and resolved XGBoost classifiers are trained with different signal definitions, which could bias the direct κ2V comparison in Fig. 5, and (ii) the fast-simulation framework is inherited from the author's own Refs [41,42]; but these are robustness/fairness concerns, not instances where a result reduces by definition to its input. The paper's own statements that the resonant analysis avoids ML and that the goal is not classifier optimization further show the central sensitivity claim does not rest on a circular fit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Everything quantitative in the paper rests on MC generators and external cross-section inputs; the paper is honest that the 2HDM is used only as a kinematics generator and that the κ2V scan is rate-only. The four free parameters above are the hand-chosen or assumed inputs that most directly set the quoted limits. No invented entities: the heavy scalar X and the κ2V modifier are standard benchmarks from the cited literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Double-b tagging working point = ε = 75%, mis-tag ~6% (light/gluon)
    Sec. IV.A: chosen efficiency/mis-tag pair for merged H→bb identification. The 6% mis-tag at 75% efficiency is optimistic for a double-b tagger and directly controls the boosted-category background, which drives the central sensitivity claim.
  • Background normalization uncertainty = 10%
    Sec. VI: the only nuisance parameter in the profile likelihood. Assumed, not derived from data or closure tests; no signal or shape systematics are included.
  • γγ+jets background normalization = 48.1 pb
    Table I: MadGraph matrix-element normalization with up to two extra partons, no k-factor, after unspecified generation-level phase-space cuts. The absolute background yield is never shown, so the Asimov limits cannot be checked.
  • Boosted-category kinematic thresholds = large-R pT ∈ [250, 3000] GeV; mass window 50–600 GeV
    Sec. IV.A: hand-chosen boundaries defining the boosted regime. The 250 GeV pT threshold sets where the sensitivity gain appears; different thresholds would change the quoted κ2V and resonant limits.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The N3LO QCD + NLO EW VBF HH cross-section predictions of Refs [29, 30] correctly describe σ(κ2V) and its dependence on the κ2V modifier
    Sec. III: used to normalize all VBF samples and to drive the rate-only κ2V scan. If the κ2V dependence is not accurately captured, the quoted κ2V intervals are wrong.
  • domain assumption Delphes with the ATLAS Run-3 card, the grooming chain (trim + prune + soft-drop), and the photon-ID efficiency maps of Ref [52] faithfully emulate the ATLAS detector response
    Sec. IV.A: all reconstruction-level results depend on this; fast simulation is known to be optimistic for merged-jet substructure and tagger rates.
  • domain assumption The γγ+jets background generated with up to two additional partons and normalized to 48.1 pb is a complete description of the continuum background after selection
    Sec. III / Table I: no data-driven validation, no k-factor, and only a 10% normalization nuisance; the dominant non-resonant background is the least constrained input.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2HDM-type-II model with a 1 fb normalization provides representative resonant kinematics
    Sec. III: the paper states no model-dependent constraints are used and the 2HDM serves only as a generator-level tool; the 1 fb normalization is a toy, internally consistent but not a model prediction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14349 in / 27695 out tokens · 279418 ms · 2026-08-03T15:09:43.905686+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper presents the first dedicated study of the boosted $HH \to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ topology as a key probe of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) in the high-energy double-Higgs boson regime. The analysis presented in this paper, focuses on two classes of new-physics scenarios: non-resonant deviations of the quartic gauge--Higgs interaction, parameterized by the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$, and resonant enhancement arising from the decay of a heavy scalar state, modeled within a two-Higgs-doublet framework. We demonstrate that the boosted reconstruction category enhances sensitivity to beyond SM effects that populate the high-$m_{HH}$ tail, yielding improved constraints on $\kappa_{2V}$ and extending the discovery reach for heavy resonances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.17874 by Mohamed Belfkir.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Leading-order Feynman diagrams for (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Two-dimensional truth-level distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The reconstructed di-Higgs invariant mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Expected 95% CL upper limits on the VBF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Profile-likelihood scan of 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

64 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Observation of a new par- ticle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Observation of a new par- ticle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Exper- iment at the LHC, Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Exper- iment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

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

    1964

  4. [4]

    Englert and R

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

    1964

  5. [5]

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

    1964

  6. [6]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ*→4ℓDecay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp Colli- sion Data, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ*→4ℓDecay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp Colli- sion Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 251802 (2023), arXiv:2308.04775 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D111, 092014 (2025), arXiv:2409.13663 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    R. L. Workmanet al.(Particle Data Group), Re- view of Particle Physics, PTEP2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Weinberg, Gauge and Global Symmetries at High Temperature, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Gauge and Global Symmetries at High Temperature, Phys. Rev. D9, 3357 (1974)

    1974

  10. [10]

    Laine, Electroweak phase transition beyond the standard model, in4th International Conference on Strong and Electroweak Matter(2000) pp

    M. Laine, Electroweak phase transition beyond the standard model, in4th International Conference on Strong and Electroweak Matter(2000) pp. 58–69, arXiv:hep-ph/0010275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  11. [11]

    Li, X.-M

    R. Li, X.-M. Shen, B.-W. Wang, K. Wang, and G. Zhu, Probing the trilinear Higgs boson self- coupling via single Higgs production at the LHeC, Phys. Rev. D101, 075036 (2020), arXiv:1910.09424 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    H. T. Li, Z.-G. Si, J. Wang, X. Zhang, and D. Zhao, Improved constraints on Higgs boson self-couplings with quartic and cubic power dependencies of the cross section*, Chin. Phys. C49, 023107 (2025), arXiv:2407.14716 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    T. D. Lee, A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation, Phys. Rev. D8, 1226 (1973)

    1973

  14. [14]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept.516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    H. E. Haber and O. St ˚ al, New LHC benchmarks for theCP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 491 (2015), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 76, 312 (2016)], arXiv:1507.04281 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    C.-Y. Chen, M. Freid, and M. Sher, Next-to- minimal two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 89, 075009 (2014), arXiv:1312.3949 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Muhlleitner, M

    M. Muhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos, and J. Wittbrodt, The N2HDM under Theoret- ical and Experimental Scrutiny, JHEP03, 094, arXiv:1612.01309 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Chalons and F

    G. Chalons and F. Domingo, Analysis of the Higgs potentials for two doublets and a singlet, Phys. Rev. D86, 115024 (2012), arXiv:1209.6235 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    Robens, T

    T. Robens, T. Stefaniak, and J. Wittbrodt, Two- real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phe- nomenology and benchmark scenarios, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 151 (2020), arXiv:1908.08554 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symme- try breaking

    A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symme- try breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model, Phys. Rept.459, 1 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0503173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Higgs Bosons in Supersymmetric Models. 1., Nucl. Phys. B272, 1 (1986), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 402, 567–569 (1993)]

    1986

  22. [22]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Higgs Bosons in Supersymmetric Models. 2. Implications for Phe- nomenology, Nucl. Phys. B278, 449 (1986), [Er- ratum: Nucl.Phys.B 402, 569–569 (1993)]

    1986

  23. [23]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, P. Slavich, and G. Weiglein, Towards high precision predictions for the MSSM Higgs sector, Eur. Phys. J. C28, 133 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    Maniatis, The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmet- ric extension of the Standard Model reviewed, Int

    M. Maniatis, The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmet- ric extension of the Standard Model reviewed, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25, 3505 (2010), arXiv:0906.0777 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Ellwanger, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    S. F. King, M. Muhlleitner, and R. Nevzorov, NMSSM Higgs Benchmarks Near 125 GeV, Nucl. Phys. B860, 207 (2012), arXiv:1201.2671 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Grazzini, G

    M. Grazzini, G. Heinrich, S. Jones, S. Kallweit, M. Kerner, J. M. Lindert, and J. Mazzitelli, Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects, JHEP05, 059, arXiv:1803.02463 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca, and M. Spira,gg→HH: Combined uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D103, 056002 (2021), arXiv:2008.11626 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at N 3LO, Phys. Rev. D98, 114016 (2018), arXiv:1811.07906 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    F. A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg, J.-N. Lang, and M. Pellen, Precise predictions for double-Higgs pro- duction via vector-boson fusion, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1037 (2020), arXiv:2005.13341 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Studies of new Higgs bo- son interactions through nonresonant HH produc- tion in theb bγγfinal state in pp collisions at √s= 15 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP01, 066, arXiv:2310.12301 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp col- lisions at s=13 TeV, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp col- lisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B843, 137745 (2023), arXiv:2211.01216 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 101801 (2024), arXiv:2406.09971 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    de Florianet al.(LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4

    D. de Florianet al.(LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2, 1 (2017), arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [36]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Search for Higgs boson pair production in the two bottom quarks plus two pho- tons final state inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Search for Higgs boson pair production in the two bottom quarks plus two pho- tons final state inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D106, 052001 (2022), arXiv:2112.11876 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [37]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Study of Higgs boson pair production in theHH→b bγγfinal state with 308 fb−1 of data collected at √s= 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experiment, CERN-EP-2025- 140 (2025), arXiv:2507.03495 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from the combination of single and double Higgs boson production in proton- proton collisions at s=13TeV, Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from the combination of single and double Higgs boson production in proton- proton collisions at s=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B861, 139210 (2025), arXiv:2407.13554 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    Adhikary, R

    A. Adhikary, R. K. Barman, and B. Bhattacher- jee, Prospects of non-resonant di-Higgs searches and Higgs boson self-coupling measurement at the HE- LHC using machine learning techniques, JHEP12, 179, arXiv:2006.11879 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [40]

    Y. Wu, L. Xiao, and Y. Zhang, Deep Learning to Improve the Sensitivity of Higgs Pair Searches in the 4bChannel at the LHC (2025) arXiv:2505.04496 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    Belfkir, M

    M. Belfkir, M. A. Loualidi, and S. Nasri, Boost- ing Sensitivity toHH→b ¯bγγwith Graph Neu- ral Networks and XGBoost, pre-print (2025), arXiv:2508.01449 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Ait Haddou, M

    M. Ait Haddou, M. Belfkir, and S. E. E. Harrauss, From Qubits to Couplings: A Hybrid Quantum Ma- chine Learning Framework for LHC Physics (2025) arXiv:2511.15672 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    Qu and L

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds, Phys. Rev. D101, 056019 (2020), arXiv:1902.08570 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [44]

    J. Guo, J. Li, T. Li, and R. Zhang, Boosted Higgs boson jet reconstruction via a graph neural network, Phys. Rev. D103, 116025 (2021), arXiv:2010.05464 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [45]

    Hammad, S

    A. Hammad, S. Moretti, A. P. Przybyl, and H. Wal- tari, Interference Effects in Resonant Standard Model di-Higgs Production and Decay into 4bFi- 16 nal States: the Role of Machine Learning Analysis, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2512.12318 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Search for Nonresonant Pair Production of Highly Energetic Higgs Bosons Decaying to Bottom Quarks, Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Search for Nonresonant Pair Production of Highly Energetic Higgs Bosons Decaying to Bottom Quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041803 (2023), arXiv:2205.06667 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    R. K. Barman, C. Englert, D. Gon¸ calves, and M. Spannowsky, Di-Higgs resonance searches in weak boson fusion, Phys. Rev. D102, 055014 (2020), arXiv:2007.07295 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [48]

    Alioli, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [49]

    Alwall, R

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [50]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [51]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Gi- ammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Sel- vaggi (DELPHES 3), DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP02, 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [52]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of photon identification efficiency using radiative z decays us- ing 2022-2024 collision data at the atlas experiment ()

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of photon identification efficiency using radiative z decays us- ing 2022-2024 collision data at the atlas experiment ()

    2022

  52. [53]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04, 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [54]

    Cacciari, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [55]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Transforming jet flavour tagging at ATLAS, CERN-EP-2025-103 (2025), arXiv:2505.19689 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Transforming jet flavour tagging at ATLAS, CERN-EP-2025-103 (2025), arXiv:2505.19689 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Krohn, J

    D. Krohn, J. Thaler, and L.-T. Wang, Jet Trim- ming, JHEP02, 084, arXiv:0912.1342 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [57]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Soft Drop, JHEP05, 146, arXiv:1402.2657 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [58]

    Moult, L

    I. Moult, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, New Angles on Energy Correlation Functions, JHEP12, 153, arXiv:1609.07483 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [59]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), The atlas trigger system for lhc run 3 and trigger performance in 2022 ()

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), The atlas trigger system for lhc run 3 and trigger performance in 2022 ()

    2022

  59. [60]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from theH→γγandH→ZZ ∗ →4ℓ channels with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb −1 of ppcollision data, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from theH→γγandH→ZZ ∗ →4ℓ channels with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb −1 of ppcollision data, Phys. Rev. D90, 052004 (2014), arXiv:1406.3827 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [61]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system, ACM KDD ’16, 785–794 (2016)

    2016

  61. [62]

    G. C. Strong, On the impact of selected mod- ern deep-learning techniques to the performance and celerity of classification models in an experi- mental high-energy physics use case, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.1, 045006 (2020), arXiv:2002.01427 17 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [63]

    Developer, Xgboost parameters, url- https://xgboost.readthedocs.io/en/latest/parameter.html

    X. Developer, Xgboost parameters, url- https://xgboost.readthedocs.io/en/latest/parameter.html

  63. [64]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [65]

    Feickert, L

    M. Feickert, L. Heinrich, and G. Stark, pyhf: a pure- Python statistical fitting library with tensors and automatic differentiation, PoSICHEP2022, 245 (2022), arXiv:2211.15838 [hep-ex]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022