Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Di-Higgs Production and Trilinear Higgs Self-Coupling in the scNMSSM: Qualitative Implications for the Electroweak Phase Transition at large {\lambda} and Low tan\b{eta}

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the scNMSSM at large λ and low tan β, every viable SM-like point has a suppressed Higgs self-coupling, κλ = 0.884–0.982, and a narrow non-resonant di-Higgs rate of 30.3–36.9 fb at 13.6 TeV.

desk verdict Useful scNMSSM scan in a motivated corner, but the 'universal suppression' claim overreaches the tree-level calculation and the paper's own NLO estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03936 v1 pith:YW7Z7BVL submitted 2026-08-04 hep-ph

Marwa Telba This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords scNMSSMHiggsself-couplingdi-Higgsproductionelectroweakphasetransitionsinglet-doubletmixinglargelambdalowtanbetamassHL-LHCprospects
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

This paper investigates the semi-constrained NMSSM in the region of large λ and low tan β, the regime that most naturally raises the Higgs mass through the tree-level λ²v² sin²2β contribution. Out of one million randomly generated parameter points, 66 survive all theoretical, collider, flavor, and dark matter constraints as SM-like Higgs configurations. The paper's central result is that every one of those 66 points has a trilinear Higgs self-coupling below the Standard Model value: κλ = 0.884–0.982, with mean 0.944 ± 0.018. The corresponding non-resonant di-Higgs production cross section at 13.6 TeV is 30.3–36.9 fb (0.88–1.05 times the SM), while the resonant h3→h1h1 channel contributes at most 0.004 fb. If true, this gives a concrete, testable collider footprint of a modified Higgs potential that could support a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, and motivates a future finite-temperature analysis of the transition strength.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratio κλ = λ_{h1h1h1}/λ_{SM}, defined from the tree-level NMSSM self-coupling (Eq. 6), which decomposes into a doublet term ∝ C_V³, where C_V = S11 cosβ + S12 sinβ is the reduced coupling of h1 to W/Z, plus singlet corrections ∝ S13 C_V² and ∝ S13³. Because the SM-like selection demands S13² < 0.05, the dominant C_V³ term is always slightly suppressed, and this single fact drives the universal κλ<1 result. The second machine is the analytic parametrization of non-resonant gg→h1h1 production (Eq. 9), which converts κλ and κt into σ/σSM through interference coefficients A1...A5; the sign structure of these coefficients is why lowering κλ below one can raise the c

What would settle it

Compute the full one-loop κλ for all 66 points rather than estimating it; if any SM-like point with S13²<0.05 has NLO κλ > 1, the claimed universal suppression is false. Experimentally, a future lepton-collider measurement excluding κλ < 1 at 95% CL would also rule out the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: in this parameter region every SM-like point that survives all constraints has a trilinear Higgs self-coupling below the SM value, κλ = 0.884–0.982 (mean 0.944 ± 0.018), from the tree-level mixing formula (Eq. 6). Doublet–singlet mixing is the mechanism: h1's small singlet fraction (S13²<0.05) lowers C_V, reducing the dominant C_V³ term. The same mixing generates a tree-level cubic barrier of strength λµeff ∈ [55,102] GeV, qualitatively connecting κλ<1 to a strengthened first-order electroweak phase transition. Collider-wise, the non-resonant di-Higgs cross section is bounded to 30.3–36.9 fb (0.88–1.05 σSM) at 13.6 TeV, because a smaller κλ weakens the triangle amplitude and r

Load-bearing premise

The universal suppression claim rests on the tree-level self-coupling formula plus an assumed ±3–8% one-loop correction band; if radiative corrections push the least-suppressed point above κλ = 1 (as the paper's own table allows), universality fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A future measurement of κλ that resolves a 2–12% suppression would single out this scNMSSM region; the MSSM, by contrast, predicts only a weak suppression (κλ ≳ 0.97).
  • The predicted di-Higgs cross sections, 30.3–36.9 fb at 13.6 TeV, are all below current experimental upper limits, so the model is not yet constrained; the HL-LHC global combination and future lepton colliders are the settings that can test the range.
  • Because the resonant h3→h1h1 contribution is at most 0.004 fb, a detectable deviation from the SM would appear in the non-resonant di-Higgs kinematics rather than as a resonance peak.
  • The universal κλ suppression is tied to the same doublet–singlet mixing that builds a tree-level cubic barrier, so it is a zero-temperature signpost for a potentially strong first-order electroweak phase transition; quantifying vc/Tc remains the next step.
  • Observing a suppressed κλ together with a h2 in 131–268 GeV and a singlet-like h3 in 383–581 GeV would be a combined multi-scalar signature of this region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the suppression tracks the singlet fraction rather than the scanned coupling ranges, a percent-level κλ measurement could serve as a practical surrogate for measuring doublet–singlet mixing even if h2 and h3 are too heavy to produce directly.
  • Beyond the paper: the claimed kinematic confinement of SM-like h1 below ~125 GeV is directly testable by scanning the same λ–tanβ window with wider λ, κ, and A-terms; finding a SM-like h1 above 125 GeV with S13²<0.05 would falsify that structural prediction.
  • Beyond the paper: a rate-only di-Higgs measurement near 1.0 σSM would not discriminate this model from the SM; the discriminating information lives in the extracted κλ and the shape of the m_hh distribution, so κλ-fits matter more than total-rate limits.
  • Beyond the paper: since the mechanism is purely tree-level mixing, the same qualitative suppression pattern should appear in any NMSSM-like model with a light doublet and a small singlet admixture; the specific 0.884–0.982 window is a benchmark that other singlet-extended models can be compared against.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies di-Higgs production and the trilinear Higgs self-coupling in the semi-constrained NMSSM (scNMSSM) at large lambda and low tan(beta). A random scan of one million parameter points, with NMSSMTools 6.1.2 applying theoretical, collider, flavor, and dark matter constraints, yields 66 SM-like points with singlet fraction S13^2 < 0.05. Using a tree-level NMSSM formula (Eq. 6), the author finds kappa_lambda = 0.884-0.982 with mean 0.944 +/- 0.018 (Eq. 8), and using the Carvalho parametrization (Eq. 9) obtains non-resonant di-Higgs cross sections sigma(gg->h1h1) = 30.3-36.9 fb (0.880-1.050 sigma_SM) at 13.6 TeV (Eq. 10), with the h3-mediated resonant contribution negligible. The paper interprets the universal suppression of kappa_lambda as qualitatively consistent with a strengthened electroweak phase transition, though a finite-temperature computation is deferred to future work.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were established at the quoted precision, the paper would provide a valuable first systematic map of trilinear self-coupling and di-Higgs phenomenology in the large-lambda, low-tan(beta) scNMSSM, with explicit benchmark points and concrete collider predictions that could be tested at the HL-LHC and future lepton colliders. The use of a large random scan with public tools, the provision of benchmark points, and the honest placement of the EWPT discussion at a qualitative level are strengths. However, the central claims are currently weakened by three load-bearing issues: the 'universal suppression' is only a tree-level statement and can fail under the paper's own NLO estimate; the stated systematic uncertainty from kappa_t != 1 in the di-Higgs parametrization appears to be wrong by at least a factor of several; and the claim that no h2->h1h1 resonant contribution is kinematically accessible is contradicted by the reported mass ranges. These issues need to be resolved before the headline predictions can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (8), Table 5] The headline claim of universal suppression kappa_lambda < 1 is a tree-level result. Eq. (6) is evaluated at tree level, and the only NLO estimate is a uniform rescaling by ±(3–8%). Table 5 shows that Point A, the most SM-like point (kappa_lambda^tree = 0.982), reaches kappa_lambda^NLO,max = 1.061 under the +8% rescaling. Since the spread in Eq. (8) (Delta kappa_lambda ≈ 0.10) is comparable to the quoted NLO band, the statement 'No enhancement of kappa_lambda above unity was found' is not established at loop level. The text itself defers the full NMSSMCALC computation to future work. Moreover, the abstract's phrase 'full two-loop precision' is misleading when applied to kappa_lambda and the di-Higgs cross section, which are computed at tree level or via a fitted parametrization. Either a full one-loop calculation should be provided, or the claims should be explicitly rephrased as tree-le
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (9)] The treatment of kappa_t != 1 is not quantitatively reliable. Linearizing Eq. (9) around kappa_t = 1 and kappa_lambda = 1 gives a coefficient [4(A1+A3)+2(A2+A4)+2A5]/(sum A_i) ≈ 9.2/1.83 ≈ 5.0. For the sample range kappa_t ∈ [0.97, 1.01], this implies corrections of order +5% to -15%, not the ~2% quoted in the text. The expression 'delta sigma/sigma ~ 4(kappa_t-1)(A1+A3+A5)/(sum A_i)' also appears numerically/algebraically incorrect and omits the derivative contributions from the A2 and A4 terms. Consequently, the lower end of Eq. (10) and the statement that 35/31 points lie above/below sigma_SM are not justified with the stated uncertainty. The cross-section ratio should be recomputed using a parametrization that keeps kappa_t explicitly, or using the underlying public code, and the uncertainty should be reassessed.
  3. [§4.1 vs §4.3] The text states that 'no resonant h2→h1h1 decay is kinematically accessible for any of the 66 points,' but Table 3 reports m_h2 ∈ [131, 268] GeV and m_h1 ∈ [122, 125] GeV. For points with m_h2 > ~250 GeV, the 2*m_h1 threshold is exceeded, so h2→h1h1 is kinematically open. The resonant calculation in §4.3 considers only gg→h3→h1h1, not h2 mediation. If h2→h1h1 is allowed, its contribution to sigma(gg->h1h1) should be included or explicitly shown to be negligible. This is directly relevant to the claim that the resonant contribution is ≤ 0.004 fb and that any di-Higgs deviation is purely non-resonant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] 'full two-loop precision' should be qualified: the two-loop precision applies to the NMSSMTools Higgs-mass calculation, while kappa_lambda is tree-level and the di-Higgs cross section uses an external parametrization. Also, 'is expected to be probed' should be 'are expected to be probed'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] Typo: 'and and' appears in the caption. The caption also refers to the 122–128 GeV window while Table 3 and the abstract report 122.0–125.0 GeV for the surviving points; please clarify that the 66 final points lie in the narrower range.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (9)] The notation 'kappa_t = C_t(h1) = S12/sin beta kappa_t = 1' is self-contradictory. Define kappa_t unambiguously and state that the Carvalho parametrization was calibrated for kappa_t = 1.
  4. [§4.2] The uncertainty in '<kappa_lambda> = 0.944 ± 0.018' is not defined; please state whether it is the standard deviation of the sample or the standard error of the mean.
  5. [General] Whenever the range for kappa_lambda is quoted (e.g., Eq. 8), it should be labelled 'tree-level' to avoid implying NLO precision, unless the NLO calculation is actually performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: κλ and the di-Higgs cross section are derived from scanned scNMSSM parameters via external formulas (Eqs. 6 and 9); constraints are applied before the observables are computed, and the only self-citation is non-load-bearing context.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. κλ is computed at tree level from Eq. (6), the standard NMSSM trilinear-coupling formula, using mixing-matrix elements, masses, λ, κ and μ_eff obtained from the one-million-point scan; no parameter is fitted to κλ or to σ(gg→h1h1). The 66-point sample is selected by independent constraints (tachyonic masses, LEP/LHC Higgs limits, flavor, DM, m_h1 ∈ [122,128] GeV, S_{13}² < 0.05), and the paper explicitly verifies that the suppression is not an artifact of the SM-like cut (the 14 excluded points with S_{13}² > 0.05 also have κλ < 1; relaxing the cut to 0.10 gives κλ ∈ [0.867, 0.982]). Normalizing by λ_SM(h) makes κλ < 1 a consequence of m_h1 ≤ 125 GeV and C_V < 1, but this follows from the model formula and the independently motivated selection, not from fitting the target observable. The non-resonant di-Higgs cross section uses the external Carvalho et al. parametrization (Eq. 9) with external coefficients and the SM reference cross section from the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group; the resonant channel is taken from NMSSMTools outputs. The only self-citation, Ref. [5], appears in the introduction as context for existing LHC constraints on scNMSSM bosonic decays and is not load-bearing for any central claim. The acknowledged caveats — tree-level κλ with estimated ±(3–8)% NLO corrections (Table 5: Point A could reach 1.061) and the deferred finite-temperature analysis — are precision/completeness limitations, not circular reductions; per the review rules they belong to correctness risk rather than raising the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the chosen scan prior volume and on external tooling; no new entities are added. The prediction is not produced by fitting to the target observables, but the prior ranges and selection cuts determine which points appear.

free parameters (11)
  • lambda (singlet-doublet coupling) scan prior = 0.5-0.7
    Chosen by hand to define the large-lambda regime; the result is conditional on this interval.
  • kappa (singlet self-coupling) scan prior = 0.25-0.5
    Chosen to maintain perturbativity; affects h3 mass and singlet mixing.
  • tan(beta) scan prior = 2-4
    Low-tan(beta) maximizes the tree-level Higgs mass; central to the regime studied.
  • mu_eff scan prior = 100-160 GeV
    Chosen range; enters the singlet VEV and the cubic barrier term lambda*mu_eff.
  • A0 scan prior = -2500 to -800 GeV
    GUT-scale universal trilinear; affects the sparticle spectrum constraints.
  • A_lambda scan prior = -1100 to -200 GeV
    NMSSM-specific trilinear; enters loop-induced EWPT contributions.
  • A_kappa scan prior = -1000 to 0 GeV
    Singlet trilinear; affects h3 decays and the scalar potential.
  • m0 scan prior = 1000-1700 GeV
    Universal scalar mass at the GUT scale.
  • M_1/2 scan prior = 500-1100 GeV
    Universal gaugino mass; rejects many points via LEP sparticle bounds.
  • S13^2 < 0.05 SM-like cut = 0.05 threshold
    Hand-chosen to enforce doublet dominance; robustness checked at S13^2 < 0.10.
  • m_h1 window = 122-128 GeV
    Selection window around the observed Higgs mass before the singlet-fraction cut.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Z3-invariant NMSSM superpotential and soft terms (Eqs. 1-2)
    The model framework is assumed; the paper does not derive it from higher principles.
  • domain assumption GUT-scale universality m0, M_1/2, A0 with two-loop RGE running
    Defines the semi-constrained boundary conditions; central to the model setup.
  • domain assumption NMSSMTools 6.1.2 correctly implements two-loop Higgs masses and LEP/LHC/flavor/DM constraints
    All surviving points inherit the tool's accuracy and constraint choices.
  • domain assumption Tree-level trilinear formula Eq. (6) and estimated NLO band of plus or minus 3-8 percent from Ref. [20]
    kappa_lambda is computed at tree level; robustness relies on this external loop estimate.
  • domain assumption Carvalho et al. parametrization Eq. (9) is valid at 13.6 TeV for kappa_t approximately 1
    Di-Higgs cross sections are derived from this fit, not from a full Monte Carlo calculation.
  • domain assumption kappa_lambda suppression implies a flattened potential favorable to a strong first-order EWPT
    Qualitative connection used for cosmology; authors explicitly defer the finite-temperature calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Di-Higgs Production and Trilinear Higgs Self-Coupling in the scNMSSM: Qualitative Implications for the Electroweak Phase Transition at large {\lambda} and Low tan\b{eta}." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YW7Z7BVL

@misc{pith2026260803936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Di-Higgs Production and Trilinear Higgs Self-Coupling in the scNMSSM: Qualitative Implications for the Electroweak Phase Transition at large \lambda and Low tan\beta},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YW7Z7BVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03936}
}
abstract

The trilinear Higgs self-coupling and di-Higgs production cross section are investigated in the semi-constrained NMSSM (scNMSSM) at large-$\lambda$ / low-$\tan\beta$ with full two-loop precision. A random scan of one million parameter points subject to theoretical, collider, flavor, and dark matter constraints yields 66 SM-like points with singlet fraction $S_{13}^2 < 0.05$, all found in the mass range $m_{h_1} \in [122.0,\,125.0]~\text{GeV}$ --- a feature that reflects an intrinsic property of the scNMSSM at large-$\lambda$ / low-$\tan\beta$, where doublet-dominated configurations are kinematically confined below ${\sim}125~\text{GeV}$. The trilinear coupling ratio is found to be universally suppressed: $\kappa_\lambda = 0.884$--$0.982$, $\langle\kappa_\lambda\rangle = 0.944 \pm 0.018$. The non-resonant di-Higgs cross section at $\sqrt{s} = 13.6~\text{TeV}$ lies in the range $30.3$--$36.9~\text{fb}$ ($0.88$--$1.05\,\sigma_{\rm SM}$), with the resonant contribution via $gg \to h_3 \to h_1h_1$ negligible ($\leq 0.004~\text{fb}$). All predictions are consistent with current ATLAS+CMS di-Higgs upper limits and is expected to be probed at the HL-LHC. These results are discussed in the context of the electroweak phase transition, where the universal suppression of $\kappa_\lambda$ is qualitatively consistent with a modified Higgs potential that could support a strengthened first-order transition. A quantitative determination of the phase transition strength via finite-temperature analysis is left for future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03936 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trilinear Higgs self-coupling ratio κλ = λh1h1h1 /λSM h1h1h1 as a function of (left) the coupling λ, (center) tan β, and (right) mh1 , for the 66 SM-like scNMSSM points satisfying S 2 13 < 0.05 and and 122 GeV ≤ mh1 ≤ 128 GeV. The data points cluster in the range 122–125 GeV due to the combined effect of the large-λ constraint and the GUT-scale boundary conditions. The color coding indicates µeff in GeV in all panel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Di-Higgs production cross section σ(gg → h1h1) at √ s = 13.6 TeV as a function of (left) κλ, (center) λ, and (right) mh3 , for the 66 SM-like points. Color coding indicates mh3 in GeV (left panel), tan β (center panel), and κλ (right panel). The horizontal dashed line shows the SM prediction σSM = 33.33 fb. The enhancement of σ(HH) above σSM for points with smaller κλ (left panel) reflects the reduction of the destr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Di-Higgs production cross section σ(gg → h1h1) at √ s = 13.6 TeV as a function of κλ for the 66 SM-like scNMSSM points. Color coding indicates mh2 in GeV. The horizontal dashed line shows σSM = 33.33 fb and the vertical dotted line marks the SM value κλ = 1. The positive correlation between σ(HH) and decreasing κλ reflects the reduction of destructive interference between the triangle and box amplitudes when κλ < 1.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. D. Sakharov. Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe . Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. , 5:32--35, 1967

    work page 1967

  2. [2]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov. On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe . Phys. Lett. B , 155:36, 1985

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    Teixeira

    Ulrich Ellwanger, Cyril Hugonie, and Ana M. Teixeira. The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model . Phys. Rept. , 496:1--77, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Huber, Thomas Konstandin, Tomislav Prokopec, and Michael G

    Stephan J. Huber, Thomas Konstandin, Tomislav Prokopec, and Michael G. Schmidt. Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis in the nMSSM . Nucl. Phys. B , 757:172--196, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Impact of LHC Higgs couplings measurements on bosonic decays of the neutral Higgs sector in the scNMSSM

    Marwa Telba and Maien Binjonaid. Impact of LHC Higgs couplings measurements on bosonic decays of the neutral Higgs sector in the scNMSSM . Mod. Phys. Lett. A , 36(06):2150035, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    ober, M. M. M\

    J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gr\"ober, M. M. M\"uhlleitner, J. Quevillon, and M. Spira. The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status . JHEP , 04:151, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC

    Ding Yu Shao, Chong Sheng Li, Hai Tao Li, and Jian Wang. Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC . JHEP , 07:169, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC

    Ulrich Ellwanger. Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC . JHEP , 08:077, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Shah, and Daniel Winterbottom

    Ulrich Ellwanger, Margarete Muehlleitner, Nikolaos Rompotis, Nausheen R. Shah, and Daniel Winterbottom. Benchmark Lines and Planes for Higgs-to-Higgs Decays in the NMSSM . arXiv:2403.15046 [hep-ph], 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Accidental supersymmetric dark matter and baryogenesis

    Jonathan Kozaczuk, Stefano Profumo, and Carroll L Wainwright. Accidental supersymmetric dark matter and baryogenesis. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2013(01):027–027, January 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    NMSSMTOOLS - Home , https://www.lupm.univ-montp2.fr/users/nmssm/index.html

  4. [12]

    Gunion, and Cyril Hugonie

    Ulrich Ellwanger, John F. Gunion, and Cyril Hugonie. NMHDECAY: A Fortran code for the Higgs masses, couplings and decay widths in the NMSSM . JHEP , 02:066, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    NMHDECAY 2.0: An Updated program for sparticle masses, Higgs masses, couplings and decay widths in the NMSSM

    Ulrich Ellwanger and Cyril Hugonie. NMHDECAY 2.0: An Updated program for sparticle masses, Higgs masses, couplings and decay widths in the NMSSM . Comput. Phys. Commun. , 175:290--303, 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    Teixeira

    Debottam Das, Ulrich Ellwanger, and Ana M. Teixeira. NMSDECAY: A Fortran Code for Supersymmetric Particle Decays in the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model . Comput. Phys. Commun. , 183:774--779, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Muhlleitner, A

    M. Muhlleitner, A. Djouadi, and Y. Mambrini. SDECAY: A Fortran code for the decays of the supersymmetric particles in the MSSM . Comput. Phys. Commun. , 168:46--70, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and coupling strengths using pp collision data at s =7 and 8 TeV in the ATLAS experiment

    Georges Aad et al. Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and coupling strengths using pp collision data at s =7 and 8 TeV in the ATLAS experiment . Eur. Phys. J. C , 76(1):6, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 \, TeV

    Vardan Khachatryan et al. Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 \, TeV . Eur. Phys. J. C , 75(5):212, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

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

    Georges Aad et al. Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC . Phys. Lett. B , 716:1--29, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC

    Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC . Phys. Lett. B , 716:30--61, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Baglio, R

    J. Baglio, R. Groeber, M. Muhlleitner, D. T. Nguyen, H. Rzehak, M. Spira, J. Jager, and S. F. King. NMSSMCALC: A program package for the calculation of loop-corrected Higgs boson masses and decay widths in the NMSSM . Comput. Phys. Commun. , 185:3372--3391, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Wainwright

    Timothy L. Wainwright. CosmoTransitions: Computing Finite-Temperature Phase Transitions with Multiple Scalar Fields . Comput. Phys. Commun. , 183:2006--2013, 2012

    2006

  14. [22]

    Morris, and Yang Zhang

    Peter Athron, Csaba Balazs, Andrew Fowlie, Thomas S. Morris, and Yang Zhang. PhaseTracer: Imaginary time and false vacuum decays . JHEP , 11:112, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Analytical parametrization of HH production at the LHC

    Alexandra Carvalho, Florian Goertz, Ken Matera, and Rogerio Rosenfeld. Analytical parametrization of HH production at the LHC . Phys. Rev. D , 92(7):074037, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    de Florian et al

    D. de Florian et al. Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Decays between the Leaves . Technical Report CERN-2017-002-M, CERN, Geneva, 2016

    2017

  17. [25]

    Combination of ATLAS and CMS searches for Higgs boson pair production at 13 TeV

    Georges Aad, others, Armen Tumasyan, et al. Combination of ATLAS and CMS searches for Higgs boson pair production at 13 TeV . arXiv:2602.23991 [hep-ex], 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Study of Higgs boson pair production in the HH bb final state with 308 fb ^ -1 of data collected at 13 and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experiment

    ATLAS Collaboration . Study of Higgs boson pair production in the HH bb final state with 308 fb ^ -1 of data collected at 13 and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experiment . Collaboration Note ATLAS-CONF-2025-005, CERN, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Morrissey, and Carlos E

    Arjun Menon, David E. Morrissey, and Carlos E. M. Wagner. Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter in the nMSSM . Phys. Rev. D , 70:035005, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    The Electroweak phase transition in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model

    Massimo Pietroni. The Electroweak phase transition in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model . Nucl. Phys. B , 402:27--45, 1993

    1993

  21. [29]

    Arnold and Larry McLerran

    Peter B. Arnold and Larry McLerran. Sphalerons, QCD Topography, and Baryon Number Violation . Phys. Rev. D , 36:581, 1987

    1987

  22. [30]

    Finite-temperature field theory and phase transitions

    Mariano Quiros. Finite-temperature field theory and phase transitions . In High-Energy Physics and Cosmology: Trieste, Italy, 29 June--17 July 1998 , pages 187--259, 1999. arXiv:hep-ph/9901312

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. Shaposhnikov. The electroweak phase transition: a non-perturbative analysis. Nuclear Physics B , 466(1–2):189–258, April 1996

    1996

  24. [32]

    Christophe Grojean, Geraldine Servant, and James D. Wells. First-order electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a low cutoff . Phys. Rev. D , 71:036001, 2005

    2005

  25. [33]

    Espinosa and Mariano Quiros

    Jose R. Espinosa and Mariano Quiros. Novel effects in electroweak breaking from a singlet scalar . Phys. Rev. D , 76:076004, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Carena, M

    M. Carena, M. Quiros, and C. E. M. Wagner. Opening the window for electroweak baryogenesis in the MSSM . Phys. Lett. B , 380:81--91, 1996

    1996

  27. [35]

    Cepeda et al

    M. Cepeda et al. Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC . CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. , 7:221--584, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    de Blas et al

    J. de Blas et al. Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders . JHEP , 01:139, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    The International Linear Collider: A Global Project

    Philip Bambade et al. The International Linear Collider: A Global Project . arXiv:1903.01629 [hep-ex], 2019

    1903 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Double higgs boson production and higgs self-coupling extraction at clic

    Philipp Roloff, Ulrike Schnoor, Rosa Simoniello, and Boruo Xu. Double higgs boson production and higgs self-coupling extraction at clic. The European Physical Journal C , 80(11), November 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Electroweak Coupling Measurements at a Multi-TeV Muon Collider

    Tao Han, Da Liu, Ian Low, and Xing Wang. Electroweak Coupling Measurements at a Multi-TeV Muon Collider . Phys. Rev. D , 103(1):013002, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ender, T

    K. Ender, T. Graf, M. Mühlleitner, and H. Rzehak. Analysis of the nmssm higgs boson masses at one-loop level. Physical Review D , 85(7), April 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.