Probing the Higgs self-coupling at hadron colliders using rare decays

D. Rainwater (DESY); T. Plehn (CERN); U. Baur (Buffalo)

REVIEW

Probing the Higgs self-coupling at hadron colliders using rare decays

U. Baur (Buffalo), T. Plehn (CERN), D. Rainwater (DESY)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 4 Oct 2003 · 50 references

Pith's verdict: A candid, well-tabulated study that reverses the authors' own earlier verdict on low-mass Higgs self-coupling at hadron colliders, with a genuinely new MSSM resonant H→hh window; the weak point is that the shape-based λ extraction is never checked against higher-order radiation.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0310056 (version 1)

Pith IDQIIYYUBS, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationD. Rainwater (DESY), T. Plehn (CERN), U. Baur (Buffalo). "Probing the Higgs self-coupling at hadron colliders using rare decays." arXiv:hep-ph/0310056 (2003). https://pith.science/paper/QIIYYUBS

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Two things here are worth your attention. First, the authors reverse their own earlier conclusion (their Ref. [22]) that hadron colliders cannot reach the Higgs self-coupling below 140 GeV, and they do it with a channel they had not previously pushed: gg → HH → b bbar γγ. Second, in the MSSM at small tan β they find that resonant H → hh gives a 5σ window for 310 < mA < 425 GeV, in a corner of parameter space where the standard heavy-Higgs searches see nothing. That second result is the one I would actually remember from this paper. The b bbar μμ channel they also analyze and then honestly report as hopeless, which is the right way to handle a channel that does not work out. The background breakdown in Tables II and III is done stage by stage, with separate conservative and optimistic photon-fake assumptions, and the MSSM section states its benchmark choices (tan β = 3, 1 TeV squarks, no SUSY decays of H) plainly. Note that the classifier record claims the paper states no limitations; that is wrong. Section III.A is unusually explicit about what is missing: no NLO background calculations, no HHj calculation, and a 10% normalization assumption that current theory cannot deliver, with the authors themselves noting that 30% would weaken the bounds by nearly a factor of two. The stress-test concern about shape is the part they do not address. The λ extraction is a χ² on the m_vis shape, but the signal shape is LO multiplied by an inclusive K-factor and every background by a flat 1.3. A flat factor preserves shape by construction, so the quoted bounds assume NLO radiation does not move m_vis. At the LHC that hardly matters, since the bound is rate-driven with about six signal events. At the VLHC, where the shape carries the discrimination behind the +0.44/−0.42 that underwrites the linear-collider comparison, it matters and is unestimated. The omitted combinatorial background in the single-b-tag rows is a real gap, but they flag it themselves and it is bounded in practice by the b-tagging fake rates. This is for anyone tracking di-Higgs reach or MSSM small-tan-β coverage. Send it out; the VLHC shape question is exactly what a referee should press on.

Referee report

Significance

The paper addresses a genuinely hard and important question — whether hadron colliders can probe the shape of the Higgs potential below 140 GeV, where the e+e− mode ZHH loses rate — and it does so with an unusually transparent analysis: explicit cut tables, separately tabulated conservative and optimistic fake rates, a stated background scale factor, and a shape-based rather than rate-only extraction. The negative result on b bbar μ+μ− is useful and clearly argued. The MSSM observation that H → hh → b bbar γγ may be the only LHC handle on a small-tan β Higgs sector is a genuinely novel and falsifiable prediction, and the quoted Δλ windows per machine are concrete enough to be checked or superseded. The inputs (CTEQ5L, madgraph, MCFM, stated efficiencies and K-factors) are specified well enough to be reproduced. The authors are also candid about what they have not done, which is a strength of the paper and is treated as such below.

Major objections (4)

[Sec. III.A, Figs. 3–5, Table IV] The λ sensitivity is extracted from the shape of m_vis, but the signal shape is computed at LO and then multiplied by an inclusive K-factor (1.65 at the LHC, 1.35 at the VLHC) taken from Ref. [36], and every background is scaled by a flat 1.3. A flat factor preserves shape by construction, so the quoted bounds implicitly assume the LO shape survives higher orders. This matters most where the shape carries the discrimination: at the VLHC with one b-tag, Table III shows 486 signal and 629 background events, and the +0.44/−0.42 (600 fb^-1) and +0.32/−0.30 (1200 fb^-1) entries of Table IV are what underwrite the abstract's competitiveness claim [abstract:s3]. Ref. [36] is a differential NLO calculation, so the authors can test this directly: reweight the signal m_vis distribution to the NLO di-Higgs shape (or vary the K-factor differentially across the m_vis range) and report the shift in the Table IV entries. If the shift is small, saying so with a number would substantially strengthen the headline result.
[Sec. III.A, single b-tag rows of Tables II and III] The authors state explicitly that for the single b-tag strategy 'we do not include the combinatorial background in our background estimate', because extra jets in the event can supply a fake b-tag. This is acknowledged rather than resolved, and it is load-bearing precisely where the paper's discovery-mode claim sits: at the LHC the single b-tag row of Table II has about 6 signal and 14 background events, so an unestimated combinatorial component of even a few events would change the quoted +1.9/−1.1. The same strategy is used for the VLHC rows of Table IV. At minimum the authors should provide an order-of-magnitude estimate — a lowest-order HHj calculation, or a parton-shower estimate of the extra-jet rate passing Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) with one tag — and state how the LHC and VLHC bounds would move if that component were included.
[Abstract [abstract:s3] and Sec. V] The abstract states without qualification that a 200 TeV VLHC 'could make a measurement of the Higgs self-coupling competitive with a next-generation linear collider', but Sec. III.A and Table IV make clear that this rests on a 10% normalization uncertainty on the combined SM signal-plus-background rate, that a 30% uncertainty weakens the bounds by almost a factor of two, and that the 10% level requires NLO gg → HH at finite top mass plus NNLO in the heavy-top limit plus NLO for the many background processes, none of which exist. Sec. V further concedes that an e+e− collider would likely still be required because hadron-collider Higgs branching-ratio knowledge is insufficient to complement the λ measurement. The body is honest about all of this; the abstract is not. I recommend the abstract state the conditionality (e.g. 'given a 10% normalization uncertainty') and that the Sec. V caveat about branching ratios be reflected in the summary claim, so that the headline number is not read as unconditional.
[Sec. IV and Fig. 6 caption] The MSSM discovery window 310 < m_A < 425 GeV at tan β = 3 is one of the paper's most interesting results, but the Fig. 6 caption states that supersymmetric decay modes of the heavy Higgs boson H are not taken into account. Over exactly this m_A range, with squark masses set to 1 TeV and maximal mixing, channels such as H → h̃ h̃ or H → χ̃χ̃ may open and suppress BR(H → hh), which would shrink or close the quoted 5σ window. Since the reach depends on this branching ratio, the authors should either include the leading SUSY decay widths or state a quantitative bound on the SUSY branching fraction above which the window closes. As written, the reader cannot tell whether the 5σ region survives a realistic H total width.

Minor objections (8)

[Title page footnotes] The author footnotes include jokes ('but only when electric power is available', 'but only when AFS is operational'). These are out of place in a journal article and should be removed.
[Sec. III.A, paragraph after Eq. (4)] The sentence 'Looking at Fig. 2, these to not appear to be the optimum values' contains a typo; 'to' should read 'do'.
[Sec. III.A, definition of m_vis] The text says m_vis is 'the invariant mass of the Higgs boson pair, corrected for energy loss of the b-jets', but the correction procedure is not described. A short statement of the algorithm (or a reference) would make the χ² extraction reproducible.
[Sec. III.A, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The claim that the double-parton-scattering veto 'has essentially no influence on the Higgs self-coupling sensitivity bounds' should be supported by a number, e.g. the change in the Table IV entries with and without the 7% signal loss.
[Table I] The rejection factors depend on p_T(c) and p_T(j), as the text notes, but only a single number per entry is given. Since the analysis integrates over p_T, it would help to state the p_T range each entry corresponds to, or to give the functional dependence used.
[Sec. III.A, statistical procedure] The χ² test is described only as 'similar to that described in Ref. [20]'. Since the bounds in Table IV are the paper's central numbers, a brief restatement of the binning of m_vis, the treatment of the 10% normalization nuisance parameter, and the definition of the quoted asymmetric 1σ interval would aid reproducibility.
[Sec. III.A, single-Higgs backgrounds] The Hjj background is included while H b bbar, Hγγ and Hjγ are neglected on the grounds that no calculations exist. Given that the total background is small, an estimate of the size of Hγγ and Hjγ (even a crude one) would justify the neglect more convincingly than the assertion that they are 'expected' to be negligible.
[Sec. IV, large tan β discussion] The statement that for tan β = 50 the effect of setting all λ_ijk = 0 is 'at maximum at the percentage level' is a quantitative claim that would be more persuasive with a number or a small table rather than a single sentence.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Rare Higgs decays could expose the Higgs self-coupling at hadron colliders, with a 200 TeV machine approaching linear-collider precision.

The reading

The paper asks whether a hadron collider can measure the trilinear Higgs self-coupling — the strength of the Higgs field's own three-point interaction, which fixes the shape of the potential that breaks electroweak symmetry — for a Higgs lighter than about 140 GeV, a range earlier work had written off. The strategy is to look for two Higgs bosons made together in gluon fusion and let one decay to a bottom-quark pair and the other to two photons, a final state where the QCD background, initially enormous, is beaten down by b-tagging, photon identification and two angular separation cuts. The authors then read the visible invariant mass of the pair, whose shape shifts when the self-coupling departs from its Standard Model value because of interference between the diagram where the two Higgses descend from a virtual Higgs and the box diagram where they do not. They conclude that the LHC with 600 inverse femtobarns gives only a crude first handle, an upgraded LHC can rule out a vanishing coupling at 90% confidence, and a 200 TeV machine reaches 20–40% precision, comparable to a planned linear collider. In supersymmetric models they find a separate prize: for small $tan beta$ the heavy scalar can decay resonantly into two light ones, a channel that could be the only LHC hint of an extended Higgs sector.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the interference between the triangle diagram, where the two Higgs bosons are radiated from an s-channel virtual Higgs and whose amplitude is proportional to the trilinear coupling $lambda$, and the box diagram, where they are radiated from a heavy-quark loop and which carries no self-coupling. In the Standard Model this interference is destructive near threshold, so the visible invariant mass distribution $m_{vis}$ of the $bbar{b}gammagamma$ pair peaks above threshold; lowering $lambda$ shifts the peak downward and raises the rate, raising $lambda$ does the reverse. That shape distortion, not the total rate, is what the $chi^2$ test exploits, which is why the authors deliberately avoid cuts on the total $bbar{b}gammagamma$ invariant mass. The rest of the machinery is background engineering: a table of b-tagging efficiencies, charm and light-jet fake rates and jet-to-photon misidentification probabilities, a single b-tag at the LHC and VLHC (double at the SLHC, where the light-jet fake rate is far worse), and a pairwise transverse-momentum balance veto that removes double-parton and multiple-interaction backgrounds at a 7% cost to the signal.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $gg to HH to bbar{b} gammagamma$ is a usable self-coupling channel at hadron colliders despite a cross section of order 0.1 fb before cuts. After the acceptance cuts, the two angular cuts $Delta R(gamma,b) > 1.0$ and $Delta R(gamma,gamma) < 2.0$ (which cost the signal only 15–30% but suppress the backgrounds by roughly an order of magnitude), b-tagging, photon identification and the measured fake rates, the authors extract one-$\sigma$ limits on $Delta lambda_{HHH} = lambda/lambda_{SM} - 1$ from a $chi^2$ fit to the visible pair mass distribution. At the LHC with 600 fb$^{-1}$ and $m_H = 120$ GeV they find $+1.9/-1.1$ (conservative background) or $+1.6/-1.1$ (optimistic), improving to $+0.94/-0.74$ if the non-charm reducible backgrounds can be subtracted using independently measured misidentification rates. A luminosity-upgraded LHC with 6000 fb$^{-1}$ rules out $lambda = 0$ at 90% CL and yields a 50–80% one-$\sigma$ measurement, while a 200 TeV VLHC with 600 fb$^{-1}$ gives $+0.44/-0.42$ at 120 GeV and $+0.82/-0.62$ at 140 GeV, tightening to $+0.32/-0.30$ with 1200 fb$^{-1}$. The $bbar{b}mu^+mu^-$ channel is examined and rejected as too rate-starved and too background-heavy, with VLHC limits of $-3.0 < Delta lambda_{HHH} < 4.2$, an order of magnitude worse. In the MSSM, resonant $H to hh$ production at $tan beta = 3$ gives a 5-$\sigma$ region for $320 < m_A < 375$ GeV at 300 fb$^{-1}$ and $310 < m_A < 425$ GeV at 600 fb$^{-1}$, where the pair mass peaks at $m_H$ rather than near threshold.

Load-bearing premise

Every quoted bound assumes the combined Standard Model signal-plus-background rate is known to 10%, and the authors state plainly that reaching this needs next-to-leading-order $gg to HH$ calculations at finite top mass plus next-to-next-to-leading-order corrections, and next-to-leading-order calculations for the many background processes, none of which exist; they note that a 30% normalization uncertainty weakens the bounds by almost a factor of two, and they also leave the combinatorial background from extra jets in the single-b-tag sample out of their estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $m_H = 120$ GeV at the LHC with 600 fb$^{-1}$, roughly six signal events survive, giving a one-sigma band of $+1.9/-1.1$ in $Delta lambda_{HHH}$ under the conservative background estimate and $+1.6/-1.1$ under the optimistic one.
At $m_H = 140$ GeV the LHC yields too few events for any coupling extraction; the SLHC and VLHC limits there are a factor 1.2–2 weaker than at 120 GeV because both the signal and the $H to bbar{b}$ branching ratio fall.
A 200 TeV VLHC with 600 fb$^{-1}$ reaches $+0.44/-0.42$ at 120 GeV, and 1200 fb$^{-1}$ reaches $+0.32/-0.30$, a precision the authors compare directly with a 500 GeV linear collider's roughly 20% measurement at 1 ab$^{-1}$.
Subtracting the non-charm reducible backgrounds ($Hjj$, $bbar{b}gamma j$, $bbar{b}jj$, $gammagamma jj$, $gamma jjj$, $jjjj$) using fake rates measured in prompt-photon and W-plus-jets data would tighten the LHC bound to $+0.94/-0.74$.
In the MSSM at $tan beta = 3$, resonant $H to hh to bbar{b}gammagamma$ gives a 5-sigma discovery region in $m_A$ that no conventional heavy-Higgs search covers, though the rate measures only a combination of the $Hhh$ and $Hfbar{f}$ couplings, not either one alone.

Reading between the lines

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

The $m_{vis}$-shape technique is portable: any Higgs pair final state with a reconstructable pair mass inherits the same triangle-box interference signature, so the real bottleneck across channels is control of fake rates rather than raw signal statistics.
If the required 10% rate normalization is not reached, the fair comparison with a linear collider changes character: the hadron numbers should be read as the ceiling of what a 200 TeV machine could do once next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD is available, not as a forecast for the near term.
The MSSM window at $310 < m_A < 425$ GeV was found with cuts optimized for the Standard Model, so a search that places an $m_{vis}$ window around $m_H$ and tags the resonance peak would likely extend the reach in both $m_A$ and $tan beta$.
The rejection of double-parton and multiple-interaction events rests on resolving distinct vertices at high luminosity; if vertex merging degrades that at the SLHC, a background the authors show is several times the signal returns.

Original abstract

We investigate Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders for Higgs boson masses m_H\leq 140 GeV and rare decay of one of the two Higgs bosons. While in the Standard Model the number of events is quite low at the LHC, a first, albeit not very precise, measurement of the Higgs self-coupling is possible in the gg -> HH -> b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma channel. A luminosity-upgraded LHC could improve this measurement considerably. A 200 TeV VLHC could make a measurement of the Higgs self-coupling competitive with a next-generation linear collider. In the MSSM we find a significant region with observable Higgs pair production in the small \tan\beta regime, where resonant production of two light Higgs bosons might be the only hint at the LHC of an MSSM Higgs sector.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,383 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.13 · states limitation 0.74 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.21 · compares with prior results 0.70 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We investigate Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders for Higgs boson masses m_H\leq 140 GeV and rare decay of one of the two Higgs bosons. While in the Standard Model the number of events is quite low at the LHC, a first, albeit not very precise, measurement of the Higgs self-coupling is possible in the gg -> HH -> b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma channel. A luminosity-upgraded LHC could improve this measurement considerably. A 200 TeV VLHC could make a measurement of the Higgs self-coupling competitive with a next-generation linear collider. In the MSSM we find a significant region with observable Higgs pair production in the small \tan\beta regime, where resonant production of two light Higgs bosons might be the only hint at the LHC of an MSSM Higgs sector.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We investigate Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders for Higgs boson masses m_H\leq 140 GeV and rare decay of one of the two Higgs bosons.	contribution 1.00	0.77	0.06	asserted 0.78
s1	While in the Standard Model the number of events is quite low at the LHC, a first, albeit not very precise, measurement of the Higgs self-coupling is possible in the gg -> HH -> b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma channel.	result 0.79	0.26	0.22	hedged possibility 0.74
s2	A luminosity-upgraded LHC could improve this measurement considerably.	future work 0.55	0.18	0.09	hedged possibility 0.99
s3	A 200 TeV VLHC could make a measurement of the Higgs self-coupling competitive with a next-generation linear collider.	result 0.60	0.62	0.30	hedged possibility 0.87
s4	In the MSSM we find a significant region with observable Higgs pair production in the small \tan\beta regime, where resonant production of two light Higgs bosons might be the only hint at the LHC of an MSSM Higgs sector.	result 0.89	0.89	0.16	asserted 0.61

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.68 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.92.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** SM Higgs branching ratios relevant to our analysis

**Figure 2.** Distributions of the minimum lego plot (pseudorap

**Figure 3.** The visible invariant mass distribution,

**Figure 4.** The visible invariant mass distribution,

**Figure 5.** The visible invariant mass distribution,

**Figure 6.** Lowest order cross section and branching fraction

**Figure 7.** The visible invariant mass distribution,

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0310056 by the authors.

References

Works cited (50)

[22]

U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D 68, 033001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[36]

S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 58, 115012 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[1]

D. Abbaneo et al. [LEPEWWG], arXiv:hep-ex/0212036; G. Quast, talk given at the HEP2003 Europhysics Conference, Aachen, Germany, July 17 – 23 , 2003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[2]

M. Dittmar and H. K. Dreiner, Phys. Rev. D 55, 167 (1997); D. Rainwater and D. Zep- penfeld, Phys. Rev. D 60, 113004 (1999) [Erratum-ibid. D 61, 099901 (2000)]; N. Kauer, T. Plehn, D. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B 503, 113 (2001); N. Akchurin et al. , CMS-NOTE-2002/066; B. Mellado, ATL-CONF-2002-004

View on Pith 1997
[3]

S. Asai et al. , ATL-PHYS-2003-005; G. Azuelos and R. Mazini, ATL-PHYS-2003- 004; M D¨ uhrssen, ATL-PHYS-2003-010

View on Pith 2003
[4]

ATLAS TDR, report CERN/LHCC/99-15 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[5]

CMS TP, report CERN/LHCC/94-38 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[6]

D. Rainwater, D. Zeppenfeld and K. Hagiwara, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014037 (1999); T. Plehn, D. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B 454, 297 (1999) and Phys. Rev. D 61, 093005 (2000)

View on Pith 1999
[7]

D. Zeppenfeld, R. Kinnunen, A. Nikitenko and E. Richter-Was, Ph ys. Rev. D 62, 013009 (2000); M. Hohlfeld, ATL-PHYS-2001-004

View on Pith 2000
[8]

D. Rainwater, Phys. Lett. B 503, 320 (2001); V. Drollinger, T. M¨ uller and D. Denegri, arXiv:hep-ph/0201249

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[9]

V. Drollinger, T. M¨ uller and D. Denegri, arXiv:hep-ph/0111312; V . Kostioukhine, J. Leveque, A. Rozanov, and J.B. de Vivie, ATL-PHYS-2002-019; D . Green et al. , FERMILAB-FN-705 (August 2001); F. Maltoni, D. Rainwater and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 66, 034022 (2002); A. Belyaev and L. Reina, JHEP 0208, 041 (2002); A. Belyaev, F. Maltoni and L. Reina, ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[10]

O. J. ´Eboli and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B 495, 147 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[11]

T. Plehn and D. Rainwater, Phys. Lett. B 520, 108 (2001); T. Han and B. McElrath, Phys. Lett. B 528, 81 (2002)

View on Pith 2001
[12]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al. [ECF A/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ph/0106315 and references therein; T. Abe et al. [American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration], in Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) ed. R. Davidson and C. Quigg, arXiv:hep- ex/0106056 and references therein

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[13]

B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 883 (1977) and Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977)

View on Pith 1977
[14]

D. A. Dicus, C. Kao and S. S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B 203, 457 (1988); E. W. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B 309, 282 (1988); E. W. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, CERN-TH-5022-88, in Proceedings of the “23rd Rencontres de Moriond: Current Issues in Hadron Physics, Les Arcs, France, Mar 13-19, 1988 ; G. Cynolter, E. Lendvai and G. Pocsik, hep...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1988
[15]

F. Boudjema and E. Chopin, Z. Phys. C 73, 85 (1996); V. A. Ilyin et al. , Phys. Rev. D 54, 6717 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[16]

A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 27 (1999); D. J. Miller and S. Moretti, Eur. Phys. J. C 13, 459 (2000)

View on Pith 1999
[17]

M. Battaglia, E. Boos and W. M. Yao, in Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study 21 on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) ed. R. Davidson and C. Quigg, arXiv:hep-ph/0111276

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[18]

C. Castanier, P. Gay, P. Lutz and J. Orloﬀ, arXiv:hep-ex/0101 028

View on Pith
[19]

F. Gianotti et al. , arXiv:hep-ph/0204087

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[20]

U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 151801 (2002) and Phys. Rev. D 67, 033003 (2003)

View on Pith 2002
[21]

A. Blondel, A. Clark and F. Mazzucato, ATL-PHYS-2002-029 (N ovember 2002)

View on Pith 2002
[23]

G. Ambrosio et al. , Fermilab-TM-2149 (June 2001)

View on Pith 2001
[24]

S. Kanemura et al. , Phys. Lett. B 558, 157 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[25]

W. Hollik and S. Penaranda, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 163 (2002); A. Dobado, M. J. Herrero, W. Hollik and S. Penaranda, Phys. Rev. D 66, 095016 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[26]

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. 136B, 183 (1984); H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. 151B, 57 (1985)

View on Pith 1984
[27]

C. Csaki et al., Phys. Rev. D 68, 035009 (2003); T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 67, 095004 (2003); C. Dib, R. Rosenfeld and A. Zerwekh, arXiv:hep-ph/0302068

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[28]

V. Barger et al. Phys. Rev. D 67, 115001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[29]

T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 46 (1996) [Erratum-ibid. B 531, 655 (1998)]; A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 45 (1999)

View on Pith 1996
[30]

A. Dobrovolskaya and V. Novikov, Z. Phys. C 52, 427 (1991); D. A. Dicus, K. J. Kallian- pur and S. S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B 200, 187 (1988); A. Abbasabadi, W. W. Repko, D. A. Dicus and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. B 213, 386 (1988); W. Y. Keung, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 2, 765 (1987)

View on Pith 1991
[31]

V. D. Barger, T. Han and R. J. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2766 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[32]

K. Long, arXiv:hep-ex/0212008, to appear in the Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on High Energy Physics , Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24 – 31 July 2002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[33]

H. L. Lai et al. [CTEQ Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 375 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[34]

A. Nikitenko, private communication

View on Pith
[35]

T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Comp. Phys. Comm. 81, 357 (1994); F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, JHEP 0302, 027 (2003)

View on Pith 1994
[37]

R. Hawkings, ATLAS note SN-ATLAS-2003-026

View on Pith 2003
[38]

Ph. Schwemling, ATLAS note SN-ATLAS-2003-034

View on Pith 2003
[39]

S. Abdullin et al. , hep-ph/9805341

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[40]

V. Del Duca et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 616, 367 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[41]

V. D. Barger, K. M. Cheung, T. Han and R. J. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3052 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[42]

F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 56, 3811 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[43]

F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 1936; F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1941 (1995); S. Abachi et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3634 (1997); S. Abachi et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1028 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[44]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114012 (2000); J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and D. Rainwater, arXiv:hep-ph/0308195. 22

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[45]

G. Degrassi et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 133 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[46]

E. Boos, A. Djouadi and A. Nikitenko, arXiv:hep-ph/0307079

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[47]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124, 76 (2000) and arXiv:hep-ph/0002213

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[48]

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108, 56 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[49]

G. Abbiendi et al. [The LEP Collaborations], Phys. Lett. B 565, 61 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[50]

R. Lafaye, D. J. Miller, M. M¨ uhlleitner and S. Moretti, arXiv:hep- ph/0002238 and Ref. [9] therein. 23

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 56 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs
hep-ph 2007-03 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

Composite pseudo-Goldstone Higgs models reduce below the resonance scale to a two-parameter effective Lagrangian whose leading operators split into strong-coupling-sensitive and spectrum-only classes.
Neural Control Variates at LO and NLO
hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Signed neural control variates from normalizing flows, combined with neural importance sampling, reduce weight ranges and negative weights for LO and NLO phase-space integration and event generation.
Higgs Boson Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD
hep-ph 2013-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Full NNLO QCD corrections raise the LHC Higgs-pair production cross section at 14 TeV from 33 to 40 fb and cut the scale uncertainty to roughly 8 percent.
Two-loop virtual corrections to Higgs pair production
hep-ph 2013-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The two-loop virtual corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs pair production are computed in the heavy-top limit, giving an NNLO soft-virtual K-factor of 2.37 at the LHC, about 23 percent above NLO.
Top Spin and CP from Equivariant Transformers
hep-ph 2026-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

L-GATr-slim with a pseudoscalar channel achieves a spin-analyzing power of 0.721 for hadronic top decays and learns a pseudoscalar output that acts as an optimal CP-odd observable, outperforming manual constructions.

Show 51 more citing papers

Probing the scalar potential via double Higgs boson production at hadron colliders
hep-ph 2018-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A complete two-loop computation of gluon-fusion double Higgs production shows that a 100 TeV collider can constrain the quartic Higgs self-coupling competitively, while the HL-LHC cannot.
An Analytical Method for the NLO QCD Corrections to Double-Higgs Production
hep-ph 2018-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Expanding the two-loop gluon-to-Higgs-pair amplitudes in small Higgs transverse momentum gives an analytic approximation accurate to the per-mille level for partonic energies below about 750 GeV.
Constraining the Higgs self couplings at $e^+e^-$ colliders
hep-ph 2018-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Combining single Higgs measurements at 240-250 GeV with double Higgs production in W-boson fusion at higher energies can determine the Higgs cubic self-coupling Wilson coefficient to about 10% at future electron-posit...
A global view on the Higgs self-coupling
hep-ph 2017-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Inclusive single-Higgs data leave the Higgs trilinear self-coupling unconstrained along a flat direction; adding double-Higgs and differential single-Higgs measurements projects a 68% interval of 0.1 to 2.3 at the hig...
Electroweak oblique parameters as a probe of the trilinear Higgs boson self-interaction
hep-ph 2017-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Electroweak precision data constrain the Higgs trilinear self-coupling to roughly -14 to +17 times the Standard Model value, from an explicit two-loop computation of the S and T parameters.
Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC
hep-ph 2016-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Loop-induced shifts in single-Higgs rates at the LHC already constrain the Higgs trilinear coupling about as tightly as direct double-Higgs searches, via a one-parameter fit to 8 TeV data.
Indirect probes of the trilinear Higgs coupling: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$
hep-ph 2016-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-loop corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs production and diphoton decay turn these common processes into competitive indirect probes of the Higgs trilinear coupling, beating current double-Higgs limits under a single...
On the two-loop virtual QCD corrections to Higgs boson pair production in the Standard Model
hep-ph 2016-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The two-loop virtual QCD corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs pair production are given analytically, with the double-triangle diagrams exact and the irreducible ones expanded to O(1/m_t^8), implying top-mass effects red...
Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Threshold resummation at NNLL, matched to NNLO, raises the gluon-fusion Higgs pair cross section by about 7% at 14 TeV and cuts the perturbative scale uncertainty from about 8.5% to 5.5%.
Effective field theory analysis of double Higgs production via gluon fusion
hep-ph 2015-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

With a corrected, NLO-enhanced background estimate and a binned di-Higgs mass analysis, the Higgs trilinear coupling is measurable to roughly 30% at a 100 TeV collider with 3 ab^-1, and only to order one at the 14 TeV LHC.
Top-quark mass effects in double and triple Higgs production in gluon-gluon fusion at NLO
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A reweighting method folds exact one-loop top-quark mass and width effects into NLO plus parton-shower predictions for double and triple Higgs production, giving 34.3 fb for HH and 0.089 fb for HHH at 14 TeV.
Virtual corrections to Higgs boson pair production in the large top quark mass limit
hep-ph 2014-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The three-loop matching coefficient C_HH for Higgs pair production in gluon fusion is computed, completing the ingredients for a consistent NNLO QCD prediction in the heavy-top limit.
An Indirect Model-Dependent Probe of the Higgs Self-Coupling
hep-ph 2013-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

At next-to-leading order the electron-positron to Higgs-plus-Z cross section shifts by about 1.4 percent per unit fractional change in the Higgs self-coupling at 240 GeV, yielding a model-dependent indirect constraint...
Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC
hep-ph 2013-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Threshold resummation at NNLL raises the NLO Higgs-pair cross section by 20 to 30 percent and cuts scale uncertainty to 8 percent, while the invariant-mass shape stays strongly sensitive to the Higgs self-coupling.
Enhanced di-Higgs Production through Light Colored Scalars
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Light colored scalars with a negative Higgs-portal coupling can enhance LHC di-Higgs production by up to roughly 10^3 times the Standard Model rate, with the largest effects for scalar masses near 125-200 GeV.
Deep Learning to Improve the Sensitivity of Higgs Pair Searches in the $4b$ Channel at the LHC
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An attention-based full-event classifier constrains the Higgs self-coupling to (-0.53, 6.01) at 68% CL in the HH to 4b channel, a projected improvement over cut-based analyses.
Triple Higgs Boson Production with Two Heavy Scalars at the LHC via a Simplified Approach
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Double-resonant triple Higgs boson production at the LHC can be described by a single rescaling factor rho2, and projected 95% CL limits on rho2 over the (m2,m3) plane make the analysis applicable to any two-narrow-sc...
Resonant Di-Higgs Production at Gravitational Wave Benchmarks: A Collider Study using Machine Learning
hep-ph 2018-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For two xSM benchmark points, a boosted-decision-tree analysis of the b-bbar + photon-photon channel claims 6.1 sigma (BM5) and 3.2 sigma (BM7) sensitivity at 3 ab^-1, alongside LISA signal-to-noise ratios above 10.
Higgs Pair Production at Future Hadron Colliders: From Kinematics to Dynamics
hep-ph 2018-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Realistic simulations of Higgs pair production in the b bbar gamma gamma channel project that a 27 TeV LHC upgrade can measure the Higgs self-coupling to 15% and a 100 TeV collider to 5% at 68% confidence.
Revisiting the non-resonant Higgs pair production at the HL-LHC
hep-ph 2017-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining eleven di-Higgs final states at the HL-LHC gives about 2.1 sigma significance with zero systematics, and new physics with cross sections of order 100 fb can contaminate the measurement.
Maxi-sizing the trilinear Higgs self-coupling: how large could it be?
hep-ph 2017-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In weakly coupled extensions of the Standard Model, the trilinear Higgs self-coupling cannot deviate from its Standard Model value by more than a factor of a few once perturbativity and current measurements are imposed.
Resonant Di-Higgs Production in the $b{\bar b}WW$ Channel: Probing the Electroweak Phase Transition at the LHC
hep-ph 2017-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A likelihood-based mass estimator lets the b-quark b-quark W W final state probe resonant di-Higgs production up to about 700 GeV at the high-luminosity LHC, with projected exclusion already at 300 inverse femtobarns.
Double Higgs production at the 14 TeV LHC and the 100 TeV pp-collider
hep-ph 2016-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Higgs pair production stays s-wave dominated even at 100 TeV, so one fitted cut-efficiency function reproduces detector-cut event rates and yields closed-form 2-sigma exclusion and 5-sigma discovery contours for Higgs...
Constraints on the trilinear Higgs coupling from vector boson fusion and associated Higgs production at the LHC
hep-ph 2016-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

One-loop corrections from a modified Higgs triple coupling to Vh and VBF production, combined with NNLO QCD, yield high-luminosity LHC constraints on the coupling competitive with double-Higgs searches.
Boosting Higgs pair production in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state with multivariate techniques
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Including misidentified light and charm jets and a realistic pileup environment, the four-bottom final state yields S/sqrt(B) of about 3 at 3 ab^-1, enough for evidence of Higgs pair production at the HL-LHC.
Probing the Electroweak Phase Transition at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding higher-dimension operators to the Higgs potential, a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition forces the triple Higgs coupling to be enhanced by a factor between 2/3 and 3, and the paper proposes invar...
Probing triple-Higgs productions via $4b2\gamma$ decay channel at a 100 TeV hadron collider
hep-ph 2015-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Observing Standard Model triple-Higgs production in the 4b2γ channel at a 100 TeV collider would require about 1.8×10^4 ab^-1, far beyond any planned machine, though a light singlet scalar could boost the rate tenfold.
Triple Higgs boson production at a 100 TeV proton-proton collider
hep-ph 2015-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

At a 100 TeV collider, triple Higgs production in the (bb)(bb)(gamma gamma) channel yields about 10 signal events against comparable backgrounds at 30 ab^-1, enough to exclude order-one deviations in the Higgs self-co...
Resolving the Degeneracy in Single Higgs Production with Higgs Pair Production
hep-ph 2015-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Higgs pair production can exclude the fake-no-new-physics band of single-Higgs couplings at 95% CL with roughly 235 inverse femtobarns at the 14 TeV LHC, using a new fitted cut-efficiency function.
Higgs boson pair production: top quark mass effects at NLO and NNLO
hep-ph 2015-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Finite top quark mass effects change the NNLO gluon-fusion Higgs pair production cross section by at most about 5%, so the infinite-top-mass approximation is adequate at that level.
$hhjj$ production at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Di-Higgs plus two jets at the HL-LHC gives roughly 1.7 sigma (gluon fusion selection) and 0.8 sigma (weak boson fusion selection) significance at 3 ab^-1, enough to add to a combination and to bound the quartic Higgs-...
Probing New Physics of Cubic Higgs Interaction via Higgs Pair Production at Hadron Colliders
hep-ph 2015-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

At a 100 TeV proton collider, the Higgs pair channel decaying to b-bbar plus two photons can pin the standard cubic Higgs coupling to about 13% (4.2%) and a new derivative cubic coupling to about 5% (1.6%) with 3 (30)...
Higgs boson pair production in the D=6 extension of the SM
hep-ph 2014-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Projected high-luminosity LHC data on gluon-fusion Higgs pair production into b-bbar tau-tau would constrain the dimension-6 Higgs self-coupling modifier c6 to roughly |c6| < 0.6 at 1 sigma, given projected single-Hig...
Higgs pair production via gluon fusion in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model
hep-ph 2014-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

NLO-plus-parton-shower predictions for all seven Two-Higgs-Doublet-Model Higgs pair final states show K-factors of 1.5 to 1.7, roughly halved scale uncertainties, and resonant heavy-Higgs enhancements of the light pai...
Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: New Physics Working Group Report
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Twenty contributed studies from the 2013 Les Houches New Physics working group cover Higgs coupling fits, vector-like quark and composite Higgs benchmarks, SUSY constraints, flavour observables and dark matter, includ...
Standard Model Higgs boson pair production in the $(b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$ final state
hep-ph 2014-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Applying boosted jet substructure to the four-bottom-quark di-Higgs final state, the authors project a 95% confidence bound of roughly 1.2 times the Standard Model trilinear Higgs self-coupling at 3000 inverse femtobarns.
Probing the Higgs Portal at the LHC Through Resonant di-Higgs Production
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For a singlet-extended Higgs sector with a 270 or 370 GeV heavy state, a simulation of pp -> h2 -> h1h1 -> b bbar tau+ tau- suggests 5-sigma sensitivity with roughly 50 to 100 inverse femtobarns at 14 TeV, using stati...
Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC
hep-ph 2013-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Summed over the SM-like and a lighter NMSSM Higgs boson, gluon-fusion Higgs pair production at the 14 TeV LHC is never below the Standard Model rate and can reach roughly 2.5 times it, with larger enhancements in bb+g...
Higgs Boson self-coupling measurements using ratios of cross sections
hep-ph 2013-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The double-to-single Higgs production cross section ratio cancels most QCD uncertainty and, under stated experimental assumptions, can constrain the Higgs trilinear coupling to be positive at 600 fb^-1 and to about +3...
Unravelling an extended quark sector through multiple Higgs production?
hep-ph 2012-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

In a vector singlet top partner and in a mirror fermion model, precision electroweak data plus the observed single-Higgs rate force gluon-fusion double-Higgs production and H to gamma gamma to stay within roughly 10 t...
Higgs Couplings and Precision Electroweak Data
hep-ph 2012-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Vector-like quarks mixing with the bottom quark can simultaneously resolve the A_FB^b and R_b anomalies and lift the Higgs diphoton signal strength to roughly 1.6 times the Standard Model value.
Anomalous Couplings in Double Higgs Production
hep-ph 2012-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Gluon-fusion double Higgs production at the 14 TeV LHC can probe the non-linear ttbarhh coupling with 300 fb^-1, reaching composite-Higgs parameter space, while the Higgs trilinear coupling remains poorly constrained.
Four Generations and Higgs Physics
hep-ph 2007-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A sequential fourth generation, tuned to sit inside the electroweak precision ellipse, keeps Higgs masses up to about 315 GeV viable and enhances gluon-fusion Higgs production roughly ninefold.
Search for two Higgs bosons in final states containing two photons and two bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2016-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess of Higgs boson pairs in the two-photon plus two-bottom-quark final state is observed in 8 TeV CMS data, and 95% confidence limits exclude a radion below 980 GeV and an RS1 KK graviton between 325 and 450 GeV.
Searches for Higgs boson pair production in the $hh\to bb\tau\tau, \gamma\gamma WW*, \gamma\gamma bb, bbbb$ channels with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-09 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining four ATLAS di-Higgs search channels in 8 TeV data yields a 95% CL upper limit of 0.69 pb on nonresonant hh production (70 times the Standard Model) and resonant limits from 2.1 pb at 260 GeV to 0.011 pb at 1000 GeV.
Exploring the Higgs Sector of a Most Natural NMSSM and its Prediction on Higgs Pair Production at the LHC
hep-ph 2014-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In lambda-SUSY the SM-like Higgs triple self-coupling can exceed the Standard Model value by more than a factor of 10, and Higgs pair production at the LHC can be up to two orders of magnitude larger.
Herwig++ 2.7 Release Note
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The release adds an automatic interface for new-physics models, NLO matching improvements, and a retune that fits underlying-event data and the double-parton cross-section normalisation at the same time.
Interpretation of precision tests in the Higgs sector in terms of physics beyond the Standard Model
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The 2012 CMS Higgs coupling measurements cannot be explained by a single tree-level mediator of the relevant dimension-six operators; at least several new fields with tuned couplings would be needed.
Revisiting Theories with Enhanced Higgs Couplings to Weak Gauge Bosons
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In the Georgi-Machacek model and its higher-representation generalizations, fixing the 125 GeV Higgs couplings to gauge bosons and fermions fixes the couplings of its neutral partner, which falls into three searchable...
Double Neutral Higgs production in the Two-Higgs doublet model at the LHC
hep-ph 2009-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In the general CP-conserving two-Higgs doublet model, gluon-fusion production of two CP-even Higgs bosons can reach roughly 100 times the Standard Model rate in the parameter region allowed by unitarity, vacuum stabil...
Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models
hep-ph 2011-05 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The review organizes the theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, including flavour-safe variants, charged-scalar searches, vacuum stability, and minimal spontaneous CP-violation constructions.

How later papers used it

69 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 65 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 7 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 8 of the 98 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 1 of 2 papers with this label

Quoted the number of events needed for 3 (5)σ evidence at 300 (3000) fb^-1 based on this paper's background estimate with the requirement of one b-tagged jet.

Higgs Low-Energy Theorem (and its corrections) in Composite Models (2012) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

67 arXiv papers cite this in 96 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 47 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

Finally, we include Higgs pair production $pp →HH →bb̅γγ$ including kinematic information in terms of $m_HH$, as pioneered in Ref. [ref] , now accounting for two different jet multiplicities [ref] .

The Global Higgs Picture at 27 TeV · Higgs-gauge analysis · 0.96

Uses its data or values 2 papers

The expected number of events for the studies we consider below were taken from [ref] .

Higgs Boson self-coupling measurements using ratios of cross sections · Assumptions for experimental uncertainties · 1.00
Reference [ref] found that assuming a luminosity $L=600 fb^-1$, 6 signal events could be obtained after all cuts, with a background of 11 events.

Higgs Low-Energy Theorem (and its corrections) in Composite Models · Numerical analysis · 0.98

Compares with it 4 papers

It is evident that the ratio provides a comparable exclusion region, especially considering the fact that Ref. [ref] considers relatively optimistic background subtraction.

Higgs Boson self-coupling measurements using ratios of cross sections · Deriving constraints · 1.00
On the other hand, the results from current theoretical studies show a significance range from 2$σ$ to 6$σ$ [ref] .

Probing the Electroweak Phase Transition at the LHC · Double Higgs production in the $bb̅γγ$ channel · 0.87
The bounds derived in this Section should be compared with those one hopes to achieve at the LHC, a luminosity upgraded LHC (SLHC) and a Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC) [ref] [Ref. [ref] quotes 95% CL limits.

Measuring the Higgs Boson Self-coupling at High Energy e^+e^- Colliders · Sensitivity limits for $Δλ_HHH$ · 0.95

Cites it as support 2 papers

Hence, even though there is optimism that Higgs boson pair production will provide important information and constraints through LHC measurements [ref] , any direct measurement of SM-like triple Higgs boson production will be essentially impossible at the LHC, even at the end of the high-luminosity phase (HL-LHC) [ref] .

Triple Higgs boson production at a 100 TeV proton-proton collider · Multi-Higgs boson production at hadron colliders · 0.96
In our analysis we have chosen the two Higgs final state $hh→b b̅ γγ$ due to its high potential of reconstruction at the HL-LHC [ref] .

Probing light Yukawa couplings in Higgs pair production · Phenomenological analysis · 0.99

Cites it as background 33 papers

In Refs. [ref] , constraints were placed on $λ$ using statistical fits to the shape of the visible mass distributions of the final decay products of the Higgs pairs, whereas Refs. [ref] focused on the establishment of the Higgs pair production process using improved techniques originating mainly from developments in the understanding of boosted jet substructure [ref] .

Higgs Boson self-coupling measurements using ratios of cross sections · Introduction · 0.81
Within the SM, di-Higgs production is non-resonant, and search strategies have been proposed in $bb̅ γγ$ [ref] , $b b̅ W^+ W^-$ [ref] , $b b̅ τ^+ τ^-$ [ref] and $bb̅ bb̅$ [ref] final states, all found to be very challenging due to the smallness of the non-resonant di-Higgs cross section [ref] .

Resonant Di-Higgs Production in the $b{\bar b}WW$ Channel: Probing the Electroweak Phase Transition at the LHC · Motivation · 0.89
Feasibility studies in the case of a SM-like Higgs boson in the gluon-fusion channel at the LHC have been performed for different final states, including $bb̅γγ$ [ref] , $bb̅τ^+τ^-$ [ref] , $bb̅W^+W^-$ [ref] and $bb̅bb̅$ [ref] .

Boosting Higgs pair production in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state with multivariate techniques · Introduction · 0.87

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [22]

U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D 68, 033001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[2] [36]

S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 58, 115012 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[3] [1]

D. Abbaneo et al. [LEPEWWG], arXiv:hep-ex/0212036; G. Quast, talk given at the HEP2003 Europhysics Conference, Aachen, Germany, July 17 – 23 , 2003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[4] [2]

M. Dittmar and H. K. Dreiner, Phys. Rev. D 55, 167 (1997); D. Rainwater and D. Zep- penfeld, Phys. Rev. D 60, 113004 (1999) [Erratum-ibid. D 61, 099901 (2000)]; N. Kauer, T. Plehn, D. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B 503, 113 (2001); N. Akchurin et al. , CMS-NOTE-2002/066; B. Mellado, ATL-CONF-2002-004

View on Pith 1997

[5] [3]

S. Asai et al. , ATL-PHYS-2003-005; G. Azuelos and R. Mazini, ATL-PHYS-2003- 004; M D¨ uhrssen, ATL-PHYS-2003-010

View on Pith 2003

[6] [4]

ATLAS TDR, report CERN/LHCC/99-15 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[7] [5]

CMS TP, report CERN/LHCC/94-38 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[8] [6]

D. Rainwater, D. Zeppenfeld and K. Hagiwara, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014037 (1999); T. Plehn, D. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B 454, 297 (1999) and Phys. Rev. D 61, 093005 (2000)

View on Pith 1999

[9] [7]

D. Zeppenfeld, R. Kinnunen, A. Nikitenko and E. Richter-Was, Ph ys. Rev. D 62, 013009 (2000); M. Hohlfeld, ATL-PHYS-2001-004

View on Pith 2000

[10] [8]

D. Rainwater, Phys. Lett. B 503, 320 (2001); V. Drollinger, T. M¨ uller and D. Denegri, arXiv:hep-ph/0201249

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[11] [9]

V. Drollinger, T. M¨ uller and D. Denegri, arXiv:hep-ph/0111312; V . Kostioukhine, J. Leveque, A. Rozanov, and J.B. de Vivie, ATL-PHYS-2002-019; D . Green et al. , FERMILAB-FN-705 (August 2001); F. Maltoni, D. Rainwater and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 66, 034022 (2002); A. Belyaev and L. Reina, JHEP 0208, 041 (2002); A. Belyaev, F. Maltoni and L. Reina, ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[12] [10]

O. J. ´Eboli and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B 495, 147 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[13] [11]

T. Plehn and D. Rainwater, Phys. Lett. B 520, 108 (2001); T. Han and B. McElrath, Phys. Lett. B 528, 81 (2002)

View on Pith 2001

[14] [12]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al. [ECF A/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ph/0106315 and references therein; T. Abe et al. [American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration], in Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) ed. R. Davidson and C. Quigg, arXiv:hep- ex/0106056 and references therein

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[15] [13]

B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 883 (1977) and Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977)

View on Pith 1977

[16] [14]

D. A. Dicus, C. Kao and S. S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B 203, 457 (1988); E. W. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B 309, 282 (1988); E. W. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, CERN-TH-5022-88, in Proceedings of the “23rd Rencontres de Moriond: Current Issues in Hadron Physics, Les Arcs, France, Mar 13-19, 1988 ; G. Cynolter, E. Lendvai and G. Pocsik, hep...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1988

[17] [15]

F. Boudjema and E. Chopin, Z. Phys. C 73, 85 (1996); V. A. Ilyin et al. , Phys. Rev. D 54, 6717 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[18] [16]

A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 27 (1999); D. J. Miller and S. Moretti, Eur. Phys. J. C 13, 459 (2000)

View on Pith 1999

[19] [17]

M. Battaglia, E. Boos and W. M. Yao, in Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study 21 on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) ed. R. Davidson and C. Quigg, arXiv:hep-ph/0111276

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[20] [18]

C. Castanier, P. Gay, P. Lutz and J. Orloﬀ, arXiv:hep-ex/0101 028

View on Pith

[21] [19]

F. Gianotti et al. , arXiv:hep-ph/0204087

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[22] [20]

U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 151801 (2002) and Phys. Rev. D 67, 033003 (2003)

View on Pith 2002

[23] [21]

A. Blondel, A. Clark and F. Mazzucato, ATL-PHYS-2002-029 (N ovember 2002)

View on Pith 2002

[24] [23]

G. Ambrosio et al. , Fermilab-TM-2149 (June 2001)

View on Pith 2001

[25] [24]

S. Kanemura et al. , Phys. Lett. B 558, 157 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[26] [25]

W. Hollik and S. Penaranda, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 163 (2002); A. Dobado, M. J. Herrero, W. Hollik and S. Penaranda, Phys. Rev. D 66, 095016 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[27] [26]

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. 136B, 183 (1984); H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. 151B, 57 (1985)

View on Pith 1984

[28] [27]

C. Csaki et al., Phys. Rev. D 68, 035009 (2003); T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 67, 095004 (2003); C. Dib, R. Rosenfeld and A. Zerwekh, arXiv:hep-ph/0302068

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[29] [28]

V. Barger et al. Phys. Rev. D 67, 115001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[30] [29]

T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 46 (1996) [Erratum-ibid. B 531, 655 (1998)]; A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 45 (1999)

View on Pith 1996

[31] [30]

A. Dobrovolskaya and V. Novikov, Z. Phys. C 52, 427 (1991); D. A. Dicus, K. J. Kallian- pur and S. S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B 200, 187 (1988); A. Abbasabadi, W. W. Repko, D. A. Dicus and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. B 213, 386 (1988); W. Y. Keung, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 2, 765 (1987)

View on Pith 1991

[32] [31]

V. D. Barger, T. Han and R. J. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2766 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[33] [32]

K. Long, arXiv:hep-ex/0212008, to appear in the Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on High Energy Physics , Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24 – 31 July 2002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[34] [33]

H. L. Lai et al. [CTEQ Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 375 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[35] [34]

A. Nikitenko, private communication

View on Pith

[36] [35]

T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Comp. Phys. Comm. 81, 357 (1994); F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, JHEP 0302, 027 (2003)

View on Pith 1994

[37] [37]

R. Hawkings, ATLAS note SN-ATLAS-2003-026

View on Pith 2003

[38] [38]

Ph. Schwemling, ATLAS note SN-ATLAS-2003-034

View on Pith 2003

[39] [39]

S. Abdullin et al. , hep-ph/9805341

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[40] [40]

V. Del Duca et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 616, 367 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[41] [41]

V. D. Barger, K. M. Cheung, T. Han and R. J. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3052 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[42] [42]

F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 56, 3811 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[43] [43]

F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 1936; F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1941 (1995); S. Abachi et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3634 (1997); S. Abachi et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1028 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[44] [44]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114012 (2000); J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and D. Rainwater, arXiv:hep-ph/0308195. 22

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[45] [45]

G. Degrassi et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 133 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[46] [46]

E. Boos, A. Djouadi and A. Nikitenko, arXiv:hep-ph/0307079

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[47] [47]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124, 76 (2000) and arXiv:hep-ph/0002213

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[48] [48]

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108, 56 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[49] [49]

G. Abbiendi et al. [The LEP Collaborations], Phys. Lett. B 565, 61 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[50] [50]

R. Lafaye, D. J. Miller, M. M¨ uhlleitner and S. Moretti, arXiv:hep- ph/0002238 and Ref. [9] therein. 23

View on Pith