Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A hybrid quantum-classical classifier improves expected LHC sensitivity to non-resonant double-Higgs production by roughly a factor of two, reaching an expected 95% CL limit of 1.9 times the Standard Model cross-section.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 21:18 UTC pith:2ZXQNV6Y

load-bearing objection A genuinely interesting HyQML architecture, but the headline gains are overstated and the limits are in-sample because the same test set drives model selection, binning, and the final fit. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.15672 v1 pith:2ZXQNV6Y submitted 2025-11-19 hep-ex hep-ph

From Qubits to Couplings: A Hybrid Quantum Machine Learning Framework for LHC Physics

Marwan Ait Haddou , Mohamed Belfkir , Salah Eddine El Harrauss This is my paper
classification hep-ex hep-ph
keywords quantum machine learningHiggs pair productionhybrid quantum-classical modelparameterized quantum circuitsLHC physicsHH→bbγγ final stateHiggs self-couplingexpected limit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper proposes a hybrid quantum machine-learning (HyQML) framework for separating Higgs-pair signal from background in the HH→bbγγ final state at the LHC. It claims that a small parameterized quantum circuit, whose rotation angles are generated event-by-event by a classical neural network, outperforms both a conventional gradient-boosted classifier and a purely quantum circuit by roughly a factor of two in expected sensitivity. With 308 inverse femtobarns of simulated Run-2+3 data, the paper quotes an expected 95% CL upper limit of 1.9×σSM (10% background-normalization uncertainty) and 2.1×σSM (50%) on non-resonant double-Higgs production, and correspondingly tighter constraints on the Higgs self-coupling κλ and the quartic coupling κ2V. If correct, this would make hybrid quantum-classical models a practical route to improving rare-process searches at colliders on near-term hardware.

Core claim

The central claim is that the hybrid architecture—a meta-parameter mapping network that outputs data-dependent PQC rotation angles—learns a quantum feature space in which signal and background separate more cleanly than in the representations learned by a pure quantum circuit (λ=0) or by XGBoost. The paper demonstrates this through ROC/AUC comparisons (AUC 89.75% vs 69.35% pure-QML), through expected discovery significance (1.41 vs 0.65), and through a binned profile-likelihood fit that yields an expected 95% CL upper limit of 1.9×σSM. The authors attribute the gain to the hybrid model's ability to encode high-order correlations in an exponentially large quantum state space while retaining c

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a 4-qubit, 4-layer hardware-efficient parameterized quantum circuit whose per-event rotation angles are not fixed but generated by a 'MetaParamMapNet'—a fully connected neural network with three 64-unit hidden layers and a linear head per circuit parameter. Input features are amplitude-embedded into the quantum state; after entangling CNOT gates, expectation values of Pauli-Z measurements are fed to a linear classification layer. A meta-learning stage minimizes the condition number of the Fubini-Study metric of the PQC, which is intended to keep the quantum landscape trainable and avoid barren plateaus. The interpolation parameter λ controls how strongly the meta-network

Load-bearing premise

The quoted limits treat only the background normalization as uncertain (at 10% or 50%); all other experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are assumed negligible, so if those are added the expected limit would worsen.

What would settle it

Re-run the same binned likelihood fit including the usual experimental systematic uncertainties (photon identification, b-tagging, luminosity, PDF, scale) and check whether the expected 95% CL limit remains below about 2×σSM; if it rises substantially, the hybrid model's advantage is an artifact of the omitted systematics. Alternatively, train the hybrid architecture with the PQC replaced by an identity transformation while keeping the meta-network's conditioning; if AUC and limits are unchanged, the quantum component is not load-bearing.

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

If this is right

  • Under 10% background-normalization uncertainty, the expected 95% CL upper limit on non-resonant HH production is 1.9×σSM, improving on the 2.4×σSM quoted for the boosted-tree baseline and 3.3×σSM for the pure quantum circuit.
  • The expected discovery significance for SM HH production is 1.41 with the hybrid model, versus 1.09 for the boosted-tree baseline and 0.65 for the pure quantum model, under the same 10% uncertainty.
  • The profile-likelihood scan yields expected 95% CL intervals κλ ∈ [−0.4, 4.9] and κ2V ∈ [−0.6, 2.9], both tighter than the corresponding intervals obtained with the classical and pure-quantum classifiers.
  • Raising the background-normalization uncertainty from 10% to 50% degrades the expected limit only mildly, from 1.9 to 2.1×σSM, indicating the sensitivity gain is not driven by the assumed normalization constraint.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported advantage could partly stem from the Fubini-Study conditioning meta-learning rather than from quantum entanglement itself; replacing the PQC with a classical neural net of comparable capacity under the same meta-conditioning would isolate the quantum contribution.
  • If the gain survives a full treatment of systematic uncertainties—photon identification, b-tagging, luminosity, and theory-scale uncertainties—the method may push LHC di-Higgs searches toward the SM-rate sensitivity region, but that remains untested.
  • The same hybrid architecture, with its per-event parameter generation, may be applied to other low-yield, high-dimensional LHC signatures (e.g., HH→4b, ttH, or exotic resonances) where classifier saturation is a known bottleneck.
  • Since the quantum circuit is simulated exactly, the projection to noisy real hardware is not guaranteed; testing on NISQ devices with error mitigation would reveal whether the 'quantum' part of the advantage survives decoherence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical machine learning (HyQML) framework for the HH→bbγγ search at the LHC, combining a classical meta-network that generates parameterized quantum circuit (PQC) angles with a 4-qubit, 4-layer hardware-efficient ansatz, with amplitude embedding of kinematic features. Using Delphes-simulated events at √s=13.6 TeV and 308 fb⁻¹, the authors train a binary classifier and extract expected discovery significances, 95% CL upper limits on the di-Higgs cross-section, and one- and two-dimensional constraints on κλ and κ2V, under background normalization uncertainties of 10% and 50%. The headline claim is that the hybrid model outperforms both XGBoost and a purely quantum model by a factor of two, achieving an expected 95% CL upper limit of 1.9×σSM (10% systematics) and 2.1×σSM (50% systematics).

Significance. If the quantitative claims were correct, the paper would be a valuable demonstration that hybrid quantum-classical classifiers can improve LHC search sensitivity, with implications for future HH analyses. The architecture—a meta-network conditioning PQC parameters on event kinematics—is a plausible and interesting idea, and the use of a profile-likelihood framework with pyhf is appropriate. However, the manuscript as written contains several load-bearing problems: the abstract's 'factor of two' claim is contradicted by the paper's own Tables and Figures; the κ2V scan refers to an equation that does not contain κ2V; the test set is reused for model selection, binning, and final inference; and only background normalization uncertainties are included. If these issues were corrected, the central finding would be considerably weaker but still potentially publishable as a proof-of-principle study.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Table III; Fig. 7] The abstract claims the hybrid model 'outperforms both a state-of-the-art XGBoost model and a purely quantum implementation by a factor of two.' This is not supported by the results. Table III gives expected significances of 1.41 (HyQML, 10% sys.) vs 1.09 (XGBoost) — a factor of 1.29 — and vs 0.65 (pure-QML) — a factor of 2.17. Figure 7 gives 95% CL limits of 1.9 (HyQML) vs 2.4 (XGBoost) — a 21% improvement — and vs 3.3 (pure-QML) — a factor of 1.75. The text in Section VI and the conclusion correctly state a 1.75 factor vs pure-QML and 21% vs XGBoost. The abstract must be corrected, and the central claim should be scaled to the actual numbers.
  2. [Sec. V.A, V.D, VI] The 25% test sample is used for multiple adaptive purposes: (i) the hyperparameter λ is selected from ROC curves 'computed using event weights on the test dataset' (Fig. 4 caption, Sec. V.D); (ii) the 'optimized score regions' in Sec. VI are defined to maximize the Asimov significance without any statement that the binning was fixed before inspecting the test data; and (iii) the final pyhf likelihood fit and the quoted expected limits are computed on the same test events. This constitutes in-sample selection after adaptive optimization. The quoted expected significance of 1.41 and limits of 1.9/2.1×σSM are therefore optimistically biased and are not unbiased projections for new data. A nested validation loop or a separate, untouched evaluation set is required before these numbers can be taken at face value.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (2)] The one-dimensional κ2V scan is introduced by saying that κ2V 'parameterizes deviations in the quartic VVHH interaction entering the VBF Higgs pair production process (Equation 2).' However, Eq. (2) gives σVBF only as a function of κλ and contains no κ2V dependence. Figure 2(b) shows a κ2V variation, but no formula for the κ2V dependence is provided. Consequently, the likelihood scan in Fig. 8(b) and the two-dimensional contour in Fig. 9 are not reproducible from the information in the paper. The authors must supply the full cross-section parameterization used for the κ2V scan.
  4. [Sec. VI, statistical model] The statistical interpretation includes only background normalization uncertainties (10% and 50%) as log-normal nuisance parameters. All other experimental and theoretical systematics—photon identification, b-tagging efficiency, luminosity, PDF, QCD scale, and MC statistical uncertainties—are assumed negligible. The comparison in Section VI with the ATLAS expected limit, and the statement that the HyQML 'achieves a significant improvement' over ATLAS, is not a fair comparison unless the same systematic model is used. At minimum, the paper should frame this as an idealized projection and restrict comparisons to the authors' own XGBoost and pure-QML baselines; better, it should include the dominant systematic uncertainties or a sensitivity study.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section VII] The abstract's 'factor of two' wording should be made consistent with Section VII's more accurate statement ('almost factor-of-two improvement compared to the pure-QML model and a 21% improvement with respect to an XGBoost model').
  2. [Eq. (1), Eq. (2)] The cross-section parameterizations are cited from Refs. [12] and [19], but Eq. (2) lacks the κ2V dependence mentioned in the text. Please clarify the exact functional form used for VBF and cite the original source.
  3. [Sec. V.C] The meta-learning objective Lmeta = ⟨log κ(g_ij)⟩ is imported from the authors' own preprint [41]. For reproducibility, the Fubini–Study metric, its condition number, and how the average is estimated should be defined explicitly in the text.
  4. [Sec. VI] The 'optimized score regions' procedure is under-specified. The authors should state the number of bins, the threshold scan range, the binning granularity, and whether the same binning was used for all models (HyQML, pure-QML, XGBoost) to allow a fair comparison.
  5. [Table I] The γγ+jets cross-section of 48.1 pb is not referenced. Please clarify its provenance and whether it corresponds to the inclusive cross-section after the applied generator-level requirements.
  6. [References] References [30] and [34] lack full publication details (journal or arXiv number). Please complete them.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The quoted expected limits are in-sample estimates: the same 25% test split is used to choose λ, optimize the binning, and extract the final pyhf limit.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V.A, V.D, Figure 4 caption, and Section VI]
    "the remaining 25% are reserved exclusively for performance evaluation and statistical treatment. ... It is found that the lambda=0.1 provides a better discrimination power ... The ROC curve is computed using event weights on the test dataset. ... The optimized regions are required to maximize the expected statistical significance computed using the Asimov approximation ..."

    The 25% split is labeled as reserved for evaluation and statistical treatment, yet this same test dataset is used to select the hyperparameter lambda by ROC/AUC, to optimize the score-region binning by maximizing the Asimov significance, and then to perform the pyhf binned likelihood fit from which the expected 95% CL limits are quoted. Thus the events entering the final statistical interpretation are the same events used for adaptive model and bin selection. The resulting 'expected' limits and significances are in-sample statistics after selection on the evaluation data, not unbiased predictions on unseen data; the central improvement claim is therefore partly forced by the evaluation protocol.

full rationale

Most of the physics derivation is independent: the cross-section parameterizations are taken from external literature, the MC samples are generated with standard tools, and the kappa_lambda/kappa_2V scans are ordinary profile-likelihood exercises using those parameterizations. The hybrid model is genuinely trained on the 75% split, and the self-citations to the authors' prior work [12,41] provide heuristics and baselines rather than a formal derivation that reduces the result to its inputs. The significant circularity is localized to the statistical evaluation: the same 25% test split is used for hyperparameter choice, bin-boundary optimization, and final limit extraction, so the quoted 1.9/2.1 x sigma_SM expected limits and the factor-of-two improvement are optimistically biased in-sample estimates rather than independent expected sensitivities. This warrants a partial-circularity score of 6 rather than a higher score, because the model's feature-learning claim is not itself defined in terms of the final limit, and no external benchmarks are contradicted by the construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central limit depends on several hand-chosen values: λ=0.1 and the score-bin threshold are selected on the test set, circuit size is fixed ad hoc, the 10/50% normalization uncertainty is assumed, and an unspecified feature-truncation is used in amplitude embedding. No code is shipped to pin these down.

free parameters (5)
  • λ (HyQML meta-network contribution) = 0.1
    Selected as best test-set AUC among {0.0, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0} (Fig. 4); all quoted results use λ=0.1.
  • Signal-region bin threshold on HyQML score = 0.5
    Chosen to maximize Asimov significance on the test data; lower-score region merged into one inclusive bin (Section VI).
  • Number of qubits and layers = 4 qubits, 4 layers
    Chosen as a 'balance between expressiveness and practicality'; no scan or quantitative criterion is given (Section V.B).
  • Background normalization nuisance values = 10% and 50%
    Assumed total background normalization uncertainties; used as log-normal constraints in the likelihood (Section VI).
  • Amplitude-embedding feature truncation = unknown
    Input has ~26 features (Table II) but 4-qubit amplitude embedding has 2^4=16 amplitudes; the paper does not specify padding or reduction.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Delphes ATLAS card accurately emulates Run-3 ATLAS object reconstruction, photon ID, b-tagging, and trigger efficiencies.
    Section III uses Delphes with an ATLAS card 'tuned to reproduce the latest ATLAS performance calibrations', but no closure test against ATLAS public data is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Background normalization uncertainty (10%/50%) is the only systematic; all other uncertainties are negligible.
    Section VI: 'the constraint terms ... encode only the background normalization uncertainty of 10% and 50%'. The 1.9×σSM limit depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption κλ and κ2V scans can be performed with cross-section scaling only, ignoring kinematic shape variations.
    Section VI: 'The scan accounts only for the dependence of the total production cross-section on κλ ... without including potential kinematic shape variations.'
  • ad hoc to paper The ~26 kinematic features can be amplitude-embedded into 4 qubits (16 amplitudes) without losing discriminative information.
    Section V.B uses AmplitudeEmbedding(x) into 2^4=16 amplitudes, but Table II lists ~26 features; dimension reduction/padding is unspecified.
  • standard math Asymptotic profile-likelihood formulas are valid in low-statistics high-score bins.
    Section VI uses Z=√q0 and CLs from Cowan et al.; low MC statistics in high-score bins are acknowledged but asymptotic validity is not tested.
  • domain assumption The listed background processes are complete; fakes from W/Z+jets or multi-jet are negligible.
    Table I includes ggF/VBF/ZH/ttH single-Higgs and γγ+jets; no fake-photon background is simulated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15293 in / 13961 out tokens · 139803 ms · 2026-08-03T21:18:23.069860+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a new Hybrid Quantum Machine Learning (HyQML) framework to improve the sensitivity of double Higgs boson searches in the $HH \to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ final state at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV. The proposed model combines parameterized quantum circuits with a classical neural network meta-model, enabling event-level features to be embedded in a quantum feature space while maintaining the optimization stability of classical learning. The hybrid model outperforms both a state-of-the-art XGBoost model and a purely quantum implementation by a factor of two, achieving an expected 95% CL upper limit on the non-resonant double Higgs boson production cross-section of $1.9\times\sigma_{\text{SM}}$ and $2.1\times\sigma_{\text{SM}}$ under background normalization uncertainties of 10% and 50%, respectively. In addition, expected constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and quartic vector-boson-Higgs coupling $\kappa_{2V}$ are found to be improved compared to the classical and purely quantum models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.15672 by Marwan Ait Haddou, Mohamed Belfkir, Salah Eddine El Harrauss.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The leading-order Feynman diagrams for (a–b) gluon–gluon fusion and (c–e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Variation of (a) ggF and (b) VBF double Higgs boson cross-section as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: A schematic view of the hybrid quantum machine learning model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Weighted ROC curve for the HyQML classifier for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Two-dimensional projection of the PQC expectation values for the first and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Distribution of the HyQML score. The vertical dashed line indicates the optimized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Negative log-likelihood as a function of the trilinear Higgs self-coupling modifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Contours at 68% CL (dashed line) and 95% CL (solid line) in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Probing new physics in the Boosted $HH \to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ channel at the LHC

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    A dedicated boosted-jet category in HH→bbγγ is projected to narrow the κ2V constraint to [-0.4, 2.6] at 95% CL and improve heavy-resonance limits by 1–2x at 308 fb⁻¹.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

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

    2022

  6. [6]

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

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double- Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 843, 137745 (2023), arXiv:2211.01216 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    HEP ML Community, A Living Review of Machine Learning for Particle Physics, online

  11. [11]

    J. M. Duarte, Novel machine learning applications at the LHC, PoSICHEP2024, 012 (2025), arXiv:2409.20413 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Belfkir, M

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

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    W. Guan, G. Perdue, A. Pesah, M. Schuld, K. Terashi, S. Vallecorsa, and J.-R. Vlimant, Quantum Machine Learning in High Energy Physics, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.2, 011003 (2021), arXiv:2005.08582 [quant-ph]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Havlicek, A

    V. Havlicek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature567, 209 (2019), arXiv:1804.11326 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Schuld, A

    M. Schuld, A. Bocharov, K. M. Svore, and N. Wiebe, Circuit-centric quantum classifiers, Phys. Rev. A101, 032308 (2020), arXiv:1804.00633 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Aruteet al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019), arXiv:1910.11333 [quant-ph]

    F. Aruteet al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019), arXiv:1910.11333 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    S. L. Wuet al., Application of quantum machine learning using the quantum kernel al- gorithm on high energy physics analysis at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033221 (2021), arXiv:2104.05059 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Fadol, Q

    A. Fadol, Q. Sha, Y. Fang, Z. Li, S. Qian, Y. Xiao, Y. Zhang, and C. Zhou, Application of quantum machine learning in a Higgs physics study at the CEPC, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39, 2450007 (2024), arXiv:2209.12788 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Ellwanger, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Robens, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Grazzini, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calcula- tions in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06, 043, arXiv:1002.2581 27 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Alwall, R

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    de Favereau, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton-proton collision data, JINST14(12), P12006, arXiv:1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

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

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

    2022

  31. [31]

    Cacciari, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Cacciari, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  33. [33]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

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

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

    2022

  35. [35]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

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

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from theH→γγandH→ ZZ ∗ →4ℓchannels with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb −1 ofppcollision data, Phys. Rev. 28 D90, 052004 (2014), arXiv:1406.3827 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Ioffe and C

    S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy, Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reduc- ing internal covariate shift,https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03167(2015), arXiv:1502.03167 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research12, 2825 (2011)

    2011

  41. [41]

    Ait Haddou and M

    M. Ait Haddou and M. Bennai, Sculpting Quantum Landscapes: Fubini-Study Metric Con- ditioning for Geometry Aware Learning in Parameterized Quantum Circuits, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2506.21940 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Haug and M

    T. Haug and M. Kim, Natural parametrized quantum circuit, Physical Review A106, 052611 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Bergholmet al., Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical compu- tations, pre-print (2018), arXiv:1811.04968 [quant-ph]

    V. Bergholmet al., Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical compu- tations, pre-print (2018), arXiv:1811.04968 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. K¨ opf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library (2019), arXiv:1912.01703 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    A. F. Agarap, Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu), https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08375 (2019), arXiv:1803.08375 [cs.NE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Bataille, Quantum circuits of CNOT gates, arXiv (2020), arXiv:2009.13247 [quant-ph]

    M. Bataille, Quantum circuits of CNOT gates, arXiv (2020), arXiv:2009.13247 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Hospedales, A

    T. Hospedales, A. Antoniou, P. Micaelli, and A. Storkey, Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence44, 5149 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Rev. Phys.7, 174 (2025), arXiv:2405.00781 [quant-ph]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Ma´ ckiewicz and W

    A. Ma´ ckiewicz and W. Ratajczak, Principal components analysis (pca), Computers & Geo- sciences19, 303 (1993)

    1993

  50. [50]

    Cowan, K

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    A. L. Read, Presentation of search results: TheCL s technique, J. Phys. G28, 2693 (2002)

    2002

  52. [52]

    Feickert, L

    M. Feickert, L. Heinrich, and G. Stark, pyhf: a pure-Python statistical fitting library with tensors and automatic differentiation, PoSICHEP2022, 245 (2022), arXiv:2211.15838 [hep- ex]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022