Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Large One-Loop Effects of BSM Triple Higgs Couplings on Double Higgs Production at $e^+e^-$ Colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-loop corrections to triple Higgs couplings in the 2HDM can make the Higgs self-coupling up to six times its Standard Model value and boost e+e- → Zhh cross sections by a factor of about six, even in the alignment limit.

desk verdict In the 2HDM, one-loop corrections to triple Higgs couplings can boost e+e−→Zhh by factors of ~5 and make the H resonance visible at the ILC; the paper is solid but the THC-substitution approximation is not checked against a full one-loop calculation, a limitation explicitly acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02947 v1 pith:I5KV3ZFQ submitted 2025-05-05 hep-ph

F. Arco , S. Heinemeyer , M. Mühlleitner This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords tripleHiggscouplingstwo-Higgs-doubletmodeldi-Higgsproductione+e-collidersone-loopcorrectionseffectivepotentialILCself-coupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

In the two-Higgs-doublet model, the paper argues, one-loop corrections can change the triple Higgs self-coupling $\lambda_{hhh}$ by up to a factor of about six relative to the Standard Model value, even when the light Higgs boson is exactly SM-like (the alignment limit). Inserting these loop-corrected couplings into the $e^+e^- \to Zhh$ cross section enhances the predicted di-Higgs production rate by factors of about 5.9 at 500 GeV and 4.8 at 1 TeV for their benchmark BPal. The same corrections can make the heavy-Higgs resonance in the $m_{hh}$ distribution visible at the ILC, with projected significances above 10 for several benchmarks even with 10% smearing of the invariant mass and under a no-background assumption. The paper establishes that the effective-potential approximation for the loop-corrected couplings is sufficient, since a full diagrammatic calculation changes the prediction by only 1–5%. This matters because the Higgs self-coupling is the least constrained part of the Standard Model and a potential window into new physics that otherwise hides in loop corrections.

What carries the argument

The working machinery is the one-loop corrected triple Higgs coupling, $\lambda_{hhh}$ and $\lambda_{hhH}$, in the 2HDM. The one-loop corrections are obtained as third derivatives of the Coleman-Weinberg effective potential (implemented in the code BSMPT) and cross-checked with the diagrammatic code anyH3, which includes finite-momentum dependence. These corrected couplings are then substituted into the tree-level analytic formulas for $e^+e^-\to Zhh$ (from Refs. [31,32]), replacing the tree-level vertices. The chain works because heavy scalar loops with large quartic couplings—enabled by large mass splittings between the heavy Higgs bosons—can generate large positive corrections to the self-coupling, even where the tree-level coupling is exactly the SM value.

What would settle it

A complete one-loop computation of $e^+e^-\to Zhh$ in the 2HDM, including all non-THC diagrams, that yields total cross sections differing from the THC-insertion approximation by more than about 5–10% for the benchmark points considered would falsify the claim that the one-loop THCs are the leading corrections. Experimentally, an ILC measurement of the $Zhh$ cross section at 500 GeV that does not show a large enhancement for a parameter point predicting $\kappa_\lambda^{(1)}\approx 5.75$ would equally call the central claim into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that BSM effects in the Higgs potential can be large even when the observable Higgs looks completely SM-like. In the 2HDM, the one-loop corrected triple Higgs couplings $\lambda_{hhh}$ and $\lambda_{hhH}$, computed from the effective potential and confirmed diagrammatically, can exceed their tree-level values by factors of several: $\kappa_\lambda^{(1)}$ up to about 6 in all Yukawa types, and $\lambda_{hhH}$ up to about $\pm 2$. Inserting these into the analytic tree-level cross section for $e^+e^-\to Zhh$, the paper finds the total cross section enhanced by a factor of 5.9 at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and 4.8 at 1 TeV for the alignment benchmark BPal ($\kappa_\lambda^{(1)}=5.75$). It also finds that for benchmark points where the one-loop $\lambda_{hhH}$ is enhanced, the $H$-resonance peak in the $m_{hh}$ distribution can be statistically significant at the ILC—$Z>10$ for BP1, BP2 and BPext even with 10% Gaussian mass smearing, assuming no background. The paper concludes that future $e^+e^-$ colliders could access these loop-induced couplings, and that a $\sim$10% measurement of $\kappa_\lambda$ would be achievable.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that replacing the tree-level triple-Higgs vertices in the $e^+e^-\to Zhh$ amplitude with the one-loop corrected couplings captures the dominant one-loop electroweak corrections; other one-loop contributions such as box diagrams, one-loop $ZZH$ couplings, and wave-function corrections are assumed to be subleading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Di-Higgs production at $e^+e^-$ colliders can be enhanced by up to a factor of about six in the 2HDM, even in the exact alignment limit where all other Higgs couplings are SM-like.
  • An observable $H$-resonance peak in the $m_{hh}$ distribution at the ILC would give direct access to the coupling $\lambda_{hhH}$, with projected significances above 10 for several benchmarks under the assumed no-background scenario.
  • Because the effective-potential and diagrammatic computations agree to within 1–5%, the simpler effective-potential evaluation of one-loop THCs is adequate for future phenomenological studies of this process.
  • A measurement of $\kappa_\lambda$ at $e^+e^-$ colliders with ~10% accuracy would be sensitive to the loop-enhanced values found in the 2HDM, making di-Higgs production a strong probe of BSM scalar sectors.
  • Detector resolution on $m_{hh}$ (smearing) is the main experimental limit on $\lambda_{hhH}$ access; a high-resolution detector is necessary to see narrow resonance peaks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same loop-correction mechanism—large scalar quartic couplings feeding the self-coupling—likely operates in other extended scalar sectors, so a tree-level SM-like Higgs self-coupling does not imply a SM-like loop-corrected one.
  • Editorial inference: if these corrections are real, they should also enter other observables such as single-Higgs production via loop-induced $hZZ$/$h\gamma\gamma$ couplings, meaning consistency checks across Higgs precision measurements could confirm or exclude the large corrections.
  • A testable extension, not in the paper: recompute the significances including realistic SM backgrounds (e.g., $ZZZ$, $ZZh$) and a full detector simulation; based on the 17% event retention in Ref. [40], the discovery reach for $\lambda_{hhH}$ is likely weaker than the quoted $Z$ values but may still be significant for the strongest benchmarks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the impact of one-loop corrected triple Higgs couplings (THCs) on e+e- -> Zhh double Higgs production in the 2HDM. The authors compute the one-loop couplings lambda_hhh and lambda_hhH with the effective-potential code BSMPT and, for lambda_hhh, also with the diagrammatic code anyH3/anyBSM. They scan the 2HDM parameter space with ScannerS, HiggsTools and HDECAY, and find that the one-loop corrected kappa_lambda can reach about 5.8 even in the alignment limit. Inserting the loop-corrected THCs into the tree-level Zhh cross section formulas of Refs. [31,32], they find large enhancements (up to a factor 5.9 at 500 GeV for the benchmark BPal) and study the H-resonance peak in the m_hh distribution. Using a profile-likelihood significance with Gaussian smearing and binning, they report significances above 10 for several benchmark points, and conclude that future e+e- colliders may give access to lambda_hhH.

Significance. If the central approximation is valid, the paper makes a strong phenomenological point: one-loop THCs can dramatically modify double Higgs production in a parameter region (the alignment limit) where all tree-level Higgs couplings are SM-like, so di-Higgs production would be a unique probe. The paper has genuine strengths: the parameter scan is based on public constraint tools, the benchmark points are explicitly specified, the one-loop THCs are cross-checked between two independent public codes, and the finite-momentum dependence of lambda_hhh is quantified in Fig. 3. These features make the analysis largely reproducible. The main caveat, discussed below, is that the cross-section computation is not a complete one-loop calculation, and the size of the omitted contributions is not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1] The central approximation - replacing the tree-level THCs by one-loop THCs in the tree-level Zhh amplitude - is not validated against a complete one-loop computation. The text states that this 'includes the full subset of the one-loop purely scalar corrections' and that other one-loop contributions are 'expected to be subleading', but this is an expectation, not a demonstrated result. Refs. [105,106] show that in the SM the full electroweak corrections to e+e- -> Zhh are O(10%) even when the -9% correction to kappa_lambda is included, so box diagrams, wave-function corrections, and gauge-boson vertex corrections are not automatically negligible. The danger is most acute for the H-resonance benchmarks BP1, BP2, BP3, BPsign and BPext, whose tree-level HZZ coupling is only c_beta-alpha ~ 0.1-0.18 (Table 4): an ordinary one-loop correction to the HZZ vertex can shift the resonant amplitude by tens of percent and directly change the significances in Table 6. The paragraph at the end of Sec. 4.1 flags this issue, but does not quantify it. I request either a full one-loop calculation of e+e- -> Zhh in the 2HDM, or a concrete estimate showing that the omitted one-loop contributions are subleading in the parameter regions of the benchmark points.
  2. [Section 5.1.2 and Table 4] The finite-momentum comparison between the effective-potential and diagrammatic computations is performed only for lambda_hhh at the benchmark BPal (Fig. 3). For the H-peak analysis, the coupling that matters most is lambda_hhH, which is taken entirely from the effective-potential calculation and is not cross-checked against any diagrammatic result. Since the resonant H -> hh amplitude is evaluated at timelike momentum m_hh = m_H, and since lambda_hhH receives sizable loop corrections in the benchmarks of Table 4, the paper should either provide an analogous momentum-dependent check for lambda_hhH or justify why the zero-momentum effective-potential value is adequate in the resonance region. Without this check, the H-peak significances in Table 6 rest on an unvalidated ingredient.
  3. [Section 5.2.1 and Table 6] The reported significances for the H resonance are computed under a no-background assumption: the quantity b_i in Eq. (30) is the continuum prediction from the same parameter point with lambda_hhH set to zero, not the Standard Model or SM-like backgrounds such as ZZZ, ZZh, or top-quark final states. The text is honest about this in Sec. 5.2.1 and Sec. 6, and App. C partially addresses it by rescaling the event number by 17%, but the abstract and the main conclusion present the Z > 10 numbers without the no-background caveat. I ask that the paper either provide, for at least one benchmark, an estimate with a plausible background shape and normalization, or state explicitly in the abstract and conclusions that the quoted significances are discovery significances only under a background-free assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'The 2HDM Higgs couplings to the SM particles are modified w.r.t. to the corresponding SM Higgs couplings. The modification factors for the h,H,A couplings to the massive massive gauge bosons...'.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption reads 'T able 1' instead of 'Table 1'.
  3. [Section 3.1] In the flavor-observables bullet point, '2DHM' should be '2HDM'.
  4. [Section 5.1.2] The sentence 'This implies that the the finite-momentum effects are very small' contains a duplicated 'the'.
  5. [Section 5.2.2] In the discussion of BP1, 'the resonance peak becomes less prominent and broader' is fine, but the phrase 'resonace peak' appears in the text and should be corrected.
  6. [Figure 12 caption] The caption contains 'for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in Fig. 4' but has a typo 'f or' in the first line.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the one-loop THCs are independent model predictions inserted into standard Zhh amplitudes, and the reported enhancements are not refits of the target observables.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: 2HDM parameters -> one-loop THCs via BSMPT (effective potential) and anyH3 (diagrammatic); constraints via ScannerS/HiggsTools/HDECAY; then insertion of THCs into standard tree-level e+e- -> Zhh amplitudes. I checked each link for equivalence-by-construction. The one-loop couplings are not fitted to sigma(e+e- -> Zhh); they are computed from the model potential and cross-checked between two independent codes. The Zhh cross-section formula (Refs. [31,32]) is a standard tree-level input, not a target prediction of this paper, and no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the 5.9/4.8 enhancement factors or the H-peak significances. The benchmark selections are explicit: BPs are chosen such that |lambda_hhH^(1)|>|lambda_hhH^(0)|, so statements that one-loop corrections make the H peak more prominent are demonstrations for valid model points, not hidden fits. The main weakness is not circularity but completeness: Sec. 4.1 assumes rather than derives that insertion of one-loop THCs captures the dominant one-loop EW corrections, and the one-loop HZZ coupling is not included; this is an unquantified approximation (correctness risk), not a circular reduction. Several references are authored by the paper's authors (e.g., Ref. [31,32] for the tree-level amplitudes, Ref. [35] for the earlier tree-level 2HDM study), but these citations supply standard or prior framework results rather than the one-loop predictions themselves, and the central numbers are produced by public codes (BSMPT, anyH3, ScannerS, HiggsTools, HDECAY). I therefore find no step where a prediction reduces by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No observable is fitted to produce the central claim; the 2HDM inputs are scanned within the stated ranges and constrained by public tools. The load-bearing assumptions are the dominance of THC-type one-loop corrections and the neglect of backgrounds in the sensitivity estimates. No new particles beyond the 2HDM spectrum are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • 2HDM physical-basis inputs (mH, mA, mH+, tan(beta), c(beta-alpha), mbar^2) = Scan ranges in Eq. (19); benchmark values in Table 4
    These model parameters determine the size of the one-loop THCs. They are not fitted to the Zhh observable, but the benchmark choices are hand-picked to illustrate large corrections, and the relevant region is mH approximately mbar much less than mA approximately mH+.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 2HDM with CP conservation and a Z2 symmetry is the correct low-energy description of BSM Higgs physics.
    The entire study is conditional on this model framework; no derivation of the 2HDM from more fundamental physics is attempted.
  • domain assumption The public codes BSMPT and anyH3/anyBSM correctly implement the stated renormalization schemes for one-loop THCs.
    The paper trusts these codes and cross-checks lambda_hhh between them, but the results are not independently machine-checked.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing tree-level THCs by one-loop THCs in the tree-level Zhh cross section captures the dominant one-loop electroweak corrections.
    Stated in Sec. 4.1 as an expectation rather than a complete one-loop derivation. This is the main load-bearing assumption for the numerical cross-section predictions.
  • domain assumption SM backgrounds and systematic uncertainties can be neglected in the statistical significance estimates.
    Explicitly assumed in Sec. 5.2.2 and labeled optimistic, but the headline H-peak significances depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian smearing, b-tagging efficiency, and preselection cuts approximate a realistic ILC detector response.
    The acceptance and smearing model is based on ILC studies but uses parton-level events without hadronization or full detector simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large One-Loop Effects of BSM Triple Higgs Couplings on Double Higgs Production at $e^+e^-$ Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I5KV3ZFQ

@misc{pith2026250502947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large One-Loop Effects of BSM Triple Higgs Couplings on Double Higgs Production at $e^+e^-$ Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I5KV3ZFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02947}
}
abstract

The measurement of the Higgs boson self-coupling is crucial for our understanding of the nature of electroweak symmetry breaking and potential physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM). In this work, we study in the framework of the 2-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) the impact of one-loop corrections to triple Higgs couplings (THCs) on the pair production of two Standard Model (SM)-like Higgs bosons $h$ at future high-energy $e^+ e^-$ colliders, focusing on the $e^+ e^- \to Zhh$ process. By including the one-loop corrections to the THCs relevant for this process, i.e. the coupling between three SM-like Higgs bosons, $\lambda_{hhh}$, and between the non-SM-like Higgs $H$, assumed to be heavier, and two SM-like Higgs bosons, $\lambda_{hhH}$, we account for the leading one-loop corrections to the di-Higgs production cross section. We show that the one-loop corrected THC $\lambda_{hhh}$ can be enhanced up to nearly six times its SM value, which substantially enhances the di-Higgs production cross section w.r.t. the tree-level prediction, even in the alignment limit. On the other hand, one-loop corrections to $\lambda_{hhH}$ can also enhance its value, potentially yielding to more prominent heavy Higgs $H$ resonant production. We explore the sensitivity to the loop-corrected $\lambda_{hhh}$ and the possible access to $\lambda_{hhH}$ via the $H$ resonant peak at a future high-energy $e^+e^-$ collider, such as the ILC. We highlight the fact that including the one-loop corrected THCs can enhance the sensitivity to the $H$ resonant peak, and therefore to $\lambda_{hhH}$. Finally, we discuss the required experimental precision at future $e^+e^-$ colliders necessary to achieve these sensitivities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman diagrams contributing to the e +e − → Zhh cross section in the 2HDM. The blob represents the one-loop corrected triple Higgs couplings κ (1) λ and λ (1) hhH for the h and H-mediated diagrams, respectively. couplings in the 2HDM can be much larger than the EW gauge coupling g. Other one-loop corrections to the cross section with potentially large scalar couplings are expected to be subleading in comparison, s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Differential distribution w.r.t. mhh for BPal at √ s = 500 GeV (left) and √ s = 1 TeV (right) for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The blue lines include the one-loop values of κ (1) λ from the effective potential, the dashed red lines include the full diagrammatic prediction for κ (1) λ , the yellow lines show the 2HDM tree-level prediction and the dotted black lines show the SM tree-level prediction. prediction at √ s =… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real (upper) and imaginary (lower) part of the fully diagrammatic one-loop prediction κ (1) λ for BPal as a function of the invariant mass of the final two Higgs bosons. The gray dashed line shows the respective prediction from the effective potential. The disagreement between the two computations of κ (1) λ shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differential distribution w.r.t. mhh for BP1 at √ s = 500 GeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BP2 at √ s = 500 GeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BP3 at √ s = 500 GeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BPsign at √ s = 500 GeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30% The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BPext at √ s = 500 GeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BP1 at √ s = 1 TeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BP2 at √ s = 1 TeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BP3 at √ s = 1 TeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BPsign at √ s = 1 TeV f or Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Differential distribution as a function of mhh for BPext at √ s = 1 TeV for Pe− = −80% and Pe+ = +30%. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Complementarity of gravitational wave analyses and di-Higgs production in the exploration of the Electroweak Phase Transition dynamics in the RxSM

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the real singlet extension of the SM, strong first-order electroweak phase transitions split into singlet-driven transitions (loud in gravitational waves, quiet at colliders) and doublet-driven transitions (visible...

  2. Investigating a strong first-order electroweak phase transition in the RxSM at future linear $e^+e^-$ colliders and LISA

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    In the RxSM, singlet-driven SFOEWPTs yield strong LISA GW signals with SM-like Higgs couplings, while doublet-driven ones yield large κ_λ deviations visible at ILC1000 but weak GWs.

  3. Experimental Determination of BSM Triple Higgs Couplings at the HL-LHC with Neural Networks

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural network trained on simulated m_hh distributions can extract the 2HDM coupling product xi_H^t x lambda_hhH at 10-20% precision in a hypothetical HL-LHC scenario with m_H = 450 GeV.

  4. Loop-corrected Trilinear Higgs Self-Couplings in the NMSSM with Inverse Seesaw Mechanism

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Loop corrections from inverse-seesaw neutrinos and sneutrinos can change the SM-like Higgs self-coupling by up to 10.5% and the SM-like Higgs mass by up to 4.5% in the NMSSM with inverse seesaw.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    G. Aad et al. , “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 716, pp. 1–29,

  2. [2]

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

    S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 716, pp. 30–61, 2012. arXiv: 1207.7235 [hep-ex]. 43 Point Smearing Bin (1) −+ Bin(1) +− Z(1) diff Z(1) Bin(0) +− Bin(0) −+ Z(0) diff Z(0) BP1 0% 15.1 18.6 14.8 7.8 26.6 39.9 2.2 0.5 2% 15.1 18.6 9.2 7.0 26.6 39.9 0.9 0.4 5% 14.0...

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery,

    G. Aad et al. , “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery,” Nature, vol. 607, no. 7917, pp. 52–59, 2022, [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]. arXiv: 2207.00092 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.,

    A. Tumasyan et al. , “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.,” Nature, vol. 607, no. 7917, pp. 60–68, 2022, [Erratum: Nature 623, (2023)]. arXiv: 2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,

    G. Aad et al. , “Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 133, no. 10, p. 101 801, 2024. arXiv: 2406.09971 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from the com- bination of single and double Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV,

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. , “Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from the com- bination of single and double Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 861, p. 139 210, 2025. arXiv: 2407.13554 [hep-ex] . 44 Point Smearing Bin (1) −+ Bin(1) +− Z(1) diff Z(1) Bin(0) +− Bin(0) −+ Z(0) diff Z(0) BP1 0% 29.5 40.0 ...

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,

    T. D. Lee, “A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 8, G. Feinberg, Ed., pp. 1226–1239, 1973

    1973

  8. [8]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide . 2000, vol. 80

    2000

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Models of Yukawa interaction in the two Higgs doublet model, and their collider phenomenology,

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, K. Tsumura, and K. Yagyu, “Models of Yukawa interaction in the two Higgs doublet model, and their collider phenomenology,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 80, p. 015 017, 2009. arXiv: 0902.4665 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,

    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. , vol. 516, pp. 1–102, 2012. arXiv: 1106.0034 [hep-ph] . 45

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models: mh=125 GeV,

    J. Bernon, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml, “Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models: mh=125 GeV,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 92, no. 7, p. 075 004, 2015. arXiv: 1507.00933 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Exploring sizable triple Higgs couplings in the 2HDM,

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, and M. J. Herrero, “Exploring sizable triple Higgs couplings in the 2HDM,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 80, no. 9, p. 884, 2020. arXiv: 2005.10576 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Benchmarking di-Higgs production in various extended Higgs sector models,

    H. Abouabid et al. , “Benchmarking di-Higgs production in various extended Higgs sector models,” JHEP, vol. 09, p. 011, 2022. arXiv: 2112.12515 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Triple Higgs couplings in the 2HDM: the complete picture,

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, and M. J. Herrero, “Triple Higgs couplings in the 2HDM: the complete picture,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 82, no. 6, p. 536, 2022. arXiv: 2203.12684 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    New physics effect on the Higgs selfcoupling,

    S. Kanemura, S. Kiyoura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha, and C. P. Yuan, “New physics effect on the Higgs selfcoupling,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 558, pp. 157–164, 2003. arXiv: hep-ph/0211308

    2003 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Higgs coupling constants as a probe of new physics,

    S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha, and C. .-. Yuan, “Higgs coupling constants as a probe of new physics,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 70, p. 115 002, 2004. arXiv: hep-ph/0408364

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    anyH3: precise predictions for the trilinear Higgs coupling in the Standard Model and beyond,

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann, and G. Weiglein, “anyH3: precise predictions for the trilinear Higgs coupling in the Standard Model and beyond,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 83, no. 12, p. 1156, 2023. arXiv: 2305.03015 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    On two-loop corrections to the Higgs trilinear coupling in models with extended scalar sectors,

    J. Braathen and S. Kanemura, “On two-loop corrections to the Higgs trilinear coupling in models with extended scalar sectors,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 796, pp. 38–46, 2019. arXiv: 1903.05417 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Leading two-loop corrections to the Higgs boson self-couplings in models with extended scalar sectors,

    J. Braathen and S. Kanemura, “Leading two-loop corrections to the Higgs boson self-couplings in models with extended scalar sectors,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 80, no. 3, p. 227, 2020. arXiv: 1911.11507 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    New Constraints on Extended Higgs Sectors from the Trilinear Higgs Coupling,

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, and G. Weiglein, “New Constraints on Extended Higgs Sectors from the Trilinear Higgs Coupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 129, no. 23, p. 231 802, 2022. arXiv: 2202.03453 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Radiative corrections to the Higgs boson couplings in the triplet model,

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, and K. Yagyu, “Radiative corrections to the Higgs boson couplings in the triplet model,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 87, no. 1, p. 015 012, 2013. arXiv: 1211.6029 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Radiative corrections to the Triple Higgs Coupling in the Inert Higgs Doublet Model,

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, J. El Falaki, and A. Jueid, “Radiative corrections to the Triple Higgs Coupling in the Inert Higgs Doublet Model,” JHEP, vol. 12, p. 007, 2015. arXiv: 1507.03630 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    One-loop corrections to the Higgs self- couplings in the singlet extension,

    S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi, and K. Yagyu, “One-loop corrections to the Higgs self- couplings in the singlet extension,” Nucl. Phys. B , vol. 917, pp. 154–177, 2017. arXiv: 1608.01582 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    One-loop renormalized Higgs boson vertices in the Georgi-Machacek model,

    C.-W. Chiang, A.-L. Kuo, and K. Yagyu, “One-loop renormalized Higgs boson vertices in the Georgi-Machacek model,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 98, no. 1, p. 013 008, 2018. arXiv: 1804.02633 [hep-ph] . 46

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The CP-Violating 2HDM in Light of a Strong First Order Electroweak Phase Transition and Implications for Higgs Pair Production,

    P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and J. Wittbrodt, “The CP-Violating 2HDM in Light of a Strong First Order Electroweak Phase Transition and Implications for Higgs Pair Production,” JHEP, vol. 03, p. 061, 2018. arXiv: 1711.04097 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The trap in the early Universe: impact on the interplay between gravitational waves and LHC physics in the 2HDM,

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J. M. No, M. O. Olea-Romacho, and G. Weiglein, “The trap in the early Universe: impact on the interplay between gravitational waves and LHC physics in the 2HDM,” JCAP, vol. 03, p. 031, 2023. arXiv: 2208.14466 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,

    J. de Blas et al. , “Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,” JHEP, vol. 01, p. 139, 2020. arXiv: 1905.03764 [hep-ph]

    2020

  20. [28]

    Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives,

    J. Alison et al. , “Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives,” Rev. Phys., vol. 5, B. Di Micco, M. Gouzevitch, J. Mazzitelli, and C. Vernieri, Eds., p. 100 045, 2020. arXiv: 1910.00012 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Probing the H3 vertex in e+ e-, gamma e and gamma gamma collisions for light and intermediate Higgs bosons,

    V. A. Ilyin, A. E. Pukhov, Y. Kurihara, Y. Shimizu, and T. Kaneko, “Probing the H3 vertex in e+ e-, gamma e and gamma gamma collisions for light and intermediate Higgs bosons,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 54, pp. 6717–6727, 1996. arXiv: hep-ph/9506326

    1996 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Measuring the trilinear couplings of MSSM neutral Higgs bosons at high-energy e+ e- colliders,

    P. Osland and P. N. Pandita, “Measuring the trilinear couplings of MSSM neutral Higgs bosons at high-energy e+ e- colliders,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 59, p. 055 013, 1999. arXiv: hep-ph/9806351

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Testing Higgs selfcouplings at e+ e- linear colliders,

    A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and P. M. Zerwas, “Testing Higgs selfcouplings at e+ e- linear colliders,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 10, pp. 27–43, 1999. arXiv: hep - ph/9903229

    1999

  24. [32]

    Higgs particles in the standard model and supersymmetric theories,

    M. M. M¨ uhlleitner, “Higgs particles in the standard model and supersymmetric theories,” Ph.D. dissertation, Hamburg U., 2000. arXiv: hep-ph/0008127

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Physics at the e+ e- Linear Collider,

    A. Arbey et al., “Physics at the e+ e- Linear Collider,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 75, no. 8, G. Moortgat-Pick et al. , Eds., p. 371, 2015. arXiv: 1504.01726 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Re- port,

    T. K. Charles et al. , “The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Re- port,” vol. 2/2018, P. N. Burrows et al. , Eds., Dec. 2018. arXiv: 1812 . 06018 [physics.acc-ph]

    2018

  27. [35]

    Sensitivity to triple Higgs couplings via di-Higgs production in the 2HDM at e+e− colliders,

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, and M. J. Herrero, “Sensitivity to triple Higgs couplings via di-Higgs production in the 2HDM at e+e− colliders,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 81, no. 10, p. 913, 2021. arXiv: 2106.11105 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The International Linear Collider: A Global Project,

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

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C3: A ”Cool

    M. Bai et al. , “C3: A ”Cool” Route to the Higgs Boson and Beyond,” in Snowmass 2021, Oct. 2021. arXiv: 2110.15800 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The Linear Collider Facility (LCF) at CERN,

    C. Balazs et al. , “The Linear Collider Facility (LCF) at CERN,” Mar. 2025. arXiv: 2503.24049 [hep-ex]

    2025

  31. [39]

    A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics,

    C. Balazs et al. , “A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics,” Mar

  32. [40]

    Measuring the Higgs Self-coupling at the International Linear Collider,

    C. F. D¨ urig, “Measuring the Higgs Self-coupling at the International Linear Collider,” Ph.D. dissertation, Hamburg U., Hamburg, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://bib- pubdb1.desy.de/record/310520

    2016

  33. [41]

    Higgs physics at the CLIC electron–positron linear collider,

    H. Abramowicz et al. , “Higgs physics at the CLIC electron–positron linear collider,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 77, no. 7, p. 475, 2017. arXiv: 1608.07538 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Double Higgs boson production and Higgs self-coupling extraction at CLIC,

    P. Roloff, U. Schnoor, R. Simoniello, and B. Xu, “Double Higgs boson production and Higgs self-coupling extraction at CLIC,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 80, no. 11, p. 1010,

  35. [43]

    Higgs self-coupling measurement at the International Linear Collider,

    J. M. Torndal and J. List, “Higgs self-coupling measurement at the International Linear Collider,” in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders , Jul. 2023. arXiv: 2307.16515 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Higgs self-coupling measurement at future e+e− colliders,

    J. M. Torndal, J. List, D. Ntounis, and C. Vernieri, “Higgs self-coupling measurement at future e+e− colliders,” PoS, vol. EPS-HEP2023, p. 406, 2024. arXiv: 2311.16774 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Highlights of the HL-LHC physics projections by ATLAS and CMS,

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Highlights of the HL-LHC physics projections by ATLAS and CMS,” Apr. 2025. arXiv: 2504.00672 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,

    A. Abada et al. , “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,” Eur. Phys. J. ST , vol. 228, no. 2, pp. 261–623, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,

    M. Dong et al. , “CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,” J. B. Guimar˜ aes da Costaet al. , Eds., Nov. 2018. arXiv: 1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator,

    W. Abdallah et al. , “CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator,” Radiat. De- tect. Technol. Methods , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–1105, 2024. arXiv: 2312 . 14363 [physics.acc-ph]

    2024

  41. [49]

    ILC Operating Scenarios,

    T. Barklow et al., “ILC Operating Scenarios,” Jun. 2015. arXiv: 1506.07830 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Probing triple Higgs couplings of the Two Higgs Doublet Model at Linear Collider,

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, and C. -W. Chiang, “Probing triple Higgs couplings of the Two Higgs Doublet Model at Linear Collider,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 77, p. 115 013, 2008. arXiv: 0802.0319 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Neutral Higgs-pair production at Linear Colliders within the general 2HDM: Quantum effects and triple Higgs boson self-interactions,

    D. Lopez-Val and J. Sola, “Neutral Higgs-pair production at Linear Colliders within the general 2HDM: Quantum effects and triple Higgs boson self-interactions,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 81, p. 033 003, 2010. arXiv: 0908.2898 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Higgs boson pair production in new physics models at hadron, lepton, and photon colliders,

    E. Asakawa, D. Harada, S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, and K. Tsumura, “Higgs boson pair production in new physics models at hadron, lepton, and photon colliders,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 82, p. 115 002, 2010. arXiv: 1009.4670 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Double Higgs boson production at e+e− colliders in the two-Higgs-doublet model,

    T. Kon, T. Nagura, T. Ueda, and K. Yagyu, “Double Higgs boson production at e+e− colliders in the two-Higgs-doublet model,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 99, no. 9, p. 095 027,

  46. [54]

    Measuring the triple Higgs self-couplings in two Higgs doublet model,

    N. Sonmez, “Measuring the triple Higgs self-couplings in two Higgs doublet model,” JHEP, vol. 10, p. 083, 2018. arXiv: 1806.08963 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Probing Triple Higgs Self-Coupling and Effect of Beam Polarization in Lepton Colliders,

    I. Ahmed, U. Nawaz, T. Khurshid, and S. F. Qazi, “Probing Triple Higgs Self-Coupling and Effect of Beam Polarization in Lepton Colliders,”Adv. High Energy Phys., vol. 2022, p. 9 735 729, 2022. arXiv: 2110.03920 [hep-ph] . 48

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 7, pp. 1888–1910, 1973

    1910

  49. [57]

    Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking,

    E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard U., 1973. arXiv: hep-th/0507214

    1973 arXiv

  50. [58]

    BSMPT (Beyond the Standard Model Phase Transi- tions): A tool for the electroweak phase transition in extended Higgs sectors,

    P. Basler and M. M¨ uhlleitner, “BSMPT (Beyond the Standard Model Phase Transi- tions): A tool for the electroweak phase transition in extended Higgs sectors,” Comput. Phys. Commun. , vol. 237, pp. 62–85, 2019. arXiv: 1803.02846 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    BSMPT v2 a tool for the electroweak phase transition and the baryon asymmetry of the universe in extended Higgs Sectors,

    P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and J. M¨ uller, “BSMPT v2 a tool for the electroweak phase transition and the baryon asymmetry of the universe in extended Higgs Sectors,” Comput. Phys. Commun. , vol. 269, p. 108 124, 2021. arXiv: 2007.01725 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    BSMPT v3 A Tool for Phase Transitions and Primordial Gravitational Waves in Extended Higgs Sectors,

    P. Basler, L. Biermann, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. M¨ uller, R. Santos, and J. Viana, “BSMPT v3 A Tool for Phase Transitions and Primordial Gravitational Waves in Extended Higgs Sectors,” Apr. 2024. arXiv: 2404.19037 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Higgs pair produc- tion in the 2HDM: impact of loop corrections to the trilinear Higgs couplings and interference effects on experimental limits,

    S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner, K. Radchenko, and G. Weiglein, “Higgs pair produc- tion in the 2HDM: impact of loop corrections to the trilinear Higgs couplings and interference effects on experimental limits,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 85, no. 4, p. 437,

  54. [62]

    Higgs Pair Production and Triple Higgs Couplings at the LHC in the 2HDM framework,

    S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner, K. Radchenko, and G. Weiglein, “Higgs Pair Production and Triple Higgs Couplings at the LHC in the 2HDM framework,” PoS, vol. EPS- HEP2023, p. 411, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood- based tests of new physics,

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood- based tests of new physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 71, p. 1554, 2011, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]. arXiv: 1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents,

    S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, “Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 15, p. 1958, 1977

    1958

  57. [65]

    Diagonal Neutral Currents,

    E. A. Paschos, “Diagonal Neutral Currents,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 15, p. 1966, 1977

    1966

  58. [66]

    arXiv: 2403.14776 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    R. L. Workman et al. , “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP, vol. 2022, p. 083C01, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Searching for Triple Higgs Couplings: a phenomenological analysis in the Two Higgs Doublet Model,

    F. Arco, “Searching for Triple Higgs Couplings: a phenomenological analysis in the Two Higgs Doublet Model,” Ph.D. dissertation, Madrid, Autonoma U., 2023. [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10486/712636

    2023

  61. [69]

    ScannerS: Constraining the phase diagram of a complex scalar singlet at the LHC,

    R. Coimbra, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, “ScannerS: Constraining the phase diagram of a complex scalar singlet at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 73, p. 2428,

  62. [70]

    ScannerS: parameter scans in extended scalar sectors,

    M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos, and J. Wittbrodt, “ScannerS: parameter scans in extended scalar sectors,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 82, no. 3, p. 198, 2022. arXiv: 2007.02985 [hep-ph] . 49

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit,

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, “The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 67, p. 075 019, 2003. arXiv: hep-ph/0207010

    2003 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Note on tree level unitarity in the general two Higgs doublet model,

    A. G. Akeroyd, A. Arhrib, and E. -M. Naimi, “Note on tree level unitarity in the general two Higgs doublet model,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 490, pp. 119–124, 2000. arXiv: hep-ph/0006035

    2000 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Tree-level unitarity constraints in the most general 2HDM,

    I. F. Ginzburg and I. P. Ivanov, “Tree-level unitarity constraints in the most general 2HDM,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 72, p. 115 010, 2005. arXiv: hep-ph/0508020

    2005 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets,

    N. G. Deshpande and E. Ma, “Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 18, p. 2574, 1978

    1978

  67. [75]

    Metastability bounds on the two Higgs doublet model,

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov, and R. Santos, “Metastability bounds on the two Higgs doublet model,” JHEP, vol. 06, p. 045, 2013. arXiv: 1303.5098 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, “HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,” Comput. Phys. Commun. , vol. 181, pp. 138–167, 2010. arXiv: 0811.4169 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Quantum Effects in a Two Higgs Doublet Model of the Electroweak Interactions,

    S. Bertolini, “Quantum Effects in a Two Higgs Doublet Model of the Electroweak Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B , vol. 272, pp. 77–98, 1986

    1986

  70. [78]

    HiggsBounds− 4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC,

    P. Bechtle et al., “HiggsBounds− 4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 74, no. 3, p. 2693, 2014. arXiv: 1311.0055 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Applying Exclusion Likelihoods from LHC Searches to Extended Higgs Sectors,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, “Applying Exclusion Likelihoods from LHC Searches to Extended Higgs Sectors,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 75, no. 9, p. 421, 2015. arXiv: 1507.06706 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era,

    P. Bechtle et al. , “HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 80, no. 12, p. 1211, 2020. arXiv: 2006.06007 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of Hig- gsBounds and HiggsSignals,

    H. Bahl et al. , “HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of Hig- gsBounds and HiggsSignals,” Comput. Phys. Commun. , vol. 291, p. 108 803, 2023. arXiv: 2210.09332 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    HiggsSignals : Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, “HiggsSignals : Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 74, no. 2, p. 2711, 2014. arXiv: 1305.1933 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, “HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,” Comput. Phys. Commun. , vol. 182, pp. 2605– 2631, 2011. arXiv: 1102.1898 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  76. [84]

    HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, “HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 81, no. 2, p. 145, 2021. arXiv: 2012.09197 [hep-ph] . 50

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension,

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira, “HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension,” Comput. Phys. Commun., vol. 108, pp. 56–74, 1998. arXiv: hep-ph/9704448

    1998 arXiv

  78. [86]

    HDECAY: Twenty++ years after,

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and M. Spira, “HDECAY: Twenty++ years after,” Comput. Phys. Commun. , vol. 238, pp. 214–231, 2019. arXiv: 1801.09506 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models,

    J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, T. Peiffer, and J. Stelzer, “Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 78, no. 8, p. 675, 2018. arXiv: 1803.01853 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    ¯B→Xsγ in the Two Higgs Doublet Model up to Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD,

    T. Hermann, M. Misiak, and M. Steinhauser, “ ¯B→Xsγ in the Two Higgs Doublet Model up to Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD,” JHEP, vol. 11, p. 036, 2012. arXiv: 1208.2788 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Probing the Standard Model with Higgs signal rates from the Tevatron, the LHC and a future ILC,

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, “Probing the Standard Model with Higgs signal rates from the Tevatron, the LHC and a future ILC,” JHEP, vol. 11, p. 039, 2014. arXiv: 1403.1582 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Weak radiative decays of the B meson and bounds on MH ± in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model,

    M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, “Weak radiative decays of the B meson and bounds on MH ± in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 77, no. 3, p. 201,

  83. [91]

    Towards B→ Xsγ at the NNLO in QCD without interpolation in mc,

    M. Misiak, A. Rehman, and M. Steinhauser, “Towards B→ Xsγ at the NNLO in QCD without interpolation in mc,” JHEP, vol. 06, p. 175, 2020. arXiv: 2002.01548 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    TikZ-Feynman: Feynman diagrams with TikZ,

    J. Ellis, “TikZ-Feynman: Feynman diagrams with TikZ,” Comput. Phys. Commun. , vol. 210, pp. 103–123, 2017. arXiv: 1601.05437 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A global view on the Higgs self-coupling at lepton colliders,

    S. Di Vita et al. , “A global view on the Higgs self-coupling at lepton colliders,” JHEP, vol. 02, p. 178, 2018. arXiv: 1711.03978 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  86. [94]

    The Role of polarized positrons and electrons in revealing fundamental interactions at the linear collider,

    G. Moortgat-Pick et al. , “The Role of polarized positrons and electrons in revealing fundamental interactions at the linear collider,” Phys. Rept., vol. 460, pp. 131–243,

  87. [95]

    Updated NNLO QCD predictions for the weak radiative B-meson decays,

    M. Misiak et al. , “Updated NNLO QCD predictions for the weak radiative B-meson decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 114, no. 22, p. 221 801, 2015. arXiv: 1503 . 01789 [hep-ph]

    2015

  88. [96]

    Particle Flow Calorimetry and the PandoraPFA Algorithm,

    M. A. Thomson, “Particle Flow Calorimetry and the PandoraPFA Algorithm,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A , vol. 611, pp. 25–40, 2009. arXiv: 0907.3577 [physics.ins-det]

    2009 arXiv

  89. [97]

    New clustering algorithm for multi - jet cross-sections in e+ e- annihilation,

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, “New clustering algorithm for multi - jet cross-sections in e+ e- annihilation,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 269, pp. 432–438, 1991

    1991

  90. [98]

    Model Independent Determination ofHWW coupling and Higgs total width at ILC,

    C. D¨ urig, K. Fujii, J. List, and J. Tian, “Model Independent Determination ofHWW coupling and Higgs total width at ILC,” in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders, Mar. 2014. arXiv: 1403.7734 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Study of Higgs Self-coupling at ILC,

    J. Tian, K. Fujii, and Y. Gao, “Study of Higgs Self-coupling at ILC,” Aug. 2010. arXiv: 1008.0921 [hep-ex] . 51

    2010 arXiv

  92. [100]

    A Study of top-quark Yukawa coupling measurement in e+e−− > t¯tH at sqrt(s) = 500 GeV,

    R. Yonamine, K. Ikematsu, S. Uozumi, and K. Fujii, “A Study of top-quark Yukawa coupling measurement in e+e−− > t¯tH at sqrt(s) = 500 GeV,” Aug. 2010. arXiv: 1008.1110 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  93. [101]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    J. Alwall et al. , “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP, vol. 07, p. 079, 2014. arXiv: 1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  94. [102]

    ILC capabilities for the measurement of double Higgs production at 500 GeV,

    J. Munch Torndal, “ILC capabilities for the measurement of double Higgs production at 500 GeV,” in IDT-WG3-Phys Open Meeting , 2023. [Online]. Available: https:// agenda.linearcollider.org/event/9881/contributions/51612/attachments/ 38615/60758/HHatILC500.pdf

    2023

  95. [103]

    Study of Higgs self-coupling at the ILC based on the full detector simulation at√ s = 500 GeV and√ s = 1 TeV,

    J. Tian, “Study of Higgs self-coupling at the ILC based on the full detector simulation at√ s = 500 GeV and√ s = 1 TeV,” in 3rd Linear Collider Forum , Hamburg: DESY, 2013, pp. 224–247

    2013

  96. [104]

    Neutrino Correction in ZHH events,

    J. Munch Torndal, “Neutrino Correction in ZHH events,” in ILD Analysis/Software Meeting, 2024. [Online]. Available: https : / / agenda . linearcollider . org / event / 10545 / contributions / 55901 / attachments / 40107 / 63560 / ILDmeeting _ NuCorrection.pdf

    2024

  97. [105]

    Full 0(alpha) electroweak corrections to double Higgs strahlung at the linear collider,

    G. Belanger et al. , “Full 0(alpha) electroweak corrections to double Higgs strahlung at the linear collider,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 576, pp. 152–164, 2003. arXiv: hep-ph/0309010

    2003 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Full O(alpha(ew)) electroweak corrections to e+ e- —> H H Z,

    R.-Y. Zhang, W. -G. Ma, H. Chen, Y. -B. Sun, and H. -S. Hou, “Full O(alpha(ew)) electroweak corrections to e+ e- —> H H Z,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 578, pp. 349–358,

  99. [107]

    Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,

    M. Cepeda et al. , “Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,” CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. , vol. 7, A. Dainese, M. Mangano, A. B. Meyer, A. Nisati, G. Salam, and M. A. Vesterinen, Eds., pp. 221–584, 2019. arXiv: 1902.00134 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Higgs Self-coupling Strategy at Linear e+e- Colliders,

    J. List, B. Bliewert, D. Ntounis, J. Tian, C. Vernieri, and J. M. Torndal, “Higgs Self-coupling Strategy at Linear e+e- Colliders,” PoS, vol. ICHEP2024, p. 079, 2025. arXiv: 2411.01507 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Sensitivity to triple Higgs couplings via di-Higgs production in the 2HDM at the (HL-)LHC,

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and K. Radchenko, “Sensitivity to triple Higgs couplings via di-Higgs production in the 2HDM at the (HL-)LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 83, no. 11, p. 1019, 2023. arXiv: 2212.11242 [hep-ph] . 52

    2023 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Towards an update of the ILD ZHH analysis,

    B. Bliewert, C. Vernieri, D. Ntounis, J. List, J. M. Torndal, and J. Tian, “Towards an update of the ILD ZHH analysis,” EPJ Web Conf. , vol. 315, p. 01 010, 2024. arXiv: 2410.15323 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  103. [2004]

    arXiv: hep-ph/0308203

    arXiv

  104. [2008]

    arXiv: hep-ph/0507011

    arXiv

  105. [2012]

    arXiv: 1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  106. [2013]

    arXiv: 1301.2599 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  107. [2017]

    arXiv: 1702.04571 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  108. [2019]

    arXiv: 1812.09843 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  109. [2020]

    arXiv: 1901.05897 [hep-ex]

    1901 arXiv

  110. [2025]

    arXiv: 2503.19983 [hep-ex] . 47

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.