Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Deep Learning to Improve the Sensitivity of Higgs Pair Searches in the $4b$ Channel at the LHC

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An event-level Transformer classifies full LHC events and constrains the Higgs self-coupling to $(-0.53, 6.01)$ at 68% CL in the 4b channel.

desk verdict Plausible ML application for HH→4b, but the quoted κλ interval is undermined by treating the dominant 2b2j misclassification rate from ~10^2 test events as exact. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04496 v1 pith:MAPQL6ZP submitted 2025-05-07 hep-ph

Yongcheng Wu , Liang Xiao , Yan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Higgsself-couplingtrilinearcouplingpairproductionHHto4bParticleTransformereventclassificationHL-LHCattentionmechanism
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

The paper sets out to show that a Transformer-based neural network trained directly on full collision events can markedly improve the LHC's sensitivity to the trilinear Higgs self-coupling in the dominant $HH\to b\bar b b\bar b$ channel. At the HL-LHC, the authors report that their Event Transformer (EvenT) constrains $\kappa_\lambda$ to $(-0.53, 6.01)$ at 68% CL, a precision about 40% better than the conventional cut-based analysis on the same simulated events. The 4b final state has the largest Higgs-pair branching fraction but is swamped by QCD backgrounds, so a sharper classifier here would strengthen the global self-coupling measurement. The model's key move is to treat each event as a single fat jet, feeding the full particle and jet information to an attention mechanism and skipping explicit jet pairing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Event Transformer (EvenT), a modified Particle Transformer that treats the entire event as one very fat jet. It takes particle-level features together with pairwise interaction variables, including $\Delta R_{ij}$, $k_{T,ij}$, $z_{ij}$, and $m^2_{ij}$, and uses particle multi-head attention to compute attention scores over all particle pairs, so the network learns which within-jet and between-jet correlations separate $HH$ from backgrounds. A weighted cross-entropy loss with a large weight on the dominant $2b2j$ process is what drives the background misclassification down sharply, and the classifier's probability output, scanned over thresholds, feeds the $\chi^2$ that produces the $\kappa_\lambda$ interval.

What would settle it

The claim would be settled by repeating the analysis with a full detector simulation of the same nine processes, or by applying EvenT to real Run-2 data in the $HH\to b\bar b b\bar b$ channel and comparing the resulting AUC and $\kappa_\lambda$ interval with the Delphes-based values. A concrete check: if the HH-versus-background AUC drops materially below the reported value around 0.9, or the 68% CL interval widens beyond the cut-based interval, the central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that full-event classification with an attention-based transformer outperforms both cut-based selection and earlier machine-learning approaches for $HH\to b\bar b b\bar b$, and that this translates directly into a tighter bound on the Higgs self-coupling. Training EvenT on nine event classes with a weighted cross-entropy loss that strongly penalizes misclassifying the abundant $b\bar b jj$ background suppresses that background's mistag rate by two orders of magnitude and yields per-class AUC values around 0.9. Combining the classifier output with the dependence of the Higgs-pair production cross section on $\kappa_\lambda$ gives $\kappa_\lambda \in (-0.53, 6.01)$ at 68% CL at 3000 fb$^{-1}$, which the authors state is more than a 40% improvement in precision over the cut-based analysis performed on the same data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the classification efficiencies and background misclassification rates measured with Delphes fast simulation on leading-order events, scaled by k-factors, match what a real LHC detector would deliver, and that systematic uncertainties are negligible in the $\chi^2$ used to derive the $\kappa_\lambda$ interval; if the simulation is more optimistic than reality, the quoted interval is too tight.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the quoted interval holds, the 4b channel alone would give a tighter $\kappa_\lambda$ constraint than the current combined experimental intervals quoted in the paper, and applying EvenT to the other Higgs-pair channels would sharpen the global measurement.
  • Because the same classifier stays sensitive across $\kappa_\lambda = -1, 1, 4, 6, 8$, one trained network can scan the whole coupling range instead of retraining per hypothesis.
  • The attention weights produced by the model indicate which particle pairs are most discriminative, offering a route to design simpler analytical selections from the learned correlations.
  • The architecture bypasses jet pairing, so the approach should transfer to other multi-jet final states such as $HH \to b\bar b W^+W^-$ or $HH \to b\bar b \tau^+\tau^-$ where combinatorics also limit sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the HL-LHC projection unvalidated against real detector effects; a natural test is to retrain EvenT on a full detector simulation or on public Run-2 open data and recompute the $\kappa_\lambda$ interval.
  • The weighted-loss recipe suggests a general collider-analysis strategy: assign a heavy loss weight to the largest cross-section background, sacrificing some performance when that background is absent but gaining a large suppression when it dominates.
  • Because EvenT already separates $HH$ from the other eight process classes without assuming a production mechanism, the same trained classifier could plausibly be reused as a tagger for resonant Higgs-pair searches, which the paper does not pursue.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents EvenT, a full-event classifier based on the Particle Transformer, for the HH→4b search. Signal and eight background processes are generated with MadGraph/Pythia8/Delphes; the model is trained on 3M events per class with a weighted cross-entropy loss emphasizing the 2b2j background. The classifier output is combined with a χ² statistic that compares the expected selected-event yield under modified κλ to the SM yield, yielding an expected 68% CL interval κλ∈(−0.53,6.01) at √s=13 TeV and L=3000 fb⁻¹ with a threshold pth=0.9. This interval is compared to a re-implemented cut-based analysis and to prior DNN and SPA-NET studies, with the EvenT result claimed to be about 40% more precise than the cut-based approach.

Significance. The paper addresses an important problem: improving the sensitivity of HH→4b, the dominant but background-limited channel for the trilinear Higgs coupling. The idea of treating the whole event as a single object and exploiting attention to capture correlations is well motivated, and the multi-κλ training to stabilize efficiency across the coupling range is a sensible design. If the numerical claim survives scrutiny, it would be a useful addition to the growing set of ML-based projections for HL-LHC. The comparison with SPA-NET and a cut-based baseline is valuable, but the absolute precision claim is currently supported by a simplified statistical model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B / Sec. IV A, Eq. (21)] The elements C_i1 of the confusion matrix are treated as exact in Eq. (21), but they are point estimates from a test set of 3×10^6 events per class. For the dominant 2b2j class, C_21=5.26×10^-5 corresponds to only about 158 misclassified events in the test set, so the binomial relative uncertainty is about 8%; with σ(2b2j)=5.67×10^8 fb and L=3000 fb^-1 this translates into an uncertainty of order 10^7 events on the predicted background yield, which is two orders of magnitude above the expected HH signal yield of order 10^5 events. At pth=0.9 the effective C_21 is even smaller and the test-set count can be in the single digits. The quoted κλ interval is therefore controlled by an imprecisely determined background rate unless this uncertainty is propagated or a much larger test sample is used.
  2. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (20)] No systematic uncertainties enter the χ², although the paper makes a projection for a real HL-LHC measurement. Effects such as b-tagging efficiency scale factors, jet energy scale, luminosity, background normalization, and theory uncertainties on the signal and background cross sections are not included; the text also does not state that these are assumed negligible. Since the central claim is a numerical interval, the omission should be either remedied by a nuisance-parameter treatment or explicitly justified and quantified.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (20)-(22) and Table I] The definition of σ_i in Eq. (21) is ambiguous: Table I labels the cross sections as LO and lists separate NLO k-factors, but Eq. (21) shows only σ_i without any k-factor. Eq. (5) for σ_HH appears to already contain the k-factor (at κλ=1 it gives about 34.8 fb, matching 14.54 fb times 2.4), which suggests the background terms in Eq. (21) should be multiplied by their respective k-factors. Please define all quantities precisely and confirm that the numerical analysis uses consistent NLO yields for all classes.
  4. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 7 and text] The procedure that converts Eq. (20) into an upper limit is not specified. In particular, no Δχ² threshold is given for the 68% CL limit, and it is not stated whether the limit is one-sided or two-sided, or whether the expected limit is defined with an Asimov dataset rather than a pseudo-experiment. Without this, the quoted interval cannot be reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III] The abstract contains 'can serves as an event classifier'; this should be 'can serve as'. In Sec. III, 'In this studies' should be 'In this study'.
  2. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 4] The dependence C_11(κλ) is presented only as curves in Fig. 4; provide the numerical values or a parameterization so that Eq. (21) is actionable by other practitioners.
  3. [Sec. III B] The phrase 'the state-of-the-arts' should be 'state-of-the-art'.
  4. [Sec. III B] The statement that the weighted loss reduces the cross-section measurement uncertainty 'from about 400% to around 200%' is not defined or derived; please specify which uncertainty is meant and how it is computed.
  5. [Sec. IV C and Abstract] The comparison with the cut-based analysis would be stronger if the cut-based interval were quoted explicitly in the text, since the abstract's 'over 40% improvement' is otherwise not tied to a number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quoted kappa_lambda interval is a standard sensitivity projection from trained classifier efficiencies and generator-level cross sections, not a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The Event Transformer is trained from scratch on labeled simulated events, and its performance is encoded in confusion-matrix elements C_i1 measured on an independent test set. These elements are then inserted into the standard chi-squared formula of Eqs. (20)-(22), where the signal cross section sigma_HH is treated as a free parameter for each fixed kappa_lambda. The final interval is obtained by comparing the resulting upper limit on sigma_HH with the theoretical cross-section parameterization of Eq. (5). Nothing in this chain defines the target kappa_lambda in terms of the classifier output: Eq. (5) is a generator-level fit to the total HH cross section, while Eq. (21) combines that cross section with independently measured signal efficiencies and background misclassification rates. The two functions are not equal by construction, and the upper-limit curve is not forced to reproduce the theoretical curve. The comparison with the cut-based analysis is also performed on the same test set, so the claimed sensitivity improvement is a direct empirical comparison within the simulation rather than a self-referential benchmark. The paper does cite two works involving the present author Y. Wu (Refs. [70] and [134]), but these are peripheral background citations in the introduction and are not load-bearing for the central sensitivity claim. The main caveats are that the entire analysis rests on Delphes fast simulation and leading-order event generation, and that the dominant 2b2j misclassification rate is a point estimate from a finite test set whose statistical uncertainty is not propagated into Eq. (20). These are correctness and realism risks, not circularity: the quoted interval is an expected sensitivity within one simulation, but it is not derived from the assumption it claims to test.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a chain of simulation-based modeling choices: Delphes fast detector simulation, leading-order event generation with k-factor normalization, a hand-tuned weighted loss, a threshold chosen on test data, and a chi-squared that ignores systematic uncertainties. The fitted quadratic for sigma_HH(kappa_lambda) and the training grid of kappa_lambda values are the most concrete numerical inputs that directly shape the quoted interval.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_HH(kappa_lambda) quadratic coefficients = c2 = 9.96e-3, c1 = -4.85e-2, c0 = 7.33e-2 pb
    Eq. (5) fits the Higgs pair production cross section as a quadratic function of kappa_lambda to MadGraph simulation points; the limit extraction compares the upper limit on sigma_HH to this fitted curve, so any fit error propagates into the kappa_lambda interval.
  • 2b2j class weight in loss function = 70
    Sec. III B: the weighted cross-entropy loss assigns weight 70 to 2b2j events to suppress the dominant background; this hand-chosen value changes the confusion matrix and hence the final sensitivity.
  • classification threshold p_th = 0.9
    Sec. IV A: the benchmark result uses p_th = 0.9, selected because it minimizes the relative error on the test data (Fig. 6); the final interval depends on this choice.
  • training kappa_lambda grid = {-1, 1, 4, 6, 8}
    Sec. III B: the classifier is trained only on these kappa_lambda values; the efficiency C11(kappa_lambda) is interpolated and extrapolated from them, which directly affects the lower bound of the final interval.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The kappa framework of Eq. (4) adequately parameterizes new physics in the trilinear Higgs self-coupling.
    Standard parameterization used throughout the paper to define kappa_lambda and to interpret the sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Delphes fast simulation with anti-kt jets at Delta R = 0.5 and 1.0 accurately models the LHC detector response for this analysis.
    Sec. II: all classification inputs and efficiencies derive from Delphes; no validation against full simulation or real data is provided.
  • domain assumption NLO QCD corrections affect only the overall normalization via k-factors, not the kinematic distributions used for classification.
    Sec. II and Table I: events are generated at leading order; k-factors scale cross sections but not shapes, so the classifier efficiency C11(kappa_lambda) is assumed unchanged at NLO.
  • ad hoc to paper Systematic uncertainties are negligible compared with the statistical uncertainty in Eq. (20).
    No systematic error is included anywhere in the limit-setting procedure; this is not stated as an assumption but is implicit in the chi-squared calculation.
  • domain assumption The confusion matrix elements are exact, with negligible statistical and systematic error.
    Sec. III B: evaluated on 3 million test events per class; statistical error is small, but model training stochasticity and simulation mismatch are ignored.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian chi-squared statistic in Eq. (20) is a valid approximation for the event-count likelihood.
    Used to derive the 68% CL interval; assumes large counts and no nuisance parameters or correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning to Improve the Sensitivity of Higgs Pair Searches in the $4b$ Channel at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAPQL6ZP

@misc{pith2026250504496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning to Improve the Sensitivity of Higgs Pair Searches in the $4b$ Channel at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAPQL6ZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04496}
}
abstract

The Higgs self-coupling is crucial for understanding the structure of the scalar potential and the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. In this work, utilizing deep neural network based on Particle Transformer that relies on attention mechanism, we present a comprehensive analysis of the measurement of the trilinear Higgs self-coupling through the Higgs pair production with subsequent decay into four $b$-quarks ($HH\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$) at the LHC. The model processes full event-level information as input, bypassing explicit jet pairing and can serves as an event classifier. At HL-LHC, our approach constrains the $\kappa_\lambda$ to $(-0.53,6.01)$ at 68\% CL achieving over 40\% improvement in precision over conventional cut-based analyses. Comparison against alternative machine learning architectures also shows the outstanding performance of the Transformer-based model, which is mainly due to its ability to capture the correlations in the high-dimensional collision data with the help of attention mechanism. The result highlights the potential of attention-based networks in collider phenomenology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04496 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The leading-order Feynman diagrams of the di-Higgs production in the SM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Relationship between the Higgs pair production cross section and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Left: Confusion matrix of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Signal efficiency (green lines) and relative error of the Higgs pair production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Upper limit on the Higgs pair production cross section as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The comparison of the constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The attention score (elements in attention matrix) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Attention graphs for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Attention graphs for 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  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 of 10

    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

159 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The measurement uncertainty of the Higgs pair production cross section can be reduced from about 400% to around 200% by such improvement

    After applying the weighted cross-entropy loss, the probability of miss-classifying 2 b2j events asHH events is reduced from 5.17× 10−3 to 5.26× 10−5 by two orders of magnitude which dramatically improves the analysis about the Higgs pair process. The measurement uncertainty of the Higgs pair production cross section can be reduced from about 400% to arou...

  2. [2]

    ATLAS collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [ 1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [ 1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    CMS collaboration, A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel , Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135425 [ 2002.06398]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    ATLAS collaboration, Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the H →γγ and H→ZZ*→4ℓ Decay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp Collision Data , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 251802 [ 2308.04775]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    18 (2022) 1329 [ 2202.06923]

    CMS collaboration, Measurement of the Higgs boson width and evidence of its off-shell contributions to ZZ production , Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329 [ 2202.06923]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    ATLAS collaboration, A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery , Nature 607 (2022) 52 [ 2207.00092]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    CMS collaboration, A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery., Nature 607 (2022) 60 [ 2207.00043]. 24

    arXiv 2022

Show all 159 references
  1. [9]

    Abouabid et al., HHH whitepaper, Eur

    H. Abouabid et al., HHH whitepaper, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1183 [ 2407.03015]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C.-T. Lu, J. Chang, K. Cheung and J.S. Lee, An exploratory study of Higgs-boson pair production, JHEP 08 (2015) 133 [ 1505.00957]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kling, T

    F. Kling, T. Plehn and P. Schichtel, Maximizing the significance in Higgs boson pair analyses, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 035026 [ 1607.07441]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Alison et al., Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives , Rev

    J. Alison et al., Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives , Rev. Phys. 5 (2020) 100045 [ 1910.00012]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    U. Baur, T. Plehn and D.L. Rainwater, Probing the Higgs selfcoupling at hadron colliders using rare decays, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 053004 [ hep-ph/0310056]

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Degrassi, B

    G. Degrassi, B. Di Micco, P.P. Giardino and E. Rossi, Higgs boson self-coupling constraints from single Higgs, double Higgs and Electroweak measurements , Phys. Lett. B 817 (2021) 136307 [2102.07651]

    2021

  7. [15]

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann and G.R. Weiglein, Precise predictions for the trilinear Higgs self-coupling in the Standard Model and beyond , PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 407 [ 2311.01134]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    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 83 (2023) 1019 [ 2212.11242]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Papaefstathiou, L.L

    A. Papaefstathiou, L.L. Yang and J. Zurita, Higgs boson pair production at the LHC in the b¯bW +W− channel, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 011301 [ 1209.1489]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    U. Baur, T. Plehn and D.L. Rainwater, Measuring the Higgs Boson Self Coupling at the LHC and Finite Top Mass Matrix Elements , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 151801 [hep-ph/0206024]

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Baglio, A

    J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gr¨ ober, M.M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Quevillon and M. Spira,The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status , JHEP 04 (2013) 151 [1212.5581]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dolan, C

    M.J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, New Physics in LHC Higgs boson pair production, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 055002 [ 1210.8166]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Durieux, M

    G. Durieux, M. McCullough and E. Salvioni, Charting the Higgs self-coupling boundaries , JHEP 12 (2022) 148 [ 2209.00666]. 25

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cheung, A

    K. Cheung, A. Jueid, C.-T. Lu, J. Song and Y.W. Yoon, Disentangling new physics effects on nonresonant Higgs boson pair production from gluon fusion , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 015019 [2003.11043]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chang and M.A

    S. Chang and M.A. Luty, The Higgs Trilinear Coupling and the Scale of New Physics , JHEP 03 (2020) 140 [ 1902.05556]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gupta, H

    R.S. Gupta, H. Rzehak and J.D. Wells, How well do we need to measure the Higgs boson mass and self-coupling? , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 055024 [ 1305.6397]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bhattiprolu and J.D

    P.N. Bhattiprolu and J.D. Wells, A sensitivity target for an impactful Higgs boson self coupling measurement, Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139263 [ 2407.11847]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dawson, A

    S. Dawson, A. Ismail and I. Low, What’s in the loop? The anatomy of double Higgs production, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 115008 [ 1504.05596]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Banerjee, B

    S. Banerjee, B. Batell and M. Spannowsky, Invisible decays in Higgs boson pair production , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 035009 [ 1608.08601]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Alasfar et al., Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production , SciPost Phys

    L. Alasfar et al., Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production , SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 2024 (2024) 2 [ 2304.01968]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Goertz, A

    F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L.L. Yang and J. Zurita, Higgs boson pair production in the D=6 extension of the SM , JHEP 04 (2015) 167 [ 1410.3471]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Azatov, R

    A. Azatov, R. Contino, G. Panico and M. Son, Effective field theory analysis of double Higgs boson production via gluon fusion , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 035001 [ 1502.00539]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Q.-H. Cao, B. Yan, D.-M. Zhang and H. Zhang, Resolving the Degeneracy in Single Higgs Production with Higgs Pair Production , Phys. Lett. B 752 (2016) 285 [ 1508.06512]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Li, L.-X

    G. Li, L.-X. Xu, B. Yan and C.P. Yuan, Resolving the degeneracy in top quark Yukawa coupling with Higgs pair production , Phys. Lett. B 800 (2020) 135070 [ 1904.12006]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Liu, K.-F

    T. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, J. Ren and H.X. Zhu, Probing the quartic Higgs boson self-interaction , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 093004 [ 1803.04359]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bizo´ n, U

    W. Bizo´ n, U. Haisch and L. Rottoli, Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders , JHEP 10 (2019) 267 [ 1810.04665]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Chen, Q.-S

    C.-Y. Chen, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao, Y.-M. Zhong and Z. Zhao, Probing triple-Higgs productions via 4b2γ decay channel at a 100 TeV hadron collider , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 013007 [1510.04013]. 26

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Fuks, J.H

    B. Fuks, J.H. Kim and S.J. Lee, Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton–proton collider with taus and b-jets , Phys. Lett. B 771 (2017) 354 [ 1704.04298]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chiesa, F

    M. Chiesa, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, B. Mele, F. Piccinini and X. Zhao, Measuring the quartic Higgs self-coupling at a multi-TeV muon collider , JHEP 09 (2020) 098 [2003.13628]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Torndal, J

    J.M. Torndal, J. List, D. Ntounis and C. Vernieri, Higgs self-coupling measurement at futuree+e− colliders, PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 406 [ 2311.16774]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Torndal and J

    J.M. Torndal and J. List, Higgs self-coupling measurement at the International Linear Collider, in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders , 7, 2023 [ 2307.16515]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Davies, Higgs pair production at NNLO , PoS LL2024 (2024) 015 [ 2407.08264]

    J. Davies, Higgs pair production at NNLO , PoS LL2024 (2024) 015 [ 2407.08264]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhang, K

    H. Zhang, K. Sch¨ onwald, M. Steinhauser and J. Davies, Electroweak corrections to gg -> HH: Factorizable contributions, PoS LL2024 (2024) 014 [ 2407.05787]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. Jones, M. Kerner, T. Stone and A. Vestner, Electroweak corrections to Higgs boson pair production: the top-Yukawa and self-coupling contributions , JHEP 11 (2024) 040 [2407.04653]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Carvalho, M

    A. Carvalho, M. Dall’Osso, T. Dorigo, F. Goertz, C.A. Gottardo and M. Tosi, Higgs Pair Production: Choosing Benchmarks With Cluster Analysis , JHEP 04 (2016) 126 [1507.02245]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J.H. Kim, K. Kong, K.T. Matchev and M. Park, Probing the Triple Higgs Self-Interaction at the Large Hadron Collider , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 091801 [ 1807.11498]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bizo´ n, U

    W. Bizo´ n, U. Haisch, L. Rottoli, Z. Gillis, B. Moser and P. Windischhofer, Addendum to: Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders [JHEP 10 (2019) 267] , JHEP 02 (2024) 170 [ 2402.03463]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Nakamura, K

    K. Nakamura, K. Nishiwaki, K.-y. Oda, S.C. Park and Y. Yamamoto, Di-higgs enhancement by neutral scalar as probe of new colored sector , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 273 [1701.06137]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Chen, H.T

    L.-B. Chen, H.T. Li, H.-S. Shao and J. Wang, Higgs boson pair production via gluon fusion at N 3LO in QCD , Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135292 [ 1909.06808]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca, M. Spira et al., Higgs-Pair Production via Gluon Fusion at Hadron Colliders: NLO QCD Corrections , JHEP 04 (2020) 181 [ 2003.03227]. 27

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. Spira and J. Streicher, Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 459 [1811.05692]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al., Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass Dependence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 012001 [ 1604.06447]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Czury lo, Search for the non-resonant Vector Boson Fusion production of the Higgs boson pairs decaying to b¯bb¯b final state using the ATLAS detector , Ph.D

    M.M. Czury lo, Search for the non-resonant Vector Boson Fusion production of the Higgs boson pairs decaying to b¯bb¯b final state using the ATLAS detector , Ph.D. thesis, U. Heidelberg (main), 2023. 10.11588/heidok.00032906

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Q.-H. Cao, Y. Liu and B. Yan, Measuring trilinear Higgs coupling in WHH and ZHH productions at the high-luminosity LHC , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 073006 [ 1511.03311]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chai, J.-H

    K. Chai, J.-H. Yu and H. Zhang, Investigating Higgs self-interaction through di-Higgs plus jet production at a 100 TeV hadron collider , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 055031 [2210.14929]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dolan, C

    M.J. Dolan, C. Englert, N. Greiner and M. Spannowsky, Further on up the road: hhjj production at the LHC , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 101802 [ 1310.1084]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Abouabid, A

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, D. Azevedo, J.E. Falaki, P.M. Ferreira, M. M¨ uhlleitner et al., Benchmarking di-Higgs production in various extended Higgs sector models , JHEP 09 (2022) 011 [ 2112.12515]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Godunov, M.I

    S.I. Godunov, M.I. Vysotsky and E.V. Zhemchugov, Double Higgs production at LHC, see-saw type II and Georgi-Machacek model , J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 120 (2015) 369 [1408.0184]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kotwal, S

    A.V. Kotwal, S. Chekanov and M. Low, Double Higgs Boson Production in the 4 τ Channel from Resonances in Longitudinal Vector Boson Scattering at a 100 TeV Collider , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 114018 [ 1504.08042]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Di Luzio, R

    L. Di Luzio, R. Gr¨ ober and M. Spannowsky, Maxi-sizing the trilinear Higgs self-coupling: how large could it be? , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 788 [ 1704.02311]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Grober, M

    R. Grober, M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Higgs Pair Production at NLO QCD for CP-violating Higgs Sectors , Nucl. Phys. B 925 (2017) 1 [ 1705.05314]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Huang, J.M

    T. Huang, J.M. No, L. Perni´ e, M. Ramsey-Musolf, A. Safonov, M. Spannowsky et al., Resonant di-Higgs boson production in the b¯bWW channel: Probing the electroweak phase transition at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 035007 [ 1701.04442]. 28

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    No and M

    J.M. No and M. Ramsey-Musolf, Probing the Higgs Portal at the LHC Through Resonant di-Higgs Production, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 095031 [ 1310.6035]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Barger, L.L

    V. Barger, L.L. Everett, C.B. Jackson, A.D. Peterson and G. Shaughnessy, New physics in resonant production of Higgs boson pairs , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 011801 [ 1408.0003]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson and I.M. Lewis, Exploring resonant di-Higgs boson production in the Higgs singlet model , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 035015 [ 1410.5488]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Barducci, K

    D. Barducci, K. Mimasu, J.M. No, C. Vernieri and J. Zurita, Enlarging the scope of resonant di-Higgs searches: Hunting for Higgs-to-Higgs cascades in 4b final states at the LHC and future colliders , JHEP 02 (2020) 002 [ 1910.08574]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Heinemeyer, M

    S. Heinemeyer, M. M¨ uhlleitner, K. Radchenko and G. Weiglein, Higgs pair production in the 2HDM: impact of loop corrections to the trilinear Higgs couplings and interference effects on experimental limits , Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 437 [ 2403.14776]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Arhrib, S

    A. Arhrib, S. Moretti, S. Semlali, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, Y. Wang and Q.S. Yan, Probing a 2HDM Type-I light Higgs state via HSM→hh→b¯bγγ at the LHC , 2412.06052

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Baglio, O

    J. Baglio, O. Eberhardt, U. Nierste and M. Wiebusch, Benchmarks for Higgs Pair Production and Heavy Higgs boson Searches in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model of Type II , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 015008 [ 1403.1264]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Hespel, D

    B. Hespel, D. Lopez-Val and E. Vryonidou, Higgs pair production via gluon fusion in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, JHEP 09 (2014) 124 [ 1407.0281]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Carena and A. Carmona, Higgs Pair Production as a Signal of Enhanced Yukawa Couplings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 021801 [ 1801.00363]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Arganda, J.L

    E. Arganda, J.L. D´ ıaz-Cruz, N. Mileo, R.A. Morales and A. Szynkman, Search strategies for pair production of heavy Higgs bosons decaying invisibly at the LHC , Nucl. Phys. B 929 (2018) 171 [ 1710.07254]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    J. Chen, T. Li, C.-T. Lu, Y. Wu and C.-Y. Yao, Measurement of Higgs boson self-couplings through 2→3 vector bosons scattering in future muon colliders , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 053009 [2112.12507]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Henning, D

    B. Henning, D. Lombardo, M. Riembau and F. Riva, Measuring Higgs Couplings without Higgs Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 181801 [ 1812.09299]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    McCullough, An Indirect Model-Dependent Probe of the Higgs Self-Coupling , Phys

    M. McCullough, An Indirect Model-Dependent Probe of the Higgs Self-Coupling , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 015001 [ 1312.3322]. 29

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Gorbahn and U

    M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Indirect probes of the trilinear Higgs coupling: gg→h and h→γγ, JHEP 10 (2016) 094 [ 1607.03773]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Degrassi, P.P

    G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, F. Maltoni and D. Pagani, Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC , JHEP 12 (2016) 080 [ 1607.04251]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Gao, X.-M

    J. Gao, X.-M. Shen, G. Wang, L.L. Yang and B. Zhou, Probing the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling through Higgs boson+jet production , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 115017 [2302.04160]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Degrassi, M

    G. Degrassi, M. Fedele and P.P. Giardino, Constraints on the trilinear Higgs self coupling from precision observables, JHEP 04 (2017) 155 [ 1702.01737]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Alasfar, J

    L. Alasfar, J. de Blas and R. Gr¨ ober, Higgs probes of top quark contact interactions and their interplay with the Higgs self-coupling , JHEP 05 (2022) 111 [ 2202.02333]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the bb¯bb¯ final state in pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 052003 [ 2301.03212]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the bbτ +τ− decay channel using 13 TeV pp collision data from the ATLAS detector , JHEP 07 (2023) 040 [ 2209.10910]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for Higgs boson pair production in the two bottom quarks plus two photons final state in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 052001 [ 2112.11876]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    ATLAS collaboration, Probing the nature of electroweak symmetry breaking with Higgs boson pairs in ATLAS, in 30th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, 7, 2023 [ 2307.11467]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    CMS collaboration, Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the four leptons plus twob jets final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 06 (2023) 130 [2206.10657]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    CMS collaboration, Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 03 (2021) 257 [ 2011.12373]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    CMS collaboration, Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final state with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV , Phys. Lett. 30 B 842 (2023) 137531 [ 2206.09401]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    CMS collaboration, Search for Higgs Boson Pair Production in the Four b Quark Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 081802 [2202.09617]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Chang, K

    J. Chang, K. Cheung, J.S. Lee, C.-T. Lu and J. Park, Higgs-boson-pair production H(→bb¯)H(→γγ) from gluon fusion at the HL-LHC and HL-100 TeV hadron collider , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 096001 [ 1804.07130]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [88]

    ATLAS collaboration, Projected sensitivity of measurements of Higgs boson pair production with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC , ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-006

    2025

  81. [89]

    H.-J. He, J. Ren and W. Yao, Probing new physics of cubic Higgs boson interaction via Higgs pair production at hadron colliders , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 015003 [ 1506.03302]

    2016 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Barr, M.J

    A.J. Barr, M.J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, Di-Higgs final states augMT2ed – selectinghh events at the high luminosity LHC , Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 308 [ 1309.6318]

    2014 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Gon¸ calves, T

    D. Gon¸ calves, T. Han, F. Kling, T. Plehn and M. Takeuchi, Higgs boson pair production at future hadron colliders: From kinematics to dynamics , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 113004 [1802.04319]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Taliercio, P

    A. Taliercio, P. Mastrapasqua, C. Caputo, P. Vischia, N. De Filippis and P. Bhat, Higgs Self Couplings Measurements at Future proton-proton Colliders: a Snowmass White Paper , in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [ 2203.08042]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Braibant, Higgs measurements at the Future Circular Colliders , PoS EPS-HEP2021 (2022) 616

    S. Braibant, Higgs measurements at the Future Circular Colliders , PoS EPS-HEP2021 (2022) 616

    2022

  86. [94]

    Mangano, G

    M.L. Mangano, G. Ortona and M. Selvaggi, Measuring the Higgs self-coupling via Higgs-pair production at a 100 TeV p-p collider , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1030 [ 2004.03505]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Stapf, A

    B. Stapf, A. Taliercio, E. Gallo, K. Tackmann and P. Mastrapasqua, Higgs self-coupling measurements at the FCC-hh , PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 413 [ 2312.03513]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    FCC collaboration, Perspectives for Higgs measurements at Future Circular Colliders , PoS PANIC2021 (2022) 420

    2022

  89. [97]

    FCC collaboration, Higgs physics opportunities at FCC , PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 391

    2024

  90. [98]

    Kawada, ILC Higgs Physics Potential , PoS PANIC2021 (2022) 396

    S.-i. Kawada, ILC Higgs Physics Potential , PoS PANIC2021 (2022) 396

    2022

  91. [99]

    J. List, B. Bliewert, D. Ntounis, J. Tian, C. Vernieri and J.M. Torndal, Higgs Self-coupling Strategy at Linear e+e- Colliders , PoS ICHEP2024 (2025) 079 [ 2411.01507]. 31

    2025 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Muon Collider Physics and Detector Working Group collaboration, Higgs boson couplings at muon collider , PoS EPS-HEP2021 (2022) 619

    2022

  93. [101]

    Buonincontri, Study of Higgs couplings measurements at muon collider , Nuovo Cim

    L. Buonincontri, Study of Higgs couplings measurements at muon collider , Nuovo Cim. C 44 (2021) 31

    2021

  94. [102]

    T. Han, D. Liu, I. Low and X. Wang, Electroweak couplings of the Higgs boson at a multi-TeV muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 013002 [ 2008.12204]

    2021 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Buonincontri, M

    L. Buonincontri, M. Casarsa, L. Giambastiani, D. Lucchesi, L. Sestini and D. Zuliani, Higgs physics at Muon Collider with detailed detector simulation , Nuovo Cim. C 47 (2024) 288

    2024

  96. [104]

    Goertz, A

    F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L.L. Yang and J. Zurita, Higgs Boson self-coupling measurements using ratios of cross sections , JHEP 06 (2013) 016 [ 1301.3492]

    2013 arXiv

  97. [105]

    J.K. Behr, D. Bortoletto, J.A. Frost, N.P. Hartland, C. Issever and J. Rojo, Boosting Higgs pair production in the b¯bb¯b final state with multivariate techniques , Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 386 [ 1512.08928]

    2016 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Wardrope, E

    D. Wardrope, E. Jansen, N. Konstantinidis, B. Cooper, R. Falla and N. Norjoharuddeen, Non-resonant Higgs-pair production in the bb bb final state at the LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 219 [ 1410.2794]

    2015 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Ferreira de Lima, A

    D.E. Ferreira de Lima, A. Papaefstathiou and M. Spannowsky, Standard model Higgs boson pair production in the (b¯b)(b¯b) final state, JHEP 08 (2014) 030 [ 1404.7139]

    2014 arXiv

  100. [108]

    H.-L. Li, M. Ramsey-Musolf and S. Willocq, Probing a scalar singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transition with resonant di-Higgs boson production in the 4b channel, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 075035 [ 1906.05289]

    2019 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Alves, D

    A. Alves, D. Gon¸ calves, T. Ghosh, H.-K. Guo and K. Sinha, Di-Higgs Production in the 4b Channel and Gravitational Wave Complementarity , JHEP 03 (2020) 053 [ 1909.05268]

    2020 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Amacker et al., Higgs self-coupling measurements using deep learning in the bbbb final state, JHEP 12 (2020) 115 [ 2004.04240]

    J. Amacker et al., Higgs self-coupling measurements using deep learning in the bbbb final state, JHEP 12 (2020) 115 [ 2004.04240]

    2020 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Chiang, F.-Y

    C.-W. Chiang, F.-Y. Hsieh, S.-C. Hsu and I. Low, Deep learning to improve the sensitivity of Di-Higgs searches in the 4b channel , JHEP 09 (2024) 139 [ 2401.14198]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Alison, S

    J. Alison, S. An, P. Bryant, B. Burkle, S. Gleyzer, M. Narain et al., End-to-end particle and event identification at the Large Hadron Collider with CMS Open Data , in Meeting of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society , 10, 2019 [ 1910.07029]. 32

    2019 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Andrews, J

    M. Andrews, J. Alison, S. An, P. Bryant, B. Burkle, S. Gleyzer et al., End-to-end jet classification of quarks and gluons with the CMS Open Data , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 977 (2020) 164304 [ 1902.08276]

    2020 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Andrews, M

    M. Andrews, M. Paulini, S. Gleyzer and B. Poczos, End-to-End Physics Event Classification with CMS Open Data: Applying Image-Based Deep Learning to Detector Data for the Direct Classification of Collision Events at the LHC , Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 4 (2020) 6 [ 1807.11916]

    2020 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Baldi, P

    P. Baldi, P. Sadowski and D. Whiteson, Searching for Exotic Particles in High-Energy Physics with Deep Learning , Nature Commun. 5 (2014) 4308 [ 1402.4735]

    2014 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Abdughani, J

    M. Abdughani, J. Ren, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and J. Zhao, Supervised deep learning in high energy phenomenology: a mini review , Commun. Theor. Phys. 71 (2019) 955 [ 1905.06047]

    2019 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Guest, J

    D. Guest, J. Collado, P. Baldi, S.-C. Hsu, G. Urban and D. Whiteson, Jet Flavor Classification in High-Energy Physics with Deep Neural Networks , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 112002 [1607.08633]

    2016 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Butter et al., The Machine Learning landscape of top taggers , SciPost Phys

    A. Butter et al., The Machine Learning landscape of top taggers , SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 014 [1902.09914]

    2019 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Woodward, S.E

    N.S. Woodward, S.E. Park, G. Grosso, J. Krupa and P. Harris, Product Manifold Machine Learning for Physics, 2412.07033

    arXiv

  112. [120]

    J. Lin, M. Freytsis, I. Moult and B. Nachman, BoostingH→b¯b with Machine Learning, JHEP 10 (2018) 101 [ 1807.10768]

    2018 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Cogan, M

    J. Cogan, M. Kagan, E. Strauss and A. Schwarztman, Jet-Images: Computer Vision Inspired Techniques for Jet Tagging, JHEP 02 (2015) 118 [ 1407.5675]

    2015 arXiv

  114. [122]

    de Oliveira, M

    L. de Oliveira, M. Kagan, L. Mackey, B. Nachman and A. Schwartzman, Jet-images — deep learning edition, JHEP 07 (2016) 069 [ 1511.05190]

    2016 arXiv

  115. [123]

    J.S.H. Lee, I. Park, I.J. Watson and S. Yang, Quark-Gluon Jet Discrimination Using Convolutional Neural Networks , J. Korean Phys. Soc. 74 (2019) 219 [ 2012.02531]

    2019 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Madrazo, I.H

    C.F. Madrazo, I.H. Cacha, L.L. Iglesias and J.M. de Lucas, Application of a Convolutional Neural Network for image classification for the analysis of collisions in High Energy Physics, EPJ Web Conf. 214 (2019) 06017 [ 1708.07034]

    2019 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Dreyer and H

    F.A. Dreyer and H. Qu, Jet tagging in the Lund plane with graph networks , JHEP 03 (2021) 052 [ 2012.08526]. 33

    2021 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Abdughani, J

    M. Abdughani, J. Ren, L. Wu and J.M. Yang, Probing stop pair production at the LHC with graph neural networks , JHEP 08 (2019) 055 [ 1807.09088]

    2019 arXiv

  119. [127]

    S. Gong, Q. Meng, J. Zhang, H. Qu, C. Li, S. Qian et al., An efficient Lorentz equivariant graph neural network for jet tagging , JHEP 07 (2022) 030 [ 2201.08187]

    2022 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Qu and L

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 056019 [ 1902.08570]

    2020 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Mikuni and F

    V. Mikuni and F. Canelli, Point cloud transformers applied to collider physics , Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 2 (2021) 035027 [ 2102.05073]

    2021 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Komiske, E.M

    P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev and J. Thaler, Energy Flow Networks: Deep Sets for Particle Jets, JHEP 01 (2019) 121 [ 1810.05165]

    2019 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Usman, M.H

    M. Usman, M.H. Shahid, M. Ejaz, U. Hani, N. Fatima, A.R. Khan et al., Particle Multi-Axis Transformer for Jet Tagging , 2406.06638

    arXiv

  124. [132]

    H. Qu, C. Li and S. Qian, Particle Transformer for Jet Tagging , 2202.03772

    arXiv

  125. [133]

    Tagami, T

    R. Tagami, T. Suehara and M. Ishino, Application of Particle Transformer to quark flavor tagging in the ILC project , EPJ Web Conf. 315 (2024) 03011 [ 2410.11322]

    2024 arXiv

  126. [134]

    C 47 (2024) 250

    CMS collaboration, Particle Transformer for τ lepton pair invariant mass reconstruction for the HH→b¯bτ +τ− CMS analysis, Nuovo Cim. C 47 (2024) 250

    2024

  127. [135]

    Y. Wu, K. Wang, C. Li, H. Qu and J. Zhu, Jet tagging with more-interaction particle transformer*, Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 013110 [ 2407.08682]

    2025 arXiv

  128. [136]

    He and D

    M. He and D. Wang, Quark/gluon discrimination and top tagging with dual attention transformer, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1116 [ 2307.04723]

    2023 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Apresyan et al., Improving Di-Higgs Sensitivity at Future Colliders in Hadronic Final States with Machine Learning , in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [ 2203.07353]

    A. Apresyan et al., Improving Di-Higgs Sensitivity at Future Colliders in Hadronic Final States with Machine Learning , in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [ 2203.07353]

    2021 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Stylianou and G

    P. Stylianou and G. Weiglein, Constraints on the trilinear and quartic Higgs couplings from triple Higgs production at the LHC and beyond , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 366 [2312.04646]

    2024 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Alasfar, R

    L. Alasfar, R. Gr¨ ober, C. Grojean, A. Paul and Z. Qian, Machine learning the trilinear and light-quark Yukawa couplings from Higgs pair kinematic shapes , JHEP 11 (2022) 045 [2207.04157]

    2022 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Huang, S.-b

    L. Huang, S.-b. Kang, J.H. Kim, K. Kong and J.S. Pi, Portraying double Higgs at the Large Hadron Collider II , JHEP 08 (2022) 114 [ 2203.11951]. 34

    2022 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Tannenwald, C

    B. Tannenwald, C. Neu, A. Li, G. Buehlmann, A. Cuddeback, L. Hatfield et al., Benchmarking Machine Learning Techniques with Di-Higgs Production at the LHC , 2009.06754

    2009 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Abdughani, D

    M. Abdughani, D. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and J. Zhao, Probing the triple Higgs boson coupling with machine learning at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 056003 [2005.11086]

    2021 arXiv

  135. [143]

    Kerner, Higgs Self-Coupling and Yukawa Corrections to Higgs Boson Pair Production , PoS LL2024 (2024) 016

    M. Kerner, Higgs Self-Coupling and Yukawa Corrections to Higgs Boson Pair Production , PoS LL2024 (2024) 016

    2024

  136. [144]

    Li, Z.-G

    H.T. Li, Z.-G. Si, J. Wang, X. Zhang and D. Zhao, Improved constraints on Higgs boson self-couplings with quartic and cubic power dependencies of the cross section* , Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 023107 [ 2407.14716]

    2025 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, P. Torrielli et al., Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects , Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 142 [1401.7340]

    2014 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Heinrich, S.P

    G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Luisoni and L. Scyboz, Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects , JHEP 06 (2019) 066 [ 1903.08137]

    2019 arXiv

  139. [147]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Higgs Boson Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 201801 [ 1309.6594]

    2013 arXiv

  140. [148]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC , JHEP 09 (2015) 053 [ 1505.07122]

    2015 arXiv

  141. [149]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Two-loop virtual corrections to Higgs pair production , Phys. Lett. B 724 (2013) 306 [ 1305.5206]

    2013 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [ 1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  143. [151]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 [ 1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  144. [152]

    DELPHES 3 collaboration, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment , JHEP 02 (2014) 057 [ 1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  145. [153]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896 [1111.6097]. 35

    2012 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm , JHEP 04 (2008) 063 [ 0802.1189]

    2008 arXiv

  147. [155]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez et al., Attention is all you need , 1706.03762

    arXiv

  148. [156]

    Fenton, A

    M.J. Fenton, A. Shmakov, T.-W. Ho, S.-C. Hsu, D. Whiteson and P. Baldi, Permutationless many-jet event reconstruction with symmetry preserving attention networks, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 112008 [ 2010.09206]

    2022 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Shmakov, M.J

    A. Shmakov, M.J. Fenton, T.-W. Ho, S.-C. Hsu, D. Whiteson and P. Baldi, SPANet: Generalized permutationless set assignment for particle physics using symmetry preserving attention, SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 178 [ 2106.03898]

    2022 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Fenton, A

    M.J. Fenton, A. Shmakov, H. Okawa, Y. Li, K.-Y. Hsiao, S.-C. Hsu et al., Reconstruction of unstable heavy particles using deep symmetry-preserving attention networks , Commun. Phys. 7 (2024) 139 [ 2309.01886]

    2024 arXiv

  151. [159]

    A. Wang, A. Gandrakota, J. Ngadiuba, V. Sahu, P. Bhatnagar, E.E. Khoda et al., Interpreting Transformers for Jet Tagging , 12, 2024 [ 2412.03673]. 36

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.