Deconstructing resonant Higgs pair production at the LHC: effects of coloured and neutral scalars in the NMSSM test case

Harri Waltari; J\"orgen Sj\"olin; Luca Panizzi; Stefano Moretti

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Deconstructing resonant Higgs pair production at the LHC: effects of coloured and neutral scalars in the NMSSM test case

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that resonant SM-like Higgs pair production at the LHC can be misread when analysed as a narrow Breit-Wigner peak, because interferences between the heavy Higgs graph, the Standard Model continuum, and stop loops distort…

desk verdict Useful extension of the group's deconstruction framework to resonant di-Higgs, but the width-rescaling shortcut and the abstract's sensitivity claim need attention before I would trust the quantitative benchmark patterns. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09006 v3 pith:72MM3RFU submitted 2025-06-10 hep-ph hep-ex

Stefano Moretti , Luca Panizzi , Jörgen Sjölin , Harri Waltari This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords di-HiggsproductionNMSSMresonantHiggspairinterferenceeffectscoloredscalarsstopsdeconstructionLHCphenomenology

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that LHC searches for pairs of 125 GeV Higgs bosons produced through a new heavy Higgs resonance can be misread if analysed as a single Breit-Wigner peak, because interference between the resonant diagram, the Standard Model background, and loops of new coloured scalars (stops) distorts the peak shape. Using the NMSSM as a concrete framework, the authors decompose the $gg\to hh$ cross section into ten topology classes, each with a definite coupling structure, and recombine simulated event samples with model-dependent weights. They show for five benchmark points that interference can hide a resonance, create a false deficit or excess, and even change the sign of the effect depending on whether the 125 GeV Higgs mass comes from tree-level or stop-loop contributions. The point is not just that such effects exist but that they are accessible at the HL-LHC in the $b\bar b b\bar b$, $b\bar b\tau^+\tau^-$, and $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ final states, so a coupling-resolved analysis is needed for a correct interpretation.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the deconstruction formula Eq. (A1): a finite list of ten one-loop topology classes (Table I), each labelled by a product of new couplings such as $\kappa_{hhh}$, $\kappa_{hff}$, $\kappa_{h\tilde s\tilde s}$, $\kappa_{hh\tilde s\tilde s}$, or $\kappa_{Shh}\kappa_{Sff}$, for which the total $gg\to hh$ cross section is a linear combination of reduced cross sections $\hat\sigma$ that depend only on masses and widths. Each reduced piece is simulated once on a grid and later weighted by the appropriate coupling combinations, so any model with the same field content can be studied without new event generation, with off-grid widths adjusted by the narrow-width rescaling of Eq. (4). The physical content is that this decomposition isolates each interference term, making distortions of the resonance shape traceable to specific Lagrangian couplings.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to compute the full one-loop $gg\to hh$ cross section for one of the benchmarks (for example BP2) with an independent diagrammatic calculation at the exact masses and widths, and compare the $m_{hh}$ distribution with the recombination of Eq. (A1); a mismatch beyond Monte Carlo statistics would show that the topology list or the grid interpolation is incomplete. On the experimental side, a measurement at HL-LHC of the 800 GeV resonant region in BP4 or BP5 that matches a pure Breit-Wigner shape without the predicted destructive or constructive sideband would rule out the claimed interference pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that customary Narrow Width Approximation or Breit-Wigner treatments of resonant SM-like di-Higgs production at the LHC, which neglect interference effects, can miss relevant physics: not only interferences between the heavy Higgs graph and SM diagrams, but also interferences between the heavy Higgs graph and BSM diagrams with stops in the loop. The paper establishes this by constructing a complete deconstruction of the one-loop $gg\to hh$ amplitude into ten topology classes (Table I) whose squared amplitudes and interferences carry unique coupling factors, so that the full cross section is a linear combination of reduced cross sections (Eq. A1) weighted by couplings. Simulating each reduced piece on a grid of masses and widths and recombining with a narrow-width rescaling for off-grid widths, the authors map the $m_{hh}$ spectra of five NMSSM benchmarks and show that the interference patterns have a physical interpretation: for example, a doublet resonance produced with destructive interference below the peak indicates the 125 GeV mass comes from tree-level $\lambda$ terms, while constructive interference below the peak indicates stop-loop dominance. They verify that these patterns survive parton shower and detector effects in $b\bar b b\bar b$, $b\bar b\tau^+\tau^-$, and $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$, and conclude that the shape distortion of the Breit-Wigner peak must be accounted for in experimental analyses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ten topology classes in Table I exhaust all one-loop diagrams contributing to $gg\to hh$ and that the precomputed grid of masses and widths, with the narrow-width rescaling of Eq. (4), faithfully reproduces the cross section for benchmark points that fall between grid points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Narrow-width-approximation and Breit-Wigner-only analyses of $gg\to hh$ can miss a heavy Higgs state whose peak is distorted or masked by interference, so experimental searches need to include the full interfering signal definition.
The sign of the interference below a doublet Higgs peak tells whether the 125 GeV mass is generated at tree level through large $\lambda$ or through top-stop loop corrections, giving a handle on the origin of the Higgs mass.
Interference effects in the benchmark points survive parton shower and detector simulation in the $b\bar b b\bar b$, $b\bar b\tau^+\tau^-$, and $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ channels, though only HL-LHC luminosity will make most of them distinguishable.
The same deconstruction grid can be reused for any new-physics model with the same coloured and neutral scalar content, with only coupling weights changed, so the public event samples map many models onto one dataset.
In the $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ channel, destructive interference at low $m_{hh}$ can delay the discovery of the SM di-Higgs signal, because the observable event rate can be suppressed relative to SM expectations.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the deconstruction is ordered by coupling products, a measured distortion of the $m_{hh}$ spectrum could in principle be inverted to extract the sign of the $\lambda_{Hhh}$ or $\lambda_{Shh}$ coupling, a step the paper illustrates but does not formalise.
The same machinery could be applied to single-Higgs production or to $t\bar t h$, where heavy-Higgs interference with top and stop loops might create analogous shape distortions; the paper notes vector-like quarks as a future extension but does not pursue these channels.
A critical test of the practical method would be to generate new grid samples at intermediate masses where thresholds and resonances move rapidly; if the interpolation fails, the predicted observability of off-grid benchmarks would change even though the topological decomposition itself would remain valid.
It would be informative to compare the deconstructed LO prediction with an NLO calculation for a doublet benchmark, because if the K-factors differ between resonant and non-resonant pieces the relative interference pattern could shift, altering the qualitative conclusions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear X,

The short version: this is a real, incremental advance, not a breakthrough, and the machinery is worth having. The paper extends the authors' earlier deconstruction of non-resonant di-Higgs production to resonant neutral scalars plus colored scalars, and it gives an explicit coupling-labelled decomposition of gg→hh in Appendix A. That decomposition, together with the public UFO model and the SPheno-derived NMSSM benchmarks, is a tangible resource. The qualitative physics message—NWA or plain Breit-Wigner treatments that drop interference can mis-model resonant di-Higgs—is correct and is worth saying loudly.

What I like: the coupling-based taxonomy of interference patterns (singlet vs doublet, sign of the Hhh coupling correlated with how the 125 GeV mass is generated) is genuinely clarifying. The topology list in Table I looks complete for the Lagrangian in Eq. (1), and I see no circularity: nothing is fitted to di-Higgs data, and the benchmark points are illustrative.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the abstract says the LHC has 'sensitivity to a variety of effects,' but the paper's own channel studies show that only BP1 is arguably visible at HL-LHC; BP4 in bbγγ is explicitly 'likely not resolvable,' and the 4b and bbττ patterns are only marginally distinguishable. The concluding claim is more carefully worded, but the abstract oversells. Second, the width rescaling in Eq. (4): the stress-test concern has teeth. The rescaling fixes the on-shell resonant squared term, but interference terms are linear in the Breit-Wigner propagator, and their height and shape depend on the actual width. The paper says the substitution only affects peak height, not shape, and becomes less accurate with larger widths, but for the doublet benchmarks with Γ/m ~ 0.01 the interference patterns are the main observable claim. Since the grid widths are not stated, I cannot tell whether the BP2–BP4 m_hh distributions are quantitatively faithful. This is checkable and should be addressed before publication. Third, the lack of NLO and systematic uncertainties on the plotted shapes is acknowledged in the discussion, and the K-factor argument is reasonable, but it means the plots should be read as qualitative.

For whom: anyone reinterpreting resonant di-Higgs searches in BSM models, and anyone who wants a ready-made UFO for this class of simplified models. I would cite it. It deserves a serious referee, with a request to state the grid widths, quantify the width-rescaling error on interference terms, and soften the abstract. Conditional acceptance after that.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a deconstruction of gg to hh production in a simplified Lagrangian with modified hhh and hff couplings, arbitrary coloured scalars, and neutral scalars, and applies it to NMSSM benchmarks. The cross section is written as a linear combination of coupling products times reduced cross sections in Eq. (A1), computed from a public UFO model on a grid of masses and widths; off-grid widths are handled by Eq. (4). Benchmarks BP1-BP5 illustrate parton-level interference patterns, and BP1/BP4/BP5 are examined in the bbgamma gamma, bb tau tau, and bbbb channels. The central claim is that NWA or Breit-Wigner treatments that neglect interference, including interference with stop loops, can miss relevant effects, and that deconstruction helps interpret these effects.

Significance. If the method is quantitatively reliable, it is a useful modular tool: the explicit recombination formulas, the public UFO model, and the reuse of event samples for arbitrary scalar content are clear strengths. The qualitative connection between the sign of lambda_Hhh and the origin of the 125 GeV Higgs mass is also interesting. However, the paper's own reconstructed-channel studies show that most benchmarks are not resolvable at the HL-LHC, and the width-rescaling issue in Eq. (4) affects the quantitative interference patterns on which the central claim rests. The method is a valuable framework, but the strength of the phenomenological conclusions currently exceeds what the presented evidence supports.

major comments (3)

[Section II.A, Eq. (4)] The width rescaling in Eq. (4) is derived from the narrow-width factorized expression Eq. (2) for the resonant squared term only. The same rescaling is then applied to the coupling kappa^I_Shh wherever it appears, including the interference terms sigma^int_{S|B}, sigma^int_{M|S}, sigma^int_{S|S~s}, and all terms in Eqs. (A1g)-(A1p) that are linear in the neutral-scalar propagator. For an interference amplitude the propagator enters as 1/(s-m^2+i m Gamma), so both the height and the line shape of the interference peak/dip scale with Gamma; rescaling the coupling by sqrt(Gamma_sim/Gamma_BP) cannot compensate for using Gamma_sim rather than Gamma_BP in the Breit-Wigner denominator. The paper's own benchmarks BP2 and BP4 rely on destructive interference at the 50-75% level of the SM cross section, and the doublet states there have Gamma/m of order 0.01, so the quantitative m_hh distributions in Figs. 3 and 5 may be mis-modelled if the simulation grid width differs from the SPheno value. The authors should state the grid widths used for each neutral-scalar sample and validate the rescaling against direct simulations at the physical widths for at least BP2 and BP4, or restrict the width rescaling to the resonant squared terms and recompute the interference terms on a width grid.
[Abstract and Section III.C] The abstract and conclusions state that the LHC 'has sensitivity to a variety of effects' from these interferences, but the channel-level results in Section III.C are substantially weaker. For bbgamma gamma, only BP1 is 'likely at the edge of being significant' while BP4 signals 'are likely not resolvable even at HL-LHC'; in bb tau tau, 'only HL-LHC can possibly distinguish' the two benchmark patterns; and in the 4b channel the resolution 'is not sufficient to produce any visible signal' at 1200 GeV. The discussion in Section III.D also notes that interference effects are 'partially smeared out' at detector level and that definite conclusions require the full integrated luminosity of the HL-LHC. The strong sensitivity claim should be tempered to match these statements, or additional benchmarks or channels demonstrating observable effects should be provided.
[Table I and Appendix A] The deconstruction's quantitative reliability rests on the assertion that Table I is a 'complete list' of topologies and that Eq. (A1) contains every independent cross-section contribution for the Lagrangian of Eq. (1). The paper states this completeness but does not demonstrate it. Since the method is intended to be reused with arbitrary numbers of coloured and neutral scalars, the authors should specify how completeness was established (e.g., automated enumeration via the UFO coupling orders in MG5_aMC) and state any assumptions about which vertices are absent at one loop. Without this, a user recombining the published grid cannot know whether a missing topology would change the result.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix A, Eqs. (A1e) and (A1h)] Eq. (A1e) contains a stray semicolon after kappa_hff sigma_hat_{2f|B}, and Eq. (A1h) writes kappa^i_{S~s~s} where the neutral-scalar index I should appear; both typos should be corrected.
[Abstract] The abstract says the decomposition covers 'all its amplitude components', but the method is strictly leading-order one-loop; qualify the statement with 'at leading order' to avoid overstatement.
[Section II and Conclusions] There are several typos: 'containts' in Section III.B, 'tecnique' in the Conclusions, and 'MG5 aMC' in Section II should be 'MG5_aMC' for consistency with Ref. [35].
[Section II] The paper does not state the mass and width grid values used for the reduced cross sections; since the reliability of the recombination is argued by proximity to the grid, the grid values should be documented in an appendix or ancillary file.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the deconstruction is exact bookkeeping of the simulated amplitude, the NMSSM couplings are externally computed with SPheno, and self-citations to the authors' previous framework are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The full gg->hh amplitude in the simplified model of Eq. (1) is a finite sum of one-loop diagrams, and Eq. (A1) is the exact algebraic expansion of |sum A_i|^2 into coupling-weighted reduced cross sections; the recombination is therefore a bookkeeping identity, not a fitted prediction. The NMSSM couplings and widths entering the weights are computed with SPheno/SARAH, independently of the di-Higgs observables, and the benchmark points are illustrative rather than tuned to the m_hh distributions, so no parameter is fitted to the target signal. The only self-citations are to the authors' prior paper [11] for the deconstruction framework, the UFO model, and the reuse of BP2; these are methodological inputs, not unverified uniqueness theorems invoked to forbid alternatives, and the new resonant-plus-coloured-scalar results are obtained from the present simulation chain. The width rescaling of Eq. (4) is an approximation for off-grid widths and may mis-model interference line shapes for doublet benchmarks with Gamma/m ~ 0.01, but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity: no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the effect it is supposed to establish. Hence a low score for minor, non-load-bearing self-citation is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method adds no fitted constants; its load-bearing inputs are the completeness of the topology decomposition, the alignment-limit assumption for NMSSM couplings, narrow-width rescaling, and hand-picked benchmark points. These are all domain assumptions or chosen inputs, not fitted results.

free parameters (1)

NMSSM benchmark point parameters (tan beta, lambda, kappa, A_lambda, vS, mH, mS, m_t1) = BP1-BP5 values in Table II
Hand-picked to illustrate different interference patterns and thresholds; not fitted to data, but the observability claims are conditional on these choices.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The ten topology classes of Table I exhaust all LO contributions to gg to hh with the simplified Lagrangians of Eq. (1).
Section II states this is the complete list, and Appendix A derives all cross-section terms from it, but no independent proof of completeness is given.
domain assumption The NMSSM Higgs sector is in the alignment limit and CP invariant.
Section III A uses the alignment limit to derive lambda_hhh and lambda_Hhh, and CP conservation restricts the analysis to CP-even resonances.
domain assumption Narrow-width approximation holds for the neutral scalars, including the width rescaling in Eq. (4).
Section II A states the rescaling becomes less accurate for large widths; doublet benchmarks have Gamma/m around 0.01 and the analysis relies on the approximation.
domain assumption Leading-order predictions, possibly with a constant K-factor, capture the qualitative interference patterns.
Section III D notes NLO corrections can shift shapes by 20-30%; the paper assumes the qualitative conclusions survive.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deconstructing resonant Higgs pair production at the LHC: effects of coloured and neutral scalars in the NMSSM test case." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72MM3RFU

@misc{pith2026250609006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deconstructing resonant Higgs pair production at the LHC: effects of coloured and neutral scalars in the NMSSM test case},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72MM3RFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09006}
}

abstract

We study resonant production of pairs of Standard Model (SM)-like Higgs bosons, in the presence of new neutral Higgs states together with new coloured scalars (stops or sbottoms) in loops within the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric SM (NMSSM). This is used as a test case to prove that the Large Hadron Collider has sensitivity to a variety of effects stemming from interferences between resonant (heavy) Higgs diagrams and/or among these and non-resonant topologies involving loops of both tops and stops. These effects can alter significantly the naive description of individual $s$-channel Breit-Wigner resonances, leading to distortions of the latter which, on the one hand, may mask their presence but, on the other hand, could enable one to extract features of the underlying new physics scenario. This last aspect is made possible through a decomposition of the $gg\to hh$ signal process into all its amplitude components, each of which has a well-defined coupling structure. Ultimately, such effects can be traced back to the relevant Feynman diagrams and can enable a detailed interpretation of this process. To illustrate this, we introduce various Benchmark Points that exhibit potentially observable features during the current and/or upcoming runs of the LHC in one or more of the three customary di-Higgs decay channels: $b\bar bb\bar b$, $b\bar b \tau^+\tau^-$ and $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09006 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass for BP1, which features a singlet Higgs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass for BP2, which features a singlet Higgs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass for BP3, which features a singlet Higgs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass for BP4, which features a doublet Higgs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass for BP5, which features a singlet Higgs state with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Differential distribution of the di-Higgs invariant mass in the 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

Interference effects in new physics searches
hep-ph 2026-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Interference between new-physics resonances and Standard Model backgrounds must be included in collider searches; the review shows it can distort, enhance, or even cancel expected signals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

In fact, the numerical model used for the simulations, available as auxiliary data, contains only the minimal number of particles needed to simulate all combinations

The event samples can be recycled to account for multiple coloured or neutral scalars appearing in different models of new physics. In fact, the numerical model used for the simulations, available as auxiliary data, contains only the minimal number of particles needed to simulate all combinations. In particular, the largest amount of neutral scalars which...

work page
[2]

Reinterpreting the results for different scenarios does not require new simulations: since event samples are com- bined according to Equation (A1), different benchmark points (BPs) characterised by different masses, total widths and/or couplings can be analysed using the same dataset. However, while couplings can be continuously modified as they enter as ...

work page
[3]

Non-linear features of differential distributions related to the interplay of interferences or threshold effects can be inspected with unprecedented detail by isolating their sources and straightforwardly relating these to the underlying physics. This is especially relevant when the mass scales of such non-linear effects are similar for different new part...

work page 2000
[4]

BP1: light singlet scalar Our first BP introduces a singlet scalar at mS = 350 GeV. Since the mixing between the singlet and the SM-like Higgs pushes the SM-like Higgs mass down, one needs a relatively small value for λ, a large value for tan β and heavy squarks to achieve a 125 GeV Higgs mass. A large value for tan β forces the Higgs self-coupling to be ...

work page
[5]

This is achieved through a low value for tan β and a large value for λ

BP2: intermediate scale scalars with light squarks This BP is actually our second NMSSM one from [11], where we had a 600 GeV squark combined with a large modification of the Higgs trilinear self-coupling. This is achieved through a low value for tan β and a large value for λ. This BP had also a singlet scalar with a mass close to 500 GeV and a doublet sc...

work page
[6]

In principle, the heavy Higgs is right on top of the squark threshold (2 m˜t1 )

BP3: doublet scalar on top of the squark threshold Here we take a BP with two quite heavy scalars, mS = 800 GeV and mH = 1200 GeV, together with a 600 GeV stop. In principle, the heavy Higgs is right on top of the squark threshold (2 m˜t1 ). With these kinds of BPs there is a complementarity between resonant effects and squark effects. Resonant effects ar...

work page
[7]

We also have a large value of λ and a small one of tan β which lead to an enhanced value of λhhh compared to the SM

BP4: doublet lighter than singlet Now we reverse the roles of the singlet and doublet compared to the previous BP, i.e., we set the doublet state to have mH = 800 GeV and the singlet state to have mS = 1200 GeV. We also have a large value of λ and a small one of tan β which lead to an enhanced value of λhhh compared to the SM. As in the previous BP, the s...

work page
[8]

BP5: 100 GeV singlet In singlet extensions of the Higgs sector it is possible that the 125 GeV state is not the lightest Higgs boson. In fact, there are small excesses in various channels at LEP [48], ATLAS [49] and CMS [26, 50], which could be explained through a new scalar state with mass in the range 95–100 GeV [51–56]. We show what could be the typica...

work page

Show all 79 references

[9]

The downside of this channel is the low event rate due to a BR( hh → bbγγ ) = 0 .26% and a reconstruction efficiency of around 10% after preselection

Two b-jets and two photons The channel with two b-jets and two photons offers a low background and also a good mass resolution. The downside of this channel is the low event rate due to a BR( hh → bbγγ ) = 0 .26% and a reconstruction efficiency of around 10% after preselection...
[10]

However, the presence of the taus helps in reducing the QCD background

Two b-jets and two taus This final state has a larger rate than bbγγ , but the mass resolution is not as good due to the neutrinos in the final state. However, the presence of the taus helps in reducing the QCD background. Usually this final state has the best sensitivity to i...
[11]

(κhhhκhf f)2 ˆσ3f + κ4 hf fˆσ4f # , (A1a) σ˜s = X i

Four b-jets This final state has the largest event rate and the best sensitivity for high-mass resonances. However, due to low event yields in the high-mass tail, it will be more difficult to significantly disentangle any positive or negative interference compared to similar e...

2023
[12]

E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, HIGGS BOSON PAIR PRODUCTION VIA GLUON FUSION, Nucl. Phys. B 309, 282 (1988)

1988
[13]

D. A. Dicus, C. Kao, and S. S. D. Willenbrock, Higgs Boson Pair Production From Gluon Fusion, Phys. Lett. B 203, 457 (1988)

1988
[14]

Kanemura, S

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

2003 arXiv
[15]

Noble and M

A. Noble and M. Perelstein, Higgs self-coupling as a probe of electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 78, 063518 (2008), arXiv:0711.3018 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[16]

Rodejohann and H

W. Rodejohann and H. Zhang, Impact of massive neutrinos on the Higgs self-coupling and electroweak vacuum stability, JHEP 06, 022, arXiv:1203.3825 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[17]

L. Wu, J. M. Yang, C.-P. Yuan, and M. Zhang, Higgs self-coupling in the MSSM and NMSSM after the LHC Run 1, Phys. Lett. B 747, 378 (2015), arXiv:1504.06932 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[18]

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, 788 (2017), arXiv:1704.02311 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[19]

H. Bahl, J. Braathen, and G. Weiglein, New Constraints on Extended Higgs Sectors from the Trilinear Higgs Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 231802 (2022), arXiv:2202.03453 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[20]

Batell, M

B. Batell, M. McCullough, D. Stolarski, and C. B. Verhaaren, Putting a Stop to di-Higgs Modifications, JHEP 09, 216, arXiv:1508.01208 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[21]

Huang, A

P. Huang, A. Joglekar, M. Li, and C. E. M. Wagner, Corrections to di-Higgs boson production with light stops and modified Higgs couplings, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075001 (2018), arXiv:1711.05743 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Moretti, L

S. Moretti, L. Panizzi, J. Sj¨ olin, and H. Waltari, Deconstructing squark contributions to di-Higgs production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 107, 115010 (2023), arXiv:2302.03401 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[23]

De Curtis, L

S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, F. Egle, S. Moretti, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and K. Sakurai, Composite 2-Higgs doublet model: strong effects on Higgs pair production, JHEP 06, 063, arXiv:2310.10471 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[24]

Plehn, M

T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Pair production of neutral Higgs particles in gluon-gluon collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 46 (1996), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 531, 655–655 (1998)], arXiv:hep-ph/9603205

1996 arXiv
[25]

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

2013 arXiv
[26]

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

2014 arXiv
[27]

Dawson and I

S. Dawson and I. M. Lewis, NLO corrections to double Higgs boson production in the Higgs singlet model, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094023 (2015), arXiv:1508.05397 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[28]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Measurements of t ¯tH Production and the CP Structure of the Yukawa Interaction between the Higgs Boson and Top Quark in the Diphoton Decay Channel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 061801 (2020), arXiv:2003.10866 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[29]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), CP Properties of Higgs Boson Interactions with Top Quarks in the t¯tH and tH Processes Using H → γγ with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 061802 (2020), arXiv:2004.04545 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[30]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Measurement of the associated production of a top-antitop-quark pair and a Higgs boson decaying into a b¯b pair in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 210 (2025), arXiv:2407.10904 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[31]

Dawson and I

S. Dawson and I. M. Lewis, Singlet Model Interference Effects with High Scale UV Physics, Phys. Rev. D 95, 015004 (2017), arXiv:1605.04944 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[32]

Carena, Z

M. Carena, Z. Liu, and M. Riembau, Probing the electroweak phase transition via enhanced di-Higgs boson production, Phys. Rev. D 97, 095032 (2018), arXiv:1801.00794 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[33]

Feuerstake, E

F. Feuerstake, E. Fuchs, T. Robens, and D. Winterbottom, Interference effects in resonant di-Higgs production at the LHC in the Higgs singlet extension, JHEP 04, 094, arXiv:2409.06651 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[34]

Ellwanger, C

U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 496, 1 (2010), arXiv:0910.1785 [hep-ph]. 20

2010 arXiv
[35]

Moretti and S

S. Moretti and S. Khalil, Supersymmetry Beyond Minimality: From Theory to Experiment (CRC Press, 2019)

2019
[36]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 051801 (2020), arXiv:2002.12223 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[37]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Searches for additional Higgs bosons and for vector leptoquarks in τ τfinal states in proton- proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07, 073, arXiv:2208.02717 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[38]

Drees, Supersymmetric Models with Extended Higgs Sector, Int

M. Drees, Supersymmetric Models with Extended Higgs Sector, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4, 3635 (1989)

1989
[39]

Ellwanger, Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC, JHEP 08, 077, arXiv:1306.5541 [hep-ph]

U. Ellwanger, Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC, JHEP 08, 077, arXiv:1306.5541 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[40]

Z. Heng, X. Gong, and H. Zhou, Pair production of Higgs boson in NMSSM at the LHC with the next-to-lightest CP-even Higgs boson being SM-like, Chin. Phys. C 42, 073103 (2018), arXiv:1805.01598 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[41]

J. Cao, Z. Heng, L. Shang, P. Wan, and J. M. Yang, Pair Production of a 125 GeV Higgs Boson in MSSM and NMSSM at the LHC, JHEP 04, 134, arXiv:1301.6437 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[42]

Z. Heng, L. Shang, and P. Wan, Pair production of a 125 GeV Higgs boson in MSSM and NMSSM at the ILC, JHEP 10, 047, arXiv:1306.0279 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[43]

J. Cao, D. Li, L. Shang, P. Wu, and Y. Zhang, Exploring the Higgs Sector of a Most Natural NMSSM and its Prediction on Higgs Pair Production at the LHC, JHEP 12, 026, arXiv:1409.8431 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[44]

Huang and Y

P. Huang and Y. H. Ng, Di-Higgs Production in SUSY models at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 660 (2020), arXiv:1910.13968 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[45]

Degrande, C

C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[46]

Alwall, R

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07...

arXiv
[47]

Frederix, S

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao, and M. Zaro, The automation of next-to-leading order elec- troweak calculations, JHEP 07, 185, [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)], arXiv:1804.10017 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[48]

R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF), Parton distributions for the LHC Run II, JHEP 04, 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[49]

Sj¨ ostrand, S

T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[50]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04, 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[51]

Cacciari, G

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

2012 arXiv
[52]

Conte, B

E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Framework for Collider Phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013), arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[53]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery., Nature 607, 60 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[54]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Interpretations of the ATLAS measurements of Higgs boson production and decay rates and differential cross-sections in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 11, 097, arXiv:2402.05742 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[55]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. E. Haber, I. Low, N. R. Shah, and C. E. M. Wagner, Alignment limit of the NMSSM Higgs sector, Phys. Rev. D 93, 035013 (2016), arXiv:1510.09137 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[56]

Porod, SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders, Comput

W. Porod, SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153, 275 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301101

2003 arXiv
[57]

Porod and F

W. Porod and F. Staub, SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 2458 (2012), arXiv:1104.1573 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[58]

Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput

F. Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 1773 (2014), arXiv:1309.7223 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[59]

Barate et al

R. Barate et al. (LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL), Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP, Phys. Lett. B 565, 61 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0306033

2003 arXiv
[60]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Search for diphoton resonances in the 66 to 110 GeV mass range using pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01, 053, arXiv:2407.07546 [hep-ex]
[61]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 and 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 793, 320 (2019), arXiv:1811.08459 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[62]

Biek¨ otter, S

T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, and G. Weiglein, Mounting evidence for a 95 GeV Higgs boson, JHEP 08, 201, arXiv:2203.13180 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[63]

Azevedo, T

D. Azevedo, T. Biek¨ otter, and P. M. Ferreira, 2HDM interpretations of the CMS diphoton excess at 95 GeV, JHEP 11, 017, arXiv:2305.19716 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[64]

Belyaev, R

A. Belyaev, R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, M. Chakraborti, S. Moretti, and S. Semlali, Explanation of the hints for a 95 GeV Higgs boson within a 2-Higgs Doublet Model, JHEP 05, 209, arXiv:2306.09029 [hep-ph]
[65]

Ellwanger and C

U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, Additional Higgs Bosons near 95 and 650 GeV in the NMSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1138 (2023), arXiv:2309.07838 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[66]

J. Cao, X. Jia, J. Lian, and L. Meng, 95 GeV diphoton and bb ¯ excesses in the general next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075001 (2024), arXiv:2310.08436 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[67]

Ellwanger, C

U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, S. F. King, and S. Moretti, NMSSM explanation for excesses in the search for neutralinos and charginos and a 95 GeV Higgs boson, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 788 (2024), arXiv:2404.19338 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[68]

Reichert, A

M. Reichert, A. Eichhorn, H. Gies, J. M. Pawlowski, T. Plehn, and M. M. Scherer, Probing baryogenesis through the Higgs boson self-coupling, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075008 (2018), arXiv:1711.00019 [hep-ph]. 21

2018 arXiv
[69]

Basler, M

P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and J. M¨ uller, Electroweak Phase Transition in Non-Minimal Higgs Sectors, JHEP 05, 016, arXiv:1912.10477 [hep-ph]

1912 arXiv
[70]

Biek¨ otter, S

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 03, 031, arXiv:2208.14466 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[71]

Dawson, S

S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira, Neutral Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D 58, 115012 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9805244

1998 arXiv
[72]

de Florian and J

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

2013 arXiv
[73]

Frederix, S

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, P. Torrielli, E. Vryonidou, and M. Zaro, Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects, Phys. Lett. B 732, 142 (2014), arXiv:1401.7340 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[74]

Borowka, N

S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk, U. Schubert, and T. Zirke, Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass Dependence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 012001 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 117, 0799...

2016 arXiv
[75]

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, 459 (2019), arXiv:1811.05692 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[76]

Baglio, F

J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca, and M. Spira, gg → HH : Combined uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D 103, 056002 (2021), arXiv:2008.11626 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[77]

Agostini, G

A. Agostini, G. Degrassi, R. Gr¨ ober, and P. Slavich, NLO-QCD corrections to Higgs pair production in the MSSM, JHEP 04, 106, arXiv:1601.03671 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[78]

Dawson, A

S. Dawson, A. Djouadi, and M. Spira, QCD corrections to SUSY Higgs production: The Role of squark loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 16 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9603423

1996 arXiv
[79]

Harlander and M

R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, Effects of SUSY QCD in hadronic Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. D 68, 111701 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0308210

2003 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In fact, the numerical model used for the simulations, available as auxiliary data, contains only the minimal number of particles needed to simulate all combinations

The event samples can be recycled to account for multiple coloured or neutral scalars appearing in different models of new physics. In fact, the numerical model used for the simulations, available as auxiliary data, contains only the minimal number of particles needed to simulate all combinations. In particular, the largest amount of neutral scalars which...

work page

[2] [2]

Reinterpreting the results for different scenarios does not require new simulations: since event samples are com- bined according to Equation (A1), different benchmark points (BPs) characterised by different masses, total widths and/or couplings can be analysed using the same dataset. However, while couplings can be continuously modified as they enter as ...

work page

[3] [3]

Non-linear features of differential distributions related to the interplay of interferences or threshold effects can be inspected with unprecedented detail by isolating their sources and straightforwardly relating these to the underlying physics. This is especially relevant when the mass scales of such non-linear effects are similar for different new part...

work page 2000

[4] [4]

BP1: light singlet scalar Our first BP introduces a singlet scalar at mS = 350 GeV. Since the mixing between the singlet and the SM-like Higgs pushes the SM-like Higgs mass down, one needs a relatively small value for λ, a large value for tan β and heavy squarks to achieve a 125 GeV Higgs mass. A large value for tan β forces the Higgs self-coupling to be ...

work page

[5] [5]

This is achieved through a low value for tan β and a large value for λ

BP2: intermediate scale scalars with light squarks This BP is actually our second NMSSM one from [11], where we had a 600 GeV squark combined with a large modification of the Higgs trilinear self-coupling. This is achieved through a low value for tan β and a large value for λ. This BP had also a singlet scalar with a mass close to 500 GeV and a doublet sc...

work page

[6] [6]

In principle, the heavy Higgs is right on top of the squark threshold (2 m˜t1 )

BP3: doublet scalar on top of the squark threshold Here we take a BP with two quite heavy scalars, mS = 800 GeV and mH = 1200 GeV, together with a 600 GeV stop. In principle, the heavy Higgs is right on top of the squark threshold (2 m˜t1 ). With these kinds of BPs there is a complementarity between resonant effects and squark effects. Resonant effects ar...

work page

[7] [7]

We also have a large value of λ and a small one of tan β which lead to an enhanced value of λhhh compared to the SM

BP4: doublet lighter than singlet Now we reverse the roles of the singlet and doublet compared to the previous BP, i.e., we set the doublet state to have mH = 800 GeV and the singlet state to have mS = 1200 GeV. We also have a large value of λ and a small one of tan β which lead to an enhanced value of λhhh compared to the SM. As in the previous BP, the s...

work page

[8] [8]

BP5: 100 GeV singlet In singlet extensions of the Higgs sector it is possible that the 125 GeV state is not the lightest Higgs boson. In fact, there are small excesses in various channels at LEP [48], ATLAS [49] and CMS [26, 50], which could be explained through a new scalar state with mass in the range 95–100 GeV [51–56]. We show what could be the typica...

work page