Harnessing Higgs Kinematics for HEFT Constraints

Christoph Englert; J\"orgen Sj\"olin; Michael Spannowsky; Tom Ingebretsen Carlson

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Harnessing Higgs Kinematics for HEFT Constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the HL-LHC's Higgs-pair program can constrain momentum-dependent non-linear Higgs couplings at the percent level, using a reweighting trick that works with existing LHC searches.

desk verdict Useful recasting with new HL projections, but the per-cent add2 limit rests on a flat m_hh acceptance that is only validated inclusively. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19401 v1 pith:NTHG56W2 submitted 2025-06-24 hep-ph hep-ex

Christoph Englert , Tom Ingebretsen Carlson , Jörgen Sjölin , Michael Spannowsky This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords HiggsEffectiveFieldTheorydi-Higgsproductionself-couplingmomentum-dependentreweightingHL-LHCfour-topnon-lineardynamics

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 argues that existing LHC searches for Higgs-pair production can be reinterpreted as probes of the Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT), a framework that allows momentum-dependent deviations in Higgs interactions that SMEFT and the kappa framework rule out or tie tightly together. It proposes a simple reweighting step, replacing the triple-Higgs coupling by an effective coupling that depends on the di-Higgs invariant mass $m_{hh}$, that can be dropped into existing Monte Carlo workflows. Using binned likelihoods in $m_{hh}$ and angular variables, the authors project that the HL-LHC can constrain the coefficient $a_{dd2}$ at the percent level and, when combined with four-top production, constrain $a_{22}$ near 0.04 to 0.06. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns the di-Higgs program into a direct test of whether the Higgs sector is linear, SMEFT-like, or non-linear, HEFT-like, using analyses that can be run with current tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the momentum-dependent effective triple-Higgs coupling of Eq. (2.2), $c^{\mathrm{HEFT}}_{hhh,\chi 4}(c_{hhh},a_{22},a_{dd2},\ldots;m_{hh}^2)$, which the paper uses as a universal reweighting function for gluon-fusion $gg\to hh$ events. It encodes both the correction to the Higgs three-point vertex and the off-shell propagation of the intermediate Higgs. What it does is convert a set of HEFT operator coefficients into an $m_{hh}$-dependent weight that can be applied to standard event samples, after which binned likelihoods in $m_{hh}$ and scattering-angle or $\Delta\eta$ variables translate the shape changes into exclusion contours.

What would settle it

Run the HEFT benchmark templates through a full detector simulation of the $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ and $b\bar b b\bar b$ selections and compare the reconstructed $m_{hh}$ distribution with the flat-efficiency template; a few-percent variation in efficiency across the 250 to 1400 GeV range would shift the claimed limits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that chiral-dimension-four bosonic HEFT corrections to gluon-fusion di-Higgs production are captured, for on-shell kinematics, by a momentum-dependent replacement of the Higgs trilinear coupling, $c^{\mathrm{HEFT}}_{hhh,\chi 4}$, given by Eq. (2.2). The replacement encodes vertex and off-shell propagator effects through $q^2=m_{hh}^2$ and the coefficients $a_{22}$, $a_{dd2}$, $a_{ddZ}$, $a_{hdd}$, and related parameters, so a single global reweighting exports the full HEFT shape dependence into existing Monte Carlo samples. Applied to realistic $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ and $b\bar b b\bar b$ selections, HEFT operators sculpt $m_{hh}$ in qualitatively different ways: momentum-enhanced operators like $a_{dd2}$ are best constrained by the harder $b\bar b b\bar b$ selection, while $a_{22}$ remains nearly degenerate with $c_{hhh}$ in inclusive channels. The paper projects 95% CL bounds for Run 3 and the HL-LHC, the headline being $a_{dd2}\in[-0.045,0.025]$ for $b\bar b b\bar b$ at 3/ab, and shows that adding a four-top constraint on $a_{22}$ with $\sigma=0.04$ at the HL-LHC largely removes the degeneracy.

Load-bearing premise

The projected limits assume that after all event selections the signal efficiency is the same at every di-Higgs mass, using a fixed average of two benchmark efficiencies; if the real acceptance varies with $m_{hh}$, the constraints on momentum-dependent coefficients would move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $m_{hh}$ distribution becomes the primary discriminator, and the harder $b\bar b b\bar b$ selection is systematically more sensitive than the inclusive $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ channel to momentum-enhanced HEFT coefficients like $a_{dd2}$.
At the HL-LHC with 3/ab, $b\bar b b\bar b$ alone would exclude $a_{dd2}$ outside roughly $[-0.045,0.025]$ at 95% CL, per the paper's Tables 3 and 4.
Combining di-Higgs with four-top production lifts the $a_{22}$ degeneracy: at the HL-LHC a Gaussian four-top constraint with $\sigma=0.04$ turns the $(c_{hhh},a_{22})$ plane into a tightly bounded region even in $b\bar b\gamma\gamma$.
Already at Run 3, one-dimensional limits of $a_{dd2}\in[-0.081,0.063]$ in $b\bar b b\bar b$ show that the reweighting can be used immediately in current LHC reinterpretations.
Because the HEFT effect enters through a single coupling replacement, the same reweighting applies to higher-order QCD predictions and jet-merged samples without generating new matrix elements.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's flat-efficiency treatment implies its numerical limits are order-of-magnitude sensitivity estimates: a detector acceptance that rises or falls with $m_{hh}$ would shift the extracted bounds, and this is not settled by the inclusive-yield validation.
A natural extension the paper does not quantify is a global fit that adds single-Higgs and off-shell observables alongside $hh$; the additive structure of Eq. (2.2) leaves degeneracies that only external measurements can resolve, and four-top production is the paper's example of such an external handle, not the only one.
The same reweighting could be ported to vector-boson-fusion and $hh+$jet production, which the paper mentions but does not include in its projections, to test whether the measured momentum dependence is universal or process-specific.
Because the illustrative benchmark points in the shape plots are chosen to show phenomenology rather than satisfy perturbativity, the true reach of an explicit UV completion could be smaller; matching the HEFT coefficients to a concrete model would sharpen the projected limits.

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

Short version: this paper is worth engaging with for the HL-LHC projections of HEFT coefficients, but the headline per-cent constraint on add2 is provisional. The flat signal efficiency is load-bearing and is validated only against inclusive yields.

The genuinely new content is the recast of ATLAS Run 2 bbγγ and bbbb analyses into limits on a_22 and add2, the Run 3 and HL projections, and the four-top combination. Eq. (2.2) and the reweighting idea come from the group's earlier papers, but the numerical results here are new. The paper validates by reproducing the ATLAS inclusive yields and tunes systematics (7/10% for bbγγ, 1/2.5% for bbbb) to match the reported limits. The cancellation between c_hhh and a_22 is clearly shown, and the argument that bbbb accesses harder, boosted phase space where momentum-dependent operators matter is sound.

The soft spot is the flat efficiency. For each channel the authors use a single signal efficiency, the average of SM and a kappa_lambda variation, applied to every m_hh bin. That works for inclusive yields, but the HEFT sensitivity to add2 comes precisely from the m_hh shape. The stress-test is right: a modest m_hh-dependent acceptance slope in the boosted region could shift the per-bin counts enough to move the Table 4 limits by a noticeable amount. The four-top constraint is also simplified, imposed as a fixed Gaussian (σ=0.06 Run 3, σ=0.04 HL) rather than derived from a full analysis, so the combined a_22 bounds inherit that assumption. These are fair limitations for a sensitivity study, but they mean the per-cent add2 claim should be read as indicative, not definitive.

Who is this for? LHC Higgs phenomenologists working on HEFT or di-Higgs interpretations, and experimental analysts who want a lightweight way to add HEFT benchmarks to their selections. I would send it to a serious referee; the method is reproducible and the projections fill a gap. I'd ask the referee to request a test of the flat-efficiency assumption, ideally an m_hh-dependent efficiency reweighting or at least a check of how much the average m_hh per bin differs between signal and background.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a recasting strategy for LHC di-Higgs searches in the bosonic HEFT, using a momentum-dependent replacement of the trilinear Higgs coupling derived from chiral-dimension-four operators. The method is applied to the b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma and b\bar{b}b\bar{b} final states with simplified binned likelihoods, yielding 95% CL projections for the HEFT coefficients a_22 and a_dd2 at Run 3 and HL-LHC, and is combined with an assumed four-top constraint on a_22. The main quantitative claim is that the HL-LHC bbbb channel can constrain a_dd2 to roughly [-0.045, 0.025] at 95% CL, i.e., at the per-cent level, and that four-top production can provide orthogonal sensitivity to a_22. The paper validates its simplified analysis against inclusive ATLAS Run 2 and HL-LHC projections.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper makes a useful physics case: HEFT momentum-dependent operators can leave observable shape imprints in di-Higgs production, and existing experimental selections can be reinterpreted with modest effort. The limits are genuine likelihood outputs and there is no step where a prediction reduces to an input by construction. The authors are explicit about the main simplifications: flat signal efficiencies, systematics chosen to reproduce inclusive ATLAS limits, and an external Gaussian four-top constraint. However, the quantitative per-cent claim for a_dd2 rests on those simplifications, and the four-top combination rests on an asserted prior. Because the central claim is defensible but load-bearing points need additional work, I recommend major revision.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.1, Tables 3 and 4] The central HL-LHC claim that a_dd2 can be constrained at the per-cent level in bbbb depends on treating the signal selection efficiency as a single constant in m_hh, taken as the average of the SM and kappa_lambda=6 efficiencies for bbbb (and the SM and kappa_lambda=10 averages for bbγγ), with adequacy judged only by reproducing inclusive yields. Since a_dd2 sensitivity enters through the m_hh shape (Fig. 1c) and bbbb accesses the boosted regime, a moderate m_hh-dependent acceptance variation, say 20-40% across the relevant bins, would shift the per-bin signal counts and therefore the likelihood-ratio exclusions in Tables 3 and 4. The authors should quantify the m_hh dependence of the acceptance for representative HEFT benchmarks, or explicitly demonstrate that the projected limits are robust to such variations, before the per-cent a_dd2 claim can be accepted.
[Sec. 3.2, Figs. 6 and 7] The combined (c_hhh, a_22) contours use an external constraint on a_22 from four-top production modeled as a Gaussian of width 0.06 at Run 3 and 0.04 at HL-LHC, centered at zero. This width is asserted rather than derived from the cited CMS projection [57], and the mapping from the t\bar{t}t\bar{t} cross-section to a_22 is not documented. Because the vertical extent of the excluded regions in Figs. 6 and 7 is largely set by this prior, the authors should either carry out a four-top likelihood analysis for a_22 or show how the conclusions change when the width is varied over a reasonable range.
[Sec. 3.1, validation of differential shapes] The analysis validates the recasting only against inclusive event yields, not against the m_hh or angular shapes that carry the HEFT sensitivity. The paper states that the flat-efficiency points 'are chosen because they are provided by ATLAS' and that their adequacy is evaluated by reproducing reported limits. This checks normalization but not shape. At minimum, the authors should compare their reconstructed differential distributions for the SM and for a representative HEFT benchmark against the published ATLAS differential plots, to show that the simplified detector modeling and binning preserve the m_hh shape information that drives the a_dd2 limits.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 3.1] The text contains a duplicated sentence in the b\bar{b}b\bar{b} paragraph: 'A flat signal efficiency, calculated based on the average SM and for kappa_lambda=6 signal efficiency, is applied, similar to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma. We apply a flat signal efficiency, averaging the SM and kappa_lambda=6 efficiencies as detailed above.' One of these should be removed.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (2.2)] The coefficients a_ddZ, a_ddW, a_h22, and a_hdd appearing in Eq. (2.2) are not defined in the text; the reader must consult Ref. [32] to understand the operator content. Adding a table with the corresponding operators or a brief definition would make the equation self-contained.
[Sec. 2] The sentence 'The only relevant scale is therefore the invariant di-Higgs mass q^2 = m_hh^2' is slightly misleading in view of the later discussion in Sec. 3.1 of correlated t-dependence from interference with the box topologies. The intended statement is that the HEFT vertex and propagator corrections depend only on q^2; the sentence should be reworded to avoid implying that m_hh is the only kinematic variable that matters.
[Sec. 3.2] The four-top analysis is described as 'based on Ref. [57]', but Ref. [57] is a CMS projection for tttt production and does not by itself provide an a_22 constraint. The authors should clarify how the Gaussian widths 0.06 and 0.04 are obtained from that reference or state explicitly that these are phenomenological assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No prediction reduces to an input by construction; the HEFT limits are genuine likelihood outputs, though the analysis leans on the authors' own reweighting and operator-basis references.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain from Eq. (2.2) to Tables 1-4, the m_hh shapes that carry the a22/add2 sensitivity are generated from a stated HEFT vertex model (operator list from Ref. [32]) and reweighted with the method of Ref. [24]; both are inputs, not targets of the fit. The limits are genuine likelihood-ratio outputs (Wilks' theorem, Gaussian binned likelihoods in m_hh and |cos theta*| or |Delta eta_hh|), so the exclusions are not equal by construction to the input efficiencies. The flat efficiencies and the 7/10% and 1/2.5% systematics are calibrated to reproduce ATLAS Run 2 and HL inclusive projections, but the HEFT limits are extrapolations to new coefficient values, not refits of those calibration points. The four-top a22 constraint is labeled 'external' and imposed as a Gaussian; the resulting contour improvement is a mathematical consequence of adding that constraint, but the paper does not disguise it as a prediction emerging from hh alone. Self-citations ([24], [32], [25], [35]) are present, and the method and operator basis are partly self-supplied, but each rests on stated assumptions and on validation against external ATLAS and CMS results; no step reduces the central claim to a self-citation chain or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The load-bearing risk is approximation quality, most notably the flat m_hh acceptance used for the binned HEFT likelihoods, which is a correctness concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The HEFT coefficients a_22 and a_dd2 and the coupling modifier c_hhh are free EFT parameters being constrained. The analysis also depends on several externally chosen inputs: systematic uncertainties tuned to reproduce ATLAS limits, flat signal efficiencies, and imposed Gaussian widths for the four-top constraint on a_22. No new entities are introduced. The main axioms are that Eq. (2.2) from Ref. [32] is valid, that flat efficiencies preserve the relevant shapes, and that the Gaussian likelihood plus assumed four-top widths describe the experimental sensitivity.

free parameters (6)

a_22 = Run 3 bbγγ: [-1.17,0.50], bbbb: [-0.97,0.50]; HL bbγγ: [-0.91,0.26], bbbb: [-0.63,0.23] (95% CL)
HEFT coefficient controlling momentum-dependent Higgs propagator and vertex corrections; the target of the likelihood fit.
a_dd2 = Run 3 bbγγ: [-0.27,0.17], bbbb: [-0.081,0.063]; HL bbγγ: [-0.20,0.10], bbbb: [-0.045,0.025] (95% CL)
HEFT coefficient producing strong q^4 momentum enhancement; target of the fit.
c_hhh = scanned over [-20,20] in exclusion contours
Higgs trilinear coupling modifier; treated as a free parameter in the 2D fits.
four-top a_22 Gaussian width = sigma = 0.06 (Run 3), 0.04 (HL), centered at zero
Assumed external constraint from tttt production; adopted from projections, not derived in this paper.
systematic uncertainties = 7% and 10% for bbγγ, 1% and 2.5% for bbbb
Chosen to reproduce ATLAS Run 2 and HL limits; not independently measured quantities.
flat signal efficiency = average of SM and kappa_lambda=10 (bbγγ) or kappa_lambda=6 (bbbb)
Assumed m_hh-independent acceptance; validated only against inclusive limits.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Eq. (2.2) correctly encodes all bosonic HEFT corrections up to chiral dimension 4 to gg->hh in the on-shell scheme.
The paper imports this formula from Ref. [32], an overlapping-author paper, without re-derivation. The operator structures are said to be listed in Tab. 1 of Ref. [32].
domain assumption Flat signal efficiency is a valid proxy for the true m_hh-dependent acceptance in both search channels.
Stated in Sec. 3.1; used to build binned m_hh likelihoods. Only inclusive yields are validated against ATLAS, not the differential shape.
domain assumption Gaussian uncorrelated-bin likelihood and Wilks' theorem adequately describe the experimental sensitivity.
Sec. 3.1: 'likelihoods are assumed to be Gaussian, bins treated as uncorrelated'.
ad hoc to paper The four-top constraint on a_22 is a Gaussian of width 0.06 (Run 3) or 0.04 (HL) centered at zero.
Imposed in Figs. 6 and 7; no derivation of these widths is presented.
ad hoc to paper Higher-order QCD corrections and jet-merged calculations can inherit the momentum-dependent replacement without modification.
Asserted in Sec. 2 ('can be imported globally... without loss of generality') without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Harnessing Higgs Kinematics for HEFT Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTHG56W2

@misc{pith2026250619401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Harnessing Higgs Kinematics for HEFT Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTHG56W2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19401}
}

abstract

We present a momentum-dependent reweighting strategy to extend current LHC di-Higgs analyses within the $\kappa$-framework and SMEFT into the bosonic sector of the Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT). Unlike SMEFT, where symmetry constraints tightly correlate multi-Higgs processes, HEFT allows for a broader range of momentum-dependent deviations that can substantially impact di-Higgs kinematics and offer a powerful probe of non-linear Higgs dynamics. We generalise the interpretation of existing experimental analyses by integrating HEFT operators up to chiral dimension four into differential Monte Carlo reweighting. We quantify the sensitivity to representative HEFT operators using multi-dimensional likelihoods for Run 3 and project the reach at the High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC). Particular emphasis is placed on how different exclusive final states, such as $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ and $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$, respond to momentum enhancements and how their complementary event selections drive exclusion limits. We further explore how rare final states, especially four-top production, can provide orthogonal constraints on HEFT-induced modifications, thereby enhancing global sensitivity to new physics effects in the Higgs sector.

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

Phenomenology of a Kinetic Higgs Portal
hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A momentum-dependent Higgs portal can hide invisible decays, make four-top production the most sensitive probe, and open a dark-matter region immune to direct detection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[5]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky,Higgs self-coupling measurements at the LHC, JHEP10(2012) 112, [arXiv:1206.5001]

arXiv 2012
[6]

D. E. Ferreira de Lima, A. Papaefstathiou, and M. Spannowsky,Standard model Higgs boson pair production in the(b ¯b)(b¯b)final state,JHEP08(2014) 030, [arXiv:1404.7139]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[7]

A. J. Barr, M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky,Di-Higgs final states augMT2ed – selectinghhevents at the high luminosity LHC,Phys. Lett. B728(2014) 308–313, [arXiv:1309.6318]. – 12 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[8]

Chang, K

J. Chang, K. Cheung, J. S. Lee, C.-T. Lu, and J. Park,Higgs-boson-pair production h(→b b)h(→γγ)from gluon fusion at the hl-lhc and hl-100 tev hadron collider,Phys. Rev. D 100(Nov, 2019) 096001

work page 2019
[9]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky,New Physics in LHC Higgs boson pair production,Phys. Rev. D87(2013), no. 5 055002, [arXiv:1210.8166]

arXiv 2013
[10]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [arXiv:1008.4884]

arXiv 2010
[11]

Heinrich and J

G. Heinrich and J. Lang,SMEFT truncation effects in Higgs boson pair production at NLO QCD,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2438(2023), no. 1 012153, [arXiv:2212.00711]. [12]LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking GroupCollaboration, D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, arXiv:1610.07922

arXiv 2023
[13]

A. C. Longhitano,Low-Energy Impact of a Heavy Higgs Boson Sector,Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 118–154

1981

Show all 45 references

[14]

Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions,Int

F. Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8 (1993) 4937–4972, [hep-ph/9301281]

1993 arXiv
[15]

Appelquist and G.-H

T. Appelquist and G.-H. Wu,The Electroweak chiral Lagrangian and new precision measurements,Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 3235–3241, [hep-ph/9304240]

1993 arXiv
[16]

Alonso, M

R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin, and J. Yepes,The Effective Chiral Lagrangian for a Light Dynamical ”Higgs Particle”,Phys. Lett. B722(2013) 330–335, [arXiv:1212.3305]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 726, 926 (2013)]

2013 arXiv
[17]

Brivio, T

I. Brivio, T. Corbett, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. B. Gavela, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin,Disentangling a dynamical Higgs,JHEP03 (2014) 024, [arXiv:1311.1823]

2014 arXiv
[18]

R. L. Delgado, A. Dobado, and F. J. Llanes-Estrada,One-loopW LWL andZ LZL scattering from the electroweak Chiral Lagrangian with a light Higgs-like scalar,JHEP02(2014) 121, [arXiv:1311.5993]

2014 arXiv
[19]

I. n. Asi´ ain, D. Espriu, and F. Mescia,Introducing tools to test Higgs boson interactions via WW scattering: One-loop calculations and renormalization in the Higgs effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 1 015009, [arXiv:2109.02673]

2022 arXiv
[20]

M. B. Gavela, K. Kanshin, P. A. N. Machado, and S. Saa,On the renormalization of the electroweak chiral Lagrangian with a Higgs,JHEP03(2015) 043, [arXiv:1409.1571]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Buchalla, O

G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a, A. Celis, M. Knecht, and C. Krause,Higgs-electroweak chiral Lagrangian: One-loop renormalization group equations,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 7 076005, [arXiv:2004.11348]

2021 arXiv
[22]

M. J. Herrero and R. A. Morales,One-loop renormalization of vector boson scattering with the electroweak chiral Lagrangian in covariant gauges,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 7 075013, [arXiv:2107.07890]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Domenech, C

Anisha, D. Domenech, C. Englert, M. J. Herrero, and R. A. Morales,HEFT’s appraisal of triple (versus double) Higgs weak boson fusion,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 5 055004, [arXiv:2407.20706]. – 13 –

2025 arXiv
[24]

Cadamuro, T

L. Cadamuro, T. Ingebretsen Carlson, and J. Sj¨ olin,Di-Higgs and Effective Field Theory: Signal Reweighting Beyondm hh,arXiv:2502.20976

arXiv
[25]

Englert, G

C. Englert, G. F. Giudice, A. Greljo, and M. Mccullough,The ˆH-Parameter: An Oblique Higgs View,JHEP09(2019) 041, [arXiv:1903.07725]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Buchalla, O

G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a, and C. Krause,Complete Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian with a Light Higgs at NLO,Nucl. Phys. B880(2014) 552–573, [arXiv:1307.5017]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 913, 475–478 (2016)]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Brivio, J

I. Brivio, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and L. Merlo,The complete HEFT Lagrangian after the LHC Run I,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016), no. 7 416, [arXiv:1604.06801]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Sun, M.-L

H. Sun, M.-L. Xiao, and J.-H. Yu,Complete NLO operators in the Higgs effective field theory,JHEP05(2023) 043, [arXiv:2206.07722]

2023 arXiv
[29]

J. M. D´ avila, D. Domenech, M. J. Herrero, and R. A. Morales,Exploring correlations between HEFT Higgs couplingsκ V andκ 2V via HH production ate +e− colliders,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 5 503, [arXiv:2312.03877]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Atkinson, A

Anisha, O. Atkinson, A. Bhardwaj, C. Englert, and P. Stylianou,Quartic Gauge-Higgs couplings: constraints and future directions,JHEP10(2022) 172, [arXiv:2208.09334]

2022 arXiv
[31]

M. J. Herrero and R. A. Morales,One-loop corrections for WW to HH in Higgs EFT with the electroweak chiral Lagrangian,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 7 073008, [arXiv:2208.05900]

2022 arXiv
[32]

Domenech, C

Anisha, D. Domenech, C. Englert, M. J. Herrero, and R. A. Morales,Bosonic multi-Higgs correlations beyond leading order,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 9 095016, [arXiv:2405.05385]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Heinrich, J

G. Heinrich, J. Lang, and L. Scyboz,SMEFT predictions for gg→hh at full NLO QCD and truncation uncertainties,JHEP08(2022) 079, [arXiv:2204.13045]. [Erratum: JHEP 10, 086 (2023)]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Brivio, O

I. Brivio, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. B. Gavela, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin, Higgs ultraviolet softening,JHEP12(2014) 004, [arXiv:1405.5412]

2014 arXiv
[35]

Englert, R

Anisha, C. Englert, R. Kogler, and M. Spannowsky,Higgs boson off-shell measurements probe nonlinearities,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 9 095033, [arXiv:2402.06746]

2024 arXiv
[36]

J¨ ager, A

B. J¨ ager, A. Karlberg, and S. Reinhardt,Precision tools for the simulation of double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion,JHEP06(2025) 022, [arXiv:2502.09112]

2025 arXiv
[37]

Braun, P

J. Braun, P. Bredt, G. Heinrich, and M. H¨ ofer,Double Higgs Production in Vector Boson Fusion at NLO QCD in HEFT,arXiv:2502.09132. [38]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Updated projection of the sensitivity of searches for Higgs boson pair production in theb ¯bγγfinal state ...

2025 arXiv
[39]

Alwall, R

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(20...

2014 arXiv
[45]

S. S. Wilks,The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses,Annals Math. Statist.9(1938), no. 1 60–62

1938
[46]

Kauer and G

N. Kauer and G. Passarino,Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal,JHEP08(2012) 116, [arXiv:1206.4803]

2012 arXiv
[47]

Englert and M

C. Englert and M. Spannowsky,Limitations and Opportunities of Off-Shell Coupling Measurements,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 053003, [arXiv:1405.0285]

2014 arXiv
[48]

Frederix, D

R. Frederix, D. Pagani, and M. Zaro,Large NLO corrections int ¯tW ± andt ¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions,JHEP02(2018) 031, [arXiv:1711.02116]

2018 arXiv
[49]

Alvarez, D

E. Alvarez, D. A. Faroughy, J. F. Kamenik, R. Morales, and A. Szynkman,Four tops for LHC,Nucl. Phys. B915(2017) 19–43, [arXiv:1611.05032]

2017 arXiv
[50]

Darm´ e, B

L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks, and M. Goodsell,Cornering sgluons with four-top-quark events,Phys. Lett. B784(2018) 223–228, [arXiv:1805.10835]

2018 arXiv
[51]

Alvarez, A

E. Alvarez, A. Juste, and R. M. S. Seoane,Four-top as probe of light top-philic New Physics, JHEP12(2019) 080, [arXiv:1910.09581]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Darm´ e, B

L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks, and F. Maltoni,Top-philic heavy resonances in four-top final states and their EFT interpretation,JHEP09(2021) 143, [arXiv:2104.09512]

2021 arXiv
[53]

Blekman, F

F. Blekman, F. D´ eliot, V. Dutta, and E. Usai,Four-top quark physics at the LHC,Universe 8(2022), no. 12 638, [arXiv:2208.04085]

2022 arXiv
[54]

Atkinson, A

Anisha, O. Atkinson, A. Bhardwaj, C. Englert, W. Naskar, and P. Stylianou,BSM reach of four-top production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 3 035001, [arXiv:2302.08281]

2023 arXiv
[55]

Belvedere, C

A. Belvedere, C. Englert, R. Kogler, and M. Spannowsky,Dispelling the √ Lmyth for the High-Luminosity LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 7 715, [arXiv:2402.07985]. – 15 –

2024 arXiv
[56]

Murayama, I

H. Murayama, I. Watanabe, and K. Hagiwara,HELAS: HELicity amplitude subroutines for Feynman diagram evaluations, 1, 1992. [57]CMSCollaboration, V. Khachatryan et al.,Projections of sensitivities for tttt production at HL-LHC and HE-LHC, tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2018. – 16 –

1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky,Higgs self-coupling measurements at the LHC, JHEP10(2012) 112, [arXiv:1206.5001]

arXiv 2012

[2] [6]

D. E. Ferreira de Lima, A. Papaefstathiou, and M. Spannowsky,Standard model Higgs boson pair production in the(b ¯b)(b¯b)final state,JHEP08(2014) 030, [arXiv:1404.7139]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[3] [7]

A. J. Barr, M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky,Di-Higgs final states augMT2ed – selectinghhevents at the high luminosity LHC,Phys. Lett. B728(2014) 308–313, [arXiv:1309.6318]. – 12 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[4] [8]

Chang, K

J. Chang, K. Cheung, J. S. Lee, C.-T. Lu, and J. Park,Higgs-boson-pair production h(→b b)h(→γγ)from gluon fusion at the hl-lhc and hl-100 tev hadron collider,Phys. Rev. D 100(Nov, 2019) 096001

work page 2019

[5] [9]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky,New Physics in LHC Higgs boson pair production,Phys. Rev. D87(2013), no. 5 055002, [arXiv:1210.8166]

arXiv 2013

[6] [10]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [arXiv:1008.4884]

arXiv 2010

[7] [11]

Heinrich and J

G. Heinrich and J. Lang,SMEFT truncation effects in Higgs boson pair production at NLO QCD,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2438(2023), no. 1 012153, [arXiv:2212.00711]. [12]LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking GroupCollaboration, D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, arXiv:1610.07922

arXiv 2023

[8] [13]

A. C. Longhitano,Low-Energy Impact of a Heavy Higgs Boson Sector,Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 118–154

1981