Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

A simultaneous fit to six multilepton final states measures the ttH cross-section at 0.63 of the Standard Model prediction (3.3σ observed) and excludes |α|>62° for the top-Higgs CP-mixing angle at 68% confidence.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 07:50 UTC pith:4SEDK7FB

load-bearing objection Solid, standard-setting ATLAS multilepton ttH measurement; the flagged 2ℓSS1τhad concern is speculative and does not undermine the central result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.23755 v2 pith:4SEDK7FB submitted 2025-10-27 hep-ex

Measurement of the Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in multilepton final states in pp collisions at sqrt{s}=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

Atlas Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords Higgs bosontop-quark Yukawa couplingttH associated productionmultilepton final statessimplified template cross sectionsCP-mixing angleprofile likelihood fitLHC proton-proton collisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper reports a measurement of the associated production of a Higgs boson with a top-quark pair (ttH) in final states with multiple charged leptons, based on 140 inverse femtobarns of 13 TeV proton–proton collisions recorded by a multipurpose detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Six orthogonal channel definitions—two same-sign leptons, three leptons, four leptons, and three channels with hadronically decaying taus—are combined in a single profile-likelihood fit, with normalisations of the dominant backgrounds determined from control regions in the same fit. The central result is a measured ttH cross-section of 321 fb, i.e. 0.63 times the Standard Model prediction of 507 fb, with an observed (expected) significance of 3.3σ (5.3σ); this is compatible with the SM at about the 1.8σ level. The same events are used to measure the rate in three bins of Higgs transverse momentum, to fit the single-top-plus-Higgs process tHqb (signal strength 7.2+4.6/−4.0), and to constrain the CP-mixing angle of the top-Higgs coupling, excluding |α|>62° at 68% confidence. The paper itself notes two caveats: the quoted ratio excludes the theory uncertainty on the SM prediction, and the CP-fit minimum is sensitive to numerical instabilities.

Core claim

The central claim is a measured ttH signal strength of σ_ttH/σ_SM = 0.63+0.20/−0.19 (σ_ttH = 321+102/−99 fb vs 507+35/−50 fb SM), with observed (expected) significance 3.3σ (5.3σ); the result is compatible with the Standard Model at about 1.8σ. The differential STXS fit gives ratios of 0.78, 0.08, and 1.19 in the Higgs-pT bins 0–120, 120–200, and >200 GeV, the low middle value tracing underfluctuations in the two-same-sign-lepton and one-lepton-plus-two-tau channels. A simultaneous fit returns μ_tHqb = 7.2+4.6/−4.0, and the CP interpretation excludes |α|>62° at 68% confidence level (expected 43°), with the pure CP-odd hypothesis excluded at 1.8σ observed.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a simultaneous profile-likelihood fit over six mutually exclusive final states, defined by light-lepton and tau multiplicities, with BDT/DNN discriminants separating ttH from ttW, ttZ, diboson, and misidentified-object backgrounds; normalisation factors for the main backgrounds are determined in control regions within the same fit. Because the Higgs cannot be unambiguously reconstructed, a graph neural network (or a boosted decision tree in the two-tau channels) estimates the Higgs transverse momentum, providing the migration matrices for the three measured pT,H bins. The CP interpretation interpolates between simulated samples with different mixing angles α and couplin

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated generators and the machine-learned Higgs-pT estimator reproduce the shapes of signal and backgrounds in the multilepton phase space—the estimator's calibration is checked only via migration matrices computed in the same simulation (Fig. 3)—since the fit floats only overall normalisations; the paper explicitly notes the quoted ratio excludes the theory uncertainty on the SM prediction and that the CP fit's minimum is numerically u

What would settle it

Replacing the default Monte Carlo model for the dominant ttW background with an independent generator in the same fit and checking whether the fitted signal strength shifts by more than the quoted systematic uncertainty would directly test the assumption; alternatively, a future measurement at roughly three times the luminosity would show whether the 0.63 ratio moves toward 1 (SM) or stays below.

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

If this is right

  • At face value, the top-quark–Higgs coupling is within about 1.8σ of the Standard Model; no new physics is required to describe the inclusive rate.
  • The differential measurement shows no significant shape deviation in Higgs pT, but the 120–200 GeV bin is compatible with zero, so an enhanced or depleted coupling at intermediate pT is not excluded.
  • The tHqb signal strength of 7.2+4.6/−4.0 is above the Standard Model expectation and, if real, points to new physics in single-top-plus-Higgs production.
  • The CP constraint disfavours large CP-odd admixtures: |α|>62° is excluded at 68% confidence, consistent with a mostly CP-even Higgs-top interaction.
  • Since the observed significance (3.3σ) is below the SM expectation (5.3σ), repeating this measurement with more data is the direct route to deciding whether the low central value is a fluctuation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the low ratio persists with Run-3 statistics, the most economical interpretation would be a modified top-Higgs coupling, since the same events point to a tHqb rate above the Standard Model.
  • The 120–200 GeV STXS bin (10+81/−76 fb vs 127 fb SM) is where an altered pT spectrum would first appear; a dedicated unfolded measurement with finer bins would sharpen this.
  • The analysis's dependence on simulated shapes for ttW and ttZ means the central value could move if those shapes are wrong; an independent re-fit using a different Monte Carlo generator for those backgrounds would quantify this.
  • Combining this multilepton result with the diphoton and bottom-quark channels cited in the paper would reduce the total uncertainty and test whether the deficit is multilepton-specific.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a measurement of t-tbar-Higgs (ttH) production in multilepton final states using 140 fb^-1 of pp collisions at 13 TeV recorded by ATLAS. Six orthogonal channels (2ℓSS0τhad, 3ℓ0τhad, 4ℓ, 2ℓSS1τhad, 1ℓ2τhad, 2ℓ2τhad) are combined in a profile-likelihood fit. The inclusive measured cross-section ratio is σ_ttH/σ_SM = 0.63+0.20/−0.19, corresponding to σ_ttH = 321+102/−99 fb against an SM prediction of 507+35/−50 fb, with observed (expected) significance of 3.3σ (5.3σ). A STXS fit measures the cross-section in three bins of Higgs pT (0–120, 120–200, >200 GeV); a simultaneous fit gives μ_tHqb = 7.2+4.6/−4.0 with μ_ttH = 0.59+0.22/−0.20; and a CP-mixing scan excludes |α| > 62° at 68% CL (expected 43°). All results are reported as compatible with the SM within about 2σ.

Significance. If correct, this is the most precise ttH cross-section measurement in the multilepton final state with the full Run-2 dataset, and the STXS/CP results are the first in this channel at this luminosity. The manuscript's strengths are substantial: the six-channel likelihood structure with pre-defined control regions (Tables 4–5) is standard and internally consistent (321/507 = 0.63); the background normalisation factors are cross-checked against dedicated external measurements (λ_ttW = 1.18±0.07 vs Ref. [31]); the systematic decomposition (Table 6) is detailed; and validation regions are shown (Fig. 8). The paper is also careful to quote the SM-theory component of σ_SM separately (footnote 10) rather than folding it into the measurement uncertainty. The observed central value is 1.8σ below the SM (compatibility 7.2%), and the observed significance is well below expectation; the interpretation of the 2ℓSS1τhad-channel deficit is therefore the main point to be resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8.1, Figs. 11(a) and 12, Table 5] The 2ℓSS1τhad channel returns μ = −0.72+0.56/−0.59, the largest per-channel deviation and a natural suspect for the shortfall between the observed (3.3σ) and expected (5.3σ) significances. The text attributes this to 'a downward fluctuation in data at high value of the 2ℓSS1τhad BDT', but no quantitative test supports that interpretation. The CRs that anchor the misidentified-τhad and non-prompt normalisations use a relaxed 2–3 jet selection while the SR requires ≥4 jets (Table 5), and the extrapolation uncertainty between them is described but not sized (Sec. 7). Please add: (a) a local goodness-of-fit or spurious-signal p-value for the SR BDT deficit; (b) the combined-fit result with this channel removed, to show how much the inclusive μ and the observed significance move; (c) the numerical value of the jet-multiplicity extrapolation uncertainty. This is load-bearing: the inclusive cen
  2. [§8.3, Fig. 17] The CP interpretation highlighted in the abstract (|α|>62° excluded at 68% CL) is derived from a fit whose best-fit point is stated in §8.3 to be 'sensitive to numerical instabilities' because the likelihood is flat around the minimum. This is a self-declared limitation of a headline claim. Please quantify the effect of the instability on the 68%/95% contours (grid density, minimiser variations, alternative profiling) and state whether it affects only the best-fit coordinates or the excluded-region boundary. Without this, the CP exclusion cannot be evaluated.
  3. [§5 (STXS/GNN paragraph), Fig. 3, Table 7] The STXS measurement and the CP analysis rely on the GNN/BDT estimate of the Higgs pT, but the text only asserts that 'no significant discrepancies between data and simulation were observed' for the MVA input variables; the supporting comparison is not shown. The migration matrices in Fig. 3 show diagonal fractions as low as ~61% in the 2ℓ2τhad channel, so the unfolding is sensitive to the response model. Please provide the data/MC validation of the pT,H-estimator inputs or a closure test of the migration, and state how a GNN response bias would be covered by the STXS migration systematics. The STXS uncertainties are large, so the conclusions are unlikely to change, but the current support is an unshown assertion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] The colour-axis label reads 'Number of events' while the caption states that colours denote the fraction of events; relabel the axis (e.g., 'Fraction of events') to avoid confusion.
  2. [§8.1] Please specify how the 7.2% SM-compatibility value is computed (one- or two-sided p-value; which nuisance parameters are profiled) and whether the ±35/−50 fb uncertainty on the SM prediction enters the test or only the quoted ratio.
  3. [Fig. 12] The per-channel best-fit values and their stat./total decompositions are dense and partly illegible in the current rendering; a companion table listing each channel's μ with statistical and total uncertainties separately would improve usability.
  4. [§7 / Table 6] The 'Non-prompt normalisation' row contributes only ±0.02 to σ_ttH/σ_SM even though some individual factors (e.g., λ_eHF = 1.20±0.41) carry 20–40% uncertainties. One sentence explaining why the CR constraints are so strong would pre-empt a natural reader question.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the measurement is a profile-likelihood extraction with independently validated background normalisations.

full rationale

The central result, sigma_ttH/sigma_SM = 0.63+0.20-0.19, is the free parameter of interest mu in the likelihood of Eq. (1), not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Background normalisation factors such as lambda_ttW = 1.18 +/- 0.07 are determined in dedicated control regions and cross-checked against external ATLAS and CMS measurements, so they are not circular anchors for the ttH signal strength. The STXS differential measurement, the simultaneous ttH/tHqb fit, and the CP interpretation are separate likelihood fits using simulation templates or MC-interpolated parameterisations; none of their outputs is definitionally equal to an input parameter. The paper openly reports the 2lSS1tau_had channel best fit (-0.72) and the compatibility probability of the six channels (12.4%), which addresses the main statistical concern without concealing it; that concern is a modelling/statistical vulnerability, not a circular reduction. The cited ATLAS references [24], [31], [32] are prior experimental measurements and methodological precedents, not self-cited uniqueness theorems or ansatz-forcing derivations. The analysis is therefore self-contained as a measurement and does not exhibit circularity by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on standard simulation tools and data-anchored background normalisations rather than invented physics. The honest price is a set of in-situ normalisation factors (λ) and MC-shape assumptions whose validity bounds every quoted number. No new particles, forces, or symmetries are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • ttW background normalisation λ_ttW = 1.18 ± 0.07
    Free parameter in the profile likelihood (Sec. 6.1); anchors the dominant irreducible background in the 2ℓSS0τhad and 3ℓ0τhad channels.
  • ttZ/γ* normalisation λ_ttZ = 1.09 ± 0.09
    Fitted using the 3ℓttZ control region (Sec. 6.1).
  • Diboson normalisations λ_WZ and λ_WW/ZZ = 1.06 ± 0.10 and 1.13 ± 0.17
    Two separate factors fitted in the 3ℓVV control region (Sec. 6.1).
  • Conversion normalisations λ_IntC and λ_MatC = 0.89 ± 0.16 and 1.13 ± 0.21
    Internal and material conversion backgrounds normalised in dedicated 3ℓCRs (Sec. 6.1, 6.2.1).
  • Non-prompt lepton normalisation factors (HF/LF, e/μ) = 0.68–1.20 (six values: λ_eHF=1.20±0.41, λ_μHF=1.12±0.16; λ_4ℓ μHF=0.91±0.06, eHF=0.93±0.13, eLF=1.17±0.22; λ_2ℓSS1τ eHF/
    Data-driven normalisations of reducible backgrounds in control regions (Secs. 6.2.1, 6.2.3).
  • Misidentified-τhad fake-factors (FF) = 0.20–0.45 (1-prong), 0.04–0.20 (3-prong)
    Measured in Z+jets/tt control regions and applied in the 1ℓ2τhad/2ℓ2τhad channels (Sec. 6.2.3).
  • Parameters of interest μ_ttH and μ_tHqb = μ_ttH = 0.63+0.20−0.19; μ_tHqb = 7.2+4.6−4.0; STXS μ = 0.78 / 0.08 / 1.19
    These are the advertised measurements themselves, not hidden fudge factors; listed for completeness of what is fitted to data (Sec. 8).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption SM prediction for the ttH cross-section (σ_SM = 507+35−50 fb) from NLO QCD+EW calculations (Refs. [56–60]) is the benchmark to which the signal strength ratio is normalised.
    The ratio claim σ_ttH/σ_SM inherits the theory uncertainties quoted in the SM prediction; the paper excludes inclusive theory systematics from the ratio's uncertainty (footnote 10).
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo generators (Powheg Box v2 for ttH, Sherpa 2.2.10 for ttW, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO for ttZ) give unbiased template shapes in the multilepton phase space after in-situ normalisation.
    Sec. 3.1–3.2 and Sec. 7: shape systematics are derived from scale variations and generator comparisons, but the procedure assumes the nominal generators are within the envelope.
  • standard math Asymptotic approximation for the profile-likelihood test statistic is valid for the quoted significances and confidence intervals.
    Sec. 8, Eq. (1) and Ref. [120] (Cowan, Cranmer, Gross, Vitells).
  • domain assumption In the CP fit, signal yields are parameterised as smooth interpolations between MC samples at discrete (κ't, α) points.
    Sec. 3.1 ('yields are parameterised as a function of the model parameters by smoothly interpolating between generated MC samples'), following Ref. [24]; interpolation error is not separately quantified.
  • domain assumption Diagram removal is used to subtract the tHW–ttH overlap at NLO; s-channel tH is neglected because of its small cross-section.
    Sec. 3.1: 'The overlap of the tHW process with ttH at NLO was removed by using a diagram removal technique'; 'The s-channel has a very low cross-section and is neglected.'
  • domain assumption The GNN/BDT discriminants trained on simulation are unbiased in data, including the pT,H regression used for STXS binning.
    Sec. 5: 'no significant discrepancies between data and simulation were observed' — stated without a dedicated closure test for the pT,H estimator, whose migration matrix is computed from the same MC (Fig. 3).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 71681 in / 21947 out tokens · 224688 ms · 2026-08-04T07:50:38.527960+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A measurement of the associated production of a top-quark pair with the Higgs boson ($t\bar{t}H$) in multilepton final states is presented. The analysis is based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 140 fb$^{-1}$. Six final states defined by the number and flavour of reconstructed charged leptons are combined in a simultaneous likelihood fit to extract the $t\bar{t}H$ signal and constrain the most relevant backgrounds. The measured $t\bar{t}H$ cross-section normalised to Standard Model (SM) prediction is $\sigma_{t\bar tH}/\sigma^{\text{SM}}=0.63^{+0.20}_{-0.19}$. This result corresponds to an observed (expected) significance of 3.3$\sigma$ (5.3$\sigma$). Additionally, two other fits are used to measure the $t\bar{t}H$ cross-section differentially in bins of the Higgs boson transverse momentum in the simplified template cross-section framework, and to extract the associated production cross-section of a single top-quark with the Higgs boson ($tH$) together with the $t\bar{t}H$ one. The $CP$ structure of the top quark-Higgs boson Yukawa coupling is probed through analysis of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$ events. The results are compatible with the SM hypothesis, and values of the mixing angle between $CP$-even and $CP$-odd top-Higgs Yukawa couplings of $| \alpha | > 62^\circ$ are excluded at 68\% confidence level.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Benchmarking Machine Learning Architectures for ttH Multilepton Signal Sensitivity

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A controlled benchmark of six ML classifiers on a new simulated ttH multilepton dataset finds symmetry-constrained graph models (Particle Transformer, LorentzNet) and azimuthal RoPE encoding outperform tabular baselines.

  2. Search for $\textit{tH}$ production in the $ H \to \tau\tau$ decay mode, and a combination with other searches, using $\textit{pp}$ collisions at 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    ATLAS's combined tH search, including a new H→ττ channel, measures μ_tH = 3.3 ± 1.6 times the SM, with 2.3σ observed significance and an observed 95% CL limit of 6.1×SM.

  3. Next-to-next-to-leading order event generation for $t\bar{t}H$ production with approximate two-loop amplitude

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    First NNLO+PS (MiNNLOPS) generator for ttH production, combining soft-Higgs and high-energy approximate two-loop amplitudes pointwise, with one-loop-level validation.

  4. Unveiling Light-Quark Yukawa Flavor Structure via Dihadron Fragmentation at Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    A dihadron fragmentation azimuthal asymmetry at e+e− colliders can probe light-quark Yukawa couplings linearly and separate y_u from y_d at the 10^-4 level.

  5. Study of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$ production in the $H\to\tau\tau$ channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Simultaneous measurement of ttH (mu=1.51) and tH (mu=-0.4) in fully hadronic H→tau tau final states at 13/13.6 TeV, consistent with the Standard Model.

  6. Probing the Higgs-top Yukawa interaction in the $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$ processes using $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ATLAS measures ttH cross section times BR(H→γγ) at 1.13 SM with 164 fb⁻¹ at 13.6 TeV, sets tH limit at 6.2 SM, and combined with prior data excludes |α|>38° and purely CP-odd coupling at 5.8σ.

  7. Analysis of the $C\!P$ structure of the Yukawa coupling between the Higgs boson and tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV

    hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Combined CMS result gives α^{Hττ} = 7 ± 16° for the CP mixing angle in H→ττ, consistent with SM expectation of 0 ± 14°.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 98 linked inside Pith · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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. B716(2012) 1, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3(2008) S08001

    2008

  4. [4]

    ATLAS Collaboration, A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607(2022) 52, arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex], Erratum: Nature612(2022) E24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    CMS Collaboration,Combination and interpretation of differential Higgs boson production cross sections in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, (2025), arXiv:2504.13081 [hep-ex]. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    J. F. Gunion and X.-G. He, Determining the𝐶𝑃Nature of a Neutral Higgs Boson at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett.76(1996) 4468, arXiv:hep-ph/9602226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. S. Hwang, K. Sakurai and M. Takeuchi, Disentangling Higgs-top couplings in associated production, JHEP04(2014) 004, arXiv:1312.5736 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    He, G.-N

    X.-G. He, G.-N. Li and Y.-J. Zheng, Probing Higgs boson CP properties with𝑡¯𝑡𝐻at the LHC and the 100 TeV pp collider, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30(2015) 1550156, arXiv:1501.00012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Boudjema, D

    F. Boudjema, D. Guadagnoli, R. M. Godbole and K. A. Mohan, Laboratory-frame observables for probing the top-Higgs boson interaction, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 015019, arXiv:1501.03157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Study of the spin and parity of the Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 476, arXiv:1506.05669 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    CMS Collaboration,Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at7and8TeV, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 012004, arXiv:1411.3441 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝐶𝑃properties of Higgs boson interactions with 𝜏-leptons with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 563, arXiv:2212.05833 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    CMS Collaboration,Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons and fermions from the production of Higgs bosons using the𝜏𝜏final state, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 032013, arXiv:2205.05120 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Fontes, J

    D. Fontes, J. C. Romão, R. Santos and J. P. Silva, Large pseudoscalar Yukawa couplings in the complex 2HDM, JHEP2015(2015) 60, arXiv:1502.01720v2 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B784(2018) 173, arXiv:1806.00425 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    CMS Collaboration,Observation of𝑡 ¯𝑡𝐻Production, Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 231801, arXiv:1804.02610 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    ATLAS Collaboration,𝐶𝑃 Properties of Higgs Boson Interactions with Top Quarks in the𝑡¯𝑡𝐻 and 𝑡𝐻Processes Using𝐻→𝛾𝛾with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 061802, arXiv:2004.04545 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the properties of Higgs boson production at√𝑠=13TeV in the𝐻→𝛾𝛾channel using139fb −1 of𝑝𝑝collision data with the ATLAS experiment, JHEP07(2023) 088, arXiv:2207.00348 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP07(2021) 027, arXiv:2103.06956 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurements of𝑡 ¯𝑡𝐻Production and the𝐶𝑃Structure of the Yukawa Interaction between the Higgs Boson and Top Quark in the Diphoton Decay Channel, Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 061801, arXiv:2003.10866 [hep-ex]. 39

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Higgs boson production cross-section measurements and their EFT interpretation in the4ℓdecay channel at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 957, arXiv:2004.03447 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 29, Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    CMS Collaboration,Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons and fermions in its production and decay using the four-lepton final state, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 052004, arXiv:2104.12152 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Differential cross-section measurements of Higgs boson production in the 𝐻→𝜏 +𝜏− decay channel in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP03(2025) 010, arXiv:2407.16320 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Probing the𝐶𝑃nature of the top-Higgs Yukawa coupling in𝑡¯𝑡𝐻and𝑡𝐻 events with𝐻→𝑏 ¯𝑏decays using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B849(2024) 138469, arXiv:2303.05974 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the associated production of a top-antitop-quark pair and a Higgs boson decaying into a𝑏 ¯𝑏pair in𝑝𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 210, arXiv:2407.10904 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑡 ¯𝑡𝐻and𝑡𝐻production rates in the𝐻→𝑏 ¯𝑏decay channel using proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP02(2025) 097, arXiv:2407.10896 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Evidence for the associated production of the Higgs boson and a top quark pair with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 072003, arXiv:1712.08891 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at√𝑠=13TeV , Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 378, arXiv:2011.03652 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for𝐶𝑃 violation in𝑡¯𝑡𝐻 and𝑡𝐻 production in multilepton channels in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP07(2023) 092, arXiv:2208.02686 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for the production of a Higgs boson in association with a single top quark in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, (2025), arXiv:2508.14695 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the total and differential cross-sections of𝑡¯𝑡𝑊 production in𝑝𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP05(2024) 131, arXiv:2401.05299 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Inclusive and differential cross-section measurements of𝑡¯𝑡𝑍production in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, including EFT and spin-correlation interpretations, JHEP07(2024) 163, arXiv:2312.04450 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    S. Badger et al., ‘Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV Colliders Standard Model Working Group Report’, 9th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders, 2016, arXiv:1605.04692 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Berger et al.,Simplified Template Cross Sections - Stage 1.1, (2019), arXiv:1906.02754 [hep-ph]

    N. Berger et al.,Simplified Template Cross Sections - Stage 1.1, (2019), arXiv:1906.02754 [hep-ph]. 40

    arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Bahl et al.,Indirect CP probes of the Higgs-top-quark interaction: current LHC constraints and future opportunities, JHEP2020(2020) 127, arXiv:2007.08542 [hep-ph]

    H. Bahl et al.,Indirect CP probes of the Higgs-top-quark interaction: current LHC constraints and future opportunities, JHEP2020(2020) 127, arXiv:2007.08542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Demartin, F

    F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, B. Page and M. Zaro, Higgs characterisation at NLO in QCD: CP properties of the top-quark Yukawa interaction, Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3065, arXiv:1407.5089 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008) S08003

    2008

  38. [38]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Insertable B-Layer: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

    arXiv 2010

  39. [39]

    Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    2018

  41. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 234, arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking, JINST15(2020) P04003, arXiv:1911.04632 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 47, arXiv:1909.00761 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2, JINST15(2020) P09015, arXiv:2004.13447 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    Golonka and Z

    P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: a precision tool for QED corrections in𝑍and𝑊decays, Eur. Phys. J. C45(2006) 97, arXiv:hep-ph/0506026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  49. [49]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [50]

    Pumplin et al., New Generation of Parton Distributions with Uncertainties from Global QCD Analysis, JHEP07(2002) 012, arXiv:hep-ph/0201195

    J. Pumplin et al., New Generation of Parton Distributions with Uncertainties from Global QCD Analysis, JHEP07(2002) 012, arXiv:hep-ph/0201195

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  51. [51]

    Nason and C

    P. Nason and C. Oleari, NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG, JHEP02(2010) 037, arXiv:0911.5299 [hep-ph]. 41

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06(2010) 043, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    Nason,A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    P. Nason,A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  54. [54]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP11(2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP04(2015) 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4

    D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, (2017), arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer, B. Plumper, M. Spira et al., NLO QCD corrections to𝑡¯𝑡𝐻production in hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B653(2003) 151, arXiv:hep-ph/0211352 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  58. [58]

    Dawson, C

    S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth,Associated Higgs boson production with top quarks at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: NLO QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 034022, arXiv:hep-ph/0305087 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  59. [59]

    Zhang, W.-G

    Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, C. Chen and L. Guo, QCD NLO and EW NLO corrections to𝑡¯𝑡𝐻production with top quark decays at hadron collider, Phys. Lett. B738(2014) 1, arXiv:1407.1110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. .-. Shao and M. Zaro, Weak corrections to Higgs hadroproduction in association with a top-quark pair, JHEP09(2014) 065, arXiv:1407.0823 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    J. Alwall et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07(2014) 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  62. [62]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer and R. Rietkerk, Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations, JHEP03(2013) 015, arXiv:1212.3460 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    Frixione, E

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, C. White and B. R. Webber, Single-top hadroproduction in association with a𝑊boson, JHEP07(2008) 029, arXiv:0805.3067 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  64. [64]

    Demartin, B

    F. Demartin, B. Maier, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari and M. Zaro, tWH associated production at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 34, arXiv:1607.05862 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling for Top2016, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-020, 2016,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2216168

    arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]. 42

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Höche,Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP12(2008) 039, arXiv:0808.3674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  68. [68]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  69. [69]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer, Collier: A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 220, arXiv:1604.06792 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur

    F. Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 866, arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani–Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP03(2008) 038, arXiv:0709.1027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  72. [72]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP04(2013) 027, arXiv:1207.5030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  73. [73]

    Kallweit, J

    S. Kallweit, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierhöfer, S. Pozzorini and M. Schönherr,NLO QCD+EW predictions for V + jets including off-shell vector-boson decays and multijet merging, JHEP04(2016) 021, arXiv:1511.08692 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    Gütschow, J

    C. Gütschow, J. M. Lindert and M. Schönherr, Multi-jet merged top-pair production including electroweak corrections, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 317, arXiv:1803.00950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    Frederix, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Frederix and I

    R. Frederix and I. Tsinikos,On improving NLO merging forttW production, JHEP11(2021) 029, arXiv:2108.07826 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Buonocore et al.,Precise Predictions for the Associated Production of a𝑊Boson with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair at the LHC, Phys

    L. Buonocore et al.,Precise Predictions for the Associated Production of a𝑊Boson with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 231901, arXiv:2306.16311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Frixione, E

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski and B. R. Webber,Angular correlations of lepton pairs from vector boson and top quark decays in Monte Carlo simulations, JHEP04(2007) 081, arXiv:hep-ph/0702198

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  79. [79]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber and R. Kuhn,QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers, JHEP11(2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  80. [80]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann and F. Siegert,QCD matrix elements and truncated showers, JHEP05(2009) 053, arXiv:0903.1219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

Showing first 80 references.