Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 2 cited by

Interference rewrites the shapes of new-scalar resonance signals

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

2026-08-03 06:06 UTC pith:NZ7USMS5

load-bearing objection A competent, openly self-described review of interference effects in resonant scalar searches; no new result, but the case is real and the examples are well chosen.

arxiv 2602.00256 v2 pith:NZ7USMS5 submitted 2026-01-30 hep-ph

Interference effects in new physics searches

Tania Robens This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.60.Fr14.80.Bn
keywords interference effectsresonant scalar searchesnarrow width approximationextended scalar sectorsHiggs singlet extensiontwo Higgs doublet modelinvariant mass distributionsLHC phenomenology
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.

Resonant new-physics searches usually model a heavy scalar as a standalone Breit-Wigner peak added to a smooth background. This review argues that the correct quantum-mechanical sum also includes an interference term between the resonance and other contributions, and that dropping it is not justified. It brings together published examples across di-boson, di-Higgs, triple-Higgs, and top-pair channels showing that the invariant mass distribution with interference deviates clearly from the signal-only shape, even for narrow resonances. As a result, exclusion and discovery limits derived from signal-only templates can be wrong, and machine-learning analyses trained on such samples will learn the wrong kinematics. The review concludes that experimental searches should adopt available leading-order tools that include interference.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that interference effects between a new scalar resonance and the Standard Model continuum, or among multiple nearly degenerate resonances, cannot be a priori neglected in LHC searches. Using the decomposition of the full matrix element into resonance, other contributions, and their cross term, the review shows through collected examples that the interference term modifies invariant mass distributions around the resonance peak and in off-shell tails, and also affects transverse momenta and cut variables. The narrow width approximation only justifies factorizing production times decay when the width is small; it does not remove the need to add the interference with

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interference term 2 Re[M_S M*_rest] in the squared matrix element, where M_S is the target s-channel resonance amplitude and M_rest collects all other diagrams. The paper contrasts this with the narrow-width approximation, which factorizes the cross section into on-shell production times branching ratio and drops the cross term. The review uses this decomposition to reinterpret published figures showing signal-only versus full distributions, making the case that the dropped term controls the shape of the final-state mass spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the specific published studies the review reproduces are correct, representative of realistic models, and accurately interpreted, since the review itself performs no new calculation; any error or bias in those examples would weaken the blanket conclusion that interference cannot be a priori neglected.

What would settle it

A broad parameter scan in a single UV-complete model, varying the heavy scalar mass, mixing angle, and width, that found the interference term changes the relevant invariant mass distributions by only a few percent in most of the space would contradict the review's blanket claim that interference cannot be a priori neglected.

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

If this is right

  • Exclusion bounds on heavy scalars derived from signal-only templates can be over- or under-estimated, depending on the sign and size of the interference term.
  • Discovery reach projections, especially those using machine-learning classifiers, are compromised if the training samples omit interference, since the network learns a distorted distribution.
  • Multi-resonance scenarios with destructive interference can produce a flat invariant mass shape even when two resonances are present, making the resonances effectively invisible to a peak search.
  • Detector smearing can turn interference effects into fake secondary mass peaks, so reconstructed distributions must be interpreted with the full description in mind.
  • Including interference does not require new theoretical input: available leading-order event generators can produce the full coherent sum now, with next-to-leading-order correction still an open approximation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is a systematic reappraisal of published 95% confidence limits on scalar resonances using interference-inclusive templates for a single benchmark; the review's examples suggest some limits could shift by tens of percent.
  • The same reasoning likely applies to searches for non-scalar resonances (e.g., spin-1 or spin-2) and to any differential distribution used for cut optimization, not just invariant mass, although the paper only explicitly demonstrates scalar cases.
  • If interference is this pervasive, simplified signal-plus-background counting experiments should be supplemented with a coherent template fit before claiming a discovery or an exclusion.
  • The review's reliance on leading-order tools suggests that a dedicated next-to-leading-order calculation for one of the showcased channels would be valuable; until then, the practical implementation is limited to leading-order approximations.

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This invited review argues that interference between a heavy scalar resonance and other SM or new-physics amplitudes in resonant searches cannot be routinely neglected. It recalls the finite-width propagator, the narrow-width approximation and its formal O(Gamma/m) error, and the interference decomposition of the squared matrix element. It then surveys published calculations in diboson, di-Higgs, triple-Higgs, and top-antitop final states, several of which show large distortions of invariant-mass distributions relative to signal-only Breit-Wigner templates. The paper's central message is that interference effects must be assessed case by case, that leading-order tools including them are generally available, and that NLO treatment remains an open issue.

Significance. The qualitative claim is sound and appropriately hedged. The standard derivations in Sec. 2 are correct; the review explicitly avoids universal quantitative statements and is honest about the open NLO problem. The examples are drawn from multiple independent published calculations, not only from the author's own work, and the second-hand nature of the evidence base is normal for a review. The paper is a useful, current reminder for both phenomenologists and experimental collaborations, and its actionable conclusion is supported by the existence of these documented effects. I found no circularity or internal inconsistency that would undermine the central claim.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract states that 'many current theoretical descriptions as well as experimental searches neglect such effects', but the body provides a curated set of examples rather than a systematic survey. The conclusion is more careful ('For most of the examples shown here...'). I suggest softening 'many' to 'some' or 'a number of', or adding a sentence clarifying that the statement is based on selected published studies.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Yukawa types] The description of the flipped 2HDM Yukawa assignment appears reversed relative to standard nomenclature (e.g. Ref. 28). In the usual convention, flipped means up-type quarks and charged leptons couple to Phi_2 and down-type quarks to Phi_1, not the opposite. Please correct this statement.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (5)] The factorization formula is correct, but the notation is compressed. It should be stated explicitly that sigma_ab->S is the on-shell production cross section and that the p^2 integral is the standard phase-space convolution with the finite-width squared propagator. As written, a casual reader may misread the expression as having a dimension mismatch.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption, Sec. 4.2] The caption refers to the 'invariant diboson mass distribution' for M_hh, but the final state in Fig. 4 is di-Higgs, not diboson. Please correct the wording.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and formatting slips: 'inital', 'expection', 'assued', 'colums', 'highlightened', 'mimick', and missing spaces before references (e.g., 'found in. 30'). A thorough language pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the review's qualitative claim is supported by external, independently published calculations; self-citations are descriptive and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a review rather than an original derivation. Its central claim — that interference effects can materially distort resonant scalar signals and cannot be neglected a priori — is an existence claim supported by figures and tables reproduced from multiple independent groups. The only formula introduced from scratch, Eq. (8), is the trivial matrix-element decomposition |M_tot|^2 = |M_S|^2 + |M_rest|^2 + 2 Re[M_S M_rest*]; this is a definitional expansion, not a fitted prediction, and it is not used to claim a quantitative novelty. The load-bearing examples are Refs. 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 52, 53, 54 and 55, most with no author overlap; Ref. 11, from the author's own group, is one example among many and is not the unique support for the conclusion. Self-citations such as Refs. 24–27, 30 and 50–51 are used only to specify benchmark or model conventions, not to justify the interference claim. The paper also explicitly flags the open NLO issue, which limits precision but does not undermine the existence claim. No equation is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. At most, there is minor self-citation that is not load-bearing, hence score 2 and no circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is qualitative; it does not require fitting. Model benchmarks (m_H, sin alpha, tan beta, widths) are inputs from cited papers, not parameters introduced or fitted here. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Only stable particles can be asymptotic states of S-matrix elements; unstable particles are intermediate states.
    Sec. 2.1; this motivates the finite-width propagator treatment used throughout.
  • standard math The optical theorem relates the imaginary part of the renormalized self-energy to the total width: Im Sigma(p^2=m^2) = Gamma m.
    Eq. (3) in Sec. 2.1; used to connect the Breit-Wigner denominator to physical width.
  • domain assumption The narrow-width approximation requires Gamma/m << 1 and a slowly varying function F; it can fail near kinematic thresholds.
    Sec. 2.1; the failure of NWA is one of the reasons interference and finite-width effects must be assessed.
  • domain assumption The reproduced external results are accurate and are correctly interpreted.
    Figures 1-10 and Table 1 are taken from prior publications; the review does not re-derive them.
  • domain assumption Leading-order tools including interference terms are readily available for most scenarios.
    Stated in the Introduction and Conclusion; no inventory of tools is given, so this is an asserted practical premise of the recommendation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14714 in / 16558 out tokens · 180040 ms · 2026-08-03T06:06:30.913378+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Interference effects are an important consequence of a correct description in physics theories within and beyond the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. However, many current theoretical descriptions as well as experimental searches neglect such effects, which can, among others, lead to an incorrect description of e.g. kinematical distributions, at least within the context of UV-complete models. In this review, I briefly discuss the current status and most common descriptions as well as existing studies of such effects, where I focus on models with extended scalar searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00256 by Tania Robens.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Invariant di-boson mass distributions for a scenario where p p → H → V V is the target signature. S denotes the contribution from the target process, Ih1/bkg are contributions from interference with the SM scalar, denote by h1, and the continuum background, respectively. Displayed is the signal-only distribution (in black), signal including interference from the 125 GeV resonance (in red), as well as compl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Invariant mass distribution in the W+W− final state for a heavy resonance of 3 TeV: signal only (red) as well as signal including interference with the continuum background (green). Figure is taken from.33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Invariant mass distributions for the diboson system in a 2HDM with parameters as specified in the caption, for various width assumptions. It is clear that the resonance only distribution does not give the full picture. We also see a clear modification when the width is varied. Taken from.36 300 400 500 600 700 800 Mhh (GeV) 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 0.1 d σLO/dMhh (pb/GeV) Total, σ mt→∞ Total, σ m… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Figure highlightening the effects of including interference contributions. Left: Different contributions for a fixed new physics scenario, both in the full mass dependence and heavy top limit. Right: Total invariant mass distribution including interference effects for various new physics scenarios. Figures are taken from.39 The effects of including interference terms in invariant mass distributions for di-… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Invariant mass distributions for different benchmark scenarios for resonance enhanced di-Higgs production. Left: Prior to and right after taking smearing effects into account, resulting from finite detector resolution. Displayed are the pure resonances (green), SM background and resonance contribution with (red) and without (pink) correct coupling rescalings of the latter, as well as full contribution incl… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Projections for both exclusion and discovery projections at the HL-LHC for a singlet extension for di-Higgs final states where the singlet acquires a vev, for different values of the additional vev (here parametrized via tan β). In both scenarios, there can be significant differences between ignoring and including the interferences. Figure is taken from.40 with and without taking interference contributions… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Figure from the CMS Run 2 combination.46 Shown are scenarios for different heavy resonance masses, derived bounds on the X H H couplings as a function of the mixing angle, the ratio of width over mass that can serve as a quantifier for the NWA, as well as values of R defined in eqn. (11). Here, X signifies the heavy resonance decaying into di-Higgs final states. Regions that are currently excluded using on… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Invariant triple Higgs mass distribution (left) as well as p⊥ distribution for all scalars (right) of the process given in Eqn. (12), where we display the signal only contribution (red), the total process without signal contribution (blue), and all contributions where no intermediate state has been specified (black). While the invariant mass seems to be well-described by the signal only contribution in the… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Interference effects in the di-top invariant mass distributions in variants of 2HDMs, both background-subtracted. Left: signal-only and signal + interference with the background in a com￾plex 2HDM with two different resonances as indicated in the figure, taken from.53 Right: Invariant di-top mass distributions for a 2HDM with different mass-degeneracies between the two different additional scalars ranging … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scenario involving large cancellations: contributions to the background-subtracted invari￾ant mass distribution at the hadronic level for tt¯ production. The tree-level masses are 550 GeV and 571 GeV. All the other parameters are indicated in the plot. Table and caption taken from.55 the presence of two resonances that contribute to tt¯ production in the s-channel. Although this can be considered an extre… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Big Dipper, Help Me Find A Way -- Dip-hunting at hadron colliders

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Parametric neural networks learn likelihood ratios to infer top-philic scalar resonances from dip patterns caused by signal-background interference in hadron collider data.

  2. Search for Invisibly Decaying Light Scalars at the FCC-ee

    hep-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0

    An FCC-ee search for e+e−→Z+invisible scalar could reach σ×BR sensitivities of ~10^-2–10^-1 fb below the Z mass and claims discovery reach up to 80 GeV in a simplified singlet+DM model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Dixon and M

    Lance J. Dixon and M. Stewart Siu. Resonance continuum interference in the diphoton Higgs signal at the LHC. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:252001, 2003, hep-ph/0302233

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal

    Nikolas Kauer and Giampiero Passarino. Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal. JHEP, 08:116, 2012, 1206.4803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Stephen P. Martin. Shift in the LHC Higgs Diphoton Mass Peak from Interference with Background. Phys. Rev. D, 86:073016, 2012, 1208.1533

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Stephen P. Martin. Interference of Higgs Diphoton Signal and Background in Produc- tion with a Jet at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D, 88(1):013004, 2013, 1303.3342

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Coradeschi, D

    F. Coradeschi, D. de Florian, L. J. Dixon, N. Fidanza, S. Höche, H. Ita, Y. Li, and J. Mazzitelli. Interference effects in the H(→ γγ ) + 2 jets channel at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D, 92(1):013004, 2015, 1504.05215

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Itzykson and J

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber. Quantum Field Theory. International Series In Pure and Applied Physics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980

    1980

  7. [7]

    Peskin and Daniel V

    Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder. An Introduction to quantum field theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995

    1995

  8. [8]

    Electroweak Radiative Corrections for Collider Physics

    Ansgar Denner and Stefan Dittmaier. Electroweak Radiative Corrections for Collider Physics. Phys. Rept., 864:1–163, 2020, 1912.06823

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    H.M. Pilkuhn. The Interactions of Hadrons. North-Holland Publishing Company, 1967

    1967

  10. [10]

    Dicus, E

    Duane A. Dicus, E. C. G. Sudarshan, and Xerxes Tata. Factorization Theorem for Decaying Spinning Particles. Phys. Lett. B, 154:79–85, 1985

    1985

  11. [11]

    Interference effects in resonant di-Higgs production at the LHC in the Higgs singlet extension

    Finn Feuerstake, Elina Fuchs, Tania Robens, and Daniel Winterbottom. Interference effects in resonant di-Higgs production at the LHC in the Higgs singlet extension. JHEP, 04:094, 2025, 2409.06651. February 9, 2026 11:15 interf Interference effects in new physics searches 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Dittmaier, M

    Ansgar Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and D. Wackeroth. Predictions for all processes e+ e- → 4 fermions + gamma. Nucl. Phys. B, 560:33–65, 1999, hep-ph/9904472

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  13. [13]

    Dittmaier, M

    Ansgar Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and L. H. Wieders. Electroweak corrections to charged-current e+ e- → 4 fermion processes: Technical details and further results. Nucl. Phys. B, 724:247–294, 2005, hep-ph/0505042. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 854, 504– 507 (2012)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    Dittmaier

    Ansgar Denner and S. Dittmaier. The Complex-mass scheme for perturbative cal- culations with unstable particles. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 160:22–26, 2006, hep- ph/0605312

    arXiv 2006

  15. [15]

    The Complex-Mass Scheme and Unitarity in perturbative Quantum Field Theory

    Ansgar Denner and Jean-Nicolas Lang. The Complex-Mass Scheme and Unitarity in perturbative Quantum Field Theory. Eur. Phys. J. C, 75(8):377, 2015, 1406.6280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Berdine, N

    D. Berdine, N. Kauer, and D. Rainwater. Breakdown of the Narrow Width Approxi- mation for New Physics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:111601, 2007, hep-ph/0703058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Narrow-width approximation in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

    Christoph Uhlemann. Narrow-width approximation in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. Diploma thesis, Wuerzburg , 2007

    2007

  18. [18]

    C. F. Uhlemann and N. Kauer. Narrow-width approximation accuracy. Nucl. Phys. B, 814:195–211, 2009, 0807.4112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [19]

    Nearby resonances beyond the Breit-Wigner approximation

    Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Aldo Deandrea, and Stefania De Curtis. Nearby resonances beyond the Breit-Wigner approximation. Phys. Lett. B, 682:43–49, 2009, 0906.3417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    Interference effects in new physics processes at the LHC

    Elina Fuchs. Interference effects in new physics processes at the LHC. PhD Thesis, U. Hamburg 2015, DESY-THESIS-2015-037 , 2015

    2015

  21. [21]

    Impact of CP-violating interference effects on MSSM Higgs searches

    Elina Fuchs and Georg Weiglein. Impact of CP-violating interference effects on MSSM Higgs searches. Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(2):87, 2018, 1705.05757

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios for Run 2 and Beyond

    Emanuele Bagnaschi et al. MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios for Run 2 and Beyond. Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(7):617, 2019, 1808.07542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Hoang, Simon Plätzer, Christoph Regner, and Ines Ruffa

    André H. Hoang, Simon Plätzer, Christoph Regner, and Ines Ruffa. Beyond the Narrow-Width Limit for Off-Shell and Boosted Differential Top Quark Decays. In 16th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics, 1 2024, 2401.05035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Higgs singlet extension parameter space in the light of the LHC discovery

    Giovanni Marco Pruna and Tania Robens. Higgs singlet extension parameter space in the light of the LHC discovery. Phys. Rev. D, 88(11):115012, 2013, 1303.1150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Stan- dard Model after LHC Run 1

    Tania Robens and Tim Stefaniak. Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Stan- dard Model after LHC Run 1. Eur. Phys. J. C, 75:104, 2015, 1501.02234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    LHC Benchmark Scenarios for the Real Higgs Sin- glet Extension of the Standard Model

    Tania Robens and Tim Stefaniak. LHC Benchmark Scenarios for the Real Higgs Sin- glet Extension of the Standard Model. Eur. Phys. J. C, 76(5):268, 2016, 1601.07880

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Constraining Extended Scalar Sectors at the LHC and beyond

    Agnieszka Ilnicka, Tania Robens, and Tim Stefaniak. Constraining Extended Scalar Sectors at the LHC and beyond. Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 33(10n11):1830007, 2018, 1803.03594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, Marc Sher, and Joao P. Silva. Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models. Phys. Rept., 516:1– 102, 2012, 1106.0034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Sacha Davidson and Howard E. Haber. Basis-independent methods for the two- Higgs-doublet model. Phys. Rev. D, 72:035004, 2005, hep-ph/0504050. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 099902 (2005)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  30. [30]

    BSM: Extended Scalar Sectors

    Tania Robens and Rui Santos. BSM: Extended Scalar Sectors. 7 2025, 2507.21910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, and J. Wudka. Sum rules for Higgs bosons. Phys. Rev. D, 43:904–912, 1991

    1991

  32. [32]

    Heavy Higgs signal–background interference in gg → V V in the Standard Model plus real singlet

    Nikolas Kauer and Claire O’Brien. Heavy Higgs signal–background interference in gg → V V in the Standard Model plus real singlet. Eur. Phys. J. C, 75:374, 2015, 1502.04113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Higgs inter- February 9, 2026 11:15 interf 18 Tania Robens ference effects at the one-loop level in the 1-Higgs-Singlet extension of the Standard Model

    Nikolas Kauer, Alexander Lind, Philipp Maierhöfer, and Weimin Song. Higgs inter- February 9, 2026 11:15 interf 18 Tania Robens ference effects at the one-loop level in the 1-Higgs-Singlet extension of the Standard Model. JHEP, 07:108, 2019, 1905.03296

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Lindert, Philipp Maierhöfer, Ste- fano Pozzorini, Hantian Zhang, and Max F

    Federico Buccioni, Jean-Nicolas Lang, Jonas M. Lindert, Philipp Maierhöfer, Ste- fano Pozzorini, Hantian Zhang, and Max F. Zoller. OpenLoops 2. Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(10):866, 2019, 1907.13071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Event generation with Sherpa 3

    Enrico Bothmann et al. Event generation with Sherpa 3. JHEP, 12:156, 2024, 2410.22148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Interference effect on a heavy Higgs resonance signal in the γγ and ZZ channels

    Sunghoon Jung, Yeo Woong Yoon, and Jeonghyeon Song. Interference effect on a heavy Higgs resonance signal in the γγ and ZZ channels. Phys. Rev. D, 93(5):055035, 2016, 1510.03450

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Lindert, and Javier Mazzitelli

    Massimiliano Grazzini, Gudrun Heinrich, Stephen Jones, Stefan Kallweit, Matthias Kerner, Jonas M. Lindert, and Javier Mazzitelli. Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects. JHEP, 05:059, 2018, 1803.02463

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. Mühlleitner, J. Ronca, and M. Spira. gg → HH : Combined uncertainties. Phys. Rev. D, 103(5):056002, 2021, 2008.11626

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    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(9):094023, 2015, 1508.05397

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Probing the electroweak phase tran- sition via enhanced di-Higgs boson production

    Marcela Carena, Zhen Liu, and Marc Riembau. Probing the electroweak phase tran- sition via enhanced di-Higgs boson production. Phys. Rev. D, 97(9):095032, 2018, 1801.00794

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Alison et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    F. Arco, S. Heinemeyer, M. Mühlleitner, A. Parra Arnay, N. Rivero González, and A. Verduras Schaeidt. Sensitivity to triple Higgs couplings via di-Higgs production in the RxSM at the (HL-)LHC and future e +e− colliders. JHEP, 06:211, 2025, 2502.03878

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Deconstructing res- onant Higgs boson pair production at the LHC: Effects of colored and neutral scalars in the NMSSM test case

    Stefano Moretti, Luca Panizzi, Jörgen Sjölin, and Harri Waltari. Deconstructing res- onant Higgs boson pair production at the LHC: Effects of colored and neutral scalars in the NMSSM test case. Phys. Rev. D, 112(5):055005, 2025, 2506.09006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Complementarity of gravitational wave analyses and di-Higgs produc- tion in the exploration of the Electroweak Phase Transition dynamics in the RxSM

    Johannes Braathen, Sven Heinemeyer, Carlos Pulido Boatella, and Alain Ver- duras Schaeidt. Complementarity of gravitational wave analyses and di-Higgs produc- tion in the exploration of the Electroweak Phase Transition dynamics in the RxSM. 10 2025, 2510.12569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Hammad, S

    A. Hammad, S. Moretti, A. P. Przybyl, and H. Waltari. Interference Effects in Res- onant Standard Model di-Higgs Production and Decay into 4b Final States: the Role of Machine Learning Analysis. 12 2025, 2512.12318

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Searches for Higgs boson production through decays of heavy resonances

    Aram Hayrapetyan et al. Searches for Higgs boson production through decays of heavy resonances. Phys. Rept., 1115:368–447, 2025, 2403.16926

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Search for triple Higgs boson production in the 6b final state using pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    Georges Aad et al. Search for triple Higgs boson production in the 6b final state using pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D, 111(3):032006, 2025, 2411.02040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Search for a resonance decaying into a scalar particle and a Higgs boson in the final state with two bottom quarks and two photons with 199 fb−1 of data collected at√s=13 TeV and √s=13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector. 2025. ATLAS-CONF-2025- 0090

    2025

  49. [49]

    Technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2025

    Search for nonresonant triple Higgs boson production in the six b-quark final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. Technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2025. CMS- PAS-HIG-24-012

    2025

  50. [50]

    Two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phenomenology and benchmark scenarios

    Tania Robens, Tim Stefaniak, and Jonas Wittbrodt. Two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phenomenology and benchmark scenarios. Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(2):151, February 9, 2026 11:15 interf Interference effects in new physics searches 19 2020, 1908.08554

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Two-Real-Singlet-Model Benchmark Planes

    Tania Robens. Two-Real-Singlet-Model Benchmark Planes. Symmetry, 15:27, 2023, 2209.10996

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    HHH whitepaper

    Hamza Abouabid et al. HHH whitepaper. Eur. Phys. J. C, 84:1183, 2024, 2407.03015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Di-Higgs boson peaks and top valleys: Interference effects in Higgs sector extensions

    Philipp Basler, Sally Dawson, Christoph Englert, and Margarete Mühlleitner. Di-Higgs boson peaks and top valleys: Interference effects in Higgs sector extensions. Phys. Rev. D, 101(1):015019, 2020, 1909.09987

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Interference effects in tt production at the LHC as a window on new physics

    Abdelhak Djouadi, John Ellis, Andrey Popov, and Jérémie Quevillon. Interference effects in tt production at the LHC as a window on new physics. JHEP, 03:119, 2019, 1901.03417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Impact of interference effects on Higgs-boson searches in the di-top final state at the LHC

    Henning Bahl, Romal Kumar, and Georg Weiglein. Impact of interference effects on Higgs-boson searches in the di-top final state at the LHC. JHEP, 05:098, 2025, 2503.02705

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025