pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27044 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · ✦ hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Improved results on Higgs boson pair production in the 4b final state

CMS Collaboration
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 08:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords Higgs boson pair production4b final stateCMSupper limitHiggs self-couplingresolved topologymerged topologyLHC
0
0 comments X

The pith

CMS sets an upper limit of 4.4 times the Standard Model expectation on Higgs boson pair production in the 4b final state using combined resolved and merged analyses.

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

The paper reports measurements of Higgs boson pair production in the four-bottom-quark final state from proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV with 62 fb^{-1} of data collected by CMS. Separate reconstructions of the Higgs decays as pairs of small-radius jets and as single large-radius jets are combined, along with new trigger and selection techniques, to extract a limit on the HH signal strength. The resulting observed and expected upper limits at 95% confidence level are both 4.4, improving the expected sensitivity by more than a factor of two relative to earlier LHC results in the resolved topology with equivalent luminosity. An update of the 13 TeV analysis with 138 fb^{-1} yields a limit of 10.0 observed and 5.9 expected, and the combination across both energies gives 4.7 observed and 2.8 expected. These tighter bounds also restrict the allowed values of the Higgs trilinear self-coupling and the quartic coupling to two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons.

Core claim

The combination of resolved and merged topologies in the HH to 4b channel with 62 fb^{-1} at 13.6 TeV produces an observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the HH signal strength μ_HH of 4.4 (4.4). The resolved topology analysis updated with 138 fb^{-1} at 13 TeV gives 10.0 (5.9), an improvement of about 25% in the expected limit over prior results with the same data. Combining the 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV datasets yields an observed (expected) limit of 4.7 (2.8), with corresponding allowed ranges reported for the Higgs trilinear self-coupling and the quartic coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons.

What carries the argument

The combination of resolved topology using pairs of small-radius jets and merged topology using single large-radius jets, together with updated trigger selection, event selection, and signal extraction methods, to set limits on the HH signal strength.

If this is right

  • The limit of 4.4 on μ_HH directly restricts the parameter space allowed for the Higgs trilinear self-coupling.
  • The merged topology contributes improved sensitivity compared with previous published LHC results in the same final state.
  • The updated 13 TeV resolved analysis demonstrates a 25% gain in expected sensitivity through refinements in selection and extraction.
  • Combining data from 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV produces a joint limit of 4.7 observed and 2.8 expected on μ_HH.
  • The extracted ranges constrain the quartic coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the current background modeling holds with larger data sets, the same resolved-plus-merged strategy could approach Standard Model sensitivity in future LHC runs.
  • The 4b channel limits provide a cross-check for results in other HH decay modes such as bbγγ or bbττ.
  • Stronger bounds on the self-coupling help narrow the range of possible beyond-Standard-Model scenarios that predict enhanced HH production rates.
  • The factor-of-two improvement in the resolved topology suggests that further gains in jet tagging and background rejection could accelerate sensitivity growth with additional luminosity.

Load-bearing premise

Background processes are assumed to be accurately modeled by simulation and data-driven methods, with jet reconstruction efficiencies and systematic uncertainties correctly estimated without significant unaccounted biases in the 4b final state.

What would settle it

Observation of a significant excess of 4b events in the signal region relative to the predicted background, or a persistent mismatch between data and simulation in control regions that exceeds the assigned uncertainties, would invalidate the reported upper limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27044 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Feynman diagrams that contribute to ggF and VBF HH production at LO with cou view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: the b tagging performance of the Run 3 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: the bb tagging performance of the PNET@HLT algorithm (in blue) compared to the best performing Run 2 algorithm (DOUBLEBB, in red), as evaluated on AK8 jets in the HLT from simulated HH → 4b and QCD multijet events with pT > 300 GeV and |η| < 2.5. Right: efficiency of the logical or of the trigger paths developed for the merged topology, as a function of the generator-level leading H candidate pT in s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: invariant mass distributions for the leading ( view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: the receiver operating characteristic curve for G view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between data and fit prediction from a simultaneous signal-plus view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: schematic diagram of the signal regions (dark shaded circles) and control regions view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the SvsB classifier score in the ggHH category for SR view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A schematic diagram of the 4b validation regions defined in the view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pre-fit and post background-only fit distributions of the SvsB classifier output for view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Post-fit distributions of the SvsB classifier score in the SR view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Post-fit distributions of the SvsB output score in the SR view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The expected HH, ZH, and ZZ signal yields as estimated from simulation (left) view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of the ggHH, qqHH, ZZ, and ZH signal processes, normalized to unity, view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Post-fit distribution of the D(ggHH-vs-bkg) (upper left), D(qqHH-vs-bkg) (upper right), D(ZZ-vs-bkg) (lower left), and D(ZH-vs-bkg) (lower right) scores in the validation re￾gion SR3MnT for data (black points) and the predicted background (gray filled histograms) with the Run 3 data set. Notations are as in view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Post-fit distributions of the transformed view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Post-fit distribution of the transformed view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The fitted signal+background distribution of the signal probability, view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Left: schematic diagram showing the regions used for the background estimation view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Pre-fit and post-fit distributions of the fitted observables for the ggHH-inclusive view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Pre-fit and post-fit distributions of the fitted observables for the ggHH-inclusive view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Pre-fit and post-fit distributions of the fitted observables for the qqHH HPSR (left) view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Schematic diagrams showing the SRs and QCD CR (gray) used in the merged anal view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: The background-only fit distributions of the regressed mass of the subleading H view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Left: the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the signal view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the signal view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: The observed (solid) and expected (dashed) profile likelihood ratios as function of view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The observed and expected 2D exclusion range for ( view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Left: the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the signal view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: The observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the signal view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: The observed (solid) and expected (dashed) profile likelihood ratios as function of view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: The observed and expected 2D exclusion range for ( view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Measurements of Higgs boson pair (HH) production in the four bottom quark (4b) final state are presented using proton-proton (pp) collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 62 fb$^{-1}$. Events in which the Higgs boson decays, H$\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$, are separately reconstructed as pairs of small-radius jets (resolved), as well as those where they are reconstructed as single large-radius jets (merged), are studied exclusively. Benefiting from new methods in trigger selection, event selection, and signal extraction, the combination of analyses in the resolved and merged topologies gives an observed (expected) upper limit on the HH signal strength, $\mu_\mathrm{HH}$, of 4.4 (4.4) at 95% confidence level (CL). Compared to previously published LHC results in the 4b final state, the expected limit with an equivalent integrated luminosity is improved by more than a factor of two in the resolved topology and is better in the merged topology as well. An updated analysis of the resolved topology using 138 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV pp collision data yields an observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on $\mu_\mathrm{HH}$ of 10.0 (5.9), an improvement of about 25% in the expected limit compared to the published results using the same data. Results in the 4b final state with 13 and 13.6 TeV are combined, resulting in an observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on $\mu_\mathrm{HH}$ of 4.7 (2.8). The allowed ranges for the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling and quartic coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are also reported. These are the most stringent constraints achieved in the 4b final state to date.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports improved measurements of non-resonant Higgs boson pair (HH) production in the four-bottom-quark final state with the CMS detector. Using 62 fb^{-1} of 13.6 TeV pp collision data, separate analyses reconstruct the HH system in resolved (two small-radius jets per Higgs candidate) and merged (one large-radius jet per Higgs candidate) topologies. New trigger, event selection, and signal-extraction techniques are introduced. The combined resolved+merged analysis yields an observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the HH signal strength μ_HH of 4.4 (4.4). An updated resolved analysis of 138 fb^{-1} at 13 TeV gives 10.0 (5.9), and the 13+13.6 TeV combination gives 4.7 (2.8). Constraints on the Higgs trilinear self-coupling and the quartic HHVV coupling are also extracted. The work claims the most stringent limits to date in the 4b channel.

Significance. If the background modeling and systematic uncertainties are validated at the claimed precision, the results constitute a substantial advance in the experimental reach for HH production. The factor-of-two improvement in expected sensitivity for the resolved topology, achieved with only 62 fb^{-1} at 13.6 TeV, demonstrates the impact of the new methods. The combined limits tighten the allowed ranges for the Higgs self-interactions, directly addressing a key LHC physics goal. The provision of both resolved and merged results plus the cross-energy combination adds robustness.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2] §5.2 (QCD multijet background estimation, resolved topology): The ABCD extrapolation assumes that b-tagging and jet-mass variables factorize between control and signal regions. The manuscript shows closure in simulation but does not report quantitative data-driven closure tests (e.g., in orthogonal sidebands with varied b-tagging working points or p_T bins) that would bound any residual correlation bias on the fitted μ_HH. Because the quoted 4.4 limit is extracted from a fit whose dominant background is this extrapolation, an unaccounted bias at the few-percent level would shift the central value and the observed/expected agreement.
  2. [§6.3] §6.3 (Combined fit and systematic correlations): The simultaneous fit to resolved and merged categories incorporates jet-energy-scale and b-tagging uncertainties, yet the degree of correlation between the two topologies (particularly for large-R jet grooming variables in the merged case) is not tabulated. If these correlations are underestimated, the combined limit of 4.4 could be overly optimistic; the paper should provide the full covariance matrix or explicit correlation coefficients used in the fit.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'Higgs boson decays, H t t-bar' is evidently a LaTeX placeholder error and should be replaced by the correct decay mode (H → b b-bar).
  2. [Figure 8] Figure 8 (post-fit distributions): the y-axis labels and legend entries are too small for print; enlarging them would improve readability without changing content.
  3. [§7] §7 (coupling constraints): the translation from the μ_HH limit to the allowed ranges for λ_HHH and λ_HHVV should include a brief statement of the assumed functional form (e.g., the effective Lagrangian parametrization) for completeness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate the positive evaluation of the significance of the results and the recognition of the improvements in the resolved and merged topologies. We address the two major comments below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the background validation and systematic correlations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5.2] §5.2 (QCD multijet background estimation, resolved topology): The ABCD extrapolation assumes that b-tagging and jet-mass variables factorize between control and signal regions. The manuscript shows closure in simulation but does not report quantitative data-driven closure tests (e.g., in orthogonal sidebands with varied b-tagging working points or p_T bins) that would bound any residual correlation bias on the fitted μ_HH. Because the quoted 4.4 limit is extracted from a fit whose dominant background is this extrapolation, an unaccounted bias at the few-percent level would shift the central value and the observed/expected agreement.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the importance of robust validation for the ABCD method. The manuscript demonstrates closure of the extrapolation in simulation, which supports the factorization assumption for the chosen variables. We agree that quantitative data-driven tests provide valuable additional assurance. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit closure tests performed in data using orthogonal sidebands with varied b-tagging working points and across different jet p_T ranges. These tests will be used to quantify any residual non-factorization and to confirm that potential biases on the extracted μ_HH remain well within the assigned systematic uncertainties. This addition will directly address the concern about the reliability of the background estimate underlying the 4.4 limit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§6.3] §6.3 (Combined fit and systematic correlations): The simultaneous fit to resolved and merged categories incorporates jet-energy-scale and b-tagging uncertainties, yet the degree of correlation between the two topologies (particularly for large-R jet grooming variables in the merged case) is not tabulated. If these correlations are underestimated, the combined limit of 4.4 could be overly optimistic; the paper should provide the full covariance matrix or explicit correlation coefficients used in the fit.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of the correlations between the resolved and merged topologies is necessary for full transparency. In the revised manuscript we will include a table of correlation coefficients for the principal systematic uncertainties, with specific attention to jet-energy-scale effects, b-tagging, and the grooming variables used for large-radius jets in the merged topology. The simultaneous fit treats uncertainties that are common to both topologies as fully correlated and topology-specific effects as uncorrelated, consistent with their physical origin. We will also make the full covariance matrix available as supplementary material. These additions will allow readers to verify that the combined observed limit of 4.4 is not overly optimistic. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: limit extracted from data fit, independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental measurement of HH production in the 4b final state using 62 fb⁻¹ of 13.6 TeV data (plus combinations with prior 13 TeV data). The central result—an observed/expected 95% CL upper limit of 4.4 on the signal strength μ_HH—is obtained by performing a statistical fit to the observed collision data in resolved and merged topologies, with μ_HH as a free parameter in the likelihood. Background yields and shapes are estimated from simulation plus data-driven methods (e.g., sideband extrapolations) that are validated in control regions; these estimates are inputs to the fit rather than outputs derived from the quoted limit. No equation or procedure in the analysis defines the final limit in terms of itself, renames a fitted quantity as a prediction, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose validity is assumed without external verification. The result is directly falsifiable against new data and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of the Standard Model for background processes and detector response rather than new theoretical postulates; no invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • signal strength μ_HH
    The parameter of interest that is fitted to data to extract the upper limit; its value is not a free parameter chosen by hand but the result of the statistical fit.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Background processes in the 4b final state are accurately modeled by Monte Carlo simulation supplemented by data-driven techniques.
    Invoked in event selection and signal extraction to distinguish signal from background.
  • domain assumption Jet reconstruction efficiencies and energy scales are correctly calibrated and their uncertainties are properly propagated.
    Required for both resolved and merged topologies to convert observed events into limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5656 in / 1549 out tokens · 53137 ms · 2026-05-07T08:06:26.793374+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”, Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.321 1964

  2. [2]

    Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,Phys. Lett.12 (1964) 132,doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9. 56

    work page doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9 1964

  3. [3]

    Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 508,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.508 1964

  4. [4]

    Global conservation laws and massless particles

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 585,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.585 1964

  5. [5]

    Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,Phys. Rev. 145(1966) 1156,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.145.1156 1966

  6. [6]

    Symmetry breaking in non-abelian gauge theories

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-abelian gauge theories”,Phys. Rev.155 (1967) 1554,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1554 1967

  7. [7]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    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, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020,arXiv:1207.7214

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 2012

  8. [8]

    Phys.Lett

    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, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021,arXiv:1207.7235

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012

  9. [9]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery

    CMS Collaboration, “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.”,Nature607(2022) 60,doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x, arXiv:2207.00043. [Corrigendum:doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06164-8]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x 2022

  10. [10]

    A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery

    ATLAS Collaboration, “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 52, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w,arXiv:2207.00092. [Erratum: doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06248-5]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w 2022

  11. [11]

    Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 092014,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.092014,arXiv:2409.13663

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.092014 2025

  12. [12]

    Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ ∗ →4ℓDecay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using √s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp Collision Data

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ ∗ →4ℓDecay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using √s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp Collision Data”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 251802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.251802,arXiv:2308.04775

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.251802 2023

  13. [13]

    Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives

    J. Alison et al., “Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives”,Rev. Phys. 5(2020) 100045,doi:10.1016/j.revip.2020.100045,arXiv:1910.00012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.revip.2020.100045 2020

  14. [14]

    Higgs pair production in vector-boson fusion at the LHC and beyond

    F. Bishara, R. Contino, and J. Rojo, “Higgs pair production in vector-boson fusion at the LHC and beyond”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 481, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5037-9,arXiv:1611.03860

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5037-9 2017

  15. [15]

    Search for associated production of a Higgs boson and of two vector bosons via vector boson scattering

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for associated production of a Higgs boson and of two vector bosons via vector boson scattering”, technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math> Collisions at <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>13</mml:mn><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mi>TeV</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> with the ATLAS Detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 101801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.101801,arXiv:2406.09971

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.101801 2024

  17. [17]

    Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”, 2025.arXiv:2510.07527. Submitted toJ. Phys. G. References 57

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Studies of new Higgs boson interactions through nonresonant HH production in the bbγγfinal state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Studies of new Higgs boson interactions through nonresonant HH production in the bbγγfinal state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP01(2024) 066,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)066, arXiv:2310.12301

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2024)066 2024

  19. [19]

    Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the bbb b final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the bbb b final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D 108(2023) 052003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.052003,arXiv:2301.03212

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.052003 2023

  20. [20]

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the nonresonant production of Higgs boson pairs via gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion in the bbτ +τ− final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 032012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.032012,arXiv:2404.12660

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.032012 2024

  21. [21]

    Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with leptons, taus, and photons in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with leptons, taus, and photons in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP08(2024) 164,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)164, arXiv:2405.20040

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2024)164 2024

  22. [22]

    Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the 2b+2ℓ+E miss T final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the 2b+2ℓ+E miss T final state in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP02(2024) 037,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)037,arXiv:2310.11286

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2024)037 2024

  23. [23]

    Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final state with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final state with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B842(2023) 137531, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137531,arXiv:2206.09401

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137531 2023

  24. [24]

    Search for Higgs boson pair production with one associated vector boson in proton-proton collisions at $$ \sqrt{s} $$ = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production with one associated vector boson in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP10(2024) 061, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)061,arXiv:2404.08462

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2024)061 2024

  25. [25]

    Search for Higgs boson pairs decaying to WW*WW*, WW*ττ, and ττττ in proton-proton collisions at $$ \sqrt{s} $$ = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pairs decaying to WW*WW*, WW*ττ, and ττττin proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP07(2023) 095, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)095,arXiv:2206.10268

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2023)095 2023

  26. [26]

    Search for Higgs boson pair production in the b bW +W− decay mode in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in the b bW +W− decay mode in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP07(2024) 293, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)293,arXiv:2403.09430

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2024)293 2024

  27. [27]

    Study of Higgs boson pair production in the $HH \rightarrow b \overline{b} \gamma \gamma$ final state with 308 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experiment

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Study of Higgs boson pair production in the HH→b bγγfinal state with 308 fb−1 of data collected at √s=13 TeV and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experiment”, technical report, 2025.arXiv:2507.03495

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Search for Higgs Boson Pair Production in the Four <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math> Quark Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions at <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>13</mml:mn><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mi>TeV</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs Boson Pair Production in the Four b Quark Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 081802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.081802,arXiv:2202.09617

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.081802 2022

  29. [29]

    Search for pair production of boosted Higgs bosons via vector-boson fusion in the bbbb final state using pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of boosted Higgs bosons via vector-boson fusion in the bbbb final state using pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B858(2024) 139007, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139007,arXiv:2404.17193. 58

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139007 2024

  30. [30]

    Search for nonresonant pair production of highly energetic Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quarks

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Nonresonant Pair Production of Highly Energetic Higgs Bosons Decaying to Bottom Quarks”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 041803, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041803,arXiv:2205.06667

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041803 2023

  31. [31]

    Search for production of Higgs boson pairs in the four b quark final state using large-area jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for production of Higgs boson pairs in the four b quark final state using large-area jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP01 (2019) 040,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)040,arXiv:1808.01473

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2019)040 2019

  32. [32]

    Search for ZZ and ZH Production in the b bbb Final State using Proton-Proton Collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for ZZ and ZH Production in the b bbb Final State using Proton-Proton Collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 712, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13021-z,arXiv:2403.20241

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13021-z 2024

  33. [33]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.171917

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.171917 2026

  34. [34]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  35. [35]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05064 2024

  36. [36]

    Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017,arXiv:2006.10165

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/p10017 2020

  37. [37]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/p01020 2017

  38. [38]

    Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2”, JINST19(2024) P11021,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/P11021, arXiv:2410.17038

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/p11021 2024

  39. [39]

    Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014,arXiv:2012.06888

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/p05014 2021

  40. [40]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015 2018

  41. [41]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/p10009 2014

  42. [42]

    A New Method for Combining NLO QCD with Shower Monte Carlo Algorithms

    P . Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,JHEP11(2004) 040,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040 2004

  43. [43]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,JHEP11(2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070,arXiv:0709.2092

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070 2007

  44. [44]

    A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX

    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,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043,arXiv:1002.2581. References 59

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/jhep06(2010)043 2010

  45. [45]

    Higgs production via gluon fusion in thePOWHEGapproach in the SM and in the MSSM

    E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P . Slavich, and A. Vicini, “Higgs production via gluon fusion in thePOWHEGapproach in the SM and in the MSSM”,JHEP02(2012) 088, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2012)088,arXiv:1111.2854

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2012)088 2012

  46. [46]

    NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers

    G. Heinrich et al., “NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers”,JHEP08(2017) 088, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)088,arXiv:1703.09252

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2017)088 2017

  47. [47]

    Parton shower and NLO-matching uncertainties in Higgs boson pair production

    S. Jones and S. Kuttimalai, “Parton shower and NLO-matching uncertainties in Higgs boson pair production”,JHEP02(2018) 176,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)176, arXiv:1711.03319

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2018)176 2018

  48. [48]

    Higgs boson pair production in non-linear effective field theory with fullm t-dependence at NLO QCD

    G. Buchalla et al., “Higgs boson pair production in non-linear effective field theory with fullm t-dependence at NLO QCD”,JHEP09(2018) 057, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057,arXiv:1806.05162

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2018)057 2018

  49. [49]

    Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects

    G. Heinrich et al., “Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects”,JHEP06(2019) 066, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2019)066,arXiv:1903.08137

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2019)066 2019

  50. [50]

    A non-linear EFT description of gg→HH at NLO interfaced toPOWHEG

    G. Heinrich, S. P . Jones, M. Kerner, and L. Scyboz, “A non-linear EFT description of gg→HH at NLO interfaced toPOWHEG”,JHEP10(2020) 021, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)021,arXiv:2006.16877

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2020)021 2020

  51. [51]

    Double Higgs boson production at NLO: Combining the exact numerical result and high-energy expansion

    J. Davies et al., “Double Higgs boson production at NLO: Combining the exact numerical result and high-energy expansion”,JHEP11(2019) 024, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)024,arXiv:1907.06408

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2019)024 2019

  52. [52]

    Alwall, R

    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,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079,arXiv:1405.0301

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014

  53. [53]

    Neutral Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections

    S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira, “Neutral Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections”,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 115012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.115012,arXiv:hep-ph/9805244

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.115012 1998

  54. [54]

    Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC

    D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li, and J. Wang, “Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC”,JHEP07(2013) 169, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)169,arXiv:1301.1245

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2013)169 2013

  55. [55]

    Higgs boson pair production at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, “Higgs Boson Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD”,Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 201801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.201801,arXiv:1309.6594

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.201801 2013

  56. [56]

    Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, “Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC”,JHEP09(2015) 053, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)053,arXiv:1505.07122

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2015)053 2015

  57. [57]

    Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading order with full top-quark mass dependence

    S. Borowka et al., “Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading order with full top-quark mass dependence”,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 012001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.012001,arXiv:1604.06447

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.012001 2016

  58. [58]

    Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects

    M. Grazzini et al., “Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects”, JHEP05(2018) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)059,arXiv:1803.02463. 60

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2018)059 2018

  59. [59]

    Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme

    J. Baglio et al., “Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme”, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 459,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6973-3, arXiv:1811.05692

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6973-3 2019

  60. [60]

    gg→HH: Combined uncertainties

    J. Baglio et al., “gg→HH: Combined uncertainties”,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 056002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.056002,arXiv:2008.11626

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.056002 2021

  61. [61]

    Vector-boson fusion Higgs pair production at N3LO

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, “Vector-boson fusion Higgs pair production at N3LO”, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 114016,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.114016, arXiv:1811.07906

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.114016 2018

  62. [62]

    A Positive-Weight Next-to-Leading-Order Monte Carlo for Heavy Flavour Hadroproduction

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,JHEP09(2007) 126, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126,arXiv:0707.3088

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126 2007

  63. [63]

    An NLO+PS generator for t t and Wt production and decay including non-resonant and interference effects

    T. Je ˇzo et al., “An NLO+PS generator for t t and Wt production and decay including non-resonant and interference effects”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 691, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4538-2,arXiv:1607.04538

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4538-2 2016

  64. [64]

    Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the Top-Pair Cross-Section at Hadron Colliders

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders”,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2930, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021,arXiv:1112.5675

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021 2014

  65. [65]

    Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW

    M. Czakon et al., “Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW”,JHEP10(2017) 186,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)186,arXiv:1705.04105

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2017)186 2017

  66. [66]

    Bierlich, et al., SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3”, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.8 2022

  67. [67]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4 2020

  68. [68]

    Ball, et al., JHEP04, 040 (2015)

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,JHEP04(2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040,arXiv:1410.8849

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)040 2015

  69. [69]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428

    work page Pith review doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5 2017

  70. [70]

    GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  71. [71]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/p10003 2017

  72. [72]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063 2008

  73. [73]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2,arXiv:1111.6097. References 61

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012

  74. [74]

    Pileup per particle identification

    D. Bertolini, P . Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran, “Pileup per particle identification”,JHEP 10(2014) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)059,arXiv:1407.6013

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2014)059 2014

  75. [75]

    Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,JINST15(2020) P09018,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018,arXiv:2003.00503

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/p09018 2020

  76. [76]

    Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/p02014 2017

  77. [77]

    Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector”,JINST14(2019) P07004,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004,arXiv:1903.06078

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/p07004 2019

  78. [78]

    Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P05011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011,arXiv:1712.07158

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/p05011 2018

  79. [79]

    Qu and L

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, “ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds”,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 056019,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019,arXiv:1902.08570

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.056019 2020

  80. [80]

    Performance of the ParticleNet tagger on small and large-radius jets at High Level Trigger in Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the ParticleNet tagger on small and large-radius jets at High Level Trigger in Run 3”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2023-021, CERN, 2023

    2023

Showing first 80 references.