Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

High energy probes of Higgs self-coupling via $W$ boson fusion at future lepton colliders

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that W-boson fusion di-Higgs production at a 3 TeV lepton collider, analyzed with a graph neural network, can reach 20σ significance and constrain the Higgs self-coupling modifier to roughly 30% precision at 95%…

desk verdict The GNN design and the HEFT/SMEFT split are worth reading, but the headline Z≈20 does not survive arithmetic on the paper's own table; the current version needs major correction before any coupling projection can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05096 v1 pith:ALMKMVPN submitted 2026-08-05 hep-ph hep-ex

Amir Subba , Hrishikesh Deka , Subhaditya Bhattacharya , Abhik Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Higgsself-couplingdi-HiggsproductionWbosonfusionCLICgraphneuralnetworkkappaframeworkelectroweaksymmetrybreakingfutureleptoncollider
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to show that the Higgs self-coupling can be measured precisely at a future high-energy lepton collider, specifically the 3 TeV CLIC, using W-boson fusion di-Higgs production in the four-bottom-quark plus missing-energy final state. It argues that a graph neural network classifier, which treats each event as a graph of jets and uses attention-based message passing, can separate the small signal from much larger backgrounds well enough to reach a signal significance of about 20σ at 5 $ab^{-1}$. If that holds, CLIC would constrain the Higgs self-coupling modifier κλ to about [0.76,1.31] and the double Higgs-gauge coupling modifier κ2V to about [0.95,1.05] at 95% confidence, well beyond projected HL-LHC sensitivity. The same measurement would also distinguish linearly realized electroweak symmetry breaking from non-linearly realized frameworks because the two scenarios predict different correlations between κV and κ2V.

What carries the argument

The central object is a heterogeneous graph neural network classifier. Each reconstructed jet is a node with a 14-component feature vector (transverse momentum, angles, mass, particle multiplicities, energy ratios, b-tag and flavour information, time of flight, and jet-shape variables), a missing-energy node carries the MET information, and directed edges connect jets within angular distance ΔR≤1.5. Three GATv2 attention layers perform message passing, then pooled jet and MET embeddings feed a small multilayer perceptron that assigns each event a probability of being signal. This classifier is the machine that pulls the hhννbar signal out of single-Higgs and top-quark backgrounds; the coupling reach is then set by a binned profile likelihood over the reconstructed di-Higgs kinematic observables m_hh, Δη_hh, and Δφ_hh, using the cross-section parameterization σ = $κ_λ^{2}$ $κ_V^{2}$ C_11 + $κ_2V^{2}$ C_22 + $κ_V^{4}$ C_33 plus interference terms.

What would settle it

Run the same analysis through a full CLIC detector simulation with per-jet energy-scale and b-tagging uncertainties, then verify the GNN score distribution in background-enriched control regions; if the observed background efficiency at the signal working point is more than about twice the simulated 6×$10^{-4}$ while signal efficiency stays fixed, the projected Z≈20 at 5 $ab^{-1}$ would fall well below 20 and the 95% CL κλ interval would widen beyond the quoted [0.76,1.31].

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that WBF di-Higgs production at a 3 TeV e+e− collider, with each Higgs decaying to bbbar, is a discovery-level and precision-level probe of the Higgs potential. For the Standard Model benchmark, the paper's GNN classifier yields a micro-averaged AUC of 0.95 and post-classification signal and background efficiencies of about 2×$10^{-2}$ and 6×$10^{-4}$, translating to Z≈8, 15, and 20 at integrated luminosities of 1, 3, and 5 $ab^{-1}$. A binned profile-likelihood fit over reconstructed di-Higgs mass, rapidity separation, and azimuthal separation then gives, at 5 $ab^{-1}$ and 95% CL, κλ∈[0.76,1.31] and κ2V∈[0.95,1.05] when κV=1, and κ2V∈[0.90,1.10] when the SMEFT-like relation κV=κ2V is imposed. The author's conclusion is that high-energy lepton colliders combined with graph-based machine learning provide a powerful, discriminating probe of new physics in the electroweak sector.

Load-bearing premise

The projection rests on the assumption that the GNN's simulated separation power—about 2% signal efficiency and 0.06% background efficiency at the chosen working point—will hold in the real CLIC detector, since the analysis uses fast simulation and propagates only a single global 10% normalization systematic, not shape systematics in the classifier score, b-tagging, or jet energy scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 5 ab^-1, a 3 TeV CLIC run would make WBF di-Higgs production a discovery channel with Z≈20 for the Standard Model, and already Z≈8 at 1 ab^-1.
  • The trilinear Higgs coupling would be measured to about ±30% at 95% CL, a direct test of the shape of the Higgs potential.
  • The double Higgs-gauge coupling κ2V would be pinned to roughly ±5% in the HEFT-like scenario, offering a sharper test of the hhVV vertex than the LHC.
  • Comparing the two scenarios would give an indirect discriminator between SMEFT and HEFT: the allowed region in the κλ–κ2V plane changes shape and orientation depending on whether κV=κ2V.
  • The same analysis strategy, applied at a muon collider with similar center-of-mass energy, would likely deliver comparable sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because only one global normalization systematic is included, the quoted intervals would likely widen once shape systematics in the GNN score distribution, b-tagging efficiency, and jet energy scale are propagated in a full detector simulation.
  • The 4b final state is only one of several hh decay channels; combining bbWW and bbττ in the same graph framework would probably tighten the κλ constraint beyond the reported values.
  • The strong κλ–κ2V correlation visible in the 2D contours suggests that a global simultaneous fit, rather than separate 1D intervals, is the right way to interpret a future measurement; a shift in one coupling could masquerade as a shift in the other.
  • If the GNN score calibration is validated in data control regions, the same classifier could be reused as a model-independent search for anomalous couplings, not just the two benchmark scenarios.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies W-boson fusion di-Higgs production at a future 3 TeV e+e− collider (CLIC) within the κ-framework, focusing on the e+e−→hhνν̄ final state with four b-jets. The authors simulate signal and backgrounds with MG5_aMC@NLO, Pythia8, and Delphes3, apply a set of kinematic preselections, and then use a graph neural network (GATv2) classifier to separate signal from backgrounds. They report a signal significance of Z≈20 at 5 ab−1 and derive projected 95% CL constraints on κλ and κ2V for two benchmark scenarios (κV=1 and κV=κ2V). The central claim is that this sensitivity substantially exceeds projected HL-LHC reach and discriminates between SMEFT-like and HEFT-like realizations of electroweak symmetry breaking.

Significance. If the reported sensitivity were reproducible from the numbers given, the study would provide a valuable projection for multi-TeV lepton colliders, demonstrating both a physics opportunity and a methodological application of graph-based machine learning to Higgs pair production. The paper includes a detailed description of the GNN architecture, a two-benchmark treatment of the κ-parameter space, and a binned likelihood analysis, and it correctly recognizes the qualitative importance of interference between κλ, κV, and κ2V amplitudes. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the paper's own inputs: the quoted cross sections, luminosities, and efficiencies do not yield Z≈20, and the derived coupling intervals inherit this problem. As a result, the significance of the work, even in the best case, is substantially diminished unless the analysis is reworked and the numbers corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Event Classification, Eq. (3), Table I, Supplement D] The claimed significances Z≈8, 15, 20 at integrated luminosities of 1, 3, and 5 ab−1 are inconsistent with the cross sections and efficiencies stated in the manuscript. Using the total signal cross section σ(hhνν̄)=0.845 fb and the total background cross section σ(hb b̄νν̄)+σ(tt̄X)=22.70 fb from Table I, together with the post-classification efficiencies ε_S≈2.0×10−2 and ε_B≈6×10−4 quoted in the text, Eq. (3) yields S=84.5 events and B=68.1 events at 5 ab−1, giving Z≈8.8, not 20. At 1 ab−1 the same calculation gives Z≈3.9, not 8. If the efficiencies are instead meant to be applied to the post-selection yields N in Table I, the significance is even smaller (approximately 1.4 at 1 ab−1). The significance-versus-threshold curve in Supplement Fig. 4 reaches Z≈20 only at thresholds near P≈0.3–0.4, but that is not what the text says: the text explicitly ties the quoted efficiencies at P(hhνν̄)≥0.5 to the Z values. The manuscript must present a consistent set of efficiencies, yields, and significances; as written, the headline result is not reproducible from the paper's own numbers.
  2. [Supplement B, Eq. (14)] The cross-section parameterization σ(κλ,κ2V,κV) is presented in terms of coefficients C_ij, but the numerical values (or even closed-form expressions) of these coefficients are never provided. The reader therefore cannot reproduce the dependence of the signal rate on the coupling modifiers, cannot obtain the cross-section contours in Supplement Fig. 3, and cannot verify the binned likelihood results that lead to the intervals in Eqs. (8)–(10). The plots are not a substitute for the coefficients themselves. This is a reproducibility gap in a central part of the analysis.
  3. [Event Classification and Supplement E] The detector simulation is performed with Delphes3 without specifying a CLIC-specific detector card, and the systematic uncertainty treatment is limited to a single 10% normalization nuisance parameter (Eq. 24 in the supplement). Because the projected significance and the coupling constraints depend directly on the post-classification background rejection (ε_B≈6×10−4), the absence of an explicit validation of the Delphes model against CLIC performance, and the omission of shape uncertainties in the GNN score distribution, b-tagging efficiency, and jet energy scale, leave the results vulnerable to sizable corrections. The authors should either justify the adopted detector response and include a more realistic systematic model, or significantly temper the sensitivity claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typographical error: 'viaW' should be 'via W' with a space.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The resolution parameters σ_h and σ_Δ in the χ² pairing statistic are not numerically specified; provide the values used in the analysis.
  3. [Supplement D] The text states that the background efficiency ε_B depends on κV (ε_B(κV=2)=0.00077, ε_B(κV=3)=0.00086), but it is unclear why a SM background rate should depend on an anomalous coupling modifier; clarify whether the backgrounds are reweighted to non-SM κV values and how this is implemented.
  4. [Section 'Sensitivity of Couplings'] The test statistic Q(κ) is defined but the connection between Q(κ) and the quoted confidence intervals is not explicit; state the threshold used for 1D and 2D intervals (e.g., Δχ²=3.84 for 95% CL on one parameter).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: sensitivity projection is a forward MC simulation under the κ framework; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward simulation: MG5 cross sections → Delphes3 detector simulation → preselection → GNN classification → profile-likelihood significance → binned-likelihood intervals for κλ and κ2V. The GNN efficiencies and AUCs are measured on simulated signal and background events, and the significance Z is computed from those simulated yields via Eq. (3). The coupling intervals in Eqs. (8)–(10) come from an Asimov likelihood built from SM signal-plus-background predictions (Eqs. (5)–(7)); κλ and κ2V are free parameters scanned in the likelihood, not fitted and then renamed as predictions. No equation defines κλ or κ2V in terms of the quoted intervals, and no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then used to predict a closely related quantity by construction. The EFT mapping in Supplementary Sec. A is motivational and does not smuggle in the result. There are no load-bearing self-citations by the authors; references to GATv2, scikit-learn, and PDG are external. The internal arithmetic inconsistency noted in the skeptic summary—Z≈20 not following from Table I yields and the quoted post-classification efficiencies—is a correctness/validation concern, not circularity, because it does not make the output equivalent to an input by definition. Threshold optimization on the same simulation can cause optimism, but that is a statistical bias, not a circular derivation. The central claims therefore have independent content and are not forced by self-reference.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard simulation tools and the kappa framework; no invented entities. The main unquantified inputs are the unreported Cij coefficients and the assumed MC-to-data fidelity of the GNN.

free parameters (3)
  • C11...C23 coefficients = not reported
    The cross-section parameterization in Eq. (14) uses six coefficients that encode the individual and interference contributions. Their numerical values are not provided, so the kappa-dependence of the signal rate cannot be independently verified.
  • GNN hyperparameters (latent dimension 128, 3 GATv2 layers, learning rate 1e-4) = chosen by hand
    These affect the classifier performance (AUC, efficiencies) that feeds directly into the significance calculation. The paper gives the values but does not assess sensitivity to them.
  • sigma_sys = 0, 0.05, 0.1
    A single normalized systematic nuisance parameter in supplementary E; these three values are scanned, not fitted from data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model with a single Higgs doublet and the kappa framework as an adequate parametrization of new physics in the Higgs sector.
    Used throughout; the analysis parametrizes deviations via kappa_lambda, kappa_V, kappa_2V and neglects kappa_2lambda.
  • domain assumption Leading-order matrix elements with no NLO electroweak or QCD corrections are accurate enough at 3 TeV for WBF di-Higgs.
    Simulations are at LO with MG5 and Pythia; no scale/PDF uncertainties or EW corrections are estimated.
  • domain assumption Delphes3 fast simulation faithfully models the CLIC detector response.
    No CLIC-specific detector card is described; performance figures such as b-tagging efficiency and jet resolution are taken from Delphes defaults.
  • domain assumption The GNN's simulated classifier performance transfers to data without additional systematics.
    The projected significance assumes the AUC and efficiencies from MC; no data/MC closure test is possible at the projection stage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High energy probes of Higgs self-coupling via $W$ boson fusion at future lepton colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALMKMVPN

@misc{pith2026260805096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High energy probes of Higgs self-coupling via $W$ boson fusion at future lepton colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALMKMVPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05096}
}
abstract

We investigate the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling through $W$ boson fusion di-Higgs production at CLIC with a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=3$ TeV. We study the interplay between the Higgs self-coupling modifier ($\kappa_{\lambda}$) and Higgs-gauge coupling modifiers ($\kappa_{V}$ and $\kappa_{2V}$) within the $\kappa$ framework. To enhance the separation between signal and background, we develop a graph neural network (GNN) based classifier that achieves a signal significance of $\mathscr{Z}\approx 20~\sigma$ at $5~\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$, substantially exceeding projected HL-LHC sensitivity. Our results demonstrate that high-energy lepton colliders, combined with graph-based machine learning, provide excellent sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling and offer a powerful probe of new physics in the electroweak sector, disentangling linearly and non-linearly realized electroweak symmetry breaking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05096 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Di-Higgs production cross sections as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Feynman diagrams contributing to di-Higgs production via WBF. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 1D likelihood scans ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for EFT modifications to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Feynman diagrams for EFT-induced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. WBF di-Higgs production cross sections in different parameter planes: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: One-vs-rest ROC curves for the three-class GATv2 classifier. Right: Profile-likelihood significance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Signal significance in different parameter planes: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 95% C.L. 2D sensitivity contours at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. 95% C.L. 2D sensitivity contours at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Observation of a New Bo- son at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Observation of a New Bo- son at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 508 (1964)

    1964

  4. [4]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 321 (1964)

    1964

  5. [5]

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 585 (1964)

    1964

  6. [6]

    P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys. Lett.12, 132 (1964)

    1964

  7. [7]

    P. W. Higgs, Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons, Phys. Rev.145, 1156 (1966)

    work page 1966

  8. [8]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Symmetry breaking in nonAbelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev.155, 1554 (1967)

    work page 1967

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 101801 (2024), arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, (2025), arXiv:2510.07527 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, (2025), arXiv:2510.07527 [hep-ex]

    2025

  3. [11]

    HL-LHC prospects for the measurement of Higgs boson pair production in theb ¯bb¯bfinal state and combination with theb ¯bγγandb ¯bτ +τ − final states at the ATLAS experiment, (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    HL-LHC prospects for the search of boosted Higgs boson pair production via vector-boson fusion in theb ¯bb¯bfinal state at the ATLAS experiment, (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    J. H. Kim, Y. Sakaki, and M. Son, Combined analysis of double Higgs production via gluon fusion at the HL-LHC in the effective field theory approach, Phys. Rev. D98, 015016 (2018), arXiv:1801.06093 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Brivio, R

    I. Brivio, R. Gr¨ ober, and K. Schmid, Higgs pair produc- tion in gluon fusion to higher orders in Higgs Effective Field Theory, JHEP05, 031, arXiv:2511.23411 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. List, B. Bliewert, D. Ntounis, J. Tian, C. Vernieri, and J. M. Torndal, Higgs Self-coupling Strategy at Linear e+e- Colliders, PoSICHEP2024, 079 (2025), arXiv:2411.01507 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. M. Torndal, J. List, D. Ntounis, and C. Vernieri, Higgs self-coupling measurement at futuree +e− colliders, PoS EPS-HEP2023, 406 (2024), arXiv:2311.16774 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Buonincontri, P

    L. Buonincontri, P. Andreetto, N. Bartosik, M. Casarsa, A. Gianelle, D. Lucchesi, and L. Sestini (Muon Col- lider Physics and Detector Working Group), Higgs boson couplings at muon collider, PoSEPS-HEP2021, 619 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Cheung, J

    K. Cheung, J. S. Lee, S. Lee, and C. Wang, Mea- suring the trilinear Higgs self-coupling in Higgs boson 5 pair production at multi-TeV muon colliders, (2026), arXiv:2608.01888 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Anal- ysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  12. [20]

    Grzadkowski, M

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

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Feruglio, The Chiral approach to the electroweak inter- actions, Int

    F. Feruglio, The Chiral approach to the electroweak inter- actions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8, 4937 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9301281

    1993

  14. [22]

    Alonso, M

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

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. P. Burgess, J. Matias, and M. Pospelov, A Higgs or not a Higgs? What to do if you discover a new scalar particle, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17, 1841 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/9912459

    2002

  16. [24]

    Contino, C

    R. Contino, C. Grojean, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and R. Rattazzi, Strong Double Higgs Production at the LHC, JHEP05, 089, arXiv:1002.1011 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Buchalla and O

    G. Buchalla and O. Cata, Effective Theory of a Dy- namically Broken Electroweak Standard Model at NLO, JHEP07, 101, arXiv:1203.6510 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cata, A. Celis, and C. Krause, Note on Anomalous Higgs-Boson Couplings in Effective Field Theory, Phys. Lett. B750, 298 (2015), arXiv:1504.01707 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery., Nature607, 60 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Par- ticle Physics, Int

    F. Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Par- ticle Physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2630011 (2026)

    2026

  22. [30]

    Alwall, R

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

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bierlichet al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlichet al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simu- lation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP02, 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04, 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brody, U

    S. Brody, U. Alon, and E. Yahav, How attentive are graph attention networks? (2022), arXiv:2105.14491 [cs.LG]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Veliˇ ckovi´ c, G

    P. Veliˇ ckovi´ c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Li` o, and Y. Bengio, Graph attention networks (2018), arXiv:1710.10903 [stat.ML]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. L. Ba, J. R. Kiros, and G. E. Hinton, Layer normal- ization (2016), arXiv:1607.06450 [stat.ML]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Clevert, T

    D.-A. Clevert, T. Unterthiner, and S. Hochreiter, Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (elus) (2016), arXiv:1511.07289 [cs.LG]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    G. E. Hinton, N. Srivastava, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. R. Salakhutdinov, Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors (2012), arXiv:1207.0580 [cs.NE]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cour- napeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Ma- chine Lear...

    2011

  32. [40]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization (2017), arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, Sgdr: Stochastic gradi- ent descent with warm restarts (2017), arXiv:1608.03983 [cs.LG]. i SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIALS A. Mappingκto EFTs: SMEFT vs. HEFT Theκframework parametrizes NP effects by rescaling SM couplings. A deviation in a givenκmodifie...

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    = 0.00086. The signal efficiencies exhibit a mild dependence on the anomalous couplings, with a slight increase for largerκ λ, while variations inκ 2V andκ V have a comparatively smaller impact, indicating that the overall sensitivity is predominantly driven by changes in the ...

Pith tools

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