Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

HiggsTools for LHC Run 3 and Beyond

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HiggsTools 1.3 combines resonant, non-resonant, and interference contributions into a single validated di-Higgs cross-section prediction, so any BSM scalar model can be tested against LHC Run 3 and HL-LHC data out of the box.

desk verdict A solid, honest update of the community-standard BSM Higgs toolbox; two documented numerical approximations need tightening, but the core new functionality is real and well validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05401 v1 pith:EM2ZTC4N submitted 2026-08-05 hep-ph

Henning Bahl , Thomas Biekötter , Sven Heinemeyer , Kateryna Radchenko Serdula , Georg Weiglein This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.60.Fr14.80.Bn14.80.Cp
keywords HiggsToolsBSMscalarphenomenologypairproductionLHCRun3BoundsSignalsfour-topsearchestrilinearcoupling
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 presents HiggsTools 1.3, a software release that lets any model with extra scalar particles be tested automatically against the full set of LHC Higgs searches and measurements. The centrepiece is a new prediction for Higgs-boson pair (hh) production that computes the resonant, non-resonant and interference contributions together, as a function of the Higgs self-coupling $\kappa_\lambda$, the top-quark Yukawa coupling, and the mass, width, and couplings of a heavy BSM scalar. On the limits side, the paper adds a recast of the CMS four-top-quark search with coupling-dependent acceptances, and coupling-dependent non-resonant di-Higgs limits. If the implementation is right, a BSM parameter point can be confronted with Run 3 and HL-LHC results out of the box, and the full di-Higgs cross section replaces the common resonant-only or non-resonant-only approximations that can miss significant interference effects.

What carries the argument

Eq. (7), the master formula for the full di-Higgs cross section: $\sigma_{\rm tot} = c_t^2 \kappa_\lambda^2 K_T A_T + c_t^4 K_B A_B + c_t^3 \kappa_\lambda K_{TB} A_{TB} + c_3^2 K_R A_R + c_t \kappa_\lambda c_3 K_{RT} A_{RT} + c_t^2 c_3 K_{RB} A_{RB}$, where the $A$'s are integrated amplitudes stored as two-dimensional grids in $(m_H, \Gamma_H)$. The approximation that carries the argument is Eq. (9), $K_{RT} = \sqrt{K_R K_T}$ and $K_{RB} = \sqrt{K_R K_B}$, which assigns higher-order QCD corrections to the two resonance-vs-non-resonance interference terms without computing them directly; the one interference that has been checked, $K_{TB}$, deviates from this geometric-mean rule by only 1%. The non-resonant K-factors are fixed constants ($K_T = 2.989$, $K_B = 2.492$, $K_{TB} = 2.735$) obtained from the ratio of LHCHWG NNLO-based predictions to the anyHH LO result, and the resonant K-factor $K_R(m_H)$ is the ratio of the SusHi-based resonant cross section to the anyHH one.

What would settle it

Run a complete next-to-leading-order QCD calculation of $gg \to H \to hh$ with a generic scalar resonance, isolate the triangle–resonance and box–resonance interference contributions, and compare their K-factors with the geometric-mean values $\sqrt{K_R K_T}$ and $\sqrt{K_R K_B}$ used in the paper; a deviation of more than a few percent would falsify the central approximation of the full-cross-section implementation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the total $gg \to hh$ cross section for the SM-like Higgs boson plus one heavy CP-even resonance decomposes into six terms—squared triangle, box, and resonance amplitudes plus three interferences—each with its own multiplicative K-factor, and that the two resonant-interference K-factors can be approximated by the geometric mean of the resonant and non-resonant K-factors (Eq. 9). This lets the code combine precision NLO/NNLO/N3LO predictions for the individual pieces with the LO interference structure obtained from a minimal UFO model, while keeping resonant production at the narrow-width-plus-off-shell-improvements level. The paper also claims that the CMS four-top search can be recast as a coupling-dependent acceptance limit in the most sensitive signal region, with signal-yield fit functions in $c_t$, $\tilde{c}_t$, and $c_V$, and that non-resonant di-Higgs limits can be made $\kappa_\lambda$-dependent via a rational fit (Eq. 22). Together these amount to the claim that the whole Run 3 di-Higgs and multi-top programme is now usable as a generic BSM constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The full cross-section formula assumes that the unknown higher-order QCD corrections to the two resonance-vs-non-resonance interference terms equal the geometric mean of the corresponding resonant and non-resonant corrections; only the box–triangle interference has been checked (it is off by 1%), so if the true corrections to those two terms differ substantially, the predicted cross sections and the limits derived from them would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A BSM model with one heavy CP-even scalar can now obtain a Run-3-ready full $gg \to hh$ cross section (resonant + non-resonant + all interferences) directly from effective couplings and feed it into HiggsBounds for limit setting.
  • The CMS four-top search becomes usable for arbitrary top-philic scalars—CP-even, CP-odd, or CP-mixed—and for scalars with non-zero vector-boson couplings, not just the pure $c_t = 1$, $c_V = 0$ points published by CMS.
  • Non-resonant di-Higgs limits from ATLAS, CMS, and their combination become coupling-dependent, so $\kappa_\lambda$ can be constrained within full BSM model scans rather than only at the SM point.
  • Pre-Higgs-discovery searches are no longer selected by default for scalars whose mass is compatible with 125 GeV within the experimental resolution, allowing newer searches such as invisible Higgs decays or non-resonant di-Higgs to be applied when they are more sensitive.
  • HiggsSignals now rescales model-predicted rates to the reference mass of each measurement, so that scalars with large mass uncertainties (as in supersymmetric models) no longer spuriously worsen the global fit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the geometric-mean K-factor approximation fails for $K_{RT}$ and $K_{RB}$ at the level of a few percent, the derived limits on $\kappa_\lambda$ and on resonant production—and any exclusion plots made with the full cross section—would inherit that bias, so a direct NLO computation of those two interference terms is the natural next validation step.
  • The four-top recast is deliberately limited to the single most sensitive signal region because signal-region correlations are not public, so the new limit is systematically weaker than the full CMS analysis; implementing the corresponding ATLAS search would sharpen the strongest constraints on top-philic scalars.
  • The coupling-dependent-acceptance infrastructure used for the four-top recast is general, and the same pattern could be applied to other future final states (for example $t\bar{t} b\bar{b}$ or $H \to t\bar{t}$ with associated jets), turning the recast machinery into a reusable template for Run 3 and HL-LHC searches.
  • The combination of the full di-Higgs cross-section prediction with the $\kappa_\lambda$-dependent non-resonant limits makes global fits of the Higgs self-coupling inside concrete BSM models (like the 2HDM) feasible in a single tool, and would readily accommodate HL-LHC projection studies.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HiggsTools 1.3, comprising HiggsPredictions 2.0, HiggsBounds 6.1, and HiggsSignals 3.1, with the stated goal of preparing the HiggsTools framework for LHC Run 3 and the HL-LHC. The main new features are cross-section predictions at 13.6 and 14 TeV, an interpolated gluon-fusion reference model (SMHiggsInterp), predictions for resonant, non-resonant, and combined Higgs-pair production including interference terms, a recast of the CMS four-top-quark search with coupling-dependent acceptances, coupling-dependent non-resonant di-Higgs limits, improved handling of pre-Higgs-discovery searches, and several HiggsSignals improvements for scalars with mass uncertainties. The implementations are validated against the CMS four-top limits (Fig. 9) and against anyHH/HPAIR for di-Higgs production (Fig. 5), and the code is publicly available.

Significance. If the central approximations are reliable, this is a valuable and timely community resource: it lets arbitrary BSM scalar sectors be tested against current and upcoming LHC results without the user having to recompute cross-sections or recast searches. The paper is strong in providing open-source code, explicit validation plots against CMS four-top limits, and a documented comparison with HPAIR for di-Higgs production. The authors also state several limitations clearly, including the use of a single signal region in the four-top recast and the neglect of signal-signal interference. The main significance risk is that the headline di-Higgs cross-section and the new coupling-dependent limits rely on approximations whose numerical uncertainty is not quantified, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (9)] The geometric-mean K-factors for the resonant-interference terms, K_RT = sqrt(K_R K_T) and K_RB = sqrt(K_R K_B), are load-bearing for the full hh cross-section in Eq. (7), but they are not validated. The only explicitly checked interference term is the box-triangle one, where sqrt(K_T K_B) deviates from K_TB by only about 1%. The resonant interference terms involve an s-channel propagator with a width and off-shell effects, so their higher-order QCD corrections need not follow the same factorization. Since this full cross-section is the basis for the resonant di-Higgs limits and for the example applications, the authors should either validate K_RT and K_RB against a full NLO calculation for representative (mH, GammaH, kappa_lambda, c3) values or provide a quantitative estimate of the resulting uncertainty on sigma_tot. The related choice to fix KR(mH) at GammaH/mH = 1% while the amplitudes AR, ART, ARB are stored as functions of the width also deserves a comment for broad resonances, where the width dependence of the K-factor is not included.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (22)] The coupling-dependent limit shape in Eq. (22) is underdetermined for the presented Run-3 ATLAS bbbar-gamma-gamma example: six coefficients (five independent after the overall normalization) are fitted to only three kappa_lambda points, namely kappa_lambda = -1.7, 1, and 6.6. The resulting acceptance factor is therefore not unique, and the derived limit for intermediate kappa_lambda values depends on the arbitrary rational ansatz. This is load-bearing for the new coupling-dependent non-resonant di-Higgs limits and for the example in Fig. 14. The authors should either use the full experimental limit curves where available, constrain the functional form using additional physics input, or explicitly quantify the systematic uncertainty introduced by the choice of fit ansatz.
  3. [Section 3.1.1, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The four-top recast is a central new feature, but its validation in Fig. 9 covers only the cases with cV = 0 (pure CP-even scalar and pure pseudoscalar). The acceptance fit functions for the cV-dependent terms, which enter Eqs. (16) and (17) and are needed for the more general coupling structure, are not validated against any external limit or against the CMS results for cV != 0. Given that the paper advertises the recast as applicable to CP-mixed scalars and to scalars with non-zero vector-boson couplings, the authors should demonstrate the reliability of the cV-dependent coefficients, for example by comparing the resulting limits with those from other analyses that constrain vector-coupled scalars, or by quantifying the associated uncertainty from the fitting procedure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1.1, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) contains a typo: the second term in the first bracket is written with b1,tot,X again instead of a distinct coefficient for the c_tilde_t^2 term. The expansion on the right-hand side suggests the intended structure has separate coefficients for c_V^2 c_t^2, c_V^2 c_tilde_t^2, etc.
  2. [Appendix A.1.2, Eq. (36)] Equation (36) refers to an undefined symbol 'ctW phi(mphi)' in the second term on the right-hand side; this should presumably be c3,tot,tW phi(mphi) as in Eq. (33).
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (22) and Appendix B] The text in Appendix B says the coefficients 'E, F and G' are specified in the denominator, but Eq. (22) defines the denominator coefficients as D, E, and F. This inconsistency should be corrected.
  4. [Section 2.1, Table 1] In Table 1, the gg->hh row lists the mass range as '251-3000' GeV, but the non-resonant contribution is for two 125 GeV Higgs bosons; the table entry should clarify that this mass range refers to the mass of the heavy resonance mH in the resonant contribution, not to the mass of the produced h pairs.
  5. [Section 2.2, Fig. 1] The SMHiggsInterp reference model is a new default, but the interpolation procedure itself is not described in the text; the authors should state how the interpolation between SMHiggsEW and SMHiggs is performed (e.g., the functional form and the transition mass range).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new predictions are implementations of external (LHCHWG, SusHi, MadGraph, HPAIR) or internally cross-checked (anyHH) computations, not reductions of the outputs to the paper's own fitted parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Section 2.3 builds the full di-Higgs cross-section from tabulated LHCHWG non-resonant predictions, SusHi-based resonant production, and anyHH LO amplitudes, with K-factors defined as ratios of these inputs; the resulting Eq. (7) is a calibrated combination of external and own-code results, so the 'prediction' does not reduce to an equivalent input by construction. The geometric-mean K-factors K_RT and K_RB in Eq. (9) are an acknowledged approximation rather than a circular reduction: the paper explicitly checks the analogous K_TB only at the 1% level and provides no validation for K_RT and K_RB, which is a correctness risk for the full cross-section and any derived limits, but it is not a self-referential definition. The self-citations to anyH3/anyHH (Refs. [21,22]) and Ref. [44] are used as code tools and as agreement checks, but the same results are cross-validated against external HPAIR, LHCHWG, ATLAS, and CMS benchmarks, so the citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The four-top recast fits Monte-Carlo signal yields and validates against the CMS observed limit; the coupling-dependent di-Higgs limits fit an acceptance factor to experimental exclusions and to the same SM cross-section model, which is a standard recasting procedure rather than a forced equivalence. No step was found in which a quantity is defined in terms of the target it is claimed to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central new physics content is mostly implemented from external codes and fits; the main 'added' parameters are the fit coefficients and K-factors used to assemble the new cross-section and limit functions.

free parameters (6)
  • Four-top signal-efficiency fit coefficients c_i,epsilon,X = e.g. c5,epsilon,tWphi(mphi) = 1.2e3/mphi^2 - 2.6e-5 mphi + 2.1e-3 (Eq. 18); full sets in Appendix A.1
    Fitted to MadGraph+MadAnalysis MC simulations of the CMS four-top search in signal region 8; they parametrize the signal yield as a function of ct, c~t, cV and mphi (Eqs. 16,17).
  • Four-top total cross-section fit coefficients c_i,tot,X = Appendix A.1, e.g. c5,tot,ttH(mphi) = 2703921.1/mphi^2 + 0.0019 mphi - 3.71
    Fitted to MadGraph cross-sections to reproduce coupling and mass dependence of ttH, tWH, tH production.
  • Non-resonant hh K-factors = KT = 2.989, KB = 2.492, KTB = 2.735
    Ratios of the LHCHWG NNLO prediction to the anyHH LO result for each diagrammatic contribution to Eq. (7). These convert the LO anyHH amplitudes into the recommended higher-order cross-section.
  • Resonant K-factor KR(mH) = KR(mH, Gamma_H = 0.01 mH) approximately 3, chosen width-independent
    Ratio of the SusHi-based resonant prediction (Eq. 5) to the anyHH result; the width dependence is small (1-5%), so a single width-independent K-factor per mass is used for the interference terms.
  • kappa_lambda-limit rational fit coefficients A-F = A=8.3926, B=0.256298, C=1, D=8.3926, E=-1.42855, F=2.68485 (Appendix B JSON)
    Fitted to the observed ATLAS bb-gamma-gamma non-resonant di-Higgs limit at only three kappa_lambda values (-1.7, 1, 6.6), imposing ratio 1 at kappa_lambda = 1; used to interpolate the experimental limit as a function of kappa_lambda (Eq. 22).
  • Energy rescaling factor for t-tbar-H at 13.6/14 TeV = mass-dependent ratio of MadGraph predictions at 13.6/14 TeV to 13 TeV
    The LHCHWG t-tbar-H numbers were not yet available; the authors approximate them by rescaling the 13 TeV numbers with MadGraph ratios, later adopted as official recommendation.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption SM cross-sections and LHCHWG recommendations used as external inputs are correct (SusHi, MadGraph, vh@nnlo, anyHH).
    Section 2.1: the new tabulated cross-sections are taken from these codes and the LHCHWG; the paper does not rederive them.
  • domain assumption Top-quark loop dominance in gg -> hh and gg -> H; bottom-quark loop contribution neglected (~1% in SM).
    Section 2.3: stated before Eq. (7).
  • domain assumption Narrow-width approximation for resonant hh production.
    Eq. (5): sigma(gg->H->hh) approximately equals sigma(gg->H) times BR(H->hh).
  • domain assumption Single BSM resonance contributes to hh production.
    Section 2.3: 'The current implementation supports scenarios involving a single BSM resonance.'
  • ad hoc to paper For the four-top recast, the most sensitive signal region (region 8) is sufficient and signal-region correlations are negligible.
    Section 3.1.1: correlations are not public; limits derived from the most sensitive region only.
  • ad hoc to paper Signal-signal interference in four-top final states is neglected; contributions are summed incoherently.
    Section 3.1.1: constructive interference found in Ref. [58]; neglecting it makes the limits conservative.
  • domain assumption Width-dependence of four-top signal efficiencies is negligible.
    Section 3.1.1: tested for widths 1-15% of mphi, differences of a few percent.
  • ad hoc to paper The rational function (Eq. 22) with coefficients fitted to three kappa_lambda points adequately represents the experimental limit shape.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Chi-square-difference thresholds (e.g. Delta chi^2 > 5.99 for 95% CL with 2 dof) are meaningful for scan exclusion.
    Section 4.3: the paper itself notes this is an approximation when many parameters are varied; recommends profiling or empirical calibration as superior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HiggsTools for LHC Run 3 and Beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EM2ZTC4N

@misc{pith2026260805401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HiggsTools for LHC Run 3 and Beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EM2ZTC4N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05401}
}
read the original abstract

HiggsTools, including the subpackages HiggsPredictions, HiggsBounds, and HiggsSignals, is a toolbox for Beyond-the-SM (BSM) scalar phenomenology at the LHC. It provides BSM model predictions, tests the model against experimental limits from searches for BSM scalars and derives constraints from the measurements of the properties of the discovered Higgs boson. We present a variety of improvements to the HiggsTools framework, preparing it for the results of LHC Run 3 and the HL-LHC. HiggsPredictions now provides additional cross-section predictions for centre-of-mass energies of 13.6 and 14 TeV. Moreover, it now includes cross-section predictions for resonant and non-resonant Higgs-boson pair production. For HiggsBounds, we describe the recasting of searches using multi-top final states, explain their implementation and highlight the impact of the experimental sensitivity of those results. Furthermore, we discuss the implementation of coupling-dependent limits on non-resonant Higgs boson pair production, as well as the improved handling of searches conducted prior to the Higgs boson discovery. For HiggsSignals we describe several improvements for the case of scalars with mass uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05401 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the gluon fusion cross-section predictions for the various reference models. 2.3 Predictions for hh production In addition to incorporating new LHC cross-section predictions for centre-of-mass energies of 13.6 and 14 TeV, as well as the new interpolated reference model SMHiggsInterp, HiggsPredictions now also provides predictions for the pair production cross-section of two 125 GeV Higgs bosons h. We p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prediction of the non-resonant Higgs boson pair production cross-section in terms of κλ. In black, the prediction implemented in HiggsPredictions is shown for different values of ct (ct = 1 for dashed and ct = 1.2 for dot-dashed); in green, the LHCHWG recommendation; and, in orange (blue), the prediction of Ref. [43] for ct = 1 (ct = 1.2) is shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Leading order diagrams for h-pair production via gluon fusion. Moreover, HiggsTools now also provides predictions for the Higgs boson pair production cross-section including the contribution from the resonant production via the decay of an addi￾tional CP-even BSM scalar, denoted as H in the following. The diagrams contributing to the full cross-section are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-section and K-factors for resonant di-Higgs production computed using HiggsPredictions, based on the tabulated values for the production of a single Higgs bo￾son according to Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), and anyHH. The resonant K-factor, KR(mH), is computed as the ratio …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contributions to the Higgs pair production cross-section in the 2HDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the total ttH¯ , tW H and tH cross-sections for three different coupling configurations. Cross-section comparison of ttϕ¯ , tW ϕ and tϕ at the LHC Before we discuss the re￾casting of Ref. [12], we compare in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Exemplary fit functions (orange dashed) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contributing fit functions for ttϕ¯ (left) and tW ϕ (right) production. To compare the contributions of each coefficient to the cross-section calculation, we show their fit functions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL limits on the total cross-sections ob￾tained from the recasting of the CMS searches in the ttt¯ t¯final state implemented in HiggsBounds in black, and the corresponding observed limit reported by CMS [12] in orange. The res…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 95% CL exclusion regions in the (ma, ct/fa) plane from our recasting of the CMS searches in final states with four top quarks in blue. The grey regions are excluded from LHC searches for a → Zh [76], a → γγ [72] and a → tt¯ [50]. The solid and dashed lines indicate th…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Upper expected (dashed) and observed (solid) limits on the coupling strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Coupling-dependent non-resonant di-Higgs limits. Left: observed ratio for an effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ATLAScollaboration, 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 [1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30 [1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K.E. Williams,HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron, Comput. Phys. Commun.181 (2010) 138 [0811.4169]

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K.E. Williams,HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron, Comput. Phys. Commun.182 (2011) 2605 [1102.1898]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein et al.,HiggsBounds − 4: Improved 36 Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2693 [1311.0055]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, T. Stefaniak and G. Weiglein,Applying Exclusion Likelihoods from LHC Searches to Extended Higgs Sectors, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 421 [1507.06706]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Bechtle, D

    P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein et al.,HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 1211 [2006.06007]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    H. Bahl, T. Biekötter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein et al.,HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals, Comput. Phys. Commun.291 (2023) 108803 [2210.09332]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Bahl, V.M

    H. Bahl, V.M. Lozano, T. Stefaniak and J. Wittbrodt,Testing exotic scalars with HiggsBounds, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 584 [2109.10366]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak and G. Weiglein,HiggsSignals : Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2711 [1305.1933]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein and J. Wittbrodt,HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 145 [2012.09197]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    CMS collaboration, Search for production of four top quarks in final states with same-sign or multiple leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 75 [1908.06463]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for t¯tH/A → t¯tt¯t production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 573 [2408.17164]

    2025

  6. [14]

    Slavich, S

    P. Slavich, S. Heinemeyer et al.,Higgs-mass predictions in the MSSM and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 450 [2012.15629]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Harlander, S

    R.V. Harlander, S. Liebler and H. Mantler,SusHi: A program for the calculation of Higgs production in gluon fusion and bottom-quark annihilation in the Standard Model and the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1605 [1212.3249]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Harlander, S

    R.V. Harlander, S. Liebler and H. Mantler,SusHi Bento: Beyond NNLO and the heavy-top limit, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 239 [1605.03190]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Brein, R.V

    O. Brein, R.V. Harlander and T.J.E. Zirke,vh@nnlo - Higgs Strahlung at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 998 [1210.5347]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Harlander, J

    R.V. Harlander, J. Klappert, S. Liebler and L. Simon,vh@nnlo-v2: New physics in Higgs Strahlung, JHEP 05 (2018) 089 [1802.04817]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    H. Bahl, P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, J. Katzy, T. Klingl, K. Peters et al.,Indirect CP probes of the Higgs-top-quark interaction: current LHC constraints and future opportunities, JHEP 11 (2020) 127 [2007.08542]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann and G. Weiglein,anyH3: precise predictions for the trilinear Higgs coupling in the Standard Model and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 1156 [2305.03015]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann, K. Radchenko and G. Weiglein,anyH3 and anyHH: precise predictions for trilinear Higgs couplings and double Higgs production in extended scalar sectors, IFT–UAM/CSIC-26-7, DESY-26-010 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk 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 [1604.06447]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al.,Full top quark mass dependence in Higgs boson pair production at NLO, JHEP 10 (2016) 107 [1608.04798]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. Mühlleitner, M. Spira and J. Streicher,Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 459 [1811.05692]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Davies, G

    J. Davies, G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Mishima, M. Steinhauser et al.,Double Higgs boson production at NLO: combining the exact numerical result and high-energy expansion, JHEP 11 (2019) 024 [1907.06408]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. Mühlleitner, J. Ronca and M. Spira,gg → HH : Combined uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 056002 [2008.11626]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    de Florian and J

    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 [1309.6594]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Grigo, K

    J. Grigo, K. Melnikov and M. Steinhauser,Virtual corrections to Higgs boson pair production in the large top quark mass limit, Nucl. Phys. B 888 (2014) 17 [1408.2422]. 37

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Davies, F

    J. Davies, F. Herren, G. Mishima and M. Steinhauser,Real corrections to Higgs boson pair production at NNLO in the large top quark mass limit, JHEP 01 (2022) 049 [2110.03697]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. Mühlleitner, J. Ronca, M. Spira et al.,Higgs-Pair Production via Gluon Fusion at Hadron Colliders: NLO QCD Corrections, JHEP 04 (2020) 181 [2003.03227]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Grazzini, G

    M. Grazzini, G. Heinrich, S. Jones, S. Kallweit, M. Kerner, J.M. Lindert et al.,Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects, JHEP 05 (2018) 059 [1803.02463]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    LHC Higgs WG4 group twiki, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/LHCHWGHH

  26. [34]

    Karlberg et al.,Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at√s = 13.6 TeV, 2402.09955

    A. Karlberg et al.,Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at√s = 13.6 TeV, 2402.09955

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Aglietti, R

    U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini,Two loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays, Phys. Lett. B595 (2004) 432 [hep-ph/0404071]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, T. Gehrmann, F. Herzog et al.,Higgs Boson GluonFfusion Production Beyond Threshold in N3LO QCD, JHEP 03 (2015) 091 [1411.3584]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, F. Herzog and B. Mistlberger,Soft expansion of double-real-virtual corrections to Higgs production at N3LO, JHEP 08 (2015) 051 [1505.04110]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, T. Gehrmann, F. Herzog et al.,High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC, JHEP 05 (2016) 058 [1602.00695]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, CERN Yellow Rep

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group collaboration, Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2 (2017) 1 [1610.07922]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. Amoroso et al.,Les Houches 2019: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, in 11th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders: PhysTeV Les Houches, 3, 2020 [2003.01700]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Heinrich, J

    G. Heinrich, J. Lang and L. Scyboz,SMEFT predictions for gg→ hh at full NLO QCD and truncation uncertainties, JHEP 08 (2022) 079 [2204.13045]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bagnaschi, G

    E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi and R. Gröber,Higgs boson pair production at NLO in the POWHEG approach and the top quark mass uncertainties, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 1054 [2309.10525]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Alasfar et al.,Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production, SciPost Phys

    L. Alasfar et al.,Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 2024 (2024) 2 [2304.01968]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Heinemeyer, M

    S. Heinemeyer, M. Mühlleitner, K. Radchenko and G. Weiglein,Higgs pair production in the 2HDM: impact of loop corrections to the trilinear Higgs couplings and interference effects on experimental limits, Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 437 [2403.14776]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Biekötter, S

    T. Biekötter, S. Heinemeyer, J.M. No, K. Radchenko, M.O.O. Romacho and G. Weiglein,First shot of the smoking gun: probing the electroweak phase transition in the 2HDM with novel searches for A→ ZH in ℓ+ℓ−tt and ννb b final states, JHEP 01 (2024) 107 [2309.17431]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira,HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension, Comput. Phys. Commun.108 (1998) 56 [hep-ph/9704448]

    1998 arXiv

  39. [47]

    HDECAYcollaboration, HDECAY: Twenty++ years after, Comput. Phys. Commun.238 (2019) 214 [1801.09506]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen and G. Weiglein,New Constraints on Extended Higgs Sectors from the Trilinear Higgs Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 231802 [2202.03453]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas,Production of Higgs bosons in proton colliders: QCD corrections, Phys. Lett. B264 (1991) 440

    1991

  42. [50]

    CMS collaboration, Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2020) 171 [1908.01115]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    CMS collaboration, Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys.88 (2025) 127801 [2507.05119]

    2025

  44. [52]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons decaying into a top quark pair in 140 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 08 (2024) 013 [2404.18986]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Artoisenet et al.,A framework for Higgs characterisation, JHEP 11 (2013) 043 [1306.6464]

    P. Artoisenet et al.,A framework for Higgs characterisation, JHEP 11 (2013) 043 [1306.6464]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks and C. Wymant,Designing and recasting LHC analyses with MadAnalysis 5, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 3103 [1405.3982]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Dumont, B

    B. Dumont, B. Fuks, S. Kraml, S. Bein, G. Chalons, E. Conte et al.,Toward a public analysis database for LHC new physics searches using MADANALYSIS 5, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 56 [1407.3278]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J.Y. Araz, M. Frank and B. Fuks,Reinterpreting the results of the LHC with MadAnalysis 5: uncertainties and higher-luminosity estimates, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 531 [1910.11418]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Darmé, B

    L. Darmé, B. Fuks and F. Maltoni,Top-philic heavy resonances in four-top final states and their EFT interpretation, JHEP 09 (2021) 143 [2104.09512]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    H. Bahl, P. Gadow, R. Kumar, K. Peters, P. Stylianou and G. Weiglein,Complementarity of di-top and four-top searches in interpreting possible signals of new physics, 2602.15027. 38

  51. [59]

    Darmé, B

    L. Darmé, B. Fuks, H.-L. Li, M. Maltoni and J. Touchèque,Searching for top-philic heavy resonances in boosted four-top final states, JHEP 11 (2025) 091 [2507.05334]

    2025

  52. [60]

    ATLAScollaboration, Combination of Searches for Resonant Higgs Boson Pair Production Using pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 231801 [2311.15956]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in thebbτ +τ − decay channel using 13 TeV pp collision data from the ATLAS detector, JHEP 07 (2023) 040 [2209.10910]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    CMS collaboration, Search for additional neutral Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 8 TeV, CMS-PAS-HIG-14-029, CERN, Geneva (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 051801 [2002.12223]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    CMS collaboration, Searches for additional Higgs bosons and for vector leptoquarks inτ τfinal states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2023) 073 [2208.02717]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    CMS collaboration, Search for additional neutral MSSM Higgs bosons in theτ τfinal state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 09 (2018) 007 [1803.06553]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into a top quark and a bottom quark at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 06 (2021) 145 [2102.10076]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    CMS collaboration, Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into a top and a bottom quark in the all-jet final state of pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2020) 126 [2001.07763]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying viaH ± → τ ±ντ in the τ+jets and τ+lepton final states with 36 fb−1 of pp collision data recorded at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment, JHEP 09 (2018) 139 [1807.07915]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    CMS collaboration, Search for charged Higgs bosons in the H± → τ ±ντ decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2019) 142 [1903.04560]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP collaboration, Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2463 [1301.6065]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for Scalar Diphoton Resonances in the Mass Range65 − 600 GeV with the ATLAS Detector inpp Collision Data at √s = 8 T eV, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 171801 [1407.6583]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [72]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for resonances decaying into photon pairs in 139 fb−1 of pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B822 (2021) 136651 [2102.13405]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    CMS collaboration, Combination of searches for Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 121803 [1811.09689]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    CMS collaboration, Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the bbbb final state using large-area jets in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 02 (2025) 040 [2407.13872]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    CMS collaboration, Searches for Higgs boson production through decays of heavy resonances, Phys. Rept. 1115 (2025) 368 [2403.16926]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for heavy resonances decaying into aZ or W boson and a Higgs boson in final states with leptons andb-jets in 139 fb−1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 06 (2023) 016 [2207.00230]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    CMS collaboration, Search for a heavy pseudoscalar boson decaying to a Z and a Higgs boson at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 564 [1903.00941]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for heavy resonances decaying into a pair of Z bosons in theℓ+ℓ−ℓ′+ℓ′− and ℓ+ℓ−ν ¯ν final states using 139fb−1 of proton–proton collisions at√s = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 332 [2009.14791]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    CMS collaboration, Search for a new scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Z bosons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 06 (2018) 127 [1804.01939]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    CMS collaboration, Search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light pseudoscalars in the final state with two b quarks and twoτ leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 785 (2018) 462 [1805.10191]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel and A. Thamm,The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs, JHEP 04 (2021) 063 [2012.12272]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Anuar, A

    A. Anuar, A. Biekötter, T. Biekötter, A. Grohsjean, S. Heinemeyer, L. Jeppe et al.,ALP-ine quests at the LHC: hunting axion-like particles via peaks and dips intt production, JHEP 12 (2024) 197 [2404.19014]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Lee, A theory of spontaneous t violation, Phys

    T. Lee, A theory of spontaneous t violation, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 1226

    1973

  76. [84]

    Mathematica, Version 14.2

    W.R. Inc., “Mathematica, Version 14.2.”

  77. [85]

    ATLAScollaboration, 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 [2406.09971]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    CMS collaboration, Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, 2510.07527. 39

  79. [87]

    CMS, ATLAS collaboration, Combination of ATLAS and CMS searches for Higgs boson pair production at √s = 13 TeV, 2602.23991

  80. [88]

    ATLAScollaboration, Study of Higgs boson pair production in theHH → bbγγ final state with 308 fb−1 of data collected at√s = 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B876 (2026) 140280 [2507.03495]. 40

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.