Higgs Boson Physics
Transcript of Higgs Boson Physics
Higgs Boson Physics
Ambresh Shivaji
IISER Mohali, Punjab, INDIA
Madgraph School 2019IMSc Chennai, November 18-22, 2019
The only fundamental scalar particle known to us
Neutral under SU(3)c⇑
Q = 0⇐ Higgs Boson (H) ⇒ JCP = 0+
⇓
mH = 125.10 ± 0.14 GeVΓH < 0.013 GeV (95% CL)
Its discovery at the LHC (pp collider,√
s = 7 + 8 TeV) was announcedin 2012 by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations.
Standard Model and Electroweak Symmetry Breaking
In the Standard Model (SM), the electroweak (EW) interactions are described bySU(2)L × U(1)Y gauge symmetry group.
Existance of massive gauge bosons of EW interactions =⇒ EW symmetry is broken.
The EWSB is realized with the help of a complex scalar SU(2)L doublet Φ =(φ+
φ0
).
LHiggs = |DµΦ|2 −∑fyf L̄fΦRf − V(Φ)
V(Φ) = −µ2(Φ†Φ) + λ(Φ†Φ)2
〈Φ〉 =1√
2
(0v
)⇒ mW ,mZ ,mf (v ∼ 246 GeV)
Φ =1√
2
(0
v + H
)⇒ Higgs mass and Higgs couplings
Couplings of the Higgs Boson
LHiggs = |DµΦ|2 −∑fyf L̄fΦRf − V(Φ)
V (Z,W )
H
f
κV κF κλ
Couplings are proportional to the masses. Notice the mass dependence.
I Higgs couplings with gaugebosons (κV) and with heavyfermions (κF) are know withan accuracy of 10-20%.
I Higgs-self couplings arepractically unconstrained.More about them later...
Single Higgs Production
State-of-the-art calculations and MC tools
Single Higgs Production: ggFDominant production channel, it’s a loop-induced process. Indirectly sensitive totop-Yukawa coupling.
Mµν = B00 gµν + B11 pνqµ (1)
Gauge invariance (Mµνpµ =Mµνqν = 0) and on-shell conditions⇒ B11 = −B00/p.q, where p.q = m2
H/2.
B00 =Mµν 1
2
(gµν −
pνqµ
p.q
)(2)
At LO, B00 ≡ m2q[(16m2
q − 8p.q)C0 + 8], where,
C0 =
∫d4`
1
(`2 −m2q)((` + p)2 −m2
q)((` − q)2 −m2q)
(3)
Single Higgs Production: ggF
The LO result depends on mq and mH .
In mq →∞ limit, the amplitude becomes independent of the quark mass in the loop.Note that the amplitude does not vanish⇒ violation of Decoupling theorem.
Mµν →αs3πv(p.q gµν − pνqµ) (4)
We get and effective ggH vertex.
This feature can be utilized to probe the existence of heavy up or down type quarksbeyond SM.
Single Higgs Production: ggF
The effective ggH vertex can be obtained from an effective Lagrangian (HEFT),
Leff = −14(1 −
αs3π
Hv)GµνGµν (5)
Exercise: Derive the Feynman Rules.
The effective Lagrangian is useful in calculating higher order corrections to gg → H.For example, at NLO
Single Higgs Production: ggFExact vs HEFT
Scale dependence and pT (H) distribution
More on NLO in Huasheng Shao’s Talk...
Single Higgs Production: ggF
The most updated result for 13 TeV LHC, mH = 125 GeV and µF = µR = mH/2:
σggH = 48.58 pb+4.56%−6.72%
(Theory)
Single Higgs Production: VBF
Characteristic features:two hard jets in the forward and backward regions of the detector.no gluon radiation from central-rapidity region
These features allow to distinguish themfrom gg → H + 2j andqq′ → VH → H + 2j
Sensitive to VVH couplings. Results known at NNLO (QCD) and NLO(EW).
Single Higgs Production: VH
Drell-Yan like production, sensitive to VVH couplings.
Channel through which H → bb̄ isdetected in the boosted regime.
Results known at NNLO (QCD) (including NLO correction to loop-inducedgg → ZH) and NLO(EW).
Single Higgs Production: ttHDirectly sensitive to the top-Yukawa coupling. Has been observed recently.
NLO QCD corrections increase the cross section by 20%. NLO EW are also known.
Single Higgs ProductionPDG2017
Signal strength for production, µi =σExp.(i → H)σSM(i → H)
. Assuming SM Higgs BRs,
Higgs Boson Decay
Computation of decay width is required to interpret the experimentaldata.
mH = 125 GeV
Higgs Boson Decay to Fermions
H → bb̄ is the dominant decay mode among all, followed byH → τ+τ− and H → cc̄ .Known up to N4LO (QCD) and NLO (EW).
Higgs Boson Decay to Gauge Bosons
For mH = 125 GeV, one of the two vector bosons is always off-shell.
Invisible decay mode: H → ZZ ∗ → 4ν.
WW ∗ and ZZ ∗ interfere in 2`2ν final state.
Higgs Boson Decay to Gauge Bosons
H → 4` (2e2µ) (4e) (4µ) is very clean, allows reconstruction of theHiggs mass.
Has been the discovery mode.
Higgs Boson Decay to Gauge BosonsH → ZZ ∗ → 4` decay mode can be utilized to fix the spin and CP-properties of theHiggs boson.
CP-even (red) vs CP-odd (blue)
Higgs Boson Decay to Gauge Bosons
Loop-induced decay to di-photon.
Dominated by W-loop contribution.Destructive intereference between t-loop and W-loop contributions.No decoupling for large loop masses.
Higgs Boson Decay to Gauge Bosons
Another Higgs discovery mode.
H → Zγ is also loop-induced decay but it’s very rare.
Higgs Boson Decay
Signal strength for decay, µf =BRExp.
H→f
BRSMH→f
. Assuming SM production
rates,
Higgs Boson Mass
ATLAS and CMS collaborations rely on the two high mass resolutionand sensitive channels, H → γγ and H → ZZ ∗ → 4`.
Higgs Boson WidthΓSMH = 4.07 MeV+4.0%
−3.9%for mH = 125 GeV
Sensitivity to Higgs decay width via intereference effect. For example, theinterference effect between the signal: gg → h→ γγ and background: gg → γγ
1704.08259
Double Higgs ProductionCan provide information on Higgs-self coupling parameter (λ).
Double Higgs Production
10-1
100
101
102
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
σ(N
)LO
[fb]
λ/λSM
pp→HH (EFT loop-improved)pp→HHjj (VBF)
pp→ttHH
pp→WHH
pp→ZHH pp→tjHH
HH production at 14 TeV LHC at (N)LO in QCDMH=125 GeV, MSTW2008 (N)LO pdf (68%cl)
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
Figure 3: Total cross sections at the LO and NLO in QCD for HH production channels, at the√s =14 TeV LHC as a function of the
self-interaction coupling λ. The dashed (solid) lines and light- (dark-)colour bands correspond to the LO (NLO) results and to the scale andPDF uncertainties added linearly. The SM values of the cross sections are obtained at λ/λSM = 1.
Grant Agreement numbers PITN-GA-2010-264564 (LHCPhe-noNet) and PITN-GA-2012-315877 (MCNet). The work ofFM and OM is supported by the IISN “MadGraph” con-vention 4.4511.10, by the IISN “Fundamental interactions”convention 4.4517.08, and in part by the Belgian FederalScience Policy Office through the Interuniversity Attrac-tion Pole P7/37. OM is "Chercheur scientifique logistiquepostdoctoral F.R.S.-FNRS".
References
[1] F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys.Rev.Lett. 13, 321 (1964).[2] P. W. Higgs, Phys.Rev.Lett. 13, 508 (1964).[3] CMS-HIG-13-003. CMS-HIG-13-004. CMS-HIG-13-006. CMS-
HIG-13-009. (2013).[4] ATLAS-CONF-2013-009. ATLAS-CONF-2013-010. ATLAS-
CONF-2013-012. ATLAS- CONF-2013-013. (2013).[5] E. Asakawa, D. Harada, S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, and
K. Tsumura, Phys.Rev. D82, 115002 (2010), arXiv:1009.4670[hep-ph] .
[6] S. Dawson, E. Furlan, and I. Lewis, Phys.Rev. D87, 014007(2013), arXiv:1210.6663 [hep-ph] .
[7] R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, M. Moretti, G. Panico, F. Piccinini,et al., JHEP 1208, 154 (2012), arXiv:1205.5444 [hep-ph] .
[8] G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Phys.Rev. D86, 095023 (2012),arXiv:1207.4496 [hep-ph] .
[9] M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky, Phys.Rev. D87,055002 (2013), arXiv:1210.8166 [hep-ph] .
[10] M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 1210, 112(2012), arXiv:1206.5001 [hep-ph] .
[11] M. Gouzevitch, A. Oliveira, J. Rojo, R. Rosenfeld, G. P. Salam,et al., JHEP 1307, 148 (2013), arXiv:1303.6636 [hep-ph] .
[12] T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas, Nucl.Phys. B479, 46 (1996),arXiv:hep-ph/9603205 [hep-ph] .
[13] S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira, Phys.Rev. D58, 115012(1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9805244 [hep-ph] .
[14] T. Binoth, S. Karg, N. Kauer, and R. Ruckl, Phys.Rev. D74,113008 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608057 [hep-ph] .
[15] J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gröber, M. Mühlleitner, J. Quevillon,et al., JHEP 1304, 151 (2013), arXiv:1212.5581 [hep-ph] .
[16] R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer,H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, to appear .
[17] The code can be downloaded at:https://launchpad.net/madgraph5,http://amcatnlo.cern.ch.
[18] U. Baur, T. Plehn, and D. L. Rainwater, Phys.Rev.Lett. 89,151801 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0206024 [hep-ph] .
[19] V. Hirschi et al., JHEP 05, 044 (2011), arXiv:1103.0621 [hep-ph].
[20] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and D. Wackeroth,Nucl.Phys. B560, 33 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9904472 [hep-ph] .
[21] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and L. Wieders, Nucl.Phys.B724, 247 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505042 [hep-ph] .
[22] Q. Li, Q.-S. Yan, and X. Zhao, (2013), arXiv:1312.3830 [hep--ph] .
[23] P. Maierhöfer and A. Papaefstathiou, (2013), arXiv:1401.0007[hep-ph] .
[24] J. Grigo, J. Hoff, K. Melnikov, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl.Phys.B875, 1 (2013), arXiv:1305.7340 [hep-ph] .
[25] D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 201801(2013), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.201801, arXiv:1309.6594[hep-ph] .
[26] D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li, and J. Wang, JHEP07, 169(2013), arXiv:1301.1245 [hep-ph] .
6
Dominant production mode is via gluon fusion.
The two diagrams interefere destructively.
Double Higgs Production
[1608.04798]
Summary
Being the only fundamental scalar, Higgs has every special place inthe particle spectrum of the SM.
We now know its mass (∼ 125 GeV) and its couplings with heavyfermions and gauge bosons are determined with an accuracy of10-20%.
It has a very narrow width (∼ 4 MeV).
The information on Higgs self-couplings is not available.
Higgs self-couplings
VSM(Φ) = −µ2(Φ†Φ) + λ(Φ†Φ)2
EWSB⇒ V(H) =12m2HH
2 + λ3vH3 +14λ4H4.
λ3 λ4
H
H
H
The mass and the self-couplings of the Higgs boson depend only on λ andv = (
√2Gµ)−1/2,
m2H = 2λv2; λSM3 = λSM4 = λ.
mH = 125 GeV and v ∼ 246 GeV,⇒ λ ' 0.13 .
Presence of new physics at higher energy scales can contribute to the Higgs potentialand modify the Higgs self-couplings.
Independent measurements of λ3 and λ4 are crucial.
Direct determination of Higgs self-couplings
Information on λ3 and λ4 can be extracted by studying multi-Higgs productionprocesses.
H
H
H
H
H
λ3 λ4
t
10-1
100
101
102
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
σ(N
)LO
[fb]
λ/λSM
pp→HH (EFT loop-improved)pp→HHjj (VBF)
pp→ttHH
pp→WHH
pp→ZHH pp→tjHH
HH production at 14 TeV LHC at (N)LO in QCDMH=125 GeV, MSTW2008 (N)LO pdf (68%cl)
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
Figure 3: Total cross sections at the LO and NLO in QCD for HH production channels, at the√s =14 TeV LHC as a function of the
self-interaction coupling λ. The dashed (solid) lines and light- (dark-)colour bands correspond to the LO (NLO) results and to the scale andPDF uncertainties added linearly. The SM values of the cross sections are obtained at λ/λSM = 1.
Grant Agreement numbers PITN-GA-2010-264564 (LHCPhe-noNet) and PITN-GA-2012-315877 (MCNet). The work ofFM and OM is supported by the IISN “MadGraph” con-vention 4.4511.10, by the IISN “Fundamental interactions”convention 4.4517.08, and in part by the Belgian FederalScience Policy Office through the Interuniversity Attrac-tion Pole P7/37. OM is "Chercheur scientifique logistiquepostdoctoral F.R.S.-FNRS".
References
[1] F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys.Rev.Lett. 13, 321 (1964).[2] P. W. Higgs, Phys.Rev.Lett. 13, 508 (1964).[3] CMS-HIG-13-003. CMS-HIG-13-004. CMS-HIG-13-006. CMS-
HIG-13-009. (2013).[4] ATLAS-CONF-2013-009. ATLAS-CONF-2013-010. ATLAS-
CONF-2013-012. ATLAS- CONF-2013-013. (2013).[5] E. Asakawa, D. Harada, S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, and
K. Tsumura, Phys.Rev. D82, 115002 (2010), arXiv:1009.4670[hep-ph] .
[6] S. Dawson, E. Furlan, and I. Lewis, Phys.Rev. D87, 014007(2013), arXiv:1210.6663 [hep-ph] .
[7] R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, M. Moretti, G. Panico, F. Piccinini,et al., JHEP 1208, 154 (2012), arXiv:1205.5444 [hep-ph] .
[8] G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Phys.Rev. D86, 095023 (2012),arXiv:1207.4496 [hep-ph] .
[9] M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky, Phys.Rev. D87,055002 (2013), arXiv:1210.8166 [hep-ph] .
[10] M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 1210, 112(2012), arXiv:1206.5001 [hep-ph] .
[11] M. Gouzevitch, A. Oliveira, J. Rojo, R. Rosenfeld, G. P. Salam,et al., JHEP 1307, 148 (2013), arXiv:1303.6636 [hep-ph] .
[12] T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas, Nucl.Phys. B479, 46 (1996),arXiv:hep-ph/9603205 [hep-ph] .
[13] S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira, Phys.Rev. D58, 115012(1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9805244 [hep-ph] .
[14] T. Binoth, S. Karg, N. Kauer, and R. Ruckl, Phys.Rev. D74,113008 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608057 [hep-ph] .
[15] J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gröber, M. Mühlleitner, J. Quevillon,et al., JHEP 1304, 151 (2013), arXiv:1212.5581 [hep-ph] .
[16] R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer,H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, to appear .
[17] The code can be downloaded at:https://launchpad.net/madgraph5,http://amcatnlo.cern.ch.
[18] U. Baur, T. Plehn, and D. L. Rainwater, Phys.Rev.Lett. 89,151801 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0206024 [hep-ph] .
[19] V. Hirschi et al., JHEP 05, 044 (2011), arXiv:1103.0621 [hep-ph].
[20] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and D. Wackeroth,Nucl.Phys. B560, 33 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9904472 [hep-ph] .
[21] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and L. Wieders, Nucl.Phys.B724, 247 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505042 [hep-ph] .
[22] Q. Li, Q.-S. Yan, and X. Zhao, (2013), arXiv:1312.3830 [hep--ph] .
[23] P. Maierhöfer and A. Papaefstathiou, (2013), arXiv:1401.0007[hep-ph] .
[24] J. Grigo, J. Hoff, K. Melnikov, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl.Phys.B875, 1 (2013), arXiv:1305.7340 [hep-ph] .
[25] D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 201801(2013), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.201801, arXiv:1309.6594[hep-ph] .
[26] D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li, and J. Wang, JHEP07, 169(2013), arXiv:1301.1245 [hep-ph] .
6
100755033251413
100
10−1
pp→HH
HLO
FT
pp→HH
HNL
OFT
approx
Mad
Graph5aM
C@NLO
MH=125 GeV, MSTW2008 (N)LO pdf (68%cl)
HHH production at pp colliders
. .
-
√s[TeV]
σ(N
)LO[fb]
[Frederix et al. ‘14, 1408.6542]Very challenging due to small cross sections: ∼33 fb (HH), ∼ 0.1 fb (HHH)Compare it with the single Higgs production (gg → H) cross section: ∼ 50 pb
Current and future experimental sensitivity (κλ = λ3/λSM3 )
ATLAS (HL-LHC, 2b2γ): [ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-001],
κλ < −0.8 and κλ >∼ 7.7
Bounds are sensitive to κt value.
Indirect determination of λ3 in single Higgs
g
g
tH
HH
H
W
γ
γ
Gorbahn, Haisch: 1607.03773; Degrassi, Giardino, Maltoni, Pagani: 1607.04251;Bizon, Gorbahn, Haisch, Zanderighi: 1610.05771; Di Vita, Grojean, Panico,Riembau, Vantalon: 1704.01953; Maltoni, Pagani, AS, Zhao: 1709.08649
Master formula: Anomalous trilinear coupling (κ3 = λ3/λSM3 )
ΣBSMNLO = ZBSM
H [ΣLO(1 + κ3C1 + δZH ) + ∆SMNLO]
ZBSMH =
11 − (κ2
3 − 1)δZH, δZH = −1.536 × 10−3
Current and future reach at the LHC
0
1
2
3
4
5
−4.7 −1.3 1 2.9 7.9 12.6
1σ
2σ
χ2min/d.o.f. = 1.3
∆χ2
κ3
13TeV data
0
2
4
6
8
10
−9 −7 −5 −3 −1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
1σ
2σ
S2
−2∆
lnL
κ3
ggFVBF
tt̄H,tottt̄H,difVH,totVH,dif
Plot by Xiaoran 1709.08649
13 TeV:−4.7 < κ3 < 12.6
HL-LHC:
−2 . κ3 . 8
CMS Projections: HL-LHCtH + ttH: using the calculation of Maltoni, Pagani, AS, Zhao:1709.08649
λκ10− 5− 0 5 10 15 20
ln L
∆-2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Simulation Preliminary CMS Phase-2 TeV) (14-13 ab
= 1tκ
68% CL
95% CL
w/ YR18 syst. uncert.
Stat. uncert. only
Hadronic categories only
Leptonic categories only
λκ10− 5− 0 5 10 15
Hµ
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
ln L
∆-2
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Simulation Preliminary CMS Phase-2 TeV) (14-13 ab
SM
68% CL
95% CL
[CMS-PAS-FTR-18-020]
−3 . κλ . 13
Question: Can we extend this strategy to double Higgs production ?Maltoni, Pagani, Zhao: 1802.07616; Bizon, Haisch, Rottoli: 1810.04665; Borowka,Duhr, Maltoni, Pagani, AS, Zhao: 1811.12366
Indirect determination of λ4 in double Higgs
At LO, the gg → HH amplitude is sensitive to only λ3.
λ4 affects gg → HH amplitude at two-loop level via NLO EW corrections.
EFT framework is necessary in order to vary cubic and quartic couplingsindependently in a consistent way.
V NP(Φ) ≡
∞∑n=3
c2n
Λ2n−4
(Φ†Φ −
12v2
)n
.
This also ensures gauge invariance and UV finiteness in our calculation.
NP Paramterization
V (H) =12m2
HH2 + λ3vH3 +14λ4H4 + λ5
H5
v+O(H6) ,
κ3 ≡λ3
λSM3
= 1 +c6v2
λΛ2 ≡ 1 + c̄6,
κ4 ≡λ4
λSM4
= 1 +6c6v2
λΛ2 +4c8v4
λΛ4 ≡ 1 + 6c̄6 + c̄8 .
We can trade κ3 and κ4 with parameters c̄6 and c̄8.
c̄6 ≡c6v2
λΛ2 = κ3 − 1 ,
c̄8 ≡4c8v4
λΛ4 = κ4 − 1 − 6(κ3 − 1) .
The Phenomenological quantity of interestInclusive/differential cross section
σphenoNLO = σLO + ∆σc̄6 + ∆σc̄8 ,
EFT insertion at one-loop :
σLO = σ0 + σ1c̄6 + σ2c̄26 ,
EFT insertions at two-loop :
∆σc̄6 = c̄26
[σ30c̄6 + σ40c̄2
6
]+ σ̃20c̄2
6 ,
∆σc̄8 = c̄8
[σ01 + σ11c̄6 + σ21c̄2
6
],
Taking an agnostic view on possible values of κ3 and κ4, we haveignored the SM EW corrections, and have kept highest powers of c̄6 in∆σc̄6 .The quantity ∆σc̄8 is the most relevant part of our computation and itsolely induces the sensitivity on c̄8.We assume that higher order QCD corrections factorize fromtwo-loop EW effects.
Relevant two-loop topologies
Non-factorizable, factorizable and counterterms:
(b)
(d)
(f)(e)
(j)
(k) (ℓ)
(c)
(a)
g
g
t
H
H
(i)
(g) (h)
G0
Effect on inclusive cross sectionFor αs , µR = µF =
12m(HH) while µEFT = 2mH .
One-loop:√
s [TeV] σ0 [fb] σ1 [fb] σ2 [fb]14 19.49 -15.59 5.414
- (-80.0%) (27.8%)100 790.8 -556.8 170.8
- (-70.5%) (21.6%)
Two-loop:√
s [TeV] σ̃20 [fb] σ30 [fb] σ40 [fb] σ01 [fb] σ11 [fb] σ21 [fb]14 0.7112 -0.5427 0.0620 0.3514 -0.0464 -0.1433
(3.6%) (-2.8%) (0.3%) (1.8%) (-0.2%) (-0.7%)100 24.55 -16.53 1.663 12.932 -0.88 -4.411
(3.1%) (-2.1%) (0.2%) (1.6%) (-0.1%) (-0.6%)
Cross sections grow considerably with energy. The contributions(numbers in brackets) from c̄6 and c̄8 slowly decrease wrt the SM LOprediction.
Effect on differential cross sectionOne-loop
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
σ[fb]
m(HH) [GeV]
σ0
σ1
σ2
Two-loop
1× 10−8
1× 10−7
1× 10−6
1× 10−5
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
σ[fb]
m(HH) [GeV]
σ̃20
σ30
σ40
1× 10−6
1× 10−5
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
σ[fb]
m(HH) [GeV]
σ01
σ11
σ21
The dashed lines show absolute values of -ve contributions.
Projections for 100 TeV pp collider
−30
−20
−10
0
10
20
30
−0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
c̄ 8
c̄6
68% CL (flat µ-bin)68% CL
95% CL (flat µ-bin)95% CL
100 TeV30 ab−1
−30
−20
−10
0
10
20
30
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5
c̄ 8
c̄6
HHH(εb = 60%)HHH(εb = 80%)
HH
100 TeV30 ab−1
95% CL
For κ3 = 1, at 95% CL
−6 . κ4 . 18 [Direct from HHH(4b2γ)]
−4.2 . κ4 . 6.7 [Indirect from HH(2b2γ)]
At 100 TeV pp collider, the HH channel would be more sensitive toindependent variation in self-couplings than HHH channel.