# Triple Higgs boson production to six *b*-jets at a 100 TeV proton collider

- 57 Downloads

## Abstract

We investigate the production of three Higgs bosons at a proton-proton collider running at a centre-of-mass energy of 100 TeV, all of which decay into *b*-jets. This final state encapsulates by far the largest fraction of the total cross section of triple Higgs boson production, approximately \(20\%\). We examine, by constructing detailed phenomenological analyses, two scenarios: (i) one in which the triple and quartic Higgs boson self-couplings are modified independently by new phenomena with respect to their Standard Model (SM) values and (ii) an extension of the SM by a gauge-singlet scalar that could drive first-order electroweak phase transition, within the context of the so-called xSM. In the former, we find that competitive constraints of \({\mathscr {O}}(1)\) can be placed on the quartic coupling and in the latter we demonstrate that it will be possible to obtain important information on the structure of the extended scalar sector.

## 1 Introduction

In the past decade of operation of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the landscape of particle physics has changed dramatically. The discovery of the Higgs boson and the lack of stark signals of new phenomena around the TeV scale are defining characteristics of this new era. In the years to come the Higgs boson is set to become itself a tool for exploration and discovery. This will be particularly true at the future circular collider (FCC), which is planned to be hosted in a 100 km tunnel, envisioning an ensemble of \(e^+e^-\), \(e^+p\) and *pp* collider programmes through towards the end of the 21st century [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Taken together, all of these programmes aim to map the properties of the Higgs boson and the electroweak gauge bosons with an accuracy order(s) of magnitude better than today and to improve by almost an order of magnitude the discovery reach for new particles.

*h*) self-interactions that can be written, post-electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), as:

\( hhh \rightarrow (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (\gamma \gamma )\),

\(hhh \rightarrow (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})(\tau ^+\tau ^-)\),

\( hhh \rightarrow (b{\bar{b}}) (\tau ^+\tau ^-) (\tau ^+\tau ^-)\),

\(hhh \rightarrow (b{\bar{b}})\) \((W^+W^+) (W^+W^-)\).

*hhh*. In the present article, we investigate for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, the process that encapsulates by far the largest branching ratio: the case in which all three Higgs bosons decay into bottom quarks (\(b{\bar{b}}\)), resulting in complex final states involving six

*b*-jets.

^{1}

In addition to understanding EWSB, non-standard Higgs boson self-couplings might provide the first experimental evidence of extra gauge-singlet scalars at the weak scale. These new scalar particles could “catalyse” electroweak phase transition, turning it into a violent, out-of-equilibrium event accompanied by massive entropy production (a first-order transition), enabling electroweak baryogenesis and thus explaining the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry, see e.g. [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. Evidence of such phenomena in multi-scalar production processes could materialise, for example, even in the case where the mixing of this new scalar and the “SM-like” Higgs boson is small. Indeed, current limits put an upper bound to the mixing angle that leads to \(\cos \theta \gtrsim 0.85\) which at the end of the high-luminosity run of the LHC this is expected to be \(\gtrsim 0.95\) [42]. First indications of the existence of these singlets could arise in resonant SM-like Higgs boson pair production for example, either at later stages of the LHC or during the FCC-hh lifetime. Such signals, along with the measurement of the SM-like Higgs self-coupling through non-resonant Higgs boson pair production, may not be sufficient to understand the nature of the additional singlet scalar. The production of three of these scalar particles, such as triple SM-like Higgs boson production, the main object of this article, could provide essential additional information both on the triple scalar couplings and on the quartic couplings. We demonstrate that this is possible by employing the six *b*-jet final state that maximises the cross section.^{2}

The article is organised as follows: in Sect. 2 we discuss the setup used and describe the phenomenological analysis in the context of triple SM Higgs boson production. In Sect. 3 we discuss the constraints that can be obtained in the anomalous coupling picture, where the self-couplings are rescaled with respect to the SM values, and in Sect. 4 we investigate in explicit benchmark scenarios, the potential for discovering triple Higgs boson production in the presence of a singlet scalar that can viably generate a first-order electroweak phase transition, taken from [44]. We conclude in Sect. 5. In “Appendix A” we provide investigations of relevant uncertainties entering our analysis.

## 2 Searching for triple Higgs boson production

### 2.1 The setup

In what follows, we generate parton-level events either at leading order or next-to-leading order by using MadGraph5 _aMC@NLO [45, 46] and shower/match them via the MC@NLO method [47] where appropriate, via the HERWIG (7.1.5) parton shower [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53]. We include modeling of the hadronization and the underlying event but no detector effects beyond geometry. We use the parton density function set NNPDF23_lo _as_0130_qed [54] throughout the chain of event generation.

For the analysis, we cluster final-state particles with transverse momentum \(p_T > 100\) MeV into anti-\(k_T\) jets [55] with radius parameter \(R=0.4\) via the FastJet package [56]. We use the HwSim package [57] for HERWIG to write out event files for each sample in a custom compressed ROOT format [58] and to perform the phenomenological analysis.

### 2.2 Differential distributions in \(pp \rightarrow hhh\) at 100 TeV

*hhh*signal within the SM. Variations of the shapes of these distributions due to the effect of new phenomena are considered in the respective sections below: in Sect. 3 we show variations due to different values of the anomalous couplings and in Sect. 4 we show variations in the presence of a singlet scalar at various masses. We refer the reader to [19] for additional distributions, including a comparison to Higgs boson pair production at 100 TeV.

We show in Fig. 1, the invariant mass of (any) two or all three Higgs bosons reconstructed from Monte Carlo truth with no cuts applied, \(M_{hh}\) and \(M_{hhh}\), respectively. The former peaks at \(\sim 300\) GeV whereas the latter at \(\sim 600\) GeV. In Fig. 2 we show the Monte Carlo truth transverse momentum of the Higgs bosons ordered from hardest to softest. The transverse momentum distributions peak at \(\sim 200\) GeV, \(\sim 150\) GeV and \(\sim 50\) GeV from hardest to softest, respectively.

### 2.3 Event generation

The simulation of final states containing up to six coloured objects remains a challenge to this day, even at tree level. In the present study we provide initial estimates by considering the efficiency of a phenomenological analysis on \( (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) \) final states. We stress here that we have simulated the QCD-induced \( (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) \) exactly at tree level.^{3} For backgrounds which arise from charm-jets or light jets being mis-identified as *b*-jets (i.e. the reducible backgrounds), we have estimated the cross sections and assumed the analysis efficiencies to be identical to the equivalent process with *b*-quarks, factoring out the mis-identification rates.

*Z*boson) that each then decay into \((b{\bar{b}})\):

*hhZ*,

*hZZ*,

*ZZZ*. We have included the loop-induced gluon-fusion component in the case of

*hZZ*and

*ZZZ*.

^{4}Furthermore, we have considered backgrounds with either one or two bosons plus \((b{\bar{b}})\) that originate from QCD interactions: \(hZ+(b{\bar{b}})\), \(hh+(b{\bar{b}})\), \(ZZ+(b{\bar{b}})\) and \(Z+(b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}})\), \(h+(b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}})\). Of the aforementioned processes, \(Z+(b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}})\) and \(h+(b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}})\) turn out to be the largest contributors to total background cross section. For the latter process, \(h+(b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}})\), we also consider the Higgs effective theory contributions (i.e. including the effective interaction

*ggh*), which constitute approximately 3/4 of the cross section.

^{5}However, we have found that the largest background component by far is the pure QCD production of \( (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) \). We did not generate large samples of events for the reducible backgrounds that would originate from mis-tagging light or charm jets to

*b*-jets; instead, we considered estimates of their contributions to the

*h*+jets and QCD multi-jet backgrounds, see Sect. 3.2. The details of the analysis are presented in the next subsection.

The generation-level cuts imposed on the processes. The index *j* indicates any quark flavour or gluons

Observable | Cut |
---|---|

\(p_{T,j}\) | \(>30~\mathrm {GeV}\) |

\(|y _j|\) | \(< 5.0\) |

\(\varDelta R_{j,j}\) | \(>0.2\) |

We have simulated the triple Higgs boson signal at (loop-induced) leading order and the quark-anti-quark-initiated component of the tri-boson processes at next-to-leading order. We have generated samples of \(10^4\) events for all signal processes, except for the SM *hhh*, for which we generated \(10^5\) events to obtain statistically reliable estimates of the significance.

All other processes have been simulated at leading order. To take into account the higher-order corrections, we multiply all leading-order cross sections by a *K*-factor of 2. The size of the higher-order corrections is well-motivated for the *hhh* signal by approximate calculations, see [62]. In Appendix A, we provide variations of the *K*-factor for the backgrounds to take into account this uncertainty, while given that a full NLO computation would be needed, we do not consider effects due to shapes. We have imposed generation-level cuts on processes that involve quarks of QCD origin. We list these cuts in Table 1.

The cuts that comprise the phenomenological analysis at hadron level

Observable | Cut |
---|---|

\(p_{T,b}\) | \(>45~\mathrm {GeV}\) |

\(|\eta _b|\) | \(< 3.2\) |

\(\varDelta R_{b,b}\) | \(>0.3\) |

\(p_T(h^i)\) | \(> [170, 120, 0]\) GeV, \(i=1,2,3\) |

\(\chi ^2_{\mathrm {min}}\) | \(<17\) GeV |

\(\varDelta m_\mathrm {min,~mid,~max}\) | \(< 8, 8, 11\) GeV |

\(\varDelta R(h_r^i, h_r^j) \) | \(< [3.5, 3.5, 3.5]\), \((i,j) = [ (1,2), (1,3), (2,3)]\) |

\(\varDelta R_{bb}(h^i)\) | \(< [3.5, 3.5, 3.5]\), \(i=1,2,3\) |

### 2.4 Analysis details

We give here the details of the phenomenological hadron-level analysis that are common between the different new physics scenarios that we consider.

*b*-jets with transverse momentum \(p_T > 45\) GeV. We ask for these jets to lie within a pseudo-rapidity of \(|\eta | < 3.2\) and we also ask for the distance between any two

*b*-jets to satisfy \(\varDelta R > 0.3\). The latter choice is simply to bring all processes on equal footing, given that the backgrounds that contain QCD-initiated

*b*-quarks also obey a generation-level cut of \(\varDelta R > 0.2\). We consider the potential impact of reducing the pseudo-rapidity coverage for the identified

*b*-jets on our conclusions in “Appendix A”. For each of the 15 possible arrangements \(I = \{ ij, kl, mn \}\) of the six

*b*-jets into pairs we construct the observable:

*b*-jet pairing

*qr*in the arrangement of pairings

*I*and \(m_h\) is the Higgs boson mass. Given that it is challenging to determine experimentally the charge of the

*b*-quarks that initiated the

*b*-jets, we consider the minimisation of the \(\chi ^2\) observable over all the possible pairings. The arrangement of pairings

*I*that gives the minimum of \(\chi ^2\), which we call \(\chi ^2_{\mathrm {min}}\), defines the three “reconstructed Higgs bosons”, \(h_r^i\), for \(i=\{1,2,3\}\). For this specific combination we calculate the absolute difference with the Higgs mass and order from smallest to larger: (\(\varDelta m_\mathrm {min}\), \(\varDelta m_\mathrm {mid}\), \(\varDelta m_\mathrm {max}\)). We impose cuts on the observables \(\sqrt{\chi ^2_{\mathrm {min}}}\), \(\varDelta m_\mathrm {min}\), \(\varDelta m_\mathrm {mid}\) and \(\varDelta m_\mathrm {max}\). Furthermore, we impose cuts on the transverse momentum of the hardest, second hardest and softest reconstructed Higgs boson, \(p_T(h_r^i)\) for \(i=\{1,2,3\}\). We also impose cuts on the distances between the reconstructed Higgs bosons, \(\varDelta R(h_r^i, h_r^j)\). Finally, we ask for the distances between the two

*b*-jets that comprise the reconstructed Higgs bosons, \(\varDelta R_{bb}(h^i)\), to satisfy certain upper bounds. The values of the cuts on these observables are summarised in Table 2.

^{6}

## 3 Standard Model-like triple Higgs boson production

### 3.1 Anomalous self-couplings

^{7}

The processes considered in the six *b*-jet analysis, for the Standard Model. The second column shows the generation-level cross sections with the cuts (if any) as given in the main text. The *Z* bosons were decayed at generation level and hence the cross section is given with the *Z* branching ratios applied. The third column shows the starting cross section for the analysis, including the branching ratio to \((b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\), with a flat *K*-factor of \(K=2.0\) applied to all tree-level processes as an estimate of the expected increase in cross section from leading order to next-to-leading order. The fourth column gives the analysis efficiency and the final column gives the expected number of events at 20 ab\(^{-1}\) of integrated luminosity at 100 TeV. The results are given for perfect *b*-jet tagging efficiency. The label “ggF” implies that it is gluon-fusion initiated

Process | \(\sigma _\mathrm {GEN}\) (pb) | \(\sigma _\mathrm {NLO} \times \mathrm {BR} \) (pb) | \(\varepsilon _\mathrm {analysis}\) | \(N^{\mathrm {cuts}}_{20~\mathrm {ab}^{-1}}\) |
---|---|---|---|---|

| \(2.88 \times 10^{-3}\) | \(1.06 \times 10^{-3}\) | 0.0131 | 278 |

QCD \((b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | 26.15 | 52.30 | \(2.6 \times 10^{-5}\) | 27116 |

\(q{\bar{q}} \rightarrow hZZ\rightarrow h (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(8.77 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(4.99 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(1.8 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(\sim 2\) |

\(q{\bar{q}} \rightarrow ZZZ\rightarrow (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(7.95 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(7.95 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(1.2 \times 10^{-5}\) | \(< 1\) |

ggF \(hZZ\rightarrow h (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(1.08 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(1.23 \times 10^{-4}\) | \({\mathscr {O}}(10^{-3})\) | \(\sim 2\) |

ggF \(ZZZ\rightarrow (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(1.36 \times 10^{-5}\) | \(2.73 \times 10^{-5}\) | \(2 \times 10^{-5}\) | \(\ll 1\) |

\(h (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(1.46 \times 10^{-2}\) | \(1.66 \times 10^{-2}\) | \(5.4 \times 10^{-4}\) | 179 |

\(hh(b{\bar{b}})\) | \(1.40 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(9.11 \times 10^{-5}\) | \(2.8 \times 10^{-4}\) | \(\sim 1\) |

\(hhZ\rightarrow hh (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(4.99 \times 10^{-3}\) | \(1.61 \times 10^{-3}\) | \(7.2 \times 10^{-4}\) | 23 |

\(hZ(b{\bar{b}})\rightarrow h (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(9.08 \times 10^{-3}\) | \(1.03 \times 10^{-2}\) | \(1.4\times 10^{-4}\) | 29 |

\(ZZ(b{\bar{b}})\rightarrow (b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | \(2.87 \times 10^{-2}\) | \(5.74 \times 10^{-2}\) | \(1 \times 10^{-5}\) | 11 |

\(Z(b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}})\rightarrow (b{\bar{b}})(b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\) | 0.93 | 1.87 | \(3 \times 10^{-5}\) | 1121 |

\(\sum \) backgrounds | \(2.8 \times 10^4\) |

### 3.2 Background processes

Some of the background processes will be affected at the order we are considering by the rescaling of the self-couplings of Eq. 3, an effect that should be taken into account in a future analysis. However, we found that the processes that are affected at leading order by the anomalous couplings, i.e. those of the form \(hh+X\), where \(X=Z\) or \(b{\bar{b}}\), constitute sub-permille contributions to the sum of all backgrounds after our analysis cuts are applied (see results of Table 3). Therefore we do not consider these variations in our analysis, instead only considering their SM counterparts as an order-of-magnitude estimate.

*b*-jets, can be estimated by assuming that the efficiency of the analysis is identical to that of the equivalent irreducible ones. Explicitly, we will assume e.g. that the probability of a \((b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (c{\bar{c}})\) event passing the analysis cuts is identical to \((b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}})\), multiplied by the probability that two charm jets are mis-identified as

*b*-jets. We will assume that the probability of a charm-jet being mis-identified as

*b*-jet is \({\mathscr {P}}_{c\rightarrow b} = 0.1\) and that of light jets is \({\mathscr {P}}_{j\rightarrow b} = 0.01\), and that these values are independent of the

*b*-tagging efficiency which we will take to range from perfect (100%) to the “worst-case scenario” of 80%, see “Appendix A”.

^{8}Table 4 shows the starting cross sections of the main reducible processes and the estimated contribution to the total cross section of the equivalent irreducible process, QCD six

*b*-jet production by taking into account appropriate rescaling with powers of \({\mathscr {P}}_{c\rightarrow b}\) and \({\mathscr {P}}_{j\rightarrow b}\). Given our results, the reducible six-jet QCD backgrounds are expected to contribute \({\mathscr {O}}(10\%)\) to \({\mathscr {O}}(30\%)\) of the total tagged six

*b*-jet background, for perfect

*b*-tagging to \({\mathscr {P}}_{b\rightarrow b} = 0.8\), respectively. Therefore it is clear that the contributions are sub-dominant with respect to the irreducible process and from here on we absorb them in the overall uncertainty of the cross section estimates, the effect of which is also examined in “Appendix A”.

The reducible background processes considered in the six *b*-jet analysis. The second column shows the generation-level cross sections with the cuts identical to the ones applied to the irreducible processes (Table 2). The third column shows the cross section after the mis-tagging rates have been applied. We only consider processes equivalent to QCD 6 *b*-jet production. We do not consider process that contain mis-tagged light and charm jets at the same time

Process | \(\sigma _\mathrm {GEN}\) (pb) | \(\sigma _\mathrm {GEN} \times {\mathscr {P}}(6~b-\mathrm {jets})\) (pb) |
---|---|---|

\((b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (c{\bar{c}})\) | 76.8 | 0.768 |

\((b{\bar{b}}) (c{\bar{c}}) (c{\bar{c}})\) | 75.6 | 0.00756 |

\((c{\bar{c}}) (c{\bar{c}}) (c{\bar{c}})\) | 22.5 | \(22.5\times 10^{-5}\) |

\((b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (jj)\) | \(1.32 \times 10^4\) | 1.32 |

\((b{\bar{b}}) (jj) (jj)\) | \(9.79 \times 19^5\) | 0.00979 |

( | \(1.37 \times 10^6\) | \(1.37 \times 10^{-6}\) |

### 3.3 Results for anomalous triple Higgs boson production

*b*-tagging. This result demonstrates that the six

*b*-jet final state could constitute a significant contribution to the study of triple Higgs boson production. As a concrete example, a direct comparison with Fig. 6 of Ref. [19], examining the \(hhh \rightarrow (b{\bar{b}}) (b{\bar{b}}) (\gamma \gamma )\) final state demonstrates this. Full comparisons should performed with equivalent assumptions on detector performance and collider integrated luminosity in future studies.

Given that the constraints on the triple self-coupling at the FCC-hh will reach the percent level, we also consider a scenario in which \(c_3=0\), allowing for variations of the quartic self-coupling through \(d_4\). The resulting one-dimensional significance is shown in Fig. 7 for the case of perfect *b*-tagging. The constraint in this scenario would then be, at 95% confidence level (i.e. \(2\sigma \)), \(d_4 \in [-1.7, 13.3]\) as indicated by the red dashed lines in the figure. We defer the equivalent plots with reduced *b*-tagging efficiencies and the range of the pseudorapidity of *b*-tagging to “Appendix A”. We note that the significance for the SM triple Higgs boson production (\(d_4 = 0, c_3 = 0\)) is \(\sim 1.7\sigma \), up to the Monte Carlo uncertainties.

## 4 Triple Higgs boson production in the presence of a singlet scalar

The discussion of the so-called xSM and the study of this section follows from [44]. A more detailed discussion of the model and its relation to strong first-order electroweak phase transition is discussed therein. See also [66] for a similar study.

### 4.1 The xSM

*H*, and a gauge-singlet scalar,

*S*, is given by (see, e.g. [38, 40, 44, 67, 68]):

*S*.

*h*and

*s*mix through both the Higgs portal parameters \(a_1\) and \(a_2\) as well as the singlet vev. Diagonalising the mass matrix, one obtains two eigenstates, denoted by \(h_1\) and \(h_2\), where:

*XX*any SM final state. This allows for constraints to be imposed on \(\cos \theta \) through the measurements of Higgs signal strengths. We concentrate on the scenario \(m_2 \ge 2 m_1\), allowing for resonant \(h_2 \rightarrow h_1 h_1\), with no new decay modes appearing for the \(h_1\).

^{9}The triple couplings between the scalars \(h_1\) and \(h_2\), representing terms of the form \(V(h_1, h_2) \supset \lambda _{ijk} h_i h_j h_k\), \(i, j, k = \{1, 2\}\), are given by:

In [44], the authors studied parameter-space points, satisfying conditions on the scalar sector of the xSM that lead to strong first-order electroweak phase transition (SFOEWPT). They then derived benchmark points taken from this allowed set that leads to enhanced resonant Higgs boson pair production, i.e. \(h_2 \rightarrow h_1 h_1\), considering the phenomenological consequences, i.e. whether enhanced \(h_1 h_1\) would be observed at future colliders, including a 100 TeV proton collider. One of the main conclusions was that such a collider could probe nearly all of the viable SFOWEPT-viable parameter space through this process, leading to a potential discovery of the xSM.

Here we consider the benchmark points of [44] in the context of (SM-like) triple Higgs boson production, \(pp \rightarrow h_1 h_1 h_1\), which can potentially lead to a measurement of both the triple and quartic couplings in the xSM, in the event of discovery. Furthermore, there could be fine-tuned points in the xSM that lead to some of the scalar couplings being small. In that scenario, triple Higgs boson production could conceivably provide an alternative route for discovery of the xSM. We show in Tables 5 and 6 in the next section the parameters for the benchmark points, which are labelled in [44] as “B1max” to “B11max” and “B1min” to “B11min”.

### 4.2 Triple Higgs boson production in the xSM

*b*-jet final state, focussing on the SFOEWPT benchmark points provided in [44], which appear in Tables 5 and 6. For each point we also give the total triple \(h_1\) production cross section as a ratio to the SM

*hhh*, including the full (top or bottom quark) loop structure and interference effects. For comparison we have also calculated the total \(h_1\) pair production cross section as a ratio to the SM

*hh*. One can observe that the enhancement in \(h_1 h_1 h_1\) production can be larger than the enhancement in \(h_1 h_1\).

Values of the various xSM independent and dependent parameters for each of the benchmark values chosen to maximize the \(\sigma \cdot BR (h_2 \rightarrow h_1 h_1)\) at a 100 TeV proton collider, taken from [44]. The ratio of cross sections of \(h_1 h_1\) to SM *hh* and of \(h_1 h_1 h_1\) to *hhh* production are given in the last two columns

Benchmark | \(\cos \theta \) | \(\sin \theta \) | \(m_2\) (GeV) | \(\varGamma _{h_2}\) (GeV) | \(x_0\) (GeV) | \(\lambda \) | \(a_1\) (GeV) | \(a_2\) | \(b_3\) (GeV) | \(b_4\) | \(\frac{\sigma (h_1 h_1)}{\sigma (hh)_\mathrm {SM}}\) | \(\frac{\sigma (h_1h_1 h_1)}{\sigma (h h h)_\mathrm {SM}}\) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

B1max | 0.976 | 0.220 | 341 | 2.42 | 257 | 0.92 | \(-\)377 | 0.392 | \(-\)403 | 0.77 | 22.44 | 60.55 |

B2max | 0.982 | 0.188 | 353 | 2.17 | 265 | 0.99 | \(-\)400 | 0.446 | \(-\)378 | 0.69 | 22.43 | 56.69 |

B3max | 0.983 | 0.181 | 415 | 1.59 | 54.6 | 0.17 | \(-\)642 | 3.80 | \(-\)214 | 0.16 | 6.43 | 3.01 |

B4max | 0.984 | 0.176 | 455 | 2.08 | 47.4 | 0.18 | \(-\)707 | 4.63 | \(-\)607 | 0.85 | 5.19 | 3.37 |

B5max | 0.986 | 0.164 | 511 | 2.44 | 40.7 | 0.18 | \(-\)744 | 5.17 | \(-\)618 | 0.82 | 3.49 | 2.94 |

B6max | 0.988 | 0.153 | 563 | 2.92 | 40.5 | 0.19 | \(-\)844 | 5.85 | \(-\)151 | 0.083 | 2.79 | 3.60 |

B7max | 0.992 | 0.129 | 604 | 2.82 | 36.4 | 0.18 | \(-\)898 | 7.36 | \(-\)424 | 0.28 | 2.51 | 4.70 |

B8max | 0.994 | 0.113 | 662 | 2.97 | 32.9 | 0.17 | \(-\)976 | 8.98 | \(-\)542 | 0.53 | 2.28 | 4.91 |

B9max | 0.993 | 0.115 | 714 | 3.27 | 29.2 | 0.18 | \(-\)941 | 8.28 | 497 | 0.38 | 1.98 | 2.68 |

B10max | 0.996 | 0.094 | 767 | 2.83 | 24.5 | 0.17 | \(-\)920 | 9.87 | 575 | 0.41 | 1.95 | 2.35 |

B11max | 0.994 | 0.105 | 840 | 4.03 | 21.7 | 0.19 | \(-\)988 | 9.22 | 356 | 0.83 | 1.76 | 1.03 |

Values of the various xSM independent and dependent parameters for each of the benchmark values chosen to minimize the \(\sigma \cdot BR (h_2 \rightarrow h_1 h_1)\) at a 100 TeV proton collider, taken from [44]. The ratio of cross sections of \(h_1 h_1\) to SM *hh* and of \(h_1 h_1 h_1\) to *hhh* production are given in the last two columns

Benchmark | \(\cos \theta \) | \(\sin \theta \) | \(m_2\) (GeV) | \(\varGamma _{h_2}\) (GeV) | \(x_0\) (GeV) | \(\lambda \) | \(a_1\) (GeV) | \(a_2\) | \(b_3\) (GeV) | \(b_4\) | \(\frac{\sigma (h_1 h_1 )}{\sigma (hh)_\mathrm {SM}}\) | \(\frac{\sigma (h_1 h_1 h_1)}{\sigma (h h h)_\mathrm {SM}}\) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

B1min | 0.999 | 0.029 | 343 | 0.041 | 105 | 0.13 | \(-\) 850 | 3.91 | \(-\) 106 | 0.29 | 2.35 | 1.24 |

B2min | 0.973 | 0.231 | 350 | 0.777 | 225 | 0.18 | \(-\) 639 | 0.986 | \(-\) 111 | 0.97 | 1.86 | 0.76 |

B3min | 0.980 | 0.197 | 419 | 1.32 | 234 | 0.18 | \(-\) 981 | 1.56 | 0.42 | 0.96 | 2.04 | 0.78 |

B4min | 0.999 | 0.026 | 463 | 0.0864 | 56.8 | 0.13 | \(-\) 763 | 6.35 | 113 | 0.73 | 2.34 | 1.68 |

B5min | 0.999 | 0.035 | 545 | 0.278 | 50.2 | 0.13 | \(-\) 949 | 8.64 | 151 | 0.57 | 2.39 | 2.86 |

B6min | 0.999 | 0.043 | 563 | 0.459 | 33.0 | 0.13 | \(-\) 716 | 9.25 | \(-\) 448 | 0.96 | 2.42 | 3.90 |

B7min | 0.984 | 0.180 | 609 | 4.03 | 34.2 | 0.22 | \(-\) 822 | 4.53 | \(-\) 183 | 0.57 | 1.72 | 0.75 |

B8min | 0.987 | 0.161 | 676 | 4.47 | 30.3 | 0.22 | \(-\) 931 | 5.96 | \(-\) 680 | 0.43 | 1.64 | 0.75 |

B9min | 0.990 | 0.138 | 729 | 4.22 | 27.3 | 0.21 | \(-\) 909 | 6.15 | 603 | 0.93 | 1.68 | 0.91 |

B10min | 0.995 | 0.104 | 792 | 3.36 | 22.2 | 0.18 | \(-\) 936 | 9.47 | \(-\) 848 | 0.66 | 1.81 | 1.31 |

B11min | 0.994 | 0.105 | 841 | 3.95 | 21.2 | 0.19 | \(-\) 955 | 8.69 | 684 | 0.53 | 1.76 | 0.94 |

We show in Figs. 8 and 9, the invariant mass of the three Higgs boson system and the transverse momentum of the hardest Higgs boson in triple \(h_1\) production within the xSM for three benchmark points as well as the SM expectation for comparison. The double-peak structure that is present in the distributions is physical and is due to the possibility of either an on-shell decay \(h_2 \rightarrow h_1 h_1 h_1\), leading to a peak in \(M_{hhh}\) at \(\sim m_2\), or an on-shell decay \(h_2 \rightarrow h_1 h_1\) with either \(h_2\) or \(h_1\) being off-shell in a preceding *s*-channel propagator, leading to the peak in \(M_{hhh}\) at \(\sim m_2 + m_1\). We note that a similar effect was pointed out in [70] in \(pp \rightarrow hS \rightarrow h \gamma \gamma \), in the context of a \({\mathbb {Z}}_2\)-symmetric singlet scalar model.

### 4.3 Results for xSM triple Higgs boson production

^{10}This information could then be employed in the analysis to enhance the significance of the \(h_1 h_1 h_1\) further, particularly taking into account the “double-peak” structure that we have pointed out in Sect. 4.2. Furthermore, cuts affected by the changes in the transverse momentum distributions as well as the angular distances can be subject to further optimisation.

Benchmark | Significance | Benchmark | Significance |
---|---|---|---|

B1max | 46.6 | B1min | 1.7 |

B2max | 42.9 | B2min | 1.3 |

B3max | 2.9 | B3min | 1.1 |

B4max | 3.7 | B4min | 2.0 |

B5max | 3.0 | B5min | 3.3 |

B6max | 3.8 | B6min | 4.2 |

B7max | 5.3 | B7min | 1.4 |

B8max | 7.8 | B8min | 1.4 |

B9max | 5.9 | B9min | 1.9 |

B10max | 4.9 | B10min | 3.0 |

B11max | 2.3 | B11min | 2.0 |

Given the values of the significance that we find here, it is conceivable that the \( pp \rightarrow h_1 h_1 h_1\) channel will play a crucial role in understanding the extended scalar sector in many viable scenarios of scalar gauge-singlet models that satisfy the constraints provided by requiring a SFOEWPT.^{11}

## 5 Conclusions

We have investigated triple Higgs boson production at a future proton collider with centre-of-mass energy 100 TeV, in the case when all three Higgs bosons decay to bottom-anti-bottom quark pairs, producing six *b*-jets. We have constructed a detailed phenomenological hadron-level analysis including the effects of detector geometry. This analysis was applied to two scenarios: in the first one, SM-like triple Higgs boson production, we allowed for “anomalous” modifications of the triple and quartic self-couplings independently. For the SM point, \((d_4, c_3) = (0,0)\), we demonstrated that significances of \(\approx 2\sigma \) can be obtained from the six *b*-jet final state alone. Furthermore, we have shown that a constraint of \(d_4 \gtrsim -2\) could be obtained in the case that the triple coupling is measured to be close to the SM value, \(c_3 \sim 0\). These results are competitive with previously studied final states, rendering the six *b*-jet process an important contribution to the study of the self-couplings of the SM Higgs boson. In the second scenario, we considered an extension of the SM by a gauge-singlet scalar that could drive strong first-order electroweak phase transition. We investigated the triple production of the resulting SM-like scalar in the particular six *b*-jet final state, for several well-motivated benchmark points compatible with strong first-order electroweak phase transition, and we concluded that large significances can be obtained for many of these. This motivates further study of the triple Higgs boson process in the context of future collider studies of scalar singlet models.

Finally, we emphasise that our conclusions are affected by uncertainties due to the absence of higher-order calculations for several of the background processes and details of the performance of the detector, particularly with respect to the tagging efficiencies, acceptance rates, resolution and triggers. Once these uncertainties have been better understood, a more detailed analysis, e.g. considering the differences between the radiation pattern of the colour singlet Higgs boson and QCD, or employing more advanced multivariate techniques, could lead to higher significances. Nevertheless, we have demonstrated here by varying several parameters, that the six *b*-jet process will certainly constitute an important component of the study of triple Higgs boson production at a future 100 TeV hadron collider.

## Footnotes

- 1.
- 2.
We would like to note here that the six

*b*-jet final state might be also interesting in the context of \(hh+Z\), see e.g. [43], or any triple neutral boson final state. - 3.
In particular, this was made possible thanks to the technique of Ref. [46] that performs a Monte Carlo over helicities.

- 4.
- 5.
A similar ratio was also observed for \(h+(b{\bar{b}})\) at the LHC [61].

- 6.
We note that the invariant masses \(M_{hh}\) and \(M_{hhh}\), presented in Sect. 2.2 for the SM case, could also prove useful in discriminating the signal from the backgrounds. However, they would also provide a method of distinguishing between different new physics scenarios and hence we chose not to impose any cuts in our analysis.

- 7.
We have chosen to keep the double insertions of the corrections to the triple self-coupling at the matrix-element level, despite the fact that, strictly speaking, one would be required to include operators of higher dimensionality than \(D=6\) in that case. The necessity of the inclusion of higher-dimensional operators depends on the specific assumptions on their scaling behaviour with energy. We refer the reader to a general discussion of the validity of EFT on SM precision tests in [63].

- 8.
- 9.
We note the study of [69], where the heavier state is identified with the SM-like Higgs boson instead.

- 10.
See also [71] for an investigation of resonant Higgs boson pair production in the SM with an additional gauge-singlet scalar.

- 11.
We note here that the ratio of \(h_1 h_1 h_1\) to \(h_1 h_1\) might be interesting to investigate in this scenario, so as to reduce theoretical uncertainties, as was done in [72] for the case of Higgs boson pair production.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Olivier Mattelaer, Marieke Postma and Eleni Vryonidou for useful discussions. This work is supported by the Netherlands National Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) that is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW). In particular, AP is supported by the NWO D-ITP consortium and GTX acknowledges support from the NWO program 156, “Higgs as Probe and Portal”. AP additionally acknowledges support from the ERC grant ERC-STG-2015-677323.

## References

- 1.R. Contino et al., Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Higgs and EW symmetry breaking studies, CERN Yellow Rep. (2017) 255 arXiv:1606.09408
- 2.M. L. Mangano et al.,
*Physics at a 100 TeV pp Collider: Standard Model Processes*,*CERN Yellow Rep.*(2017) 1 arXiv:1607.01831 - 3.
- 4.FCC collaboration, FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider. Eur. Phys. J. ST
**228**, 755 (2019)Google Scholar - 5.FCC collaboration, FCC Physics Opportunities. Eur. Phys. J. C
**79**, 474 (2019)Google Scholar - 6.ATLAS collaboration,
*Measurement prospects of the pair production and self-coupling of the Higgs boson with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC*, Tech. Rep. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2018-053, CERN, Geneva, (2018)Google Scholar - 7.
- 8.A. Azatov, R. Contino, G. Panico, M. Son, Effective field theory analysis of double Higgs boson production via gluon fusion. Phys. Rev. D
**92**, 035001 (2015). arXiv:1502.00539 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.A. Papaefstathiou, Discovering Higgs boson pair production through rare final states at a 100 TeV collider. Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 113016 (2015). arXiv:1504.04621 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.C.-T. Lu, J. Chang, K. Cheung, J.S. Lee, An exploratory study of Higgs-boson pair production. JHEP
**08**, 133 (2015). arXiv:1505.00957 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.H.-J. He, J. Ren, W. Yao, Probing new physics of cubic Higgs boson interaction via Higgs pair production at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D
**93**, 015003 (2016). arXiv:1506.03302 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.Q.-H. Cao, G. Li, B. Yan, D.-M. Zhang, H. Zhang, Double Higgs production at the 14 TeV LHC and a 100 TeV \(pp\) collider. Phys. Rev. D
**96**, 095031 (2017). arXiv:1611.09336 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.S. Banerjee, C. Englert, M.L. Mangano, M. Selvaggi, M. Spannowsky, \(hh+\text{ jet }\) production at 100 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C
**78**, 322 (2018). arXiv:1802.01607 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.J. Chang, K. Cheung, J. S. Lee, C.-T. Lu, J. Park, Higgs-boson-pair production \(H(\rightarrow b{\overline{b}})H(\rightarrow \gamma \gamma )\) from gluon fusion at the HL-LHC and HL-100 TeV hadron collider, arXiv:1804.07130
- 15.J. Alison et al.,
*Higgs boson pair production at colliders: status and perspectives*. In: Double Higgs Production at Colliders Batavia, IL, USA, September 4, 2018-9, 2019, B. Di Micco, M. Gouzevitch, J. Mazzitelli, C. Vernieri, (eds), (2019), arXiv:1910.00012 - 16.W. Bizoń, U. Haisch, L. Rottoli, Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders, arXiv:1810.04665
- 17.S. Borowka, C. Duhr, F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji, X. Zhao, Probing the scalar potential via double Higgs boson production at hadron colliders. JHEP
**04**, 016 (2019). arXiv:1811.12366 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.T. Plehn, M. Rauch, The quartic higgs coupling at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D
**72**, 053008 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0507321 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.A. Papaefstathiou, K. Sakurai, Triple Higgs boson production at a 100 TeV proton-proton collider. JHEP
**02**, 006 (2016). arXiv:1508.06524 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.B. Fuks, J.H. Kim, S.J. Lee, Probing Higgs self-interactions in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 100 TeV. Phys. Rev. D
**93**, 035026 (2016). arXiv:1510.07697 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.C.-Y. Chen, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao, Y.-M. Zhong, Z. Zhao, Probing triple-Higgs productions via 4b2\(\gamma \) decay channel at a 100 TeV hadron collider. Phys. Rev. D
**93**, 013007 (2016). arXiv:1510.04013 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.B. Fuks, J.H. Kim, S.J. Lee, Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton-proton collider with taus and b-jets. Phys. Lett. B
**771**, 354 (2017). arXiv:1704.04298 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.D.A. Dicus, C. Kao, W.W. Repko, Self Coupling of the Higgs boson in the processes \(p\, p\,\rightarrow \, ZHHH+X\) and \(p\, p\,\rightarrow \, WHHH+X\). Phys. Rev. D
**93**, 113003 (2016). arXiv:1602.05849 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.P. Agrawal, D. Saha, A. Shivaji, Production of \(HHH\) and \(HHV(V=\gamma, Z)\) at the hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D
**97**, 036006 (2018). arXiv:1708.03580 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.W. Kilian, S. Sun, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao, Z. Zhao, New Physics in multi-Higgs boson final states. JHEP
**06**, 145 (2017). arXiv:1702.03554 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.A.S. Belyaev, P.B. Schaefers, M.C. Thomas, Precise test of Higgs boson properties via triple Higgs boson production in vector boson fusion at future colliders. Phys. Rev. D
**99**, 015030 (2019). arXiv:1801.10157 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.D.E. Ferreira de Lima, A. Papaefstathiou, M. Spannowsky, Standard model Higgs boson pair production in the ( \( b{\overline{b}} \) )( \( b{\overline{b}} \) ) final state. JHEP
**08**, 030 (2014). arXiv:1404.7139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.D. Wardrope, E. Jansen, N. Konstantinidis, B. Cooper, R. Falla, N. Norjoharuddeen, Non-resonant Higgs-pair production in the \(b{\overline{b}}\) \(b{\overline{b}}\) final state at the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C
**75**, 219 (2015). arXiv:1410.2794 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.J.K. Behr, D. Bortoletto, J.A. Frost, N.P. Hartland, C. Issever, J. Rojo, Boosting Higgs pair production in the \(b{\bar{b}}b{\bar{b}}\) final state with multivariate techniques. Eur. Phys. J. C
**76**, 386 (2016). arXiv:1512.08928 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.ATLAS collaboration, Search for Higgs boson pair production in the \(b{\bar{b}}b{\bar{b}}\) final state from pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\) TeVwith the ATLAS detector,
*Eur. Phys. J. C***75**(2015) 412 arXiv:1506.00285 - 31.CMS collaboration,
*Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons decaying to two bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV*,*Phys. Lett. B***749**(2015) 560 arXiv:1503.04114 - 32.ATLAS collaboration, Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in the \(b{\bar{b}}b{\bar{b}}\) final state using proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector,
*Phys. Rev. D***94**(2016) 052002 arXiv:1606.04782 - 33.ATLAS collaboration, Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in the \(b{\bar{b}}b{\bar{b}}\) final state using proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector,
*JHEP***01**(2019) 030 arXiv:1804.06174 - 34.H.-L. Li, M. Ramsey-Musolf, S. Willocq, Probing a Scalar Singlet-Catalyzed Electroweak Phase Transition with Resonant Di-Higgs Production in the \(4b\) Channel, arXiv:1906.05289
- 35.A. Alves, D. Gonçalves, T. Ghosh, H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, Di-Higgs Production in the \(4b\) Channel and Gravitational Wave Complementarity, arXiv:1909.05268
- 36.J.R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, The Electroweak phase transition with a singlet. Phys. Lett. B
**305**, 98 (1993). arXiv:hep-ph/9301285 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 37.J.R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, Novel Effects in Electroweak Breaking from a Hidden Sector. Phys. Rev. D
**76**, 076004 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0701145 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 38.V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, G. Shaughnessy, LHC Phenomenology of an Extended Standard Model with a Real Scalar Singlet. Phys. Rev. D
**77**, 035005 (2008). arXiv:0706.4311 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 39.J.R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J.M. No, M. Quiros, Some Cosmological Implications of Hidden Sectors. Phys. Rev. D
**78**, 123528 (2008). arXiv:0809.3215 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 40.J.R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, F. Riva, Strong Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model with a Singlet. Nucl. Phys. B
**854**, 592 (2012). arXiv:1107.5441 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 41.J.M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter from a singlet Higgs. JCAP
**1301**, 012 (2013). arXiv:1210.4196 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 42.S. Profumo, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, C.L. Wainwright, P. Winslow, Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions and precision Higgs boson studies. Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 035018 (2015). arXiv:1407.5342 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 43.K. Nordström, A. Papaefstathiou, \(VHH\) production at the High-Luminosity LHC. Eur. Phys. J. Plus
**134**, 288 (2019). arXiv:1807.01571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 44.A.V. Kotwal, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, J.M. No, P. Winslow, Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions in the 100 TeV frontier. Phys. Rev. D
**94**, 035022 (2016). arXiv:1605.06123 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 45.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**, 079 (2014). arXiv:1405.0301 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 46.V. Hirschi, O. Mattelaer, Automated event generation for loop-induced processes. JHEP
**10**, 146 (2015). arXiv:1507.00020 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 47.S. Frixione, B.R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations. JHEP
**06**, 029 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0204244 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 48.M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual. Eur. Phys. J. C
**58**, 639 (2008). arXiv:0803.0883 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 49.S. Gieseke et al., Herwig++ 2.5 Release Note, arXiv:1102.1672
- 50.K. Arnold et al.,
*Herwig++ 2.6 Release Note*, arXiv:1205.4902 - 51.J. Bellm et al.,
*Herwig++ 2.7 Release Note*, arXiv:1310.6877 - 52.J. Bellm et al.,
*Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note*,*Eur. Phys. J. C***76**(2016) 196 arXiv:1512.01178 - 53.J. Bellm et al.,
*Herwig 7.1 Release Note*, arXiv:1705.06919 - 54.R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data. Nucl. Phys. B
**867**, 244 (2013). arXiv:1207.1303 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 55.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The anti-\(k_t\) jet clustering algorithm. JHEP
**04**, 063 (2008). arXiv:0802.1189 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 56.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual. Eur. Phys. J. C
**72**, 1896 (2012). arXiv:1111.6097 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 57.A. Papaefstathiou “The HwSim analysis package for HERWIG 7.”Google Scholar
- 58.R. Brun, F. Rademakers, ROOT: An object oriented data analysis framework. Nuclear Instrum. Methods A
**389**, 81 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 59.P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, R. Rietkerk, Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations. JHEP
**03**, 015 (2013). arXiv:1212.3460 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 60.S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, B.R. Webber, Angular correlations of lepton pairs from vector boson and top quark decays in Monte Carlo simulations. JHEP
**04**, 081 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0702198 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 61.N. Deutschmann, F. Maltoni, M. Wiesemann, M. Zaro, Top-Yukawa contributions to bbH production at the LHC. JHEP
**07**, 054 (2019). arXiv:1808.01660 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 62.F. Maltoni, E. Vryonidou, M. Zaro, Top-quark mass effects in double and triple Higgs production in gluon-gluon fusion at NLO. JHEP
**11**, 079 (2014). arXiv:1408.6542 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 63.R. Contino, A. Falkowski, F. Goertz, C. Grojean, F. Riva, On the Validity of the Effective Field Theory Approach to SM Precision Tests. JHEP
**07**, 144 (2016). arXiv:1604.06444 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 64.CMS collaboration,
*Identification of b-Quark Jets with the CMS Experiment*,*JINST***8**, P04013 (2013) arXiv:1211.4462 - 65.ATLAS collaboration, Atlas \(b\)-jet identification performance and efficiency measurement with \(t{\bar{t}}\) events in \(pp\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=13\) tev, arXiv:1907.05120
- 66.C.-Y. Chen, J. Kozaczuk, I.M. Lewis, Non-resonant Collider Signatures of a Singlet-Driven Electroweak Phase Transition. JHEP
**08**, 096 (2017). arXiv:1704.05844 ADSGoogle Scholar - 67.D. O’Connell, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, M.B. Wise, Minimal Extension of the Standard Model Scalar Sector. Phys. Rev. D
**75**, 037701 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0611014 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 68.S. Profumo, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, G. Shaughnessy, Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition. JHEP
**08**, 010 (2007). arXiv:0705.2425 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 69.A.J. Helmboldt, M. Lindner, Prospects for three-body Higgs boson decays into extra light scalars. Phys. Rev. D
**95**, 055008 (2017). arXiv:1609.08127 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 70.A. Carmona, F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, Uncovering the relation of a scalar resonance to the Higgs boson. Phys. Rev. D
**95**, 095022 (2017). arXiv:1606.02716 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 71.C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson, I.M. Lewis, Exploring resonant di-Higgs boson production in the Higgs singlet model. Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 035015 (2015). arXiv:1410.5488 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 72.F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L.L. Yang, J. Zurita, Higgs Boson self-coupling measurements using ratios of cross sections. JHEP
**06**, 016 (2013). arXiv:1301.3492 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP^{3}