Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Searching for HWW anomalous couplings with simulation-based inference

Marta Silva*

Ricardo Barrué†

Inês Ochoa‡

Patricia Conde Muíño

  • *Contact author: femarta@cern.ch
  • †Contact author: ricardo.barrue@cern.ch
  • ‡Contact author: miochoa@lip.pt

Phys. Rev. D 113, 056011 – Published 9 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/29xq-b66r

Abstract

Understanding the source of the universe’s asymmetry between matter and antimatter is one of the major open questions in particle physics. In this work, the sensitivity of novel machine-learning-based inference techniques to CP-odd and CP-even HWW anomalous couplings is studied in the WH→ℓνbb¯ channel (ℓ=e,μ), within the standard model effective field theory framework. Two machine-learning simulation-based inference (SBI) methods are explored: a per-event likelihood-ratio estimator, which directly approximates the ratio of probability densities between competing hypotheses, is benchmarked against a per-event optimal-observable estimator optimized for sensitivity to the parameters of interest. Both approaches are also compared to traditional summary statistics, in this case histograms of kinematic and angular observables, as commonly used in experimental analyses. SBI methods provide tighter constraints than one-dimensional summary statistics, though their performance is comparable to two-dimensional histogram analysis. The optimal-observable approach remains promising for its ability to probe multiple couplings simultaneously. Restricting the analysis to a region of high S/B also enhances sensitivity to CP-odd operators while preserving sensitivity to CP-even operators, which histogram analyses often lose. Although the likelihood-ratio estimator sometimes struggles with likelihood minima and shapes, optimizations that target its robustness could make it more sensitive than both the optimal-observable estimator and the histogram method. These results underscore the potential of advanced simulation-based inference techniques, encouraging further exploration with LHC Run 3 data to surpass current ATLAS and CMS sensitivities.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (47)

  1. A. D. Sakharov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967).
  2. J. Brehmer, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 305 (2021).
  3. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), arXiv:2504.07686.
  4. ATLAS Collaboration, Technical Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-022 (2025).
  5. J. Brehmer, K. Cranmer, I. Espejo, F. Kling, G. Louppe, and J. Pavez, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1525, 012022 (2020).
  6. N. Castro, K. Cranmer, A. V. Gritsan, J. Howarth, G. Magni, K. Mimasu, J. Rojo, J. Roskes, E. Vryonidou, and T. You, arXiv:2211.08353.
  7. K. Kondo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 60, 836 (1991).
  8. M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann, Z. Phys. C 62, 397 (1994).
  9. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 105.
  10. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 052004 (2021).
  11. ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:2506.19395.
  12. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, 032013 (2023).
  13. J. Brehmer, K. Cranmer, G. Louppe, and J. Pavez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111801 (2018).
  14. J. Brehmer, K. Cranmer, G. Louppe, and J. Pavez, Phys. Rev. D 98, 052004 (2018).
  15. J. Brehmer, G. Louppe, J. Pavez, and K. Cranmer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 5242 (2020).
  16. R. Mastandrea, B. Nachman, and T. Plehn, arXiv:2405.15847.
  17. H. Bahl, V. Bresó, G. De Crescenzo, and T. Plehn, arXiv:2410.07315.
  18. A. Ghosh, M. Griese, U. Haisch, and T. H. Park, arXiv:2507.02032.
  19. J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 231, 289 (1933).
  20. I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rep. 793, 1 (2019).
  21. M. Stoye, J. Brehmer, G. Louppe, J. Pavez, and K. Cranmer, arXiv:1808.00973.
  22. R. Barrué, P. Conde-Muíño, V. Dao, and R. Santos, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2024) 014.
  23. J. Brehmer, S. Dawson, S. Homiller, F. Kling, and T. Plehn, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2019) 034.
  24. V. Chekhovsky et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2025) 114.
  25. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 067801 (2025).
  26. J. Brehmer and K. Cranmer, arXiv:2010.06439.
  27. ATLAS Collaboration, Technical Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2022-032 (2022).
  28. CMS Collaboration, Technical Report No. CMS-PAS-HIG-20-006 (2020).
  29. CMS Collaboration, Technical Report No. CMS-PAS-HIG-20-007 (2021).
  30. K. Cranmer, J. Pavez, and G. Louppe, arXiv:1506.02169.
  31. M. Sugiyama, T. Suzuki, and T. Kanamori, Density Ratio Estimation in Machine Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2012).
  32. J. Brehmer, F. Kling, I. Espejo, and K. Cranmer, Comput. Software Big Sci. 4, 3 (2020).
  33. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.
  34. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2023) 088.
  35. R. M. Godbole, D. J. Miller, K. A. Mohan, and C. D. White, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 103.
  36. J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2014) 079.
  37. A. N. Rossia and E. Vryonidou, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2024) 142.
  38. I. Brivio, arXiv:2012.11343.
  39. T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015).
  40. J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2014) 057.
  41. A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al., arXiv:1912.01703.
  42. S. J. Reddi, S. Kale, and S. Kumar, arXiv:1904.09237.
  43. G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, arXiv:1007.1727.
  44. S. D. Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty, S. Prakash, S. U. Rahaman, and M. Spannowsky, arXiv:2103.11593.
  45. D. Huang, A. P. Morais, and R. Santos, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2021) 168.
  46. W. Naskar, S. Prakash, and S. U. Rahaman, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2022) 190.
  47. M. F. Silva, Hww Anomalous Couplings Analysis Code, https://github.com/martafsilva31/master_thesis_HWW_anomalous_couplings (2025), gitHub repository.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation