Top quark pair production in association with a jet with NLO parton showering

Adam Kardos; Costas Papadopoulos; Zoltan Trocsanyi

REVIEW

Top quark pair production in association with a jet with NLO parton showering

Adam Kardos, Costas Papadopoulos, Zoltan Trocsanyi

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 13 Jan 2011 · 37 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, properly cross-checked first NLO+PS treatment of ttbar+jet; the one real soft spot is that the PYTHIA/HERWIG agreement is used to bound a truncated-shower effect it cannot actually bound.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 11 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1101.2672 (version 3)

Pith IDGLCE6DE7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAdam Kardos, Costas Papadopoulos, Zoltan Trocsanyi. "Top quark pair production in association with a jet with NLO parton showering." arXiv:1101.2672 (2011). https://pith.science/paper/GLCE6DE7

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, with one caveat about how far the HERWIG numbers can be pushed. What's new: this is the first NLO+PS treatment of a 2-to-3 process, ttbar+jet, with the matching done semi-automatically through POWHEG-BOX fed by HELAC amplitudes. The fixed-order NLO result itself is not new (Dittmaier-Uwer-Weinzierl, Melnikov-Schulze); what is new is the hadron-level event sample and the automated amplitude pipeline behind it. The checks are the right ones and they are done properly: LO against MadGraph, the one-loop amplitudes cross-checked against an independent implementation, soft and collinear limits of the real matrix elements, and the technical-cut independence scan in Table 3. The NLO cross section, 1.78 plus or minus 0.01 pb, lands on the DUW value. That is external validation, not self-validation, and it counts. Soft spots, in order of how much they matter. The truncated shower: Section 2 says plainly that HERWIG 6.5.20 driven by external LHE files has no truncated shower, so it is absent from the HERWIG predictions. Fine, they disclose it. But then Section 6 uses PYTHIA/HERWIG agreement to argue that the effect of the missing truncated shower must be small. That inference does not hold. PYTHIA's pT-ordered shower does not need a truncated shower in the first place, so agreement between the two codes does not bound the missing piece; it can just as easily reflect two different approximations landing in the same place. The 3 percent agreement is also the same size as the negative-weight systematic they quote (146.9 versus 143.2 versus 147 fb), so it sits at the level of known systematics rather than acting as a precision test. The HERWIG shapes carry an unquantified modeling uncertainty. That does not break the central claim, but the robustness sentence should be softened. Second: scale dependence on the LHC predictions is quoted as 2 to 6 percent and deferred to a follow-up. For a paper whose selling point is hadron-level predictions, that is the number experimenters will want. Third, minor: decays are LO and spin correlations are dropped, which they say. Who should read it: anyone using ttbar+jet as a background or measuring top properties at 7 TeV, and anyone building NLO+PS for higher multiplicity. Send it out.

Referee report

Significance

If the results hold, this is a useful and non-trivial step: a semi-automatic NLO+PS generator for a genuine 2→3 process, with the one-loop amplitudes obtained from a general numerical unitarity method rather than a process-specific analytic calculation. The validation strategy is the right one and is carried out against independent published fixed-order results rather than only against the authors' own tooling, and the technical-cut independence study in Table 3 is exactly the check this kind of POWHEG implementation needs. The hadron-level event samples are of direct use for LHC top-quark analyses, and the observation that the H⊥ distribution softens substantially under the full shower is a concrete, falsifiable statement. The paper is also candid about what it does not do: the absence of a truncated shower in the HERWIG configuration and the absence of spin correlations in the decays are both stated explicitly in the text, which is to the authors' credit.

Major objections (4)

[§6, Figs. 4–7] The sentence in §6 that the agreement between PYTHIA and HERWIG 'shows that the effect of the missing truncated shower must be small' is not supported by the evidence offered. PYTHIA's default pT-ordered shower does not require a truncated shower in the first place, so agreement between the two codes is consistent with two different approximations coinciding rather than with the missing wide-angle soft contribution being small; the comparison therefore does not bound the quantity it is invoked to bound. The same 3% figure is quoted in §5 as the size of the effect of including versus neglecting negative-weight events, so the PYTHIA/HERWIG comparison has a systematic floor at the level of the effect being bounded. Since this inference is what licenses the claim that the LHC predictions are insensitive to the shower version, it should either be reworded as 'consistent with being small' with the truncated-shower contribution flagged as an unquantified modelling uncertainty for the HERWIG-based shapes, or supported by a direct estimate (for example a variation of the veto/ordering treatment, or an independent estimate of the wide-angle soft-emission contribution).
[§5, Figs. 2–3 and §6, Fig. 7] The hadron-level predictions contain no spin correlations, because the top decays are performed in the shower at LO. The authors acknowledge this and use the decay-level comparison in Figs. 2–3 to argue that spin correlations make the NLO lepton rapidity distribution slightly wider. However, the observable in this paper most sensitive to spin correlations in the dileptonic channel is the lepton-pair invariant mass of Fig. 7, and no such comparison is shown for it, even though the two samples needed (NLO+decay, which carries spin correlations, and PowHel+decay, which does not) are already in hand. Either show the NLO+decay versus PowHel+decay ratio for m(l+l-) and for a lepton angular observable, or state explicitly in §6 that Fig. 7 and lepton angular distributions should not be interpreted at NLO accuracy for this reason.
[§5, selection cut (x)] The veto on events containing an additional charged lepton with transverse momentum above 20 GeV is applied to the showered samples but is necessarily vacuous at fixed order, where no such leptons exist. This makes the comparison in Figs. 2–3 asymmetric: the SMC samples lose events that the NLO+decay sample retains, so part of the difference attributed to the shower may come from the selection rather than from showering. Please report the fraction of events removed by this veto and show, at least for one distribution, the comparison with the veto removed from the SMC side (or with an equivalent requirement imposed on the decay-level sample).
[§3 and §4] The validation of the fixed-order result rests on agreement at the 1% level with Ref. [31], but the only uncertainty quoted anywhere for the fixed-order cross section is the integration error (1.78±0.01 pb against 1.791±0.001 pb). Without at least a rough scale-variation estimate, the reader cannot tell whether the agreement is meaningful at that precision or whether both numbers sit inside a common 5–10% theory uncertainty. The paper defers a scale study to a separate publication, which is reasonable for the LHC spectra, but a single number for the Tevatron setup of Ref. [31] would materially strengthen the validation claim and should be added.

Minor objections (11)

[§3] The statement that the LO cross section agrees 'completely' with MadGraph should be accompanied by the two numbers and their integration errors.
[§3] It is not stated which of the two treatments of the underlying Born configuration (the technical cut or the Born-suppression factor) was used to produce the results in §5 and §6, nor what value of the technical cut was adopted there. Please state this explicitly for each set of predictions.
[Table 2] The entries 'q qbar → t tbar g g' and 'qbar q → t tbar g g' appear to denote the same flavour structure, as do several other pairs in the table. Please clarify the organizing principle of the columns and check the table for repeated entries.
[Fig. 1] The text notes that the jet rapidity distribution from the LHE events is more central than the NLO one. This is a visible discrepancy in a validation figure and deserves a sentence of interpretation, including whether it is expected from the absence of radiation beyond the first emission and whether it propagates to the hadron-level predictions.
[Figs. 2 and 3] The label 'NLO+Decay' denotes the Ref. [32] result rescaled by r = 4.29. This should be stated in the figure captions, not only in the body text, since the figures are likely to be read on their own.
[§5] The negative-weight events are reported only through their effect on the total cross section. Please give the fraction of negative-weight events in the sample and state whether their inclusion affects the shapes in Figs. 2–3 at the same 3% level.
[§6] The statement that the jet pT spectra are 'rather robust against the choice of the default scale (2–6% variation, not shown here)' would be more useful with the variation shown for at least one distribution, given that the scale choice is one of the two main theory inputs of the LHC predictions.
[References] Reference [1] is listed as arXiv:803.4180, which should read arXiv:0803.4180.
[Figs. 5 and 6 captions] 'Rapdity' should be 'Rapidity' in the Fig. 5 caption.
[§2] The sentence 'We use the polarization vectors to project the helicity amplitudes to Lorentz basis for writing the spin-correlated squared matrix elements' is difficult to parse; please rephrase so that the role of the Lorentz basis in the spin-correlated matrix elements is clear.
[§2] The sentence 'the effect of the truncated showers is absent from our predictions' should read 'the effect of the truncated shower is absent'; the plural is used inconsistently with the preceding sentence.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The authors compute top–antitop pair production in association with a jet at next-to-leading-order accuracy matched to parton showers, producing hadron-level events whose fixed-order limit reproduces an independent NLO calculation.

The reading

This paper reports the first matched next-to-leading-order plus parton-shower calculation of a three-body final state at a hadron collider: a top–antitop pair recoiling against a hard jet. The physics motivation is that at LHC energies top pairs with large transverse momentum are copious, so the probability that they radiate an extra hard gluon is high enough that the $tbar{t}+$jet final state is measurable with high statistics and needs a prediction that can be compared directly to detector data. The authors assemble the calculation from existing general-purpose pieces — a framework that organizes the NLO subtraction and generates positive-weight events with the hardest emission ordered in transverse momentum, a numerical amplitude library that supplies the tree-level, colour-correlated, spin-correlated and one-loop ingredients, and a standard shower and hadronization program — so that the whole chain runs semi-automatically. The claim that matters is validation: the fixed-order cross section agrees with an independent published NLO result, the distributions agree except in jet rapidity, and two different shower programs give hadron-level predictions that agree within about 3 percent. If that holds, the community gains a working, reusable route to NLO-accurate hadron-level predictions for processes with one more hard object than the two-body cases that were already standard.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the combination of a NLO event generator built on the FKS subtraction scheme, which produces positive-weight events in which the hardest emission is the first one and is ordered in transverse momentum, with a numerical amplitude framework that supplies all the required ingredients on demand: Born and real-emission helicity amplitudes, colour-correlated squared matrix elements, spin-correlated squared matrix elements obtained by projecting helicity amplitudes onto a Lorentz basis with polarization vectors, and one-loop corrections from a unitary-based numerical method. The generator needs only these inputs plus a Born phase-space parametrization for one massless and two massive momenta, which is what makes the approach semi-automatic and extensible to further processes. Because the generator starts from an underlying Born configuration and adds emissions, a technical cut on the transverse momentum of the single massless parton at Born level is required to keep the parton-level calculation finite; the authors show the NLO cross section is stable against this cut below about 5 GeV, and note the alternative of a suppression factor on the underlying Born configuration.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that $tbar{t}+$jet production can be computed at NLO accuracy and then matched to parton showers, with the resulting hadron-level events correct order by order up to NLO when expanded in the strong coupling. The authors establish this in stages. They check the LO cross section against an independent tree-level generator and find complete agreement. They check the one-loop amplitudes point by point against a separate implementation, and check that the ratio of real-emission matrix elements to their subtraction terms tends to one in every unresolved limit. They then reproduce the published NLO cross section of an earlier fixed-order calculation, $(1.78pm0.01)$ pb versus $(1.791pm0.001)$ pb for the same setup, and reproduce that paper's transverse-momentum and rapidity distributions, with the one noted exception that the jet rapidity distribution from the generated events is more central than the fixed-order one. Finally they shower two million events with two different shower programs and compare hadron-level distributions, finding agreement between the two showers within 3 percent and a substantial, roughly uniform shower and hadronization effect of up to about 20 percent on some distributions, including a marked softening of the scalar sum of transverse momenta.

Load-bearing premise

The hadron-level predictions assume that a transverse-momentum-ordered hardest emission can be handed to a shower whose own ordering variable is different without a truncated shower, and the authors state plainly that no truncated shower is implemented for the angular-ordered case, so that contribution is simply absent from those predictions and its size is argued rather than computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hadron-level predictions for $tbar{t}+$jet become available as unweighted events that can be passed through the same analysis chain as collision data, allowing direct theory-to-data comparison and Standard Model background estimates for this final state.
The fixed-order limit of the generator reproduces an independent NLO calculation for the same process, so the matching procedure does not distort the NLO result.
Because the ingredients come from a general numerical amplitude framework, the same route extends to other processes with three hard objects without new analytic work.
Shower and hadronization effects on this final state are large and roughly uniform in some observables, so NLO parton-level predictions alone are insufficient for several of the distributions shown.
Distributions of the three hardest jets are insensitive to which shower program is used and vary only a few percent with the choice of default scale, which supports the stability of the predictions in that region.

Reading between the lines

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

The validation strategy used here — agreement of the fixed-order limit with an independent calculation plus agreement between two showers — is a template that could be applied to any future NLO-plus-shower implementation before its hadron-level shapes are trusted.
The observation that jet rapidity from the generated events is more central than the fixed-order prediction is a concrete, checkable discrepancy that a dedicated study of the matching in that observable could resolve.
Since the shower is where top decays are handled, spin correlations in the decay products are absent from these predictions; adding decays at the hard-matrix-element level, which the authors defer, would let the two treatments be compared directly.
The technical cut on the Born-level massless parton is a practical workaround rather than a physical ingredient, so a systematic study of its interplay with jet clustering at small jet transverse momentum would be a natural next check.

Original abstract

We compute the production cross section of a top-antitop pair in association with a jet at hadron colliders at next-to-leading order accuracy matched with parton shower algorithms to make predictions at the hadron level. The parton shower allows for including the decay of the top quarks at the leading order accuracy. We use a framework based on three well established numerical codes, the POWHEG-BOX, used for the calculation of the cross section, HELAC, which generates the matrix elements for the Born-level, real emission and the virtual part, and finally a parton shower program, such as PYTHIA or HERWIG, which generate the parton-shower and hadronization.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,068 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.65 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.05 · mentions code or data availability 0.03.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We compute the production cross section of a top-antitop pair in association with a jet at hadron colliders at next-to-leading order accuracy matched with parton shower algorithms to make predictions at the hadron level. The parton shower allows for including the decay of the top quarks at the leading order accuracy. We use a framework based on three well established numerical codes, the POWHEG-BOX, used for the calculation of the cross section, HELAC, which generates the matrix elements for the Born-level, real emission and the virtual part, and finally a parton shower program, such as PYTHIA or HERWIG, which generate the parton-shower and hadronization.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We compute the production cross section of a top-antitop pair in association with a jet at hadron colliders at next-to-leading order accuracy matched with parton shower algorithms to make predictions at the hadron level.	contribution 0.99	0.96	0.37	asserted 1.00
s1	The parton shower allows for including the decay of the top quarks at the leading order accuracy.	method 0.73	0.31	0.06	asserted 0.96
s2	We use a framework based on three well established numerical codes, the POWHEG-BOX, used for the calculation of the cross section, HELAC, which generates the matrix elements for the Born-level, real emission and the virtual part, and finally a parton shower program, such as PYTHIA or HERWIG, which generate the parton-shower and hadronization.	method 1.00	0.73	0.04	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.83 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Transverse momentum and rapidity distributions of the jet.

**Figure 2.** Transverse momentum and rapidity distributions of the an

**Figure 3.** Distribution of the scalar sum of transverse momenta.

**Figure 5.** Rapdity distribution of the antilepton. The lower plot also

**Figure 6.** Transverse momentum distribution of the antilepton. The

Showing 5 of the paper's 6 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:1101.2672 by the authors.

References

Works cited (37)

[31]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, Hadronic top-quark pair production in association with a hard jet at next-to-leading or- der QCD: Phenomenological studies for the Tevatron and the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C59 (2009) 625–646 [arXiv:0810.0452]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[1]

C. F. Berger, et al., An Automated Implementation of On-Shell Methods for One- Loop Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 036003 [arXiv:803.4180]

View on Pith 2008
[2]

A. van Hameren, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, Automated one-loop calculations: a proof of concept, JHEP 09 (2009) 106 [arXiv:0903.4665]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[3]

C. F. Berger, et al., Next-to-Leading Order QCD Predictions for W+3-Jet Distributions at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 074036 [arXiv:0907.1984]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[4]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, M. Worek, Assault on the NLO Wishlist: pp → tt bb, JHEP 09 (2009) 109 [arXiv:0907.4723]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[5]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, M. Worek, Dominant QCD Backgrounds in Higgs Boson Analyses at the LHC: A Study of pp→ t anti-t + 2 jets at Next-To-Leading Or- der, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 162002 [arXiv:1002.4009]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[6]

C. F. Berger, et al., Precise Predictions for W + 4 Jet Production at the Large Hadron Collider [arXiv:1009.2338]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[7]

T. Sjostrand, High-energy physics event generation with PYTHIA 5.7 and JETSET 7.4, Comput. Phys. Commun. 82 (1994) 74–90

View on Pith 1994
[8]

G. Corcella, et al., HERWIG 6: an event generator for Hadron Emission Reactions With Interfering Gluons (including super- symmetric processes), JHEP 01 (2001) 010 [hep-ph/0011363]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[9]

S. Frixione, B. R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computa- tions and parton shower simulations, JHEP 06 (2002) 029 [hep- ph/0204244]. 6 10 -4 10 -3 10-2 10-1 0.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 50 100 150 200 250 dσ dp⊥,𝓁+ [pb/GeV] √s = 7 TeV mt = 172 GeV R = 0.5, anti−k⊥ #jets≥ 3 p⊥, jet> 30 GeV, p⊥, 𝓁± > 20 GeV /E⊥|𝓁+=𝓁− > 30 GeV, /E⊥|𝓁+⁄=𝓁− > 20 GeV PowHel+Decay PowHel+PYTHIA P...

View on Pith 2002
[10]

S. Frixione, F. Stoeckli, P. Torrielli, B. R. Webber, C. D. White, The MCatNLO 4.0 Event Generator [arXiv:1010.0819]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11 (2004) 040 [hep- ph/0409146]

View on Pith 2004
[12]

S. Frixione, P. Nason, C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD compu- tations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP 11 (2007) 070 [arXiv:0709.2092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[13]

S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, A general frame- work for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 06 (2010) 043 [arXiv:1002.2581]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[14]

E. Boos, et al., Generic user process interface for event genera- tors [hep-ph/0109068]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, A. Signer, Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order, Nucl. Phys. B467 (1996) 399–442 [hep- ph/9512328]

View on Pith 1996
[16]

M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, M. Worek, Polarizing the Dipoles, JHEP 08 (2009) 085 [arXiv:0905.0883]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[17]

G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, CutTools: a program implementing the OPP reduction method to compute one-loop amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2008) 042 [arXiv:0711.3596]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[18]

G. Bevilacqua, et al., NLO QCD calculations with HELAC- NLO, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205-206 (2010) 211–217 [arXiv:1007.4918]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[19]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, D. A. Kosower, Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 59–101 [hep-ph/9409265]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[20]

A. Brandhuber, S. McNamara, B. J. Spence, G. Travaglini, Loop amplitudes in pure Yang-Mills from generalised unitarity, JHEP 10 (2005) 011 [hep-th/0506068]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[21]

C. Anastasiou, R. Britto, B. Feng, Z. Kunszt, P. Mastrolia, Uni- tarity cuts and reduction to master integrals in d dimensions for one-loop amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2007) 111 [hep-ph/0612277]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[22]

G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, Reducing full one- loop amplitudes to scalar integrals at the integrand level, Nucl. Phys. B763 (2007) 147–169 [hep-ph/0609007]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[23]

R. K. Ellis, W. T. Giele, Z. Kunszt, A Numerical Unitarity For- malism for Evaluating One-Loop Amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2008) 10 -5 10 -4 10-3 10 -2 10 -1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 dσ dm𝓁+𝓁− [pb/GeV] √s = 7 TeV mt = 172 GeV R = 0.5, anti−k⊥ #jets≥ 3 p⊥, jet> 30 GeV, p⊥, 𝓁± > 20 GeV /E⊥|𝓁+=𝓁− > 30 GeV, /E⊥|𝓁+⁄=𝓁− > 20 GeV PowHel+Decay PowHel+PY...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[24]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. A. Kosower, On-Shell Methods in Perturbative QCD, Annals Phys. 322 (2007) 1587–1634 [arXiv:0704.2798]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[25]

G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, On the Ratio- nal Terms of the one-loop amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2008) 004 [arXiv:0802.1876]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[26]

P. Draggiotis, M. V . Garzelli, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, Feynman Rules for the Rational Part of the QCD 1-loop ampli- tudes, JHEP 04 (2009) 072 [arXiv:0903.0356]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[27]

O. Latunde-Dada,S. Gieseke, B. Webber, JHEP 0702, 051 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0612281]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[28]

S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, Vector boson plus one jet production in POWHEG, JHEP 01 (2011) 095 [arXiv:1009.5594]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[29]

J. Alwall, et al., MadGraph /MadEvent v4: The New Web Gen- eration, JHEP 09 (2007) 028 [arXiv:0706.2334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[30]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, NLO QCD corrections to t anti-t + jet production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 262002 [hep-ph/0703120]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[32]

K. Melnikov, M. Schulze, NLO QCD corrections to top quark pair production in association with one hard jet at hadron collid- ers, Nucl. Phys. B840 (2010) 129–159 [arXiv:1004.3284]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[33]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[34]

G. Corcella, et al., HERWIG 6.5 release note [hep-ph/0210213]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[35]

M. Schulze, private communication

View on Pith
[36]

S. Catani, Y . L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, B. R. Webber, Lon- gitudinally invariant Kt clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B406 (1993) 187–224

View on Pith 1993
[37]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, Dispelling the N3 myth for the kt jet- ﬁnder, Phys. Lett. B641 (2006) 57–61 [hep-ph/0512210]. 7

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

Forward citations

Cited by 17 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Threshold resummation for top-quark pair production in association with a jet at the LHC
hep-ph 2026-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Threshold resummation for top-quark pair production with a jet is not under perturbative control at LHC energies, and the next-to-leading-order result is retained as the central prediction.
Multi-jet merged top-pair production including electroweak corrections
hep-ph 2018-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

First NLO electroweak calculation of top-pair plus jet production, folded into a multi-jet merged QCD+EW prediction that matches the ATLAS boosted top transverse-momentum spectrum.
An NLO+PS generator for $t\bar{t}$ and $Wt$ production and decay including non-resonant and interference effects
hep-ph 2016-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The bb4l generator provides the first NLO+PS simulation of top-pair and Wt production and decay with exact off-shell matrix elements, massive b quarks, and resonance-aware shower matching, and shows that resonance-una...
Top Quark Pair Production in Association with a Jet with NLO QCD Off-Shell Effects at the Large Hadron Collider
hep-ph 2015-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A full off-shell NLO QCD calculation of top-pair-plus-jet production in the dilepton channel at the LHC reduces the scale uncertainty by more than a factor of three and the total rate by about 13% relative to leading order.
Numerical evaluation of virtual corrections to multi-jet production in massless QCD
hep-ph 2012-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A publicly released C++ library computes full-colour, helicity-summed one-loop QCD amplitudes for up to seven external partons, validated against four independent codes and against analytic formulae.

Show 12 more citing papers

Top quark pair production in association with a jet: QCD corrections and jet radiation in top quark decays
hep-ph 2011-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Adding NLO QCD radiation from top quark decays to ttbar+jet production changes kinematic shapes and makes the standard production K-factor rescaling overestimate the 7 TeV LHC cross section by roughly 20 percent.
QCD corrections to top quark pair production in association with a photon at hadron colliders
hep-ph 2011-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Including top-quark decays and photon radiation from decay products changes the NLO prediction for ttbar+photon production enough that decay photons, about half the rate, must be modeled to interpret top-charge measurements.
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties
hep-ph 2013-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group's third handbook sets the state-of-the-art Standard Model and MSSM Higgs production and decay predictions at 125-126 GeV with quantified theory uncertainties, and adds a first...
t tbar W and t tbar Z Hadroproduction at NLO accuracy in QCD with Parton Shower and Hadronization effects
hep-ph 2012-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD predictions for top-pair plus W or Z production at the LHC, matched to parton showers and hadronization, give event counts compatible with CMS 7 TeV data in the dilepton and trilepton channels.
Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering
hep-ph 2011-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Matching the NLO top-pair-plus-jet calculation to parton showers roughly halves the predicted Tevatron top forward-backward asymmetry, and the entire shift comes from the low transverse-momentum region of the top pair.
Helac-nlo
hep-ph 2011-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A publicly released Fortran code computes one-loop QCD virtual corrections for scattering processes with up to seven strongly interacting particles attached to the loop, by combining OPP integrand reduction with HELAC...
Standard Model Higgs boson production in association with a top anti-top pair at NLO with parton showering
hep-ph 2011-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A next-to-leading-order calculation of Higgs-plus-top-pair production is matched to parton showers and hadronization, cross-checked against two earlier NLO calculations, and used to quantify how showering reshapes jet...
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Differential Distributions
hep-ph 2012-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group's second handbook fixes benchmark differential predictions, branching-ratio uncertainties, PDF correlations, and NLO+PS tuning prescriptions for LHC Higgs analyses.
Top quark pair production in association with a Z-boson at NLO accuracy
hep-ph 2011-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

NLO QCD corrections raise the 14 TeV ttZ cross section by about 39 percent and reshape several kinematic distributions, with a mild disagreement against the only prior NLO calculation.
High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

The report compiles 2014 determinations of the strong coupling and the top quark mass, shows that independent extractions scatter beyond their quoted uncertainties, and recommends a standing working group plus scheme-...
Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report
hep-ph 2014-05 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The 2013 Les Houches Standard Model Working Group report consolidates multi-leg NLO and NNLO QCD and NLO electroweak calculations, compares them with LHC Run 1 data, and sets accuracy targets for Run 2.
Snowmass 2013 Top quark working group report
hep-ph 2013-11 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The report compiles community projections showing that a future lepton collider can measure the top mass to about 100 MeV and top couplings an order of magnitude better than the high-luminosity LHC.

How the literature uses it

43 arXiv papers cite this in 55 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 37 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 4 papers

The essence of the new method of predicting cross sections for processes with isolated photons is to introduce generation isolation [ref] and generation cuts [ref] during event generation that are sufficiently small so that predictions at the hadron level obtained with physical cuts and isolation do not depend on them.

Hadroproduction of t anti-t pair with two isolated photons with PowHel · Introduction · 0.85
For this purpose we choose the simplest process, hadroproduction and the POWHEG method [ref] as implemented in the framework [ref] which is based on the [ref] and [ref] programs.

Hadroproduction of $W^+ W^- b \bar{b}$ at NLO accuracy matched with shower Monte Carlo programs · Introduction · 1.00
In a series of papers we combined the with the package [ref] into to make predictions for the hadroproduction of a -pair in association with a hard boson (scalar [ref] , pseudoscalar [ref] , vector [ref] or jet [ref] ).

Hadroproduction of t anti-t pair in association with an isolated photon at NLO accuracy matched with parton shower · Introduction · 0.81

Compares with it 2 papers

Comparing with recent predictions for the $j$ distributions at the 7 TeV LHC [ref] , we find that simply cutting on $p_T$ of the hardest jet, our signal is somewhat smaller than the SM background.

Explaining the t tbar forward-backward asymmetry without dijet or flavor anomalies · LHC signals: $uc$ resonance and $pp→j$ · 1.00
Note, however, that the cross-section computed in Ref. [ref] seems closer to the contribution that we identify as “jet radiation in production”.

Top quark pair production in association with a jet: QCD corrections and jet radiation in top quark decays · Phenomenological results · 0.93

Cites it as background 11 papers

Another line of research was to make improvements by implementing the production of t-quarks at the NLO accuracy and match those to shower Monte Carlo programs (SMCs) [ref] .

Hadroproduction of $W^+ W^- b \bar{b}$ at NLO accuracy matched with shower Monte Carlo programs · Introduction · 0.84
Matching to a parton shower has been first considered in Ref. [ref] using the method [ref] .

Matching the Nagy-Soper parton shower at next-to-leading order · $tt̅ j$ production at the LHC with next-to-leading order matching · 0.91
Particle-level Monte Carlo generators matching NLO QCD matrix elements to parton showers have been available for quite some time for inclusive production [ref] and since recently for [ref] and $tt̅+2$ jet [ref] production.

Multi-jet merged top-pair production including electroweak corrections · Introduction · 0.94

What it cites · 1 sentence without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 1 paper

Another way of treating the same problem, also implemented in the , is to use a suppression factor on the underlying Born configuration [ref] .

Vector boson plus one jet production in POWHEG · Checks · 0.92

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [31]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, Hadronic top-quark pair production in association with a hard jet at next-to-leading or- der QCD: Phenomenological studies for the Tevatron and the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C59 (2009) 625–646 [arXiv:0810.0452]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[2] [1]

C. F. Berger, et al., An Automated Implementation of On-Shell Methods for One- Loop Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 036003 [arXiv:803.4180]

View on Pith 2008

[3] [2]

A. van Hameren, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, Automated one-loop calculations: a proof of concept, JHEP 09 (2009) 106 [arXiv:0903.4665]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[4] [3]

C. F. Berger, et al., Next-to-Leading Order QCD Predictions for W+3-Jet Distributions at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 074036 [arXiv:0907.1984]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[5] [4]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, M. Worek, Assault on the NLO Wishlist: pp → tt bb, JHEP 09 (2009) 109 [arXiv:0907.4723]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[6] [5]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, M. Worek, Dominant QCD Backgrounds in Higgs Boson Analyses at the LHC: A Study of pp→ t anti-t + 2 jets at Next-To-Leading Or- der, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 162002 [arXiv:1002.4009]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[7] [6]

C. F. Berger, et al., Precise Predictions for W + 4 Jet Production at the Large Hadron Collider [arXiv:1009.2338]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [7]

T. Sjostrand, High-energy physics event generation with PYTHIA 5.7 and JETSET 7.4, Comput. Phys. Commun. 82 (1994) 74–90

View on Pith 1994

[9] [8]

G. Corcella, et al., HERWIG 6: an event generator for Hadron Emission Reactions With Interfering Gluons (including super- symmetric processes), JHEP 01 (2001) 010 [hep-ph/0011363]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[10] [9]

S. Frixione, B. R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computa- tions and parton shower simulations, JHEP 06 (2002) 029 [hep- ph/0204244]. 6 10 -4 10 -3 10-2 10-1 0.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 50 100 150 200 250 dσ dp⊥,𝓁+ [pb/GeV] √s = 7 TeV mt = 172 GeV R = 0.5, anti−k⊥ #jets≥ 3 p⊥, jet> 30 GeV, p⊥, 𝓁± > 20 GeV /E⊥|𝓁+=𝓁− > 30 GeV, /E⊥|𝓁+⁄=𝓁− > 20 GeV PowHel+Decay PowHel+PYTHIA P...

View on Pith 2002

[11] [10]

S. Frixione, F. Stoeckli, P. Torrielli, B. R. Webber, C. D. White, The MCatNLO 4.0 Event Generator [arXiv:1010.0819]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [11]

P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11 (2004) 040 [hep- ph/0409146]

View on Pith 2004

[13] [12]

S. Frixione, P. Nason, C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD compu- tations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP 11 (2007) 070 [arXiv:0709.2092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[14] [13]

S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, A general frame- work for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 06 (2010) 043 [arXiv:1002.2581]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[15] [14]

E. Boos, et al., Generic user process interface for event genera- tors [hep-ph/0109068]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [15]

S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, A. Signer, Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order, Nucl. Phys. B467 (1996) 399–442 [hep- ph/9512328]

View on Pith 1996

[17] [16]

M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, M. Worek, Polarizing the Dipoles, JHEP 08 (2009) 085 [arXiv:0905.0883]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[18] [17]

G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, CutTools: a program implementing the OPP reduction method to compute one-loop amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2008) 042 [arXiv:0711.3596]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[19] [18]

G. Bevilacqua, et al., NLO QCD calculations with HELAC- NLO, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205-206 (2010) 211–217 [arXiv:1007.4918]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[20] [19]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, D. A. Kosower, Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 59–101 [hep-ph/9409265]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[21] [20]

A. Brandhuber, S. McNamara, B. J. Spence, G. Travaglini, Loop amplitudes in pure Yang-Mills from generalised unitarity, JHEP 10 (2005) 011 [hep-th/0506068]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[22] [21]

C. Anastasiou, R. Britto, B. Feng, Z. Kunszt, P. Mastrolia, Uni- tarity cuts and reduction to master integrals in d dimensions for one-loop amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2007) 111 [hep-ph/0612277]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[23] [22]

G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, Reducing full one- loop amplitudes to scalar integrals at the integrand level, Nucl. Phys. B763 (2007) 147–169 [hep-ph/0609007]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[24] [23]

R. K. Ellis, W. T. Giele, Z. Kunszt, A Numerical Unitarity For- malism for Evaluating One-Loop Amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2008) 10 -5 10 -4 10-3 10 -2 10 -1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 dσ dm𝓁+𝓁− [pb/GeV] √s = 7 TeV mt = 172 GeV R = 0.5, anti−k⊥ #jets≥ 3 p⊥, jet> 30 GeV, p⊥, 𝓁± > 20 GeV /E⊥|𝓁+=𝓁− > 30 GeV, /E⊥|𝓁+⁄=𝓁− > 20 GeV PowHel+Decay PowHel+PY...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[25] [24]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. A. Kosower, On-Shell Methods in Perturbative QCD, Annals Phys. 322 (2007) 1587–1634 [arXiv:0704.2798]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[26] [25]

G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, On the Ratio- nal Terms of the one-loop amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2008) 004 [arXiv:0802.1876]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[27] [26]

P. Draggiotis, M. V . Garzelli, C. G. Papadopoulos, R. Pittau, Feynman Rules for the Rational Part of the QCD 1-loop ampli- tudes, JHEP 04 (2009) 072 [arXiv:0903.0356]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[28] [27]

O. Latunde-Dada,S. Gieseke, B. Webber, JHEP 0702, 051 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0612281]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[29] [28]

S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, Vector boson plus one jet production in POWHEG, JHEP 01 (2011) 095 [arXiv:1009.5594]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[30] [29]

J. Alwall, et al., MadGraph /MadEvent v4: The New Web Gen- eration, JHEP 09 (2007) 028 [arXiv:0706.2334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[31] [30]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, NLO QCD corrections to t anti-t + jet production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 262002 [hep-ph/0703120]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[32] [32]

K. Melnikov, M. Schulze, NLO QCD corrections to top quark pair production in association with one hard jet at hadron collid- ers, Nucl. Phys. B840 (2010) 129–159 [arXiv:1004.3284]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[33] [33]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[34] [34]

G. Corcella, et al., HERWIG 6.5 release note [hep-ph/0210213]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[35] [35]

M. Schulze, private communication

View on Pith

[36] [36]

S. Catani, Y . L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, B. R. Webber, Lon- gitudinally invariant Kt clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B406 (1993) 187–224

View on Pith 1993

[37] [37]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, Dispelling the N3 myth for the kt jet- ﬁnder, Phys. Lett. B641 (2006) 57–61 [hep-ph/0512210]. 7

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006