Top quark and leptonic charge asymmetries for the Tevatron and LHC

Werner Bernreuther; Zong-Guo Si

REVIEW

Top quark and leptonic charge asymmetries for the Tevatron and LHC

Werner Bernreuther, Zong-Guo Si

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 30 May 2012 · 57 references

Pith's verdict: A careful, standard-model reference calculation whose new content is the LHC dilepton asymmetries; the only real soft spot is that the quoted σ-level tensions use error bars the paper itself disavows.

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 →

· 2 major objections · 12 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1205.6580 (version 2)

Pith IDP5XBLC7L, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationWerner Bernreuther, Zong-Guo Si. "Top quark and leptonic charge asymmetries for the Tevatron and LHC." arXiv:1205.6580 (2012). https://pith.science/paper/P5XBLC7L

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

This is the calculation you want on your shelf if you work on top charge asymmetries. Bernreuther and Si give fixed-order SM values for essentially the whole family of top and leptonic asymmetries at the Tevatron and the LHC, with numerators at O(αs³) plus the O(α²) and O(αs²α) electroweak pieces, and they break every numerator into QCD, QED and weak contributions so you can audit the composition yourself. That transparency is worth a lot; most papers in this area just quote a number and a scale band. They also cross-check against four independent groups ([11], [16], [34], [35]) and explain the one apparent disagreement with [35] and [17] as a denominator-convention difference rather than a contradiction. I checked that explanation against the text and it holds up: page 4 argues that a consistent fixed-order expansion of the ratio precludes NLO corrections in the denominator. So the reader's worry about the LO denominator is softer than it looks — it is a principled bookkeeping choice, not an arbitrary one, and the authors say so twice (pages 6 and 13). The genuinely new material is the LHC dilepton leptonic asymmetries in Tables 15 and 16, with and without acceptance cuts and with M_tt bins, plus the 8 TeV boosted and one-sided asymmetries with full electroweak corrections. The Tevatron and LHC central and edge asymmetries are recomputations that agree with prior work, and the paper says as much. The one place I would push back is the σ-counting. The 2.4σ for A_tt(M_tt > 450 GeV) and the 2.8σ for D0's A_l are computed with scale-variation errors of ±0.006 and ±0.3%, while page 6 states plainly that these underestimate the true theory error, which is more realistically ~30%. Inflating to 30% gives roughly 2.1σ and 2.7σ, so both tensions survive, but the specific numbers in §2.1, §3 and §4 are sharper than the paper's own error budget licenses. That is a presentation issue, not a physics error, and it is the only thing I would ask them to fix. Worth a serious referee; the numbers will be cited for years.

Referee report

Significance

If the numbers hold, this paper supplies the Standard Model reference values against which any claim of new physics in top-quark pair production is calibrated, and it does so for a whole family of observables rather than a single one. The calculation is a first-principles fixed-order computation with no parameter fitted to the asymmetries being predicted, and it is cross-checked against four independent groups, with the residual disagreements with Refs. [17] and [35] traced to a stated denominator convention rather than left unexplained. The genuinely new content is the LHC leptonic asymmetries of Tables 15 and 16, which had not been published elsewhere and which are falsifiable by ATLAS and CMS with the data already on tape. The paper is also candid about its own limitations, stating on pages 6 and 13 that the quoted scale-variation errors underestimate the true theory uncertainty, which is more realistically of order 30 percent.

Major objections (2)

[Section 2.1 (page 6), Section 3 (page 13), Section 4, and the Note added] The sigma-level statements that carry the paper's physics message are computed with an error bar the paper itself disavows two pages earlier. Table 3 gives A_tt(M_tt > 450 GeV) = 0.129 with a scale-only error of about 0.006, and the text quotes a 2.4 sigma deviation from the CDF value 0.296 +/- 0.067; Table 13 gives A_l = 3.8% with a scale-only error of about 0.3%, and Section 3 quotes a 2.8 sigma deviation from the D0 value 15.2 +/- 4.0%. But page 6 states plainly that the scale-variation uncertainties in Tables 1, 2 and 3 underestimate the theory errors, which are more realistically of order 30 percent, and page 13 repeats the caveat for the LHC asymmetries. Taking the authors' own 30 percent figure at face value, the error on 0.129 becomes about 0.039 and the high-mass deviation falls from 2.4 sigma to about 2.1 sigma; the lepton asymmetry error becomes about 1.1% and the D0 deviation falls from 2.8 sigma to about 2.7 sigma. The qualitative conclusions survive, but the specific numbers quoted in Sections 2.1, 3 and 4 and in the Note added are sharper than the paper's own error analysis licenses. The authors should either quote the significances with the inflated theory error or state explicitly, at each occurrence, that the quoted significance uses scale errors only, and give the 30-percent-inflated value alongside. The parenthetical errors throughout Tables 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 should carry a footnote making clear that they are scale variations only and not total theory errors.
[Tables 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16] No parton-distribution uncertainty is estimated anywhere in the paper, although every LHC asymmetry quoted is at or below the percent level and the tables present only scale variations. For observables of this size the PDF error may be a non-negligible fraction of the central value, and the paper's own remark that scale errors underestimate the total by about 30 percent does not substitute for an explicit statement about PDFs. At a minimum the authors should state in the text that PDF uncertainties are not included in the quoted errors, and it would strengthen the paper considerably to provide a PDF error estimate, using the CTEQ6.6M eigenvector set already in hand, for one representative observable such as A_C(y_c = 1) or A^{Delta|eta|}_C at 7 TeV. Without such a statement a reader cannot tell whether the errors in these tables are meant to be compared with experimental uncertainties or not.

Minor objections (12)

[Section 2.1, page 4] The sentence stating that the mixed QCD-QED and QCD-weak contributions increase the QCD asymmetries at the Tevatron by 18 percent and 5 percent conflates two different orders. From Table 1 at mu = m_t the O(alpha_s^2 alpha)_QED piece is 0.0458 pb against a QCD numerator of 0.2564 pb, i.e. 17.9 percent as stated, but the mixed QCD-weak piece alone is 0.0036 pb, i.e. about 1.4 percent; the quoted 5 percent is obtained only after adding the O(alpha^2) tree-level gamma and Z exchange contribution of 0.0094 pb. The same arithmetic holds for Table 2. The sentence should distinguish the O(alpha^2) and O(alpha_s^2 alpha)_weak pieces explicitly.
[Section 2.2, page 9] The text states that the ratio of the electroweak and QCD contributions to A_C(y_c = 1) is 13 percent at 7 TeV with no M_tt cut, but summing the rows of Table 4 gives an electroweak numerator of -0.1000 pb against a QCD numerator of -0.6649 pb, i.e. 15 percent. The 13 percent figure appears to be the QED-only ratio to the q qbar QCD contribution, 0.0785/0.6270 = 12.5 percent, carried over from the preceding sentence. The two numbers should be disentangled and the sentence corrected.
[Section 3, page 16] The claim that the calculation of Ref. [35] agrees with the result of Table 13 deserves a more precise statement. Dividing 3.8 percent by the quoted factor of about 1.3 for the NLO-to-LO denominator ratio gives roughly 2.9 percent, whereas Ref. [35] reports 2.0 with an asymmetric error of +1.0 and -0.3 percent. The reconciliation is therefore partial rather than exact, and the residual should be stated rather than absorbed into the word 'agreement'.
[Section 3, page 15] The assertion that the no-cut Tevatron A_l of Table 13 applies also to lepton-plus-jets events is used to support the comparison with the D0 measurement, but it is stated without justification. A sentence explaining why the single-lepton asymmetry is insensitive to whether the second top decays leptonically or hadronically would make the comparison convincing.
[Note added, page 19] The ATLAS value A^{Delta|eta_l|} = (2.3 +/- 1.2 +/- 0.8) percent is described as in agreement with the corresponding no-cut entry of Table 15, which is 0.70 +/- 0.03 percent at 7 TeV. The central values differ by roughly a factor of three, and the agreement holds only because of the experimental error. The level of agreement should be quantified rather than asserted.
[Note added and Table 14] The new D0 dilepton result A_l = (5.8 +/- 5.1 +/- 1.3) percent reported in the Note added is much closer to the Standard Model than the earlier D0 lepton-plus-jets value 15.2 +/- 4.0 percent collected in Table 14, and the two D0 measurements are themselves about 1.4 sigma apart. This bears directly on how much weight the 2.8 sigma statement in Section 3 should carry, and the paper should comment on it.
[Table 3] The A_t_FB row of Table 3 places the value 0.058 +/- 0.004, which is the Standard Model prediction of 5.77 percent from Table 1, in the CDF [7] column, leaving the D0 and SM cells ambiguous. The row should be realigned so that each entry sits under its own column heading.
[Tables 5, 8 and 9] The column header reads 'M_c = 2m_t, 0.5 TeV, 0.7 TeV, 1 TeV', but the 14 TeV rows use 2 TeV in the final column. The header should be split by energy or footnoted so that the 14 TeV entries are not misread.
[Section 3, equations (22)-(24)] Equation (24) is empty: the numbering runs (22), (23), (24) with no content attached to the last label. The equation should be removed or supplied.
[Section 2.2, equations (6) and (7)] The quantity f_q defined in Eq. (6) is negative for d quarks because Q_q Q_t < 0, so calling it a ratio and then averaging u and d with weights 4 and 2 in Eq. (7) deserves a word of explanation, particularly since the sign means the QED correction partially cancels in the d dbar channel. The arithmetic of both equations checks out.
[Reference [7]] Reference [7] is an internal CDF note rather than a journal publication, and the 2.4 sigma comparison in Section 2.1 and Section 4 rests on it. Its status should be flagged in the text so that readers know the comparison is against a preliminary result.
[Abstract] The abstract contains the typographical error 'next-to-leading oder' for 'next-to-leading order'.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The Standard Model's own numbers for the top-quark charge asymmetry, computed to next-to-leading order with electroweak corrections, are set out as the reference every new-physics claim must be measured against.

The reading

The top quark is produced at hadron colliders slightly more often in one direction than the other, and that small lopsidedness — the charge asymmetry — is one of the few places where the Standard Model and the Tevatron data have disagreed. This paper computes that asymmetry, and a family of variants of it, to next-to-leading order in QCD while also including the electromagnetic and weak corrections, at both the Tevatron and the LHC, with and without kinematic cuts. The authors' aim is to supply the definitive Standard Model reference numbers, so that any excess seen by CDF or D$0$ can be judged against a calculation rather than against a Monte Carlo default. They then carry the calculation through top-quark decay to the charged leptons, arguing that the leptonic asymmetries are smaller but far easier to measure precisely, and are therefore the sharper handle on the underlying production asymmetry. The headline tension they report is at the high-mass end: their $A_{t+}$ rest-frame asymmetry for $M_{t+} > 450$ GeV is $0.129$, against CDF's $0.296$, a gap of about $2.4$ standard deviations — reduced from a year earlier, but not closed.

What carries the argument

The engine of the whole paper is the part of the $t+$ production cross section that is odd under exchanging $t$ and $t$, isolated at order $0.001$ in the strong coupling. At the Tevatron this odd piece comes almost entirely from $q q$ annihilation — interference of Born with one-loop box diagrams, and of initial with final state radiation — while gluon-gluon fusion contributes nothing because of Bose symmetry. The authors add the mixed QCD-QED and QCD-weak corrections to that odd piece, which is what shifts the numbers by tens of percent rather than percent, and they extend the same machinery to the $qg$ and $qg$ channels that matter at the LHC, where they grow to roughly $17$ percent of the $q q$ contribution at $14$ TeV with $M_{t+} > 1$ TeV. The second piece of machinery is the decay transfer: the production asymmetry propagates into charged-lepton pseudorapidity asymmetries through semileptonic top decay, with spin correlations retained, and the paper quantifies how much the lepton asymmetry is diluted relative to the quark one. The bookkeeping convention that makes all of this comparable across papers is that every denominator is evaluated with leading-order QCD matrix elements while the numerator carries the full corrections.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fixed-order Standard Model calculation — numerators at $O(0.1)$, plus the $O(0.01)$ and mixed $O(0.001)$ electroweak corrections, with denominators at leading-order QCD — yields a complete and internally consistent set of top-quark and leptonic charge asymmetries for the Tevatron and the LHC. At the Tevatron, with $m_t = 173.1$ GeV and $m_t$ as the scale, the top forward-backward asymmetry is $5.77$ percent and the $t+$ rest-frame asymmetry is $8.75$ percent; the mixed QCD-QED corrections raise the pure-QCD result by about $18$ percent and the weak corrections by about $5$ percent, so the electroweak sector is not a rounding error. The resulting comparison with data is mixed: the inclusive rest-frame asymmetry sits within roughly $1.5$ standard deviations of both D$0$ and the newer CDF value, and the low-mass and small-$|0.1|$ bins agree well, but $A_{t+}(M_{t+} > 450~{0.1}) = 0.129$ falls about $2.4$ standard deviations below CDF's $0.296$. For leptons, the authors predict $A_ell = 3.8$ percent and $A_{ell ell} = 4.8$ percent at the Tevatron, which the CDF lepton-plus-jets number matches while D$0$'s unfolded $15.2$ percent sits about $2.8$ standard deviations away. At the LHC the asymmetries are small and patterned — negative in the central region, positive at the edges — with $A_C(y_c = 1) = -0.60$ percent and $A_E(y_c = 1) = 1.04$ percent at $7$ TeV, all consistent with the CMS and ATLAS measurements quoted.

Load-bearing premise

Every asymmetry quoted divides a numerator carrying next-to-leading-order QCD and electroweak corrections by a denominator computed with leading-order QCD matrix elements, and the authors themselves note that using next-to-leading-order matrix elements instead would shrink the asymmetries by up to about thirty percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Standard Model values $A_{t+} = 5.77$ percent and $A_{t+} = 8.75$ percent at the Tevatron, and $A_{t+}(M_{t+} > 450~{0.1}) = 0.129$, become the calibration points against which any claimed new-physics contribution to top production must be judged.
The leptonic asymmetries $A_ell = 3.8$ percent and $A_{ell ell} = 4.8$ percent give experiments a measurable proxy for the quark-level asymmetry that does not require unfolding a full reconstruction.
At the LHC, the central asymmetry is negative and the edge asymmetry positive, with magnitudes of order one percent; the paper supplies values for $7$, $8$, and $14$ TeV, with and without $M_{t+}$ cuts, that can be checked bin by bin.
The boosted and one-sided asymmetries rise steadily with the $eta$ and $P_z$ cuts, reaching several percent, giving a set of cut-enhanced observables whose predicted sizes are now on record.
Because the mixed QCD-QED corrections are larger than the weak ones, any comparison that omits photonic corrections will systematically undershoot the Standard Model asymmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

The lepton channel is where this calculation is likely to be tested first: the authors note the leptonic asymmetries are smaller but measurable more precisely, so a joint fit of $A_ell$ and $A_{ell ell}$ at the Tevatron could in principle separate a genuine production-level asymmetry from anything injected at decay, since the two observables weight the dilution differently.
The choice of leading-order denominators is doing more work than the size of the quoted error bars suggests. If an experiment compares an unfolded measurement to a prediction built with next-to-leading-order denominators instead, the asymmetry shrinks by up to about thirty percent and the quoted high-mass tension moves; every such comparison should state which convention it used.
The growth of the $qg$-initiated antisymmetric contribution with pair invariant mass at the LHC means that a high-mass, highly boosted selection at $14$ TeV probes a piece of the asymmetry that is negligible at the Tevatron and is often omitted in simplified new-physics fits.
The authors' own note that scale variations underestimate the true theory error by roughly a factor of a few implies that the standard-deviation gaps quoted against CDF and D$0$ should be read as indicative rather than decisive until a full next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD calculation of the antisymmetric cross section exists.

Original abstract

We compute, for $t \bar t$ production at the LHC and at the Tevatron, several charge asymmetries to NLO QCD, including also the electromagnetic and weak-interaction corrections. We calculate these asymmetries both inclusively and with additional kinematic cuts and compare our results, where possible, with recent experimental results and with SM predictions. The $t \bar t$ asymmetries induce also corresponding asymmetries for the charged leptons from semileptonic top-quark decay. Although these asymmetries are, in the SM, smaller than the corresponding ones for top quarks, they are expected to be measurable quite precisely. In fact, measurement of a lepton asymmetry in $\ell$ + jets events was reported by the D$\emptyset$ and CDF experiments. We analyze and compute to NLO in the gauge couplings leptonic charge asymmetries for dileptonic and semileptonic $\ttbar$ events, with and without acceptance cuts, at the Tevatron and the LHC.

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, 5,068 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.15 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.25 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.07 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We compute, for $t \bar t$ production at the LHC and at the Tevatron, several charge asymmetries to NLO QCD, including also the electromagnetic and weak-interaction corrections. We calculate these asymmetries both inclusively and with additional kinematic cuts and compare our results, where possible, with recent experimental results and with SM predictions. The $t \bar t$ asymmetries induce also corresponding asymmetries for the charged leptons from semileptonic top-quark decay. Although these asymmetries are, in the SM, smaller than the corresponding ones for top quarks, they are expected to be measurable quite precisely. In fact, measurement of a lepton asymmetry in $\ell$ + jets events was reported by the D$\emptyset$ and CDF experiments. We analyze and compute to NLO in the gauge couplings leptonic charge asymmetries for dileptonic and semileptonic $\ttbar$ events, with and without acceptance cuts, at the Tevatron and the LHC.

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, for $t \bar t$ production at the LHC and at the Tevatron, several charge asymmetries to NLO QCD, including also the electromagnetic and weak-interaction corrections.	contribution 0.98	0.95	0.07	asserted 0.99
s1	We calculate these asymmetries both inclusively and with additional kinematic cuts and compare our results, where possible, with recent experimental results and with SM predictions.	method 0.54	0.93	0.07	asserted 0.96
s2	The $t \bar t$ asymmetries induce also corresponding asymmetries for the charged leptons from semileptonic top-quark decay.	result 0.36	0.33	0.09	asserted 1.00
s3	Although these asymmetries are, in the SM, smaller than the corresponding ones for top quarks, they are expected to be measurable quite precisely.	interpretation 0.64	0.14	0.17	hedged possibility 0.83
s4	In fact, measurement of a lepton asymmetry in $\ell$ + jets events was reported by the D$\emptyset$ and CDF experiments.	background 0.98	0.04	0.06	asserted 1.00
s5	We analyze and compute to NLO in the gauge couplings leptonic charge asymmetries for dileptonic and semileptonic $\ttbar$ events, with and without acceptance cuts, at the Tevatron and the LHC.	contribution 0.99	0.95	0.12	asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.77 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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

References

Works cited (57)

[11]

W. Hollik and D. Pagani, Phys. Rev. D 84, 093003 (2011) [arXiv:1107.2606 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[16]

J. H. K¨ uhn and G. Rodrigo, JHEP 1201, 063 (2012) [arXiv:1109.6830 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[34]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Ya ng, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074004 (2011) [arXiv:1106.6051 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[35]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, arXiv:1204.1513 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[17]

Y. -k. Wang, B. Xiao and S. -h. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 094011 (2010) [arXiv:1008.2685 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[1]

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 83, 112003 (2011) [arXiv:1101.0034 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[2]

V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 84, 112005 (2011) [arXiv:1107.4995 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[3]

J. H. K¨ uhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 49 (1998) [hep-ph/9802268]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[4]

J. H. K¨ uhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 59, 054017 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9807420]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[5]

M. T. Bowen, S. D. Ellis and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014008 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0509267]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[6]

O. Antunano, J. H. K¨ uhn and G. V. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014003 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1652 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[7]

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF Collaboration], CDF note 10807

View on Pith
[8]

J. F. Kamenik, J. Shu and J. Zupan, arXiv:1107.5257 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

S. Westhoﬀ, arXiv:1108.3341 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, arXiv:1202.2382 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

W. Bernreuther and Z. -G. Si, Nucl. Phys. B 837, 90 (2010) [arXiv:1003.3926 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[13]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 709, 28 (2012) [arXiv:1112.5100 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[14]

[CMS Collaboration], report CMS-PAS-TOP-11-030 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[15]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1203.4211 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[18]

B. Xiao, Y. -K. Wang, Z. -Q. Zhou and S. -h. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 83, 057503 (2011) [arXiv:1101.2507 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[19]

J. L. Hewett, J. Shelton, M. Spannowsky, T. M. P. Tait and M. T akeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054005 (2011) [arXiv:1103.4618 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[20]

J. -F. Arguin, M. Freytsis and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Rev. D 84, 071504 (2011) [arXiv:1107.4090 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[21]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Juste and F. Rubbo, Phys. Lett. B 707, 92 (2012) [arXiv:1109.3710 [hep-ph]]. 20

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[22]

E. Alvarez, arXiv:1202.6622 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

E. Alvarez, arXiv:1205.5267 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[24]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and A. Juste, arXiv:1205.1898 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, A. van Hameren, C. G. Papadopoulos and M. Worek, JHEP 1102, 083 (2011) [arXiv:1012.4230 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[26]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 262002 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0703120]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[27]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer and S. Weinzierl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 625 (2009) [arXiv:0810.0452 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[28]

K. Melnikov and M. Schulze, Nucl. Phys. B 840, 129 (2010) [arXiv:1004.3284 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[29]

K. Melnikov, A. Scharf and M. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054002 (2012) [arXiv:1111.4991 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[30]

S. Alioli, S. -O. Moch and P. Uwer, JHEP 1201, 137 (2012) [arXiv:1110.5251 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[31]

L. G. Almeida, G. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014008 (2008) [arXiv:0805.1885 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[32]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Ya ng, JHEP 1009, 097 (2010) [arXiv:1003.5827 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[33]

N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D 84, 011504 (2011) [arXiv:1105.5167 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[36]

S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, arXiv:0812.0770 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[37]

S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolﬁ, JHEP 0709, 126 (2007) [arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[38]

J. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, http:/mcfm.fnal.gov

View on Pith
[39]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205-206, 10 (2010) [arXiv:1007.3492 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[40]

W. Bernreuther, M. Fuecker and Z. G. Si, Phys. Lett. B 633, 54 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508091]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[41]

W. Bernreuther, M. Fuecker and Z. G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 74, 113005 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0610334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[42]

W. Bernreuther, M. F¨ ucker and Z. G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 78, 017503 (2008) [arXiv:0804.1237 [hep-ph]]. 21

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[43]

J. H. K¨ uhn, A. Scharf and P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 139 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[44]

J. H. K¨ uhn, A. Scharf and P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 37 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0610335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[45]

W. Beenakker, A. Denner, W. Hollik, R. Mertig, T. Sack and D. Wa ckeroth, Nucl. Phys. B 411, 343 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[46]

S. J. Brodsky and X. -G. Wu, arXiv:1205.1232 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[47]

P. M. Nadolsky, H. -L. Lai, Q. -H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W. -K. Tung and C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008) [arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[48]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys . J. C 63, 189 (2009) [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[49]

S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 285, 291 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[50]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[51]

A. Falkowski, G. Perez and M. Schmaltz, arXiv:1110.3796 [hep-ph ]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[52]

V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 032004 (2012) [arXiv:1110.4194 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[53]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1203.4081 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[54]

J. Drobnak, J. F. Kamenik and J. Zupan, arXiv:1205.4721 [hep-p h]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[55]

V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], arXiv:1207.0364 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[56]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], report ATLAS-CONF-2012-0 57

View on Pith 2012
[57]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1207.0065 [hep-ex]. 22

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

Resolving the Tevatron Top Quark Forward-Backward Asymmetry Puzzle: Fully Differential Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Order Calculation
hep-ph 2014-11 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

The full NNLO QCD correction to the Tevatron top quark forward-backward asymmetry is large and positive, raising the Standard Model prediction to 0.095 and matching the D0 measurement.
PineAPPL: combining EW and QCD corrections for fast evaluation of LHC processes
hep-ph 2020-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

PineAPPL provides the first fast-interpolation grid format that stores electroweak and mixed QCD-electroweak perturbative orders, validated against direct Monte Carlo to sub-per-mille accuracy for three representative...
NNLO QCD predictions for fully-differential top-quark pair production at the Tevatron
hep-ph 2016-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Exact NNLO QCD predictions for Tevatron top-pair differential distributions, including the forward-backward asymmetry, agree with DØ data and sit one to two sigma below the CDF asymmetry measurement, with theory error...
NLO QCD corrections to off-shell top-antitop production with leptonic decays at hadron colliders
hep-ph 2012-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Off-shell top-antitop production with leptonic decays is computed at NLO QCD including all non-resonant diagrams, and finite-width effects are shown to be sub-percent inclusively but large in exclusive tails.
Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW
hep-ph 2017-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The first combined NNLO QCD plus NLO electroweak predictions for LHC top-pair differential distributions, showing electroweak effects reach 25% in the boosted top transverse-momentum tail and that the photon PDF impac...

Show 4 more citing papers

The impact of the photon PDF and electroweak corrections on $t \bar t$ distributions
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Photon-initiated channels in top-pair production can cancel Sudakov electroweak suppression at high scales and in forward rapidities, but only if the photon PDF is as large as NNPDF2.3QED assumes, not as CT14QED assumes.
A set of top quark spin correlation and polarization observables for the LHC: Standard Model predictions and new physics contributions
hep-ph 2015-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A complete basis of dilepton and lepton-plus-jets angular observables is defined and computed at NLO QCD plus electroweak for LHC 8, 13 and 14 TeV, with linearized dimension-six new-physics contributions tabulated for each.
Associated production of a top-quark pair with vector bosons at NLO in QCD: impact on $t \bar{t} H$ searches at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD predictions are given for top-pair plus one or two electroweak bosons, with scale and PDF uncertainties, top-charge asymmetries, cross sections from 8 to 100 TeV, and estimates of their conta...
Constraining top quark effective theory in the LHC Run II era
hep-ph 2015-12 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A global fit of 13 dimension-six top-quark operators to 227 Tevatron and LHC measurements finds all Wilson coefficients consistent with zero at 95% confidence.

How later papers used it

71 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 67 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 26 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 30 of the 154 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 1 of 17 papers with this label

Used this paper's NLO SM predictions of the asymmetries, which use LO denominators, as its SM predictions at NLO.

Asymmetries in top quark pair production at hadron colliders (2014) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

67 arXiv papers cite this in 148 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 · 78 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

In the same fashion as [ref] , the expansion in ([ref]) is truncated to avoid terms containing $σ_a^s(2)$, which is currently unavailable for unstable top-quarks.

Leptonic top-quark asymmetry predictions at LHCb · Structure of prediction · 0.80

Uses its data or values 16 papers

- CDF and D$Ø$ combination of inclusive cross section measurements, $σ_t t̅ = 7.65 ±0.41$ (stat+syst) pb [ref] , along with the NNLO+NNLL SM calculation, $σ_t t̅ = 7.067^+0.143_-0.232$(scale)$^+0.186_-0.122$(pdf) pb [ref] . - Inclusive forward-backward asymmetry measurements from both CDF, $A_FB^t t̅= 0.164 ±0.047$ (stat+syst) [ref] , and D$Ø$, $A_FB^t t̅= 0.196 ±0.065$ (stat+syst) [ref] , along with the theoretical NLO SM calculation, $A_FB^t t̅ = 0.088 ±0.006$ (scale+pdf) [ref] . - Differential cross section measurements from CDF [ref] along with the theoretical NNLO SM calculation [ref] . - Differential forward-backward asymmetry measurements from CDF [ref] along with the theoretical NNLO SM calculation which we take from [ref] . - Inclusive cross section measurements from ATLAS, $σ_t t̅ = 165 ±17$ (stat+syst) pb [ref] , and CMS, $σ_t t̅ = 161.9 ±6.6$ (stat+syst) [ref] , along with th

Tracking Down the Top Quark Forward-Backward Asymmetry with Monotops · Global Fit to Top Data from Tevatron and LHC · 0.99
SM predictions for LHC 14 as a function of cuts on minimum top pair invariant mass $m_tt̅$ or velocity $β_tt̅$ are calculated in Ref. [ref] and shown in Fig. [ref].

Kinematics of Top Quark Final States: A Snowmass White Paper · Inclusive Top Quark Charge Asymmetry at LHC 14 · 0.80
This asymmetry has been calculated to NLO, including both QCD and electroweak effects, to be $= 0.038±0.003$ [ref] .

Measurement of the leptonic asymmetry in ttbar events produced in ppbar collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 TeV · Introduction · 0.90

Compares with it 14 papers

The CDF collaboration compared their result to a NLO prediction including electroweak and QCD effects, $A_fb^l=1.6$% [ref] .

Top anti-top Asymmetries at the Tevatron and the LHC · Asymmetry Measurements · 0.84
The present result is to be compared with the predicted value of $0.038±0.003$ [ref] , which includes both QCD and electroweak effects to NLO.

Measurement of the leptonic asymmetry in ttbar events produced in ppbar collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 TeV · Conclusions · 0.83
The unfolded normalized differential cross section from the selected events in data is shown as a function of $Δy_$ and $Δη_ℓ$ in [ref], along with the parton-level predictions for production obtained from calculations at NLO in the SM gauge couplings (QCD+EW) [ref] and with the generator (which does not include EW corrections).

Measurements of t t-bar charge asymmetry using dilepton final states in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Results · 0.96

Cites it as background 22 papers

Achieving next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) precision in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) [ref] alongside the calculation and the combination with the electroweak (EW) corrections [ref] has been a significant milestone, with various independent collaborations attaining this level of accuracy at a fully differential level.

Top-quark pair production as a probe of light top-philic scalars and anomalous Higgs interactions · Introduction · 0.95
While weak [ref] , QED [ref] and EW (weak+QED) [ref] corrections to $$ production at hadron colliders have been known for quite some time and the effect of Sudakov logarithms has been quantified and studied, the impact of photon-induced subprocesses has been addressed only in [ref] for only the $gγ$ channel at LO and using the only PDF set with the photon distribution available at that time, i.e., MRST2004QED [ref] .

The impact of the photon PDF and electroweak corrections on $t \bar t$ distributions · Introduction · 0.93
Among many measurements performed only one of them, namely the $t t̅$ forward-backward (FB) asymmetry (see [ref] for a recent review), showed a significant disagreement with respect to the Standard Model (SM) predictions [ref] .

Portrait of a colour octet · Introduction · 0.90

What it cites · 103 sentences without a confident label

Builds on 1 paper

This extends our previous results for the Tevatron [ref] .

Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC. · Introduction · 1.00

Uses the method or tool of 10 papers

The radiative corrections were implemented into our computer code as described in [ref] .

Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC. · Tevatron · 1.00
Therefore we evaluate the denominators of all the asymmetries considered in this paper with LO QCD matrix elements (as was done in [ref] ).

Top Quarks, Axigluons and Charge Asymmetries at Hadron Colliders · Tevatron · 0.91
Therefore we evaluate the denominators of all the asymmetries considered in this paper with LO QCD matrix elements (as was done in [ref] ).

The electroweak contribution to the top quark forward-backward asymmetry at the Tevatron · Tevatron · 0.91

Uses data or values from 2 papers

In particular, a $3.4 σ$ deviation from the SM was cited in [ref] for the CDF determination [ref] of the $$ rest frame asymmetry for high pair-invariant mass, $A^tt̅(M_tt̅ > 450 GeV)$.

Evidence for a Mass Dependent Forward-Backward Asymmetry in Top Quark Pair Production · Introduction · 0.92
While the cited D$∅$ result is the unfolded one [ref] , the CDF results [ref] are background-subtracted but not yet corrected for detector effects and acceptance.

Forward-backward asymmetry in top quark-antiquark production · Tevatron · 0.96

Compares with 17 papers

The results of Table [ref] are in agreement with these results[In [ref] the denominators of the asymmetries were evaluated with LO PDF.].

Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC. · Tevatron · 0.99
In Table [ref] we collect our results for $A_FB^t$ and for $A^tt̅$ without and with cuts on $|Δy|$ and $M_tt̅$ and list, for comparison, also results from the CDF and D$∅$ experiments [ref] .

Forward-backward asymmetry in top quark-antiquark production · Tevatron · 0.91
In Table [ref] we collect our results for $A_FB^t$ and for $A^tt̅$ without and with cuts on $|Δy|$ and $M_tt̅$ and list, for comparison, also results from the CDF and D$∅$ experiments [ref] .

Evidence for a Mass Dependent Forward-Backward Asymmetry in Top Quark Pair Production · Tevatron · 0.91

Cites as background 5 papers

These asymmetries were first computed at NLO QCD (production and decay), including mixed QCD-weak (but not the QED) corrections, in [ref] .

Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC. · Tevatron · 0.89
The center and edge asymmetries were computed before in [ref] at NLO QCD including electroweak corrections, as functions of $y_c$ for 7 and 14 TeV.

Charge asymmetries of top quarks at hadron colliders revisited · Central and edge charge asymmetry · 0.83
The first dedicated NLO QCD prediction of the charge asymmetry, including an estimate of the electroweak contributions, was made in [ref] .

Charge asymmetry of heavy quarks at hadron colliders · Introduction · 0.96

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] [11]

W. Hollik and D. Pagani, Phys. Rev. D 84, 093003 (2011) [arXiv:1107.2606 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[2] [16]

J. H. K¨ uhn and G. Rodrigo, JHEP 1201, 063 (2012) [arXiv:1109.6830 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[3] [34]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Ya ng, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074004 (2011) [arXiv:1106.6051 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[4] [35]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, arXiv:1204.1513 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[5] [17]

Y. -k. Wang, B. Xiao and S. -h. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 094011 (2010) [arXiv:1008.2685 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[6] [1]

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 83, 112003 (2011) [arXiv:1101.0034 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[7] [2]

V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 84, 112005 (2011) [arXiv:1107.4995 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[8] [3]

J. H. K¨ uhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 49 (1998) [hep-ph/9802268]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[9] [4]

J. H. K¨ uhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 59, 054017 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9807420]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[10] [5]

M. T. Bowen, S. D. Ellis and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014008 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0509267]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[11] [6]

O. Antunano, J. H. K¨ uhn and G. V. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014003 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1652 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[12] [7]

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF Collaboration], CDF note 10807

View on Pith

[13] [8]

J. F. Kamenik, J. Shu and J. Zupan, arXiv:1107.5257 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [9]

S. Westhoﬀ, arXiv:1108.3341 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[15] [10]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, arXiv:1202.2382 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [12]

W. Bernreuther and Z. -G. Si, Nucl. Phys. B 837, 90 (2010) [arXiv:1003.3926 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[17] [13]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 709, 28 (2012) [arXiv:1112.5100 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[18] [14]

[CMS Collaboration], report CMS-PAS-TOP-11-030 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[19] [15]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1203.4211 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [18]

B. Xiao, Y. -K. Wang, Z. -Q. Zhou and S. -h. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 83, 057503 (2011) [arXiv:1101.2507 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[21] [19]

J. L. Hewett, J. Shelton, M. Spannowsky, T. M. P. Tait and M. T akeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054005 (2011) [arXiv:1103.4618 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[22] [20]

J. -F. Arguin, M. Freytsis and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Rev. D 84, 071504 (2011) [arXiv:1107.4090 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[23] [21]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Juste and F. Rubbo, Phys. Lett. B 707, 92 (2012) [arXiv:1109.3710 [hep-ph]]. 20

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[24] [22]

E. Alvarez, arXiv:1202.6622 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [23]

E. Alvarez, arXiv:1205.5267 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [24]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and A. Juste, arXiv:1205.1898 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[27] [25]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, A. van Hameren, C. G. Papadopoulos and M. Worek, JHEP 1102, 083 (2011) [arXiv:1012.4230 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[28] [26]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 262002 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0703120]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[29] [27]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer and S. Weinzierl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 625 (2009) [arXiv:0810.0452 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[30] [28]

K. Melnikov and M. Schulze, Nucl. Phys. B 840, 129 (2010) [arXiv:1004.3284 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[31] [29]

K. Melnikov, A. Scharf and M. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054002 (2012) [arXiv:1111.4991 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[32] [30]

S. Alioli, S. -O. Moch and P. Uwer, JHEP 1201, 137 (2012) [arXiv:1110.5251 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[33] [31]

L. G. Almeida, G. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014008 (2008) [arXiv:0805.1885 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[34] [32]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Ya ng, JHEP 1009, 097 (2010) [arXiv:1003.5827 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[35] [33]

N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D 84, 011504 (2011) [arXiv:1105.5167 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[36] [36]

S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, arXiv:0812.0770 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[37] [37]

S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolﬁ, JHEP 0709, 126 (2007) [arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[38] [38]

J. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, http:/mcfm.fnal.gov

View on Pith

[39] [39]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205-206, 10 (2010) [arXiv:1007.3492 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[40] [40]

W. Bernreuther, M. Fuecker and Z. G. Si, Phys. Lett. B 633, 54 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508091]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[41] [41]

W. Bernreuther, M. Fuecker and Z. G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 74, 113005 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0610334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[42] [42]

W. Bernreuther, M. F¨ ucker and Z. G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 78, 017503 (2008) [arXiv:0804.1237 [hep-ph]]. 21

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[43] [43]

J. H. K¨ uhn, A. Scharf and P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 139 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[44] [44]

J. H. K¨ uhn, A. Scharf and P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 37 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0610335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[45] [45]

W. Beenakker, A. Denner, W. Hollik, R. Mertig, T. Sack and D. Wa ckeroth, Nucl. Phys. B 411, 343 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[46] [46]

S. J. Brodsky and X. -G. Wu, arXiv:1205.1232 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[47] [47]

P. M. Nadolsky, H. -L. Lai, Q. -H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W. -K. Tung and C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008) [arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[48] [48]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys . J. C 63, 189 (2009) [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[49] [49]

S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 285, 291 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[50] [50]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[51] [51]

A. Falkowski, G. Perez and M. Schmaltz, arXiv:1110.3796 [hep-ph ]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[52] [52]

V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 032004 (2012) [arXiv:1110.4194 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[53] [53]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1203.4081 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[54] [54]

J. Drobnak, J. F. Kamenik and J. Zupan, arXiv:1205.4721 [hep-p h]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[55] [55]

V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], arXiv:1207.0364 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[56] [56]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], report ATLAS-CONF-2012-0 57

View on Pith 2012

[57] [57]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1207.0065 [hep-ex]. 22

View on Pith Pith review arXiv