High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale

A.H. Hoang; A. Huss; A.S. Papanastasiou; C. Schwinn; E. Shintani; J. Blumlein; J. Erler; J. Fuster; J. Piclum; J.R. Espinosa

REVIEW

High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale

S. Moch, S. Weinzierl, S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, L. de la Cruz, S. Dittmaier, M. Dowling, J. Erler

show 15 more authors

J.R. Espinosa, J. Fuster, X. Garcia i Tormo, A.H. Hoang, A. Huss, S. Kluth, M. Mulders, A.S. Papanastasiou, J. Piclum, K. Rabbertz, C. Schwinn, M. Schulze, E. Shintani, P. Uwer, N. Zerf

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 19 May 2014 · 263 references

Pith's verdict: A candid 2014 status report on α_s and m_t whose diagnosis is solid and whose proposed fix is demonstrated on the wrong data.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 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 · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1405.4781 (version 1)

Pith IDW36LWYBM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA.H. Hoang, A. Huss, A.S. Papanastasiou, C. Schwinn, E. Shintani, J. Blumlein, J. Erler, J. Fuster, J. Piclum, J.R. Espinosa, K. Rabbertz, L. de la Cruz, M. Dowling, M. Mulders, M. Schulze, N. Zerf, P. Uwer, S. Alekhin, S. Dittmaier, S. Kluth, S. Moch, S. Weinzierl, X. Garcia i Tormo. "High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale." arXiv:1405.4781 (2014). https://pith.science/paper/W36LWYBM

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

The thing to know up front: this is a proceedings volume, and it does what a proceedings should — it puts the 2014 α_s and m_t extraction landscape in one place and says out loud that the numbers do not hang together. Section 1's line that determinations are 'at best, marginally compatible within their errors' is backed by the report's own Fig. 1.1a: ABM13 at 0.1132±0.0011 against the τ-decay entry at 0.1212±0.0019 is roughly a 3.6σ gap, and the lattice entries span 0.1130 to 0.1205. That is the load-bearing claim and it holds. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is right, and the stress-test's diagnosis of where the support thins is also right; I would only add that the thinning is narrower than it sounds, because the authors flag most of it themselves.

Referee report

Significance

As a snapshot of a field's self-assessment, the report has real value: the compilation tables in §1.2 and §2.3 and the error budgets in Eq. (1.18) and Table 2.1 are the kind of consolidated material that is genuinely useful to have in one place, and the report is unusually candid about its own disagreements rather than smoothing them over. The explicit correction in §2.1 of how experimental papers paraphrase Hoang and Stewart's 2008 result is a substantive clarification, not a cosmetic one, and the recommendation that future publications use the corrected wording is well taken. The report also ships concrete, falsifiable numbers — αs(MZ) = 0.1156 +0.0021/−0.0022 from the static energy, mt(mt) = 162.3 ± 2.3 GeV from the ABM12 fit, δRGE αs(MZ) = ±0.00017 — which can be checked against future determinations. The main limitation on significance is that most of the original analyses are explicitly preliminary or demonstrative, and the report says so.

Major objections (4)

[§1.5, Table 1.1] The global-fit demonstration does not exercise the mechanism that motivates it, and its error treatment is not internally consistent. The authors state plainly that they use published αs(Q) values rather than the measured observables, which they call 'much preferable', and they note earlier in the same section that for resummation-based observables the running is already used inside the extraction. A fit to αs(Q) points therefore cannot deliver the 'same running applied to all observables' that is the method's stated advantage, and the section should say so explicitly rather than presenting the exercise as a first step that validates the approach. Separately, the correlation parameter ρ is reduced to 70–80% by hand because full correlation inflates χ², with no scan over ρ and no statement of how the fitted central value and error move with it. The tabulated fit quality is also hard to reconcile with the quoted uncertainties: the D0 inclusive-jets row reports χ² = 0.44 for 9 points (χ²/ndof = 0.05), which signals over-correlated or overestimated errors rather than a good fit, while the combined row reports χ²/ndof = 1.27 and yet quotes 0.1153 ± 0.0029 without rescaling. A scan over ρ and a rescaled combined error would make the demonstration honest about what it does and does not establish.
[§1.6, Table 1.3] The four-parameter fit that yields αs also yields a gluon condensate that is not under control between the two lattice spacings: ⟨(αs/π)GG⟩ = 0.237(18) GeV⁴ at a⁻¹ = 1.73 GeV versus 0.741(138) GeV⁴ at a⁻¹ = 2.23 GeV, a factor of roughly three, and no continuum value is quoted in the a→0 row. Since αs is extracted from a simultaneous fit in which this condensate is a free parameter, the reader needs to know how much of the quoted αs error absorbs this instability. The continuum extrapolation itself rests on two lattice spacings and moves αs/π from 0.08192(39) and 0.08317(85) to 0.0844(20), a shift of about 3%, larger than either individual error; the extrapolation ansatz should be stated and the resulting systematic folded into the quoted uncertainty. The χ²/dof values of 1.8–2.7 across the fits also deserve a sentence, particularly for the runs where the chiral condensate is fixed. The authors acknowledge that the condensate comes out large relative to hadron spectroscopy, but the consequence for αs is not quantified.
[§2.8, Eqs. (2.17)–(2.18)] The vacuum-stability bound Mt < (171.36 ± 0.46) GeV is compared directly with the measured Mt = 173.34 ± 0.76 GeV without converting the latter from the Monte Carlo mass to the pole mass, even though §2.1 of the same chapter argues at length that this translation carries an uncertainty of order 1 GeV and that the Monte Carlo mass is more naturally a low-scale short-distance quantity such as the MSR mass. The gap between the bound and the measurement is about 2 GeV, so the scheme question is comparable in size to the effect being discussed and cannot be left to a cross-reference. The section should state explicitly which scheme Eq. (2.18) is expressed in, and, if possible, restate the bound in the MSR or MS scheme so that the comparison with the experimental number is like-for-like. As written, a reader could reasonably conclude that the tension is better determined than it is.
[§2.3, Table 2.2] The ABM11 entries in Table 2.2 sit roughly 10 GeV below the MSTW, CT10 and NNPDF entries for the same measurements — for example 161.8 +4.8/−4.9 GeV versus 171.3 +5.5/−5.6 GeV for the ATLAS 7 TeV cross section — a spread far larger than any quoted uncertainty, and the text disposes of it in a single clause ('there is a larger difference at the LHC as also noted in [129]'). Given that §1.4 of the same report attributes a ~0.0015 theory uncertainty to jet-data-based determinations and discusses the ABM treatment of higher-twist terms and the fixed-flavor scheme at length, the reader is entitled to a sentence or two on whether the top-mass spread has the same origin. If it does, that is a useful cross-check between the two chapters; if it does not, saying so would sharpen the point.

Minor objections (8)

[§1.2, Table] The two τ-decay entries quoted as 0.325 ± 0.018 (FOPT) and 0.374 ± 0.025 (CIPT) are values of αs at mτ, not at MZ, and appear in a table whose column is headed αs(MZ²). The parenthetical '(at mτ)' is easy to miss and the factor-of-two-looking discrepancy between the two methods deserves a footnote, since the text only says that τ determinations 'yield high values, with some theoretical systematics depending on the method used'.
[§1.2, Table] The entry 'Thorne 0.1136 [DIS+DY, HT*]' carries an asterisk that is never defined, and the entry 'RBC-UKQCD (preliminary, 2014) [28]' points to a reference with no identifier beyond the collaboration names and year. Both should be completed, and the Fig. 1.1 caption should say explicitly which entries are preliminary.
[§1.8] The section notes that σhad deviates by 1.7σ from the Standard Model best-fit prediction and would by itself give αs(MZ) = 0.107 ± 0.007, but does not say whether this observable is included in, or excluded from, the quoted αs(MZ) = 0.1192 ± 0.0016. A single clause would resolve the ambiguity.
[§2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The relation mt^MC = mt^MSR(3 +6/−2 GeV) is presented as a definition of the Monte Carlo mass, and the report is commendably explicit that the scale range is a conceptual rather than a calculable uncertainty. It would help to state in one sentence what observational handle would discriminate among the R = 1, 3 and 9 GeV rows of Table 2.1, since the table shows a spread of about 1 GeV in the MSR mass across that range and the reader is left without a sense of how the range would be narrowed.
[§2.1] The recommendation that future experimental publications adopt a specific sentence describing the Monte Carlo-to-short-distance translation is well taken, but the report should quote the original wording of Ref. [104] verbatim alongside the recommended replacement so that readers can judge the paraphrase for themselves rather than taking the correction on trust.
[§2.6, Table 2.3] The quoted mass-scheme ambiguities of 200–300 MeV (MS) and 400–500 MeV (pole) at NLO are derived from the qqbar-initiated channel only and without colour reconnection. The text acknowledges both restrictions, but the abstract-level impression that the scheme ambiguity is a sub-GeV effect would be better supported by a sentence on the expected direction and rough size of the omitted gluon-initiated contribution.
[§2.4, Eq. (2.6)] The estimator M²est = M²W + 2⟨m²ℓb⟩/(1 − ⟨cos θℓb⟩) is rendered in the manuscript in a form where the fraction is not clearly typeset, so that the denominator could be misread as multiplying the whole expression. This should be checked in the final version, as the equation is the basis of the mℓb method discussed immediately below.
[Throughout] There is a systematic typesetting problem with small capitals: 'T OPIXS', 'T OP++', 'HATHOR', 'M ATHEMATICA', 'SLAM', 'V ogt' and similar forms appear in the body text and reference list, and should be normalized. Additional typographical corrections: 'αa' for 'αs' in §2.3; 'mMRS' for 'mMSR' in the Table 2.1 caption and 'MRS top mass' in the text following Eq. (2.1); 'correclations' in the Fig. 2.2 caption; 'initial-satte' in §1.10; 'theshold' in §2.7; 'arbitray' and 'sensitivty' in §2.7; 'arround' in §2.7; 'oder' for 'order' in §1.2; and the duplicated words 'that that' in §2.1 and 'of of' in §1.9.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The two most precisely quoted numbers in particle physics do not agree with themselves, and the report argues the quoted errors are too small.

The reading

This is the written record of a two-week workshop on the two Standard Model parameters that most often limit the accuracy of collider predictions: the strong coupling $alpha_s$ and the top-quark mass $m_t$. Its central message is a consistency warning rather than a new measurement. Individual determinations of $alpha_s$ now quote errors of well under one percent, but the values themselves scatter by more than those errors allow, from about 0.113 in deep-inelastic fits to about 0.121 from $tau$ decays, against a 2012 world average of $0.1184 pm 0.0007$. The top-quark mass has a different problem: the number experiments report, $173.34 pm 0.76$ GeV, is a parameter of a Monte Carlo generator, not a Lagrangian mass in any named renormalization scheme, and the translation to a well-defined short-distance mass carries an estimated uncertainty of order 1 GeV. A reader should care because both numbers feed almost every precision prediction at the LHC, and because the top mass enters the question of whether the electroweak vacuum is stable.

What carries the argument

Two pieces of machinery carry the argument. The first is the renormalization-group evolution of $alpha_s$: because a fixed-order extraction freezes the scale near the process, while a resummed extraction already runs the coupling inside the prediction, combining results quoted at $M_Z$ mixes measurements that used different couplings to get there. The report proposes replacing weighted averaging of evolved values with a global fit directly to the running, and demonstrates it on three jet data sets, obtaining $alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1153 pm 0.0029$ with $chi^2/text{ndof} = 1.27$. The second is the scheme-translation chain for the top mass, running from the Monte Carlo parameter through the MSR mass $m_t^{MSR}(R)$ at a low scale $R$ to the pole mass or to $m_t(m_t)$, with the scale $R$ in the range 3 to 9 GeV spanning the conceptual uncertainty. The report tabulates this conversion at $O(alpha_s^3)$ and shows that the pole mass obtained depends strongly both on the order of perturbation theory and on the scale at which the conversion is performed.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The report's load-bearing assertion is that the precision frontier on $alpha_s$ and $m_t$ has moved past the point where the quoted uncertainties are honest. For $alpha_s$, the evidence is a table of determinations that cluster into two groups: deep-inelastic and thrust analyses near $0.113$-$0.114$, and $Z$-decay, three-jet-rate, $tau$-decay and some lattice analyses near $0.118$-$0.121$. The report states the situation directly: individual determinations quote rather small errors, yet different determinations are at best marginally compatible within those errors. It identifies candidate sources, including uncalculated NNLO corrections to jet production in PDF fits (estimated at about $0.0015$ in $alpha_s(M_Z)$), heavy-flavour scheme ambiguities of about $0.001$, and power corrections at low $Q^2$. For the top mass, the report corrects a misreading it found circulating in experimental combinations: the statement that the Monte Carlo mass may differ from the pole mass by up to 1 GeV is a mistranslation of a claim about the translation to a low-scale short-distance mass, not the pole mass. It endorses the relation $m_t^{MC} = m_t^{MSR}(3^{+6}_{-2}~text{GeV})$, under which the Tevatron average corresponds to $m_t(m_t) = 163.0 pm 1.3$ GeV in the $overline{text{MS}}$ scheme.

Load-bearing premise

The top-mass interpretation rests on identifying the Monte Carlo mass parameter with the MSR short-distance mass at a scale in the range 3 to 9 GeV, a relation the report itself calls an estimate of conceptual uncertainty that is likely not calculable, because analytic control of the generator's shower and hadronization is out of reach.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the spread in $alpha_s$ reflects unquantified systematics rather than statistics, then the 2012 world average of $0.1184 pm 0.0007$ understates the true uncertainty, and every prediction that inherits that number inherits the understatement.
The combined Tevatron and LHC value $m_t = 173.34 pm 0.76$ GeV should be read as a Monte Carlo mass parameter, corresponding to $m_t(m_t) = 163.0 pm 1.3$ GeV in the $overline{text{MS}}$ scheme under the MSR relation.
On that reading, the measured top mass lies above the NNLO stability bound $M_t < 171.36 pm 0.46$ GeV, so the electroweak vacuum is metastable rather than absolutely stable up to the Planck scale.
A future $e^+e^-$ threshold scan could reach an uncertainty below 100 MeV on a threshold mass, an order of magnitude better than current direct measurements, provided the NNNLO threshold calculation now in progress is brought under control.
Measuring the ratio $R(rho_s)$ in $tbar{t}$ plus one jet, where a one percent change in $m_t$ produces a seventeen percent change in the observable near $rho_s approx 0.8$, offers a mass extraction that does not rely on the Monte Carlo mass identification.

Reading between the lines

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

The $alpha_s$ and $m_t$ problems are not independent: PDF fits and the $tbar{t}$ total cross section both consume $alpha_s(M_Z)$, so a shift of $0.001$ in the coupling propagates into the extracted pole mass at the few-hundred-MeV level, which is comparable to the translation uncertainty the report is worried about.
If the discrepancy is genuinely an observable-dependent effect rather than a statistical fluctuation, then a global fit directly to measured observables with one consistent running should return $chi^2/text{ndof}$ near one; the combined value of 1.27 quoted for the three jet data sets is a hint that the residual spread is not yet modelled rather than that the data are wrong.
The report's own recommended remedy, a standing working group that cross-checks competing analyses, is itself testable: if the spread shrinks after such comparisons, range averaging was over-conservative; if it persists, the individual errors were underestimated.
Since the low-scale MSR mass and the jet mass of the factorized invariant-mass distribution are conceptually the same object, a hadron-level comparison of a Monte Carlo generator against a resummed NLO+NLL calculation in the peak region would convert the 1 GeV conceptual uncertainty into a measured number.

Original abstract

This report summarizes the proceedings of the 2014 Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics (MITP) scientific program on "High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale". The two outstanding parameters in the Standard Model dealt with during the MITP scientific program are the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the top-quark mass $m_t$. Lacking knowledge on the value of those fundamental constants is often the limiting factor in the accuracy of theoretical predictions. The current status on $\alpha_s$ and $m_t$ has been reviewed and directions for future research have been identified.

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, 3,585 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.12 · human participants 0.03 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.06 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

This report summarizes the proceedings of the 2014 Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics (MITP) scientific program on "High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale". The two outstanding parameters in the Standard Model dealt with during the MITP scientific program are the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the top-quark mass $m_t$. Lacking knowledge on the value of those fundamental constants is often the limiting factor in the accuracy of theoretical predictions. The current status on $\alpha_s$ and $m_t$ has been reviewed and directions for future research have been identified.

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	This report summarizes the proceedings of the 2014 Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics (MITP) scientific program on "High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale".	background 0.64	0.21	0.03	asserted 0.97
s1	The two outstanding parameters in the Standard Model dealt with during the MITP scientific program are the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the top-quark mass $m_t$.	background 0.67	0.09	0.09	asserted 1.00
s2	Lacking knowledge on the value of those fundamental constants is often the limiting factor in the accuracy of theoretical predictions.	background 0.79	0.06	0.09	asserted 0.86
s3	The current status on $\alpha_s$ and $m_t$ has been reviewed and directions for future research have been identified.	contribution 0.79	0.37	0.37	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 0.96 · evidence from literature 0.96.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

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.** 7: Differential thrust distribution normalised to σhad at different CM energies √ s (upper plots) and corresponding relative corrections (lower plots). Jet event-shape observables in e +e − colliders At e +e − colliders the strong coupling constant can be determined upon measuring the 3-jet production cross section and related event-shape observables. The QCD corrections, which are known to next-to-next-to-leading-order including dedicated resummations, comprise the major part of radiative corrections, but at this level of accuracy EW corrections are relevant as well. In Refs. [95,…

**Figure 2.** 1: Left: Dependence of the measured top mass observable on the transverse momentum of the hadronically decaying top [113]. Right: Dependence of the measured top mass observable on the transverse momentum of the tt¯pair [113]. LHC combination and World Average The ATLAS and CMS collaborations provided an updated combination of their most precise top mass measurements available as of September 2013 [101]. This combination relies on a proper understanding of the systematic uncertainties assigned to the measurements by both experiments, and correlations between them. These uncertainties…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1405.4781 by the authors.

References

Works cited (263)

[129]

S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 214–219, [1207.0980]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[1]

S. Bethke, A. H. Hoang, S. Kluth, J. Schieck, I. W. Stewart, et. al., 1110.0016

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[2]

J. Blümlein, S. Riemersma, W. van Neerven, and A. V ogt,Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 51C (1996) 97–105, [hep-ph/9609217]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[3]

A. Behring et. al., PoS RADCOR2013 (2014) 058, [1312.0124]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[4]

S. Alekhin, Phys.Lett. B519 (2001) 57–62, [hep-ph/0107197]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[5]

J. Blümlein, H. Böttcher, and A. Guffanti, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 135 (2004) 152–155, [hep-ph/0407089]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[6]

J. Blümlein, H. Böttcher, and A. Guffanti, Nucl.Phys. B774 (2007) 182–207, [hep-ph/0607200]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[7]

M. Glück, E. Reya, and C. Schuck, Nucl.Phys. B754 (2006) 178–186, [hep-ph/0604116]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[8]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Klein, and S. Moch, Phys.Rev. D81 (2010) 014032, [0908.2766]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[9]

P. Jimenez-Delgado and E. Reya, 1403.1852

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur.Phys.J.C64 (2009) 653–680, [0905.3531]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[11]

R. Thorne, 1402.3536

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, PoS DIS2010 (2010) 021, [1007.3657]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[13]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 054028, [1310.3059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[14]

J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, H.-L. Lai, Z. Li, et. al., Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 033009, [1302.6246]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[15]

R. D. Ball, V . Bertone, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, et. al., Phys.Lett. B707 (2012) 66–71, [1110.2483]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[16]

T. Gehrmann, G. Luisoni, and P. F. Monni, Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2265, [1210.6945]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[17]

R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V . Mateu, and I. W. Stewart,Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 094002, [1204.5746]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[18]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., Phys.Lett. B728 (2014) 496–517, [1307.1907]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[19]

K. Rabbertz, 1312.5694

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[20]

G. Dissertori, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. Glover, G. Heinrich, et. al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 104 (2010) 072002, [0910.4283]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[21]

P. Baikov, K. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kühn, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 012002, [0801.1821]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[22]

P. Baikov, K. Chetyrkin, J. Kühn, and J. Rittinger, Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 222003, [1201.5804]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[23]

M. Jamin, Mod.Phys.Lett. A28 (2013) 1360006

View on Pith 2013
[24]

S. Aoki et. al., JHEP 0910 (2009) 053, [0906.3906]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[25]

C. McNeile, C. Davies, E. Follana, K. Hornbostel, and G. Lepage, Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 034512, [1004.4285]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[26]

B. Blossier, P. Boucaud, M. Brinet, F. De Soto, X. Du, et. al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 262002, [1201.5770]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[27]

A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto,et. al., Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 114031, [1205.6155]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[28]

RBC Collaboration, UKQCD Collaboration 2014

View on Pith 2014
[29]

S. Bethke, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 234 (2013) 229–234, [1210.0325]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[30]

S. Aoki, Y . Aoki, C. Bernard, T. Blum, G. Colangelo, et. al., 1310.8555

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[31]

C. Buttar, J. D’Hondt, M. Krämer, G. Salam, M. Wobisch, et. al., 0803.0678

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

G. Aad et. al., ATLAS Collaboration Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2261, [1207.5644]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[33]

A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, L. Lonnblad, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, et. al., Comput.Phys.Commun. 184 (2013) 2803–2819, [1003.0694]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[34]

S. Höche, F. Krauss, P. Maierhöfer, S. Pozzorini, M. Schönherr, et. al., 1402.6293

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[35]

G. Aad et. al., ATLAS Collaboration Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2676, [1307.5749]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[36]

M. Dobbs and J. B. Hansen, Comput.Phys.Commun. 134 (2001) 41–46

View on Pith 2001
[37]

S. Kluth, Rept.Prog.Phys. 69 (2006) 1771–1846, [hep-ex/0603011]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[38]

R. Davison and B. Webber, Eur.Phys.J.C59 (2009) 13–25, [0809.3326]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[39]

C. Pahl, S. Bethke, O. Biebel, S. Kluth, and J. Schieck, Eur.Phys.J.C64 (2009) 533–547, [0904.0786]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[40]

R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V . Mateu, and I. W. Stewart,Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 074021, [1006.3080]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[41]

T. Gehrmann, S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, and F. Siegert, JHEP 1301 (2013) 144, [1207.5031]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[42]

J. Beringer et. al., Particle Data Group Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 010001

View on Pith 2012
[43]

T. A. Aaltonen et. al., CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 052018, [1307.7627]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[44]

ATLAS Collaboration, CDF Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, D0 Collaboration 1403.4427

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[45]

S. Kluth, Conf.Proc. C060726 (2006) 449–452, [hep-ex/0609020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[46]

A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur.Phys.J.C63 (2009) 189–285, [arXiv:0901.0002]. 52

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[47]

N. Kidonakis and J. Owens, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001) 054019, [hep-ph/0007268]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[48]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. Glover, and J. Pires, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013), no. 16 162003, [1301.7310]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[49]

M. C. Kumar and S. Moch, Phys.Lett. B730 (2014) 122–129, [1309.5311]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[50]

D. de Florian, P. Hinderer, A. Mukherjee, F. Ringer, and W. V ogelsang,Phys.Rev.Lett. 112 (2014) 082001, [1310.7192]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[51]

B. Watt, P. Motylinski, and R. Thorne, 1311.5703

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[52]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 054009, [1202.2281]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[53]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, PoS DIS2013 (2013) 297, [1307.7258]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[54]

V . Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 111107, [0911.2710]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[55]

V . M. Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration Phys.Lett. B718 (2012) 56–63, [1207.4957]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[56]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., CMS Collaboration Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2604, [1304.7498]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[57]

D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, F. Stober, and M. Wobisch, fastNLO Collaboration 1208.3641

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[58]

T. Carli, D. Clements, A. Cooper-Sarkar, C. Gwenlan, G. P. Salam, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.C66 (2010) 503–524, [0911.2985]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[59]

B. Schmidt and M. Steinhauser, Comput.Phys.Commun. 183 (2012) 1845–1848, [1201.6149]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[60]

S. Dittmaier et. al., LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group 1101.0593

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[61]

G. P. Lepage and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys.Rev. D48 (1993) 2250–2264, [hep-lat/9209022]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[62]

E. Shintani et. al., JLQCD Collaboration, TWQCD Collaboration Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 074510, [0807.0556]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[63]

E. Shintani, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, et. al., Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 074505, [1002.0371]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[64]

T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and E. Shintani, Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 094503, [1208.4349]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[65]

T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and E. Shintani, PoS LATTICE2012 (2012) 262, [1212.5542]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[66]

Y . Aoki et. al., RBC Collaboration, UKQCD Collaboration Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 074508, [1011.0892]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[67]

K. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kühn, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl.Phys. B482 (1996) 213–240, [hep-ph/9606230]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[68]

E. Braaten, S. Narison, and A. Pich, Nucl.Phys. B373 (1992) 581–612

View on Pith 1992
[69]

K. Chetyrkin and A. Kwiatkowski, Z.Phys. C59 (1993) 525–532, [hep-ph/9805232]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[70]

K. Chetyrkin, V . Spiridonov, and S. Gorishnii, Phys.Lett. B160 (1985) 149–153

View on Pith 1985
[71]

A. Bazavov, T. Bhattacharya, M. Cheng, C. DeTar, H. Ding, et. al., Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 054503, [1111.1710]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[72]

A. V . Smirnov, V . A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,Phys.Lett. B668 (2008) 293–298, [0809.1927]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[73]

C. Anzai, Y . Kiyo, and Y . Sumino,Phys.Rev.Lett. 104 (2010) 112003, [0911.4335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[74]

A. V . Smirnov, V . A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,Phys.Rev.Lett. 104 (2010) 112002, [0911.4742]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[75]

N. Brambilla, A. Vairo, X. Garcia i Tormo, and J. Soto, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 034016, [0906.1390]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[76]

X. Garcia i Tormo, Mod.Phys.Lett. A28 (2013) 1330028, [1307.2238]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[77]

N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Phys.Rev.Lett. 105 (2010) 212001, [1006.2066]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[79]

J. Erler, hep-ph/0005084

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[80]

F. Le Diberder and A. Pich, Phys.Lett. B286 (1992) 147–152

View on Pith 1992
[81]

B. A. Kniehl and J. H. Kühn, Phys.Lett. B224 (1989) 229

View on Pith 1989
[82]

S. Larin, T. van Ritbergen, and J. Vermaseren, Nucl.Phys. B438 (1995) 278–306, [hep-ph/9411260]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[83]

J. Erler and M.-x. Luo, Phys.Lett. B558 (2003) 125–131, [hep-ph/0207114]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[84]

J. Erler, Rev.Mex.Fis.50 (2004) 200–202, [hep-ph/0211345]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[85]

M. Beneke and M. Jamin, JHEP 0809 (2008) 044, [0806.3156]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[86]

D. Boito, M. Golterman, M. Jamin, A. Mahdavi, K. Maltman, et. al., Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 093015, [1203.3146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[87]

D. Boito, M. Golterman, M. Jamin, K. Maltman, and S. Peris, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013), no. 9 094008, [1212.4471]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[88]

G. ’t Hooft, Phys.Rev. D14 (1976) 3432–3450

View on Pith 1976
[89]

M. Davier, A. Höcker, and Z. Zhang, Rev.Mod.Phys. 78 (2006) 1043–1109, [hep-ph/0507078]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[90]

T. van Ritbergen, J. Vermaseren, and S. Larin, Phys.Lett. B400 (1997) 379–384, [hep-ph/9701390]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[91]

J. Gracey, Phys.Lett. B373 (1996) 178–184, [hep-ph/9602214]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[92]

J. R. Ellis, M. Karliner, and M. A. Samuel, Phys.Lett. B400 (1997) 176–181, [hep-ph/9612202]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[93]

J. R. Ellis, I. Jack, D. Jones, M. Karliner, and M. Samuel, Phys.Rev. D57 (1998) 2665–2675, [hep-ph/9710302]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[94]

B. Kniehl, A. Kotikov, A. Onishchenko, and O. Veretin, Phys.Rev.Lett. 97 (2006) 042001, [hep-ph/0607202]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[95]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Gehrmann, and C. Kurz, Phys.Lett. B679 (2009) 219–222, [0906.0372]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[96]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Gehrmann, and C. Kurz, Nucl.Phys. B836 (2010) 37–90, [1003.0986]. 53

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[97]

S. Dittmaier, A. Huss, and C. Speckner, JHEP 1211 (2012) 095, [1210.0438]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[98]

J. Butterworth et. al., Contribution to the Proceedings “Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report”(2014) 70, [1405.1067]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[99]

S. Moretti, M. Nolten, and D. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 759 (2006) 50, [hep-ph/0606201]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[100]

A. Scharf, 0910.0223

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[101]

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, conference notes CMS-PAS-TOP-13-005 and ATLAS-CONF-2013-102, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[102]

A. Buckley et al., Phys. Rept. 504 (2011) 145, [1101.2599]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[103]

A. Juste et al., 1310.0799

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[104]

A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 185 (2008) 220–226, [0808.0222]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[105]

S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77 (2008) 074010, [hep-ph/0703207]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[106]

S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77 (2008) 114003, [0711.2079]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[107]

A. H. Hoang, A. Pathak, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, in preparation

View on Pith
[108]

I. W. Stewart, F. Tackmann, and W. Waalewijn, in preparation

View on Pith
[109]

A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi, and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 151602, [0803.4214]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[110]

P. Z. Skands and D. Wicke, Eur.Phys.J.C52 (2007) 133–140, [hep-ph/0703081]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[111]

Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and CDF and D0 Collaboration0803.1683

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[112]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-12-029, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[113]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-14-001, 2014

View on Pith 2014
[114]

L. Evans and P. Bryant, JINST 3 (2008) S08001

View on Pith 2008
[115]

ATLAS Collaboration JINST 3 (2008) S08003

View on Pith 2008
[116]

CMS Collaboration JINST 3 (2008) S08004

View on Pith 2008
[117]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-13-002, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[118]

M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013), no. 25 252004, [1303.6254]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[119]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-12-030, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[120]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-12-027, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[121]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2013-046, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[122]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2013-077, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[123]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-FTR-13-017, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[124]

U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, and P. Uwer, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 054009, [0906.5273]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[125]

V . M. Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration Phys.Lett. B703 (2011) 422–427, [1104.2887]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[126]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2011-054, 2011

View on Pith 2011
[127]

M. Aldaya, K. Lipka, and S. Naumann-Emme, CMS Collaboration EPJ Web Conf. 28 (2012) 12044, [1201.5336]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[128]

M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn, Nucl.Phys. B855 (2012) 695–741, [1109.1536]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[130]

P. Bärnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov, Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 132001, [1204.5201]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[131]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, JHEP 1212 (2012) 054, [1207.0236]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[132]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, 1112.5675

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[133]

M. Aliev, H. Lacker, U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, P. Uwer, et. al., Comput.Phys.Commun. 182 (2011) 1034–1046, [1007.1327]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[134]

M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, J. Piclum, C. Schwinn, et. al., JHEP 1207 (2012) 194, [1206.2454]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[135]

R. D. Ball, V . Bertone, S. Carrazza, C. S. Deans, L. Del Debbio, et. al., Nucl.Phys. B867 (2013) 244–289, [1207.1303]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[136]

V . M. Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration 1105.5384

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[137]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2011-121, 2011

View on Pith 2011
[138]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., CMS Collaboration JHEP 1211 (2012) 067, [1208.2671]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[139]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2013-097, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[140]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., CMS Collaboration JHEP 1402 (2014) 024, [1312.7582]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[141]

CMS Collaboration, conference note CMS-PAS-FTR-13-017, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[142]

M. Beneke, I. Efthymiopoulos, M. L. Mangano, J. Womersley, A. Ahmadov, et. al., hep-ph/0003033

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[143]

D. Chakraborty, J. Konigsberg, and D. L. Rainwater, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci.53 (2003) 301–351, [hep-ph/0303092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[144]

W. Wagner, Rept.Prog.Phys. 68 (2005) 2409–2494, [hep-ph/0507207]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[145]

A. Quadt, Eur.Phys.J.C48 (2006) 835–1000

View on Pith 2006
[146]

W. Bernreuther, J.Phys. G35 (2008) 083001, [0805.1333]. 54

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[147]

J. Gao, C. S. Li, and H. X. Zhu, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013) 042001, [1210.2808]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[148]

M. Brucherseifer, F. Caola, and K. Melnikov, JHEP 1304 (2013) 059, [1301.7133]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[149]

K. Melnikov, A. Scharf, and M. Schulze, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 054002, [1111.4991]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[150]

A. Kharchilava, Phys.Lett. B476 (2000) 73–78, [hep-ph/9912320]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[151]

R. Chierici and A. Dierlamm, Tech. Rep. CMS-NOTE-2006-058, CERN, Geneva, May, 2006

View on Pith 2006
[152]

G. Corcella and F. Mescia, Eur.Phys.J.C65 (2010) 171–180, [0907.5158]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[153]

G. Corcella, M. L. Mangano, and M. Seymour, JHEP 0007 (2000) 004, [hep-ph/0004179]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[154]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, [hep-ph/0603175]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[155]

G. Marchesini, B. Webber, G. Abbiendi, I. Knowles, M. Seymour, et. al., Comput.Phys.Commun. 67 (1992) 465–508

View on Pith 1992
[156]

S. Biswas, K. Melnikov, and M. Schulze, JHEP 1008 (2010) 048, [1006.0910]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[157]

A. Heister et. al., ALEPH Collaboration Phys.Lett. B512 (2001) 30–48, [hep-ex/0106051]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[158]

K. Abe et. al., SLD Collaboration Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 (2000) 4300–4304, [hep-ex/9912058]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[159]

B. Mele and P. Nason, Phys.Lett. B245 (1990) 635–639

View on Pith 1990
[160]

G. Corcella and A. D. Mitov, Nucl.Phys. B623 (2002) 247–270, [hep-ph/0110319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[161]

A. Martin, R. Roberts, W. Stirling, and R. Thorne, Eur.Phys.J.C28 (2003) 455–473, [hep-ph/0211080]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[162]

J. Pumplin, D. Stump, J. Huston, H. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, et. al., JHEP 0207 (2002) 012, [hep-ph/0201195]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[163]

P. M. Nadolsky, H.-L. Lai, Q.-H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, et. al., Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 013004, [0802.0007]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[164]

W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z. Si, and P. Uwer, Nucl.Phys. B690 (2004) 81–137, [hep-ph/0403035]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[165]

K. Melnikov and M. Schulze, JHEP 0908 (2009) 049, [0907.3090]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[166]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, 1204.1513

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[167]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and S. Pozzorini, Phys.Rev.Lett. 106 (2011) 052001, [1012.3975]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[168]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[169]

J. Schlenk, G. Heinrich, and J. Winter, PoS RADCOR2013 (2014) 033, [1312.5666]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[170]

R. Frederix, 1311.4893

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[171]

J. Alcaraz Maestre et. al., SM and NLO multileg and SM MC Working Groups 1203.6803

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[172]

G. Heinrich, A. Maier, R. Nisius, J. Schlenk, and J. Winter, 1312.6659

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[173]

M. Dowling and S. Moch, 1305.6422

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[174]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, JHEP 1301 (2013) 080, [1210.6832]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[175]

J. M. Campbell and R. Ellis, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 205-206 (2010) 10–15, [1007.3492]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[176]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference notes ATLAS-CONF-2012-024, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2012-009, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[177]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference notes ATLAS-CONF-2012-149, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2012-170, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[178]

CMS Collaboration, conference notes CMS-PAS-TOP-12-003, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[179]

CMS Collaboration, conference notes CMS-PAS-TOP-12-006, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[180]

The Tevatron electroweak working groupD0 Note 6363

View on Pith
[181]

N. Gray, D. J. Broadhurst, W. Gräfe, and K. Schilcher, Z.Phys. C48 (1990) 673–680

View on Pith 1990
[182]

K. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Nucl.Phys. B573 (2000) 617–651, [hep-ph/9911434]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[183]

K. Melnikov and T. v. Ritbergen, Phys.Lett. B482 (2000) 99–108, [hep-ph/9912391]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[184]

P. Falgari, A. Papanastasiou, and A. Signer, JHEP 1305 (2013) 156, [1303.5299]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[185]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and S. Pozzorini, JHEP 1210 (2012) 110, [1207.5018]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[186]

F. Cascioli, S. Kallweit, P. Maierhöfer, and S. Pozzorini, 1312.0546

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[187]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and D. Wackeroth, Nucl.Phys. B560 (1999) 33–65, [hep-ph/9904472]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[188]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and L. Wieders, Nucl.Phys. B724 (2005) 247–294, [hep-ph/0505042]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[189]

A. Aeppli, G. J. van Oldenborgh, and D. Wyler, Nucl.Phys. B428 (1994) 126–146, [hep-ph/9312212]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[190]

R. G. Stuart, Phys.Lett. B272 (1991) 353–358

View on Pith 1991
[191]

M. Beneke, A. Chapovsky, A. Signer, and G. Zanderighi, Nucl.Phys. B686 (2004) 205–247, [hep-ph/0401002]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[192]

M. Beneke, P. Falgari, C. Schwinn, A. Signer, and G. Zanderighi, Nucl.Phys. B792 (2008) 89–135, [0707.0773]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[193]

P. Falgari, P. Mellor, and A. Signer, Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 054028, [1007.0893]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[194]

P. Falgari, F. Giannuzzi, P. Mellor, and A. Signer, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 094013, [1102.5267]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[195]

A. Papanastasiou, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, and F. Maltoni, Phys.Lett. B726 (2013) 223–227, [1305.7088]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[196]

I. I. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, and A. Vainshtein, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994) 2234–2246, [hep-ph/9402360]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[197]

M. Beneke and V . M. Braun, Nucl.Phys. B426 (1994) 301–343, [hep-ph/9402364]. 55

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[198]

M. C. Smith and S. S. Willenbrock, Phys.Rev.Lett. 79 (1997) 3825–3828, [hep-ph/9612329]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[199]

M. Beneke, Phys.Lett. B434 (1998) 115–125, [hep-ph/9804241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[200]

A. Hoang and T. Teubner, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 114027, [hep-ph/9904468]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[201]

A. Pineda, JHEP 0106 (2001) 022, [hep-ph/0105008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[202]

G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, et. al., JHEP 1208 (2012) 098, [1205.6497]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[203]

S. Alioli, P. Fernandez, J. Fuster, A. Irles, S. Moch, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2438, [1303.6415]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[204]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[205]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, and S. Weinzierl, Eur.Phys.J.C59 (2009) 625–646, [0810.0452]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[206]

K. Melnikov and M. Schulze, Nucl.Phys. B840 (2010) 129–159, [1004.3284]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[207]

S. Alioli, S. Moch, and P. Uwer, JHEP 1201 (2012) 137, [1110.5251]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[208]

A. Kardos, C. Papadopoulos, and Z. Trocsanyi, Phys.Lett. B705 (2011) 76–81, [1101.2672]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[209]

J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto, et. al., Phys.Lett. B709 (2012) 222–228, [1112.3022]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[210]

M. Holthausen, K. S. Lim, and M. Lindner, JHEP 1202 (2012) 037, [1112.2415]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[211]

F. Bezrukov, M. Y . Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Shaposhnikov,JHEP 1210 (2012) 140, [1205.2893]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[212]

D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, et. al., JHEP 1312 (2013) 089, [1307.3536]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[213]

P. Ade et. al., BICEP2 Collaboration 1403.3985

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[214]

J. Espinosa, G. Giudice, and A. Riotto, JCAP 0805 (2008) 002, [0710.2484]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[215]

K. Seidel, F. Simon, M. Tesar, and S. Poss, Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2530, [1303.3758]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[216]

T. Horiguchi, A. Ishikawa, T. Suehara, K. Fujii, Y . Sumino,et. al., 1310.0563

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[217]

V . S. Fadin and V . A. Khoze,JETP Lett. 46 (1987) 525–529

View on Pith 1987
[218]

W. Caswell and G. Lepage, Phys.Lett. B167 (1986) 437

View on Pith 1986
[219]

G. P. Lepage, L. Magnea, C. Nakhleh, U. Magnea, and K. Hornbostel, Phys.Rev. D46 (1992) 4052–4067, [hep-lat/9205007]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1992
[220]

G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys.Rev. D51 (1995) 1125–1171, [hep-ph/9407339]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[221]

A. Pineda and J. Soto, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 64 (1998) 428–432, [hep-ph/9707481]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[222]

M. Beneke, hep-ph/9806429

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[223]

N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Nucl.Phys. B566 (2000) 275, [hep-ph/9907240]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[224]

A. Hoang, M. Beneke, K. Melnikov, T. Nagano, A. Ota, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.directC2 (2000) 1, [hep-ph/0001286]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[225]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, 1312.4791

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[226]

B. A. Kniehl, A. A. Penin, V . A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,Nucl.Phys. B635 (2002) 357–383, [hep-ph/0203166]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[227]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, Nucl.Phys. B714 (2005) 67–90, [hep-ph/0501289]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[228]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, Phys.Lett. B658 (2008) 222–229, [0705.4518]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[229]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, to be published

View on Pith
[230]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and A. Penin, Phys.Lett. B653 (2007) 53–59, [0706.2733]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[231]

M. Beneke and Y . Kiyo, Phys.Lett. B668 (2008) 143–147, [0804.4004]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[232]

M. Beneke, J. Piclum, and T. Rauh, Nucl.Phys. B880 (2014) 414–434, [1312.4792]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[233]

P. Marquard, J. H. Piclum, D. Seidel, and M. Steinhauser, Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 034027, [1401.3004]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[234]

M. E. Luke, A. V . Manohar, and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 074025, [hep-ph/9910209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[235]

A. V . Manohar and I. W. Stewart,Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 014033, [hep-ph/9912226]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[236]

A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D67 (2003) 114020, [hep-ph/0209340]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[237]

A. H. Hoang, Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 034009, [hep-ph/0307376]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[238]

A. H. Hoang and M. Stahlhofen, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 054025, [hep-ph/0611292]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[239]

A. Pineda, Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 014012, [1101.3269]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[240]

A. H. Hoang and M. Stahlhofen, JHEP 1106 (2011) 088, [1102.0269]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[241]

A. Hoang, A. Manohar, I. W. Stewart, and T. Teubner, Phys.Rev.Lett. 86 (2001) 1951–1954, [hep-ph/0011254]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[242]

A. Hoang, A. Manohar, I. W. Stewart, and T. Teubner, Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 014014, [hep-ph/0107144]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[243]

A. Pineda and A. Signer, Nucl.Phys. B762 (2007) 67–94, [hep-ph/0607239]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[244]

A. Hoang and M. Stahlhofen, 1309.6323

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[245]

A. H. Hoang and C. J. Reisser, Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 074022, [hep-ph/0412258]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[246]

A. Denner, R. Guth, and J. H. Kühn, Nucl.Phys. B377 (1992) 3–19

View on Pith 1992
[247]

W. Hollik and C. Schappacher, Nucl.Phys. B545 (1999) 98–140, [hep-ph/9807427]. 56

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[248]

S.-F. Su and M. B. Wise, Phys.Lett. B510 (2001) 205–210, [hep-ph/0104169]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[249]

Y . Kiyo, M. Steinhauser, and N. Zerf, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 075005, [0907.1146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[250]

B. Grzadkowski, J. H. Kühn, P. Krawczyk, and R. Stuart, Nucl.Phys. B281 (1987) 18

View on Pith 1987
[251]

R. Guth and J. H. Kühn, Nucl.Phys. B368 (1992) 38–56

View on Pith 1992
[252]

A. H. Hoang and C. J. Reisser, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 034002, [hep-ph/0604104]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[253]

W. Porod, Comput.Phys.Commun. 153 (2003) 275–315, [hep-ph/0301101]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[254]

P. Marquard and N. Zerf, Comput.Phys.Commun. 185 (2014) 1153–1171, [1309.1731]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[255]

A. Pak, M. Steinhauser, and N. Zerf, JHEP 1209 (2012) 118, [1208.1588]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[256]

B. Allanach, Comput.Phys.Commun. 143 (2002) 305–331, [hep-ph/0104145]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[257]

M. Baak, M. Göbel, J. Haller, A. Höcker, D. Kennedy, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.C72 (2012) 2205, [1209.2716]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[258]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, D. Stöckinger, A. Weber, and G. Weiglein, JHEP 0608 (2006) 052, [hep-ph/0604147]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[259]

T. Aaltonen et. al., CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 092003, [1207.1069]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[260]

J. E. Brau, R. M. Godbole, F. R. L. Diberder, M. Thomson, H. Weerts, et. al., 1210.0202

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[261]

H. Baer, T. Barklow, K. Fujii, Y . Gao, A. Hoang,et. al., 1306.6352

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[262]

P. Lebrun, L. Linssen, A. Lucaci-Timoce, D. Schulte, F. Simon, et. al., 1209.2543

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[263]

T. Behnke, J. E. Brau, B. Foster, J. Fuster, M. Harrison, et. al., 1306.6327

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[264]

T. Behnke, J. E. Brau, P. N. Burrows, J. Fuster, M. Peskin, et. al., 1306.6329. 57

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

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

Measurement of energy correlators inside jets and determination of the strong coupling $\alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_\mathrm{Z})$
hep-ex 2024-02 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The ratio of three-particle to two-particle energy correlators measured inside LHC jets gives alpha_S(m_Z) = 0.1229 (+0.0040/-0.0050), the most precise jet-substructure extraction of the strong coupling.
Spacetime Dynamics of a Higgs Vacuum Instability During Inflation
hep-ph 2016-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A single true-vacuum Higgs patch in our past light cone during inflation would destroy the Universe, which bounds the inflationary Hubble scale to below roughly 0.07 times the Higgs instability scale.
Calculating Three Loop Ladder and V-Topologies for Massive Operator Matrix Elements by Computer Algebra
hep-ph 2015-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Twelve three-loop ladder and V-topology diagrams for the massive operator matrix element A_Qg are reduced to master integrals and evaluated in closed form as nested harmonic, generalized harmonic, and binomial sums in...
Exclusive Radiative Higgs Decays as Probes of Light-Quark Yukawa Couplings
hep-ph 2015-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD factorization plus a ratio to h to gamma gamma turns rare h to V gamma decays into a quantitatively controlled probe of the charm, bottom and strange Yukawa couplings.
Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders
hep-ph 2014-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Projections show a 100 TeV proton collider can probe kinetic mixing down to about 4x10^-4 via Drell-Yan production, and, if the dark Higgs mixes with the SM Higgs, down to 10^-10 via displaced dark photon decays in h ...

Show 14 more citing papers

Measurement of the $t\bar{t}$ production cross-section and lepton differential distributions in $e\mu$ dilepton events from $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2019-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS measures the top-antitop production cross-section at 13 TeV to 2.4% precision, 826.4 ± 19.9 pb, and extracts a top quark pole mass of 173.1 GeV from the same data.
Measurement of the top quark mass in the $t\bar{t}\to$ lepton+jets channel from $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV ATLAS data and combination with previous results
hep-ex 2018-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS measures the top quark mass as 172.08 +/- 0.39 (stat) +/- 0.82 (syst) GeV in the lepton+jets channel at 8 TeV and combines six ATLAS results into 172.69 +/- 0.25 (stat) +/- 0.41 (syst) GeV.
A Critical Appraisal and Evaluation of Modern PDFs
hep-ph 2016-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Differences among LHC parton-distribution predictions come from theory assumptions baked into the fits, not from the data, so averaging PDF sets into PDF4LHC15 hides real discrepancies.
Possible Futures of Electroweak Precision: ILC, FCC-ee, and CEPC
hep-ph 2014-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A simplified electroweak fit indicates that CEPC's Z-pole program would reach S and T sensitivities comparable to the ILC's, and that the W mass and the effective weak mixing angle are the two measurements that most i...
The strong coupling from the revised ALEPH data for hadronic $\tau$ decays
hep-ph 2014-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A duality-violation-aware fit to revised ALEPH tau-decay data gives the strong coupling at the tau mass as 0.296 (FOPT) to 0.310 (CIPT), below the standard-analysis value of 0.332.
Higgs inflation from Standard Model criticality
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Higgs-inflation model built on the near-criticality of the Standard Model potential can reproduce the observed spectral index, its running, and a tensor-to-scalar ratio up to 0.2, provided the top mass is tuned and ...
Consistent Use of the Standard Model Effective Potential
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A gauge-invariant reorganization of the Standard Model effective potential shifts the absolute stability bound to m_H > 129.40 GeV and shows the widely-quoted instability scale is not a physical quantity.
Determination of alpha_s from the QCD static energy: an update
hep-ph 2014-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Comparing lattice QCD static-energy data to three-loop perturbative QCD yields alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1166^{+0.0012}_{-0.0008}, an update that roughly halves the error of the authors' 2012 result.
Measurement of the top-quark mass in $t\bar{t}+1$-jet events collected with the ATLAS detector in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV
hep-ex 2019-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The top-quark pole mass is measured as 171.1 (+1.2/-1.1) GeV and the running MS-bar mass as 162.9 (+2.3/-1.6) GeV from the shape of the ttbar+1-jet differential cross section in 8 TeV ATLAS data.
Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models
hep-ph 2018-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

An updated global electroweak fit finds the Standard Model internally consistent and, when combined with Higgs, flavour and muon data, excludes heavy Higgs bosons below roughly 400 GeV in Type-II and flipped two-Higgs...
The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC
hep-ph 2014-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

With NNLO Z-decay widths and four-loop QCD corrections included, the global electroweak fit describes the precision data at 0.8 sigma and indirectly predicts MW = 80.358 +/- 0.008 GeV and sin^2(theta_leff) = 0.23149 +...
The strong coupling constant: State of the art and the decade ahead
hep-ph 2022-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Seven independent classes of measurement converge on a strong coupling alpha_s(m_Z) = 0.1179 +/- 0.0009, and the paper lays out what each class would need to reach per-mille precision within a decade.
What is the Top Quark Mass?
hep-ph 2020-04 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The LHC direct top mass is a Monte Carlo generator parameter that cannot be identified with the pole mass at the current 0.5 GeV precision; it is closer to a low-scale short-distance mass near 1.3 GeV.
The Top Mass: Interpretation and Theoretical Uncertainties
hep-ph 2014-12 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

The Monte-Carlo top mass parameter is argued to equal a low-scale short-distance mass (MSR at 1 GeV) plus a non-perturbative correction of order 1 GeV, by analogy with B meson masses.

How later papers used it

70 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 43 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 7 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 15 of the 89 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

3 later papers by other authors are listed below: 3 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 3 of 7 papers with this label

Derived its top quark mass value at m_h from the present world average obtained in another work using the conversion tables provided in this paper.

Exclusive Radiative Higgs Decays as Probes of Light-Quark Yukawa Couplings (2015) · 0.85 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used this paper's value of M_t=171.2±2.4GeV for the 1σ level.

Multiple Point Principle of the Standard Model with Scalar Singlet Dark Matter and Right Handed Neutrinos (2014) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used this paper's M_t=171.2±4.82GeV (95% CL) as the basis for the 2σ deviation bands.

Vanishing Higgs Potential in Minimal Dark Matter Models (2015) · 0.96 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

70 arXiv papers cite this in 89 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 · 59 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 7 papers

We refer the interested reader to [ref] and [ref] for more details; here we just mention our reference values: * for the strong coupling constant at $m_Z$, $α_s^(5)$: we take the present [ref] world average experimental value of the strong coupling constant at $m_Z$, $α_s^(5,exp)=0.1181$, and its associated $1 σ$ error, $Δα_s^(5,exp)=0.0013$; * for the Higgs mass, $m_H$: we take the combined ATLAS and CMS result (after Run1) at $1 σ$, $m_H^exp=125.09$ GeV and $Δm_H^exp =0.24$ GeV [ref] ; * for the top pole mass, $m_t$: we take the present combined Tevatron and LHC value of the MC top mass, $m_t^MC=(173.34 ±0.76$) GeV [ref] ; the uncertainty in the identification between the pole and MC top mass is currently estimated to be of order $200$ MeV [ref] (or even $1$ GeV for the most conservative groups [ref] ).

Ruling out Critical Higgs Inflation? · Matching and running · 0.87
For the top quark we obtain $m_t(m_h)=(166.8±0.7)$ GeV starting from $m_t(m_t)=(163.4±0.7)$ GeV, which we have derived from the present world average obtained in [ref] using the conversion tables provided in [ref] .

Exclusive Radiative Higgs Decays as Probes of Light-Quark Yukawa Couplings · Effective Higgs couplings · 0.85
For the 1$σ$ level, this is given by [ref] M_t=171.2±2.4GeV.If we assume that all the other parameters of the SM except for $M_t$ are fixed, we can find the scale $Λ_β$ where $β_λ_eff$ becomes zero as a function of $M_t$.

Multiple Point Principle of the Standard Model with Scalar Singlet Dark Matter and Right Handed Neutrinos · Preliminary - Multiple Point Principle of SM - · 1.00

Compares with it 1 paper

In Table [ref] we compare the masses at the reference scale $μ_ref ≡m (μ_ref)$, i.e. , for charm-, bottom- and top-quarks [ For the top-quark masses, such comparisons have already been presented in Ref. [ref] .]

Heavy-flavor hadro-production with heavy-quark masses renormalized in the ${\overline{\rm MS}}$, MSR and on-shell schemes · Implementation of heavy-quark mass renormalization schemes · 0.86

Cites it as support 1 paper

Nonetheless, the MC mass definition can be translated to a theoretically well-defined short-distance mass definition at a low scale with an uncertainty currently estimated to be of the order of 1 GeV, see [ref] .

Precision determination of the top-quark mass · Monte Carlo mass · 0.96

Cites it as background 18 papers

While initially only qualitative arguments for the interpretation problem for $m_t^MC$ were available [ref] , recently some quantitative studies appeared, which have shed some light on the numerical aspect of the issue.

What is the Top Quark Mass? · Numerical Size of the Interpretation Problem · 0.85
The different mass definition can be related to each other in perturbation theory, see, e.g., Ref. [ref] and Ref. [ref] for a review of relations between these and other renormalization schemes such as the so-called MSR mass.

Top-Quark Physics at the LHC · Top-quark mass determination · 0.92
Explicitly, the running top-quark mass is determined in the SM with the highest available precision from the experimentally measured pole mass [For a detailed discussion about the distinction between the pole and the measured top-quark mass we refer to [ref] .].

O(\alpha_s^2) corrections to the running top-Yukawa coupling and the mass of the lightest Higgs boson in the MSSM · Introduction · 0.85

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] [129]

S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 214–219, [1207.0980]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[2] [1]

S. Bethke, A. H. Hoang, S. Kluth, J. Schieck, I. W. Stewart, et. al., 1110.0016

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[3] [2]

J. Blümlein, S. Riemersma, W. van Neerven, and A. V ogt,Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 51C (1996) 97–105, [hep-ph/9609217]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[4] [3]

A. Behring et. al., PoS RADCOR2013 (2014) 058, [1312.0124]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[5] [4]

S. Alekhin, Phys.Lett. B519 (2001) 57–62, [hep-ph/0107197]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[6] [5]

J. Blümlein, H. Böttcher, and A. Guffanti, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 135 (2004) 152–155, [hep-ph/0407089]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[7] [6]

J. Blümlein, H. Böttcher, and A. Guffanti, Nucl.Phys. B774 (2007) 182–207, [hep-ph/0607200]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[8] [7]

M. Glück, E. Reya, and C. Schuck, Nucl.Phys. B754 (2006) 178–186, [hep-ph/0604116]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[9] [8]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Klein, and S. Moch, Phys.Rev. D81 (2010) 014032, [0908.2766]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[10] [9]

P. Jimenez-Delgado and E. Reya, 1403.1852

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[11] [10]

A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur.Phys.J.C64 (2009) 653–680, [0905.3531]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[12] [11]

R. Thorne, 1402.3536

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [12]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, PoS DIS2010 (2010) 021, [1007.3657]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[14] [13]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 054028, [1310.3059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[15] [14]

J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, H.-L. Lai, Z. Li, et. al., Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 033009, [1302.6246]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[16] [15]

R. D. Ball, V . Bertone, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, et. al., Phys.Lett. B707 (2012) 66–71, [1110.2483]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[17] [16]

T. Gehrmann, G. Luisoni, and P. F. Monni, Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2265, [1210.6945]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[18] [17]

R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V . Mateu, and I. W. Stewart,Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 094002, [1204.5746]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[19] [18]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., Phys.Lett. B728 (2014) 496–517, [1307.1907]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[20] [19]

K. Rabbertz, 1312.5694

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[21] [20]

G. Dissertori, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. Glover, G. Heinrich, et. al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 104 (2010) 072002, [0910.4283]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[22] [21]

P. Baikov, K. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kühn, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 012002, [0801.1821]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[23] [22]

P. Baikov, K. Chetyrkin, J. Kühn, and J. Rittinger, Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 222003, [1201.5804]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[24] [23]

M. Jamin, Mod.Phys.Lett. A28 (2013) 1360006

View on Pith 2013

[25] [24]

S. Aoki et. al., JHEP 0910 (2009) 053, [0906.3906]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[26] [25]

C. McNeile, C. Davies, E. Follana, K. Hornbostel, and G. Lepage, Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 034512, [1004.4285]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[27] [26]

B. Blossier, P. Boucaud, M. Brinet, F. De Soto, X. Du, et. al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 262002, [1201.5770]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[28] [27]

A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto,et. al., Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 114031, [1205.6155]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[29] [28]

RBC Collaboration, UKQCD Collaboration 2014

View on Pith 2014

[30] [29]

S. Bethke, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 234 (2013) 229–234, [1210.0325]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[31] [30]

S. Aoki, Y . Aoki, C. Bernard, T. Blum, G. Colangelo, et. al., 1310.8555

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[32] [31]

C. Buttar, J. D’Hondt, M. Krämer, G. Salam, M. Wobisch, et. al., 0803.0678

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[33] [32]

G. Aad et. al., ATLAS Collaboration Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2261, [1207.5644]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[34] [33]

A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, L. Lonnblad, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, et. al., Comput.Phys.Commun. 184 (2013) 2803–2819, [1003.0694]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[35] [34]

S. Höche, F. Krauss, P. Maierhöfer, S. Pozzorini, M. Schönherr, et. al., 1402.6293

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[36] [35]

G. Aad et. al., ATLAS Collaboration Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2676, [1307.5749]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[37] [36]

M. Dobbs and J. B. Hansen, Comput.Phys.Commun. 134 (2001) 41–46

View on Pith 2001

[38] [37]

S. Kluth, Rept.Prog.Phys. 69 (2006) 1771–1846, [hep-ex/0603011]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[39] [38]

R. Davison and B. Webber, Eur.Phys.J.C59 (2009) 13–25, [0809.3326]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[40] [39]

C. Pahl, S. Bethke, O. Biebel, S. Kluth, and J. Schieck, Eur.Phys.J.C64 (2009) 533–547, [0904.0786]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[41] [40]

R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V . Mateu, and I. W. Stewart,Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 074021, [1006.3080]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[42] [41]

T. Gehrmann, S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, and F. Siegert, JHEP 1301 (2013) 144, [1207.5031]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[43] [42]

J. Beringer et. al., Particle Data Group Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 010001

View on Pith 2012

[44] [43]

T. A. Aaltonen et. al., CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 052018, [1307.7627]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[45] [44]

ATLAS Collaboration, CDF Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, D0 Collaboration 1403.4427

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[46] [45]

S. Kluth, Conf.Proc. C060726 (2006) 449–452, [hep-ex/0609020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[47] [46]

A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur.Phys.J.C63 (2009) 189–285, [arXiv:0901.0002]. 52

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[48] [47]

N. Kidonakis and J. Owens, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001) 054019, [hep-ph/0007268]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[49] [48]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. Glover, and J. Pires, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013), no. 16 162003, [1301.7310]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[50] [49]

M. C. Kumar and S. Moch, Phys.Lett. B730 (2014) 122–129, [1309.5311]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[51] [50]

D. de Florian, P. Hinderer, A. Mukherjee, F. Ringer, and W. V ogelsang,Phys.Rev.Lett. 112 (2014) 082001, [1310.7192]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[52] [51]

B. Watt, P. Motylinski, and R. Thorne, 1311.5703

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[53] [52]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 054009, [1202.2281]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[54] [53]

S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, PoS DIS2013 (2013) 297, [1307.7258]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[55] [54]

V . Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 111107, [0911.2710]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[56] [55]

V . M. Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration Phys.Lett. B718 (2012) 56–63, [1207.4957]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[57] [56]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., CMS Collaboration Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2604, [1304.7498]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[58] [57]

D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, F. Stober, and M. Wobisch, fastNLO Collaboration 1208.3641

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[59] [58]

T. Carli, D. Clements, A. Cooper-Sarkar, C. Gwenlan, G. P. Salam, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.C66 (2010) 503–524, [0911.2985]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[60] [59]

B. Schmidt and M. Steinhauser, Comput.Phys.Commun. 183 (2012) 1845–1848, [1201.6149]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[61] [60]

S. Dittmaier et. al., LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group 1101.0593

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[62] [61]

G. P. Lepage and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys.Rev. D48 (1993) 2250–2264, [hep-lat/9209022]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[63] [62]

E. Shintani et. al., JLQCD Collaboration, TWQCD Collaboration Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 074510, [0807.0556]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[64] [63]

E. Shintani, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, et. al., Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 074505, [1002.0371]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[65] [64]

T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and E. Shintani, Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 094503, [1208.4349]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[66] [65]

T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and E. Shintani, PoS LATTICE2012 (2012) 262, [1212.5542]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[67] [66]

Y . Aoki et. al., RBC Collaboration, UKQCD Collaboration Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 074508, [1011.0892]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[68] [67]

K. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kühn, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl.Phys. B482 (1996) 213–240, [hep-ph/9606230]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[69] [68]

E. Braaten, S. Narison, and A. Pich, Nucl.Phys. B373 (1992) 581–612

View on Pith 1992

[70] [69]

K. Chetyrkin and A. Kwiatkowski, Z.Phys. C59 (1993) 525–532, [hep-ph/9805232]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[71] [70]

K. Chetyrkin, V . Spiridonov, and S. Gorishnii, Phys.Lett. B160 (1985) 149–153

View on Pith 1985

[72] [71]

A. Bazavov, T. Bhattacharya, M. Cheng, C. DeTar, H. Ding, et. al., Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 054503, [1111.1710]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[73] [72]

A. V . Smirnov, V . A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,Phys.Lett. B668 (2008) 293–298, [0809.1927]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[74] [73]

C. Anzai, Y . Kiyo, and Y . Sumino,Phys.Rev.Lett. 104 (2010) 112003, [0911.4335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[75] [74]

A. V . Smirnov, V . A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,Phys.Rev.Lett. 104 (2010) 112002, [0911.4742]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[76] [75]

N. Brambilla, A. Vairo, X. Garcia i Tormo, and J. Soto, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 034016, [0906.1390]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[77] [76]

X. Garcia i Tormo, Mod.Phys.Lett. A28 (2013) 1330028, [1307.2238]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[78] [77]

N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Phys.Rev.Lett. 105 (2010) 212001, [1006.2066]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[79] [79]

J. Erler, hep-ph/0005084

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[80] [80]

F. Le Diberder and A. Pich, Phys.Lett. B286 (1992) 147–152

View on Pith 1992

[81] [81]

B. A. Kniehl and J. H. Kühn, Phys.Lett. B224 (1989) 229

View on Pith 1989

[82] [82]

S. Larin, T. van Ritbergen, and J. Vermaseren, Nucl.Phys. B438 (1995) 278–306, [hep-ph/9411260]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[83] [83]

J. Erler and M.-x. Luo, Phys.Lett. B558 (2003) 125–131, [hep-ph/0207114]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[84] [84]

J. Erler, Rev.Mex.Fis.50 (2004) 200–202, [hep-ph/0211345]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[85] [85]

M. Beneke and M. Jamin, JHEP 0809 (2008) 044, [0806.3156]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[86] [86]

D. Boito, M. Golterman, M. Jamin, A. Mahdavi, K. Maltman, et. al., Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 093015, [1203.3146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[87] [87]

D. Boito, M. Golterman, M. Jamin, K. Maltman, and S. Peris, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013), no. 9 094008, [1212.4471]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[88] [88]

G. ’t Hooft, Phys.Rev. D14 (1976) 3432–3450

View on Pith 1976

[89] [89]

M. Davier, A. Höcker, and Z. Zhang, Rev.Mod.Phys. 78 (2006) 1043–1109, [hep-ph/0507078]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[90] [90]

T. van Ritbergen, J. Vermaseren, and S. Larin, Phys.Lett. B400 (1997) 379–384, [hep-ph/9701390]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[91] [91]

J. Gracey, Phys.Lett. B373 (1996) 178–184, [hep-ph/9602214]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[92] [92]

J. R. Ellis, M. Karliner, and M. A. Samuel, Phys.Lett. B400 (1997) 176–181, [hep-ph/9612202]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[93] [93]

J. R. Ellis, I. Jack, D. Jones, M. Karliner, and M. Samuel, Phys.Rev. D57 (1998) 2665–2675, [hep-ph/9710302]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[94] [94]

B. Kniehl, A. Kotikov, A. Onishchenko, and O. Veretin, Phys.Rev.Lett. 97 (2006) 042001, [hep-ph/0607202]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[95] [95]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Gehrmann, and C. Kurz, Phys.Lett. B679 (2009) 219–222, [0906.0372]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[96] [96]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Gehrmann, and C. Kurz, Nucl.Phys. B836 (2010) 37–90, [1003.0986]. 53

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[97] [97]

S. Dittmaier, A. Huss, and C. Speckner, JHEP 1211 (2012) 095, [1210.0438]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[98] [98]

J. Butterworth et. al., Contribution to the Proceedings “Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report”(2014) 70, [1405.1067]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[99] [99]

S. Moretti, M. Nolten, and D. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 759 (2006) 50, [hep-ph/0606201]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[100] [100]

A. Scharf, 0910.0223

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[101] [101]

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, conference notes CMS-PAS-TOP-13-005 and ATLAS-CONF-2013-102, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[102] [102]

A. Buckley et al., Phys. Rept. 504 (2011) 145, [1101.2599]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[103] [103]

A. Juste et al., 1310.0799

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[104] [104]

A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 185 (2008) 220–226, [0808.0222]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[105] [105]

S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77 (2008) 074010, [hep-ph/0703207]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[106] [106]

S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77 (2008) 114003, [0711.2079]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[107] [107]

A. H. Hoang, A. Pathak, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, in preparation

View on Pith

[108] [108]

I. W. Stewart, F. Tackmann, and W. Waalewijn, in preparation

View on Pith

[109] [109]

A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi, and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 151602, [0803.4214]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[110] [110]

P. Z. Skands and D. Wicke, Eur.Phys.J.C52 (2007) 133–140, [hep-ph/0703081]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[111] [111]

Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and CDF and D0 Collaboration0803.1683

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[112] [112]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-12-029, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[113] [113]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-14-001, 2014

View on Pith 2014

[114] [114]

L. Evans and P. Bryant, JINST 3 (2008) S08001

View on Pith 2008

[115] [115]

ATLAS Collaboration JINST 3 (2008) S08003

View on Pith 2008

[116] [116]

CMS Collaboration JINST 3 (2008) S08004

View on Pith 2008

[117] [117]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-13-002, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[118] [118]

M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013), no. 25 252004, [1303.6254]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[119] [119]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-12-030, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[120] [120]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-12-027, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[121] [121]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2013-046, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[122] [122]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2013-077, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[123] [123]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-FTR-13-017, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[124] [124]

U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, and P. Uwer, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 054009, [0906.5273]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[125] [125]

V . M. Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration Phys.Lett. B703 (2011) 422–427, [1104.2887]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[126] [126]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2011-054, 2011

View on Pith 2011

[127] [127]

M. Aldaya, K. Lipka, and S. Naumann-Emme, CMS Collaboration EPJ Web Conf. 28 (2012) 12044, [1201.5336]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[128] [128]

M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn, Nucl.Phys. B855 (2012) 695–741, [1109.1536]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[129] [130]

P. Bärnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov, Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 132001, [1204.5201]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[130] [131]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, JHEP 1212 (2012) 054, [1207.0236]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[131] [132]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, 1112.5675

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[132] [133]

M. Aliev, H. Lacker, U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, P. Uwer, et. al., Comput.Phys.Commun. 182 (2011) 1034–1046, [1007.1327]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[133] [134]

M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, J. Piclum, C. Schwinn, et. al., JHEP 1207 (2012) 194, [1206.2454]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[134] [135]

R. D. Ball, V . Bertone, S. Carrazza, C. S. Deans, L. Del Debbio, et. al., Nucl.Phys. B867 (2013) 244–289, [1207.1303]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[135] [136]

V . M. Abazov et. al., D0 Collaboration 1105.5384

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[136] [137]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2011-121, 2011

View on Pith 2011

[137] [138]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., CMS Collaboration JHEP 1211 (2012) 067, [1208.2671]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[138] [139]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference note ATLAS-CONF-2013-097, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[139] [140]

S. Chatrchyan et. al., CMS Collaboration JHEP 1402 (2014) 024, [1312.7582]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[140] [141]

CMS Collaboration, conference note CMS-PAS-FTR-13-017, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[141] [142]

M. Beneke, I. Efthymiopoulos, M. L. Mangano, J. Womersley, A. Ahmadov, et. al., hep-ph/0003033

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[142] [143]

D. Chakraborty, J. Konigsberg, and D. L. Rainwater, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci.53 (2003) 301–351, [hep-ph/0303092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[143] [144]

W. Wagner, Rept.Prog.Phys. 68 (2005) 2409–2494, [hep-ph/0507207]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[144] [145]

A. Quadt, Eur.Phys.J.C48 (2006) 835–1000

View on Pith 2006

[145] [146]

W. Bernreuther, J.Phys. G35 (2008) 083001, [0805.1333]. 54

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[146] [147]

J. Gao, C. S. Li, and H. X. Zhu, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013) 042001, [1210.2808]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[147] [148]

M. Brucherseifer, F. Caola, and K. Melnikov, JHEP 1304 (2013) 059, [1301.7133]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[148] [149]

K. Melnikov, A. Scharf, and M. Schulze, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 054002, [1111.4991]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[149] [150]

A. Kharchilava, Phys.Lett. B476 (2000) 73–78, [hep-ph/9912320]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[150] [151]

R. Chierici and A. Dierlamm, Tech. Rep. CMS-NOTE-2006-058, CERN, Geneva, May, 2006

View on Pith 2006

[151] [152]

G. Corcella and F. Mescia, Eur.Phys.J.C65 (2010) 171–180, [0907.5158]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[152] [153]

G. Corcella, M. L. Mangano, and M. Seymour, JHEP 0007 (2000) 004, [hep-ph/0004179]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[153] [154]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, [hep-ph/0603175]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[154] [155]

G. Marchesini, B. Webber, G. Abbiendi, I. Knowles, M. Seymour, et. al., Comput.Phys.Commun. 67 (1992) 465–508

View on Pith 1992

[155] [156]

S. Biswas, K. Melnikov, and M. Schulze, JHEP 1008 (2010) 048, [1006.0910]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[156] [157]

A. Heister et. al., ALEPH Collaboration Phys.Lett. B512 (2001) 30–48, [hep-ex/0106051]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[157] [158]

K. Abe et. al., SLD Collaboration Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 (2000) 4300–4304, [hep-ex/9912058]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[158] [159]

B. Mele and P. Nason, Phys.Lett. B245 (1990) 635–639

View on Pith 1990

[159] [160]

G. Corcella and A. D. Mitov, Nucl.Phys. B623 (2002) 247–270, [hep-ph/0110319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[160] [161]

A. Martin, R. Roberts, W. Stirling, and R. Thorne, Eur.Phys.J.C28 (2003) 455–473, [hep-ph/0211080]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[161] [162]

J. Pumplin, D. Stump, J. Huston, H. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, et. al., JHEP 0207 (2002) 012, [hep-ph/0201195]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[162] [163]

P. M. Nadolsky, H.-L. Lai, Q.-H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, et. al., Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 013004, [0802.0007]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[163] [164]

W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z. Si, and P. Uwer, Nucl.Phys. B690 (2004) 81–137, [hep-ph/0403035]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[164] [165]

K. Melnikov and M. Schulze, JHEP 0908 (2009) 049, [0907.3090]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[165] [166]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, 1204.1513

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[166] [167]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and S. Pozzorini, Phys.Rev.Lett. 106 (2011) 052001, [1012.3975]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[167] [168]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[168] [169]

J. Schlenk, G. Heinrich, and J. Winter, PoS RADCOR2013 (2014) 033, [1312.5666]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[169] [170]

R. Frederix, 1311.4893

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[170] [171]

J. Alcaraz Maestre et. al., SM and NLO multileg and SM MC Working Groups 1203.6803

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[171] [172]

G. Heinrich, A. Maier, R. Nisius, J. Schlenk, and J. Winter, 1312.6659

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[172] [173]

M. Dowling and S. Moch, 1305.6422

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[173] [174]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, JHEP 1301 (2013) 080, [1210.6832]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[174] [175]

J. M. Campbell and R. Ellis, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 205-206 (2010) 10–15, [1007.3492]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[175] [176]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference notes ATLAS-CONF-2012-024, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2012-009, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[176] [177]

ATLAS Collaboration, conference notes ATLAS-CONF-2012-149, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2012-170, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[177] [178]

CMS Collaboration, conference notes CMS-PAS-TOP-12-003, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[178] [179]

CMS Collaboration, conference notes CMS-PAS-TOP-12-006, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[179] [180]

The Tevatron electroweak working groupD0 Note 6363

View on Pith

[180] [181]

N. Gray, D. J. Broadhurst, W. Gräfe, and K. Schilcher, Z.Phys. C48 (1990) 673–680

View on Pith 1990

[181] [182]

K. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Nucl.Phys. B573 (2000) 617–651, [hep-ph/9911434]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[182] [183]

K. Melnikov and T. v. Ritbergen, Phys.Lett. B482 (2000) 99–108, [hep-ph/9912391]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[183] [184]

P. Falgari, A. Papanastasiou, and A. Signer, JHEP 1305 (2013) 156, [1303.5299]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[184] [185]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and S. Pozzorini, JHEP 1210 (2012) 110, [1207.5018]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[185] [186]

F. Cascioli, S. Kallweit, P. Maierhöfer, and S. Pozzorini, 1312.0546

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[186] [187]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and D. Wackeroth, Nucl.Phys. B560 (1999) 33–65, [hep-ph/9904472]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[187] [188]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and L. Wieders, Nucl.Phys. B724 (2005) 247–294, [hep-ph/0505042]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[188] [189]

A. Aeppli, G. J. van Oldenborgh, and D. Wyler, Nucl.Phys. B428 (1994) 126–146, [hep-ph/9312212]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[189] [190]

R. G. Stuart, Phys.Lett. B272 (1991) 353–358

View on Pith 1991

[190] [191]

M. Beneke, A. Chapovsky, A. Signer, and G. Zanderighi, Nucl.Phys. B686 (2004) 205–247, [hep-ph/0401002]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[191] [192]

M. Beneke, P. Falgari, C. Schwinn, A. Signer, and G. Zanderighi, Nucl.Phys. B792 (2008) 89–135, [0707.0773]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[192] [193]

P. Falgari, P. Mellor, and A. Signer, Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 054028, [1007.0893]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[193] [194]

P. Falgari, F. Giannuzzi, P. Mellor, and A. Signer, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 094013, [1102.5267]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[194] [195]

A. Papanastasiou, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, and F. Maltoni, Phys.Lett. B726 (2013) 223–227, [1305.7088]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[195] [196]

I. I. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, and A. Vainshtein, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994) 2234–2246, [hep-ph/9402360]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[196] [197]

M. Beneke and V . M. Braun, Nucl.Phys. B426 (1994) 301–343, [hep-ph/9402364]. 55

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[197] [198]

M. C. Smith and S. S. Willenbrock, Phys.Rev.Lett. 79 (1997) 3825–3828, [hep-ph/9612329]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[198] [199]

M. Beneke, Phys.Lett. B434 (1998) 115–125, [hep-ph/9804241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[199] [200]

A. Hoang and T. Teubner, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 114027, [hep-ph/9904468]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[200] [201]

A. Pineda, JHEP 0106 (2001) 022, [hep-ph/0105008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[201] [202]

G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, et. al., JHEP 1208 (2012) 098, [1205.6497]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[202] [203]

S. Alioli, P. Fernandez, J. Fuster, A. Irles, S. Moch, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2438, [1303.6415]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[203] [204]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[204] [205]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, and S. Weinzierl, Eur.Phys.J.C59 (2009) 625–646, [0810.0452]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[205] [206]

K. Melnikov and M. Schulze, Nucl.Phys. B840 (2010) 129–159, [1004.3284]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[206] [207]

S. Alioli, S. Moch, and P. Uwer, JHEP 1201 (2012) 137, [1110.5251]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[207] [208]

A. Kardos, C. Papadopoulos, and Z. Trocsanyi, Phys.Lett. B705 (2011) 76–81, [1101.2672]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[208] [209]

J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto, et. al., Phys.Lett. B709 (2012) 222–228, [1112.3022]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[209] [210]

M. Holthausen, K. S. Lim, and M. Lindner, JHEP 1202 (2012) 037, [1112.2415]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[210] [211]

F. Bezrukov, M. Y . Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Shaposhnikov,JHEP 1210 (2012) 140, [1205.2893]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[211] [212]

D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, et. al., JHEP 1312 (2013) 089, [1307.3536]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[212] [213]

P. Ade et. al., BICEP2 Collaboration 1403.3985

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[213] [214]

J. Espinosa, G. Giudice, and A. Riotto, JCAP 0805 (2008) 002, [0710.2484]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[214] [215]

K. Seidel, F. Simon, M. Tesar, and S. Poss, Eur.Phys.J.C73 (2013) 2530, [1303.3758]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[215] [216]

T. Horiguchi, A. Ishikawa, T. Suehara, K. Fujii, Y . Sumino,et. al., 1310.0563

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[216] [217]

V . S. Fadin and V . A. Khoze,JETP Lett. 46 (1987) 525–529

View on Pith 1987

[217] [218]

W. Caswell and G. Lepage, Phys.Lett. B167 (1986) 437

View on Pith 1986

[218] [219]

G. P. Lepage, L. Magnea, C. Nakhleh, U. Magnea, and K. Hornbostel, Phys.Rev. D46 (1992) 4052–4067, [hep-lat/9205007]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1992

[219] [220]

G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys.Rev. D51 (1995) 1125–1171, [hep-ph/9407339]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[220] [221]

A. Pineda and J. Soto, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 64 (1998) 428–432, [hep-ph/9707481]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[221] [222]

M. Beneke, hep-ph/9806429

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[222] [223]

N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Nucl.Phys. B566 (2000) 275, [hep-ph/9907240]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[223] [224]

A. Hoang, M. Beneke, K. Melnikov, T. Nagano, A. Ota, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.directC2 (2000) 1, [hep-ph/0001286]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[224] [225]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, 1312.4791

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[225] [226]

B. A. Kniehl, A. A. Penin, V . A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,Nucl.Phys. B635 (2002) 357–383, [hep-ph/0203166]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[226] [227]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, Nucl.Phys. B714 (2005) 67–90, [hep-ph/0501289]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[227] [228]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, Phys.Lett. B658 (2008) 222–229, [0705.4518]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[228] [229]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and K. Schuller, to be published

View on Pith

[229] [230]

M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, and A. Penin, Phys.Lett. B653 (2007) 53–59, [0706.2733]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[230] [231]

M. Beneke and Y . Kiyo, Phys.Lett. B668 (2008) 143–147, [0804.4004]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[231] [232]

M. Beneke, J. Piclum, and T. Rauh, Nucl.Phys. B880 (2014) 414–434, [1312.4792]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[232] [233]

P. Marquard, J. H. Piclum, D. Seidel, and M. Steinhauser, Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 034027, [1401.3004]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[233] [234]

M. E. Luke, A. V . Manohar, and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 074025, [hep-ph/9910209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[234] [235]

A. V . Manohar and I. W. Stewart,Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 014033, [hep-ph/9912226]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[235] [236]

A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D67 (2003) 114020, [hep-ph/0209340]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[236] [237]

A. H. Hoang, Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 034009, [hep-ph/0307376]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[237] [238]

A. H. Hoang and M. Stahlhofen, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 054025, [hep-ph/0611292]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[238] [239]

A. Pineda, Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 014012, [1101.3269]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[239] [240]

A. H. Hoang and M. Stahlhofen, JHEP 1106 (2011) 088, [1102.0269]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[240] [241]

A. Hoang, A. Manohar, I. W. Stewart, and T. Teubner, Phys.Rev.Lett. 86 (2001) 1951–1954, [hep-ph/0011254]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[241] [242]

A. Hoang, A. Manohar, I. W. Stewart, and T. Teubner, Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 014014, [hep-ph/0107144]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[242] [243]

A. Pineda and A. Signer, Nucl.Phys. B762 (2007) 67–94, [hep-ph/0607239]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[243] [244]

A. Hoang and M. Stahlhofen, 1309.6323

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[244] [245]

A. H. Hoang and C. J. Reisser, Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 074022, [hep-ph/0412258]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[245] [246]

A. Denner, R. Guth, and J. H. Kühn, Nucl.Phys. B377 (1992) 3–19

View on Pith 1992

[246] [247]

W. Hollik and C. Schappacher, Nucl.Phys. B545 (1999) 98–140, [hep-ph/9807427]. 56

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[247] [248]

S.-F. Su and M. B. Wise, Phys.Lett. B510 (2001) 205–210, [hep-ph/0104169]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[248] [249]

Y . Kiyo, M. Steinhauser, and N. Zerf, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 075005, [0907.1146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[249] [250]

B. Grzadkowski, J. H. Kühn, P. Krawczyk, and R. Stuart, Nucl.Phys. B281 (1987) 18

View on Pith 1987

[250] [251]

R. Guth and J. H. Kühn, Nucl.Phys. B368 (1992) 38–56

View on Pith 1992

[251] [252]

A. H. Hoang and C. J. Reisser, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 034002, [hep-ph/0604104]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[252] [253]

W. Porod, Comput.Phys.Commun. 153 (2003) 275–315, [hep-ph/0301101]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[253] [254]

P. Marquard and N. Zerf, Comput.Phys.Commun. 185 (2014) 1153–1171, [1309.1731]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[254] [255]

A. Pak, M. Steinhauser, and N. Zerf, JHEP 1209 (2012) 118, [1208.1588]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[255] [256]

B. Allanach, Comput.Phys.Commun. 143 (2002) 305–331, [hep-ph/0104145]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[256] [257]

M. Baak, M. Göbel, J. Haller, A. Höcker, D. Kennedy, et. al., Eur.Phys.J.C72 (2012) 2205, [1209.2716]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[257] [258]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, D. Stöckinger, A. Weber, and G. Weiglein, JHEP 0608 (2006) 052, [hep-ph/0604147]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[258] [259]

T. Aaltonen et. al., CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 092003, [1207.1069]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[259] [260]

J. E. Brau, R. M. Godbole, F. R. L. Diberder, M. Thomson, H. Weerts, et. al., 1210.0202

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[260] [261]

H. Baer, T. Barklow, K. Fujii, Y . Gao, A. Hoang,et. al., 1306.6352

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[261] [262]

P. Lebrun, L. Linssen, A. Lucaci-Timoce, D. Schulte, F. Simon, et. al., 1209.2543

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[262] [263]

T. Behnke, J. E. Brau, B. Foster, J. Fuster, M. Harrison, et. al., 1306.6327

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[263] [264]

T. Behnke, J. E. Brau, P. N. Burrows, J. Fuster, M. Peskin, et. al., 1306.6329. 57

View on Pith Pith review arXiv