Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 65 references

The Role of the $t{\bar t}h$ Rest Frame in Direct Top-Quark Yukawa Coupling Measurements

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Evaluating two angular observables in the ttbar-h rest frame reduces the LHC luminosity needed to exclude a purely CP-odd (pseudoscalar) top-quark Yukawa coupling by roughly 250 inverse femtobarns at 90% confidence.

desk verdict The rest-frame b2/b4 observables are a genuinely useful idea, and the direction of the improvement is almost certainly right, but the headline 250/fb saving is not yet nailed down because the reconstruction chain is missing a closure test. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00490 v1 pith:UW23YF5O submitted 2019-09-01 hep-ph

Andrea Ferroglia , Miguel C. N. Fiolhais , Emanuel Gouveia , António Onofre This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords top-quarkYukawacouplingCPviolationpseudoscalarHiggscomponentt-tbar-hrestframeangularobservablesb2b4LHCdileptonicfinalstatebosonproperties
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the rest frame of the $t\bar{t}h$ system is a substantially better place to measure the CP properties of the top-quark Yukawa coupling than the laboratory frame. It defines two angular observables, $b_2$ and $b_4$, that project the $t$, $\bar{t}$, and $h$ momenta onto the beam axis and transverse plane, and shows at next-to-leading order in QCD that their distributions clearly separate a pure scalar (Standard Model) coupling from a pure pseudoscalar one when evaluated in the $t\bar{t}h$ rest frame. Using dileptonic $t\bar{t}h$ events with $h\to b\bar b$, a fast detector simulation, and a full kinematic fit, the paper reports that the $b_2$ observable requires about 250 inverse femtobarns less luminosity to exclude the pure CP-odd hypothesis at 90% confidence than the same observable measured in the lab frame. It also finds that the Higgs and top transverse-momentum spectra carry no more discriminating information than a simple counting experiment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the angular observables $b_2(i,j) = ((\vec p_i\times \hat k_z)\cdot(\vec p_j\times \hat k_z))/(|\vec p_i||\vec p_j|)$ and $b_4(i,j) = p_{i,z}p_{j,z}/(|\vec p_i||\vec p_j|)$, where $i,j$ run over $t$, $\bar t$, $h$ and $\hat k_z$ is the beam axis; they measure the transverse-dot and longitudinal correlations of the heavy final-state momenta. The paper's proposal is to evaluate them in the $t\bar{t}h$ center-of-mass frame, which requires full four-momentum reconstruction of the three heavy particles. This frame change concentrates the spin-correlation information that distinguishes a scalar from a pseudoscalar coupling: in the rest frame the $b_2(t,\bar t)$ distribution is single-peaked for the SM scalar and clearly different for the pseudoscalar, whereas the lab-frame shapes are much closer. The machinery that turns this shape difference into a number is a binned likelihood-ratio test: 100,000 Poisson pseudo-experiments per luminosity point yield an expected confidence level for excluding the pure CP-odd scenario as a function of integrated luminosity, with only statistical uncertainties.

What would settle it

Recompute the expected exclusion confidence levels using only events with Higgs transverse momentum above about 200 GeV, where the $h\to b\bar b$ jets merge, or switch to a boosted-jet tagging technique; if the roughly 250 inverse femtobarns advantage of the $t\bar{t}h$ rest frame vanishes or inverts, the gain is an artefact of the resolved-jet reconstruction, while if it survives, the paper's central claim is confirmed in the regime it explicitly left uncovered.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the two observables $b_2(i,j)$ and $b_4(i,j)$, defined from the transverse and longitudinal projections of the $t$, $\bar{t}$, and $h$ momenta relative to the beam axis, become markedly more discriminating between a CP-even and a CP-odd top-quark Yukawa coupling when they are evaluated in the rest frame of the $t\bar{t}h$ system rather than in the laboratory frame. At parton level, with next-to-leading-order QCD corrections, the normalized $b_2(t,\bar t)$ and $b_4(t,\bar t)$ distributions show clear shape differences between the pure scalar and pure pseudoscalar cases only in the $t\bar{t}h$ frame, not in the lab frame. After parton showering, a dileptonic selection with at least four jets and at least three b-tags, fast detector simulation, and a full kinematic fit, the reconstructed distributions still show the separation. The paper quantifies the gain through expected confidence levels: for the $b_2$ observable, reaching the 90% exclusion of the pure CP-odd hypothesis needs roughly 250 inverse femtobarns less integrated luminosity when the observable is evaluated in the $t\bar{t}h$ rest frame than in the lab frame. It also reports that the transverse-momentum spectra of the top quarks and the Higgs boson provide no better discrimination than a counting experiment.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative luminosity gain assumes that the full four-momentum reconstruction of the $t$, the $\bar t$, and the $h$ in the $t\bar{t}h$ rest frame preserves enough of the parton-level shape difference after detector simulation, the dileptonic selection, and the kinematic fit; the paper itself notes that for Higgs transverse momentum above about 200 GeV, the resolved-jet $h\to b\bar b$ identification degrades, so the quoted gain does not cover the boosted regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same rest-frame evaluation can be applied to the $b_4$ observable and to other angular correlations, so the sensitivity gain is not limited to a single variable.
  • Combining the dileptonic channel with the single-lepton $t\bar{t}h$ final state should reduce the luminosity required for a given exclusion level by roughly a factor of five relative to the dileptonic analysis alone.
  • The transverse momentum distributions of the top quarks and Higgs boson add no discriminating power beyond the total cross-section count, so future direct CP measurements should prioritize angular observables over $p_T$ spectra.
  • The quoted luminosity saving applies to events where the Higgs decay $b$ quarks are resolved as two small-radius jets; boosted Higgs bosons with $p_T(h)$ above about 200 GeV require separate treatment and are not covered by the gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This result suggests a general recipe: for any process producing three or more on-shell heavy particles, spin-sensitive angular variables should be constructed in the process rest frame, where the boost of the initial state no longer dilutes the angular correlations.
  • Because the paper provides the interpolation rule $\sigma_\alpha = \sigma_{\rm scalar}\cos^2\alpha + \sigma_{\rm pseudoscalar}\sin^2\alpha$, the same machinery could be extended from a binary scalar-versus-pseudoscalar exclusion to a direct fit of the mixing angle $\alpha$, including a measurement of the sign of the CP-odd component.
  • A dedicated study with a full, Geant4-based detector simulation and systematic uncertainties would test whether the roughly 250 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ advantage survives more realistic reconstruction, including jet energy scale and b-tagging efficiencies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes to evaluate the CP-sensitive angular observables b2 and b4, introduced earlier for the laboratory frame, in the center-of-mass frame of the ttbar h system, in order to probe a possible CP-odd component of the top-quark Yukawa coupling. The signal is parameterized by Eq. (1) with a mixing angle alpha. Parton-level distributions at NLO in QCD are computed with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, followed by a parton-shower study and a full case study in the dileptonic ttbar h (h to bb) final state, using Delphes fast simulation and a kinematic fit that reconstructs the neutrinos and the ttbar h system. Expected CLs for excluding a pure CP-odd coupling versus the SM scalar hypothesis are evaluated from binned shape distributions with a Poisson likelihood-ratio test as a function of integrated luminosity. The central claim is that evaluating b2 in the ttbar h rest frame reduces the luminosity needed for a 90% exclusion by roughly 250 inverse femtobarns compared with the laboratory frame, and more generally that the rest-frame choice improves sensitivity by a few hundred inverse femtobarns; the paper also finds that top-quark and Higgs pT distributions add no discrimination beyond counting.

Significance. Should the quantitative gain survive reconstruction-level validation, the paper's proposal is valuable: it is an inexpensive, well-defined modification of an existing analysis strategy that could improve the HL-LHC reach for a CP-odd top Yukawa component. The calculation chain is internally consistent and uses standard, publicly documented tools (MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, Pythia6, Delphes, MadAnalysis 5), and the CL procedure is a closed-loop Monte Carlo projection with no parameter fitted to data. The NLO and shower-level shape differences between scalar and pseudoscalar signals are clearly presented, and the claim is falsifiable in the sense that the CL curves are a definite quantitative prediction. The main residual risk concerns the reconstruction-level comparison, which currently lacks closure checks; this is a quantitative validation issue rather than a conceptual error. The overall scope is modest but appropriate for a phenomenological journal.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV / Figures 11–13] The central claim—that b2 needs roughly 250 fb^-1 less luminosity at 90% CL when evaluated in the ttbar h rest frame than in the laboratory frame—is obtained from reconstructed distributions (Figures 11–12) and the resulting CL curves (Figure 13), but the paper does not provide any closure test of the reconstruction chain for these observables. There is no comparison of reconstructed b2/b4 with generator-level values, no migration or response matrix, and no check that the kinematic fit (with its neutrino-solution and jet-assignment choices, described only by reference to [54–56]) does not preferentially select events in a way that artificially enlarges the scalar-versus-pseudoscalar separation in the rest frame. Because the rest-frame observables require boosting by the reconstructed ttbar h four-momentum, whereas the lab-frame observables do not, a biased fit could in principle produce part of the claimed gain. The authors should add resolution and migration studies, or an explicit fit-bias check, before the luminosity saving is quoted as a property of the ttbar h rest frame.
  2. [Section V, CL results] The quantitative luminosity comparison considers only statistical uncertainties, as stated in Section V ('Only statistical uncertainties are considered'), yet the abstract and conclusions state the few-hundred-fb^-1 saving without that qualification. At the luminosities where the 90% exclusion is projected (roughly 1000–3000 fb^-1), systematic uncertainties on jet energy scale, b-tagging, background normalizations, and signal shapes would typically dominate, and a differential shape comparison between the two frames could easily lose part of the apparent advantage. The paper should either add a crude systematic treatment (for example, nuisance-parameter smearing of the template shapes) or clearly qualify the headline number as a statistical-only projection.
  3. [Section V, last paragraph] The paper itself flags that the analysis targets events in which the b quarks from the Higgs decay result in two resolved small-radius jets, and that for pT(h) above about 200 GeV the fraction of events failing this requirement becomes significant. This means the quoted gain applies to a kinematic subset of the ttbar h phase space, while the abstract and conclusions present the luminosity reduction without this caveat. The scope of the claim should be stated explicitly in the abstract or in the conclusions, ideally with a remark on whether boosted Higgs reconstruction techniques could extend the gain.
  4. [Section II, scale uncertainty] The theoretical-uncertainty estimate varies only the factorization scale in the range {mu0,f/2, 2 mu0,f} around Eq. (3); the renormalization scale is not varied. The paper acknowledges this for the cross-section uncertainty, but the same limitation applies to the shape comparisons in Figures 1–5 that motivate the rest-frame choice, and the NLO/LO k-factor variations in Figure 5 show sizable shape distortions. A comment on the expected sensitivity to mu_r variation, or at least a justification for varying only mu_f, would strengthen the motivation for the rest-frame observables.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections III and IV] The PDF set is called NNPDF2.3 in Section III and NN23LO1 in Section IV; the two labels should be reconciled for clarity.
  2. [Section I] There is a typo in the introduction: 'posibile' should read 'possible'.
  3. [Figures 13–14] In the printed panels, the curves for b4 and for the |Delta eta| observables are difficult to distinguish from one another; different line styles or a more detailed legend would improve readability.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (6)] The decomposition in Eq. (6), and its stated bin-by-bin generalization, implicitly assumes the absence of scalar-pseudoscalar interference; a one-sentence derivation or citation would avoid the appearance of an unstated assumption.
  5. [Section IV] Given that the kinematic-fit details are deferred to references [54–56], the absence of reconstruction-level validation in the present manuscript is more consequential than it would otherwise be; even a short appendix with reconstructed-versus-truth distributions would make the paper self-contained for the central comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rest-frame sensitivity gain is computed from first-principles Monte Carlo, not fitted to data or equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the b2 and b4 observables evaluated in the ttbar h rest frame reduce by a few hundred inverse femtobarns the luminosity needed to exclude a pure CP-odd top-quark Yukawa coupling, is obtained by a closed-loop Monte Carlo sensitivity study rather than by a fit or by definition. The scalar and pseudoscalar hypotheses are defined directly by the Lagrangian in Eq. (1), and the observables b2 and b4 are kinematic definitions in Eqs. (7)-(8). The parton-level NLO distributions are computed with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, the reconstruction-level distributions in Figures 11-12 are obtained after Delphes simulation, dileptonic selection, and a kinematic fit, and the confidence levels in Section V are generated from Poisson pseudoexperiments using a likelihood-ratio test statistic. No parameter is fitted to data, and the lab-frame versus rest-frame comparison is computed in this paper rather than imported from previous work. The paper does cite the authors' earlier studies, e.g., Refs. [40] and [54]-[56], for the analysis pipeline and for agreement of total cross sections, but those citations are not load-bearing for the rest-frame comparison, which is presented directly in the paper's own figures and CL calculations. The manuscript's own caveat that resolved-jet h to b bbar identification degrades for pT(h) above about 200 GeV is an acknowledged kinematic limitation and a correctness risk, not evidence of circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data; the angle alpha labels the two benchmark hypotheses and is not determined from data. Masses, PDFs, and the scale M/2 are inputs from the literature or standard choices. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NLO QCD factorization with MMHT 2014 and NNPDF2.3 PDFs describes ttbar h production and backgrounds at 13 TeV.
    Sections II and III use MadGraph5_aMC@NLO with these PDFs; all signal and background predictions inherit this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lagrangian in Eq. (1), with only scalar and pseudoscalar top-Yukawa components, is the relevant BSM parameterization.
    The paper defines its model this way and does not consider other new physics contributions to ttbar h; this is a benchmark assumption, not an external constraint.
  • domain assumption The total cross section and each differential bin for arbitrary alpha combine as cos^2 alpha and sin^2 alpha, with no bin-by-bin scalar-pseudoscalar interference.
    Eq. (6) is stated for the total cross section and then applied to every distribution without proof; the paper does not discuss interference terms.
  • domain assumption Delphes with the default ATLAS card and the kinematic fit reproduce the detector response and reconstruction well enough for the CL projections.
    Section IV uses this setup; no comparison to data or closure test is provided in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Role of the $t{\bar t}h$ Rest Frame in Direct Top-Quark Yukawa Coupling Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UW23YF5O

@misc{pith2026190900490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Role of the $t\bar th$ Rest Frame in Direct Top-Quark Yukawa Coupling Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UW23YF5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00490}
}
abstract

This paper studies new possibilities to directly measure a hypothetical $CP$-odd (pseudoscalar) component in the top-quark Yukawa coupling. In particular, the role of the $t{\bar t} h$ center-of-mass rest frame in the associated production of a top pair and a $h$ boson at the LHC is explored. The $h$ boson is assumed to have both a $CP$-even (scalar) and a $CP$-odd coupling to the top quark. The relative strength of the scalar and pseudoscalar components is regulated by an angle $\alpha$. Observables sensitive to the nature of the top-quark Yukawa coupling are proposed. These observables are defined in terms of the transverse and longitudinal projections of $t$, $\bar{t}$ and $h$ momenta with respect to the beam axis in the $t{\bar t} h$ rest frame. Distributions differential with respect to those observables are evaluated up to NLO in QCD. These distributions are found to be sensitive to the $CP$ nature of the coupling. Dileptonic final states of the $t{\bar t} h$ system (with $h\rightarrow b\bar b$) are used, after fast DELPHES detector simulation and full event reconstruction through a kinematic fit, as a case study to test the observables' sensitivity to the $CP$ nature of the coupling. Confidence levels are presented as a function of the total integrated LHC luminosity for the case of exclusion of a pure $CP$-odd coupling against the Standard Model $CP$-even hypothesis. By using observables evaluated in the $t{\bar t} h$ system, the luminosity needed to directly probe the $CP$ properties of the top-quark Yukawa coupling at the High-Luminosity run of the LHC can be decreased by a few hundred inverse femtobarns, when compared to analyses that use observables in the laboratory rest frame. In addition, transverse momentum distributions of the $h$ boson and top quarks are found to provide no more discriminant power than a counting experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Parton-level kinematic distributions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Normalized parton-level kinematic distributions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Parton-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Normalized parton-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Normalized two-dimensional distributions at NLO including shower effects: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Normalized pseudorapidity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Expected CLs, assuming the SM, for exclusion of the pure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Expected CLs obtained with a test statistic derived from the top quark and Higgs boson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aadet al

    G. Aadet al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012) [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyanet al

    S. Chatrchyanet al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012) [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 784, 173 (2018) [arXiv:1806.00425 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 23, 231801 (2018) [arXiv:1804.02610 [hep- ex]]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in diboson final states with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    G. Aadet al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B726, 88 (2013) Erratum: [Phys. Lett. B 734, 406 (2014)] [arXiv:1307.1427 [hep-ex]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Aadet al

    G. Aadet al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B726, 120 (2013) [arXiv:1307.1432 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP1504, 117 (2015) [arXiv:1501.04943 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 5, 212 (2015) [arXiv:1412.8662 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Chatrchyanet al

    S. Chatrchyanet al. [CMS Collaboration], Nature Phys. 10, 557 (2014) [arXiv:1401.6527 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 1, 012004 (2015) [arXiv:1411.3441 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 759, 672 (2016) [arXiv:1602.04305 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 10, 476 (2015) Erratum: [Eur. Phys. J. C76, no. 3, 152 (2016)] [arXiv:1506.05669 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no. 5, 421 (2019) [arXiv:1809.10733 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fontes, J

    D. Fontes, J. C. Romão, R. Santos and J. P. Silva, JHEP 1506, 060 (2015) [arXiv:1502.01720 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Demartin, F

    F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, B. Page and M. Zaro, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 9, 3065 (2014) [arXiv:1407.5089 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    de Blaset al., arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

    J. de Blaset al., arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

    1905

  9. [17]

    J. N. Ng and P. Zakarauskas, Phys. Rev. D 29, 876 (1984)

    1984

  10. [18]

    Kunszt, Nucl

    Z. Kunszt, Nucl. Phys. B247, 339 (1984)

    1984

  11. [19]

    W. J. Marciano and F. E. Paige, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 2433 (1991)

    1991

  12. [20]

    J. F. Gunion, Phys. Lett. B261, 510 (1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    Goldstein, C

    J. Goldstein, C. S. Hill, J. Incandela, S. J. Parke, D. L. Rainwater and D. Stuart, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 1694 (2001) [hep-ph/0006311]

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer, B. Plumper, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 201805 (2001) [hep-ph/0107081]

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer, B. Plumper, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 653, 151 (2003) [hep-ph/0211352]

    2003 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Reina and S

    L. Reina and S. Dawson, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 201804 (2001) [hep-ph/0107101]

    2001 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dawson, L

    S. Dawson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D 67, 071503 (2003) [hep-ph/0211438]

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dawson, C

    S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D 68, 034022 (2003) [hep- ph/0305087]

    2003

  19. [27]

    Dittmaier, M

    S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D70, 074010 (2004) [hep-ph/0309204]

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pit- tau and P. Torrielli, Phys. Lett. B 701, 427 (2011) [arXiv:1104.5613 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. V. Garzelli, A. Kardos, C. G. Papadopoulos and Z. Trocsanyi, EPL 96, no. 1, 11001 (2011) [arXiv:1108.0387 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D91, no. 9, 094003 (2015) [arXiv:1501.04498 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro, JHEP1409, 065 (2014) [arXiv:1407.0823 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhang, W

    Y. Zhang, W. G. Ma, R. Y. Zhang, C. Chen and L. Guo, Phys. Lett. B738, 1 (2014) [arXiv:1407.1110 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao and M. Zaro, JHEP1506, 184 (2015) [arXiv:1504.03446 [hep- ph]]. 6

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani and I. Tsinikos, JHEP1602, 113 (2016) [arXiv:1507.05640 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, B. D. Pecjak, A. Signer and L. L. Yang, JHEP 1603, 124 (2016) [arXiv:1510.01914 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Yang, JHEP 1702, 126 (2017) [arXiv:1611.00049 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Phys. Rev. D97, no. 11, 114007 (2018) [arXiv:1704.03363 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    W. L. Ju and L. L. Yang, JHEP 1906, 050 (2019) [arXiv:1904.08744 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, R. Frederix, D. Pagani, B. D. Pecjak and I. Tsinikos, JHEP1908, 039 (2019) [arXiv:1907.04343 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, M. C. N. Fiolhais and A. Onofre, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.7, 073005 [arXiv:1707.01803 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. F. Gunion and X. G. He, Phys. Rev. Lett.76 (1996) 4468 [hep-ph/9602226]

    1996 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Boudjema, R

    F. Boudjema, R. M. Godbole, D. Guadagnoli and K. A. Mohan, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 1, 015019 (2015) [arXiv:1501.03157 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Berge, W

    S. Berge, W. Bernreuther and S. Kirchner, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 11, 3164 (2014) [arXiv:1408.0798 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Berge, W

    S. Berge, W. Bernreuther and H. Spiesberger, arXiv:1208.1507 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Berge, W

    S. Berge, W. Bernreuther, B. Niepelt and H. Spiesberger, Phys. Rev. D 84, 116003 (2011) [arXiv:1108.0670 [hep- ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Berge, W

    S. Berge, W. Bernreuther and J. Ziethe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 171605 (2008) [arXiv:0801.2297 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Khatibi and M

    S. Khatibi and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 7, 074014 (2014) [arXiv:1409.6553 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Brooijmans et al., arXiv:1405.1617 [hep-ph]

    G. Brooijmans et al., arXiv:1405.1617 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Alwallet al., JHEP1407, 079 (2014) [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]]

    J. Alwallet al., JHEP1407, 079 (2014) [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Artoisenet et al

    P. Artoisenet et al. , JHEP 1311, 043 (2013) [arXiv:1306.6464 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 5, 204 (2015) [arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    R. D. Ball et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 867, 244 (2013) [arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF Collaboration], JHEP 1504, 040 (2015) [arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. P. Amor dos Santoset al. , Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 3, 034021 (2015) [arXiv:1503.07787 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Amor Dos Santoset al., Phys

    S. Amor Dos Santoset al., Phys. Rev. D96, no. 1, 013004 (2017) [arXiv:1704.03565 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Azevedo, A

    D. Azevedo, A. Onofre, F. Filthaut and R. Gonçalo, Phys. Rev. D98, no. 3, 033004 (2018) [arXiv:1711.05292 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer and R. Rietkerk, JHEP 1303, 015 (2013) [arXiv:1212.3460 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP0605, 026 (2006) [hep-ph/0603175]

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Alwall et al

    J. Alwall et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 473 (2008) [arXiv:0706.2569 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Frixione and B

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, JHEP0206, 029 (2002) [hep-ph/0204244]

    2002 arXiv

  53. [61]

    de Favereauet al

    J. de Favereauet al. [DELPHES 3 Collaboration], JHEP 1402, 057 (2014) [arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 184, 222 (2013) [arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks and C. Wymant, Eur. Phys. J. C74, no. 10, 3103 (2014) [arXiv:1405.3982 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. R. Buckley and D. Goncalves, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no. 9, 091801 (2016) [arXiv:1507.07926 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Cepedaet al

    M. Cepedaet al. [HL/HE WG2 group], arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]. 7 3− 2− 1− 0 1 2 cross section [fb] 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ) = 1 (h=H)αcos( ) = 0 (h=A)αcos( MMHT 2014 NLO PDFs = M/2 0 µ h framett hη 3− 2− 1− 0 1 2 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 3− 2− 1− 0 1 2 cross section [fb] 5 10 15 20...

    1902 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.