Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Weak bosons as partons below 10 TeV partonic center-of-momentum

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a quantitative threshold—about 800 GeV—above which W and Z bosons can be treated as partons in scattering calculations.

desk verdict The practical 800 GeV rule is the real contribution; the NLP PDFs are new but the gauge dependence keeps them from being a clean result. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07878 v2 pith:LKDE7GCB submitted 2025-02-11 hep-ph

Innes Bigaran , Richard Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords effectiveWapproximationweakbosonpartondistributionfunctionsnext-to-leadingpowercollinearexpansionhelicity-polarizedPDFsgaugeinvariancesame-signWWscatteringkinematicconsistencyconditions
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

This paper asks when the Standard Model trick of treating collinearly radiated $W$ and $Z$ bosons as partons, the Effective $W$ Approximation (EWA), becomes quantitatively trustworthy. It derives the next-to-leading-power (NLP) corrections to the helicity-polarized weak-boson number densities from massless chiral fermions in both $R_\xi$ and axial gauges, and shows that those corrections develop pathologies unless two conditions hold: the weak boson carries $E_V \gtrsim 800$ GeV ($900$ GeV for $Z$) in the partonic center-of-momentum frame, and the factorization scale $\mu_f$ is kept near the process threshold. With those conditions, convolutions of the NLP PDFs with parton-level cross sections reproduce full tree-level matrix elements for processes such as $W^+W^- \to hh$ within roughly 20\%, indicating the onset of tree-level factorization. This matters because it lowers the energy threshold for using electroweak-boson parton descriptions in LHC phenomenology and makes the approximation testable with 450 fb$^{-1}$ of same-sign $WW$ data at $\sqrt{s}=13.6$ TeV.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set of next-to-leading-power, helicity-polarized weak-boson number densities in Eqs. (6a)--(6d), derived from the tree-level $\mu^- \to V_\lambda \ell$ splitting amplitudes expanded to NLP in the lepton emission angle. These PDFs carry the argument because their positivity and gauge behavior define the regime of validity of the Effective $W$ Approximation: enforcing positive-definiteness and gauge invariance converts the observed breakdowns into the kinematic conditions $E_V \gtrsim 800$ GeV and $\mu_f$ near threshold. The decomposition of the longitudinal polarization vector into a Goldstone piece and a gauge piece is what makes the calculation gauge-tractable, since the Goldstone and scalar modes decouple from massless-fermion currents at tree level.

What would settle it

Compute the longitudinal NLP PDF in a third gauge (for example, light-cone gauge) at $E_V = 1$ TeV, $z = 0.5$, and $\mu_f = M_W$, and compare with Eqs. (6c) and (9); if the gauge spread is order one rather than $O(M_W/E_V)$, the conjectured gauge-invariance restoration, and the kinematic conditions built on it, fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the tree-level EWA is a controlled approximation for many-leg weak-boson processes, not merely an order-of-magnitude tool, once the radiated boson carries $E_V \gtrsim 800$--$900$ GeV in the partonic center-of-momentum frame and $\mu_f$ is set near threshold. The new ingredient is the first derivation of the NLP-accurate, helicity-polarized $W/Z$ PDFs, Eqs. (6a)--(6d), from massless fermion splitting in $R_\xi$ and axial gauges. The NLP corrections are built from leading-power PDFs of other helicities, which the authors read as helicity inversion, and they expose the origin of earlier disagreements: the transverse PDFs turn negative when $\mu_f^2/E_V^2$ is too large, and the longitudinal PDF turns negative when $E_V^2/M_V^2$ is too small. A key finding is that the longitudinal NLP PDF is gauge-dependent, with Eq. (6c) in $R_\xi$ gauge differing from Eq. (9) in axial gauge, which the authors attribute to conjectured $O(M_V/E)$ effects from polarization interference and the quasi-on-shell approximation. The reliability claim is that when the kinematic conditions suppress these terms, the EWA reproduces full matrix elements for $W_0W_0 \to hh$ and $W_TW_T \to 3\gamma$ within the quoted tolerances, and that the same logic transfers to protons, making the approximation testable at the LHC.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gauge dependence of the longitudinal NLP PDF is a physical $O(M_V/E)$ effect from neglected polarization interference and off-shell corrections, not a sign that the NLP expansion itself is not gauge-invariant; if that premise fails, the kinematic conditions derived from gauge invariance and positivity are artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full matrix elements for $W^+W^- \to hh$ are reproduced to within $\pm 20\%$ for $M(WW) \gtrsim 1$ TeV, and NLP and LP predictions converge to the full result for $M(WW) \gtrsim 1.6$ TeV, corresponding to $E_W \approx 800$ GeV.
  • Dropping the requirement $E_V > M_V$ makes the EWA overestimate the low-$M(WW)$ phase space, so cross sections computed without this cut are unreliable in that region.
  • The NLP corrections impose a concrete scale ordering: $\mu_f \ll E_V$ is needed to keep the transverse PDFs positive, and $E_V \gg M_V$ for the longitudinal PDF, so the common choice $\mu_f \sim E_V$ is not safe at tree level.
  • With 450 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13.6$ TeV, the same-sign $WW$ signal yields roughly 30 (6) events after realistic acceptance for $M(WW) > 1$ (1.6) TeV and $M(jj) > 500$ GeV, enough to begin testing the EWA experimentally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 800 GeV onset holds for protons, weak-boson parton descriptions become a practical tool for LHC vector-boson-scattering and effective-field-theory analyses at current energies, not only for future multi-TeV colliders.
  • The gauge dependence of the longitudinal NLP PDF suggests a direct test: repeat the NLP derivation in a third gauge or at one loop; if the spread is not $O(M_V/E)$, the kinematic conditions derived here would need to be revisited.
  • A measurement of the $E_V$ distribution, rather than only the inclusive same-sign $WW$ cross section, would probe the predicted threshold and could sharpen the discrimination between EWA-based and full-matrix-element predictions.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives helicity-polarized W/Z parton distribution functions at next-to-leading power (NLP) in the collinear expansion for massless chiral leptons in R_xi gauge, Eq. (6), and computes the corresponding longitudinal PDF in axial gauge, Eq. (9). It identifies positivity and collinear-limit pathologies in the NLP corrections and proposes a set of kinematic consistency conditions, summarized as requiring E_V ≳ 800-900 GeV and a factorization scale close to the process threshold. The approximation is tested against full tree-level matrix elements for e+mu- -> nu_e nu_mu hh and e+mu- -> nu_e nu_mu gamma gamma gamma at sqrt(s)=5 TeV, with the latter augmented by a modeled bremsstrahlung correction. The paper concludes that the EWA reliably reproduces full matrix elements for many-leg processes above this energy and that the EWA is testable at the LHC with 450 fb^-1 of same-sign WW data.

Significance. If the central claims were fully established, the paper would provide the first practical NLP-accurate effective W approximation and a concrete energy threshold for the validity of electroweak parton-model descriptions, which would be useful for vector-boson-scattering phenomenology and for interpreting LHC measurements. The authors provide explicit analytic formulas, a MadGraph5_aMC@NLO implementation, and an independent analytic/numerical cross-check in Appendix B; these are concrete and reproducible contributions. However, the gauge dependence of the longitudinal NLP PDF is a central unresolved issue, and the numerical evidence for the 'many-leg' claim is limited to one clean process, whose integrated NLP normalization deviates by -30% from the full result, plus one process that requires an ad hoc bremsstrahlung model. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving the O(M_V/E) conjecture and on providing stronger validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Beyond leading log, Eq. (6c) vs Eq. (9)] The longitudinal NLP PDF differs between R_xi gauge, Eq. (6c), which subtracts f_+ + f_-, and axial gauge, Eq. (9), which subtracts f_+ - (1 - 2z) f_-. The authors attribute the difference to polarization interference and to the quasi-on-shell replacement and conjecture both to be O(M_V/E), citing Refs. [10,27]. This conjecture is load-bearing: at the claimed validity threshold E_V ~ 800 GeV, M_W/E ~ 0.1, while the NLP terms are O(M_W^2/E_W^2) ~ 0.01, so the uncontrolled effects can be larger than the correction being computed. Since Eq. (6c) is the PDF used in all numerical validations, and since gauge invariance is advertised as one of the conditions behind the 800 GeV criterion, the manuscript needs a direct estimate or calculation of the neglected interference and off-shell contributions, or a gauge-invariant definition of the longitudinal PDF. Without this, Eq. (6c) is not established as a process-independent parton distribution.
  2. [EWA in high-energy lepton collisions, Fig. 3(a) and Table II] The hh validation does not currently support the normalization part of the central claim. For M(hh) > 2m_h, Table II quotes sigma_full = 1.66 fb and sigma_NLP = 1.16 fb, a -30% deviation, which is outside the +/-20% tolerance band used in Fig. 3; LP is -9% and only LLA (+12%) falls within the band. The text also acknowledges that NLP is 'far below the full ME' at low M(WW) and that agreement sets in only for M(WW) ~ 1.6 TeV. Thus the paper does not demonstrate that shapes and normalizations of full matrix elements are well approximated at the claimed 800 GeV onset; it shows a large-M property, not a consequence of the kinematic consistency conditions alone. A quantitative accuracy criterion, or a softened claim, is needed.
  3. [EWA in high-energy lepton collisions, Eqs. (13)-(15) and Fig. 3(c)] The 3gamma process is not a clean validation of the NLP PDFs. The full 2->5 matrix element contains bremsstrahlung and single-W-exchange contributions that the EWA does not capture, and the authors model these with a Sudakov factor whose scale mu_S is chosen ad hoc, together with an additional cut M(gamma gamma) > 1100 GeV that is applied only to the correction. After this rescaling, the agreement in Fig. 3(c) is largely a consequence of the model rather than a test. Moreover, NLP+brem reaches the +/-20% band only for M(WW) > 1.8 TeV, not at 800 GeV. The 'many-leg' claim in the abstract therefore rests on one uncorrected process whose integrated NLP normalization is off by -30%, and on a corrected process whose correction is fitted. Additional independent many-leg tests, or a derivation of r_brem, are needed before the broad claim can be accepted.
  4. [Discussion and conclusion] The kinematic consistency conditions are presented as consequences of collinear approximation, gauge invariance, and positive-definiteness, but no explicit derivation is shown. The positivity arguments in Fig. 2 only exclude E_V < M_V for the longitudinal PDF and E_V < mu_f for the transverse PDFs; they do not produce the number 800 GeV. The threshold E_V ~ 800 GeV appears to be inferred from the numerical agreement in Fig. 3 and from the convergence of NLP and LP at M(WW) ~ 1.6 TeV, which is an output of full-matrix-element comparisons rather than a PDF-level condition. The paper should either present an explicit derivation of these conditions from Eq. (6) or present them as empirical criteria validated by examples, not as derived constraints.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B4c)] The spatial components of p1 are written as (beta_h sin theta sin phi, beta_h sin theta sin phi, beta_h cos theta); the first two components should be (beta_h sin theta cos phi, beta_h sin theta sin phi) to define a proper azimuthal angle.
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B3c)-(B3d)] Both sub-amplitudes are labeled -iM_t; the second should be labeled -iM_u.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] In panel (a), the curves for 'LLA without imposing E_V > M_V' and 'NLP' are both printed as dashed, making them difficult to distinguish; distinct line styles should be used.
  4. [References] Ref. [35] is cited as 'JHEP 06, 114' without a publication year; please add the year for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NLP PDFs are derived from splitting amplitudes, and the kinematic criteria are motivated by expansion control rather than fitted to the benchmark matrix elements.

full rationale

The central derivation, Eq. (6), is obtained by expanding the squared mu -> V lambda splitting amplitude in the collinear angle and integrating over phase space; no parameter is fitted to the full matrix elements used later for validation. The advertised kinematic conditions (E_V > 800-900 GeV and mu_f near threshold) are justified inside the calculation by positivity and by requiring the O(M_V^2/E_V^2) and O(mu_f^2/E_V^2) corrections to be small, not by tuning to the full ME. The numerical comparisons in Fig. 3 confront independent full MEs against the EWA predictions. The bremsstrahlung factor in Eqs. (13)-(15) is an openly labeled Sudakov estimate from the 2gamma rate, not a fit to the 3gamma ME, and it is used only for a secondary illustration. The gauge dependence of the longitudinal NLP PDF, Eq. (6c) versus Eq. (9), is acknowledged and attributed to conjectured O(M_V/E) effects from Refs. [10,27]; this is an unproven validity limitation, not a circular reduction. Citations to the authors' prior work [35,62] supply the LLA baseline and automation tools, not the new NLP expressions. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation has no new particles or forces. The main inputs are scale choices and kinematic cuts; the most fragile is the conjectured O(M_V/E) suppression invoked to explain the NLP gauge dependence.

free parameters (4)
  • factorization scale mu_f = 250 GeV, 450 GeV in illustrations
    Factorization scale chosen by hand; the paper recommends mu_f near the process threshold. It enters the PDFs logarithmically and the NLP corrections grow with mu_f^2/E_V^2.
  • Sudakov scale mu_S = 450 GeV
    Chosen in Eq. (13b) to estimate the bremsstrahlung contribution for the 3gamma process; no independent motivation is given.
  • M(gamma gamma) > 1100 GeV cut for bremsstrahlung correction = 1100 GeV
    Applied when computing sigma_Full(2gamma) to avoid negative NLP cross sections; a post-hoc selection.
  • z_min = M_W/E_e(mu) = M_W/E
    Kinematic threshold cut imposed for EWA channels to enforce E_V > M_V.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Quasi-on-shell approximation: replace 1/sqrt(q^2) with 1/M_V in the longitudinal polarization vector (Eqs. 3b-3d)
    Stated in Setup; the impact was previously explored [27,48] but not quantified here at NLP; load-bearing for the lambda=0 PDFs.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjectured O(M_V/E) suppression of polarization interference and off-shell effects
    Used to explain gauge dependence of NLP longitudinal PDF between R_xi and axial gauges (Eq. 9); not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Hadronic W/Z PDFs obtained by one-step convolution with quark PDFs, no EW RGE
    Stated in 'Beyond leading log'; necessary for the LHC testability claim; ignores EW evolution which is important at very high scales.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak bosons as partons below 10 TeV partonic center-of-momentum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKDE7GCB

@misc{pith2026250207878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak bosons as partons below 10 TeV partonic center-of-momentum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKDE7GCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07878}
}
abstract

We investigate the modeling of weak boson number densities for leptons and hadrons in practical calculations in the Standard Model. In the framework of the Effective $W$ Approximation (EWA) and in the $R_\xi$ and axial gauges, we derive the unrenormalized, tree-level parton number densities for weak bosons from massless fermions at next-to-leading power in the collinear expansion. Corrections exhibit various pathologies and properties, including those conjectured but not proven, and parallel heavy quark factorization. We suppress pathologies through a new set of kinematical consistency conditions. When satisfied, shapes and normalizations of full matrix elements for many-leg processes can be well approximated by the EWA and fragmentation contributions at leading power, suggesting the onset of tree-level factorization. Findings also suggest that the EWA is testable at the LHC with $\mathcal{L}=450$ fb$^{-1}$ of same-sign $WW$ scattering data at $\sqrt{s}=13.6$ TeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic relationship between the leading log (LLA), leading power (LP), and next-to-leading power (NLP) approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Upper panel: For (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Upper: The invariant mass distribution of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The Four Polarizations of the $W$ at High Energies

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Polarization interference in intermediate W bosons is generically nonzero even on-shell, can exceed width-over-mass corrections at low energies, and is suppressed at LHC energies; a 2P scheme is proposed to reduce gau...

  2. Precision phenomenology at multi-TeV muon colliders

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Combining QED-resummed lepton PDFs, NLO electroweak corrections, and selected NNLO vector-boson-fusion terms gives percent-level predictions for ttbar and WW production at multi-TeV muon colliders, with caveats in the...

  3. Dark Z' at a Muon Collider: Radiative Return versus Vector Boson Fusion

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Muon collider sensitivity to dark Z' via radiative return versus vector boson fusion allows mixing parameter extraction from relative rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Partonic cross sections (column 2) use a hard scattering scale of Q = 1 TeV

    and LLA/LP/NLP PDFs (column 3/4/5). Partonic cross sections (column 2) use a hard scattering scale of Q = 1 TeV. Appendix C: Scale variation for LP and NLP PDFs Assuming a collection events, each with cross section weight ∆ σk with a baseline scale choice µ = µ0, then the scale variation of the cross section weight (∆ σ′ k) at a scale µ = ζµ 0 is given by...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Witten, Heavy Quark Contributions to Deep Inelastic Scattering, Nucl

    E. Witten, Heavy Quark Contributions to Deep Inelastic Scattering, Nucl. Phys. B 104, 445 (1976)

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    M. A. G. Aivazis, F. I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung, Lep- toproduction of heavy quarks. 1. General formalism and kinematics of charged current and neutral current production processes, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3085 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9312318

    arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    M. A. G. Aivazis, J. C. Collins, F. I. Olness, and W.- K. Tung, Leptoproduction of heavy quarks. 2. A Unified QCD formulation of charged and neutral current pro- cesses from fixed target to collider energies, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3102 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9312319

    arXiv 1994

  5. [5]

    T. Han, J. Sayre, and S. Westhoff, Top-Quark Initiated Processes at High-Energy Hadron Colliders, JHEP 04, 145, arXiv:1411.2588 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    A Redux on "When is the Top Quark a Parton?"

    S. Dawson, A. Ismail, and I. Low, Redux on “When is the top quark a parton?”, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014005 (2014), arXiv:1405.6211 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne, Parton distributions incorporating QED con- 9 tributions, Eur. Phys. J. C 39, 155 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0411040

    work page arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Manohar, P

    A. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, How bright is the proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 242002 (2016), arXiv:1607.04266 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    A. V. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zan- derighi, The Photon Content of the Proton, JHEP 12, 046, arXiv:1708.01256 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    K. Xie, B. Zhou, and T. J. Hobbs (CTEQ-TEA), The photon content of the neutron, JHEP 04, 022, arXiv:2305.10497 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dawson, The Effective W Approximation, Nucl

    S. Dawson, The Effective W Approximation, Nucl. Phys. B 249, 42 (1985)

    1985

  4. [12]

    G. L. Kane, W. W. Repko, and W. B. Rolnick, The Effec- tive W+-, Z0 Approximation for High-Energy Collisions, Phys. Lett. B 148, 367 (1984)

    1984

  5. [13]

    Kunszt and D

    Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper, On the Validity of the Effec- tive W Approximation, Nucl. Phys. B 296, 253 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    Ciafaloni, P

    M. Ciafaloni, P. Ciafaloni, and D. Comelli, Electroweak Bloch-Nordsieck violation at the TeV scale: ’Strong’ weak interactions?, Nucl. Phys. B 589, 359 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004071

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ciafaloni, P

    M. Ciafaloni, P. Ciafaloni, and D. Comelli, Bloch- Nordsieck violating electroweak corrections to inclusive TeV scale hard processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4810 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001142

    2000 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ciafaloni, P

    M. Ciafaloni, P. Ciafaloni, and D. Comelli, Bloch- Nordsieck violation in spontaneously broken Abelian the- ories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 211802 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0103315

    2001

  9. [17]

    Ciafaloni and D

    P. Ciafaloni and D. Comelli, Electroweak evolution equa- tions, JHEP 11, 022, arXiv:hep-ph/0505047

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    J.-y. Chiu, F. Golf, R. Kelley, and A. V. Manohar, Elec- troweak Sudakov corrections using effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 021802 (2008), arXiv:0709.2377 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J.-y. Chiu, A. Fuhrer, R. Kelley, and A. V. Manohar, Factorization Structure of Gauge Theory Amplitudes and Application to Hard Scattering Processes at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 80, 094013 (2009), arXiv:0909.0012 [hep- ph]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Manohar, B

    A. Manohar, B. Shotwell, C. Bauer, and S. Tur- czyk, Non-cancellation of electroweak logarithms in high-energy scattering, Phys. Lett. B 740, 179 (2015), arXiv:1409.1918 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. Chen, T. Han, and B. Tweedie, Electroweak Splitting Functions and High Energy Showering, JHEP 11, 093, arXiv:1611.00788 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    C. W. Bauer, N. Ferland, and B. R. Webber, Standard Model Parton Distributions at Very High Energies, JHEP 08, 036, arXiv:1703.08562 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. W. Bauer and B. R. Webber, Polarization Effects in Standard Model Parton Distributions at Very High En- ergies, JHEP 03, 013, arXiv:1808.08831 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    T. Han, Y. Ma, and K. Xie, High energy leptonic col- lisions and electroweak parton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 103, L031301 (2021), arXiv:2007.14300 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Frixione and G

    S. Frixione and G. Stagnitto, The muon parton distribu- tion functions, JHEP 12, 170, arXiv:2309.07516 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lindfors, Distribution Functions for Heavy Vector Bosons Inside Colliding Particle Beams, Z

    J. Lindfors, Distribution Functions for Heavy Vector Bosons Inside Colliding Particle Beams, Z. Phys. C 28, 427 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Kleiss and W

    R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Anomalous High-energy Be- havior in Boson Fusion, Phys. Lett. B 182, 75 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    P. W. Johnson, F. I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung, The Ef- fective Vector Boson Method for High-energy Collisions, Phys. Rev. D 36, 291 (1987)

    1987

  21. [29]

    Abbasabadi, W

    A. Abbasabadi, W. W. Repko, D. A. Dicus, and R. Vega, Comparison of Exact and Effective Gauge Boson Calcu- lations for Gauge Boson Fusion Processes, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2770 (1988)

    1988

  22. [30]

    Kuss and H

    I. Kuss and H. Spiesberger, Luminosities for vector boson - vector boson scattering at high-energy colliders, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6078 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9507204

    1996 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kuss, Improved effective vector boson approximation for hadron hadron collisions, Phys

    I. Kuss, Improved effective vector boson approximation for hadron hadron collisions, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7165 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9608453

    1997 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Accomando, A

    E. Accomando, A. Ballestrero, A. Belhouari, and E. Maina, Isolating Vector Boson Scattering at the LHC: Gauge cancellations and the Equivalent Vector Boson Approximation vs complete calculations, Phys. Rev. D 74, 073010 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608019

    2006 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Borel, R

    P. Borel, R. Franceschini, R. Rattazzi, and A. Wulzer, Probing the Scattering of Equivalent Electroweak Bosons, JHEP 06, 122, arXiv:1202.1904 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Costantini, F

    A. Costantini, F. De Lillo, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz, and X. Zhao, Vector boson fusion at multi-TeV muon colliders, JHEP 09, 080, arXiv:2005.10289 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    B. Fuks, J. Neundorf, K. Peters, R. Ruiz, and M. Saim- pert, Majorana neutrinos in same-sign W ±W ± scatter- ing at the LHC: Breaking the TeV barrier, Phys. Rev. D 103, 055005 (2021), arXiv:2011.02547 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    R. Ruiz, A. Costantini, F. Maltoni, and O. Matte- laer, The Effective Vector Boson Approximation in high- energy muon collisions, JHEP 06, 114, arXiv:2111.02442 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lepton final state in proton-proton colli- sions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 081801 (2018), arXiv:1709.05822 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Observation of electroweak production of a same-sign W boson pair in association with two jets in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 161801 (2019), arXiv:1906.03203 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Measurement and interpretation of same-sign W boson pair production in association with two jets in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 04, 026, arXiv:2312.00420 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Measurements of produc- tion cross sections of polarized same-sign W boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 812, 136018 (2021), arXiv:2009.09429 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ballestrero et al., Precise predictions for same-sign W-boson scattering at the LHC, Eur

    A. Ballestrero et al., Precise predictions for same-sign W-boson scattering at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 671 (2018), arXiv:1803.07943 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Buarque Franzosi et al., Vector boson scattering pro- cesses: Status and prospects, Rev

    D. Buarque Franzosi et al., Vector boson scattering pro- cesses: Status and prospects, Rev. Phys. 8, 100071 (2022), arXiv:2106.01393 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dittmaier, P

    S. Dittmaier, P. Maierh¨ ofer, C. Schwan, and R. Winter- halder, Like-sign W-boson scattering at the LHC — ap- proximations and full next-to-leading-order predictions, JHEP 11, 022, arXiv:2308.16716 [hep-ph]. 10

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Henning, D

    B. Henning, D. Lombardo, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, Measuring Higgs Couplings without Higgs Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181801 (2019), arXiv:1812.09299 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bellan et al., A sensitivity study of VBS and diboson WW to dimension-6 EFT operators at the LHC, JHEP 05, 039, arXiv:2108.03199 [hep-ph]

    R. Bellan et al., A sensitivity study of VBS and diboson WW to dimension-6 EFT operators at the LHC, JHEP 05, 039, arXiv:2108.03199 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    D. A. Dicus and S. Willenbrock, Higgs Boson Production from Heavy Quark Fusion, Phys. Rev. D 39, 751 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Maltoni, Z

    F. Maltoni, Z. Sullivan, and S. Willenbrock, Higgs-Boson Production via Bottom-Quark Fusion, Phys. Rev. D 67, 093005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301033

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Note that this decoupling of Goldstone bosons, at least at tree level, can possibly soften Bloch-Nordsieck viola- tions [15], i.e., uncancelled infrared EW logarithms

  41. [49]

    Bernreuther and L

    W. Bernreuther and L. Chen, Improved effective vector boson approximation revisited, Phys. Rev. D 93, 053018 (2016), arXiv:1511.07706 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory (Addison- Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

    1995

  43. [51]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Precocious Scaling, Rescal- ing and xi Scaling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1281 (1976), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 37, 68 (1976)]

    1976

  44. [52]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Freedom at Moderate En- ergies: Masses in Color Dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 14, 1829 (1976)

    1976

  45. [53]

    Altarelli, B

    G. Altarelli, B. Mele, and F. Pitolli, Heavy Higgs Produc- tion at Future Colliders, Nucl. Phys. B 287, 205 (1987)

    1987

  46. [54]

    R. P. Kauffman, Production of Top Quarks via Vector Boson Fusion in e+e− Collisions, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3343 (1990)

    1990

  47. [55]

    Frixione, M

    S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, Im- proving the Weizsacker-Williams approximation in elec- tron - proton collisions, Phys. Lett. B 319, 339 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9310350

    1993 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Dams and R

    C. Dams and R. Kleiss, The Electroweak standard model in the axial gauge, Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 419 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0401136

    2004 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chen, On the Feynman Rules of Massive Gauge The- ory in Physical Gauges, (2019), arXiv:1902.06738 [hep- ph]

    J. Chen, On the Feynman Rules of Massive Gauge The- ory in Physical Gauges, (2019), arXiv:1902.06738 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. Chen, K. Hagiwara, J. Kanzaki, and K. Mawatari, Helicity amplitudes without gauge cancellation for elec- troweak processes, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 922 (2023), [Er- ratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 97 (2024)], arXiv:2203.10440 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. Chen, K. Hagiwara, J. Kanzaki, K. Mawatari, and Y.- J. Zheng, Helicity amplitudes in light-cone and Feynman- diagram gauges, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 332 (2024), arXiv:2211.14562 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. M. Black et al., Muon Collider Forum report, JINST 19 (02), T02015, arXiv:2209.01318 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Asai et al

    S. Asai et al. (P5), Exploring the Quantum Universe: Pathways to Innovation and Discovery in Particle Physics 10.2172/2368847 (2023), arXiv:2407.19176 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider, Eur

    C. Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 864 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)], arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Buarque Franzosi, O

    D. Buarque Franzosi, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz, and S. Shil, Automated predictions from polarized matrix elements, JHEP 04, 082, arXiv:1912.01725 [hep-ph]

    1912 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Stelzer and W

    T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Automatic generation of tree level helicity amplitudes, Comput. Phys. Commun. 81, 357 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9401258

    1994 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07...

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, Transverse Momentum Distribution in Drell-Yan Pair and W and Z Boson Production, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 199 (1985)

    1985

  59. [67]

    Contopanagos, E

    H. Contopanagos, E. Laenen, and G. F. Sterman, Su- dakov factorization and resummation, Nucl. Phys. B484, 303 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9604313

    1997 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ahrens, T

    V. Ahrens, T. Becher, M. Neubert, and L. L. Yang, Renormalization-Group Improved Prediction for Higgs Production at Hadron Colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 62, 333 (2009), arXiv:0809.4283 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Becher, A

    T. Becher, A. Broggio, and A. Ferroglia, Introduction to Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, Vol. 896 (Springer, 2015) arXiv:1410.1892 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.