Theoretical modeling of QCD radiation in off-shell Higgs production through gluon fusion

Martina Javurkova; Matteo Lazzeretti; Rafael Coelho Lopes de S\'a; Raoul R\"ontsch

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Theoretical modeling of QCD radiation in off-shell Higgs production through gluon fusion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that for off-shell Higgs boson production in gluon fusion, LO jet-merged samples miss most of the NLO QCD correction because that correction is dominated by virtual and unresolved real radiation, not by additional…

desk verdict Solid three-generator comparison; the two-fold NLO/LO-merged rate gap is real, but the SBI interpretation leans on an unbenchmarked reweighting. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17022 v2 pith:Z7CO7SIA submitted 2025-06-20 hep-ph hep-ex

Rafael Coelho Lopes de Sá , Martina Javurkova , Matteo Lazzeretti , Raoul Röntsch This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords off-shellHiggsproductionbosonwidthgluonfusionNLO+PSmatchingjetmergingZZfour-leptonfinalstateQCDradiationMonteCarloeventgenerators

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 asks whether leading-order jet-merged event samples are good enough for off-shell Higgs boson measurements, and finds that they are not. Comparing three generators with identical fiducial settings, it shows that NLO+PS predictions from Powheg are roughly twice the LO rate for the signal, with k-factors of about 2.0, while LO 0+1-jet merged samples from MadGraph and Sherpa stay within a few percent of LO. The gap implies that most of the NLO correction comes from virtual and unresolved real radiation, which jet merging omits. The paper also finds that MadGraph underpopulates the high-transverse-momentum tail of the sub-leading jet, an effect it cannot fully explain. If correct, off-shell analyses, including indirect Higgs width extractions, should rely on NLO+PS predictions or a reliable NLO normalization rather than LO-merged samples alone.

What carries the argument

The instrument is a controlled three-way comparison of event generators with all common parameters fixed: Powheg (NLO matrix elements matched to the Pythia parton shower via the POWHEG formalism), MadGraph (LO matrix elements merged to Pythia with the MLM prescription), and Sherpa (LO matrix elements merged to its own shower with the CKKW-L scheme). To make the NLO benchmark usable, Powheg's two-loop amplitudes for $gg\to ZZ$ are computed in the massless approximation and reweighted to approximate top-quark mass effects, a procedure validated against the exact NLO result. The argument works by contrasting inclusive observables such as the four-lepton invariant mass, where all generators agree, with radiation-sensitive observables such as the transverse momentum of the four-lepton system and the jet spectra, where they differ, so that the virtual versus real origin of the NLO correction can be separated.

What would settle it

Recompute $gg\to ZZ$ at NLO with exact massive two-loop amplitudes, the calculation the reweighting approximates, for the same fiducial cuts and overlay the differential $m_{4\ell}$, $p_{T,4\ell}$, and jet distributions; if the exact NLO differs from the reweighted Powheg by more than the scale-variation bands, the k-factor comparison collapses. Independently, rerun MadGraph with the MLM parameters varied and with a different shower to see whether the sub-leading-jet deficit near 80 GeV persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for $gg\to H^*\to ZZ\to 4\ell$ in the $150\,\text{GeV}<m_{4\ell}<500\,\text{GeV}$ window, the difference between NLO+PS and LO jet-merged predictions is dominated by virtual and unresolved real QCD corrections, not by resolvable jet radiation. This is read off from the fiducial cross sections: Powheg NLO+PS gives signal, background, and signal-background-interference rates about 2.0, 1.7, and 1.7 times its own LO values, whereas the 0+1-jet merged samples in MadGraph and Sherpa stay within a few percent of LO, with signal k-factors of 1.04 and 1.06. Because the fixed-order LO cross sections of all three generators agree within statistical uncertainties, the later differences are attributed to the treatment of higher-order QCD effects. The paper reports that Powheg's transverse-momentum spectrum is softer, Sherpa's is hardest, and MadGraph severely underpopulates sub-leading jets above about 80 GeV and the three-or-more-jet bins, with the sub-leading jet deficit left unresolved. It concludes that Powheg NLO+PS provides the most robust theoretical predictions among the three generators studied.

Load-bearing premise

The comparative conclusion assumes that Powheg's reweighted two-loop amplitudes faithfully reproduce the true top-quark mass dependence in the 150-500 GeV off-shell region; if that reweighting fails there, the claimed NLO k-factors and the verdict that jet merging is insufficient would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Off-shell Higgs analyses that rely on LO jet-merged samples must either add an NLO reweighting or normalization, since the missing NLO correction is roughly a factor of two and is not reproduced by adding resolved jets.
Radiation-sensitive observables such as $p_{T,4\ell}$ and jet multiplicity cannot be trusted from LO merged samples in this process; the NLO+PS prediction is softer and carries the virtual corrections that jet merging omits.
The unexplained MadGraph deficit in the sub-leading jet at high $p_T$ and in three-or-more-jet bins will propagate into measurements that use jet-pair tags, such as vector-boson-fusion-style selections in off-shell Higgs studies.
Scale-variation uncertainties on the four-lepton invariant mass are conservative relative to the generator spread, while on $p_{T,4\ell}$ they may underestimate the spread, so generator comparison should be part of the uncertainty budget.
Sherpa's large uncertainty bands are driven by its shower-parameter variations (QSF and CSSKIN), making parameter tuning a priority if Sherpa is used in off-shell analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

If the NLO correction is genuinely dominated by virtual radiation, then normalizing off-shell samples with on-shell NNLO or NNNLO k-factors may need separate validation in the off-shell window, where the correction is much larger than at 125 GeV.
A direct test of the MadGraph sub-leading-jet deficit would be to vary MLM parameters such as Qcut and alpsfact and to switch the shower; if the deficit persists, it points to the loop-induced MLM merging itself, and MadGraph-based VBF-tagged off-shell analyses should be reweighted or cross-checked.
Extending the same comparison to 0+1+2-jet merging and to NNLO+PS matched predictions would test whether the jet-merged rates still sit near LO while NLO+PS rates remain higher, which would confirm the virtual-dominance interpretation.
Experimental Higgs-width fits could incorporate the Powheg-versus-merged spread directly instead of an additive modeling uncertainty, since the generator spread is smaller than parameter variations for $m_{4\ell}$ but larger for $p_{T,4\ell}$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth your time: this is the first controlled three-way comparison of Powheg NLO+PS, MadGraph MLM, and Sherpa CKKW-L for off-shell Higgs production, with signal, background, and SBI all on the same fiducial setup. The LO cross-checks in Table 1 are clean, which gives confidence that the later differences are physics and not parameter artifacts. The central finding—that NLO+PS rates are roughly a factor of two above LO-merged rates and that the pT spectra are softer—is well supported by Tables 1–2 and the differential plots. That is a genuinely useful result for the LHC width-extraction analyses, where the modeling uncertainty will soon dominate over statistics.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the SBI interpretation rests on the reweighting of massless two-loop amplitudes to approximate top-quark mass effects, validated only by a citation to Ref. [14] and not checked in this paper in the 150–500 GeV region. If that reweighting is locally off by tens of percent in the interference, the claim that the NLO correction is dominated by virtual and unresolved real radiation would be overstated. This does not invalidate the generator comparison, since all three use consistent amplitudes at their respective orders, but it does weaken the quantitative conclusion about SBI. Second, the MadGraph sub-leading-jet deficit is left unexplained; the authors say so themselves, and it is a secondary feature, but it is also the kind of thing that matters for jet-bin cross sections. Third, no run cards, scripts, or data are released, which makes the comparison harder to build on.

That said, the paper is honest about its limitations, the central qualitative claims hold up, and the comparison is exactly what the LHC Higgs working group needs for systematic studies. The reader's conditional verdict is about right: accept with requests for a reweighting sanity check (or a clear statement that the SBI conclusion is contingent on it) and, ideally, public generator settings.

This deserves a serious referee and, with those revisions, publication. I'd bring it to our reading group and would cite it in any future off-shell Higgs work.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript compares predictions for off-shell Higgs boson production in gluon fusion, pp -> H* -> ZZ -> 4l, from three event generators: Powheg at NLO matched to PYTHIA8 (the gg4l code), MadGraph5_aMC@NLO at LO with 0+1-jet MLM merging, and Sherpa at LO with 0+1-jet CKKW-L merging. The authors first verify that fixed-order LO cross-sections for signal, background, and signal-background-interference (SBI) agree across all three codes (Table 1). They then show that NLO+PS Powheg predicts inclusive cross-sections roughly 1.7--2.0 times larger than LO, while the LO-merged predictions are close to LO for the signal and slightly smaller for background and SBI (Table 2). Differential distributions for m4l, pT,4l, leading-jet pT, sub-leading-jet pT, and jet multiplicity are compared, with the main qualitative findings being that Powheg produces a softer pT,4l spectrum than the merging codes and that MadGraph underpopulates the high-pT sub-leading-jet distribution. Theoretical uncertainties are estimated by varying hdamp, Qcut, alpsfact, QSF, and CSSKIN. The paper concludes that NLO+PS provides the most robust predictions, especially for the inclusive m4l distribution, and that the bulk of the NLO correction comes from virtual and unresolved real radiation not captured by LO jet merging.

Significance. If the results are reliable, this is a useful and timely comparison for the LHC Higgs-width program, since current experimental analyses normalize LO-merged samples using NLO k-factors. The paper's careful matching of common parameters and the successful LO consistency check in Table 1 are strengths, as is the systematic exploration of generator-specific uncertainty parameters in Section 4. The central claim—that NLO+PS gives substantially larger rates and softer pT spectra than LO jet merging, with implications for experimental modeling—is plausible and supported by the presented tables and figures. However, the significance of the quantitative conclusion depends on the accuracy of the reweighted two-loop amplitudes used in Powheg for the background and interference contributions, which is not validated within this paper. The unexplained MadGraph sub-leading-jet deficit is a secondary concern that also needs attention before the comparison can be considered fully reliable.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2.1] The central quantitative claim that Powheg NLO+PS predicts k-factors of about 1.7-2.0 relative to LO, and that this is due to virtual and unresolved real radiation, rests on the accuracy of the reweighted massless two-loop amplitudes used for the background and SBI contributions. The manuscript states that reweighting has been shown to reproduce the exact NLO results very closely, citing Ref. [14], but provides no quantitative check in the off-shell region 150 < m4l < 500 GeV used in this study. Since the exact NLO calculation is now available, the authors should directly compare the reweighted gg4l setup with the exact NLO results, for example by presenting a table of inclusive cross-sections or a ratio plot as a function of m4l for the SBI combination. Without this validation, the magnitude of the claimed NLO correction, and hence the paper's main practical conclusion, cannot be fully assessed.
[Sec. 3, Figure 3] The manuscript reports that MadGraph severely underpopulates the high-pT tail of the sub-leading jet distribution, but explicitly states that the authors are unable to explain this observation. Because MadGraph is one of the three generators used to support the central comparison, and because the same deficit appears in the jet-multiplicity distribution of Figure 4, an unresolved technical issue in the MadGraph setup (for example in the MLM merging parameters or the auto_ptj_mjj flag) could affect the interpretation of the MadGraph jet-merged results. The authors should either diagnose the origin of this deficit or, at minimum, quantitatively discuss how it affects the conclusions drawn from the MadGraph cross-sections and distributions. In its current form, the unexplained deficit weakens the claim that the MadGraph results serve as a reliable jet-merged reference.
[Sec. 4] The uncertainty estimates combine all parameter variations in quadrature, but the manuscript does not discuss correlations between the variations or whether the resulting bands are intended to represent a probability interval or an envelope. More importantly, the observation that the parameter-variation uncertainties are smaller than the generator-to-generator differences for pT,4l is presented without further analysis; this suggests that the uncertainty estimate may be inadequate for this exclusive observable. The authors should clarify the interpretation of the uncertainty bands and discuss whether the generator spread should be treated as an additional modeling uncertainty, since the stated aim is to assess the reliability of current MC modeling strategies.

minor comments (4)

[Table 2 caption] The caption states that the table shows 'the large increases from LO to NLO,' but for Sherpa and MadGraph the background and SBI cross-sections decrease relative to the LO values in Table 1. The caption should be reworded to distinguish the Powheg NLO+PS increase from the LO-merged behavior.
[Abstract] The abstract refers to a comparison of 'leading-order and next-to-leading-order plus parton shower' predictions, but the LO generators are actually used with 0+1-jet merging. Clarifying this in the abstract would avoid confusion about what is being compared.
[Sec. 2.2] The choice of NNPDF30_NLO_AS_01180 as the PDF set is not motivated; a more modern PDF set or a discussion of PDF uncertainties would strengthen the analysis, especially since the paper aims to provide guidance for future measurements.
[Sec. 3] For the pT,4l distribution, the text states that 'the scale uncertainties across the bulk of the pT,4l spectrum are similar for each of the three generators, reflecting the fact that POWHEG only provides LO control on this observable.' This sentence is somewhat confusing because it refers to scale uncertainties that are shown in the lower ratio plots, and the connection to LO control is not immediately obvious; rewording would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's conclusions are comparative statements about generator outputs, supported by independent external computations.

full rationale

The paper is a generator-comparison study, and its central quantitative claims are descriptive comparisons of event-generator outputs rather than quantities derived by fitting. The main result, that Powheg NLO+PS rates exceed the LO-merged rates by roughly a factor of two and that the difference comes from virtual and unresolved real radiation, follows directly from the cross sections in Tables 1 and 2 and from the stated generator setups; no parameter is fitted to a target result. The reweighting of massless two-loop amplitudes is adopted with the statement that it 'has been shown to reproduce the exact NLO results very closely [14]'; Ref. [14] is an independent exact two-loop computation by a disjoint set of authors, so this is external evidence rather than a self-citation chain. The hdamp = 100 GeV choice cites the authors' own Refs. [24,60], but it is used as a nominal setting within an uncertainty study, and the paper explicitly varies it to 75 and 150 GeV, so the conclusions do not reduce to that self-citation. The unexplained MadGraph sub-leading-jet deficit is acknowledged as unexplained and is not used as a derived prediction. No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of the very input it is supposed to explain, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the comparisons presented.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced and no constants are fitted to a target result. The listed free parameters are hand-chosen nominal shower and merging settings, all varied for uncertainty. The main load-bearing assumptions are generator correctness, the reweighting approximation for massive two-loop amplitudes, and the specific PDF, heavy-quark scheme, and fiducial-cut choices.

free parameters (5)

hdamp = 100 GeV nominal; variations 75 and 150 GeV
Powheg parameter regulating the amount of radiation exponentiated by the Sudakov factor; nominal value follows Refs [24,60] and is varied for uncertainty.
Qcut = 20 GeV nominal; variations 15 and 30 GeV
Sherpa and MadGraph merge scale separating matrix-element and parton-shower jets; varied to estimate merging uncertainty.
alpsfact = 1.0 nominal; variations 0.5 and 2.0
MadGraph scale factor for the strong coupling at the initial parton shower scale; varied to estimate shower uncertainty.
QSF = m4l/2 nominal; varied by factors 0.5 and 2.0
Sherpa scaling factor for renormalization and factorization scales in the parton shower; the paper reports it as the largest uncertainty source.
CSSKIN scheme = default recoil scheme (CSS_KIN_SCHEME=1) vs alternative (0)
Sherpa parameter modifying the Catani-Seymour splitting kernel and kinematic constraints during showering; varied as an uncertainty.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The reweighting of massless two-loop amplitudes reproduces the exact NLO results for gg to VV with massive quarks closely enough for the off-shell region.
Section 2.1 states: 'we chose to use reweighting, which has been shown to reproduce the exact NLO results very closely [14]'. The Powheg NLO+PS prediction is the reference for the paper's main comparison.
domain assumption The three generators are implemented correctly and their matching and merging procedures are valid for loop-induced processes.
Section 2.1; the comparison can only be meaningful if all three programs compute what they claim.
domain assumption Only diagrams with at least one vector boson attached to a closed fermion loop contribute relevantly to the process.
Section 2.1: 'we followed the default implementation in POWHEG and included contributions that have at least one vector boson attached to a closed fermion loop'.
domain assumption The five-flavor scheme with massless bottom quarks and NNPDF30_NLO_AS_01180 PDFs is appropriate for this process.
Section 2.2 specifies these choices; PDF and heavy-quark scheme affect the overall rate and acceptance.
domain assumption The fiducial cuts, 150 < m4l < 500 GeV and 60 < mll < 120 GeV, isolate the off-shell Higgs-sensitive phase space.
Section 2.2 defines the cuts; the conclusions are about this kinematic region.
domain assumption Disabling hadronization, multi-parton interactions, and QED radiation does not materially affect the QCD comparison.
Section 2.2 states these are disabled to focus on QCD radiation; this is a controlled modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical modeling of QCD radiation in off-shell Higgs production through gluon fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7CO7SIA

@misc{pith2026250617022,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical modeling of QCD radiation in off-shell Higgs production through gluon fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7CO7SIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17022}
}

read the original abstract

The measurement of the Higgs boson width is a critical test of the Standard Model, with significant implications for understanding electroweak symmetry breaking. Direct measurements are limited by detector resolution, but it can be measured with greater precision through a combined analysis of on-shell and off-shell Higgs boson production. While results for on-shell production have been computed to a very high accuracy, theoretical predictions for off-shell Higgs boson production are not as well controlled due to the breakdown of the heavy-top approximation and the large interference with non-resonant amplitudes. Seeking to understand and improve the theoretical control, we compare leading-order and next-to-leading-order plus parton shower differential cross-sections for signal, background, and full physical processes in off-shell Higgs boson production at the Large Hadron Collider, using Powheg, MadGraph, and Sherpa. We analyze the impact of higher-order quantum chromodynamics effects and theoretical uncertainties, highlighting differences between predictions using jet merging with parton showers, and those from next-to-leading order computations matched to parton showers. The results provide insights for improving theoretical predictions and their application to experimental measurements in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17022 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Comparison of differential cross-sections predicted by P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of differential cross-sections predicted by P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of differential cross-sections predicted by P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of differential cross-sections predicted by P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of differential cross-sections predicted by P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[14]

Bakul Agarwal, Stephen Jones, Matthias Kerner and Andreas von Manteuffel, Complete Next-to-Leading Order QCD Corrections to ZZ Production in Gluon Fusion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(3), 031901 (2025), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.134.031901, 2404.05684

arXiv 2025
[1]

Fabrizio Caola and Kirill Melnikov,Constraining the Higgs boson width with ZZ production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 88, 054024 (2013), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.88.054024, 1307. 4935

work page 2013
[2]

Campbell, R

John M. Campbell, R. Keith Ellis and Ciaran Williams, Bounding the Higgs Width at the LHC Using Full Analytic Results for g g − > e−e+µ−µ+, JHEP 04, 060 (2014), doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)060, 1311.3589

arXiv 2014
[3]

Campbell, R

John M. Campbell, R. Keith Ellis and Ciaran Williams, Bounding the Higgs Width at the LHC: Complementary Results from H → WW , Phys. Rev. D 89(5), 053011 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.053011, 1312.1628

arXiv 2014
[4]

Nikolas Kauer and Giampiero Passarino, Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal, JHEP 08, 116 (2012), doi:10.1007 /JHEP08(2012)116, 1206. 4803

work page 2012
[5]

Campbell and R

John M. Campbell and R. Keith Ellis, Higgs Constraints from Vector Boson Fusion and Scattering, JHEP 04, 030 (2015), doi:10.1007 /JHEP04(2015)030, 1502.02990

arXiv 2015
[6]

Zerwas, QCD corrections to Higgs boson production at proton proton colliders , Phys

Dirk Graudenz, Michael Spira and Peter M. Zerwas, QCD corrections to Higgs boson production at proton proton colliders , Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1372 (1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1372

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.1372 1993
[7]

Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC, Nucl

Michael Spira, Abdelhak Djouadi, Dirk Graudenz and Peter M. Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B453, 17 (1995), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00379- 7, hep-ph /9504378

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00379- 1995

Show all 62 references

[8]

Robert Harlander and Philipp Kant, Higgs production and decay: Analytic results at next- to-leading order QCD , JHEP 12, 015 (2005), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2005/12/015, hep-ph/0509189

2005 arXiv
[9]

Charalampos Anastasiou, Stefan Beerli, Stefan Bucherer, Alejandro Daleo and Zoltan Kunszt, Two-loop amplitudes and master integrals for the production of a Higgs boson via a massive quark and a scalar-quark loop , JHEP 01, 082 (2007), doi:10.1088 /1126- 6708/2007/01/082, hep-p...

2007
[10]

Ugo Aglietti, Roberto Bonciani, Giuseppe Degrassi and Alessandro Vicini, Analytic Re- sults for Virtual QCD Corrections to Higgs Production and Decay , JHEP 01, 021 (2007), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/021, hep-ph /0611266

2007 doi
[11]

Jones and Andreas von Manteuffel, Two-loop helicity amplitudes for g g → Z Z with full top-quark mass effects , JHEP 05, 256 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)256, 2011.15113

Bakul Agarwal, Stephen P . Jones and Andreas von Manteuffel, Two-loop helicity amplitudes for g g → Z Z with full top-quark mass effects , JHEP 05, 256 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)256, 2011.15113

2021 arXiv
[12]

Christian Brønnum-Hansen and Chen-Yu Wang, Two-loop helicity amplitudes for W /Z boson pair production in gluon fusion with exact top mass dependence , JHEP 05, 244 (2021), doi:10.22323 /1.416.0030, 2101.12095

2021 arXiv
[13]

15 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission

Christian Brønnum-Hansen and Chen-Yu Wang, Contribution of third generation quarks to two-loop helicity amplitudes for W boson pair production in gluon fusion, JHEP 01, 170 (2021), doi:10.1007 /JHEP01(2021)170, 2009.03742. 15 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission

2021 arXiv
[15]

Kirill Melnikov and Matthew Dowling, Production of two Z-bosons in gluon fu- sion in the heavy top quark approximation , Phys. Lett. B 744, 43 (2015), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.030, 1503.01274

2015 arXiv
[16]

Campbell, R

John M. Campbell, R. Keith Ellis, Michal Czakon and Sebastian Kirchner,Two loop correc- tion to interference in g g→ Z Z, JHEP 08, 011 (2016), doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)011, 1605.01380

2016 arXiv
[17]

Fabrizio Caola, Matthew Dowling, Kirill Melnikov, Raoul Röntsch and Lorenzo Tancredi, QCD corrections to vector boson pair production in gluon fusion including interference effects with off-shell Higgs at the LHC, JHEP 07, 087 (2016), doi:10.1007 /JHEP07(2016)087, 1605.04610

2016 arXiv
[18]

Massimiliano Grazzini, Stefan Kallweit, Marius Wiesemann and Jeong Yeon Yook, Z Z production at the LHC: NLO QCD corrections to the loop-induced gluon fusion channel , JHEP 03, 070 (2019), doi:10.1007 /JHEP03(2019)070, 1811.09593

2019 arXiv
[19]

Massimiliano Grazzini, Stefan Kallweit, Marius Wiesemann and Jeong Yeon Yook, Four lepton production in gluon fusion: Off-shell Higgs effects in NLO QCD , Phys. Lett. B 819, 136465 (2021), doi:10.1016 /j.physletb.2021.136465, 2102.08344

2021
[20]

Joshua Davies, Go Mishima, Matthias Steinhauser and David Wellmann, g g→ Z Z: analytic two-loop results for the low- and high-energy regions , JHEP 04, 024 (2020), doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)024, 2002.05558

2020 arXiv
[21]

Ramona Gröber, Andreas Maier and Thomas Rauh, Reconstruction of top-quark mass effects in Higgs pair production and other gluon-fusion processes , JHEP 03, 020 (2018), doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)020, 1709.07799

2018 arXiv
[22]

Ramona Gröber, Andreas Maier and Thomas Rauh, Top quark mass effects in g g→ Z Z at two loops and off-shell Higgs boson interference, Phys. Rev. D100(11), 114013 (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.114013, 1908.04061

2019 arXiv
[23]

Giuseppe Degrassi, Ramona Gröber and Marco Vitti, Virtual QCD corrections to gg → ZZ: top-quark loops from a transverse-momentum expansion , JHEP 07, 244 (2024), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)244, 2404.15113

2024 arXiv
[24]

Lindert and Raoul Röntsch, Four-lepton production in gluon fusion at NLO matched to parton showers, Eur

Simone Alioli, Silvia Ferrario Ravasio, Jonas M. Lindert and Raoul Röntsch, Four-lepton production in gluon fusion at NLO matched to parton showers, Eur. Phys. J. C 81(8), 687 (2021), doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052-021-09470-5, 2102.07783

2021 arXiv
[25]

Paolo Nason, A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11, 040 (2004), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2004/11/040, hep-ph /0409146

2004
[26]

Stefano Frixione, Paolo Nason and Carlo Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computa- tions with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method , JHEP 11, 070 (2007), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, 0709.2092

2007 arXiv
[27]

16 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission

Simone Alioli, Paolo Nason, Carlo Oleari and Emanuele Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 06, 043 (2010), doi:10.1007 /JHEP06(2010)043, 1002.2581. 16 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission

2010 arXiv
[28]

Tomáš Ježo and Paolo Nason, On the Treatment of Resonances in Next-to- Leading Order Calculations Matched to a Parton Shower , JHEP 12, 065 (2015), doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)065, 1509.09071

2015 arXiv
[29]

Luca Buonocore, Gabriël Koole, Daniele Lombardi, Luca Rottoli, Marius Wiesemann and Giulia Zanderighi, ZZ production at nNNLO+PS with MiNNLOPS , JHEP 01, 072 (2022), doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2022)072, 2108.05337

2022 arXiv
[30]

Daniele Lombardi, Marius Wiesemann and Giulia Zanderighi, Advancing MıNNLO PS to diboson processes: Z γ production at NNLO +PS, JHEP 06, 095 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)095, 2010.10478

2021 arXiv
[31]

Pier Francesco Monni, Emanuele Re and Marius Wiesemann, MiNNLOPS: op- timizing 2 → 1 hadronic processes , Eur. Phys. J. C 80(11), 1075 (2020), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08658-5, 2006.04133

2020 arXiv
[32]

Johan Alwall, Rikkert Frederix, Stefano Frixione, Valentin Hirschi, Fabio Maltoni, Olivier Mattelaer, Hua-Sheng Shao, Tim Stelzer, Paolo Torrielli and Marco Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sec- tions, and their matchin...

2014 arXiv
[33]

Fabio Cascioli, Stefan Höche, Frank Krauss, Philipp Maierhöfer, Stefano Pozzorini and Frank Siegert, Precise Higgs-background predictions: merging NLO QCD and squared quark-loop corrections to four-lepton + 0,1 jet production , JHEP 01, 046 (2014), doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)046,...

2014 arXiv
[34]

Enrico Bothmannet al., Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(3), 034 (2019), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.034, 1905.09127

2019 arXiv
[35]

Fabio Cascioli, Philipp Maierhofer and Stefano Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111601 (2012), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.108.111601, 1111.5206

2012 arXiv
[36]

Lindert, Philipp Maierhöfer, Stefano Poz- zorini, Hantian Zhang and Max F

Federico Buccioni, Jean-Nicolas Lang, Jonas M. Lindert, Philipp Maierhöfer, Stefano Poz- zorini, Hantian Zhang and Max F . Zoller,OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79(10), 866 (2019), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7306-2, 1907.13071

2019 arXiv
[37]

ATLAS Collaboration, Evidence of off-shell Higgs boson production from Z Z leptonic decay channels and constraints on its total width with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Lett. B 846, 138223 (2023), doi:10.1016 /j.physletb.2023.138223, 2304.01532

2023
[38]

Georges Aad et al., Measurement of off-shell Higgs boson production in the H∗→ Z Z→ 4ℓ decay channel using a neural simulation-based inference technique in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector , Rept. Prog. Phys. 88(5), 057803 (2025), doi:10.1088 /1361- 6633/adcd9a, 2412.01548

2025 arXiv
[39]

Aram Hayrapetyan et al., Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four- lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at s =13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 111(9), 092014 (2025), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.111.092014, 2409.13663

2025 arXiv
[40]

18(11), 1329 (2022), doi:10.1038/s41567- 022-01682-0, 2202.06923

CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the Higgs boson width and evidence of its off-shell contributions to ZZ production, Nature Phys. 18(11), 1329 (2022), doi:10.1038/s41567- 022-01682-0, 2202.06923. 17 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission

2022 arXiv
[41]

Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector , doi:10.23731 /CYRM- 2017-002 (2017)

CERN Collaboration, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, Vol 2 (2017): Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector , doi:10.23731 /CYRM- 2017-002 (2017)

2017
[42]

Campbell and R

John M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC , Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 205-206, 10 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011, 1007.3492

2010 arXiv
[43]

Charalampos Anastasiou, Claude Duhr, Falko Dulat, Franz Herzog and Bernhard Mistl- berger, Higgs Boson Gluon-Fusion Production in QCD at Three Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 212001 (2015), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.114.212001, 1503.06056

2015 arXiv
[44]

Giampiero Passarino, Higgs CAT , Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2866 (2014), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2866-7, 1312.2397

2014 arXiv
[45]

ATLAS Collaboration, Constraining off-shell Higgs boson production and the Higgs boson total width using WW→ℓνℓν final states with the ATLAS detector (2025), 2504.07710

2025
[46]

ATLAS Collaboration, Constraint on the total width of the Higgs boson from Higgs boson and four-top-quark measurements in pp collisions atps = 13 TeVwith the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 861, 139277 (2025), doi:10.1016 /j.physletb.2025.139277, 2407.10631

2025
[47]

Andreas von Manteuffel and Lorenzo Tancredi, The two-loop helicity amplitudes for g g→ V1V2 → 4 leptons, JHEP 06, 197 (2015), doi:10.1007 /JHEP06(2015)197, 1503.08835

2015 arXiv
[48]

Mangano, The so-called MLM prescription for ME /PS matching., In Pre- sented at the Fermilab ME/MC Tuning Workshop(October 4, 2002)

Michelangelo L. Mangano, The so-called MLM prescription for ME /PS matching., In Pre- sented at the Fermilab ME/MC Tuning Workshop(October 4, 2002)

2002
[49]

Michelangelo L. Mangano, Mauro Moretti, Fulvio Piccinini and Michele Treccani,Match- ing matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions , JHEP 01, 013 (2007), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2007/01/013, hep-ph /0611129

2007
[50]

Steffen Schumann and Frank Krauss,A Parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation , JHEP 03, 038 (2008), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2008/03/038, 0709.1027

2008 arXiv
[51]

Soper, Matching parton showers to NLO computations, JHEP 10, 024 (2005), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2005/10/024, hep-ph /0503053

Zoltan Nagy and Davison E. Soper, Matching parton showers to NLO computations, JHEP 10, 024 (2005), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2005/10/024, hep-ph /0503053

2005
[52]

Soper, A New parton shower algorithm: Shower evolution, matching at leading and next-to-leading order level, In Ringberg Workshop on New Trends in HERA Physics 2005, pp

Zoltan Nagy and Davison E. Soper, A New parton shower algorithm: Shower evolution, matching at leading and next-to-leading order level, In Ringberg Workshop on New Trends in HERA Physics 2005, pp. 101–123, doi:10.1142/9789812773524_0010 (2006), hep-ph/ 0601021

2006 doi
[53]

Catani, F

S. Catani, F . Krauss, R. Kuhn and B. R. Webber,QCD matrix elements + parton showers, JHEP 11, 063 (2001), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2001/11/063, hep-ph /0109231

2001
[54]

Leif Lonnblad, Correcting the color dipole cascade model with fixed order matrix elements, JHEP 05, 046 (2002), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2002/05/046, hep-ph /0112284

2002
[55]

Congqiao Li, Ying An, Claude Charlot, Roberto Covarelli, Zhe Guan and Qiang Li, Loop- induced Z Z production at the LHC: An improved description by matrix-element match- ing, Phys. Rev. D 102(11), 116003 (2020), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.102.116003, 2006.12860. 18 SciPost Physics ...

2020 arXiv
[56]

Andy Buckley , James Ferrando, Stephen Lloyd, Karl Nordström, Ben Page, Martin Rüfe- nacht, Marek Schönherr and Graeme Watt, LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052-015-3318-8, 1412.7420

2015 arXiv
[57]

Salam and Gregory Soyez,The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04, 063 (2008), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2008/04/063, 0802.1189

Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P . Salam and Gregory Soyez,The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04, 063 (2008), doi:10.1088 /1126-6708/2008/04/063, 0802.1189

2008 arXiv
[58]

Sally Dawson, Radiative corrections to Higgs boson production , Nucl. Phys. B 359, 283 (1991), doi:10.1016 /0550-3213(91)90061-2

1991
[59]

Zerwas, Production of Higgs bosons in proton colliders

Abdelhak Djouadi, Michael Spira and Peter M. Zerwas, Production of Higgs bosons in proton colliders. QCD corrections , Physics Letters B 264(3), 440 (1991), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(91)90375-Z

1991 doi
[60]

Simone Alioli, Fabrizio Caola, Gionata Luisoni and Raoul Röntsch, ZZ production in gluon fusion at NLO matched to parton-shower , Phys. Rev. D 95(3), 034042 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.034042, 1609.09719

2017 arXiv
[61]

Stefan Hoeche, Steffen Schumann and Frank Siegert, Hard photon production and matrix-element parton-shower merging , Phys. Rev. D 81, 034026 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.034026, 0912.3501

2010 arXiv
[62]

S. Amoroso et al., Les Houches 2019: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, In 11th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders: PhysTeV Les Houches (2020), 2003.01700. 19

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Bakul Agarwal, Stephen Jones, Matthias Kerner and Andreas von Manteuffel, Complete Next-to-Leading Order QCD Corrections to ZZ Production in Gluon Fusion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(3), 031901 (2025), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.134.031901, 2404.05684

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Fabrizio Caola and Kirill Melnikov,Constraining the Higgs boson width with ZZ production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 88, 054024 (2013), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.88.054024, 1307. 4935

work page 2013

[3] [2]

Campbell, R

John M. Campbell, R. Keith Ellis and Ciaran Williams, Bounding the Higgs Width at the LHC Using Full Analytic Results for g g − > e−e+µ−µ+, JHEP 04, 060 (2014), doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)060, 1311.3589

arXiv 2014

[4] [3]

Campbell, R

John M. Campbell, R. Keith Ellis and Ciaran Williams, Bounding the Higgs Width at the LHC: Complementary Results from H → WW , Phys. Rev. D 89(5), 053011 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.053011, 1312.1628

arXiv 2014

[5] [4]

Nikolas Kauer and Giampiero Passarino, Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal, JHEP 08, 116 (2012), doi:10.1007 /JHEP08(2012)116, 1206. 4803

work page 2012

[6] [5]

Campbell and R

John M. Campbell and R. Keith Ellis, Higgs Constraints from Vector Boson Fusion and Scattering, JHEP 04, 030 (2015), doi:10.1007 /JHEP04(2015)030, 1502.02990

arXiv 2015

[7] [6]

Zerwas, QCD corrections to Higgs boson production at proton proton colliders , Phys

Dirk Graudenz, Michael Spira and Peter M. Zerwas, QCD corrections to Higgs boson production at proton proton colliders , Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1372 (1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1372

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.1372 1993

[8] [7]

Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC, Nucl

Michael Spira, Abdelhak Djouadi, Dirk Graudenz and Peter M. Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B453, 17 (1995), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00379- 7, hep-ph /9504378

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00379- 1995