Constraining the four-light quark operators in the SMEFT with multijet and VBF processes at linear level

C\'eline Degrande; Matteo Maltoni

arxiv: 2511.04517 · v3 · pith:TYYH4YCTnew · submitted 2025-11-06 · ✦ hep-ph

Constraining the four-light quark operators in the SMEFT with multijet and VBF processes at linear level

C\'eline Degrande , Matteo Maltoni This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 19:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords SMEFTfour-light quark operatorsmultijet productionvector boson fusionWilson coefficientslinear interferencedifferential distributions

0 comments

The pith

Multijet and VBF processes can constrain ten four-light quark operators in the SMEFT via linear interference with the Standard Model.

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

This paper shows that multijet production and associated vector boson fusion processes offer a way to bound ten specific four-light quark operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory. Predictions for differential distributions are made at leading order for varying numbers of jets, then merged and showered to simulate realistic events. The study determines which observables give the strongest limits and maps out the directions in the ten-dimensional space of Wilson coefficients that these measurements can reach. It also compares the size of linear interference effects to quadratic ones to check where the effective theory applies.

Core claim

The interference of the Standard Model with ten four-light quark operators in the SMEFT can be constrained by multijet and Z, W, γ VBF production in association with jets. Differential distributions at different jet multiplicities are generated at LO, merged, and showered to identify sensitive observables and probe directions in the ten-dimensional coefficient space, with quadratic contributions assessed to validate the EFT.

What carries the argument

Linear interference terms between the Standard Model and the ten four-light quark operators, studied through differential distributions in multijet and vector boson fusion processes with varying jet multiplicities.

If this is right

Certain jet multiplicity distributions provide stronger constraints on particular Wilson coefficients.
The processes access complementary directions in the ten-dimensional operator space.
Quadratic terms can indicate the breakdown scale of the linear EFT approximation.
These channels complement other searches by targeting light quark operators specifically.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Combining these results with other LHC observables could further restrict the allowed parameter space for the operators.
If quadratic contributions prove significant at accessible energies, it may require including higher-dimensional terms in the EFT expansion.
Future runs with higher statistics might resolve more subtle interference effects in the distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The linear interference terms dominate the new physics effects and the effective field theory description holds at the energies and jet multiplicities considered.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of a differential distribution in multijet or VBF-plus-jets events that deviates from Standard Model expectations in a pattern not matching the predicted linear SMEFT interference, at scales where quadratic terms remain small, would challenge the constraining power or validity assumptions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04517 by C\'eline Degrande, Matteo Maltoni.

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Individual ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate how the interference of the SM with ten four-light quark operators in the SMEFT can be constrained thanks to multijet and $Z$, $W$, $\gamma$ VBF production in association with jets. The differential distributions for each process are generated at LO for different jet multiplicities, that are then merged and showered. We check which observables provide better bounds on the Wilson coefficients, and what directions in the ten-dimensional coefficient space they are able to probe. We discuss the relevance of the quadratic contributions with respect to the linear terms and use them to assess the validity of the EFT approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper delivers a targeted study of linear constraints on ten four-light quark SMEFT operators from multijet and VBF-plus-jets processes, with standard merging and a check on quadratic terms.

read the letter

Hey, the main thing to know is that the authors have worked out how multijet production and Z, W, gamma VBF with jets can constrain ten specific four-light quark operators in the SMEFT at linear order. They generate LO events for several jet multiplicities, merge and shower them, then scan differential distributions to see which observables give the strongest bounds and which directions in the ten-dimensional coefficient space get covered. They also compare quadratic contributions to the linear ones to test where the EFT stays valid. This is a practical extension of earlier SMEFT work because it focuses on processes that should pick up these operators and uses the kind of merged samples that match real LHC analyses. The attention to different observables and the explicit discussion of quadratic effects are the parts that add value. The softer spot is the linear-dominance assumption. The stress-test note flags this correctly: if quadratic pieces grow comparable to the linear interference in the high-pT or high-mass tails that actually drive the limits, the extracted bounds lose their clean interpretation as linear SMEFT constraints. The abstract says they discuss this, but the letter would be stronger with clearer quantitative evidence from the merged distributions showing the ratio stays small across the relevant regions. Being LO also leaves some room for higher-order effects, though that is common in this type of constraint study. This work is aimed at phenomenologists doing global SMEFT fits or LHC searches for four-fermion operators. A reader who needs updated sensitivity plots for these coefficients will find it useful. It deserves a serious referee because the methods are standard, the topic is relevant, and the checks on validity are already present even if they could be tightened. I would send it for review.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates constraints on ten four-light quark operators in the SMEFT by studying their linear interference with the SM in multijet production and VBF processes (Z, W, γ + jets). LO differential distributions are generated for varying jet multiplicities, merged, and showered; the authors identify sensitive observables, map the directions they probe in the ten-dimensional Wilson coefficient space, and compare quadratic contributions to linear terms to assess EFT validity.

Significance. If the linear terms are quantitatively shown to dominate the selected observables in the merged samples, the work would usefully expand the set of processes available for constraining light-quark SMEFT operators and clarify which kinematic regions and final states are most informative. The explicit treatment of quadratic terms and the use of merged multi-jet samples are positive features that could strengthen the reliability of the resulting bounds for global fits.

major comments (1)

[Discussion of quadratic contributions (referenced in abstract)] The central claim that the extracted limits can be interpreted as linear SMEFT constraints rests on linear interference dominating over quadratic contributions across the relevant distributions. The abstract states that quadratic terms are discussed to assess validity, but it is unclear whether explicit ratios (quadratic/linear) or relative size plots are shown for the high-pT or high-mass tails of the merged multijet and VBF samples after showering; without such quantitative evidence the bounds lose their linear interpretation.

minor comments (2)

Observable definitions and binning choices for the differential distributions should be stated more explicitly, including any cuts applied after merging.
A brief comparison table of the resulting bounds with existing limits from other processes (e.g., dijet or top-pair) would help place the new constraints in context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We appreciate the positive remarks on the treatment of quadratic terms and merged samples. Below we address the major comment regarding the explicit demonstration of linear dominance in the relevant distributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that the extracted limits can be interpreted as linear SMEFT constraints rests on linear interference dominating over quadratic contributions across the relevant distributions. The abstract states that quadratic terms are discussed to assess validity, but it is unclear whether explicit ratios (quadratic/linear) or relative size plots are shown for the high-pT or high-mass tails of the merged multijet and VBF samples after showering; without such quantitative evidence the bounds lose their linear interpretation.

Authors: We agree that a clear quantitative demonstration is essential for the linear interpretation of the bounds. In the current manuscript we compare quadratic and linear contributions for selected observables at parton level (Section 4) to assess EFT validity, but we acknowledge that explicit ratio plots focused on the high-pT and high-mass tails of the merged, showered samples for multijet and VBF processes are not presented. We will add these plots (new figures in Section 4) showing the quadratic-to-linear ratio in the relevant kinematic regions after merging and showering. This will directly support the claim that linear interference dominates in the distributions used for the constraints. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; simulation-based constraints on SMEFT operators

full rationale

The paper generates LO differential distributions for multijet and VBF+jet processes at varying multiplicities, merges and showers them, then evaluates which observables best constrain the ten Wilson coefficients while comparing linear interference to quadratic terms for EFT validity. This chain rests on standard Monte Carlo event generation and physical process modeling rather than any self-definitional reduction, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equation or step equates a claimed result to its own input by construction, and the central claim remains independently falsifiable via the simulated observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the analysis rests on standard SMEFT assumptions and simulation techniques; no explicit free parameters beyond the Wilson coefficients themselves or invented entities are described.

free parameters (1)

Wilson coefficients of the ten four-light quark operators
These are the parameters whose values are being constrained by the simulated distributions.

axioms (2)

domain assumption SMEFT with dimension-6 four-quark operators
Standard framework invoked for parameterizing new physics effects.
domain assumption Leading-order QCD with merging and parton showering sufficient for differential distributions
Method used to generate the observables for bounding the coefficients.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5630 in / 1333 out tokens · 73289 ms · 2026-05-21T19:02:16.458801+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We investigate how the interference of the SM with ten four-light quark operators in the SMEFT can be constrained thanks to multijet and Z, W, γ VBF production in association with jets.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,

H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, “Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,” Physical Review D104(2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.015026

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.015026 2021
[2]

Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[3]

Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B268, 621–653 (1986)

work page 1986
[4]

Hartland, F

N.P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field 16 TABLE VIII. Numerical values of the 95% CL individual limits on the 4LQ coefficientsC i/Λ 2, in TeV−2, from the various processes included in this study. They are graphically represented in Fig. 7 j...

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)100 2019
[5]

Con- straining the SMEFT with Bayesian reweighting,

S. van Beek, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and E. Slade, “Con- straining the SMEFT with Bayesian reweighting,” Sci- Post Physics7(2019), 10.21468/scipostphys.7.5.070

work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.7.5.070 2019
[6]

SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and dibo- son data from the LHC Run II,

J.J. Ethier, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Magni, and J. Rojo, “SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and dibo- son data from the LHC Run II,” The European Physical Journal C81(2021), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09347-7

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09347-7 2021
[7]

Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,

J.J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E.R. No- cera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,” (2021), arXiv:2105.00006 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[8]

Celada, T

E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A.N. Rossia, M. Thomas, and E. Vryonidou, “Mapping the SMEFT at High-Energy Colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee,” (2024), arXiv:2404.12809 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[9]

Bartocci, A

R. Bartocci, A. Biek¨ otter, and T. Hurth, “Renormalisa- tion group evolution effects on global SMEFT analyses,” (2024), arXiv:2412.09674 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[10]

Allwicher, C

L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori, and B.A. Stefanek, “New Physics in the Third Generation: A Comprehen- sive SMEFT Analysis and Future Prospects,” (2023), arXiv:2311.00020 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

Wang, X.-K

H.-L. Wang, X.-K. Wen, H. Xing, and B. Yan, “Probing the four-fermion operators via the transverse double spin asymmetry at the Electron-Ion Collider,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 095025 (2024), arXiv:2401.08419 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[12]

Consis- tent searches for SMEFT effects in non-resonant dijet events,

S. Alte, M. K¨ onig, and W. Shepherd, “Consis- tent searches for SMEFT effects in non-resonant dijet events,” Journal of High Energy Physics2018(2018), 10.1007/jhep01(2018)094

work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2018)094 2018
[13]

The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order dif- ferential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

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,” Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014), 10.1007/jhep07(2014)079

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014
[14]

UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output

C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mat- telaer, and T. Reiter, “UFO - The Universal Feyn- Rules Output,” Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1201– 1214 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[15]

FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology

A. Alloul, N.D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, “FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree- level phenomenology,” Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250–2300 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[16]

Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions,

M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Trec- cani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2007, 013–013 (2007)

work page 2007
[17]

An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,

T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C.O. Rasmussen, and P.Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Com- puter Physics Communications191, 159–177 (2015)

work page 2015
[18]

Longitudinally invariantK t clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions,

S. Catani, Yuri L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, “Longitudinally invariantK t clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions,” Nucl. Phys. B 406, 187–224 (1993)

work page 1993
[19]

Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions,

S.D. Ellis and D.E. Soper, “Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions,” Physical Review D48, 3160–3166 (1993)

work page 1993
[20]

FASTJETuser manual

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual (for version 3.0.2),” The European Physical Jour- nal C72(2012), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012
[21]

The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2008, 063–063 (2008)

work page 2008
[22]

Four-lepton production at hadron colliders: aMC@NLO predictions with theoretical uncer- tainties,

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pit- tau, and P. Torrielli, “Four-lepton production at hadron colliders: aMC@NLO predictions with theoretical uncer- tainties,” Journal of High Energy Physics2012(2012), 10.1007/jhep02(2012)099

work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2012)099 2012
[23]

Match- ing for FCNC effects in the flavour-symmetric SMEFT,

T. Hurth, S. Renner, and W. Shepherd, “Match- ing for FCNC effects in the flavour-symmetric SMEFT,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019 (2019), 10.1007/jhep06(2019)029

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2019)029 2019
[24]

de Blas, A

J. de Blas, A. Goncalves, V. Miralles, L. Reina, L. Sil- vestrini, and M. Valli, “Constraining new physics effec- tive interactions via a global fit of electroweak, Drell- Yan, Higgs, top, and flavour observables,” (2025), arXiv:2507.06191 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Dijets at Teva- tron cannot constrain SMEFT four-quark opera- tors,

E. Keilmann and W. Shepherd, “Dijets at Teva- tron cannot constrain SMEFT four-quark opera- tors,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019(2019), 10.1007/jhep09(2019)086

work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2019)086 2019
[26]

Collider sensitivity to SMEFT heavy-quark operators at one-loop 17 in top-quark processes,

C. Degrande, R. Rosenfeld, and A. Vasquez, “Collider sensitivity to SMEFT heavy-quark operators at one-loop 17 in top-quark processes,” (2024), arXiv:2402.06528 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

Electroweak corrections in the SMEFT: four-fermion operators at high energies,

H. El Faham, K. Mimasu, D. Pagani, C. Severi, E. Vry- onidou, and M. Zaro, “Electroweak corrections in the SMEFT: four-fermion operators at high energies,” (2024), arXiv:2412.16076 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[28]

Measurements of the production cross-section for aZboson in association withb- orc- jets in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of the production cross-section for aZboson in association withb- orc- jets in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” The European Physical Journal C84 (2024), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13159-w

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13159-w 2024
[29]

ATLAS flavour-tagging al- gorithms for the LHC Run 2ppcollision dataset,

ATLAS Collaboration, “ATLAS flavour-tagging al- gorithms for the LHC Run 2ppcollision dataset,” The European Physical Journal C83(2023), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11699-1

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11699-1 2023
[30]

Search for new phenomena in dijet events using 37 fb −1ofppcollision data collected at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in dijet events using 37 fb −1ofppcollision data collected at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Physical Review D96(2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.052004

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.052004 2017
[31]

Search for high mass di- jet resonances with a new background prediction method in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Search for high mass di- jet resonances with a new background prediction method in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), 10.1007/jhep05(2020)033

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2020)033 2020
[32]

Measurement of multidifferential cross sections for dijet production in proton–proton col- lisions at√s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of multidifferential cross sections for dijet production in proton–proton col- lisions at√s= 13 TeV,” The European Physical Journal C85(2025), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13606-8

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13606-8 2025
[34]

Generating Feynman diagrams and ampli- tudes with FeynArts 3,

T. Hahn, “Generating Feynman diagrams and ampli- tudes with FeynArts 3,” Computer Physics Communi- cations140, 418–431 (2001)

work page 2001
[35]

FormCalc 9 and Extensions,

T. Hahn, S. Passehr, and C. Schappacher, “FormCalc 9 and Extensions,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 762, 012065 (2016)

work page 2016
[36]

Search for new physics in dijet angular distributions using proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV and constraints on dark matter and other models,

CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in dijet angular distributions using proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV and constraints on dark matter and other models,” The European Physical Journal C78(2018), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6242-x

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6242-x 2018
[37]

Progress in the CTEQ-TEA NNLO global QCD analysis,

T.-J. Hou, K. Xie, J. Gao, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, T.J. Hobbs, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, I. Sitiwaldi, D. Stump, and C.-P. Yuan, “Progress in the CTEQ-TEA NNLO global QCD analysis,” (2019), arXiv:1908.11394 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[38]

The complete NLO corrections to dijet hadroproduction,

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao, and M. Zaro, “The complete NLO corrections to dijet hadroproduction,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2017(2017), 10.1007/jhep04(2017)076

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2017)076 2017
[39]

Three-Jet Cross Sections in Hadron-Hadron Collisions at Next-To-Leading Order,

Z. Nagy, “Three-Jet Cross Sections in Hadron-Hadron Collisions at Next-To-Leading Order,” Physical Review Letters88(2002), 10.1103/physrevlett.88.122003

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.122003 2002
[40]

Search for invisible Higgs boson decays in vector boson fusion at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for invisible Higgs boson decays in vector boson fusion at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Physics Letters B793, 499–519 (2019)

work page 2019
[41]

Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” Physics Let- ters B793, 520–551 (2019)

work page 2019
[42]

Search for heavy diboson res- onances in semileptonic final states in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for heavy diboson res- onances in semileptonic final states in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” The European Physical Journal C80(2020), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 08554-y

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 2020
[43]

Differential cross-section mea- surements for the electroweak production of dijets in as- sociation with aZboson in proton–proton collisions at ATLAS,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Differential cross-section mea- surements for the electroweak production of dijets in as- sociation with aZboson in proton–proton collisions at ATLAS,” The European Physical Journal C81(2021), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08734-w

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08734-w 2021
[44]

Parton distributions for the LHC run II,

R.D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, C.S. Deans, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N.P. Hartland, J.I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and M. Ubiali, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2015(2015), 10.1007/jhep04(2015)040

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)040 2015
[45]

Observation of Electroweak Pro- duction of a Same-SignWBoson Pair in Association with Two Jets inppCollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of Electroweak Pro- duction of a Same-SignWBoson Pair in Association with Two Jets inppCollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,” Physical Review Letters123(2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.123.161801

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.161801 2019
[46]

A Study of QCD Radiation in VBF Higgs Production with Vincia and Pythia,

S. H¨ oche, S. Mrenna, S. Payne, C.T. Preuss, and P. Skands, “A Study of QCD Radiation in VBF Higgs Production with Vincia and Pythia,” (2021), arXiv:2106.10987 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[47]

Parton-shower effects in Higgs production via vector-boson fusion,

B. J¨ ager, A. Karlberg, S. Pl¨ atzer, J. Scheller, and M. Zaro, “Parton-shower effects in Higgs production via vector-boson fusion,” The European Physical Journal C 80(2020), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8326-7

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8326-7 2020
[48]

EFT observable stabil- ity under NLO corrections through interference revival,

C. Degrande and M. Maltoni, “EFT observable stabil- ity under NLO corrections through interference revival,” Phys. Lett. B856, 138970 (2024), arXiv:2403.16894 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[49]

Weak boson fusion production of supersymmetric particles at the CERN LHC,

G.C. Cho, K. Hagiwara, J. Kanzaki, T. Plehn, D. Rain- water, and T. Stelzer, “Weak boson fusion production of supersymmetric particles at the CERN LHC,” Physical Review D73(2006), 10.1103/physrevd.73.054002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.054002 2006
[50]

Rapidity gaps and jets as a new physics signature in very high-energy hadron hadron collisions,

J. D. Bjorken, “Rapidity gaps and jets as a new physics signature in very high-energy hadron hadron collisions,” Phys. Rev. D47, 101–113 (1993)

work page 1993
[51]

Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings,

C. Degrande, N. Greiner, W. Kilian, O. Mattelaer, H. Mebane, T. Stelzer, S. Willenbrock, and C. Zhang, “Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings,” Annals of Physics335, 21–32 (2013)

work page 2013
[52]

Measurement of electroweak pro- duction of aWboson in association with two jets in pro- ton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of electroweak pro- duction of aWboson in association with two jets in pro- ton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” The European Physical Journal C80(2020), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019- 7585-7

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019- 2020
[53]

Unravelling the anomalous gauge boson couplings inZW ±produc- tion at the LHC and the role of spin-1 polariza- tions,

R. Rahaman and R.K. Singh, “Unravelling the anomalous gauge boson couplings inZW ±produc- tion at the LHC and the role of spin-1 polariza- tions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), 10.48550/arXiv.1911.03111

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.03111 2020
[54]

Pre- cision diboson measurements at hadron collid- ers,

A. Azatov, D. Barducci, and E. Venturini, “Pre- cision diboson measurements at hadron collid- ers,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019(2019), 10.1007/jhep04(2019)075

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)075 2019
[55]

Measurement of isolated-photon plus two-jet production inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of isolated-photon plus two-jet production inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), 10.1007/jhep03(2020)179

work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2020)179 2020
[56]

Event generation with SHERPA 1.1,

T. Gleisberg, S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, M. Sch¨ onherr, S. Schu- mann, F. Siegert, and J. Winter, “Event generation with SHERPA 1.1,” Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 18 007–007 (2009)

work page 2009
[57]

Bartocci, A

R. Bartocci, A. Biek¨ otter, and T. Hurth, “A global anal- ysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption,” JHEP05, 074 (2024), arXiv:2311.04963 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[58]

Manca, S

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for low-mass resonances decaying into two jets and produced in association with a photon or a jet at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS de- tector,” Physical Review D110(2024), 10.1103/phys- revd.110.032002

work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2024

[1] [1]

Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,

H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, “Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,” Physical Review D104(2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.015026

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.015026 2021

[2] [2]

Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

[3] [3]

Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B268, 621–653 (1986)

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Hartland, F

N.P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field 16 TABLE VIII. Numerical values of the 95% CL individual limits on the 4LQ coefficientsC i/Λ 2, in TeV−2, from the various processes included in this study. They are graphically represented in Fig. 7 j...

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)100 2019

[5] [5]

Con- straining the SMEFT with Bayesian reweighting,

S. van Beek, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and E. Slade, “Con- straining the SMEFT with Bayesian reweighting,” Sci- Post Physics7(2019), 10.21468/scipostphys.7.5.070

work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.7.5.070 2019

[6] [6]

SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and dibo- son data from the LHC Run II,

J.J. Ethier, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Magni, and J. Rojo, “SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and dibo- son data from the LHC Run II,” The European Physical Journal C81(2021), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09347-7

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09347-7 2021

[7] [7]

Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,

J.J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E.R. No- cera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,” (2021), arXiv:2105.00006 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Celada, T

E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A.N. Rossia, M. Thomas, and E. Vryonidou, “Mapping the SMEFT at High-Energy Colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee,” (2024), arXiv:2404.12809 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[9] [9]

Bartocci, A

R. Bartocci, A. Biek¨ otter, and T. Hurth, “Renormalisa- tion group evolution effects on global SMEFT analyses,” (2024), arXiv:2412.09674 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[10] [10]

Allwicher, C

L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori, and B.A. Stefanek, “New Physics in the Third Generation: A Comprehen- sive SMEFT Analysis and Future Prospects,” (2023), arXiv:2311.00020 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023

[11] [11]

Wang, X.-K

H.-L. Wang, X.-K. Wen, H. Xing, and B. Yan, “Probing the four-fermion operators via the transverse double spin asymmetry at the Electron-Ion Collider,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 095025 (2024), arXiv:2401.08419 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[12] [12]

Consis- tent searches for SMEFT effects in non-resonant dijet events,

S. Alte, M. K¨ onig, and W. Shepherd, “Consis- tent searches for SMEFT effects in non-resonant dijet events,” Journal of High Energy Physics2018(2018), 10.1007/jhep01(2018)094

work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2018)094 2018

[13] [13]

The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order dif- ferential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

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,” Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014), 10.1007/jhep07(2014)079

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014

[14] [14]

UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output

C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mat- telaer, and T. Reiter, “UFO - The Universal Feyn- Rules Output,” Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1201– 1214 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

[15] [15]

FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology

A. Alloul, N.D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, “FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree- level phenomenology,” Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250–2300 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[16] [16]

Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions,

M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Trec- cani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2007, 013–013 (2007)

work page 2007

[17] [17]

An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,

T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C.O. Rasmussen, and P.Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Com- puter Physics Communications191, 159–177 (2015)

work page 2015

[18] [18]

Longitudinally invariantK t clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions,

S. Catani, Yuri L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, “Longitudinally invariantK t clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions,” Nucl. Phys. B 406, 187–224 (1993)

work page 1993

[19] [19]

Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions,

S.D. Ellis and D.E. Soper, “Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions,” Physical Review D48, 3160–3166 (1993)

work page 1993

[20] [20]

FASTJETuser manual

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual (for version 3.0.2),” The European Physical Jour- nal C72(2012), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012

[21] [21]

The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2008, 063–063 (2008)

work page 2008

[22] [22]

Four-lepton production at hadron colliders: aMC@NLO predictions with theoretical uncer- tainties,

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pit- tau, and P. Torrielli, “Four-lepton production at hadron colliders: aMC@NLO predictions with theoretical uncer- tainties,” Journal of High Energy Physics2012(2012), 10.1007/jhep02(2012)099

work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2012)099 2012

[23] [23]

Match- ing for FCNC effects in the flavour-symmetric SMEFT,

T. Hurth, S. Renner, and W. Shepherd, “Match- ing for FCNC effects in the flavour-symmetric SMEFT,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019 (2019), 10.1007/jhep06(2019)029

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2019)029 2019

[24] [24]

de Blas, A

J. de Blas, A. Goncalves, V. Miralles, L. Reina, L. Sil- vestrini, and M. Valli, “Constraining new physics effec- tive interactions via a global fit of electroweak, Drell- Yan, Higgs, top, and flavour observables,” (2025), arXiv:2507.06191 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

[25] [25]

Dijets at Teva- tron cannot constrain SMEFT four-quark opera- tors,

E. Keilmann and W. Shepherd, “Dijets at Teva- tron cannot constrain SMEFT four-quark opera- tors,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019(2019), 10.1007/jhep09(2019)086

work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2019)086 2019

[26] [26]

Collider sensitivity to SMEFT heavy-quark operators at one-loop 17 in top-quark processes,

C. Degrande, R. Rosenfeld, and A. Vasquez, “Collider sensitivity to SMEFT heavy-quark operators at one-loop 17 in top-quark processes,” (2024), arXiv:2402.06528 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[27] [27]

Electroweak corrections in the SMEFT: four-fermion operators at high energies,

H. El Faham, K. Mimasu, D. Pagani, C. Severi, E. Vry- onidou, and M. Zaro, “Electroweak corrections in the SMEFT: four-fermion operators at high energies,” (2024), arXiv:2412.16076 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[28] [28]

Measurements of the production cross-section for aZboson in association withb- orc- jets in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of the production cross-section for aZboson in association withb- orc- jets in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” The European Physical Journal C84 (2024), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13159-w

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13159-w 2024

[29] [29]

ATLAS flavour-tagging al- gorithms for the LHC Run 2ppcollision dataset,

ATLAS Collaboration, “ATLAS flavour-tagging al- gorithms for the LHC Run 2ppcollision dataset,” The European Physical Journal C83(2023), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11699-1

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11699-1 2023

[30] [30]

Search for new phenomena in dijet events using 37 fb −1ofppcollision data collected at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in dijet events using 37 fb −1ofppcollision data collected at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Physical Review D96(2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.052004

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.052004 2017

[31] [31]

Search for high mass di- jet resonances with a new background prediction method in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Search for high mass di- jet resonances with a new background prediction method in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), 10.1007/jhep05(2020)033

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2020)033 2020

[32] [32]

Measurement of multidifferential cross sections for dijet production in proton–proton col- lisions at√s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of multidifferential cross sections for dijet production in proton–proton col- lisions at√s= 13 TeV,” The European Physical Journal C85(2025), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13606-8

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13606-8 2025

[33] [34]

Generating Feynman diagrams and ampli- tudes with FeynArts 3,

T. Hahn, “Generating Feynman diagrams and ampli- tudes with FeynArts 3,” Computer Physics Communi- cations140, 418–431 (2001)

work page 2001

[34] [35]

FormCalc 9 and Extensions,

T. Hahn, S. Passehr, and C. Schappacher, “FormCalc 9 and Extensions,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 762, 012065 (2016)

work page 2016

[35] [36]

Search for new physics in dijet angular distributions using proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV and constraints on dark matter and other models,

CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in dijet angular distributions using proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV and constraints on dark matter and other models,” The European Physical Journal C78(2018), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6242-x

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6242-x 2018

[36] [37]

Progress in the CTEQ-TEA NNLO global QCD analysis,

T.-J. Hou, K. Xie, J. Gao, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, T.J. Hobbs, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, I. Sitiwaldi, D. Stump, and C.-P. Yuan, “Progress in the CTEQ-TEA NNLO global QCD analysis,” (2019), arXiv:1908.11394 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019

[37] [38]

The complete NLO corrections to dijet hadroproduction,

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao, and M. Zaro, “The complete NLO corrections to dijet hadroproduction,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2017(2017), 10.1007/jhep04(2017)076

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2017)076 2017

[38] [39]

Three-Jet Cross Sections in Hadron-Hadron Collisions at Next-To-Leading Order,

Z. Nagy, “Three-Jet Cross Sections in Hadron-Hadron Collisions at Next-To-Leading Order,” Physical Review Letters88(2002), 10.1103/physrevlett.88.122003

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.122003 2002

[39] [40]

Search for invisible Higgs boson decays in vector boson fusion at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for invisible Higgs boson decays in vector boson fusion at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Physics Letters B793, 499–519 (2019)

work page 2019

[40] [41]

Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” Physics Let- ters B793, 520–551 (2019)

work page 2019

[41] [42]

Search for heavy diboson res- onances in semileptonic final states in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for heavy diboson res- onances in semileptonic final states in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” The European Physical Journal C80(2020), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 08554-y

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 2020

[42] [43]

Differential cross-section mea- surements for the electroweak production of dijets in as- sociation with aZboson in proton–proton collisions at ATLAS,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Differential cross-section mea- surements for the electroweak production of dijets in as- sociation with aZboson in proton–proton collisions at ATLAS,” The European Physical Journal C81(2021), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08734-w

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08734-w 2021

[43] [44]

Parton distributions for the LHC run II,

R.D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, C.S. Deans, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N.P. Hartland, J.I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and M. Ubiali, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2015(2015), 10.1007/jhep04(2015)040

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)040 2015

[44] [45]

Observation of Electroweak Pro- duction of a Same-SignWBoson Pair in Association with Two Jets inppCollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of Electroweak Pro- duction of a Same-SignWBoson Pair in Association with Two Jets inppCollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,” Physical Review Letters123(2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.123.161801

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.161801 2019

[45] [46]

A Study of QCD Radiation in VBF Higgs Production with Vincia and Pythia,

S. H¨ oche, S. Mrenna, S. Payne, C.T. Preuss, and P. Skands, “A Study of QCD Radiation in VBF Higgs Production with Vincia and Pythia,” (2021), arXiv:2106.10987 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021

[46] [47]

Parton-shower effects in Higgs production via vector-boson fusion,

B. J¨ ager, A. Karlberg, S. Pl¨ atzer, J. Scheller, and M. Zaro, “Parton-shower effects in Higgs production via vector-boson fusion,” The European Physical Journal C 80(2020), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8326-7

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8326-7 2020

[47] [48]

EFT observable stabil- ity under NLO corrections through interference revival,

C. Degrande and M. Maltoni, “EFT observable stabil- ity under NLO corrections through interference revival,” Phys. Lett. B856, 138970 (2024), arXiv:2403.16894 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[48] [49]

Weak boson fusion production of supersymmetric particles at the CERN LHC,

G.C. Cho, K. Hagiwara, J. Kanzaki, T. Plehn, D. Rain- water, and T. Stelzer, “Weak boson fusion production of supersymmetric particles at the CERN LHC,” Physical Review D73(2006), 10.1103/physrevd.73.054002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.054002 2006

[49] [50]

Rapidity gaps and jets as a new physics signature in very high-energy hadron hadron collisions,

J. D. Bjorken, “Rapidity gaps and jets as a new physics signature in very high-energy hadron hadron collisions,” Phys. Rev. D47, 101–113 (1993)

work page 1993

[50] [51]

Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings,

C. Degrande, N. Greiner, W. Kilian, O. Mattelaer, H. Mebane, T. Stelzer, S. Willenbrock, and C. Zhang, “Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings,” Annals of Physics335, 21–32 (2013)

work page 2013

[51] [52]

Measurement of electroweak pro- duction of aWboson in association with two jets in pro- ton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of electroweak pro- duction of aWboson in association with two jets in pro- ton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” The European Physical Journal C80(2020), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019- 7585-7

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019- 2020

[52] [53]

Unravelling the anomalous gauge boson couplings inZW ±produc- tion at the LHC and the role of spin-1 polariza- tions,

R. Rahaman and R.K. Singh, “Unravelling the anomalous gauge boson couplings inZW ±produc- tion at the LHC and the role of spin-1 polariza- tions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), 10.48550/arXiv.1911.03111

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.03111 2020

[53] [54]

Pre- cision diboson measurements at hadron collid- ers,

A. Azatov, D. Barducci, and E. Venturini, “Pre- cision diboson measurements at hadron collid- ers,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019(2019), 10.1007/jhep04(2019)075

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)075 2019

[54] [55]

Measurement of isolated-photon plus two-jet production inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of isolated-photon plus two-jet production inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), 10.1007/jhep03(2020)179

work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2020)179 2020

[55] [56]

Event generation with SHERPA 1.1,

T. Gleisberg, S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, M. Sch¨ onherr, S. Schu- mann, F. Siegert, and J. Winter, “Event generation with SHERPA 1.1,” Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 18 007–007 (2009)

work page 2009

[56] [57]

Bartocci, A

R. Bartocci, A. Biek¨ otter, and T. Hurth, “A global anal- ysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption,” JHEP05, 074 (2024), arXiv:2311.04963 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[57] [58]

Manca, S

ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for low-mass resonances decaying into two jets and produced in association with a photon or a jet at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS de- tector,” Physical Review D110(2024), 10.1103/phys- revd.110.032002

work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2024