Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Spacetime non-commutativity can be probed at first order in the deformation parameter in W/Z+jet production at the LHC, and current data bound the non-commutative scale to at least 2–3 TeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:17 UTC pith:3YO2NU2W

load-bearing objection Solid new NCSM amplitudes for W/Z+jet, but the ATLAS-based Λ bounds are convention-dependent and lack a real statistical procedure. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.10028 v2 pith:3YO2NU2W submitted 2025-12-10 hep-ph

Constraining non-commutative geometry with W/Z+jet production at the LHC

Achwaq Ghezal , Yazid Delenda , Mekki Aouachria This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords non-commutative geometrynon-commutative Standard ModelW/Z+jet productionLHCazimuthal asymmetryforward-backward asymmetrynon-commutative scaleSeiberg-Witten map
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper shows that W/Z+jet production at the Large Hadron Collider is unusually sensitive to the possibility that spacetime coordinates do not commute at short distances. Its key finding is that the production amplitudes for the partonic channels get corrections linear in the deformation parameter Θ, whereas the vector-boson leptonic decays only shift at order Θ². Using that first-order sensitivity, the authors compute azimuthal and rapidity distributions and the forward–backward asymmetry, and compare them against particle-level LHC data on Z+jet events. The data are consistent with the Standard Model, and this agreement translates into lower bounds on the non-commutative scale of roughly 2–3 TeV, with a more aggressive reading reaching about 8 TeV. These angular observables, which are essentially flat and symmetric in the SM at both leading and next-to-leading order, emerge as clean discriminants for spacetime non-commutativity.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the partonic amplitudes q qbar → V g and q g → V q, with V = W or Z, receive interference terms linear in the non-commutative tensor Θ^(μν) = c^(μν)/Λ², while the leptonic decay widths change only at O(Θ²). Because production and decay factorize in the narrow-width approximation, the linear terms dominate. The evaluated amplitudes, inserted into a Monte Carlo reweighting, leave the total cross section nearly unchanged but produce a sinusoidal azimuthal modulation and a forward–backward asymmetry. Comparison with an unbinned particle-level Z+jet sample from LHC Run 2 shows that the measured angular observables agree with the Standard Model, yielding lower bou

What carries the argument

The machinery is the non-commutative deformation of the Standard Model. Ordinary pointwise products are replaced by the Moyal–Weyl star product, with deformation parameter Θ^(μν); gauge fields and fermions are then expressed through the Seiberg–Witten map to first order in Θ. This generates deformed three-point vertices and a new four-point gauge vertex absent in the SM (shown to be subdominant). The calculation explicitly sums and squares the amplitudes for both partonic channels, then uses a Monte Carlo reweighting procedure (weight = 1 + |M_NC|²/|M_SM|²) to convert Standard Model event samples into NCSM predictions for the azimuthal and rapidity distributions and the forward–backward asym

Load-bearing premise

The bounds assume that fixing the non-commutative tensor's orientation to a single direction in the detector frame is a valid effective description; because the predicted azimuthal modulation and forward-backward asymmetry change sign and shape with orientation, the derived scale limits are conditional on that unstated orientation choice.

What would settle it

Using the full LHC Run-2 Z+jet dataset, fit the azimuthal distribution separately in bins of sidereal time. A modulation whose phase is fixed to the celestial frame (and whose amplitude grows with the Z transverse momentum) would confirm the non-commutative interpretation; a phase that rotates with the detector, or a distribution flat at the quoted systematic level, would invalidate the bounds. Equivalently, an unbinned likelihood scan over the three components (βx,βy,βz) would show whether the 2–3 TeV bound survives when orientation is not preselected.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The total inclusive cross section for W/Z+jet is essentially unchanged even at Λ = 300 GeV, so integrated rates cannot probe non-commutativity; only differential angular distributions carry the signal.
  • The azimuthal distribution acquires a sinusoidal modulation in the plane transverse to the beam, with amplitude growing like (pt/Λ)² and phase set by the transverse components of Θ; forward-backward asymmetry in rapidity probes the beam-axis component.
  • Because the SM azimuthal distribution is flat and the SM AFB is zero at both LO and NLO, these observables give a background-free channel: any significant modulation or nonzero AFB would be a clean sign of new spacetime structure.
  • Current LHC data already exclude non-commutative scales below roughly 2–3 TeV, and projections for the high-luminosity run push the reach toward 10 TeV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted bounds rest on fixing the non-commutative tensor to a single orientation in the detector frame, (βx,βy,βz) = (−1,−1,−1); since the modulation and asymmetry change sign and shape with orientation, the limits are conditional on that choice and would be looser if the orientation is treated as a free parameter or averaged over the Earth's rotation.
  • A time-resolved fit to the azimuthal modulation as a function of sidereal hour would be a decisive test: a phase locked to the celestial frame would support non-commutative geometry, whereas a phase tied to the detector would indicate a mundane systematic effect.
  • The same first-order-in-Θ structure should appear in other vector-boson-plus-jet processes, so the reweighting method can be applied to W+jets (using the charged lepton's azimuth) and to future diboson data to sharpen the constraint without new analytic work.
  • Because the leptonic decays only shift at O(Θ²), the paper's factorization is internally safe; cross-checking the same observables with Z → ee and Z → μμ samples would help confirm that the mild data trend (low at negative φ, high at positive φ) is not driven by detector effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes leading-order NCSM squared matrix elements for pp → W/Z+jet production, including leptonic decays, using Seiberg-Witten map Feynman rules. The authors find that production amplitudes receive corrections at O(Θ), while leptonic decay widths only receive corrections at O(Θ²). They use these matrix elements to predict angular distributions, compare with MCFM at LO and NLO, and then compare with an unbinned ATLAS Z(μμ)+jet Run-2 dataset. From the azimuthal distribution and the forward-backward asymmetry they claim lower bounds on the non-commutative scale Λ of about 1.7–3 TeV under conservative assumptions, up to ~8 TeV under more aggressive interpretations.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is an interesting result: it identifies W/Z+jet angular observables as enhanced O(Θ) probes of spacetime non-commutativity, providing a concrete and falsifiable signature (a sinusoidal azimuthal modulation and a non-zero AFB) that is stable against NLO QCD corrections. The analytic derivation in Section 2 and Appendices A–C is explicit, self-contained, and not fitted to data, which substantially reduces circularity concerns. The comparison to real ATLAS data, if made rigorous, would be a valuable phenomenological constraint. However, the numerical bounds quoted in the abstract are not yet supported by the analysis as presented: the Earth-rotation averaging promised in the abstract is absent, the NC orientation is fixed to an unmotivated detector-frame convention, and the statistical procedure for deriving the bounds is not defined.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5; Eq. (16)] The abstract states that the analysis accounts for Earth rotation effects by fixing the NC tensor in a celestial frame and deriving time-averaged observables in the rotating detector frame. No such averaging appears anywhere in the text. Instead, Section 5 simply adopts (βx,βy,βz)=(−1,−1,−1) in the ATLAS detector frame with no physical motivation. Since Eq. (16) shows the azimuthal modulation is proportional to βx cosφ+βy sinφ, and Fig. 3 shows the modulation changes sign and phase with orientation, the quoted bounds Λ≳2–3 TeV are really constraints on Λ/|β_perp| and on the chosen orientation, not on Λ itself. The missing time-averaging is not a minor technicality: a sidereal average would dilute the modulation and likely weaken the bounds.
  2. [Section 5; Figs. 6–7; Eqs. (17)–(18)] The derivation of the numerical bounds is not statistically defined. The text says 'Inspection of Fig. 6 reveals bins 1, 2, 5, and 6 exhibit the greatest sensitivity' and then states that Λ≃2 TeV is excluded, but no test statistic, χ², likelihood, or confidence-level procedure is given. The NCSM predictions are shown without any theory uncertainty, and the treatment of correlated systematic uncertainties in the ATLAS data is not described. The values Λ≳1.7 TeV, Λ≳3 TeV, and Λ∼8 TeV are quoted from different assumptions about statistical/systematic errors and from the central value of AFB, but the exact criteria for each bound are not specified. The central numerical claim of the paper requires a reproducible statistical analysis.
  3. [Section 3.2; Eq. (16)] Equation (16) is presented as a simple sinusoidal form for the azimuthal distribution, with Λ0 stated to be proportional to the jet pT. This formula is not derived from the explicit matrix elements in Eqs. (6)–(7), and the functional dependence of Λ0 on the kinematics and couplings is not given. Since this equation is used to interpret the data pattern and to argue that high-pT selections enhance sensitivity, the authors should provide the explicit relation or at least state that Eq. (16) is only a numerical fit. Without this, the claimed sensitivity scaling is not verifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2; Section 5] The decay channel of the Z boson is inconsistent: the abstract says Z→μ+μ−, while Section 2 and the Introduction state Z→e+e−, and Section 5 uses Z(μμ)+jet. This should be harmonized.
  2. [Appendix A] The statement that terms proportional to (kΘp) contribute only at O(Θ²) relies on the reality of the SM tree-level amplitudes. This is true at Born level, but it would be helpful to state explicitly that this simplification is used in Eqs. (6)–(7), since it may not hold beyond tree level.
  3. [Section 5] The paper says 'Inspection of Fig. 6 reveals that bins 1, 2, 5, and 6 exhibit the greatest sensitivity.' This bin selection appears post hoc. A robust approach would either use all bins with a defined test statistic or pre-specify the bins.
  4. [Section 3.2] The statement that the SM rapidity distribution is 'perfectly symmetric about η=0' is true for pp collisions at the level considered here, but it may be worth specifying that this holds for the symmetric initial state and after summing over charges.
  5. [References] The ATLAS data reference [28] is given as 'Atlas omnifold 24-dimensional z+jets open data (June 2024)' without a persistent DOI or arXiv identifier. A stable reference would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the NCSM derivation and the ATLAS comparison are parameter-free for fixed Λ and β; the quoted bounds follow from non-observation rather than from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Beginning from the Seiberg-Witten map and the Feynman rules in Eqs. (3), (A.2) and Appendix C, the squared amplitudes in Eqs. (6)-(7) are computed algebraically, and the distributions are obtained by reweighting SM Monte Carlo events with the ratio |M_NC|^2/|M_SM|^2 (Eq. 13). No parameter is fitted to the ATLAS data in order to produce the central predictions: for a chosen scale Λ and orientation β, the NCSM prediction is fixed, and the ATLAS comparison in Section 5 is an external-data bound based on the non-observation of deviations. The MCFM comparison is also independent of the NCSM input. The sinusoidal form in Eq. (16) is presented as a compact description of the simulated azimuthal modulation and contains an unspecified scale Λ0, but the final Λ limits are not derived by fitting this expression to the experimental data; they come from comparing the full reweighted predictions at various Λ to the measured azimuthal spectrum and forward-backward asymmetry. The choice (βx,βy,βz)=(-1,-1,-1) in Section 5 and the absence of the advertised Earth-rotation averaging make the numerical bounds convention-dependent, but these are physical/assumption-level limitations rather than circular reductions of the prediction to its inputs. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems: the cited non-commutative constructions are external and prior. The central claim that the production amplitudes are O(Θ) is a direct but genuine calculation from the chosen NC vertices, not an equivalence-by-construction of a fitted parameter with the predicted observable. The conclusion therefore carries independent content, even though its quantitative reach is conditional on the assumed NC orientation. The appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central prediction rests on the NCSM/SW-map framework from prior literature, a space-space restriction of Θ, and the assumption that ATLAS unfolded data can be compared directly to LO reweighted predictions. The genuinely new free choices are the orientation β and the unspecified amplitude scale Λ0; these drive the data constraints.

free parameters (3)
  • Λ (non-commutative scale) = bounded: Λ ≳ 1.7-3 TeV (conservative), ~8 TeV (aggressive)
    Input parameter of the NCSM; scanned over 300-1000 GeV in predictions and quoted as a lower bound from ATLAS data. Not fitted in a likelihood but constrained by inverting the measured AFB.
  • β_i (NC orientation) = (-1,-1,-1) for ATLAS; (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1) for illustration
    Dimensionless orientation of Θ^{ij}; chosen by hand in Section 3 and fixed to (-1,-1,-1) for the ATLAS comparison without physical motivation or Earth-rotation averaging.
  • Λ0 in Eq. (16) = not specified numerically
    Amplitude of the azimuthal modulation; the paper says only that Λ0 is proportional to jet p_T, so the numerical predictions cannot be reproduced from the text alone.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Moyal-Weyl star product and Seiberg-Witten map define a consistent O(Θ) NCSM with Feynman rules in Appendix A.
    The entire calculation rests on this; the SW map and trace/nonminimal gauge choices are taken from Calmet et al. [15] and Melic et al. [24].
  • domain assumption Only space-space non-commutativity, Θ^{0i}=0, is physical; time-space components are excluded to avoid unitarity violations.
    Section 3: 'To circumvent potential unitarity issues ... restrict to purely space-space non-commutativity'.
  • domain assumption Leptonic decay widths receive no O(Θ) corrections, so production and decay factorize in the narrow-width approximation.
    Appendix B shows the decay interference vanishes; this is used to justify computing only production at O(Θ).
  • domain assumption ATLAS Omnifold particle-level data can be used directly as unfolded measurements, with detector and systematic effects captured by the quoted uncertainties.
    Section 5 uses the public ATLAS particle-level dataset without any detector simulation by the authors.
  • ad hoc to paper The orientation (-1,-1,-1) in the detector frame represents the effective orientation for the comparison.
    No physical motivation is given; the abstract claims Earth-rotation/celestial-frame time averaging, but the text does not implement it.
invented entities (2)
  • Θ^{μν} / non-commutative deformation of spacetime no independent evidence
    purpose: Deforms SM gauge and fermion vertices via the SW map; source of new O(Θ) amplitudes and the four-point vertex.
    The NCSM is assumed from prior literature; the paper provides no independent handle beyond the angular observables it uses to constrain Λ, so there is no external evidence.
  • NCSM four-point vector-boson-quark vertex no independent evidence
    purpose: Ensures gauge invariance in the presence of Θ; contributes subdominantly at O(Θ).
    New interaction absent in the SM, introduced by the SW-map commutator structure; it is not independently observed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15733 in / 19269 out tokens · 200756 ms · 2026-08-03T17:17:26.034939+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive calculation of the squared matrix elements for all partonic channels contributing to $W^\pm/Z$+jet production at hadron colliders within the framework of the non-commutative Standard Model (NCSM), including leptonic decays $W\to e\nu$ and $Z\to {\mu^+\mu^-}$. Our computation incorporates both $\mathcal{O}(\Theta)$ corrections to the Standard Model vertices and additional interaction terms inherent to the NCSM. A key finding is that the production amplitudes receive first-order corrections at $\mathcal{O}(\Theta)$, a distinctive feature compared to many other processes where non-commutative effects enter only at $\mathcal{O}(\Theta^2)$. The leptonic decay widths, in contrast, are modified solely at $\mathcal{O}(\Theta^2)$. This $\mathcal{O}(\Theta)$ enhancement provides improved sensitivity to non-commutative geometry, allowing us to probe for and constrain the non-commutative energy scale in the multi-TeV range. We provide numerical predictions for angular (azimuthal and rapidity) distributions and the forward--backward asymmetry, and compare them to state-of-the-art Standard Model predictions at leading and next-to-leading order from the \texttt{MCFM} Monte Carlo program. Finally, we test the NCSM with experimental data by analyzing an unbinned, particle-level $Z$+jet dataset from the ATLAS experiment. From this data, we calculate the azimuthal spectrum and forward-backward asymmetry, which are then used to derive stringent lower bounds on the non-commutative scale $\Lambda$. Our analysis accounts for Earth rotation effects by treating the non-commutative tensor as fixed in a celestial frame and deriving time-averaged observables in the rotating detector frame.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10028 by Achwaq Ghezal, Mekki Aouachria, Yazid Delenda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Feynman diagrams for the leading-order contributio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Normalized differential rapidity (top) and azimutha [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalized differential rapidity (left) and azimuth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of the four-point interaction on the angular d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SM angular distributions obtained with MCFM at LO and NLO, compared to predictions from the NCSM. The bands represent theoretical uncertainties from renormalization and factor￾ization scale variations. The comparison reveals two key results. For the rapidity distribution, a notice￾able difference exists between the LO and NLO SM predictions: the NLO corrections broaden the distribution and lower the centra… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the azimuthal distribution of the reconstructed Z boson, obtained from the 418 014 selected events. The data are compared to NCSM predictions for different NC scales Λ. Both statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated; the latter account for detector effects, background contributions, the unfolding pro￾cedure, and uncertainties in the machine-learning model, among other sources [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Forward-backward asymmetry of the Z boson obtained using ATLAS data, compared to NCSM predictions at various Λ and the SM prediction from MCFM at NLO. The inset shows a zoomed-in view to illustrate the constraint derived from the central value. Although the experimental uncertainties are sizable, the central value from the ATLAS measurement is compatible with the SM prediction. Combining statistical and sy… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The relevant Feynman rules for this diagram, along with the de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relevant 4-point and 3-point vertices in the NCSM. Th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Golling et al

    T. Golling et al. (6 2016), arXiv:1606.00947 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Tricoli, M

    A. Tricoli, M. Sch¨ onherr and P. Azzurri, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025007 (2021), arXiv:2012.13967 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Boughezal, C

    R. Boughezal, C. Focke, X. Liu and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 062002 (2015), arXiv:1504.02131 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Boughezal, X

    R. Boughezal, X. Liu and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074015 (2016), arXiv:1602.08140 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Blumenschein et al

    U. Blumenschein et al. , Pushing the precision frontier at the LHC with V+jets (2 2018). arXiv:1802.02100 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    P. K. Das, N. G. Deshpande and G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. D 77, 035010 (2008), arXiv:0710.4608 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Selvaganapathy, P

    J. Selvaganapathy, P. K. Das and P. Konar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1550159 (2015), arXiv:1509.06478 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Alboteanu, T

    A. Alboteanu, T. Ohl and R. Ruckl, Phys. Rev. D 74, 096004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    T. G. Rizzo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18, 2797 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0203240

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  10. [10]

    R. S. Manohar, J. Selvaganapathy and P. K. Das, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1450156 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    W. Wang, F. Tian and Z.-M. Sheng, Phys. Rev. D 84, 045012 (2011), arXiv:1105.0252 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 09, 032 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9908142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  13. [13]

    Blumenhagen, Fortsch

    R. Blumenhagen, Fortsch. Phys. 62, 709 (2014), arXiv:1403.4805 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 977 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0106048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    Calmet, B

    X. Calmet, B. Jurco, P. Schupp, J. Wess and M. Wohlgenannt , Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 363 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0111115. December 12, 2025 1:7 ppr Constraining non-commutative geometry with W/Z+jet produ ction at the LHC 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    Abbiendi et al

    OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al. , Phys. Lett. B 568, 181 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0303035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  17. [17]

    I. F. Riad and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, JHEP 08, 045 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0008132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    Jurco and P

    B. Jurco and P. Schupp, Eur. Phys. J. C 14, 367 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0001032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  19. [19]

    Minwalla, M

    S. Minwalla, M. Van Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, JHEP 02, 020 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9912072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    Gomis and T

    J. Gomis and T. Mehen, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 265 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0005129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  21. [21]

    Hinchliffe, N

    I. Hinchliffe, N. Kersting and Y. L. Ma, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 179 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0205040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  22. [22]

    Ulker and B

    K. Ulker and B. Yapiskan, Phys. Rev. D 77, 065006 (2008), arXiv:0712.0506 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    Batebi, M

    S. Batebi, M. Haghighat, S. Tizchang and H. Akafzade, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1550108 (2015), arXiv:1410.7725 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Melic, K

    B. Melic, K. Passek-Kumericki, J. Trampetic, P. Schupp a nd M. Wohlgenannt, Eur. Phys. J. C 42, 499 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  25. [25]

    Jurco, L

    B. Jurco, L. Moller, S. Schraml, P. Schupp and J. Wess, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 383 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0104153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    Melic, K

    B. Melic, K. Passek-Kumericki, J. Trampetic, P. Schupp a nd M. Wohlgenannt, Eur. Phys. J. C 42, 483 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Aad et al

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 261803 (2024), arXiv:2405.20041 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Collaboration, Atlas omnifold 24-dimensional z+jet s open data (June 2024)

    A. Collaboration, Atlas omnifold 24-dimensional z+jet s open data (June 2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Campbell and T

    J. Campbell and T. Neumann, JHEP 12, 034 (2019), arXiv:1909.09117 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107478 (2020), arXiv:2001.04407 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Ste lzer, JHEP 06, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Conte, B

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Maltoni and T

    F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, JHEP 02, 027 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0208156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Malto ni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 428 (2022), arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063 (2008), arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    Ohl and J

    T. Ohl and J. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 70, 076007 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  39. [39]

    Ohl and J

    T. Ohl and J. Reuter, Tests of the noncommutative standard model at a future photo n collider, in International Conference on Linear Colliders (LCWS 04) , (7 2004). pp. 243–247. arXiv:hep-ph/0407337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004