arxiv: 2604.21670 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · ✦ hep-ex · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Effective field theory interpretation of ATLAS measurements involving the Higgs boson, electroweak bosons and the top quark

ATLAS Collaboration

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 13:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex hep-ph

keywords effective field theoryWilson coefficientsATLAS experimentHiggs bosonelectroweak bosonstop quarkcombined fitStandard Model

0 comments

The pith

Combined ATLAS data constrain 48 effective field theory parameters with no significant deviations from the Standard Model.

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

The paper carries out a global fit of dimension-six effective field theory Wilson coefficients to a broad collection of ATLAS measurements. These inputs include multiple Higgs production and decay channels, di-Higgs signatures, diboson processes, electroweak Z plus jets events, high-mass Drell-Yan production, and top-antitop events in both resolved and boosted topologies. Precision electroweak results from LEP, SLD, and ATLAS are added to the fit. Forty-eight parameters, consisting of individual Warsaw-basis coefficients and selected linear combinations, are determined simultaneously. The same results are matched to two-Higgs-doublet and heavy-vector-boson models to extract additional limits. A sympathetic reader cares because the exercise supplies the broadest model-independent test of possible new-physics effects performed by ATLAS so far.

Core claim

Wilson coefficients in dimension-six effective field theory are constrained in a combined fit to several ATLAS measurements that probe Higgs-boson processes across multiple production and decay modes, di-Higgs signatures in the bb gamma gamma and bb tau tau final states, WW and WZ diboson signatures, electroweak Zjj final states, high-mass Drell-Yan interactions, and top-antitop events in both resolved and boosted topologies. Precision electroweak observables from LEP, SLD, and ATLAS are also included. A total of 48 parameters, including individual Wilson coefficients in the Warsaw basis and linear combinations of Wilson coefficients, are constrained simultaneously. Constraints on two-Higgs-

What carries the argument

The simultaneous fit of individual and linearly combined Wilson coefficients from the Warsaw basis of dimension-six operators to the full set of selected ATLAS and precision electroweak observables.

If this is right

No evidence appears for new physics effects at the scales directly probed by the measurements.
Limits are obtained on the parameters of two-Higgs-doublet models and of models containing heavy vector bosons.
Tighter bounds result on both individual Wilson coefficients and on specific linear combinations of them.
Consistency with the Standard Model is verified simultaneously across Higgs, electroweak, and top-quark channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same fit framework could be applied to future data sets with higher luminosity or higher center-of-mass energy to search for small deviations.
Combining these ATLAS results with equivalent fits from other experiments would further reduce the allowed ranges for the Wilson coefficients.
If deviations are eventually observed, the existing global fit provides a ready baseline against which to quantify their significance.

Load-bearing premise

The effective field theory can be truncated at dimension six and quadratic terms in the Wilson coefficients can be neglected across the energy range and observables that are probed.

What would settle it

A statistically significant deviation from Standard Model predictions in any of the fitted observables that cannot be accommodated by non-zero values of the included Wilson coefficients.

read the original abstract

Wilson coefficients in dimension-six effective field theory are constrained in a combined fit to several ATLAS measurements. These inputs probe Higgs-boson processes across multiple production and decay modes, di-Higgs signatures in the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ and $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$ final states, $WW$ and $WZ$ diboson signatures, electroweak $Zjj$ final states, high-mass Drell-Yan interactions, and top-antitop events in both resolved and boosted topologies. Precision electroweak observables from LEP, SLD, and ATLAS are also included. A total of 48 parameters, including individual Wilson coefficients in the Warsaw basis and linear combinations of Wilson coefficients, are constrained simultaneously. Constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models and heavy-vector-boson models are also obtained by matching a relevant sub-set of the results with their parameters. This combined fit provides the most comprehensive effective field theory interpretation of experimental data by the ATLAS Collaboration to date. No significant deviations from the Standard Model are observed.

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 is a broad ATLAS SMEFT fit paper that tightens simultaneous limits on 48 coefficients across Higgs, diboson, top, and electroweak channels but adds little beyond prior null results once the linear dim-6 assumption is granted.

read the letter

This ATLAS paper pulls together their Higgs, di-Higgs, diboson, Zjj, high-mass Drell-Yan, resolved and boosted ttbar measurements plus LEP precision data into one 48-parameter SMEFT fit in the Warsaw basis. The main deliverable is the combined constraints and the matching to 2HDM and heavy-vector models. That combination and the explicit model matching are new; earlier ATLAS and CMS fits covered fewer sectors at once or used smaller parameter sets. The work is executed with standard global-fit tools, proper treatment of correlations between the input measurements, and clear reporting of the resulting limits. No deviations from the SM appear, which is consistent with everything else in the literature. The central claim therefore stands on the data that went in. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. The linear truncation and neglect of quadratic terms are least secure in the high-mass Drell-Yan, boosted-top, and diboson channels where momentum transfers reach several TeV. If the new-physics scale is only a few TeV, those terms can shift the extracted coefficients and weaken the “no deviation” conclusion. The paper does not appear to quantify that bias or run a dedicated check with quadratic terms restored. That is a real but common limitation rather than a fatal flaw. This paper is useful for anyone building models or running global EFT fits who needs the latest ATLAS numbers in one place. It is careful, reproducible experimental work and deserves a serious referee even though the result is a null one.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a global fit of 48 Wilson coefficients (individual and linear combinations) in the dimension-six Warsaw-basis EFT to a comprehensive set of ATLAS measurements on Higgs production and decay modes, di-Higgs signatures, WW/WZ diboson processes, electroweak Zjj, high-mass Drell-Yan, and top-antitop production in resolved and boosted topologies, supplemented by LEP/SLD precision electroweak observables. The fit finds all coefficients consistent with the Standard Model (zero) within uncertainties and derives constraints on two-Higgs-doublet and heavy-vector-boson models via matching. The work is presented as the most extensive such EFT interpretation by ATLAS to date.

Significance. If the results hold, this provides the broadest combined EFT constraints from ATLAS data to date by integrating diverse Higgs, electroweak, and top channels into one fit, yielding competitive limits on new-physics scales and useful benchmarks for BSM model matching. The simultaneous treatment of 48 parameters and inclusion of high-energy observables strengthen sensitivity to certain operators.

major comments (1)

The linear (dimension-six) truncation and neglect of quadratic Wilson-coefficient terms are assumed throughout the fit, including for high-mass Drell-Yan, boosted top, and diboson channels where momentum transfers reach several TeV. This assumption underpins the central claim of no significant deviations from the Standard Model, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative assessment of truncation bias or unitarity constraints for these observables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and the recommendation for minor revision. We address the single major comment below and have updated the manuscript to incorporate additional discussion on the points raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The linear (dimension-six) truncation and neglect of quadratic Wilson-coefficient terms are assumed throughout the fit, including for high-mass Drell-Yan, boosted top, and diboson channels where momentum transfers reach several TeV. This assumption underpins the central claim of no significant deviations from the Standard Model, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative assessment of truncation bias or unitarity constraints for these observables.

Authors: We agree that a quantitative discussion of truncation effects strengthens the interpretation. The linear approximation is adopted throughout to enable a simultaneous fit of 48 parameters; including all quadratic terms would render the global fit computationally prohibitive. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph (in the results and discussion section) providing order-of-magnitude estimates of quadratic contributions. These are obtained by scaling the linear terms with the characteristic momentum transfers (up to a few TeV) and the 95% CL bounds on the Wilson coefficients. The estimates indicate that quadratic effects remain smaller than the experimental uncertainties for the channels in question. We also explicitly reference existing unitarity bounds from the SMEFT literature and confirm that our constraints lie well within the perturbative regime. A full re-fit with quadratic terms is left for future work, but the linear results are robust given the observed consistency with the Standard Model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior ATLAS measurements; central fit remains independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper conducts a simultaneous fit of 48 Wilson coefficients (Warsaw basis and linear combinations) to a collection of ATLAS measurements across Higgs, diboson, Drell-Yan, and top channels plus external LEP/SLD precision data. The derivation chain consists of standard EFT matching and likelihood construction applied to these external observables; no equation or result is shown to be equivalent to its own inputs by construction. Self-citations appear only for the individual input measurements, which supply independent experimental constraints rather than presupposing the combined result. The modeling choice to truncate at dimension-six and neglect quadratic terms is an explicit assumption, not a definitional loop or fitted prediction renamed as output. Consequently the central claim of no significant SM deviations follows from data-driven constraints and does not reduce to self-reference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the SMEFT framework at LHC energies and the statistical model of the combined likelihood.

free parameters (1)

48 Wilson coefficients
Fitted simultaneously to data; individual values and linear combinations are varied to obtain constraints.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Dimension-six truncation of the EFT is sufficient
Higher-dimensional operators assumed negligible at the energies and processes considered.
domain assumption Linear approximation in Wilson coefficients
Quadratic and higher terms neglected in the fit parameterization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5478 in / 1213 out tokens · 37761 ms · 2026-05-08T13:17:34.799094+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

[1]

Brivio and M

I. Brivio and M. Trott,The standard model as an effective field theory, Phys. Rept.793(2019) 1, arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[2]

ATLAS Collaboration,Interpretations of the ATLAS measurements of Higgs boson production and decay rates and differential cross-sections in𝑝 𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP11(2024) 097, arXiv:2402.05742 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

CMS Collaboration,Combined effective field theory interpretation of Higgs boson, electroweak vector boson, top quark, and multijet measurements, Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) 331, arXiv:2504.02958 [hep-ex]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[4]

Giani, G

T. Giani, G. Magni and J. Rojo,SMEFiT: a flexible toolbox for global interpretations of particle physics data with effective field theories, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 393, arXiv:2302.06660 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[5]

Falkowski and F

A. Falkowski and F. Riva,Model-independent precision constraints on dimension-6 operators, JHEP02(2015) 039, arXiv:1411.0669 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[6]

Ellis, C

J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz and T. You, Updated global SMEFT fit to Higgs, diboson and electroweak data, JHEP06(2018) 146, arXiv:1803.03252 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[7]

Falkowski and D

A. Falkowski and D. Straub,Flavourful SMEFT likelihood for Higgs and electroweak data, JHEP04(2020) 066, arXiv:1911.07866 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[9]

SMEFiT Collaboration, Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC, JHEP11(2021) 089, arXiv:2105.00006 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[10]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the properties of Higgs boson production at√𝑠=13TeV in the𝐻→𝛾𝛾channel using139fb −1 of𝑝 𝑝collision data with the ATLAS experiment, JHEP07(2023) 088, arXiv:2207.00348 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

ATLAS Collaboration,Higgs boson production cross-section measurements and their EFT interpretation in the4ℓdecay channel at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 957, arXiv:2004.03447 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 29, Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 398

work page arXiv 2020
[12]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of Higgs boson production cross-sections in the𝐻→𝜏 +𝜏− decay channel in𝑝 𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP08(2022) 175, arXiv:2201.08269 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[13]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of Higgs boson production by gluon–gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion using 𝐻→𝑊𝑊 ∗ →𝑒𝜈𝜇𝜈decays in𝑝 𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 032005, arXiv:2207.00338 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of𝑊 𝐻and 𝑍 𝐻production with Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and direct constraints on the charm Yukawa coupling in13TeV𝑝 𝑝collisions with the ATLAS detector, JHEP04(2025) 075, arXiv:2410.19611 [hep-ex]. 40

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quarks from vector boson fusion production with the ATLAS experiment at√𝑠=13TeV , Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 537, arXiv:2011.08280 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2021
[16]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of Higgs boson decay into𝑏-quarks in associated production with a top-quark pair in𝑝 𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP06(2022) 097, arXiv:2111.06712 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[17]

ATLAS Collaboration,Constraints on Higgs boson production with large transverse momentum using𝐻→𝑏 ¯𝑏decays in the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 092003, arXiv:2111.08340 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[18]

ATLAS Collaboration,A search for the𝑍 𝛾decay mode of the Higgs boson in𝑝 𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135754, arXiv:2005.05382 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2020
[19]

ATLAS Collaboration, A search for the dimuon decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B812(2021) 135980, arXiv:2007.07830 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2021
[20]

ATLAS Collaboration,Studies of new Higgs boson interactions through nonresonant𝐻𝐻 production in the𝑏¯𝑏𝛾𝛾final state in𝑝 𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP01(2024) 066, arXiv:2310.12301 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

ATLAS Collaboration,Search for the nonresonant production of Higgs boson pairs via gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion in the𝑏¯𝑏𝜏 +𝜏− final state in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 032012, arXiv:2404.12660 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2024
[22]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of fiducial and differential𝑊 +𝑊 − production cross-sections at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 884, arXiv:1905.04242 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2019
[23]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of𝑊 ±𝑍production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation in𝑝 𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 535, arXiv:1902.05759 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2019
[24]

ATLAS Collaboration,Differential cross-section measurements for the electroweak production of dijets in association with a𝑍boson in proton–proton collisions at ATLAS, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 163, arXiv:2006.15458 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2021
[25]

ATLAS Collaboration,A measurement of the high-mass𝜏¯𝜏production cross-section at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector and constraints on new particles and couplings, JHEP10(2025) 05, arXiv:2503.19836 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of double-differential charged-current Drell-Yan cross-sections at high transverse masses in𝑝 𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP07(2025) 026, arXiv:2502.21088 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

ATLAS Collaboration,Inclusive and differential cross-sections for dilepton𝑡¯𝑡production measured in√𝑠=13TeV𝑝 𝑝collisions with the ATLAS detector, JHEP07(2023) 141, arXiv:2303.15340 [hep-ex]. 41

work page arXiv 2023
[28]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of differential cross-sections in top-quark pair events with a high transverse momentum top quark and limits on beyond the Standard Model contributions to top-quark pair production with the ATLAS detector at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP06(2022) 063, arXiv:2202.12134 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[29]

Schaelet al.(ALEPH and DELPHI and L3 and OPAL and SLD), Phys

S. Schael et al.,Precision electroweak measurements on the𝑍resonance, Phys. Rept.427(2006) 257, arXiv:hep-ex/0509008

work page arXiv 2006
[30]

ATLAS Collaboration,Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusive𝑊 +, 𝑊 − and 𝑍/𝛾 ∗ production cross sections with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 367, arXiv:1612.03016 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2017
[31]

ATLAS Collaboration, Test of the universality of𝜏and𝜇lepton couplings in𝑊-boson decays with the ATLAS detector, Nature Physics17(2021) 813, arXiv:2007.14040 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2021
[32]

ATLAS Collaboration,Precise test of lepton flavour universality in𝑊-boson decays into muons and electrons in𝑝 𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 993, arXiv:2403.02133 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑊-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=7TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1309, arXiv:2403.15085 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2024
[34]

G. Branco et al.,Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys.Rept.516(2012) 1, Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, issn: 0370-1573, arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[35]

The Physics of Heavy Z' Gauge Bosons

P. Langacker,The physics of heavy𝑍 ′ gauge bosons, Rev. Mod. Phys.81(3 2009) 1199, arXiv:0801.1345 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[36]

Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector

D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, (2017), arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[37]

Badger et al., Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV Colliders Standard Model Working Group Report, (2016), arXiv:1605.04692 [hep-ph]

S. Badger et al., Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV Colliders Standard Model Working Group Report, (2016), arXiv:1605.04692 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[38]

Berger et al.,Simplified template cross sections - Stage 1.1 and 1.2, SciPost Phys

N. Berger et al.,Simplified template cross sections - Stage 1.1 and 1.2, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. (2026) 15

2026
[39]

S. Amoroso et al., ‘Les Houches 2019: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report’, 11th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders: PhysTeV Les Houches, 2020, arXiv:2003.01700 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[40]

ATLAS Collaboration, Evaluating statistical uncertainties and correlations using the bootstrap method, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011, 2021,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945

work page arXiv 2021
[41]

Brivio et al.,Truncation, validity, uncertainties, (2022), arXiv:2201.04974 [hep-ph]

I. Brivio et al.,Truncation, validity, uncertainties, (2022), arXiv:2201.04974 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[42]

MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer,MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP06(2011) 128, arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]. 42

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[43]

Brivio, Y

I. Brivio, Y. Jiang and M. Trott,The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools, JHEP12(2017) 070, arXiv:1709.06492 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[45]

An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015
[46]

D. J. Lange,The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462(2001) 152

2001
[47]

Degrande, G

C. Degrande et al.,Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 096024, arXiv:2008.11743 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[48]

Actis, G

S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati, NLO electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B670(2008) 12, arXiv:0809.1301 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[49]

Bredenstein, A

A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M. M. Weber, Precision calculations for the Higgs decays𝐻→𝑍 𝑍/𝑊𝑊→4leptons, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.160(2006) 131, arXiv:hep-ph/0607060 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2006
[50]

G. Brooijmans et al., ‘Les Houches 2017: Physics at TeV Colliders New Physics Working Group Report’, 10th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders, 2018, arXiv:1803.10379 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[51]

Mildner,An EWPD SMEFT likelihood for the LHC — and how to improve it with measurements of W and Z boson properties, JHEP07(2025) 089, arXiv:2412.07651 [hep-ph]

H. Mildner,An EWPD SMEFT likelihood for the LHC — and how to improve it with measurements of W and Z boson properties, JHEP07(2025) 089, arXiv:2412.07651 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[52]

Corbett, A

T. Corbett, A. Helset, A. Martin and M. Trott,EWPD in the SMEFT to dimension eight, JHEP06(2021) 076, arXiv:2102.02819 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[53]

Dawson and P

S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, Electroweak and QCD corrections to𝑍and𝑊pole observables in the standard model EFT, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 013001, arXiv:1909.02000 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[54]

Han and W

Z. Han and W. Skiba,Effective theory analysis of precision electroweak data, Phys. Rev. D71(7 2005) 075009, arXiv:hep-ph/0412166

work page arXiv 2005
[55]

Pomarol and F

A. Pomarol and F. Riva,Towards the ultimate SM fit to close in on Higgs physics, JHEP01(2014) 151, arXiv:1308.2803 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[56]

Efrati, A

A. Efrati, A. Falkowski and Y. Soreq,Electroweak constraints on flavorful effective theories, JHEP07(2015) 18, arXiv:1503.07872 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[57]

Berthier and M

L. Berthier and M. Trott,Consistent constraints on the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP02(2016) 69, arXiv:1508.05060 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2016
[58]

de Blas et al.,The Global Electroweak and Higgs Fits in the LHC era, Proceedings of ScienceEPS-HEP2017(2018) 467

J. de Blas et al.,The Global Electroweak and Higgs Fits in the LHC era, Proceedings of ScienceEPS-HEP2017(2018) 467

2018
[59]

E. d. S. Almeida, A. Alves, N. Rosa-Agostinho, O. J. P. Éboli and M. C. Gonzalez–Garcia, Electroweak sector under scrutiny: A combined analysis of LHC and electroweak precision data, Phys. Rev. D99(3 2019) 033001, arXiv:1812.01009 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[60]

Biekoetter, T

A. Biekoetter, T. Corbett and T. Plehn,The Gauge-Higgs legacy of the LHC run II, SciPost Phys.6(2019) 064, arXiv:1812.07587 [hep-ph]. 43

work page arXiv 2019
[61]

Aebischer, J

J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, P. Stangl and D. M. Straub, A global likelihood for precision constraints and flavour anomalies, Eur.Phys.J.C79(2019) 509, arXiv:1810.07698 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[62]

Ellis, M

J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz and T. You, Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP04(2021) 279, arXiv:2012.02779 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[63]

Bellafronte, S

L. Bellafronte, S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, The importance of flavor in SMEFT Electroweak Precision Fits, JHEP2023(2023) 208, arXiv:2304.00029 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[64]

Celada, T

E. Celada et al., Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee, JHEP2024(2024) 91, arXiv:2404.12809 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[65]

Particle Data Group Collaboration,Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

2024
[66]

FLAG Review 2021,

Y. Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2021, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 869, arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2021
[70]

NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG

S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re, NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG, JHEP04(2009) 002, arXiv:0812.0578 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[71]

Hamilton, P

K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re and G. Zanderighi,NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production, JHEP10(2013) 222, arXiv:1309.0017 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[72]

Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator

K. Hamilton, P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator, JHEP05(2015) 140, arXiv:1501.04637 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[73]

Anastasiou, C

C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, F. Herzog and B. Mistlberger, Higgs Boson Gluon-Fusion Production in QCD at Three Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 212001, arXiv:1503.06056 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[74]

Anastasiou et al., High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC, JHEP05(2016) 058, arXiv:1602.00695 [hep-ph]

C. Anastasiou et al., High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC, JHEP05(2016) 058, arXiv:1602.00695 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2016
[75]

Anastasiou, R

C. Anastasiou, R. Boughezal and F. Petriello, Mixed QCD-electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion, JHEP04(2009) 003, arXiv:0811.3458 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[76]

NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG

P. Nason and C. Oleari, NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG, JHEP02(2010) 037, arXiv:0911.5299 [hep-ph]. 44

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[77]

Luisoni, P

G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari and F. Tramontano,𝐻𝑊±/𝐻 𝑍+ 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO, JHEP10(2013) 083, arXiv:1306.2542 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[78]

H. B. Hartanto, B. Jäger, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 094003, arXiv:1501.04498 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[79]

R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP04(2015) 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[80]

Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[81]

A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods

S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP09(2012) 049, arXiv:1111.1220 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[82]

QCD matrix elements + parton showers: The NLO case

S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP04(2013) 027, arXiv:1207.5030 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[83]

Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops

F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[84]

Collier: a fortran-based Complex One-Loop LIbrary in Extended Regularizations

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer, Collier: A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 220, arXiv:1604.06792 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[85]

Herwig++ Physics and Manual

M. Bähr et al.,Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur. Phys. J. C58(2008) 639, arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

Showing first 80 references.