Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 124 references

This paper reports cross-section measurements of Higgs boson production with transverse momentum above 300 GeV in the di-tau final state, finding evidence (3.8 sigma) consistent with the Standard Model.

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

2026-08-01 05:28 UTC pith:HSBEVQJ2

load-bearing objection First ATLAS boosted H→ττ measurement is solid, but the fake-background shape transfer needs a closure test. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22193 v1 pith:HSBEVQJ2 submitted 2026-07-24 hep-ex

Cross-section measurements of boosted Higgs boson production in final states with pairs of hadronically decaying τ-leptons with the ATLAS experiment

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords boosted Higgshadronic tau decaysdi-tau reconstructioncross-section measurementsimplified template cross-sectionsgluon-gluon fusionvector-boson fusionproton-proton collisions
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.

The paper aims to establish that Higgs bosons produced with transverse momentum above 300 GeV can be measured through their decay into a pair of hadronically decaying tau leptons, a regime where the two taus merge into one jet and standard reconstruction fails. Using a dedicated boosted di-tau reconstruction and a machine-learning tagger, it reports cross-section measurements in this previously inaccessible phase space. The inclusive signal has an observed (expected) significance of 3.8 (3.3) standard deviations, with a signal strength of 1.16, compatible with the Standard Model at the 69% level. Differential and simplified-template cross-sections are also reported for gluon-gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion production, all consistent with Standard Model predictions.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the H to tau tau process is present in the highly boosted regime: combining 140 inverse femtobarns at 13 TeV and 162 inverse femtobarns at 13.6 TeV, events with Higgs transverse momentum above 300 GeV show an excess over background-only expectations with 3.8 sigma observed (3.3 sigma expected). The measured inclusive cross-section, the simplified-template cross-sections, and the differential results in three gluon-gluon-fusion bins and one electroweak qqH bin are consistent with Standard Model predictions. This constitutes evidence for Higgs production in a phase space previously inaccessible in the di-tau channel.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boosted di-tau candidate: a large-radius jet (radius 1.0) seeded by the merged hadronic tau pair, inside which two smaller subjets (radius 0.2) are identified as the individual tau decays. Identification uses the OMNI tagger, a point-edge transformer (a graph neural network combined with transformer layers) trained on subjet and per-track features; at the 85% efficiency working point it rejects QCD multi-jet background about ten times better than the previous boosted-decision-tree tagger. The signal is extracted with a two-class boosted decision tree, events are classified into simplified-template cross-section categories with a four-class BDT, and the dominant

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the fake-factor method, which transfers same-sign, tagger-failing events to the opposite-sign signal region using only subleading-subjet pT and track multiplicity, predicts both the normalisation and the shape of the misidentified-tau background in the signal region.

What would settle it

Recompute the fake di-tau background with fake factors parameterized additionally in the two-class BDT score and refit the signal; if the predicted background shape in the signal region shifts by more than the assigned 100% normalisation uncertainty, the fitted signal strength and the 3.8 sigma significance would change.

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

If this is right

  • The analysis establishes the pT_H greater than 300 GeV di-tau phase space as accessible, with an observed excess of 3.8 sigma over background only.
  • The simplified-template and differential results give measured cross-sections for gluon-gluon fusion in three Higgs-transverse-momentum bins and for electroweak qqH production, all compatible with the Standard Model.
  • The Run 2 and Run 3 measurements are mutually compatible, allowing the two data sets to be combined in one likelihood fit.
  • The measured signal strength of 1.16 (plus 0.42 over minus 0.25 statistical, plus 0.23 over minus 0.27 systematic) is compatible with the Standard Model at the 69% level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this result holds, the same boosted di-tau reconstruction should extend searches for heavy resonances decaying to tau pairs, where merged tau decays currently limit sensitivity.
  • The 100% normalisation uncertainty on the fake-tau background, with no explicit tagger-score shape term, means a shape mismatch in the tagger score could shift the central signal strength; this could be tested by re-deriving fake factors in bins of the tagger score.
  • Extrapolating the expected significance of 3.3 sigma, full Run 3 statistics could push this channel alone toward the 5 sigma observation threshold.
  • The Run 3 sample has a larger fake background than Run 2, suggesting future iterations may need tighter triggers or tagger optimisation; the observed run-to-run compatibility is an early indication of how that scaling behaves.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents cross-section measurements of highly boosted Higgs boson production decaying to pairs of hadronically decaying tau leptons, using 140 fb^-1 of Run 2 data at 13 TeV and 162 fb^-1 of Run 3 data at 13.6 TeV. Events are selected with a dedicated large-radius-jet di-tau reconstruction and the OMNI transformer-based tagger. Signal and background are separated with a two-class BDT, and events are further categorized into VBF and three ggF pT bins using a four-class BDT. Backgrounds are estimated from simulation, with the Z->tau tau normalization constrained in control regions and the misidentified di-tau background estimated with a data-driven fake-factor method. A profile-likelihood fit yields an observed (expected) significance of 3.8 (3.3) sigma for inclusive H->tau tau production with pT(H)>300 GeV, a combined signal strength of mu=1.16 (+0.42/-0.25 stat, +0.23/-0.27 syst), and STXS and differential cross-section results consistent with the SM within uncertainties.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first evidence for boosted H->tau tau production and opens a previously inaccessible high-pT phase space for Higgs coupling measurements. The analysis is methodical: it uses a dedicated reconstruction and tagger, three-fold cross-validated BDTs, Z->tau tau control regions to anchor the dominant irreducible background and the in-situ tau energy scale, and a complete inventory of experimental and theoretical systematics. The observed and expected significances are consistent, and the cross-section results are presented in both STXS and differential forms. The paper also provides a useful comparison with the CMS boosted H->tau tau measurement and the ATLAS boosted H->bb measurement.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6, §8] The fake di-tau background template in the signal region is obtained by applying fake factors, derived in same-sign and anti-ID regions, to opposite-sign anti-ID events, and the fit variable is the two-class BDT score. The only systematic assigned to this background is a flat 100% normalization uncertainty on the total SR yield (§8). However, §8 states that this uncertainty is intended to account for 'possible differences in the templates of the fake di-tau background between the ID and anti-ID regions.' A flat normalization uncertainty cannot cover BDT-score shape differences. No closure test is shown in an OMNI-passing region (e.g., same-sign events after subtracting real-tau contributions), and no shape uncertainty is assigned to the fake template. Since the BDT score is the discriminating variable and the fake background is larger in Run 3 (§9), a shape mismatch between anti-ID and I
  2. [§9, Table 8] The quoted evidence for the boosted H->tau tau signal is driven by the Run 3 dataset (3.6 sigma observed vs 2.6 sigma expected), while Run 2 shows a deficit (1.7 sigma observed vs 2.1 sigma expected). The Run 3 excess is therefore the main support for the combined claim. Given the larger fake background in Run 3 and the shape-transfer concern above, it would strengthen the paper to show the stability of the signal strength under alternative fake-template definitions or under a BDT-score shape variation. This is not a request to change the results, but it would make the evidence claim more robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5, Table 3] The offline selections for the tau trigger in 2015/2016/2017/2018 differ (p_T(sj1) > 250 GeV vs 200 GeV in 2022–2024). It would be helpful to state explicitly that these thresholds are justified by trigger plateaus; the text only says that 'events are assured to fall well within the efficiency plateau.'
  2. [§6] The fake-factor parameterization is described as a function of subleading-subjet pT and track multiplicity. It is not clear whether the fake factor is also parameterized by the prong multiplicity of the leading subjet; the text says 'number of tracks within each subjet,' but the implementation is not detailed. Please clarify.
  3. [§9] Minor typo: 'The yield for the fake di-tau background in in the Run 3 dataset' should read 'in the Run 3 dataset.'
  4. [Figure 2] The axis label in Figure 2(b) reads 'R^gen_tauhad-vis tauhad-vis [GeV]'; the quantity is dimensionless (Delta R), so the unit should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the cross-section is a fitted observable anchored by Z→ττ control regions, MC signal templates, and data-driven fake estimates; no central result reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

This is an experimental measurement, not a derivation in which a target quantity is defined in terms of the input. The signal strength is a free parameter of the profile likelihood, and the signal templates come from externally normalized MC (e.g., ggF at N3LO QCD + NLO EW); the measured value μ = 1.16 is a fit outcome, not a restatement of the SM prediction. The in-situ di-τ energy scale is constrained by Z→ττ control regions through the visible mass, as the paper states: for the control regions, “the di-τhad visible mass is chosen since it provides better constraints for the TES in situ measurement,” and the Z→ττ normalization is fixed by dedicated CRs rather than by the signal region. The fake di-τ background is estimated from anti-ID and same-sign regions via the fake-factor method, i.e., from data regions orthogonal to the signal region, and the quoted flat 100% uncertainty explicitly covers ID/anti-ID template differences and quark–gluon composition; this is a systematic uncertainty, not a circular reduction. The use of prior ATLAS work (Refs. [16], [111], [122]) documents reconstruction methods, the fake-factor prescription, and QCD uncertainty prescriptions, but the paper describes these methods independently and validates them (efficiency plots, ROC curves, control-region distributions); no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from author self-citations. The most vulnerable assumption—the shape transfer of the fake background in BDT score—is a legitimate physics-risk concern and would warrant scrutiny of the flat-normalization-only treatment, but it does not make the measured cross-section equivalent to an input by construction. The expected significance is generated from the background-only hypothesis, and the observed significance comes from data; neither is forced by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The G(1500)→HH→4τ sample used for the TES calibration is a Monte Carlo benchmark (a 1.5 TeV graviton resonance decaying to Higgs pairs), used only as a simulation filter to populate the calibration phase space, not as a claimed particle. The measurement rests on simulated event modeling, data-driven transfer assumptions (fake factors, in-situ TES), and standard SM inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • Z→ττ+jets normalization factors (ggF-like and VBF-like) = ≈0.91–1.07, varying by run and category (post-fit)
    Free parameters in the likelihood fit (Section 9); constrained by dedicated Z→ττ control regions based on the visible-mass distribution.
  • In-situ di-τhad energy scale (TES) = 1.013 (Run 2), 1.028 (Run 3); final value profiled in the likelihood
    Initial estimate from a χ2 fit to the Z→ττ enriched visible-mass region (Section 4); the final estimation is performed in the same fit that extracts the cross-section (Section 9).
  • Fake-factor parameters for misidentified di-τhad background = Not quoted numerically
    Fake factors are parameterized as a function of subleading-subjet pT and track multiplicity (Section 6); the transfer to the signal region is assumed shape-correct with only a flat 100% normalization uncertainty.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption MC simulation (Powheg, Pythia, Sherpa, Geant4) accurately models detector response and signal/background kinematics in the boosted pT>300 GeV phase space
    Section 3: all signal templates and most background shapes come from simulation, validated only through control regions and limited closure tests described in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Fake-factor transferability: fake factors measured in same-sign events and the anti-ID region predict the opposite-sign signal-region fake background, including its BDT-score shape
    Section 6: the method assumes the transfer function is independent of sign and OMNI-tagger working point except for quark-gluon composition differences, which are covered only by a 100% normalization uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Standard Model production fractions, cross-section normalizations, mH = 125.09 GeV and BR(H→ττ) = 0.0625 from prior published calculations
    Section 3: the inclusive pT>300 fit fixes below-threshold signal and production-mode ratios to SM predictions; the branching ratio converts measured yields to cross-sections.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 62290 in / 14382 out tokens · 141477 ms · 2026-08-01T05:28:58.213953+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cross section measurements of high-Lorentz boosted Higgs boson production in final states with pairs of hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons are presented. The analysis is based on the full Run 2 data sample of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 140 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, and a partial Run 3 data sample at $\sqrt{s} = 13.6$ TeV with an integrated luminosity of 162 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ collected in 2022-2024 with the ATLAS experiment. The analysis extends the sensitivity of previous $H \to \tau\tau$ measurements to Higgs boson transverse momenta above 300 GeV by reconstructing $\tau$-lepton pairs produced with a small separation in large radius jets. The standard reconstruction of hadronic $\tau$-leptons has limited efficiency in this phase space, requiring dedicated boosted di-$\tau$ reconstruction and identification techniques, combined with multivariate analysis methods, to extract the signal. For Higgs boson transverse momenta above 300 GeV, results are presented for both inclusive and differential cross-sections. Within the simplified template cross-section framework, differential cross-section measurements in Higgs boson transverse momentum for gluon-gluon fusion production are provided, together with an inclusive cross-section measurement for vector-boson fusion production. For the inclusive measurement, the analysis yields an observed (expected) significance of 3.8 (3.3) standard deviations over the background-only hypothesis, providing evidence of Higgs boson production in the boosted regime of the di-$\tau$ final state.

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

124 extracted references · 105 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and coupling strengths using𝑝𝑝collision data at√𝑠=7and8TeV in the ATLAS experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 6, arXiv:1507.04548 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    CMS Collaboration, Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at7and8TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 212, arXiv:1412.8662 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    ATLAS Collaboration, A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607(2022) 52, arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex], Erratum: Nature612(2022) E24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    CMS Collaboration, A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607(2022) 60, arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex], Erratum: Nature623(2023) E4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC𝑝𝑝collision data at√𝑠=7and8TeV, JHEP08(2016) 045, arXiv:1606.02266 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Differential cross-section measurements of Higgs boson production in the 𝐻→𝜏 +𝜏− decay channel in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP03(2025) 010, arXiv:2407.16320 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Badger et al., Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV Colliders Standard Model Working Group Report, 2016, arXiv:1605.04692 [hep-ph],url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04692

    S. Badger et al., Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV Colliders Standard Model Working Group Report, 2016, arXiv:1605.04692 [hep-ph],url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04692

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Berger et al.,Simplified template cross sections – Stage 1.1 and 1.2, SciPost Physics Community Reports (2026),issn: 3051-3197

    N. Berger et al.,Simplified template cross sections – Stage 1.1 and 1.2, SciPost Physics Community Reports (2026),issn: 3051-3197

    2026

  13. [13]

    Schlaffer, M

    M. Schlaffer, M. Spannowsky, M. Takeuchi, A. Weiler and C. Wymant,Boosted Higgs Shapes, Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3120, arXiv:1405.4295 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Grojean, E

    C. Grojean, E. Salvioni, M. Schlaffer and A. Weiler,Very boosted Higgs in gluon fusion, JHEP05(2014) 022, arXiv:1312.3317 [hep-ph]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Reconstruction, Identification, and Calibration of hadronically decaying tau leptons with the ATLAS detector for the LHC Run 3 and reprocessed Run 2 data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-044, 2022,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2827111

    arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Reconstruction and identification of boosted di-𝜏systems in a search for Higgs boson pairs using13TeV proton–proton collision data in ATLAS, JHEP11(2020) 163, arXiv:2007.14811 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the production cross section of a Higgs boson with large transverse momentum in its decays to a pair of𝜏leptons in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B857(2024) 138964, arXiv:2403.20201 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Evidence of Higgs boson inclusive production at high transverse momentum decaying to a pair of𝑏-quarks with the ATLAS detector, (2026), arXiv:2603.19369 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of boosted Higgs bosons produced via vector boson fusion or gluon fusion in the𝐻→𝑏 ¯𝑏 decay mode using LHC proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV , JHEP12(2024) 035, arXiv:2407.08012 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008) S08003

    2008

  21. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: a description of the detector configuration for Run 3, JINST19(2024) P05063, arXiv:2305.16623 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS trigger system for LHC Run 3 and trigger performance in 2022, JINST19(2024) P06029, arXiv:2401.06630 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 234, arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking, JINST15(2020) P04003, arXiv:1911.04632 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Preliminary luminosity calibration of the ATLAS13.6TeV data recorded in 2024 and combination with the 2022 and 2023 measurements, ATL-DAPR-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2948582

    arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv:1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

    2003

  30. [30]

    Frixione, G

    S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi and P. Nason, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction, JHEP09(2007) 126, arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  31. [31]

    Nason,A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    P. Nason,A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP11(2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06(2010) 043, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Dulat, A

    F. Dulat, A. Lazopoulos and B. Mistlberger,iHixs 2 – Inclusive Higgs cross sections, Comput. Phys. Commun.233(2018) 243, arXiv:1802.00827 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    R. V. Harlander and K. J. Ozeren, Finite top mass effects for hadronic Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order, JHEP11(2009) 088, arXiv:0909.3420 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    R. V. Harlander and K. J. Ozeren, Top mass effects in Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order QCD: Virtual corrections, Phys. Lett. B679(2009) 467, arXiv:0907.2997 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

    R. V. Harlander, H. Mantler, S. Marzani and K. J. Ozeren, Higgs production in gluon fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order QCD for finite top mass, Eur. Phys. J. C66(2010) 359, arXiv:0912.2104 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  41. [41]

    A. Pak, M. Rogal and M. Steinhauser, Finite top quark mass effects in NNLO Higgs boson production at LHC, JHEP02(2010) 025, arXiv:0911.4662 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [43]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati, NNLO computational techniques: The cases𝐻→𝛾𝛾 and𝐻→𝑔𝑔 , Nucl. Phys. B811(2009) 182, arXiv:0809.3667 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  44. [44]

    Bonetti, K

    M. Bonetti, K. Melnikov and L. Tancredi,Higher order corrections to mixed QCD-EW contributions to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 056017, arXiv:1801.10403 [hep-ph], Erratum: Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 099906(E)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J

    J. Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001, arXiv:1510.03865 [hep-ph]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑍/𝛾∗ boson transverse momentum distribution in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=7TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP09(2014) 145, arXiv:1406.3660 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Pumplin et al., New Generation of Parton Distributions with Uncertainties from Global QCD Analysis, JHEP07(2002) 012, arXiv:hep-ph/0201195

    J. Pumplin et al., New Generation of Parton Distributions with Uncertainties from Global QCD Analysis, JHEP07(2002) 012, arXiv:hep-ph/0201195

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  51. [51]

    Ciccolini, A

    M. Ciccolini, A. Denner and S. Dittmaier,Strong and Electroweak Corrections to the Production of a Higgs Boson + 2 Jets via Weak Interactions at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett.99(2007) 161803, arXiv:0707.0381 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  52. [52]

    Ciccolini, A

    M. Ciccolini, A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Electroweak and QCD corrections to Higgs production via vector-boson fusion at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 013002, arXiv:0710.4749 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [53]

    Bolzoni, F

    P. Bolzoni, F. Maltoni, S.-O. Moch and M. Zaro, Higgs Boson Production via Vector-Boson Fusion at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 011801, arXiv:1003.4451 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [54]

    M. L. Ciccolini, S. Dittmaier and M. Krämer, Electroweak radiative corrections to associated𝑊𝐻and𝑍𝐻production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 073003, arXiv:hep-ph/0306234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  55. [55]

    Brein, A

    O. Brein, A. Djouadi and R. Harlander, NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B579(2004) 149, arXiv:hep-ph/0307206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  56. [56]

    Brein, R

    O. Brein, R. V. Harlander, M. Wiesemann and T. Zirke, Top-quark mediated effects in hadronic Higgs-Strahlung, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1868, arXiv:1111.0761 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Altenkamp, S

    L. Altenkamp, S. Dittmaier, R. V. Harlander, H. Rzehak and T. J. E. Zirke, Gluon-induced Higgs-strahlung at next-to-leading order QCD, JHEP02(2013) 078, arXiv:1211.5015 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit and A. Mück,HAWK 2.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs production in vector-boson fusion and Higgs strahlung at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.195(2015) 161, arXiv:1412.5390 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Brein, R

    O. Brein, R. V. Harlander and T. J. E. Zirke,vh@nnlo – Higgs Strahlung at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) 998, arXiv:1210.5347 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    R. V. Harlander, A. Kulesza, V. Theeuwes and T. Zirke, Soft gluon resummation for gluon-induced Higgs Strahlung, JHEP11(2014) 082, arXiv:1410.0217 [hep-ph]. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

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

    2001

  62. [62]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer, B. Plumper, M. Spira et al., NLO QCD corrections to𝑡¯𝑡𝐻production in hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B653(2003) 151, arXiv:hep-ph/0211352 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    Dawson, C

    S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth,Associated Higgs boson production with top quarks at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: NLO QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 034022, arXiv:hep-ph/0305087 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  64. [64]

    Zhang, W.-G

    Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, C. Chen and L. Guo, QCD NLO and EW NLO corrections to𝑡¯𝑡𝐻production with top quark decays at hadron collider, Phys. Lett. B738(2014) 1, arXiv:1407.1110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [65]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. .-. Shao and M. Zaro, Weak corrections to Higgs hadroproduction in association with a top-quark pair, JHEP09(2014) 065, arXiv:1407.0823 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira,HDECAY: a program for Higgs boson decays in the Standard Model and its supersymmetric extension, Comput. Phys. Commun.108(1998) 56, arXiv:hep-ph/9704448

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  68. [68]

    Spira,QCD Effects in Higgs Physics, Fortsch

    M. Spira,QCD Effects in Higgs Physics, Fortsch. Phys.46(1998) 203, arXiv:hep-ph/9705337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  69. [69]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. M. Mühlleitner and M. Spira, Decays of Supersymmetric Particles: the Program SUSY-HIT (SUspect-SdecaY-Hdecay-InTerface), Acta Phys. Polon. B38(2007) 635, arXiv:hep-ph/0609292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  70. [70]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M. M. Weber,Radiative corrections to the semileptonic and hadronic Higgs-boson decays𝐻→𝑊𝑊/𝑍𝑍→4fermions, JHEP02(2007) 080, arXiv:hep-ph/0611234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  71. [71]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M. M. Weber, Precise predictions for the Higgs-boson decay𝐻→𝑊𝑊/𝑍𝑍→4leptons, Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 013004, arXiv:hep-ph/0604011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  72. [72]

    Bredenstein, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  73. [73]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Höche,Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP12(2008) 039, arXiv:0808.3674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  75. [75]

    Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur

    F. Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 866, arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Cascioli, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  77. [77]

    Denner, S

    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]. 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani–Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP03(2008) 038, arXiv:0709.1027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  79. [79]

    Höche, F

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  80. [80]

    Höche, F

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.