Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 85 references

The electroweak production of two photons with two jets is observed with a significance of 6.2 sigma, and the measured rate agrees 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 01:14 UTC pith:UK5NE6QH

load-bearing objection Solid first observation of EW γγjj, but the 5% systematic on the QCD background factorization in Eq. (4) is the load-bearing assumption and deserves a harder look before this is final. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25869 v1 pith:UK5NE6QH submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ex

Observation of the electroweak production of γγ jj at sqrt{s}=13 TeV in 140\ fb⁻¹ of pp collision data with the ATLAS detector

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords electroweak productiondiphotonvector boson scatteringquartic gauge couplingsdimension-8 operatorseffective field theorycross-section measurementproton-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.

This paper reports the observation of the electroweak production of two isolated photons accompanied by two jets in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. Using 140 inverse femtobarns of data, the signal is seen with a significance of 6.2 standard deviations, well beyond the discovery threshold. The measured fiducial cross-section is 13.8 (+3.0, -2.6) fb, consistent with the Standard Model prediction of 17.1 +/- 2.4 fb. The same data yield differential cross-sections for both the electroweak and the combined QCD-plus-electroweak processes, and set limits on dimension-8 operators that parameterize anomalous quartic gauge couplings. This process is a direct test of electroweak symmetry breaking and a known background to Higgs-boson measurements.

Core claim

The central claim is that the electroweak production of two isolated photons in association with two jets occurs at the rate predicted by the Standard Model and is now experimentally established. The analysis selects events with two isolated photons and two high-transverse-momentum jets separated in rapidity, and separates the electroweak signal from the dominant QCD production using a two-dimensional sideband method and a fit to the dijet invariant mass. The observed signal strength is 0.80 (+0.18, -0.15), corresponding to a significance of 6.2 sigma and a fiducial cross-section of 13.8 (+3.0, -2.6) fb, in agreement with the predicted 17.1 +/- 2.4 fb. Differential cross-sections are measure

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by a partially data-driven background estimate. The signal region is defined by low photon centrality (the diphoton system lies between the two tagging jets) and zero 'gap jets' (no additional jets between the tagging jets). Three control regions, spanning the complementary combinations of centrality and gap-jet count, are used to fix the QCD background in the signal region through the factorized relation mu_SR = (mu_CR1 * mu_CR2) / mu_CR3. This relation assumes the QCD background response separates into independent factors for the two selection variables, with any residual correlation taken from simulation. The non-prompt photon background is estimated with a data-dr

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the QCD background rate factorizes between the two selection variables (photon centrality and number of gap jets), so the signal-region background can be computed from three control regions via the ratio of scale factors; the analysis assigns only a 5% systematic uncertainty to that factorization, and a violation larger than that would shift the extracted signal and its significance.

What would settle it

Compute the factorization ratio mu_CR1*mu_CR2/mu_CR3 in a background-only simulation that does not rely on the nominal generators, or measure it in a data validation region with negligible electroweak signal (for example, high centrality with at least one gap jet). If the ratio disagrees with the prediction by substantially more than 5% — say 20% — the extracted signal strength of 0.80 and the 6.2-sigma significance would be called into question, since the QCD background in the signal region is roughly three times the observed electroweak signal.

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

If this is right

  • The electroweak gamma-gamma-jet-jet process is now an observed Standard Model process; future measurements can use it to test higher-order electroweak calculations.
  • The measured fiducial cross-section and differential distributions provide a benchmark for validating Monte Carlo generators that model diphoton production in association with jets.
  • The limits on dimension-8 operators constrain new physics that would modify quartic gauge couplings, complementing constraints from other vector-boson scattering channels.
  • The background estimation procedure, including its control-region factorization, can be carried over to other vector-boson scattering measurements that face similar QCD backgrounds.
  • The signal region defines a well-controlled phase space for studying Higgs-boson production via vector-boson fusion, where this process is a background.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Combining this measurement with the Z(nu-nu) gamma-jj measurement, which sets stronger limits on the same two operators, could push the f_T5 and f_T8 constraints further once statistical and systematic correlations are understood.
  • The factorized background assumption could be stress-tested with a generator-level calculation of the true correlation between photon centrality and gap-jet count at higher perturbative order; a violation larger than the assigned 5% would require revising the control-region strategy.
  • The differential measurement of the signed azimuthal angle between the two jets, which is sensitive to CP-violating new physics, may prove more powerful when combined with the upcoming larger dataset.
  • Because the observed cross-section is slightly below the central prediction, a future combined analysis with more data will clarify whether this reflects a statistical fluctuation or a modelling issue in the electroweak prediction.

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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This Letter reports the first observation of electroweak γγjj production in 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV pp collisions with ATLAS. The analysis defines an EW signal region using photon centrality ξ_γγ and gap-jet count N_gap^j, and estimates the dominant QCD background via a two-dimensional sideband product of scale factors (Eq. 4). A simultaneous binned fit to m_jj in the signal and three control regions yields a signal strength μ_EW = 0.80 ± 0.18, an observed (expected) significance of 6.2 (7.8) σ, and a fiducial cross-section of 13.8^{+3.0}_{-2.6} fb, consistent with the SM prediction 17.1 ± 2.4 fb. The paper also presents combined QCD+EW cross-sections, differential measurements, and EFT limits on dimension-8 operators.

Significance. If the observation holds, it is the first observation of EW γγjj at the LHC, a process sensitive to quartic gauge couplings and relevant for H→γγ VBF backgrounds. The analysis is technically sophisticated: data-driven non-prompt background, m_jj-based fit, unfolding for differential cross-sections, and an EFT interpretation. The measured cross-section agrees with the SM within uncertainties, adding confidence. However, the central claim relies on the factorization assumption for the QCD background, which is the main point of concern. The EFT limits are not competitive with existing Zγjj constraints but are an additional result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 6, Eq. (4); Section 8] The QCD background in the EW-SR is set to μ_QCD_SR = μ_CR1 μ_CR2 / μ_CR3, assuming factorization of the response in ξ_γγ and N_gap^j. The fitted scale factors (Eq. 6) are 0.64, 0.77, and 0.52, each 25–50% from unity, so the SR scale factor is a ratio of large corrections. The only systematic assigned for a violation of this factorization is 5%, derived from two simulation-based comparisons. Given that the Sherpa model is explicitly acknowledged (Section 5) to deviate from data in normalization and shape, and that the validation regions (N_gap > 1, 250 < m_jj < 500 GeV) may not share the same correlation properties as the SR, this 5% appears insufficient. A 10% violation would shift the QCD background by ~470 events, comparable to the fitted signal yield (1450 ± 280) and could reduce the significance below the 5σ threshold. The authors should either provide a data-driven closure test of t
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The panel ordering in the caption is confused: it lists '(a) Δy_jj, (b) |Δφ_jj|, (d) Δφ^sign_jj, (c) p_T,jj' while the text refers to these panels in a different order. Please correct the mapping.
  2. [Section 8, Table 2] The category 'Non-prompt stat. uncertainty' (8.7%) is the second-largest systematic. It would be helpful to clarify in the text that this is the statistical component of the data-driven non-prompt estimate, not a systematic attributable to the method itself.
  3. [General notation] The fiducial cross-section is sometimes written σ^EW_obs and at other times σ^EW_obs; please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the 6.2σ observation is a data-driven fit, and the quoted cross-section uses standard MC-calibrated acceptance rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation extracted by a binned maximum-likelihood fit to m_jj in the EW-SR and three QCD control regions, with the EW signal strength mu_EW as a free parameter. The QCD background in the SR is not set equal to the fitted signal; it is transferred from the control regions via Eq. (4), mu_QCD_SR = mu_CR1 * mu_CR2 / mu_CR3, an ABCD-style factorization with the residual MC correlation. This is an experimental extrapolation, not a definition of the target in terms of itself. The significance is evaluated with a profile-likelihood ratio against the background-only hypothesis, so it is not a renamed fit parameter. The quoted fiducial cross-section sigma_EW_obs = mu_EW * sigma_MC is a standard acceptance/efficiency-calibrated measurement; the MC cross-section is not fitted from the data and is compared with the measurement as an independent prediction. The 5% systematic assigned to the xi_gamma-gamma / N_gap_j correlation addresses possible non-factorization; whether it is under-covered is a systematic-uncertainty/correctness question, not a circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [18] for the non-prompt-photon sideband method) reuse established data-driven techniques and are not used as unverified uniqueness or ansatz premises. No step reduces a prediction to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of fitted parameters (signal strength and background scale factors) and on standard experimental modeling assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced; the dimension-8 operators are taken from the existing LHC EFT basis. The most fragile assumption is the factorized QCD background extrapolation in Eq. (4).

free parameters (6)
  • mu_EW (EW signal strength) = 0.80^{+0.18}_{-0.15}
    Central parameter of interest; scales the MC EW-gamma-gamma-jet-jet prediction to data and determines the observed significance and fiducial cross-section.
  • mu_QCD_CR1 = 0.64^{+0.40}_{-0.23}
    QCD background yield scale factor in control region QCD-CR1, entering Eq. (4).
  • mu_QCD_CR2 = 0.77^{+0.49}_{-0.28}
    QCD background yield scale factor in control region QCD-CR2, entering Eq. (4).
  • mu_QCD_CR3 = 0.52^{+0.35}_{-0.19}
    QCD background yield scale factor in control region QCD-CR3; used in the product-over-ratio extrapolation to the EW signal region.
  • Non-prompt background normalizations N_jgamma, N_gammaj, N_jj = not quoted in paper
    Extracted from the 16-region two-dimensional sideband fit (Eq. 2) for each bin; model the fake-photon background.
  • EFT Wilson coefficients f_Ti/Lambda^4 = 10 intervals, e.g. f_T5/Lambda^4 in [-0.400, 0.372] TeV^-4
    Fitted to pT,gamma1 in the EFT interpretation; reported as 95% CL limits and not part of the central observation claim.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption QCD background factorization in xi_gamma-gamma and N_gap_j (Eq. 4: mu_SR = mu_CR1 * mu_CR2 / mu_CR3)
    The extrapolation assumes the QCD-gamma-gamma-jet-jet response to the two selection variables factorizes and that the residual correlation is described by Sherpa MC; only a 5% systematic is assigned for alternative correlation definitions.
  • domain assumption Standard Model predictions from MadGraph/Sherpa with chosen PDFs and scale variations are reliable signal and background templates
    Used for signal extraction, migration matrices, and the predicted fiducial cross-section; scale and PDF uncertainties are assessed but the underlying generator reliability is assumed.
  • domain assumption The data-driven 16-region sideband method correctly models fake-photon backgrounds
    Assumes identification and isolation efficiencies and correlation factors from MC or validation regions; central to the non-prompt background estimate in Section 5.
  • standard math Asymptotic approximation for the profile likelihood ratio test statistic
    Used for the significance evaluation; standard in LHC analyses, but its validity in low-count bins is not demonstrated in the paper.
  • domain assumption Dimension-8 EFT operator basis and unitarity constraints from Refs. [73,84] are applicable
    Used only for the EFT interpretation; not needed for the observation claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 55349 in / 15719 out tokens · 140987 ms · 2026-08-01T01:14:31.583661+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This Letter presents the observation of the electroweak production of two isolated photons in association with two jets together with measurements of the corresponding fiducial and differential cross sections. The analysis is performed using proton-proton collision data collected by ATLAS at the LHC at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV and with an integrated luminosity of 140 fb$^{-1}$. The electroweak production of two isolated photons in association with two jets is observed with a significance of $6.2 \sigma $ and with a fiducial cross-section of $\sigma^{\mathrm{EW}}_{\mathrm{obs}}= 13.8^{+3.0}_{-2.6}\, \mathrm{fb}$, in agreement with the Standard Model prediction of $\sigma^{\mathrm{EW}}_{\mathrm{obs}}= 17.1^{+2.4}_{-2.4}\, \mathrm{fb}$. Differential cross-sections are measured as a function of various kinematical variables probing photon and jet properties and compared with predictions. In addition, fiducial and differential cross-sections are reported for the combined QCD and electroweak production of two isolated photons and two jets. The measurement is also interpreted in the context of an effective field theory, and limits are set on the Wilson coefficients of several dimension-8 operators parameterising anomalous quartic gauge couplings.

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

85 extracted references · 73 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3(2008) S08001

    2008

  2. [2]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of𝑍𝑍→ℓℓ𝜈𝜈and𝑍𝑍𝑗𝑗→ℓℓ𝜈𝜈𝑗𝑗productions in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, (2025), arXiv:2511.15569 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of𝑊 +𝑊−𝛾production in𝑝𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge-boson couplings, Phys. Lett. B873(2026) 140050, arXiv:2509.14070 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of𝑊 +𝑊− production cross-sections in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP08(2025) 142, arXiv:2505.11310 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Fiducial and differential cross-section measurements of electroweak𝑊𝛾𝑗𝑗 production in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1064, arXiv:2403.02809 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the cross-sections of the electroweak and total production of a𝑍𝛾pair in association with two jets in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B846(2023) 138222, arXiv:2305.19142 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of electroweak production of𝑊+𝑊− in association with jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS Detector, JHEP07(2024) 254, arXiv:2403.04869 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of differential𝑍𝑍+jets production cross sections in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP10(2024) 209, arXiv:2404.02711 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the production cross section for a𝑊 boson in association with a charm quark in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 27, arXiv:2308.02285 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the inclusive and differential𝑊𝑍production cross sections, polarization angles, and triple gauge couplings in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP07(2022) 032, arXiv:2110.11231 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurements of electroweak production of a photon in association with two jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP05(2025) 020, arXiv:2512.00502 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the electroweak production of𝑊𝛾 in association with two jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 032017, arXiv:2212.12592 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    CMS Collaboration,Observation of electroweak𝑊+𝑊− pair production in association with two jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B841(2023) 137495, arXiv:2205.05711 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Chapon, C

    E. Chapon, C. Royon and O. Kepka,Anomalous quartic WW𝛾𝛾, ZZ𝛾𝛾, and trilinear WW𝛾 couplings in two-photon processes at high luminosity at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 074003, arXiv:0912.5161 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    O. J. P. Éboli, M. C. Gonzalez-García, S. M. Lietti and S. F. Novaes, Anomalous quartic gauge boson couplings at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 075008, arXiv:hep-ph/0009262. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Test of𝐶𝑃Invariance in Higgs Boson Vector-Boson-Fusion Production Using the𝐻→𝛾𝛾Channel with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 061802, arXiv:2208.02338 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the production cross section of pairs of isolated photons in 𝑝𝑝collisions at13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP11(2021) 169, arXiv:2107.09330 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

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

    2008

  20. [20]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    2018

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    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

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

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

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

    2003

  27. [27]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Skands,A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie–Landshoff diffractive model, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-017, 2016,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2206965

    arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    J. Alwall et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07(2014) 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663, arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    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

  33. [33]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419. 22

    arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    Jäger, A

    B. Jäger, A. Karlberg, S. Plätzer, J. Scheller and M. Zaro, Parton-shower effects in Higgs production via Vector-Boson Fusion, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 756, arXiv:2003.12435 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Modelling of the vector boson scattering process𝑝𝑝→𝑊 ±𝑊±𝑗𝑗 in Monte Carlo generators in ATLAS, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-004, 2019, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2655303

    arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Frixione,Isolated photons in perturbative QCD, Phys

    S. Frixione,Isolated photons in perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B429(1998) 369, arXiv:hep-ph/9801442

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    Schalicke and F

    A. Schalicke and F. Krauss,Implementing the ME+PS merging algorithm, JHEP07(2005) 018, arXiv:hep-ph/0503281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber and R. Kuhn,QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers, JHEP11(2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  44. [44]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann and F. Siegert,QCD matrix elements and truncated showers, JHEP05(2009) 053, arXiv:0903.1219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Frederix and S

    R. Frederix and S. Frixione,Merging meets matching in MC@NLO, JHEP12(2012) 061, arXiv:1209.6215 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 3, JHEP12(2024) 156, arXiv:2410.22148 [hep-ph]

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 3, JHEP12(2024) 156, arXiv:2410.22148 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    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

  50. [50]

    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. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  51. [51]

    Lai et al.,New parton distributions for collider physics, Phys

    H.-L. Lai et al.,New parton distributions for collider physics, Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 074024, arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Hamilton, P

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    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

  55. [55]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    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

  57. [57]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 490, arXiv:1603.02934 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 2 data, JINST19(2024) P02009, arXiv:2309.05471 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 47, arXiv:1909.00761 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in 𝑝𝑝collisions at center-of-mass energies of7and8TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 112015, arXiv:1408.7084 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Cacciari and G

    M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam,Pileup subtraction using jet areas, Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 119, arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  62. [62]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  63. [63]

    Cacciari, ‘FastJet: a code for fast𝑘𝑡 clustering, and more’, Proceedings, Deep inelastic scattering, 14th International Workshop, DIS 2006 (Tsukuba, Japan, 20th–24th Apr

    M. Cacciari, ‘FastJet: a code for fast𝑘𝑡 clustering, and more’, Proceedings, Deep inelastic scattering, 14th International Workshop, DIS 2006 (Tsukuba, Japan, 20th–24th Apr. 2006) 487, arXiv:hep-ph/0607071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  64. [64]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet reconstruction and performance using particle flow with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 466, arXiv:1703.10485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv:2007.02645 [hep-ex]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of pile-up mitigation techniques for jets in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=8TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 581, arXiv:1510.03823 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the photon identification efficiencies with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 2 data collected in 2015 and 2016, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 205, arXiv:1810.05087 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photon cross section in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=7TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 052005, arXiv:1012.4389 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  70. [70]

    D0 Collaboration, Measurement of Direct Photon Pair Production Cross Sections in𝑝¯𝑝Collisions at√𝑠=1.96TeV, Phys. Lett. B690(2010) 108, arXiv:1002.4917 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  71. [71]

    CDF Collaboration,Measurement of the Cross Section for Prompt Isolated Diphoton Production in 𝑝¯𝑝Collisions at√𝑠=1.96TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 102003, arXiv:1106.5123 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  72. [72]

    ATLAS Collaboration,TRExFitter,url:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14845712

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.14845712

  73. [73]

    Durieux et al.,LHC EFT WG note: Basis for anomalous quartic gauge couplings, SciPost Phys

    G. Durieux et al.,LHC EFT WG note: Basis for anomalous quartic gauge couplings, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. (2025) 6, arXiv:2411.02483 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration,𝑍𝑍→ℓ +ℓ−ℓ′+ℓ′− cross-section measurements and search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in13TeV𝑝𝑝collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 032005, arXiv:1709.07703 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of𝑍𝑍production in theℓℓ𝜈𝜈final state with the ATLAS detector in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP10(2019) 127, arXiv:1905.07163 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑍𝛾→𝜈¯𝜈𝛾 production cross section in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector and limits on anomalous triple gauge-boson couplings, JHEP12(2018) 010, arXiv:1810.04995 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  77. [77]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurements of the𝑝𝑝→𝑍𝑍production cross section and the𝑍→4ℓ branching fraction, and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 165, arXiv:1709.08601 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    CMS Collaboration,Electroweak production of two jets in association with a𝑍boson in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 589, arXiv:1712.09814 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    CMS Collaboration,𝑊 +𝑊− boson pair production in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 092001, arXiv:2009.00119 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.