Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Three-top and four-top production are shown to be inseparable at NLO, and a new window-removal prescription produces consistent joint predictions.

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 09:31 UTC pith:4YSY55QL

load-bearing objection First complete NLO tttW prediction with a new window-removal scheme, worth refereeing despite an under-validated 10% joint-rate claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27323 v1 pith:4YSY55QL submitted 2026-07-29 hep-ph hep-ex

The inseparable three and four tops

Gauthier Durieux , Hesham El Faham , Rikkert Frederix , Davide Pagani , Marco Zaro This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords three-top productionfour-top productiontttWNLO QCDelectroweak correctionsoverlap removalwindow removalLHC top quark
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 argues that three-top and four-top production cannot be cleanly separated once QCD corrections are included: at NLO, radiating an extra bottom quark in tttW production yields exactly the same final state as four-top production with a top decaying to Wb. Existing overlap-removal methods either break gauge invariance and unitarity or introduce arbitrary momentum reshuffling. The authors introduce a "window removal" prescription that keeps resonant four-top diagrams only inside a ±40 GeV window in the Wb invariant mass around the top quark, and includes all diagrams outside the window, thereby restoring gauge safety while allowing each component to be computed at NLO. They find that the joint tttW+tttt inclusive rate is more than 10% higher than the purely on-shell four-top rate, so experimental four-top selections should be interpreted against this joint prediction rather than against an isolated on-shell tttt sample.

Core claim

The central claim is that the DRW (window-removal) prescription produces a gauge-safe and unitary NLO description of the inseparable tttW+tttt process. Inside the chosen invariant-mass window the prediction contains only non-resonant diagrams squared and their interference with resonant ones; outside the window it contains all diagrams without distinction, which restores the cancellations needed for unitarity. Pairing this DRW component with an on-shell tttt sample restricted to the same window yields a complete-NLO joint prediction. The paper shows this joint rate exceeds the pure on-shell tttt rate by more than 10% (over 1.4 fb at 13 TeV), and that the formally subleading electroweak NLO c

What carries the argument

DRW (window removal): a diagram-removal variant in which resonant four-top diagrams squared are excluded only within a finite invariant-mass window around the on-shell top mass (chosen as ±40 GeV in m(W b)). Inside the window the prediction matches the DR2 scheme (non-resonant squared plus resonant interference); outside it includes all diagrams, preserving gauge invariance and unitarity in high-energy tails. This split lets the on-shell tttt component and the off-shell tttW component each be computed at NLO and combined without double counting, and it also provides the phase-space definition for an idealized b-jet veto that suppresses resonant contributions.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical result depends on the assumption that splitting the joint process at a hand-chosen ±40 GeV window around the top mass leaves negligible residual gauge dependence and double-counting when the DRW tttW component is added to a separately computed on-shell tttt sample.

What would settle it

A complete NLO calculation of the common tttW b final state in the four-flavour scheme that keeps all resonant and non-resonant diagrams without any splitting, compared directly with the DRW joint prediction: agreement would validate the window split, while a rate difference larger than about 10% would show the split is not neutral.

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

If this is right

  • LHC four-top measurements should be compared with the joint tttW+tttt prediction; using only the on-shell tttt component underestimates the expected signal rate by more than 10%.
  • Because new physics often contributes to both three- and four-top diagrams, joint predictions avoid the artificial separation that diagram-level treatments impose on BSM searches.
  • The idealized hard-and-central b-jet veto defines a relatively pure tttW-like signal region, giving experimentalists a concrete target for defining three-top-enriched selections.
  • The cancellations among subleading electroweak orders mean the simpler LO1+LO2+LO3+NLO1 prediction (order-wise) is a faithful proxy for complete NLO, making parton-shower matching and detector-level studies feasible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the window split is validated, similar window-removal prescriptions could be applied to other overlapping processes, such as tttj vs tttW or the tW vs ttbar system, where DR/DS issues are milder but still present.
  • The >10% offset implies that existing four-top measurements which fix the three-top rate to its SM value carry a systematic low bias; the reported ATLAS excess may be partially recast as a consequence of the joint-rate prescription.
  • A direct test of the prescription would be a full NLO computation of the same tttW b final state in the four-flavour scheme, without any diagram splitting; agreement at the percent level would confirm the window choice is neutral, while a persistent >10% difference would expose residual double counting.
  • The ±40 GeV window width is the main lever on residual gauge dependence; scanning it (e.g., ±20 to ±80 GeV) in the joint rate would quantify the robustness of the central result.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a complete NLO calculation of pp -> tttW (and charge conjugate) in the five-flavour scheme at 13 TeV, including all QCD and EW coupling orders. Because at NLO QCD the radiation of an extra b quark makes tttW and tttt with t->bW share the same final state, the authors propose a new 'window removal' (DRW) prescription: from the tttW amplitude one removes only the square of resonant tttt diagrams inside an m(Wb) window of half-width x = 40 GeV; outside the window the full matrix element is retained. This DRW component is to be added to a separately computed on-shell tttt component restricted to the same window. The paper studies scale choices (adopting mu = HT/4), provides inclusive and differential predictions with a coupling-order decomposition, and explores an idealized b-jet veto. The headline claim is that the joint tttW+tttt inclusive rate is more than 10% higher than the purely on-shell tttt rate.

Significance. If the DRW-split joint prediction is valid, this is a useful step for LHC multi-top analyses: it provides an NLO description of the dominant three-top process and a concrete way to define a consistent tttW+tttt target that avoids the gauge pathologies of DR1/DR2. The complete-NLO tttW predictions and the detailed coupling-order pattern, including the cancellation between subleading EW orders, are valuable and appear internally consistent. The use of public automated tools and explicit input choices is a strength for reproducibility. The main unresolved issue is the numerical validation of the joint-rate claim, which currently rests on an unquantified window choice and an external tttt calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Table 1] The abstract and conclusions state that the joint tttW+tttt inclusive rate is 'more than 1.4 fb higher' / 'more than 10% higher' than the purely on-shell tttt rate, but no number for the on-shell baseline is given anywhere in the paper. Table 1 reports only tttW cross sections. To make this claim assessable, the authors should quote the on-shell tttt reference value used, its input scheme (mt, PDF, alpha_s, EW scheme), its scale choice, the coupling orders included, and the resulting joint rate with uncertainties. Since the on-shell component is taken from a separate calculation [25], this transparency is necessary to verify the >10% offset.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.2, Fig. 4] The choice x=40 GeV is motivated by the behaviour of the DRW component alone. The claimed cancellation of the window width requires the two components to be computed with the same setup, as the paper itself states in Sec. 2.2.2; here the on-shell tttt component is a different higher-order calculation. The paper never forms the joint rate for different x and checks its stability. Please provide the joint inclusive rate (and, ideally, a key distribution) for at least x=20, 40, 80 GeV, with tttt restricted to the same window. Without this test, the central numerical claim may depend on the hand-chosen window.
  3. [Sec. 2.2.3, Fig. 3] Inside the window DRW is identical to DR2, and the paper shows DR2 to be gauge-dependent with a unitarity-violating tail in the default gauge. The paper acknowledges residual gauge dependence but does not quantify it inside +/-40 GeV. Because the on-shell tttt component is generated independently (and in a different gauge/order), the residual gauge dependence of the DRW component is not guaranteed to cancel. A quantitative estimate, e.g. repeating the DRW calculation in a different gauge or comparing with a full-calculation cross-check in a simplified system, is needed to support the joint prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.3] The sentence about x-axis ranges ('The x-axis ranges displayed are chosen...') is unclear and should be rephrased.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.2] The notation DRW versus DR40W is used somewhat interchangeably; a short definition at first use would help.
  3. [Table 1] It would help to state explicitly that LO2 and LO3 are negative contributions, and that the 'LO' row is their sum, since negative coupling-order contributions are unusual for readers.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, footnote 5] The top width is set to 1.468 GeV only in resonant diagrams; please clarify how this width enters the DRW window definition, e.g. whether the window cut is applied to the Breit-Wigner-smeared m(Wb).
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'complete NLO' could be misunderstood because LO4, NLO4, and NLO5 are neglected; please state this explicitly in the abstract or conclusions as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DRW prescription is new, the cross sections are fixed-order SM calculations with stated inputs, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central quantities—tttW and tttW+tttt rates—are obtained from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO fixed-order computations with stated inputs (5FS, NNPDF3.1, m_t=174.3 GeV, mu0=HT/4). No parameter is fitted to data or to the claimed >10% offset. The ±40 GeV window is selected for stability reasons (Sec. 2.2.3, Fig. 4), not tuned to reproduce the final rate. The DRW combination is a bookkeeping prescription: inside the window it coincides with DR2 plus the resonant squared term supplied by the on-shell tttt component; outside it keeps all diagrams. The paper explicitly notes the window width would be immaterial if both components used the same setup, which confirms that the joint sum reduces to the full consistent computation by construction—this is a definition, not a circular inference. The on-shell tttt reference rate comes from Ref. [25], a previously published fixed-order calculation by overlapping authors; it is external evidence with stated assumptions, not a quantity fitted or redefined here, so citing it does not create a circular chain. Residual gauge and window-width dependence of the split is a genuine validation gap, but it is a systematic/correctness concern, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The central assumptions are a specific overlap-removal window, a motivated but hand-chosen central scale, and the compatibility of the new DRW component with a prior on-shell tttt calculation. No invented entities are present.

free parameters (3)
  • On-shell window half-width x = 40 GeV
    Chosen by inspecting the m(W b) distribution in Fig. 4 to balance description of the resonance region against residual gauge dependence; the central 10% joint-rate offset depends on this hand-chosen width.
  • Central renormalization/factorization scale mu0 = H_T/4
    Selected as a compromise between moderate K-factor and moderate scale-variation uncertainty in Fig. 10; the numerical rates and hence the size of the >10% effect depend on this choice.
  • b-jet veto thresholds = pT>30 GeV, |eta|<2.5
    Idealized definition of a tttW-like region used to suppress resonant tttt diagrams and their interference; not fitted to data, but it defines the separate vetoed prediction.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Five-flavour scheme with massless b quarks in the proton PDF
    The whole tttW/tttt overlap story is built on the 5FS definition of tttW at LO; introduced in Sec. 2.
  • standard math Fixed-order NLO factorization/renormalization is valid for this process
    Used throughout the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO computation and the scale-variation procedure in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption Narrow-width/smearing treatment of the resonant tttt component is consistent with the DRW window
    The joint prediction assumes an on-shell tttt sample can be restricted to a +/-40 GeV invariant-mass window without spoiling the gauge-invariant content of the off-shell prediction; motivated but not proven in Sec. 2.2.2.
  • domain assumption The earlier NLO tttt prediction from Ref. [25] is reliable and can be combined with the new DRW component
    The claimed >10% joint-rate offset uses this external calculation as the baseline without re-presenting its value or validating the matching of frameworks.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 3355 in / 4790 out tokens · 128996 ms · 2026-08-01T09:31:46.489605+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In measurements of four-top-quark production ($tttt$), LHC collaborations observe a significant degeneracy with three-top-quark production. We compute the dominant three-top-production mode, namely associated production with a $W$ boson ($tttW$), at complete next-to-leading order (NLO), including all possible QCD and electroweak (EW) corrections. Beyond leading order (LO), $tttW$ production with the radiation of an additional $b$-flavoured quark contributes to the same final state as $tttt$ production with a $t \to bW$ decay. Away from the on-shell top-quark limit, the usual overlap removal of resonant contributions in the non-resonant computation either breaks gauge invariance and generates unitarity violation or involves a significant arbitrariness in the required reshuffling of momenta. To overcome these issues, we introduce a novel window-removal prescription that produces consistent predictions for the inseparable $tttW+tttt$ process, with both components described at NLO accuracy. We argue that such a joint prediction should be used in comparisons with experimental selections targeting $tttt$ production, since the on-shell $tttt$ component can not be isolated in practice. Such a joint prediction has an inclusive rate more than 10% higher than the purely on-shell $tttt$ one. We also study an idealised veto on additional hard and central $b$-jet radiation, which suppresses the contributions of resonant $tttt$ diagrams as well as their interference with non-resonant $tttW$ ones and therefore defines a relatively pure $tttW$-like signal region. Formally subleading coupling orders are numerically important at LO, while the corresponding subleading NLO corrections largely cancel both inclusively and differentially. Consequently, the complete-NLO prediction is well approximated by retaining the first three LO coupling orders together with the leading QCD NLO correction.

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

56 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cao, S.-L

    Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen and Y. Liu,Probing Higgs Width and Top Quark Yukawa Coupling fromt ¯tHandt ¯tt¯tProductions,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 053004 [1602.01934]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Cao, S.-L

    Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen, Y. Liu, R. Zhang and Y. Zhang,Limiting top quark-Higgs boson interaction and Higgs-boson width from multitop productions,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 113003 [1901.04567]. [3]ATLAScollaboration,Constraint on the total width of the Higgs boson from Higgs boson and four-top-quark measurements in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detec...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [4]

    Zhang,Constrainingqqttoperators from four-top production: a case for enhanced EFT sensitivity,Chin

    C. Zhang,Constrainingqqttoperators from four-top production: a case for enhanced EFT sensitivity,Chin. Phys. C42(2018) 023104 [1708.05928]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [5]

    Malekhosseini, M

    M. Malekhosseini, M. Ghominejad, H. Khanpour and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, Constraining top quark flavor violation and dipole moments through three and four-top quark productions at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 095001 [1804.05598]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [6]

    Darm´ e, B

    L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks and M. Goodsell,Cornering sgluons with four-top-quark events,Phys. Lett. B784(2018) 223 [1805.10835]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [7]

    W.-S. Hou, M. Kohda and T. Modak,Implications of Four-Top and Top-Pair Studies on Triple-Top Production,Phys. Lett. B798(2019) 134953 [1906.09703]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [8]

    Cao, S.-L

    Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen, Y. Liu and X.-P. Wang,What can We Learn from Triple Top-Quark Production?,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 055035 [1901.04643]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [9]

    Alvarez, A

    E. Alvarez, A. Juste and R.M.S. Seoane,Four-top as probe of light top-philic New Physics, JHEP12(2019) 080 [1910.09581]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [10]

    Banelli, E

    G. Banelli, E. Salvioni, J. Serra, T. Theil and A. Weiler,The Present and Future of Four Top Operators,JHEP02(2021) 043 [2010.05915]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [11]

    Hou and T

    W.-S. Hou and T. Modak,Probing Top Changing Neutral Higgs Couplings at Colliders,Mod. Phys. Lett. A36(2021) 2130006 [2012.05735]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [12]

    Darm´ e, B

    L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks and F. Maltoni,Top-philic heavy resonances in four-top final states and their EFT interpretation,JHEP09(2021) 143 [2104.09512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [13]

    Cao, J.-N

    Q.-H. Cao, J.-N. Fu, Y. Liu, X.-H. Wang and R. Zhang,Probing top-philic new physics via four-top-quark production,Chin. Phys. C45(2021) 093107 [2105.03372]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [14]

    Carpenter, T

    L.M. Carpenter, T. Murphy and M.J. Smylie,t tttsignatures through the lens of color-octet scalars,JHEP01(2022) 047 [2107.13565]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [15]

    Aoude, H

    R. Aoude, H. El Faham, F. Maltoni and E. Vryonidou,Complete SMEFT predictions for four top quark production at hadron colliders,JHEP10(2022) 163 [2208.04962]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [16]

    Bally, Y

    A. Bally, Y. Chung and F. Goertz,Hierarchy problem and the top Yukawa coupling: An alternative to top partner solutions,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 055008 [2211.17254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [17]

    Aleshko, E

    A. Aleshko, E. Boos, V. Bunichev and L. Dudko,Prospects for establishing limits on the SMEFT operators from the production processes of three and four top quarks in hadron collisions,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39(2024) 2450119 [2309.12514]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [18]

    Choudhury, K

    D. Choudhury, K. Deka and L.K. Saini,Boosted four-top production at the LHC: A window to Randall-Sundrum or extended color symmetry,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 075020 [2404.04409]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    Degrande, R

    C. Degrande, R. Rosenfeld and A. Vasquez,Collider sensitivity to SMEFT heavy-quark operators at one-loop in top-quark processes,JHEP07(2024) 114 [2402.06528]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [20]

    Di Noi, H

    S. Di Noi, H. El Faham, R. Gr¨ ober, M. Vitti and E. Vryonidou,Constraining four-heavy-quark operators with top-quark, Higgs, and electroweak precision data,JHEP01 (2026) 025 [2507.01137]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [21]

    Darm´ e, B

    L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks, H.-L. Li, M. Maltoni and J. Touch` eque,Searching for top-philic heavy resonances in boosted four-top final states,JHEP11(2025) 091 [2507.05334]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    Blekman, F

    F. Blekman, F. D´ eliot, V. Dutta and E. Usai,Four-top quark physics at the LHC,Universe8 (2022) 638 [2208.04085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [23]

    Bevilacqua and M

    G. Bevilacqua and M. Worek,Constraining BSM Physics at the LHC: Four top final states with NLO accuracy in perturbative QCD,JHEP07(2012) 111 [1206.3064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [24]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani and I. Tsinikos,Associated production of a top-quark pair with vector bosons at NLO in QCD: impact ont tHsearches at the LHC,JHEP02(2016) 113 [1507.05640]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [25]

    Frederix, D

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani and M. Zaro,Large NLO corrections int ¯tW ± andt ¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions,JHEP02(2018) 031 [1711.02116]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [26]

    van Beekveld, A

    M. van Beekveld, A. Kulesza and L.M. Valero,Threshold Resummation for the Production of Four Top Quarks at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 211901 [2212.03259]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    van Beekveld, A

    M. van Beekveld, A. Kulesza, M. Lupattelli and T. Saracco,Invariant-mass threshold resummation for the production of four top quarks at the LHC,JHEP10(2025) 209 [2505.10381]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    Alsairafi, N

    M. Alsairafi, N. Dimitrakopoulos and M. Worek,Modelling top-quark decays int ¯tt¯t production at the LHC,2507.04849. [29]ATLAScollaboration,Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 496 [2303.15061]. [30]CMScollaboration,Observation of four top quark production in proton-proton ...

    arXiv 2023

  28. [32]

    Frixione, E

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, B.R. Webber and C.D. White,Single-top hadroproduction in association with a W boson,JHEP07(2008) 029 [0805.3067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [33]

    White, S

    C.D. White, S. Frixione, E. Laenen and F. Maltoni,Isolating Wt production at the LHC, JHEP11(2009) 074 [0908.0631]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [34]

    Re,Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method,Eur

    E. Re,Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1547 [1009.2450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [35]

    Hollik, J.M

    W. Hollik, J.M. Lindert and D. Pagani,NLO corrections to squark-squark production and decay at the LHC,JHEP03(2013) 139 [1207.1071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [36]

    Frixione, B

    S. Frixione, B. Fuks, V. Hirschi, K. Mawatari, H.-S. Shao, P.A. Sunder et al.,Automated simulations beyond the Standard Model: supersymmetry,JHEP12(2019) 008 [1907.04898]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [37]

    Faham, F

    H.E. Faham, F. Maltoni, K. Mimasu and M. Zaro,Single top production in association with a WZ pair at the LHC in the SMEFT,JHEP01(2022) 100 [2111.03080]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [38]

    Barger, W.-Y

    V. Barger, W.-Y. Keung and B. Yencho,Triple-Top Signal of New Physics at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B687(2010) 70 [1001.0221]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [39]

    Boos and L

    E. Boos and L. Dudko,Triple top quark production in standard model,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37(2022) 2250023 [2107.07629]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [40]

    Demartin, B

    F. Demartin, B. Maier, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari and M. Zaro,tWH associated production at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 34 [1607.05862]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [41]

    Zaro,MadSTR,https: // github

    M. Zaro,MadSTR,https: // github. com/ mg5amcnlo/ MadSTR

  38. [42]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer 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 [1405.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [43]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.S. Shao and M. Zaro,The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,JHEP07(2018) 185 [1804.10017]. [44]NNPDFcollaboration,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663 [1706.00428]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [45]

    Manohar, P

    A. Manohar, P. Nason, G.P. Salam and G. Zanderighi,How bright is the proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 242002 [1607.04266]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [46]

    Manohar, P

    A.V. Manohar, P. Nason, G.P. Salam and G. Zanderighi,The Photon Content of the Proton, JHEP12(2017) 046 [1708.01256]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [47]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht et al.,LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 132 [1412.7420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [48]

    Frixione, V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [49]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.S. Shao and M. Zaro,Electroweak and QCD corrections to top-pair hadroproduction in association with heavy bosons,JHEP06(2015) 184 [1504.03446]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [50]

    Pagani, I

    D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos and M. Zaro,The impact of the photon PDF and electroweak corrections ont ¯tdistributions,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 479 [1606.01915]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [51]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao and M. Zaro,The complete NLO corrections to dijet hadroproduction,JHEP04(2017) 076 [1612.06548]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [52]

    Czakon, D

    M. Czakon, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos and M. Zaro,Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW,JHEP10(2017) 186 [1705.04105]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [53]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, R. Frederix, D. Pagani, B.D. Pecjak and I. Tsinikos,Top-quark pair hadroproduction in association with a heavy boson at NLO+NNLL including EW corrections, JHEP08(2019) 039 [1907.04343]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [54]

    Frederix, D

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani and I. Tsinikos,Precise predictions for single-top production: the impact of EW corrections and QCD shower on thet-channel signature,JHEP09(2019) 122 [1907.12586]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [55]

    Pagani, H.-S

    D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao and M. Zaro,RIPHb b: how other Higgs production modes conspire to kill a rare signal at the LHC,JHEP11(2020) 036 [2005.10277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [56]

    Pagani, I

    D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos and E. Vryonidou,NLO QCD+EW predictions fortHjandtZj production at the LHC,JHEP08(2020) 082 [2006.10086]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [57]

    Pagani, H.-S

    D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao, I. Tsinikos and M. Zaro,Automated EW corrections with isolated photons: t tγ, t tγγand tγj as case studies,JHEP09(2021) 155 [2106.02059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [58]

    El Faham, K

    H. El Faham, K. Mimasu, D. Pagani, C. Severi, E. Vryonidou and M. Zaro,Electroweak corrections in the SMEFT: four-fermion operators at high energies,JHEP06(2025) 241 [2412.16076]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [59]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi,Strong corrections to W Z production at hadron colliders,Nucl. Phys. B383(1992) 3

    1992

  55. [60]

    Rubin, G.P

    M. Rubin, G.P. Salam and S. Sapeta,Giant QCDK-factors beyond NLO,JHEP09(2010) 084 [1006.2144]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  56. [61]

    Durupt, F

    V. Durupt, F. Maltoni and O. Mattelaer,Automated computation of spin-density matrices and quantum observables for collider physics,JHEP04(2026) 103 [2510.17730]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026