Polarization and correlation effects in $\gamma\gamma \to W^-W^+$ at Next-to-Leading-Order Electroweak Accuracy

Han Zhang; Jun Jiang; Peng-Cheng Lu; Xin-Yi Zhang; Zongguo Si

REVIEW

Polarization and correlation effects in $\gamma\gamma \to W^-W^+$ at Next-to-Leading-Order Electroweak Accuracy

Jun Jiang, Peng-Cheng Lu, Zongguo Si, Han Zhang, Xin-Yi Zhang

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 23 Sep 2026 · 34 references

Pith's verdict: A genuinely useful NLO EW baseline for gamma-gamma to WW polarization/correlation observables, with a clean new basis and moment projections, but the marquee C_{2,2} number and the loop baselines carry a regularization dependence the paper acknowledges but does not fully pin down.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on September 24, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2609.27451 (version 1)

Pith ID2YG6I42I, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationHan Zhang, Jun Jiang, Peng-Cheng Lu, Xin-Yi Zhang, Zongguo Si. "Polarization and correlation effects in $\gamma\gamma \to W^-W^+$ at Next-to-Leading-Order Electroweak Accuracy." arXiv:2609.27451 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YG6I42I

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth a serious read. This fills a real gap: nobody had NLO EW numbers for polarization and correlation observables in gamma-gamma to W-W+ in UPCs, and the paper's central qualitative claims hold up. The new R_i density-matrix basis is the genuinely good idea here—it's adapted to the W decay angular structure so the dual angular functions are orthogonal and the coefficients are extractable by moment projection. That's a clean, reusable formalism, not just a rehash. The AQGC analysis is also thoughtful: A_NP = 0 at linear order is a nice result (unpolarized cross section is blind to these couplings), and the loop-induced baselines for C_{1,2}, C_{4,5}, C_{6,7} are exactly the kind of SM background a new-physics search needs. The t-tbar threshold turning point in Fig. 3 is the sort of physical detail that signals the authors understand their own calculation.

The authors are also unusually honest. They state the NWA scope, that decays are at LO (so 'NLO EW' is production-side only), that the TID treatment is approximate, and that the LO cross section sits a factor 1.37–1.45 above Ref. [12]. That last one is a real normalization concern, though the ratios defining the polarization and correlation observables should mostly cancel it, and the authors say so.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test note is right but I'd calibrate it down a notch. The cutoff-stability test (TID_cut from 1e-3 to 1e-5) is a within-scheme check—it shows the observable is stable as the cutoff moves inside the same approximate rejection, but it does not independently establish that the physically removed region (beta→0, |y|→1) is handled correctly. That region is exactly where Coulomb-enhanced threshold corrections concentrate. The concern lands hardest on C_{2,2}: it's the smallest LO coefficient (1.26e-3), carries the marquee -33.84% shift, and is the least cutoff-stable observable at 0.24% variation. The claimed 'max variation 0.24%' is within the per-mille regime where the paper itself says the baselines matter, so the headline number carries an unresolved tolerance of the same order as the effect it's reporting. A referee should ask for either a dedicated threshold expansion (the authors cite [32] for exactly this) or an error band on C_{2,2} and the loop baselines. Also minor: the arbitrary-axis AQGC-free claim (b119) is asserted, not demonstrated—easy to prove but worth showing. And the 0.40% azimuthal stability claim is fine but trivially expected given AQGCs don't enter at linear order.

Bottom line: the qualitative message (azimuthal correlations are clean SM benchmarks; individual coefficients can move by tens of percent; loop baselines matter at 1e-4 to 1e-3) is solid and useful for the CMS/ATLAS UPC folks. The quantitative precision of the marquee numbers is not yet at the level the framing implies. This deserves peer review and a request for a threshold-expansion cross-check rather than a desk reject, and frankly rather than a quick accept.

Referee report

Significance

If the numerical results hold, this is the first systematic NLO EW prediction for these polarization and correlation observables in photon-fusion W-pair production, and it provides a useful basis for future precision SM tests and for interpreting AQGC searches in terms of correlation observables rather than unpolarized cross sections. The paper ships several genuine validation checks: the construction of the orthogonal Ri basis with orthogonality relations (Eq. 38), the benchmark of the LO cross section against Ref. [15], the universal threshold behavior of Eq. (50) reproduced by the full calculation, and a stability check of the x_min slicing parameter over 10^{-8}–10^{-3}. The scheme is self-contained and the analytical LO expressions in Appendix A allow independent verification. The principal caveat is that the two headline numbers (the −33.84% shift in C_{2,2} and the loop baselines that define the AQGC-relevant region) are computed with a practical TID cutoff whose systematic error near the threshold region is not bounded against an exact scheme.

Major objections (4)

[Section III, paragraph after Eq. (48); Section III.A] The two validation checks do not bound the systematic error of the TID cutoff scheme on the headline observables. The universal-threshold benchmark of Eq. (50) validates only the unpolarized cross-section ratio, which is dominated by the A_L0 coefficient, and the TID_cut variation test (down to 10^{-5}, max shift 0.24% for C_{2,2}) is a within-scheme consistency check: it shows the observable drifts slowly as the cutoff moves inside the same approximate rejection scheme, but it does not establish that the physically excised region (β→0, |y|→1) is handled correctly. As the authors note (b146), at β ≈ 0.065 the cutoff removes |y| ≳ 0.87, i.e. about 13% of the angular phase space from the one-loop contribution, and this is precisely the region where the Coulomb-enhanced threshold corrections concentrate. Since C_{2,2} carries the largest relative correction in the paper and is also the least cutoff-stable coefficient, I request either the dedicated threshold expansion of Ref. [32] or a quantitative estimate of the systematic uncertainty this scheme induces on the quoted −33.84% value.
[Section III.B, Table III and Fig. 7] The loop-induced baselines C_{1,2} = 2.70×10^{-4}, C_{4,5} = 2.28×10^{-4}, C_{6,7} = 1.33×10^{-3} are the second headline result, defining the region of the (a_0/Λ², a_c/Λ²) plane in Fig. 7, yet their sensitivity to the TID cutoff is never reported. The text lists only C_{2,2}, C_{4,4}, and C_{6,6} as the coefficients with up to 0.24% variation under the TID_cut scan. Since these loop baselines are one-loop quantities evaluated with the same approximate TID scheme for which the threshold-region systematic is unquantified, the authors should report the TID_cut dependence of C_{1,2}, C_{4,5}, and C_{6,7} explicitly and confirm that the boundaries in Fig. 7 are stable under that variation.
[Section III.B, comparison with Ref. [12]] The comparison with the automated NLO EW predictions of Ref. [12] shows a substantial discrepancy on the same quantity: the LO cross section is systematically larger by a factor of 1.37–1.45 and the relative NLO corrections correspond to only 40%–68% of theirs. The authors attribute this (b191) to the proton survival probability, the different photon flux parameterizations, and 'the simplified treatment of tensor integral reduction near phase space boundaries in our current setup.' Since the last item is the same TID scheme entering the headline observables, the paper should state explicitly whether this identified source of discrepancy is expected to cancel in the ratio observables of Eq. (44), and if so, on what basis. Without that statement, the reader cannot assess how the Ref. [12] discrepancy bears on the correlation results that are the paper's main claims.
[Section II.C, Eq. (36); Tables II and III] The decay density matrix is treated at LO throughout; the NLO corrections to the decay are absorbed into the yet-undetermined analyzing powers κ_V and κ_T and left for future work (b94). The quoted coefficients are therefore production-side NLO predictions in the NWA with LO decay, and the phrase 'NLO EW accuracy' in the abstract could be misread as full process-level accuracy. The captions of Tables II and III, and the abstract, should state explicitly that only the production-side NLO corrections are included, so that the reader does not assume the −33.84% C_{2,2} shift or the loop baselines incorporate decay-side radiative corrections.

Minor objections (5)

[Section II.D, after Eq. (48)] The claim that the CP-even cosine modulations A_v and B_v receive no AQGC contributions for an arbitrary reference axis v is asserted in the text ('it can be demonstrated') but demonstrated only for the three axes z, x, y in Eqs. (46)–(48). A brief argument (e.g., based on the structure of C_NP_{i,j} in Appendix A) would make this central robustness statement easier to verify.
[Section III, Fig. 4 caption] The axis label for the two-photon luminosity in the Fig. 4 caption is garbled ('dLγγ dWγγ'); the horizontal axis should be W_γγ. Several other figure captions (Figs. 1, 5) are missing the variable definitions that were likely present in the original LaTeX source.
[Section III.B, Table I paragraph] The sentence presenting Table I embeds the table contents mid-sentence ('√spp (TeV) σ_LO (fb) ...'), a LaTeX-to-text artifact that should be cleaned in the manuscript source.
[Section II.B, Eq. (23)] The operators in L6 are dimension-six, while the standard AQGC literature for γγ → W+W− (e.g., Refs. [13–15]) usually works with dimension-eight operators; a short remark clarifying the normalization convention relative to the common (a0^W/Λ⁴) dimension-8 basis would help readers compare the coupling ranges quoted in Table III and Fig. 7 with existing experimental bounds.
[Section III, paragraph after Eq. (49)] In the TID cutoff discussion, the sentence 'we verified that varying TID_cut down to 10^{-5} induces shifts below 0.1% across almost all polarization and correlation observables' is followed by an ungrammatical continuation; consider splitting it into two sentences for clarity.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

NLO electroweak corrections leave the azimuthal correlation distributions of γγ → W⁻W⁺ in LHC ultra-peripheral collisions stable at the 0.40% level, even as the individual coefficient C_{2,2} shifts by up to −33.84% and the AQGC-sensitive…

The reading

This paper provides the first systematic next-to-leading-order electroweak (NLO EW) predictions for the polarization and correlation observables of photon-photon produced W-boson pairs in LHC ultra-peripheral collisions, with both W bosons decaying leptonically. Its central message is a split between two classes of observables: the CP-even azimuthal correlation distributions of the charged leptons, which receive no anomalous quartic gauge coupling (AQGC) contribution at linear order, stay stable at the 0.40% level under NLO EW corrections, while individual correlation coefficients can shift by tens of percent — most dramatically C_{2,2} at −33.84%. The paper also shows that coefficients which vanish at leading order in the Standard Model but are AQGC-sensitive acquire non-zero one-loop values of order 10⁻⁴–10⁻³, and it maps the region of the (a₀/Λ², a_c/Λ²) plane where these loop-induced baselines must be included for a reliable new-physics interpretation. A sympathetic reader would care because this defines which observables are clean Standard Model benchmarks and which have to be corrected before they can be used to hunt for anomalous couplings.

What carries the argument

The central object is the production density matrix, expanded in an orthogonal basis of eight traceless Hermitian 3×3 matrices R_i (three Cartesian spin operators plus five rank-two tensor operators) chosen, unlike the Gell-Mann basis, so that the W-decay angular coefficients are mutually orthogonal under phase-space integration. This orthogonality yields dual angular functions f_i(θ,φ) — normalized spherical harmonics with l = 1, 2 — through which all polarization coefficients B_i and correlation coefficients C_{i,j} can be extracted from the lepton angular distributions by moment projection. The argument is carried through a factorization into production and decay subprocesses in the narrow width approximation, with NLO EW corrections evaluated numerically except for analytic leading-order expressions; the infrared-divergent real-emission piece is handled by phase-space slicing, and a practical kinematic cut β²(1 − y²) > TID_cut regulates the vanishing Gram determinants near threshold and forward/backward scattering.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in γγ → W⁻W⁺ production at NLO EW accuracy, the normalized azimuthal angle-difference distributions of the decay leptons — the CP-even cosine modulations whose coefficients receive no AQGC contribution at linear order for any reference axis — receive relative corrections bounded by about 0.40%, making them perturbatively stable precision benchmarks. Individual correlation coefficients are far less stable: C_{2,2} receives a relative NLO EW correction of −33.84%, the largest in the set. Coefficients that vanish at leading order in the Standard Model while remaining directly sensitive to AQGCs — C_{1,2} (sensitive only to a_c), and C_{4,5} and C_{6,7} (sensitive to both a₀ and a_c) — acquire non-zero one-loop values of order 10⁻⁴–10⁻³ (2.70×10⁻⁴, 2.28×10⁻⁴, and 1.33×10⁻³ at 14 TeV), with C_{6,7} peaking near the top-pair threshold at about 1.65×10⁻³. Comparing these loop baselines with the AQGC contributions defines an (a₀/Λ², a_c/Λ²) region in which the Standard Model loop effects must be included before extracting limits; the paper finds these baselines are irrelevant at current experimental sensitivity but mandatory once correlation coefficients are measured at the per-mille level.

Load-bearing premise

The practical kinematic cut β²(1 − y²) > TID_cut, introduced to regulate the vanishing Gram determinants, truncates the phase space: near threshold it removes about 13% of the angular phase space from the one-loop contribution (producing the 0.95 pb versus 1.10 pb analytic-limit gap) and shifts the headline coefficient C_{2,2} by up to 0.24%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The CP-even azimuthal correlation distributions, blind to AQGCs at linear order and stable to 0.40%, serve as clean precision benchmarks for testing the Standard Model in ultra-peripheral collisions.
The individual coefficient C_{2,2} carries a −33.84% relative NLO EW correction, so its leading-order value is a poor proxy for the full Standard Model prediction and must not be used as an AQGC baseline.
The loop-induced values of C_{1,2}, C_{4,5}, and C_{6,7}, of order 10⁻⁴–10⁻³, define the (a₀/Λ², a_c/Λ²) region in which Standard Model loop effects compete with AQGC contributions; once per-mille precision is reached, these baselines must be subtracted.
The total cross section receives a +17.68% NLO EW correction near threshold from Coulomb enhancement, falling to −4.45% at high energy, while the integrated ultra-peripheral-collision cross section at 14 TeV is shifted by only +0.04%, so normalization is not the sensitive observable.
A complete NLO EW treatment of the decay density matrix — the vector and tensor analyzing powers κ_V and κ_T — is left to future work, meaning the quoted corrections assume LO decays.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial extension: the TID-cut sensitivity of the headline coefficient (up to 0.24% for C_{2,2}) is comparable in size to its full −33.84% relative correction, so a dedicated tensor-integral-reduction scheme in the Gram-determinant-degenerate region, rather than a phase-space cut, would be needed to harden the flagship number.
Editorial extension: the 0.95 pb versus 1.10 pb gap between the numerical and analytic threshold cross sections, caused by the TID cut removing about 13% of the angular phase space, is a direct, checkable signature that the cutoff approximation, not the physics, sets the threshold normalization.
Editorial extension: because the moment-projection extraction requires full kinematic reconstruction with two invisible neutrinos, the practical reach of these observables depends on forward proton tagging delivering the initial photon momenta; without it the per-mille-level measurement the paper targets is not attainable.
Editorial extension: the same density-matrix and dual-function machinery should port directly to double-pole-approximation and fully off-shell treatments, which would test whether the 0.40% azimuthal stability survives when non-factorizable corrections are included.

Original abstract

We study the next-to-leading order (NLO) electroweak (EW) corrections to the polarization and correlation of $W$ boson pairs produced through photon-photon fusion in proton-proton ultra-peripheral collisions at the LHC, with both $W$ bosons decaying leptonically. The azimuthal correlation distributions of the charged leptons, which receive no contribution from anomalous quartic gauge couplings (AQGCs) at linear order, are perturbatively stable at the 0.40\% level, whereas individual correlation coefficient $C_{2,2}$ receives relative corrections of up to $-33.84\%$. Some of correlation coefficients that vanish at leading order (LO) in the Standard Model but are sensitive to AQGCs acquire non-zero one-loop values of order $10^{-4}-10^{-3}$. We quantify the region of the ($a_0/\Lambda^2,a_c/\Lambda^2$) plane in which these loop-induced baselines compete with the AQGC contributions and find that, while irrelevant at the current experimental sensitivity, they must be included once the correlation coefficients are measured at the per-mille level.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-24: 1 request, 3,995 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.70 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.21 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.73 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We study the next-to-leading order (NLO) electroweak (EW) corrections to the polarization and correlation of $W$ boson pairs produced through photon-photon fusion in proton-proton ultra-peripheral collisions at the LHC, with both $W$ bosons decaying leptonically. The azimuthal correlation distributions of the charged leptons, which receive no contribution from anomalous quartic gauge couplings (AQGCs) at linear order, are perturbatively stable at the 0.40\% level, whereas individual correlation coefficient $C_{2,2}$ receives relative corrections of up to $-33.84\%$. Some of correlation coefficients that vanish at leading order (LO) in the Standard Model but are sensitive to AQGCs acquire non-zero one-loop values of order $10^{-4}-10^{-3}$. We quantify the region of the ($a_0/\Lambda^2,a_c/\Lambda^2$) plane in which these loop-induced baselines compete with the AQGC contributions and find that, while irrelevant at the current experimental sensitivity, they must be included once the correlation coefficients are measured at the per-mille level.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We study the next-to-leading order (NLO) electroweak (EW) corrections to the polarization and correlation of $W$ boson pairs produced through photon-photon fusion in proton-proton ultra-peripheral collisions at the LHC, with both $W$ bosons decaying leptonically.	contribution 1.00	0.93	0.06	asserted 0.90
s1	The azimuthal correlation distributions of the charged leptons, which receive no contribution from anomalous quartic gauge couplings (AQGCs) at linear order, are perturbatively stable at the 0.40\% level, whereas individual correlation coefficient $C_{2,2}$ receives relative corrections of up to $-33.84\%$.	result 1.00	0.91	0.25	asserted 1.00
s2	Some of correlation coefficients that vanish at leading order (LO) in the Standard Model but are sensitive to AQGCs acquire non-zero one-loop values of order $10^{-4}-10^{-3}$.	result 1.00	0.85	0.12	asserted 1.00
s3	We quantify the region of the ($a_0/\Lambda^2,a_c/\Lambda^2$) plane in which these loop-induced baselines compete with the AQGC contributions and find that, while irrelevant at the current experimental sensitivity, they must be included once the correlation coefficients are measured at the per-mille level.	interpretation 0.67	0.95	0.49	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.85 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.96.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Total cross section ˆσ

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The azimuthal modulation coefficients

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Correlation coefficients

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Two-photon luminosity spectrum

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: Differential distribution with respect to the

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6: Azimuthal correlation distributions

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7: Sensitivity thresholds in the (

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2609.27451 by the authors.

References

Works cited (34)

[12]

H.-S. Shao and L. Simon, Automated next-to-leading order QCD and electroweak predictions of photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions, JHEP07, 020, arXiv:2504.10104 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Reduction schemes for one-loop tensor integrals, Nucl. Phys. B734, 62 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0509141

View on Pith arXiv 2006
[15]

E. Chapon, C. Royon, and O. Kepka, Anomalous quartic W W gamma gamma, Z Z gamma gamma, and trilinear WW gamma couplings in two-photon processes at high luminosity at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D81, 074003 (2010), arXiv:0912.5161 [hep-ph]. 19

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[1]

V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Search for Anomalous QuarticWWγγCouplings in Dielectron and Missing Energy Final States inp¯pCollisions at √s= 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. D88, 012005 (2013), arXiv:1305.1258 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[2]

S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Study of Exclusive Two-Photon Production ofW +W− inppCollisions at √s= 7 TeV and Constraints on Anomalous Quartic Gauge Couplings, JHEP07, 116, arXiv:1305.5596 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[3]

V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Evidence for exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings inppcollisions at √s= 7 and 8 TeV, JHEP08, 119, arXiv:1604.04464 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[4]

A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS, TOTEM), Search for high-mass exclusiveγγ→WWandγγ→ZZproduction in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV, JHEP07, 229, arXiv:2211.16320 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[5]

M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and search for exclusive Higgs boson production inppcollisions at √s= 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D94, 032011 (2016), arXiv:1607.03745 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[6]

M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Measurement ofW ±W± vector-boson scattering and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D96, 012007 (2017), arXiv:1611.02428 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[7]

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Observation of photon-inducedW +W− production inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B816, 136190 (2021), arXiv:2010.04019 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[8]

A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Measurement and effective field theory interpretation of the photon-fusion production cross section of a pair of W bosons in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, JHEP06, 187, arXiv:2601.21574 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and R. Schuster, Radiative corrections toγγ→W +W− in the electroweak standard model, Nucl. Phys. B452, 80 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9503442

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[10]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and R. Schuster, Electroweak radiative corrections to gamma gamma —>W+ W-, inPhysics with e+ e- Linear Colliders (The European Working Groups 4 Feb - 1 Sep 1995: Session 1 (Session 2: 2-3 Jun 1995 in Assergi, Italy: Session 3: 30 Aug - 1 Sep 1995 in Hamburg, Germany)(1996) pp. 233–240, arXiv:hep-ph/9601355

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[11]

G. Jikia, Electroweak O (alpha) corrections to W+ W- pair production in polarized gamma gamma collisions, Nucl. Phys. B494, 19 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9612380

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[13]

G. Belanger and F. Boudjema, gamma gamma —>W+ W- and gamma gamma —>Z Z as tests of novel quartic couplings, Phys. Lett. B288, 210 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[14]

T. Pierzchala and K. Piotrzkowski, Sensitivity to anomalous quartic gauge couplings in photon-photon interactions at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.179-180, 257 (2008), arXiv:0807.1121 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[16]

A. Denner and G. Pelliccioli, Polarized electroweak bosons in W +W− production at the LHC including NLO QCD effects, JHEP09, 164, arXiv:2006.14867 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[17]

A. Denner, C. Haitz, and G. Pelliccioli, NLO EW corrections to polarised W+W−production and decay at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B850, 138539 (2024), arXiv:2311.16031 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[18]

O. J. P. ´Eboli, R. Rahaman, and A. Subba, Probing anomalous quartic gauge couplings in same-signWboson scattering with polarization and spin correlation (2026), arXiv:2606.06436 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[19]

R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles, JHEP05, 020, arXiv:2209.13990 [quant-ph]

View on Pith arXiv
[20]

E. Bossini (CMS, TOTEM), The CMS Precision Proton Spectrometer timing system: performance in Run 2, future upgrades and sensor radiation hardness studies, JINST15(05), C05054, arXiv:2004.11068 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[21]

M. Trzebi´ nski (ATLAS Forward Detectors), Overview of ATLAS forward proton detectors for LHC Run 3 and plans for the HL-LHC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1050, 168187 (2023), arXiv:2310.11783 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[22]

V. Lysenko (ATLAS Forward Detectors), Overview of ATLAS forward proton detectors: status, performance and new physics results, PoSEPS-HEP2025, 529 (2026)

View on Pith 2026
[23]

A. Bredenstein, S. Dittmaier, and M. Roth, Four-fermion production at gamma gamma colliders. 2. Radiative corrections in double-pole approximation, Eur. Phys. J. C44, 27 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506005

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[24]

A. Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200, Fortsch. Phys.41, 307 (1993), arXiv:0709.1075 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[25]

A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Electroweak Radiative Corrections for Collider Physics, Phys. Rept.864, 1 (2020), arXiv:1912.06823 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[26]

F. Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2630011 (2026)

View on Pith 2026
[27]

T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun.140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[28]

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?, Comput. Phys. Commun.306, 109357 (2025), arXiv:2312.14089 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[29]

T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one loop calculations in four-dimensions and D-dimensions, Comput. Phys. Commun.118, 153 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807565

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[30]

T. Hahn, CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numerical integration, Comput. Phys. Commun.168, 78 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[31]

G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[33]

S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, Improving the Weizsacker-Williams approximation in electron - proton collisions, Phys. Lett. B319, 339 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9310350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[34]

A. J. Baltzet al., The Physics of Ultraperipheral Collisions at the LHC, Phys. Rept.458, 1 (2008), arXiv:0706.3356 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [12]

H.-S. Shao and L. Simon, Automated next-to-leading order QCD and electroweak predictions of photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions, JHEP07, 020, arXiv:2504.10104 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [32]

A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Reduction schemes for one-loop tensor integrals, Nucl. Phys. B734, 62 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0509141

View on Pith arXiv 2006

[3] [15]

E. Chapon, C. Royon, and O. Kepka, Anomalous quartic W W gamma gamma, Z Z gamma gamma, and trilinear WW gamma couplings in two-photon processes at high luminosity at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D81, 074003 (2010), arXiv:0912.5161 [hep-ph]. 19

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[4] [1]

V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Search for Anomalous QuarticWWγγCouplings in Dielectron and Missing Energy Final States inp¯pCollisions at √s= 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. D88, 012005 (2013), arXiv:1305.1258 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[5] [2]

S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Study of Exclusive Two-Photon Production ofW +W− inppCollisions at √s= 7 TeV and Constraints on Anomalous Quartic Gauge Couplings, JHEP07, 116, arXiv:1305.5596 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [3]

V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Evidence for exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings inppcollisions at √s= 7 and 8 TeV, JHEP08, 119, arXiv:1604.04464 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [4]

A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS, TOTEM), Search for high-mass exclusiveγγ→WWandγγ→ZZproduction in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV, JHEP07, 229, arXiv:2211.16320 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [5]

M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and search for exclusive Higgs boson production inppcollisions at √s= 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D94, 032011 (2016), arXiv:1607.03745 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[9] [6]

M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Measurement ofW ±W± vector-boson scattering and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D96, 012007 (2017), arXiv:1611.02428 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[10] [7]

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Observation of photon-inducedW +W− production inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B816, 136190 (2021), arXiv:2010.04019 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[11] [8]

A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Measurement and effective field theory interpretation of the photon-fusion production cross section of a pair of W bosons in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, JHEP06, 187, arXiv:2601.21574 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [9]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and R. Schuster, Radiative corrections toγγ→W +W− in the electroweak standard model, Nucl. Phys. B452, 80 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9503442

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[13] [10]

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and R. Schuster, Electroweak radiative corrections to gamma gamma —>W+ W-, inPhysics with e+ e- Linear Colliders (The European Working Groups 4 Feb - 1 Sep 1995: Session 1 (Session 2: 2-3 Jun 1995 in Assergi, Italy: Session 3: 30 Aug - 1 Sep 1995 in Hamburg, Germany)(1996) pp. 233–240, arXiv:hep-ph/9601355

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[14] [11]

G. Jikia, Electroweak O (alpha) corrections to W+ W- pair production in polarized gamma gamma collisions, Nucl. Phys. B494, 19 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9612380

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[15] [13]

G. Belanger and F. Boudjema, gamma gamma —>W+ W- and gamma gamma —>Z Z as tests of novel quartic couplings, Phys. Lett. B288, 210 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[16] [14]

T. Pierzchala and K. Piotrzkowski, Sensitivity to anomalous quartic gauge couplings in photon-photon interactions at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.179-180, 257 (2008), arXiv:0807.1121 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[17] [16]

A. Denner and G. Pelliccioli, Polarized electroweak bosons in W +W− production at the LHC including NLO QCD effects, JHEP09, 164, arXiv:2006.14867 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[18] [17]

A. Denner, C. Haitz, and G. Pelliccioli, NLO EW corrections to polarised W+W−production and decay at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B850, 138539 (2024), arXiv:2311.16031 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[19] [18]

O. J. P. ´Eboli, R. Rahaman, and A. Subba, Probing anomalous quartic gauge couplings in same-signWboson scattering with polarization and spin correlation (2026), arXiv:2606.06436 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[20] [19]

R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles, JHEP05, 020, arXiv:2209.13990 [quant-ph]

View on Pith arXiv

[21] [20]

E. Bossini (CMS, TOTEM), The CMS Precision Proton Spectrometer timing system: performance in Run 2, future upgrades and sensor radiation hardness studies, JINST15(05), C05054, arXiv:2004.11068 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[22] [21]

M. Trzebi´ nski (ATLAS Forward Detectors), Overview of ATLAS forward proton detectors for LHC Run 3 and plans for the HL-LHC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1050, 168187 (2023), arXiv:2310.11783 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[23] [22]

V. Lysenko (ATLAS Forward Detectors), Overview of ATLAS forward proton detectors: status, performance and new physics results, PoSEPS-HEP2025, 529 (2026)

View on Pith 2026

[24] [23]

A. Bredenstein, S. Dittmaier, and M. Roth, Four-fermion production at gamma gamma colliders. 2. Radiative corrections in double-pole approximation, Eur. Phys. J. C44, 27 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506005

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[25] [24]

A. Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200, Fortsch. Phys.41, 307 (1993), arXiv:0709.1075 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[26] [25]

A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Electroweak Radiative Corrections for Collider Physics, Phys. Rept.864, 1 (2020), arXiv:1912.06823 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[27] [26]

F. Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2630011 (2026)

View on Pith 2026

[28] [27]

T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun.140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[29] [28]

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?, Comput. Phys. Commun.306, 109357 (2025), arXiv:2312.14089 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[30] [29]

T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one loop calculations in four-dimensions and D-dimensions, Comput. Phys. Commun.118, 153 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807565

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[31] [30]

T. Hahn, CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numerical integration, Comput. Phys. Commun.168, 78 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[32] [31]

G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[33] [33]

S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, Improving the Weizsacker-Williams approximation in electron - proton collisions, Phys. Lett. B319, 339 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9310350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[34] [34]

A. J. Baltzet al., The Physics of Ultraperipheral Collisions at the LHC, Phys. Rept.458, 1 (2008), arXiv:0706.3356 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008