Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 40 references

Configuration and Benchmarking of $\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^-$ Processes with K4GeneratorsConfig

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One universal physics input, auto-translated per generator, yields sub-permil leading-order agreement between Sherpa, Whizard, and Madgraph for e+e− collisions.

desk verdict A solid, honest software paper: K4GeneratorsConfig is a genuinely useful YAML-to-datacard tool for e+e- generator benchmarking in Key4hep, with a real caveat about PYTHIA's EW scheme that the paper itself already flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.20116 v2 pith:4G2FAOE2 submitted 2025-09-24 hep-ph hep-ex

Alan Price , Dirk Zerwas This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords MonteCarloeventgeneratorse+e−collisionsgeneratorbenchmarkingKey4hepYAMLconfigurationelectroweakinputschemeleading-ordercrosssectionsHiggsfactories
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Future e+e− Higgs and electroweak factories will need physics samples from several independent Monte Carlo generators, compared against each other to expose bugs and to bound the systematic error of the event-generation step. Each generator has its own input syntax, process keywords, and parameter conventions, so writing runcards by hand is slow and error-prone. This paper argues the whole task can be automated: K4GeneratorsConfig takes a single YAML file describing the physics—processes, energies, cuts, particle data, and a coherent electroweak parameter set—and generates the datacards, run scripts, and analysis hooks for Sherpa, Whizard, Madgraph, KKMCee, Pythia, and Babayaga inside the Key4hep stack. The payoff is demonstrated in leading-order comparisons where Sherpa, Whizard, and Madgraph agree to better than one permil (0.1%) on e+e− → ZH and difermion cross sections, while Pythia is set aside because its effective weak-mixing-angle convention does not line up with the common input scheme. The same automated comparisons, the paper reports, have already caught real generator defects: missing cross-section output, a rounding-driven event rejection, and ISR/boost inconsistencies.

What carries the argument

Central is the translation layer: a generator-independent YAML input (processes, √s, events, seed, selectors, polarization, beamstrahlung) that dynamically loaded per-generator Python modules convert into native datacards, with an inheritance scheme so new generators are added by writing one module. Two mechanisms carry the argument: the ParameterSets module, which fixes a coherent electroweak scheme in GF–mW–mZ, derives αEM, sin²θLO, the VEV, and Yukawa couplings, and warns if leading-order relations deviate by more than EWParamDevThreshold (default 10⁻³); and the per-generator process databases (GeneratorProcDB) that supply each generator's idiosyncratic process keywords, with precedence r

What would settle it

Run a single YAML input for the e+e− → μ+μ− process with Pythia configured using sin²θEff that includes radiative corrections (rather than the LO value derived from GF–mW–mZ), and check whether the percent-level offset in the ZH cross-section scan disappears. If it does, the translation layer is faithful and the framework delivers the claimed consistency; if the offset persists, or reappears for other process/scheme combinations, the central claim of faithful universal translation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

One YAML physics input, translated automatically, can make independent e+e− generators agree at the sub-permil level at leading order and expose their internal bugs. The paper's demonstration: for ZH and difermion production built from a common parameter set anchored on GF, mW, and mZ, Sherpa, Whizard, and Madgraph agree to better than one permil (Whizard and Madgraph to 0.1 permil), with differential distributions compatible within statistics; Pythia is set aside because it demands an effective mixing angle rather than the LO value. The same workflow, the paper reports, found real generator defects—missing cross-section output, rounding-driven event rejection, ISR/boost inconsistencies—supp

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one universal physics input maps faithfully onto every generator's parameter and syntax conventions—the paper itself shows Pythia's effective sin²θ convention breaks that mapping at the percent level, and it explicitly warns that user-supplied generator-specific override settings are potentially untested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-permil leading-order agreement among Sherpa, Whizard, and Madgraph can serve as a regression benchmark in continuous integration, so generator updates that break technical consistency are caught automatically.
  • The bugs the workflow uncovered—missing cross-section metadata, rounding-induced event rejection, ISR/boost inconsistencies—show that automated inter-generator comparison works as a diagnostic complement to generators' own validation.
  • Version pinning by Key4hep release date makes event samples reproducible: the same YAML input regenerates the same physics with the exact same software stack later.
  • Pythia's percent-level offset is traced to the electroweak input convention, meaning Pythia requires sin²θEff including radiative corrections rather than the LO-derived value; extending the parameter set, not changing the physics, is the documented path to include it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The demonstrated sub-permil baseline gives future Higgs-factory analyses a concrete number: cross-generator spread at LO could be packaged as a quoted systematic uncertainty of the event-generation step, something the paper motivates but does not formalize.
  • The same harness could be pointed at processes where generators are not expected to agree, such as Bhabha scattering for luminosity or four-fermion backgrounds, turning the tool from a technical-consistency checker into a physics-validation probe; the NLO flag in the schema points in this direction.
  • The Pythia/effective-angle episode generalizes: every generator's parameter convention (on-shell versus effective, GF-based versus α(mZ)-based) is a latent failure mode of any translation layer; an automated on-the-fly scheme translation with radiative corrections, which the paper mentions but does not implement, would remove the remaining user burden.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents K4GeneratorsConfig, a Python package in the Key4hep ecosystem that accepts a single YAML file containing 'universal physics inputs' (processes, center-of-mass energies, cuts, model parameters) and automatically produces run cards, execution scripts, and output conversion for several e+e- Monte Carlo generators (Sherpa, Whizard, Madgraph, Pythia, KKMCee, Babayaga). The package also provides interfaces to Rivet and Key4hep-based analyses for cross-section and differential-distribution comparisons. Benchmarking results are reported: at leading order, Sherpa, Whizard, and Madgraph agree at the sub-permil level for e+e- -> mu+mu- and e+e- -> ZH, with differential distributions consistent within statistical errors. PYTHIA is excluded from the LO comparison because the translation of the electroweak input scheme leads to a percent-level discrepancy. The authors also report several generator bugs identified using the tool.

Significance. If the claims hold, the package addresses a genuine and timely need for reproducible, low-effort benchmarking of MC generators in the FCC-ee/CEPC/ILC era. The tool's modular architecture and CI integration are sensible, and the reported sub-permil agreement among three independent generators is a useful, falsifiable check. The authors are honest about the PYTHIA limitation and about untested generator-specific overrides. However, the central claim of the abstract -- that the tool 'ensures consistency, reproducibility, and reduced human error' -- is stronger than what the evidence supports, because the one generator (PYTHIA) that does not accept the GF-mW-mZ scheme is not consistently translated and is excluded from the main comparison. The paper would be significantly improved by qualifying the claim and by adding a runtime warning or validation for the PYTHIA effective-angle input.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 3; Sec. 2.2] The abstract claims that the tool translates universal physics inputs into generator-specific configurations, 'ensuring consistency, reproducibility, and reduced human error.' Yet the only demonstrated consistency is among Sherpa, Whizard, and Madgraph, which accept the same GF-mW-mZ electroweak scheme. PYTHIA is a supported generator but is excluded from the LO comparison because the translated EW input leads to a percent-level deviation. The internal consistency check using EWParamDevThreshold validates tree-level relations among GF, mW, mZ, sin^2theta_LO, alpha_EM_LO, and VEV; it does not validate the effective sin^2theta used by PYTHIA. Consequently, a user who lists PYTHIA together with Sherpa in one YAML input can unknowingly generate an inconsistent configuration. This undercuts the advertised guarantee. The paper should either restrict the consistency claim to generators whose EW
  2. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 2.4; footnote 1] The 'universal' input is not fully universal: the generator-specific override block (Generator:Key:Value) takes precedence over the main YAML keys, and the paper itself warns that this 'could potentially lead to incorrect set-ups for keys that have not been tested.' This is a caveat that directly affects the 'reduced human error' claim, because a user can silently override a physics parameter with an unvalidated value. The authors should mark generator-specific overrides as 'expert-only' in the documentation and ensure that any key used in an override is included in the CI validation. As written, the tool provides a mechanism for consistency but does not itself guarantee it when these overrides are used.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Table 1] The benchmarking evidence is limited to LO cross-sections for two processes (e+e- -> mu+mu- and e+e- -> ZH) and one differential distribution. The NLO flag is listed in Table 1 but no NLO benchmark is shown. In the differential comparison, the chi2/dof values are described as 'similar and below unity' without giving the actual numbers. For a paper with 'Benchmarking' in its title, this is a rather thin validation. The authors should either expand the benchmark suite (e.g., at least one NLO example, a few more final states) or explicitly state that the results are proof-of-concept demonstrations of the tool's mechanics rather than a comprehensive benchmarking study.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] Grammar: 'simulating physical processes' should be 'simulate physical processes' to match the parallel structure.
  2. [Sec. 1] Typo: 'provide a valuable diagnostic insights' should be 'provide valuable diagnostic insights'.
  3. [Sec. 2.1] Typo: 'polariazation' should be 'polarization'.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Table 2] The naming of alphaEMMZM1 and alphaEMMZ is confusing: both rows show '1/alphaEM(mZ)' in the default-value column, but one should represent alpha_EM(mZ) and the other its inverse. Please clarify the notation.
  5. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence 'Translation of the EW scheme to the PYTHIA input leads to a rejection of the calculated input which is required to be higher as PYTHIA expects a sin^2 theta including radiative corrections' is grammatically garbled and hard to parse. Rewrite for clarity, since this sentence is the entire explanation for the PYTHIA exclusion.
  6. [Sec. 3.3] Please provide the actual chi2/dof values for the polar-angle comparison rather than stating only that they are 'below unity'.
  7. [Conclusions] Typo: 'a robust d automated framework' should be 'a robust and automated framework'.
  8. [Throughout] The name 'Key4hep' is spelled inconsistently (Key4Hep, Key4HEP, Key4hep). Please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tool's benchmark comparisons are external to its configuration layer, and the PYTHIA scheme mismatch is a reported limitation rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper is a software/benchmarking tool description, not a physics derivation. The central claim is that K4GeneratorsConfig translates a common YAML physics input into generator-specific runcards. No equation or derived quantity is fitted to the benchmark outputs; the Section 3.3 cross-section agreement is produced by independent generator matrix elements and is compared to the average of the generators. The EW consistency check described in Section 2.2 uses standard tree-level relations among GF, mW, mZ, sin^2(theta)_LO, alpha_EM_LO, and the VEV, with values from PDG/standard sets; it is not fitted to the compared cross sections. The exclusion of PYTHIA from the LO comparison is an openly documented limitation due to the effective sin^2(theta) scheme mismatch, not a hidden reduction of the result to the tool's inputs. No load-bearing self-citations were found: the few self-references (e.g., [25]) are background citations to generator work and do not supply the benchmark conclusions. Therefore there is no circular step that makes any prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is software functionality, not a physics derivation. No new physical entities are introduced. The parameter defaults are standard inputs from PDG and the Electroweak scheme; they are not fitted to make the benchmarks agree. The tree-level relations are a cross-check, not a fit. The main domain assumption is that generators agree at LO in the benchmark regime.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math The tree-level relations between GF, mW, mZ, sin^2 theta, alpha_EM and the vacuum expectation value are valid for cross-checking parameter consistency.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to compute derived parameters and the EWParamDevThreshold warning.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo generators agree at leading order for e+e- processes when given equivalent physics inputs, providing a benchmark reference.
    The entire benchmarking approach relies on this expectation; Section 1 states technical comparisons focus on areas where agreement is expected.
  • domain assumption PYTHIA requires the effective electroweak mixing angle including radiative corrections, not the LO (on-shell) value, for a proper leading-order comparison.
    Section 3.3 invokes this to explain and exclude PYTHIA's percent-level deviation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Configuration and Benchmarking of $\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^-$ Processes with K4GeneratorsConfig." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4G2FAOE2

@misc{pith2026250920116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Configuration and Benchmarking of $\mathrme^+\mathrme^-$ Processes with K4GeneratorsConfig},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4G2FAOE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.20116}
}
read the original abstract

The next generation of electron-positron colliders will require unprecedented precision in both theory and experiment. Sophisticated software frameworks are essential to evaluate detector concepts, optimize designs, and simulating physical processes. In this context, Monte Carlo (MC) event generators play a central role, enabling realistic simulations of Standard Model processes and providing the basis for physics studies. However, technical consistency across different generators remains critical, particularly in domains where agreement is expected. To address this need, we present K4GeneratorsConfig, a Python-based package that automates the benchmarking process for MC generators. The tool translates universal physics inputs into generator-specific configurations, ensuring consistency, reproducibility, and reduced human error. Its modular design allows for straightforward integration of additional generators, supports batch processing, and provides compatibility with the Key4hep software stack

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.20116 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of the K4GeneratorsConfig framework: universal physics inputs and model parameters are combined into a unified YAML configuration, which generates input cards for multiple event generators via Key4Hep. Event generation and analysis outputs are compared across generators. that allows the user to specify differential distributions in which we compare. We currently support an interface to both RIVET [41–43] an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Top Left) Invariant mass distribution of the final lepton pairs in Higgsstrahlung production. The remaining two plots show the polar angle distributions in the difermion background process. available in a subset of the generators available, while the background process is more widely available, for example in KKMCee. Both of these process were generated from one YamlInput file. For the analysis with Key4hep, the re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top left) The result of LO calculation of ZH production is shown as function of √ s for three generators in the top panel. In the bottom panel the deviation from the average cross section of shown for all generators. (Top right) PYTHIA is show in addition. (Bottom) The distribution of the polar angle of the Z boson at √ s = 250GeV is shown as well as the deviation from the average per bin is shown in the bottom pan… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abada et al., FCC collaboration,FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur

    A. Abada et al., FCC collaboration,FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST228(2019), no. 2, 261–623

    2019

  2. [2]

    Zimmermann et al., FCC collaboration,Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 2, Accelerators, Technical Infrastructure and Safety,arXiv:2505.00274[physics.acc-ph]

    F. Zimmermann et al., FCC collaboration,Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 2, Accelerators, Technical Infrastructure and Safety,arXiv:2505.00274[physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Benedikt et al., FCC collaboration,Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors,arXiv:2505.00272[hep-ex]

    M. Benedikt et al., FCC collaboration,Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors,arXiv:2505.00272[hep-ex]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Dong et al., CEPC Study Group collaboration,CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,arXiv:1811.10545[hep-ex]

    M. Dong et al., CEPC Study Group collaboration,CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,arXiv:1811.10545[hep-ex]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Abdallah et al., CEPC Study Group collaboration,CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Ra- diat

    W. Abdallah et al., CEPC Study Group collaboration,CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Ra- diat. Detect. Technol. Methods8(2024), no. 1, 1–1105, [arXiv:2312.14363[physics.acc-ph]], [Erratum: Radiat.Detect.Technol.Methods 9, 184–192 (2025)]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Attié et al., Linear Collider Vision collaboration,A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics,arXiv:2503.19983[hep-ex]

    D. Attié et al., Linear Collider Vision collaboration,A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics,arXiv:2503.19983[hep-ex]. [7]The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary, arXiv:1306.6327[physics.acc-ph]. [8]A Multi-TeV Linear Collider Based on CLIC Technology: CLIC Conceptual Design Report. 12

    arXiv

  7. [9]

    Aad et al., ATLAS collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008), S08003

    G. Aad et al., ATLAS collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008), S08003

    2008

  8. [10]

    Aad et al., ATLAS collaboration,The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur

    G. Aad et al., ATLAS collaboration,The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010), 823–874, [arXiv:1005.4568[physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 40 references
  1. [11]

    Chatrchyan et al., CMS collaboration,The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC, JINST3(2008), S08004

    S. Chatrchyan et al., CMS collaboration,The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC, JINST3(2008), S08004

    2008

  2. [12]

    Altmann et al.,ECFA Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, CERN Yellow Reports: Mono- graphs, vol

    J. Altmann et al.,ECFA Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, CERN Yellow Reports: Mono- graphs, vol. 5/2025, 6 2025

    2025

  3. [13]

    Agapopoulou et al., HEP Software Foundation collaboration,The Critical Importance of Software for HEP,arXiv:2504.01050[hep-ex]

    C. Agapopoulou et al., HEP Software Foundation collaboration,The Critical Importance of Software for HEP,arXiv:2504.01050[hep-ex]

    arXiv

  4. [14]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Tor- rielli and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07(...

    2014 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Kilian, T

    W. Kilian, T. Ohl and J. Reuter,WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC, Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011), 1742, [arXiv:0708.4233[hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [16]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022(2022), 8, [arXiv:2203.11601[hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Jadach, B

    S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward, Z. Was, S. A. Yost and A. Siodmok,Multi-photon Monte Carlo event generator KKMCee for lepton and quark pair production in lepton colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.283(2023), 108556, [arXiv:2204.11949[hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [19]

    C. M. Carloni Calame, C. Lunardini, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini and F. Piccinini,Large angle Bhabha scattering and luminosity at flavor factories, Nucl. Phys. B584(2000), 459–479, [hep-ph/0003268]

    2000 arXiv

  10. [20]

    J. M. Campbell et al.,Event generators for high-energy physics experiments, SciPost Phys.16(2024), no. 5, 130, [arXiv:2203.11110[hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016), no. 4, 196, [arXiv:1512.01178[hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Frixione, O

    S. Frixione, O. Mattelaer, M. Zaro and X. Zhao,Lepton collisions in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, arXiv:2108.10261[hep-ph]

    arXiv

  13. [23]

    C. M. Carloni, M. Chiesa, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini and F. Piccinini,e+e− →γγat large angle for FCC-ee luminometry, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs3(2020), 71–76

    2020

  14. [24]

    Balossini, C

    G. Balossini, C. M. Carloni Calame, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini and F. Piccinini,Matching perturbative and parton shower corrections to Bhabha process at flavour factories, Nucl. Phys. B758(2006), 227–253, [hep-ph/0607181]

    2006 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Krauss, A

    F. Krauss, A. Price and M. Schönherr,YFS Resummation for Future Lepton-Lepton Colliders in SHERPA, SciPost Phys.13(2022), no. 2, 026, [arXiv:2203.10948[hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Ballestrero et al.,Reports of the Working Groups on Precision Calculations for LEP2 Physics: Proceedings

    A. Ballestrero et al.,Reports of the Working Groups on Precision Calculations for LEP2 Physics: Proceedings. Report of the QCD working group, 9 2000

    2000

  17. [27]

    M. W. Grunewald et al.,Reports of the Working Groups on Precision Calculations for LEP2 Physics: Proceedings. Four fermion production in electron positron collisions,hep-ph/0005309

    arXiv

  18. [28]

    J. Andersen et al.,Les Houches 2023: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, Physics of the TeV Scale and Beyond the Standard Model: Intensifying the Quest for New Physics, 6 2024. 13

    2023

  19. [29]

    Aliberti et al.,Radiative corrections and Monte Carlo tools for low-energy hadronic cross sections in e+e− collisions,arXiv:2410.22882[hep-ph]

    R. Aliberti et al.,Radiative corrections and Monte Carlo tools for low-energy hadronic cross sections in e+e− collisions,arXiv:2410.22882[hep-ph]. [30]Physics at LEP2: Vol.2. [31]Reports of the working group on precision calculations for the Z resonance, WorkshopGrouponPrecisi...

    1995 arXiv

  20. [32]

    Jadach, G

    S. Jadach, G. Passarino and R. Pittau (Eds.),Proceedings, Monte Carlo Workshop: Report of the working groups on precision calculation for LEP-2 physics: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, March 12-13, June 25-26, October 12-13 Oct 1999, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings, 9 2000

    1999

  21. [33]

    Korneeva, A

    N. Korneeva, A. Karneyeu and P. Skands,Event-generator validation with MCPLOTS and LHC@home, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139(2024), no. 7, 653, [arXiv:2401.10621[hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [34]

    Karneyeu, L

    A. Karneyeu, L. Mijovic, S. Prestel and P. Z. Skands,MCPLOTS: a particle physics resource based on volunteer computing, Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014), 2714, [arXiv:1306.3436[hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [35]

    Fernandez Declara et al., Key4hep collaboration,The Key4hep turnkey software stack for future colliders, PoSEPS-HEP2021(2022), 844

    P. Fernandez Declara et al., Key4hep collaboration,The Key4hep turnkey software stack for future colliders, PoSEPS-HEP2021(2022), 844

    2022

  24. [36]

    Gaede, G

    F. Gaede, G. Ganis, B. Hegner, C. Helsens, T. Madlener, A. Sailer, G. A. Stewart, V. Volkl and J. Wang, Key4hep collaboration,EDM4hep and podio - The event data model of the Key4hep project and its implementation, EPJ Web Conf.251(2021), 03026

    2021

  25. [37]

    Gaede, T

    F. Gaede, T. Madlener, P. Declara Fernandez, G. Ganis, B. Hegner, C. Helsens, A. Sailer, G. A. Stewart and V. Voelkl,EDM4hep - a common event data model for HEP experiments, PoSICHEP2022(2022), 1237

    2022

  26. [38]

    Navas et al., Particle Data Group collaboration,Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas et al., Particle Data Group collaboration,Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 3, 030001

    2024

  27. [39]

    Ohl,CIRCE version 1.0: Beam spectra for simulating linear collider physics, Comput

    T. Ohl,CIRCE version 1.0: Beam spectra for simulating linear collider physics, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.101(1997), 269–288, [hep-ph/9607454]

    1997 arXiv

  28. [40]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier,Electroweak Radiative Corrections for Collider Physics, Phys. Rept.864 (2020), 1–163, [arXiv:1912.06823[hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [41]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, L. Lonnblad, J. Monk, H. Schulz and F. Siegert, Rivet user manual, Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013), 2803–2819, [arXiv:1003.0694[hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [42]

    Bierlich et al.,Robust Independent Validation of Experiment and Theory: Rivet version 3, SciPost Phys.8(2020), 026, [arXiv:1912.05451[hep-ph]]

    C. Bierlich et al.,Robust Independent Validation of Experiment and Theory: Rivet version 3, SciPost Phys.8(2020), 026, [arXiv:1912.05451[hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [43]

    Bierlich, A

    C. Bierlich, A. Buckley, J. M. Butterworth, C. Gutschow, L. Lonnblad, T. Procter, P. Richardson and Y. Yeh,Robust independent validation of experiment and theory: Rivet version 4 release note, SciPost Phys. Codeb.36(2024), 1, [arXiv:2404.15984[hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [44]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers,ROOT — An object oriented data analysis framework, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A389(1997), no. 1-2, 81–86. 14

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.