Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 89 references

Boosted Higgs-strahlung off a $W$ boson at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-07-01 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The first fully differential N³LO QCD calculation for boosted Higgs plus W production finds corrections of about +2% that sit at or beyond the NNLO scale-variation band.

desk verdict This paper delivers the first fully differential N³LO result for boosted WH production, a clear technical step, though the claim that corrections sit outside the NNLO scale band rests on an unverified assumption about uncertainty estimation. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.31286 v1 pith:A2LXOGGQ submitted 2026-06-30 hep-ph

Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder , Alexander Huss , Matteo Marcoli , Pier Francesco Monni , Emanuele Re , Luca Rottoli , Federico Silvetti , Paolo Torrielli This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords HiggsproductionN3LOQCDboostedregimeWHassociatedperturbativecorrectionshadroncollidersdifferentialcrosssection
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

The paper delivers the first fully differential computation of Higgs-strahlung off a W boson at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD. In the boosted regime the N³LO corrections reach approximately +2% and typically lie at the edge of or outside the uncertainty band obtained from scale variation at the preceding order. At the same time the residual dependence on perturbative scales falls below the percent level. This combination tightens the theoretical prediction for a channel that dominates Higgs production at large transverse momentum and supplies direct sensitivity to Higgs couplings and possible new physics.

What carries the argument

The fully differential N³LO QCD computation of the pp → WH cross section, incorporating all virtual and real-emission contributions through third order in the strong coupling.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the boosted WH cross section whose central value lies well inside the NNLO scale band but outside the N³LO prediction band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present the first fully differential calculation of boosted Higgs-strahlung off a W boson at N³LO in perturbative QCD. The N³LO corrections amount to approximately +2% in the boosted regime and generally lie at the edge of or outside the standard scale variation band of the previous perturbative order, while the residual dependence of the N³LO prediction on perturbative scales is reduced to below the percent level.

Load-bearing premise

That the conventional scale-variation procedure performed at NNLO supplies a reliable estimate of the size of the missing higher-order corrections.

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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first fully differential N³LO QCD calculation of Higgs-strahlung off a W boson (WH production) in the boosted Higgs regime at hadron colliders. The central numerical result is that N³LO corrections amount to approximately +2% and generally lie at the edge of or outside the NNLO scale-variation band, while reducing residual perturbative scale dependence to below the percent level.

Significance. If the result holds, this constitutes a milestone for precision Higgs phenomenology, as boosted WH is the dominant production mode at high pT and provides direct sensitivity to Higgs couplings and potential BSM effects. Achieving sub-percent residual scale uncertainty supplies more robust theoretical inputs for LHC analyses than previous orders.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that the N³LO corrections 'generally lie at the edge of or outside the standard scale variation band of the previous perturbative order' rests on the assumption that the conventional 7-point scale variation performed at NNLO furnishes a faithful envelope for the size of the uncalculated N³LO terms. The manuscript provides no independent cross-check of this assumption (e.g., via an alternative uncertainty prescription, comparison against a known N³LO process, or explicit demonstration in a solvable limit). This directly affects the strength of the claim that the N³LO shift lies outside the previous uncertainty estimate.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the collider energy and the precise kinematic definition of the 'boosted regime' used for the quoted +2% correction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the positive overall assessment. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that the N³LO corrections 'generally lie at the edge of or outside the standard scale variation band of the previous perturbative order' rests on the assumption that the conventional 7-point scale variation performed at NNLO furnishes a faithful envelope for the size of the uncalculated N³LO terms. The manuscript provides no independent cross-check of this assumption (e.g., via an alternative uncertainty prescription, comparison against a known N³LO process, or explicit demonstration in a solvable limit). This directly affects the strength of the claim that the N³LO shift lies outside the previous uncertainty estimate.

    Authors: We agree that conventional 7-point scale variation provides an estimate of higher-order effects rather than a rigorous bound, and that the manuscript does not include an independent cross-check such as an alternative prescription or comparison to a different N³LO process. Our statement is an empirical observation based on the explicit computation: the N³LO correction size is compared directly to the NNLO 7-point band obtained with the same scale choices. This follows the standard practice used in all prior N³LO QCD calculations. In the revised manuscript we have added a clarifying sentence after the abstract claim noting that the observation relies on the conventional scale-variation prescription and does not constitute a general proof. We have also softened the wording slightly to 'lie at or beyond the edge of the NNLO scale-variation band obtained with the standard 7-point prescription.' We believe this addresses the concern without altering the numerical results or the main conclusions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct N³LO perturbative computation

full rationale

The paper reports an explicit higher-order QCD calculation of differential distributions for WH production at N³LO. All results follow from standard matrix-element evaluation, infrared subtraction, and phase-space integration; no quantity is obtained by fitting a parameter to a subset of the same data and then relabeling it a prediction, nor does any central claim reduce to a self-citation chain or imported ansatz. Scale variation is used only as a conventional uncertainty estimate after the calculation is complete and does not enter the derivation itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard perturbative QCD assumptions; no new entities or data-fitted parameters are introduced beyond conventional scale choices.

free parameters (1)
  • renormalization and factorization scales
    Standard choices in pQCD; varied to estimate uncertainty but not fitted to data.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Perturbative QCD expansion remains valid and convergent at N³LO for this process
    Invoked throughout the abstract to justify the calculation and uncertainty reduction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosted Higgs-strahlung off a $W$ boson at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2LXOGGQ

@misc{pith2026260631286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosted Higgs-strahlung off a $W$ boson at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2LXOGGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.31286}
}
abstract

The production of a boosted Higgs boson in association with a charged weak ($W$) boson is a key process to scrutinize the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism at hadron colliders. This reaction constitutes the dominant Higgs production channel at large transverse momentum, providing unique sensitivity to Higgs-boson interactions with other Standard Model particles as well as to physics beyond the Standard Model. In this Letter, we present the first fully differential calculation of this important scattering process at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^3$LO) in perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). We find that the N$^3$LO corrections, amounting to approximately $+2\%$ in the boosted regime, generally lie at the edge of or outside the standard scale variation band of the previous perturbative order. The residual dependence of the N$^3$LO prediction on perturbative scales is reduced to below the percent level, marking a milestone for the Higgs precision program.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Born-level Feynman diagram for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Fiducial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , we show the N3LO correction to the inclusive cross section as a function of q cut T , decomposed into initial￾state flavor channels and compared with the numerical results of n3loxs. We find excellent agreement across the full range 3 GeV ≤ q cut T ≤ 10 GeV, with res…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Measurements of $WH$ and $ZH$ production in the $H \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay channel in $pp$ collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 178 (2021), arXiv:2007.02873 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D105, 092003 (2022), arXiv:2111.08340 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 131802 (2024), arXiv:2312.07605 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP12, 085, arXiv:2006.13251 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D104, 052004 (2021), arXiv:2104.12152 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP12, 035, arXiv:2407.08012 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP12, 035, arXiv:2407.08012 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    Validity of SMEFT studies of VH and VV Production at NLO

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson, S. Homiller, S. D. Lane, and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D101, 115004 (2020), arXiv:2003.07862 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Constraints on the trilinear Higgs coupling from vector boson fusion and associated Higgs production at the LHC

    W. Bizon, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch, and G. Zanderighi, JHEP07, 083, arXiv:1610.05771 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Bizo´ n, F

    W. Bizo´ n, F. Caola, K. Melnikov, and R. R¨ ontsch, Phys. Rev. D105, 014023 (2022), arXiv:2106.06328 [hep-ph]

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gauld, U

    R. Gauld, U. Haisch, and L. Schnell, JHEP01, 192, arXiv:2311.06107 [hep-ph]

  3. [11]

    Bonetti, R

    M. Bonetti, R. V. Harlander, D. Korneev, M.-M. Long, K. Melnikov, R. R¨ ontsch, and D. M. Tagliabue, Phys. Rev. D112, 034033 (2025), arXiv:2502.12846 [hep-ph]

    2025

  4. [12]

    Beckeret al., SciPost Phys

    K. Beckeret al., SciPost Phys. Core7, 001 (2024), arXiv:2005.07762 [hep-ph]

    2024

  5. [13]

    Baglio, C

    J. Baglio, C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger, and R. Szafron, JHEP 12, 066, arXiv:2209.06138 [hep-ph]

  6. [14]

    M. L. Ciccolini, S. Dittmaier, and M. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D68, 073003 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306234

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. Muck, JHEP 03, 075, arXiv:1112.5142 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. M¨ uck, Com- put. Phys. Commun.195, 161 (2015), arXiv:1412.5390 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Granata, J

    F. Granata, J. M. Lindert, C. Oleari, and S. Pozzorini, 6 JHEP09, 012, arXiv:1706.03522 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ferrera, M

    G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 152003 (2011), arXiv:1107.1164 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ferrera, M

    G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano, JHEP04, 039, arXiv:1312.1669 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Astill, W

    W. Astill, W. Bizon, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 06, 154, arXiv:1603.01620 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, JHEP06, 179, arXiv:1601.00658 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Caola, G

    F. Caola, G. Luisoni, K. Melnikov, and R. R¨ ontsch, Phys. Rev. D97, 074022 (2018), arXiv:1712.06954 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ferrera, G

    G. Ferrera, G. Somogyi, and F. Tramontano, Phys. Lett. B780, 346 (2018), arXiv:1705.10304 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alioli, A

    S. Alioli, A. Broggio, S. Kallweit, M. A. Lim, and L. Rot- toli, Phys. Rev. D100, 096016 (2019), arXiv:1909.02026 [hep-ph]

    2019

  17. [25]

    Behring, W

    A. Behring, W. Bizo´ n, F. Caola, K. Melnikov, and R. R¨ ontsch, Phys. Rev. D101, 114012 (2020), arXiv:2003.08321 [hep-ph]

    2020

  18. [26]

    Majer,Associated Higgs Boson Production at NNLO QCD, Ph.D

    I. Majer,Associated Higgs Boson Production at NNLO QCD, Ph.D. thesis, Zurich, ETH, Zurich, ETH (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Zanoli, M

    S. Zanoli, M. Chiesa, E. Re, M. Wiesemann, and G. Zan- derighi, JHEP07, 008, arXiv:2112.04168 [hep-ph]

  20. [28]

    Gauld, A

    R. Gauld, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, and I. Majer, JHEP10, 002, arXiv:1907.05836 [hep-ph]

    1907

  21. [29]

    Haisch, D

    U. Haisch, D. J. Scott, M. Wiesemann, G. Zanderighi, and S. Zanoli, JHEP07, 054, arXiv:2204.00663 [hep-ph]

  22. [30]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, F. Herzog, and B. Mistlberger, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 212001 (2015), arXiv:1503.06056 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, T. Gehrmann, F. Herzog, A. Lazopoulos, and B. Mistl- berger, JHEP05, 058, arXiv:1602.00695 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 072001 (2016), arXiv:1606.00840 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Mistlberger, JHEP05, 028, arXiv:1802.00833 [hep- ph]

    B. Mistlberger, JHEP05, 028, arXiv:1802.00833 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, Phys. Rev. D98, 114016 (2018), arXiv:1811.07906 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cieri, X

    L. Cieri, X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and A. Huss, JHEP02, 096, arXiv:1807.11501 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    L.-B. Chen, H. T. Li, H.-S. Shao, and J. Wang, Phys. Lett. B803, 135292 (2020), arXiv:1909.06808 [hep-ph]

    2020

  29. [37]

    L.-B. Chen, H. T. Li, H.-S. Shao, and J. Wang, JHEP 03, 072, arXiv:1912.13001 [hep-ph]

    1912

  30. [38]

    C. Duhr, F. Dulat, and B. Mistlberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 051804 (2020), arXiv:1904.09990 [hep-ph]

    2020

  31. [39]

    C. Duhr, F. Dulat, and B. Mistlberger, JHEP11, 143, arXiv:2007.13313 [hep-ph]

    2007

  32. [40]

    Duhr and B

    C. Duhr and B. Mistlberger, JHEP03, 116, arXiv:2111.10379 [hep-ph]

  33. [41]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, B. Mistlberger, and A. Pelloni, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 072002 (2021), arXiv:2102.07607 [hep-ph]

    2021

  34. [42]

    Billis, B

    G. Billis, B. Dehnadi, M. A. Ebert, J. K. L. Michel, and F. J. Tackmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 072001 (2021), arXiv:2102.08039 [hep-ph]

    2021

  35. [43]

    Camarda, L

    S. Camarda, L. Cieri, and G. Ferrera, Phys. Rev. D104, L111503 (2021), arXiv:2103.04974 [hep-ph]

    2021

  36. [44]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, A. Huss, T.-Z. Yang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 052001 (2022), arXiv:2107.09085 [hep-ph]

    2022

  37. [45]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, P. F. Monni, E. Re, L. Rottoli, and P. Torrielli, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 252001 (2022), arXiv:2203.01565 [hep-ph]

    2022

  38. [46]

    Neumann and J

    T. Neumann and J. Campbell, Phys. Rev. D107, L011506 (2023), arXiv:2207.07056 [hep-ph]

    2023

  39. [47]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, A. Huss, T.-Z. Yang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B840, 137876 (2023), arXiv:2205.11426 [hep-ph]

    2023

  40. [48]

    Campbell and T

    J. Campbell and T. Neumann, JHEP11, 127, arXiv:2308.15382 [hep-ph]

  41. [49]

    Czakon, F

    M. Czakon, F. Eschment, T. Generet, and R. Poncelet, (2026), arXiv:2604.12613 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Chen, Y. Dai, H. T. Li, S.-Y. Li, H.-S. Shao, and J. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2601.19990 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. Grazzini, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 222002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703012

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gehrmann, E

    T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, T. Huber, N. Ikizlerli, and C. Studerus, JHEP06, 094, arXiv:1004.3653 [hep- ph]

  45. [53]

    Catani, L

    S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, and M. Grazzini, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2195 (2012), arXiv:1209.0158 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gehrmann, T

    T. Gehrmann, T. Luebbert, and L. L. Yang, JHEP06, 155, arXiv:1403.6451 [hep-ph]

  47. [55]

    L¨ ubbert, J

    T. L¨ ubbert, J. Oredsson, and M. Stahlhofen, JHEP03, 168, arXiv:1602.01829 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. G. Echevarria, I. Scimemi, and A. Vladimirov, JHEP 09, 004, arXiv:1604.07869 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Li and H

    Y. Li and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 022004 (2017), arXiv:1604.01404 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. A. Vladimirov, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 062001 (2017), arXiv:1610.05791 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Luo, T.-Z

    M.-x. Luo, T.-Z. Yang, H. X. Zhu, and Y. J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 092001 (2020), arXiv:1912.05778 [hep- ph]

    2020

  52. [60]

    M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger, and G. Vita, JHEP09, 146, arXiv:2006.05329 [hep-ph]

    2006

  53. [61]

    Luo, T.-Z

    M.-x. Luo, T.-Z. Yang, H. X. Zhu, and Y. J. Zhu, JHEP 06, 115, arXiv:2012.03256 [hep-ph]

    2012

  54. [62]

    P. F. Monni, E. Re, and P. Torrielli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 242001 (2016), arXiv:1604.02191 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bizon, P

    W. Bizon, P. F. Monni, E. Re, L. Rottoli, and P. Torrielli, JHEP02, 108, arXiv:1705.09127 [hep-ph]

  56. [64]

    E. Re, L. Rottoli, and P. Torrielli, JHEP2109, 108, arXiv:2104.07509 [hep-ph]

  57. [65]

    Husset al.(NNLOJET), SciPost Phys

    A. Husset al.(NNLOJET), SciPost Phys. Codeb.69, 1 (2026), arXiv:2503.22804 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and E. W. N. Glover, JHEP09, 056, arXiv:hep-ph/0505111

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Currie, E

    J. Currie, E. W. N. Glover, and S. Wells, JHEP04, 066, arXiv:1301.4693 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Gauld, A

    R. Gauld, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, and I. Majer, Phys. Lett. B817, 136335 (2021), arXiv:2009.14209 [hep-ph]

    2021

  61. [69]

    Gauld, A

    R. Gauld, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, and I. Majer, JHEP03, 008, arXiv:2110.12992 [hep-ph]

  62. [70]

    Buccioni, J.-N

    F. Buccioni, J.-N. Lang, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierh¨ ofer, S. Pozzorini, H. Zhang, and M. F. Zoller, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 866 (2019), arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph]

    2019

  63. [71]

    Brein, R

    O. Brein, R. Harlander, M. Wiesemann, and T. Zirke, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1868 (2012), arXiv:1111.0761 [hep- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  64. [72]

    R. D. Ballet al.(NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C84, 659 (2024), arXiv:2402.18635 [hep-ph]. 7

    2024

  65. [73]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    LHCHXSWG, Higgs production cross section for run iii (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    J. R. Andersenet al., in9th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders(2016) arXiv:1605.04692 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bergeret al., SciPost Phys

    N. Bergeret al., SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 10.21468/Sci- PostPhysCommRep.15 (2019), arXiv:1906.02754 [hep- ph]

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), JHEP05, 141, arXiv:1903.04618 [hep-ex]

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), JHEP05, 141, arXiv:1903.04618 [hep-ex]

    1903 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, A

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, A. Huss, M. Marcoli, P. F. Monni, E. Re, L. Rottoli, F. Silvetti, and P. Torrielli, (2026), Supplemental Material to this Letter

    2026

  71. [79]

    Frixione and G

    S. Frixione and G. Ridolfi, Phys. Lett. B383, 227 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605209

    1996 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Grazzini, S

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and M. Wiesemann, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 537 (2018), arXiv:1711.06631 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    M. A. Ebert and F. J. Tackmann, JHEP03, 158, arXiv:1911.08486 [hep-ph]

    1911

  74. [82]

    G. P. Salam and E. Slade, JHEP11, 220, arXiv:2106.08329 [hep-ph]

  75. [83]

    Alekhin, A

    S. Alekhin, A. Kardos, S. Moch, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 573 (2021), arXiv:2104.02400 [hep-ph]

    2021

  76. [84]

    Buonocore, S

    L. Buonocore, S. Kallweit, L. Rottoli, and M. Wiesemann, Phys. Lett. B829, 137118 (2022), arXiv:2111.13661 [hep-ph]

    2022

  77. [85]

    Camarda, L

    S. Camarda, L. Cieri, and G. Ferrera, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 575 (2022), arXiv:2111.14509 [hep-ph]

    2022

  78. [86]

    Klasen and G

    M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B366, 385 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9508337

    1996 arXiv

  79. [87]

    B. W. Harris and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D56, 4007 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704324

    1997 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Frixione and G

    S. Frixione and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B507, 315 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9707345

    1997 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Karlberget al., (2024), arXiv:2402.09955 [hep-ph]

    A. Karlberget al., (2024), arXiv:2402.09955 [hep-ph]. 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 qcut T [GeV] −0.04 −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 ∆σN3LO/σLO NNLOJET+RadISH pp → W +H inclusive NNPDF40_an3lo_as_01180 µF = µR = mW H√ s = 13.6 TeV n3loxs tot tot n3loxs q ¯q q ¯q n3loxs qg + ¯qg qg + ¯...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.