Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

The paper claims the first automated software to enable NLO QCD and EW predictions for photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions, and reviews the NLO results it produces.

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 ↗

The gamma-UPC+MG5_aMC framework is presented as the first automated NLO tool for photon-photon processes in UPCs, reviewed alongside recent fixed-order NLO results and data comparisons.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A clean proceedings summary of already-published NLO work; the 'first automated NLO' claim is plausible but rests on software whose correctness is not demonstrated here. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20775 v1 pith:BU55MES2 submitted 2025-08-28 hep-ph

Progress in NLO Calculations for gamma-gamma Physics

Hua-Sheng Shao , Lukas Simon This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords UPCNLO QCDNLO QEDNLO EWautomationgamma-UPClight-by-light scatteringphoton-photon collisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Next-to-leading-order accuracy has long been the standard for parton-parton scattering, but photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions were mostly stuck at leading order. This paper argues that gap has closed: it reviews recent NLO computations—dimuon and ditau production in QED, tau pairs with full electroweak corrections, and light-by-light scattering at two loops—and presents the gamma-UPC + MadGraph5_aMC@NLO framework, described as the first automated software for NLO QCD and EW predictions in UPC two-photon collisions. The motivation is concrete: LO predictions miss the data in several UPC measurements, and the tool is meant to make NLO predictions quick and reliable even for non-experts. The paper also states current limitations: NLO+PS is restricted to pure QCD corrections for processes without jets at Born level, and bound states such as quarkonia are not yet supported. If the framework works as claimed, precision photon-fusion studies at RHIC and the LHC no longer require bespoke code per process.

Core claim

Central to the paper is the claim that the collinear-factorisation formula for UPC photon-photon cross sections—effective two-photon luminosity from nuclear photon fields convoluted with the partonic γγ→X cross section—can be automated at NLO. The gamma-UPC + MadGraph5_aMC@NLO framework treats coherent photons as initial states, imports hybrid-renormalisation UFO (Universal Feynman Output) models, produces fixed-order NLO QCD and EW predictions, and interfaces with parton showers. Evidence: NLO QED for γγ→μ+μ− brings ChFF predictions into agreement with ATLAS data; the EW scheme for γγ→τ+τ− matters (hybrid α(0)/Gμ avoids spurious weak corrections); exact NLO QCD+QED for γγ→γγ reduces, but do

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (1): the collinear-factorisation convolution σ(A1A2→A1XA2) = ∫ (dEγ1/Eγ1)(dEγ2/Eγ2) (d²N/dEγ1 dEγ2) σ_{γγ→X}(Wγγ). The effective two-photon luminosity d²N is built from the no-inelastic-interaction probability P_noinel times photon number densities N_{γ/Z}, and is supplied by gamma-UPC with EDFF or ChFF fluxes; the partonic cross section σ_{γγ→X} is expanded in αs and α and generated by MadGraph5_aMC@NLO using the `!a!` syntax for coherent photons and hybrid-renormalisation UFO (Universal Feynman Output) models. This separation is what lets a generic automated NLO engine be reused for UPC physics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the collinear-factorisation ansatz of Eq. (1): a UPC γγ cross section equals an effective two-photon luminosity (survival probability times photon number densities) convoluted with a partonic γγ→X cross section; the paper adopts this as the starting point without proof, so if that factorisation is invalid every NLO prediction described, including the automated ones, would be off.

What would settle it

Measure exclusive e+e− or dimuon pair production in Pb-Pb UPCs at low invariant mass, say m_ℓℓ below 10 GeV, where the effective-photon approximation and the survival-probability factorisation are most stressed; if the automated NLO prediction with the ChFF photon flux disagrees with the measured spectrum by more than the combined uncertainties, the factorisation ansatz or the automation claim would be ruled out.

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

If this is right

  • NLO QED corrections to γγ→μ+μ− in Pb-Pb UPCs describe the ATLAS dimuon rapidity spectra across the studied invariant-mass windows, whereas LO does not—so retaining NLO is necessary for meaningful data comparison.
  • For γγ→τ+τ−, the renormalisation scheme is not a detail: the Gμ scheme produces −4 to −5% spurious weak corrections, while the hybrid α(0)/Gμ scheme gives the expected O(1%) corrections, so the hybrid scheme should be used for UPC predictions.
  • Exact NLO QCD+QED corrections to light-by-light scattering with full fermion-mass dependence are now available from two independent methods; they reduce but do not fully resolve the ATLAS 2σ deviation, and agree with CMS data.
  • The gamma-UPC + MadGraph5_aMC@NLO framework makes fixed-order NLO QCD and EW predictions possible for any UPC two-photon process with elementary final states, using only a few input lines, including p-p, p-Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions.
  • NLO+PS simulations are currently limited to pure QCD corrections and to processes with no jets at Born level; within that range, parton-shower effects can change observables such as top-pair acoplanarity and pT by up to about 50%.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the scheme-dependence lesson for τ-pair production likely transfers to other γγ and γ-hadron processes; previously published NLO EW results using a pure Gμ scheme for quasi-real initial-state photons may need a hybrid-scheme re-examination.
  • Inference: if the automated pipeline is validated on further channels (e.g., e+e− pairs or W-pair production), NLO-accurate photon-fusion predictions could become the default, letting the CMS aτ constraint and similar BSM searches be re-derived with reduced theory uncertainty.
  • Inference: the Local Unitarity calculation of two-loop γγ→γγ is a demonstration that fully numerical multi-loop methods can handle multi-scale amplitudes; the same machinery could be pointed at other two-loop photon-initiated processes that currently lack exact NLO results.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper reviews recent NLO calculations for photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions (UPCs) and presents the gamma-UPC+MadGraph5_aMC@NLO framework for automated NLO predictions. It summarizes NLO QED results for gamma gamma -> mu+ mu-, NLO QED/EW results for gamma gamma -> tau+ tau- including renormalization-scheme issues, and exact NLO QCD+QED results for light-by-light scattering obtained by two independent methods. The central claim is that the updated framework is the first automated software enabling NLO-accurate predictions for UPC photon-photon processes, with fixed-order and parton-shower capabilities for a wide class of SM processes. The paper gives the syntax, a run-card example, a table of available computations, and illustrative results, including NLO+PS predictions for top-pair production.

Significance. If the automation claim is correct, the tool is a significant step forward: it would make NLO precision accessible for a wide class of UPC processes without process-specific implementations, and the NLO+PS capability would enable more realistic comparisons with LHC and RHIC data. The review of light-by-light scattering is particularly valuable because the exact two-loop NLO result is anchored by two independent methods (analytical differential equations and the Local Unitarity approach) and is compared with ATLAS and CMS data. The muon-pair and tau-pair sections also provide useful data comparisons and highlight the importance of renormalization-scheme choice in EW corrections. These external anchors give the paper credibility beyond its self-citations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3, automation claim] The abstract and Sec. 3 state that gamma-UPC+MG5aMC is ‘the first automated software that enables NLO-accurate predictions’ and that NLO predictions can be produced ‘quickly and reliably, even by non-experts’. The manuscript, however, does not validate the automated NLO machinery: there is no independent numerical cross-check against an analytic NLO result, no direct comparison between the automated output and the dedicated calculations of refs. [8,9], and no public code version, commit hash, or test suite. The data comparisons in Figs. 2–5 are suggestive but cannot validate an infrared-subtraction implementation, since they are affected by experimental uncertainties and photon-flux model dependence. Because the novelty claim is load-bearing, I ask the authors to add a short validation summary (e.g., a table comparing automated fNLO results with the analytic NLO QED/QCD results for dimuo
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] The collinear-factorization/EPA ansatz in Eq. (1) is the foundation of every cross-section in this paper, but it is introduced without discussion of its regime of validity. For exclusive UPCs, one might worry about the survival factor P_noinel, the finite virtuality of the exchanged photons, and the separation between the flux scale and the hard scale W_gammagamma. The manuscript cites refs. [1,3-7] for the luminosity model, but does not state the conditions under which the convolution in Eq. (1) is justified. Please add one or two sentences making the assumption explicit (quasi-real photons, W_gammagamma large compared to nuclear scales, factorization of soft and hard parts) and cite a derivation or standard reference. This is not a request to re-derive the factorization, but to acknowledge that all NLO predictions inherit this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (3)–(5)] The notation k0, c(k0), Delta(k0), Sigma_{k0+p,q} is not defined in the text. Fig. 1 helps, but the equations should be self-contained; please define the indices or simplify the expansion for a proceedings readership.
  2. [Listing 1] The run-card keys appear with spaces in the listing (e.g., ‘n b _ p r o t o n 1’) and as ‘nb proton1’ in the text. Please make the exact key names uniform and, if possible, show the keys as they must appear in run_card.dat.
  3. [Fig. 4, left panel] The lower-panel labels ‘HE LE Exact’ are not explained in the caption. Please define the high-energy, low-energy, and exact approximations.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 3] The phrase ‘the first automated software’ is difficult to prove absolutely. I suggest adding ‘to our knowledge’ or ‘to date’, which would not weaken the claim and would be more precise.
  5. [Sec. 2.2, G_mu scheme] The conclusion that the G_mu scheme ‘overestimates’ the LO cross section and produces ‘spurious’ NLO corrections is stated compactly. A brief numerical illustration of LO and NLO in the two schemes would make the argument much clearer for readers not familiar with refs. [9,10,15].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the NLO predictions are anchored by external data and independent calculations; self-citations are documentary, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's UPC cross-section formula, Eq. (1), is an explicitly stated collinear-factorization ansatz whose two-photon luminosity is cited to standard external frameworks (STARlight, SuperChic, etc.); it is an input assumption, not a result derived within the paper, and it is not fitted to the predictions being advertised. The central NLO physics claims are independently anchored: the dimuon NLO QED predictions are compared directly with ATLAS data (fig. 2); the tau EW scheme dependence is checked against the external groups of refs. [9,10]; and the exact NLO light-by-light result is cross-validated by two different computational strategies (analytic differential equations in ref. [11] and Local Unitarity in refs. [25,26]) and then compared with ATLAS and CMS data. No equation in the paper reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The heavy citation of the authors' own ref. [15] concerns the documentation of the gamma-UPC+MG5_aMC framework; although the proceedings do not themselves contain a full validation suite for the software, that is a verification/exposition gap, not a circular derivation. The paper also explicitly discloses current limitations of the automation (table 1), further showing that the claims are scoped rather than definitionally forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

This proceedings paper does not derive new physics; it reviews calculations that rest on standard collinear factorization and EPA. The main choices that affect the shown results are the photon flux model (ChFF parameters) and the renormalisation scheme (hybrid alpha(0)+G_mu). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • ChFF nuclear form factor parameters = not provided in this paper (from gamma-UPC, ref [1])
    The NLO QED predictions for dimuon production and LbL use the ChFF photon flux; the flux is central to the cross-section normalization and the paper finds it preferable to EDFF based on data comparison.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Collinear factorization for UPC gamma-gamma cross sections (Eq. 1)
    The paper opens Sec. 2 with 'In the framework of collinear factorization, the cross section ... is given by Eq. (1)' without derivation. All NLO predictions reviewed rely on this factorization.
  • domain assumption Equivalent Photon Approximation (EPA) validity for quasi-real photons
    The paper states 'Since the incoming coherent photons have almost zero virtuality, these quasi-real photons can be described by the EPA'. Standard but an assumption.
  • standard math Perturbative coupling expansion and ordering alpha_s > alpha (Eqs. 3-5)
    The LO/NLO decomposition assumes a formal hierarchy alpha_s >> alpha, and the paper footnotes that this is a naive assumption because kinematic effects can make subleading terms dominate.
  • domain assumption Hybrid renormalisation scheme yields the physically correct NLO EW result
    The paper argues that the large weak corrections in the G_mu scheme are spurious and that the hybrid scheme (alpha(0) for quasi-real photons, G_mu for others) gives the expected small corrections. This is a prescription, not a theorem.
  • domain assumption Local Unitarity representation provides convergent NLO results for LbL
    The LbL NLO computation in ref [12] uses the LU method from refs [25,26]; the paper treats it as a valid numerical technique.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Progress in NLO Calculations for gamma-gamma Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BU55MES2

@misc{pith2026250820775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Progress in NLO Calculations for gamma-gamma Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BU55MES2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20775}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

With the advent of precision measurements of photon-fusion processes in ultraperipheral collisions (UPCs) at facilities, such as RHIC and the LHC, the inclusion of higher-order corrections has become essential. While automated frameworks already make NLO corrections feasible for parton-parton scattering processes, no comparable tools had previously been available for UPC processes in two-photon collisions. In these proceedings, we review some recent explicit NLO computations and present the updated gamma-UPC+MadGraph5_aMC@NLO framework, the first automated software that enables NLO-accurate predictions for photon-photon processes in UPCs.

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

40 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Shao and D

    H.-S. Shao and D. d’Enterria, gamma-UPC: automated generation of exclusive photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral proton and nuclear collisions with varying form factors , JHEP 09 (2022) 248, [ arXiv:2207.03012]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Hayrapetyan et al., Observation of γγ → τ τin proton-proton collisions and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the τ lepton, Rept

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Observation of γγ → τ τin proton-proton collisions and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the τ lepton, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (2024), no. 10 107801, [ arXiv:2406.03975]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    S. R. Klein, J. Nystrand, J. Seger, Y. Gorbunov, and J. Butterworth, STARlight: A Monte Carlo simulation program for ultra-peripheral collisions of relativistic ions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 258–268, [ arXiv:1607.03838]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, M. Tasevsky, V. A. Khoze, and M. G. Ryskin, A new approach to modelling elastic and inelastic photon-initiated production at the LHC: SuperChic 4 , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020), no. 10 925, [ arXiv:2007.12704]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    FPMC: a generator for forward physics

    M. Boonekamp, A. Dechambre, V. Juranek, O. Kepka, M. Rangel, C. Royon, and R. Staszewski, FPMC: A Generator for forward physics , arXiv:1102.2531

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Forthomme, CepGen – A generic central exclusive processes event generator for hadron-hadron collisions, Comput

    L. Forthomme, CepGen – A generic central exclusive processes event generator for hadron-hadron collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 271 (2022) 108225, [ arXiv:1808.06059]. 8 Phys. Proc. Ultra-Peripheral Collisions 2, 010 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Burmasov, E

    N. Burmasov, E. Kryshen, P. Buehler, and R. Lavicka, Upcgen: A Monte Carlo simulation program for dilepton pair production in ultra-peripheral collisions of heavy ions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 277 (2022) 108388, [ arXiv:2111.11383]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Shao and D

    H.-S. Shao and D. d’Enterria, Dimuon and ditau production in photon-photon collisions at next-to-leading order in QED , JHEP 02 (2025) 023, [ arXiv:2407.13610]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Jiang, P.-C

    J. Jiang, P.-C. Lu, Z.-G. Si, H. Zhang, and X.-Y. Zhang, NLO EW corrections to tau pair production via photon fusion in Pb-Pb ultraperipheral collisions , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025), no. 3 036023, [arXiv:2410.21963]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Dittmaier, T

    S. Dittmaier, T. Engel, J. L. H. Ariza, and M. Pellen, Electroweak corrections to τ +τ − production in ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions at the LHC , JHEP 08 (2025) 051, [ arXiv:2504.11391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    A. A H, E. Chaubey, and H.-S. Shao, Two-loop massive QCD and QED helicity amplitudes for light-by-light scattering, JHEP 03 (2024) 121, [ arXiv:2312.16966]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    A. A H, E. Chaubey, M. Fraaije, V. Hirschi, and H.-S. Shao, Light-by-light scattering at next-to-leading order in QCD and QED , Phys. Lett. B 851 (2024) 138555, [ arXiv:2312.16956]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079, [arXiv:1405.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    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, JHEP 07 (2018) 185, [ arXiv:1804.10017]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Shao and L

    H.-S. Shao and L. Simon, Automated next-to-leading order QCD and electroweak predictions of photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions , JHEP 07 (2025) 020, [ arXiv:2504.10104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Automation of Electroweak Corrections

    H.-S. Shao, Automation of Electroweak Corrections. Th` ese d’habilitation, 2025. arXiv:2501.05199

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Fermi, On the Theory of the impact between atoms and electrically charged particles , Z

    E. Fermi, On the Theory of the impact between atoms and electrically charged particles , Z. Phys. 29 (1924) 315–327

    work page 1924

  18. [18]

    C. F. von Weizs¨ acker,Radiation emitted in collisions of very fast electrons , Z. Phys. 88 (1934) 612–625

    work page 1934

  19. [19]

    E. J. Williams, Nature of the high-energy particles of penetrating radiation and status of ionization and radiation formulae , Phys. Rev. 45 (1934) 729–730

    work page 1934

  20. [20]

    Aad et al., Exclusive dimuon production in ultraperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV with ATLAS, Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Exclusive dimuon production in ultraperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV with ATLAS, Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) 024906, [arXiv:2011.12211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Z. Bern, A. De Freitas, L. J. Dixon, A. Ghinculov, and H. L. Wong, QCD and QED corrections to light by light scattering , JHEP 11 (2001) 031, [ hep-ph/0109079]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  22. [22]

    Binoth, E

    T. Binoth, E. W. N. Glover, P. Marquard, and J. J. van der Bij, Two loop corrections to light by light scattering in supersymmetric QED , JHEP 05 (2002) 060, [ hep-ph/0202266]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  23. [23]

    L. C. Martin, C. Schubert, and V. M. Villanueva Sandoval, On the low-energy limit of the QED N photon amplitudes , Nucl. Phys. B 668 (2003) 335–344, [ hep-th/0301022]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of light-by-light scattering and search for axion-like particles with 2.2 nb −1 of Pb+Pb data with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 03 (2021) 243, [arXiv:2008.05355]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 050 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Capatti, V

    Z. Capatti, V. Hirschi, A. Pelloni, and B. Ruijl, Local Unitarity: a representation of differential cross-sections that is locally free of infrared singularities at any order , JHEP 04 (2021) 104, [arXiv:2010.01068]. 9 Phys. Proc. Ultra-Peripheral Collisions 2, 010 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Local Unitarity: cutting raised propagators and localising renormalisation

    Z. Capatti, V. Hirschi, and B. Ruijl, Local unitarity: cutting raised propagators and localising renormalisation, JHEP 10 (2022) 120, [ arXiv:2203.11038]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Measurement of light-by-light scattering and the Breit-Wheeler process, and search for axion-like particles in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV , JHEP 08 (2025) 006, [ arXiv:2412.15413]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 1201–1214, [ arXiv:1108.2040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format , Eur

    L. Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 7 631, [ arXiv:2304.09883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Pagani, H.-S

    D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao, I. Tsinikos, and M. Zaro, Automated EW corrections with isolated photons: ttγ, t tγγ and t γj as case studies , JHEP 09 (2021) 155, [ arXiv:2106.02059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Frixione, M

    S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, Improving the Weizs¨ acker-Williams approximation in electron-proton collisions , Phys. Lett. B 319 (1993) 339–345, [ hep-ph/9310350]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  32. [32]

    Corcella, I

    G. Corcella, I. G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri, P. Richardson, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, HER WIG 6: An Event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes) , JHEP 01 (2001) 010, [ hep-ph/0011363]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    Corcella, I

    G. Corcella, I. G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri, P. Richardson, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, HER WIG 6.5 release note, hep-ph/0210213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Bahr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual , Eur

    M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639–707, [arXiv:0803.0883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    Bellm et al., Herwig++ 2.7 Release Note , arXiv:1310.6877

    J. Bellm et al., Herwig++ 2.7 Release Note , arXiv:1310.6877

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    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. C 76 (2016), no. 4 196, [arXiv:1512.01178]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual , JHEP 05 (2006) 026, [hep-ph/0603175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Alwall et al., A Standard format for Les Houches event files , Comput

    J. Alwall et al., A Standard format for Les Houches event files , Comput. Phys. Commun. 176 (2007) 300–304, [ hep-ph/0609017]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  40. [40]

    Frixione and B

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations , JHEP 06 (2002) 029, [ hep-ph/0204244]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.