Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

This paper claims the first NNLO-accurate parton-shower-matched event generator for ttH production, built on a pointwise combination of two approximate two-loop amplitudes whose estimated uncertainty stays below the perturbative error.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:40 UTC pith:GORHIC3F

load-bearing objection First NNLO+PS generator for ttH with a public code and a sensible pointwise two-loop approximation; the uncertainty band is less conservative than claimed in a few corners, but the central result holds. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.06143 v2 pith:GORHIC3F submitted 2026-03-06 hep-ph hep-ex

Next-to-next-to-leading order event generation for tbar{t}H production with approximate two-loop amplitude

Christian Biello , Chiara Savoini , Chiara Signorile-Signorile , Marius Wiesemann This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords ttH productionNNLO QCD correctionsMiNNLOPS parton-shower matchingtwo-loop amplitude approximationsoft-Higgs limitmassificationHiggs-top Yukawa couplingfull-colour amplitude
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to bring ttH production — the most direct, model-independent probe of the Higgs coupling to top quarks — to the precision frontier of LHC simulations: next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD corrections matched to a parton shower, so that experimental analyses can use fully exclusive simulated events rather than fixed-order distributions. The obstacle is that the two-loop QCD amplitude for ttH, the last ingredient needed for NNLO accuracy, is still unknown. The authors' strategy is to combine two established approximations — one valid when the Higgs is soft, one valid in the high-energy limit where the top mass is negligible — point by point in phase space, weighting each by an exponential function of the Higgs transverse momentum so that each approximation dominates where it is trustworthy. They attach a dedicated uncertainty band, built from scale, interpolation, and one-loop discrepancy variations, and validate the whole construction at one-loop order, where it reproduces the exact NLO-plus-shower result to within a few percent. If the approach holds, a public generator delivers NNLO-precision events today — with the systematic error from the missing two-loop term kept below the perturbative uncertainty — and can absorb the exact two-loop amplitude by reweighting once it is computed.

Core claim

The central claim is that fully exclusive ttH event generation can reach NNLO QCD accuracy today, without the exact two-loop amplitude. The two-loop hard-virtual coefficient — the only non-exact ingredient — is replaced pointwise by a combined approximation (CA): an exponential weight ω = exp(−τ pT,H/mt) blends the soft-Higgs approximation (soft-emission factor times the ttbar amplitude; valid at small Higgs transverse momentum) with the massified high-energy approximation (massive amplitude mapped onto a massless one via log-enhanced factors; valid in the boosted regime), the latter built in full colour for the first time. An eleven-point systematic envelope, varying the subtraction scale,

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combined approximation (CA) of the two-loop hard-virtual coefficient, the number that encodes the unknown two-loop finite remainder normalized to the Born amplitude. Defined pointwise as H_CA = ω H_SA + (1 − ω) H_MA, it interpolates between the soft-Higgs approximation H_SA, obtained by factorizing the amplitude in the limit of a soft Higgs boson, and the massified approximation H_MA, obtained by expanding in the small top-quark mass and connecting the amplitude to its massless counterpart; the interpolation weight ω = exp(−τ pT,H/mt) is a modelling choice with a free sharpness parameter τ. The CA is then fed into the MiNNLOPS matching method, which promotes pa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pointwise blend of the soft-Higgs and high-energy approximations, together with its uncertainty envelope, brackets the unknown exact two-loop contribution throughout phase space — a premise extrapolated from one-loop validation, where the paper itself reports that its band is 'visibly underestimated' for Higgs transverse momenta below about 30 GeV.

What would settle it

The decisive check is the exact two-loop amplitude, which the calculation is explicitly designed to host: reweight the released NNLO+PS event sample with the exact two-loop term and compare every published distribution. If in any bin the exact result falls outside the assigned two-loop band — in particular at pT,H below 30 GeV, where the one-loop band is already admitted to be too narrow — the claim that the approximation error is under control fails there. A cheaper partial test: evaluate the soft-Higgs and massified two-loop approximations at the same phase-space points and check whether the

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

If this is right

  • The inclusive ttH cross section increases by about 15% from NLO+PS to NNLO+PS, and the scale uncertainty roughly halves (from about 12% to about 6%), so NNLO corrections are material for the precision era of Higgs-coupling measurements.
  • Because the systematic error assigned to the missing two-loop amplitude stays below the perturbative uncertainty (about a percent on the total rate), the released generator is usable for experimental analyses without waiting for the exact two-loop term.
  • The full-colour construction of the massified two-loop amplitude changes predictions in the tails: subleading-colour terms shift distributions such as the top-pair transverse-momentum spectrum by a few percent at NNLO+PS level.
  • Off-shell top-quark decays with tree-level spin correlations are included in both the dilepton and semileptonic channels, so spin-sensitive observables (dilepton invariant mass, azimuthal separation of the leptons) can be predicted at NNLO+PS accuracy.
  • Because every ingredient except the two-loop hard-virtual coefficient is exact, the genuine two-loop amplitude can later be incorporated by reweighting the already-generated event samples, a path the calculation is explicitly built to accommodate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reliability of the uncertainty band rests on an untested extrapolation from one loop to two loops; a cheap external check would be to compare the eleven-point envelope against the spread obtained by replacing the exponential weight with other smooth interpolations (e.g., a logistic function of pT,H/mt) at the two-loop level.
  • In the phase-space corners the paper itself flags as least controlled — Higgs transverse momenta below about 30 GeV and the large-ΔR_H,t / small-Δφ_t,tt regions — analyses that select such configurations should treat the quoted band as provisional and reweight once the exact two-loop result exists.
  • The same recipe is transferable to other ttF processes with a colour-singlet final state, but the transfer is not automatic: each process needs its own phase-space weight, its own massless two-loop input, and a one-loop validation to calibrate δ.
  • If the one-loop-to-two-loop error scaling holds, the dominant theory uncertainty in ttH becomes the scale uncertainty; reaching the anticipated few-percent experimental precision would then require taming scale systematics rather than the two-loop amplitude itself.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first MiNNLOPS-based NNLO+PS simulation for ttbar+H production at the LHC. All ingredients are exact except the two-loop virtual amplitude, which is approximated by a pointwise combination (CA) of a soft-Higgs approximation and a massified high-energy (small-mt) approximation; the high-energy piece is implemented in full colour for the first time. The authors assign a systematic uncertainty to the CA by varying two interpolation parameters (eta, tau) and rescaling the two-loop hard-virtual coefficient by the one-loop discrepancy delta. They validate the CA at one loop against exact NLO+PS predictions, validate the MiNNLOPS machinery against fixed-order Matrix results with H^(2)=0, and then provide phenomenological predictions for on-shell ttbar+H, H->gamma gamma, and dilepton/semileptonic top decays with tree-level spin correlations. The generator is publicly released in POWHEG-BOX-RES.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, this is a significant step for ttbar+H phenomenology: it is the first NNLO+PS generator for this process, it includes a full-colour massified two-loop ingredient, it provides a publicly available tool for experimental analyses, and the one-loop validation is a sensible and non-trivial test of the approximation strategy. The fixed-order validation with H^(2)=0 is a genuine check of the MiNNLOPS Q-bar-Q-F extension. The main weakness is that the two-loop systematic uncertainty is calibrated only at one-loop order, and the manuscript itself reports regions where the one-loop CA band is underestimated; the extrapolation of that discrepancy to two loops is an assumption rather than a derived property. The paper is therefore valuable and likely correct in its construction, but the advertised 'conservative' sub-percent two-loop uncertainty needs to be re-scoped or strengthened before the central claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 (Figs. 3, 4; Table 3)] The manuscript admits in Section 3.3 that the CA uncertainty band is 'visibly underestimated' for pT,H <~ 30 GeV and that a tiny subdominant region at small m_ttH is not covered by the one-loop CA band. The two-loop systematic is then built in Section 3.2 from (eta,tau) variations plus the pointwise rescaling (1 +/- delta) H_CA^(2), where delta is the one-loop discrepancy |H_CA^(1)/H_exact^(1) - 1|. This presumes that the one-loop error pattern is a reliable proxy for the unknown two-loop error. No argument is given for that scaling, and in the kinematic bins where the one-loop band already fails, the claimed 'conservative' two-loop envelope is not established. Since the abstract and conclusions advertise a conservative, sub-percent two-loop systematic, this is a load-bearing point. Please either enlarge the two-loop systematic in the regions where the one-loop validation fails (e.g., by
  2. [Section 4.1 and Conclusions] The fixed-order validation against Matrix in Section 4.1 is performed with H^(2)=0 in both codes. This is an important and valid test of the MiNNLOPS machinery, but it does not test the CA of the two-loop amplitude. The conclusions correctly describe the Matrix comparison as a validation of the MiNNLOPS method, but the abstract and the conclusions may leave readers with the impression that the two-loop approximation itself has been benchmarked at NNLO. Please state explicitly that the two-loop CA is validated only indirectly, through one-loop comparisons, and that the two-loop uncertainty is an estimate rather than a measured coverage.
  3. [Section 4.4 vs Section 3.2] In Section 3.2 the authors argue that an a posteriori combination of the two approximations is problematic because the underlying Born kinematics cannot be unambiguously reconstructed after showering. However, in Section 4.4 the decayed simulations are described as first generating on-shell weights with H^(2)=0 and then including the hard two-loop contribution 'via an a posteriori reweighting' after off-shell event construction. Please clarify how this reweighting is compatible with the pointwise philosophy, or specify that the reweighting is performed using the on-shell Born kinematics of each event before the off-shell projection. This is not necessarily an error, but it needs explanation to avoid an apparent contradiction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10) and Eq. (16)] The definition of H^(n)_SA uses mu_R = fM while H^(n)_MA uses mu_R = M, and the notation fM and M is introduced only in Section 3.2. Please define these projected scales already in Section 3.1 to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 3.2] The parameter tau in the weight function omega = exp(-tau pT,H/mt) is an ad-hoc interpolation parameter; its central value tau=1 and the factor-of-two variation are motivated empirically by one-loop studies. I suggest stating explicitly that tau is not derived from first principles and that the one-loop validation is the only evidence for the chosen range.
  3. [Figure 6 and similar] In the lower panels, the curve labelled 'MiNNLOPS (H^(2)=0)' is actually the ratio of the complete MiNNLOPS result to the H^(2)=0 result, but the legend appears to label the curve as if it were a separate prediction. Please adjust captions or legends to make clear that the lower panel is a ratio.
  4. [Throughout] The text switches between 'a posteriori' and 'pointwise' combination; in the decayed simulations, the phrase 'a posteriori reweighting' is used in a different sense from Section 3.2. Consider using a different term, such as 'event reweighting', to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the two-loop approximation is imported from external factorization/massification results, the CA interpolation is explicit, and the NNLO+PS machinery is validated against fixed order with H(2)=0.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The two-loop input is built from two external approximations: the soft-Higgs factorization of Ref. [35] (Eq. (9)) and the massification formula of Eq. (11), with the massless two-loop remainder taken from Refs. [92,93]. The combined approximation (CA) in Eq. (18) is an explicit pointwise interpolation omega*H_SA + (1-omega)*H_MA with omega = exp(-tau pT,H/mt) in Eq. (20). No equation in Section 3 inverts a target prediction to infer these inputs. The two-loop uncertainty is a stated prescription rather than a fitted result: an eleven-point envelope over eta and tau plus (1 +/- delta) H_CA(2) (Section 3.2). The one-loop validation is not presented as independent of the choice of omega - the paper says "We performed a comprehensive differential study to validate the different options at one-loop level, finding that this choice yields the best agreement with the exact results" (Section 3.2) - and it explicitly admits that the CA band is "visibly underestimated" for pT,H <~ 30 GeV and that a "tiny, subdominant region at small m_ttH" is not covered (Section 3.3). This is an extrapolation/robustness caveat, not a circular reduction. The MiNNLOPS framework is cited from the authors' prior work, but the implementation is benchmarked in this paper against fixed-order Matrix predictions with H(2)=0 (Section 4.1, Table 2), so the NNLO+PS claim does not reduce to a self-citation. The only mild concern is that the functional form/tuning of omega is selected using the same one-loop data used for validation, which slightly weakens the one-loop validation as independent evidence but does not make the NNLO result equivalent to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The NNLO+PS predictions rely on standard QCD inputs (PDFs, alpha_s, matrix elements), the MiNNLOPS formalism extended to Q-bar-Q-F, and two domain approximations for the missing two-loop amplitude. No genuinely new physical entities are invented; the genuinely ad hoc elements are the exponential interpolation weight and the heuristic rescaling of the two-loop uncertainty by the one-loop discrepancy.

free parameters (4)
  • tau = 1 (default)
    Sharpness of the interpolation weight omega = exp(-tau pT,H/mt); default tau=1 chosen by a differential study against exact one-loop results (Section 3.2). Varied by a factor of 2 for the systematic band.
  • eta = 1 (default)
    IR-scale parameter in mu_IR = eta M for the combined hard-virtual coefficient; default eta=1, varied by a factor of 2 for the systematic band (Section 3.2). Not fit to data but a central-scale choice.
  • KQ = 0.25
    Resummation scale factor Q = KQ M in MiNNLOPS; standard setting inherited from the method, listed in Section 4; affects the transition to the fixed-order regime.
  • Q0 = 2 GeV
    IR cutoff in profiled renormalisation/factorisation scales to avoid the Landau singularity (Section 2); standard MiNNLOPS setting.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Soft-Higgs factorisation of the two-loop ttH finite remainder (Eq. 9)
    Underlies H2_SA; assumes the Higgs soft limit captures dominant two-loop virtual effects; from Refs [35,79-82].
  • domain assumption Massification relation between massive and massless finite remainders (Eq. 11)
    Underlies H2_MA; assumes power corrections O(mt/M) are negligible in the high-energy region; from Refs [83-87].
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential weight function omega = exp(-tau pT,H/mt) interpolates the two approximations
    The functional form and tau=1 are chosen ad hoc and validated at one loop; no derivation from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper One-loop discrepancy delta can be used to rescale the two-loop uncertainty (1 +/- delta) H2_CA
    Heuristic propagation of the one-loop error to the two-loop coefficient; assumes the two-loop approximation error scales like the one-loop error.
  • domain assumption External full-colour massless two-loop amplitude for q qbar H (Ref [93]) is correct
    Enters the massification procedure for H2_MA; the paper does not recompute it.
  • domain assumption Colour-space IR anomalous dimension Gamma and finite soft operator h-bar for Q-bar-Q-F are known and implemented
    Used in Eq. (7) and the RGE check Eq. (17); taken from Refs [68-73].
  • domain assumption MiNNLOPS extension to Q-bar-Q-F with a colour-singlet final state provides NNLO accuracy when the hard-virtual coefficient is exact
    The framework is from Refs [43-46]; validated here against Matrix with H2=0, but the formalism itself is assumed.
  • domain assumption On-shell top-Yukawa scheme conversion (Eqs. 12-15)
    From Refs [94]; required to combine the massless result (MS-bar Yukawa) with the massive on-shell scheme.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35990 in / 16620 out tokens · 153568 ms · 2026-08-02T18:40:21.725684+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study Higgs-boson production in association with a top-quark pair ($t\bar{t}H$) at hadron colliders and present the first matching of next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD corrections to parton showers using the MiNNLOPS method. For the two-loop amplitude, we employ two established approximations, based on the soft Higgs-boson and high-energy limits, respectively. For the first time, we also construct the latter in full colour and propose a pointwise combination of the two approximations across phase space. By assigning a conservative uncertainty estimate, which remains well below the perturbative uncertainties, we ensure robust and reliable differential predictions, explicitly validated at the one-loop level. Apart from the two-loop amplitude, all remaining ingredients of the MiNNLOPS calculation are included exactly. After thorough validation, we present a series of phenomenological results illustrating the impact of NNLO corrections and parton-shower effects. We consider fiducial predictions for the Higgs-boson decay into photons and include off-shell top-quark decays with tree-level spin correlations in both the dilepton and semileptonic channels. Our $t\bar{t}H$ MiNNLOPS generator is publicly available within the POWHEG framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.06143 by Chiara Savoini, Chiara Signorile-Signorile, Christian Biello, Marius Wiesemann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sample of Feynman diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sketch of the behaviour of the weight function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Predictions for the Higgs-boson transverse momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predictions for the pseudorapidity ηt¯ of the anti-top quark (left column), the separation ∆R η H,t in the (η − ϕ) plane between the Higgs boson and the top quark (central column), and the azimuthal angle separation ∆ϕt,t¯ between the top and anti-top quarks (right column). The layout is explained in the caption of figure 3. region, with residual shape distortions confined to the very forward region, where… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of MiNNLOPS, MiNLO′ and NNLO QCD predictions. See text for details. the MiNNLOPS prediction (dashed violet curve) with the MiNLO′ result (dotted grey curve) and the fixed-order Matrix prediction (solid blue curve). The lower panel shows the ratio to the MiNNLOPS prediction, which illustrates the impact of the NNLO corrections absent in MiNLO′ , as well as the resummation effects by the parton sh… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of NLO+PS and MiNNLOPS predictions. The latter is based on the CA prescription of the two-loop finite remainder, whose numerical impact is visible in the lowest panel of each plot, which shows the ratio to the MiNNLOPS result with H(2) = 0. The central panel shows the size of the NNLO corrections relative to the NLO+PS result. The lighter bands display the scale uncertainties, while the darker o… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of NLO+PS and MiNNLOPS predictions for ttH¯ production with H → γγ decay in the fiducial region defined in the main text. The lighter bands display the scale uncertainties, while the darker ones represent the systematic uncertainty assigned to the CA result. |yγγ| (central) of the diphoton system. The rightmost plot displays the invariant mass mγ1t of the leading photon and top quark. The latter… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of NLO+PS and MiNNLOPS predictions for Higgs-related observables in ttH¯ production with leptonic decays of the top quarks in the fiducial region defined in the main text. The lighter bands display the scale uncertainties, while the darker ones represent the systematic uncertainty assigned to the CA result. by non-perturbative QCD effects that could otherwise depolarise them prior to decay. As a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. NNLO+PS Higgs-pair production in MiNNLOPS

    hep-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0

    NNLO+PS matching for gluon-fusion Higgs pair production is implemented in MiNNLOPS with approximate top-mass effects, validated against fixed-order NNLO and compared to GENEVA, with results for decay channels and tril...

  2. Top-associated Higgs-boson production using perturbative fragmentation functions at next-to-leading-order

    hep-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Perturbative fragmentation functions reproduce the leading top-mass dependence of the exact NLO ttH cross section in the hybrid prescription at LHC energies.

  3. Top-associated Higgs-boson production using perturbative fragmentation functions at next-to-leading-order

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Perturbative fragmentation functions approximate ttH production at NLO and yield reliable results in the hybrid prescription at LHC energies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 103 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Nature607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Nature607, 60 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B784, 173 (2018), arXiv:1806.00425 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 231801 (2018), arXiv:1804.02610 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Cepeda et al., CERN Yellow Rep

    M. Cepeda et al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.7, 221 (2019), arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Altmann et al., ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, Vol

    J. Altmann et al., ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, Vol. 5/2025 (2025) arXiv:2506.15390 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS, CMS), (2025), arXiv:2504.00672 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    de Blas et al., (2025), 10.17181/CERN.35CH.2O2P, arXiv:2511.03883 [hep-ex]

    J. de Blas et al., (2025), 10.17181/CERN.35CH.2O2P, arXiv:2511.03883 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), (2026), arXiv:2602.18611 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    J. N. Ng and P. Zakarauskas, Phys. Rev. D29, 876 (1984)

    1984

  13. [13]

    Kunszt, Nucl

    Z. Kunszt, Nucl. Phys. B247, 339 (1984)

    1984

  14. [14]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, B. Plumper, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 201805 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, B. Plumper, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 653, 151 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  16. [16]

    Reina and S

    L. Reina and S. Dawson, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 201804 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

    Reina, S

    L. Reina, S. Dawson and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D65, 053017 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109066

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  18. [18]

    Dawson, L

    S. Dawson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D67, 071503 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0211438

    arXiv 2003

  19. [19]

    Dawson, C

    S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D68, 034022 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro, JHEP09, 065 (2014), arXiv:1407.0823 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Zhang, W.-G

    Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, C. Chen and L. Guo, Phys. Lett. B738, 1 (2014), arXiv:1407.1110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro, JHEP06, 184 (2015), arXiv:1504.03446 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro, JHEP07, 185 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)], arXiv:1804.10017 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Denner and R

    A. Denner and R. Feger, JHEP11, 209 (2015), arXiv:1506.07448 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Stremmer and M

    D. Stremmer and M. Worek, JHEP02, 196 (2022), arXiv:2111.01427 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Denner, J.-N

    A. Denner, J.-N. Lang, M. Pellen and S. Uccirati, JHEP02, 053 (2017), arXiv:1612.07138 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, JHEP03, 065 (2016), arXiv:1509.02780 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, B. D. Pecjak, A. Signer and L. L. Yang, JHEP03, 124 (2016), arXiv:1510.01914 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Yang, JHEP02, 126 (2017), arXiv:1611.00049 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Phys. Rev. D97, 114007 (2018), arXiv:1704.03363 [hep-ph]. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, R. Frederix, D. Pagani, B. D. Pecjak and I. Tsinikos, JHEP08, 039 (2019), arXiv:1907.04343 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Ju and L

    W.-L. Ju and L. L. Yang, JHEP06, 050 (2019), arXiv:1904.08744 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, D. Schwartl¨ ander, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 428 (2020), arXiv:2001.03031 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Catani, I

    S. Catani, I. Fabre, M. Grazzini and S. Kallweit, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 491 (2021), arXiv:2102.03256 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli and C. Savoini, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 111902 (2023), arXiv:2210.07846 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Devoto, M

    S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli and C. Savoini, JHEP03, 189 (2025), arXiv:2411.15340 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Balsach et al., (2025), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.10, arXiv:2503.15043 [hep-ph]

    R. Balsach et al., (2025), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.10, arXiv:2503.15043 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Febres Cordero, G

    F. Febres Cordero, G. Figueiredo, M. Kraus, B. Page and L. Reina, JHEP07, 084 (2024), arXiv:2312.08131 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Agarwal, G

    B. Agarwal, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, S. Y. Klein, J. Lang, V. Magerya and A. Olsson, JHEP05, 013 (2024), [Erratum: JHEP 06, 142 (2024)], arXiv:2402.03301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    G. Wang, T. Xia, L. L. Yang and X. Ye, JHEP07, 121 (2024), arXiv:2402.00431 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pittau and P. Torrielli, Phys. Lett. B701, 427 (2011), arXiv:1104.5613 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D91, 094003 (2015), arXiv:1501.04498 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    P. F. Monni, P. Nason, E. Re, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, JHEP05, 143 (2020), arXiv:1908.06987 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    P. F. Monni, E. Re and M. Wiesemann, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1075 (2020), arXiv:2006.04133 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Mazzitelli, P

    J. Mazzitelli, P. F. Monni, P. Nason, E. Re, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 062001 (2021), arXiv:2012.14267 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Mazzitelli, V

    J. Mazzitelli, V. Sotnikov and M. Wiesemann, Phys. Rev. D112, 056031 (2025), arXiv:2404.08598 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Lombardi, M

    D. Lombardi, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, JHEP06, 095 (2021), arXiv:2010.10478 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Lombardi, M

    D. Lombardi, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, JHEP11, 230 (2021), arXiv:2103.12077 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Mazzitelli, P

    J. Mazzitelli, P. F. Monni, P. Nason, E. Re, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, JHEP04, 079 (2022), arXiv:2112.12135 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Buonocore, G

    L. Buonocore, G. Koole, D. Lombardi, L. Rottoli, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, JHEP01, 072 (2022), arXiv:2108.05337 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Lombardi, M

    D. Lombardi, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, Phys. Lett. B824, 136846 (2022), arXiv:2108.11315 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Zanoli, M

    S. Zanoli, M. Chiesa, E. Re, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, JHEP07, 008 (2022), arXiv:2112.04168 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Gavardi, C

    A. Gavardi, C. Oleari and E. Re, JHEP09, 061 (2022), arXiv:2204.12602 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Haisch, D

    U. Haisch, D. J. Scott, M. Wiesemann, G. Zanderighi and S. Zanoli, JHEP07, 054 (2022), arXiv:2204.00663 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    J. M. Lindert, D. Lombardi, M. Wiesemann, G. Zanderighi and S. Zanoli, JHEP11, 036 (2022), arXiv:2208.12660 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Mazzitelli, A

    J. Mazzitelli, A. Ratti, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, Phys. Lett. B843, 137991 (2023), 33 arXiv:2302.01645 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Biello, A

    C. Biello, A. Sankar, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 479 (2024), arXiv:2402.04025 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Niggetiedt and M

    M. Niggetiedt and M. Wiesemann, Phys. Lett. B858, 139043 (2024), arXiv:2407.01354 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Biello, J

    C. Biello, J. Mazzitelli, A. Sankar, M. Wiesemann and G. Zanderighi, JHEP04, 088 (2025), arXiv:2412.09510 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Jeˇ zo and P

    T. Jeˇ zo and P. Nason, JHEP12, 065 (2015), arXiv:1509.09071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    Ebert, L

    M. Ebert, L. Rottoli, M. Wiesemann, G. Zanderighi and S. Zanoli, JHEP07, 085 (2024), arXiv:2402.00596 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, JHEP11, 070 (2007), arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  63. [63]

    Hamilton, P

    K. Hamilton, P. Nason, C. Oleari and G. Zanderighi, JHEP05, 082 (2013), arXiv:1212.4504 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [64]

    Hamilton, P

    K. Hamilton, P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, JHEP10, 155 (2012), arXiv:1206.3572 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    H. X. Zhu, C. S. Li, H. T. Li, D. Y. Shao and L. L. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 082001 (2013), arXiv:1208.5774 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    H. T. Li, C. S. Li, D. Y. Shao, L. L. Yang and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D88, 074004 (2013), arXiv:1307.2464 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [67]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Grazzini and A. Torre, Nucl. Phys.B890, 518 (2014), arXiv:1408.4564 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  68. [68]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 162001 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 199905 (2013)], arXiv:0901.0722 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [69]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, JHEP06, 081 (2009), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 024 (2013)], arXiv:0903.1126 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  70. [70]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D79, 125004 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 80, 109901 (2009)], arXiv:0904.1021 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  71. [71]

    Ferroglia, M

    A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Yang, JHEP11, 062 (2009), arXiv:0908.3676 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [72]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini and J. Mazzitelli, (2023), arXiv:2301.11786 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Devoto and J

    S. Devoto and J. Mazzitelli, (2025), arXiv:2509.17509 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Z. L. Liu and P. F. Monni, JHEP03, 096 (2025), arXiv:2411.13466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Z. L. Liu and P. F. Monni, (2025), arXiv:2511.23280 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Buonocore, S

    L. Buonocore, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, L. Rottoli and C. Savoini, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 231901 (2023), arXiv:2306.16311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Buonocore, S

    L. Buonocore, S. Devoto, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, L. Rottoli and C. Savoini, Phys. Rev. D107, 074032 (2023), arXiv:2212.04954 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Brancaccio, M

    C. Brancaccio, M. Czakon, T. Generet and M. Kr¨ amer, JHEP08, 145 (2021), arXiv:2106.06516 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B106, 292 (1976)

    1976

  80. [80]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.30, 711 (1979)

    1979

Showing first 80 references.