The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06059 · v1 · pith:NGVMJTLV · submitted 2026-07-07 · hep-ph

A resonance-aware MC@NLO QCD+EW-matched calculation of lepton-pair production

Lois Flower , Joanne Roper , Marek Sch\"onherr This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 17:43 UTCglm-5.2pith:NGVMJTLVrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification hep-ph
keywords MC@NLONLO QCD+EW matchingparton showerCatani-Seymour dipolesresonance-aware subtractionDrell-YanQED radiationZ boson resonance
0
0 comments X

The pith

First MC@NLO matching of QCD+EW corrections with interleaved parton shower

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

This paper presents the first automated matching of next-to-leading-order (NLO) calculations including both QCD and electroweak (EW) corrections to an interleaved QCD+QED parton shower, using the MC@NLO method built on Catani-Seymour dipoles. The core technical challenge is that when an intermediate particle like the Z boson is resonant (near its mass shell), the standard dipole formalism assigns recoil in ways that distort the resonance's virtuality distribution, introducing spurious higher-order terms. The authors develop a resonance-aware modification that switches between standard and resonance-factorised dipoles based on whether an emission is hard enough to resolve the resonance. They also introduce an additional Sudakov factor on H-events (the hard-emission correction events in MC@NLO) to control unphysical artifacts arising from uncancelled O(alpha_s * alpha) terms, where the large QCD Sudakov suppression distorts photon-related observables. The method is validated against fixed-order NLO QCD+EW calculations and against MC@NLO QCD combined with Yennie-Frautschi-Suura (YFS) soft-photon resummation, showing good agreement. Applied to Drell-Yan lepton-pair production at the LHC, the resonance-aware treatment corrects per-mille-level distortions in the dilepton mass distribution and percent-level changes in hard photon transverse momentum, with effects growing to 15% in the hardest photon tail.

Core claim

The central object is the resonance-aware dipole subtraction within the MC@NLO matching framework. The key mechanism is a dual-criterion switch: emissions with characteristic scale t much larger than the resonance width squared can resolve the resonance and factorise the process into separate production and decay subprocesses, while softer emissions cannot resolve it and use standard dipoles spanning the resonance. This is combined with a resonance measure Delta_r that determines whether the propagator virtuality is near the nominal mass shell. The authors show that this construction is finite in four dimensions (the difference between resonance-aware and standard dipoles is integrable), and

What carries the argument

Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction; MC@NLO matching with S-events (Born plus virtual plus integrated dipoles) and H-events (real emission minus dipoles); interleaved QCD+QED Sudakov form factor as a product of individual QCD and QED factors; resonance-aware dipoles switched by thresholds t_res and Delta_res; additional Sudakov factor on H-events (Eq. 2.17) to suppress unphysical O(alpha_s * alpha) artifacts; weighted veto algorithm for QED emission enhancement

If this is right

  • Drell-Yan predictions at the LHC and HL-LHC now have a complete NLO QCD+EW matched prediction with interleaved parton shower, removing per-mille-level resonance distortions that would otherwise be comparable to projected experimental uncertainties.
  • The resonance-aware dipole framework can be extended to processes with charged resonances like the W boson and top quark, though this requires new splitting functions where the charged resonance acts as emitter or spectator.
  • The additional Sudakov factor on H-events reduces negative-weight event fractions, improving computational efficiency of event generation for photon-sensitive observables.
  • The method provides a baseline for future NNLO QCD+EW matching to parton showers, where the interplay between resonance structure and higher-order radiation patterns will be even more intricate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the HL-LHC achieves per-mille-level experimental precision on Drell-Yan observables as projected, the resonance-aware correction described here would be a necessary ingredient rather than a refinement, since the uncorrected distortion is of the same order.
  • The observation that hard photon emissions are enhanced by up to 15% in the resonance-aware calculation suggests that measurements of hard photon spectra in Drell-Yan could be used to experimentally validate or constrain the resonance-aware dipole framework.
  • The factor-10 uncertainty band on t_res variations at low photon transverse momentum indicates that the resonance-aware scheme has an intrinsic parametric freedom that may need to be constrained by comparison with data or by a more principled derivation of the optimal threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The additional Sudakov factor applied to H-events is described as physically motivated but not formally proven to be the correct treatment of the O(alpha_s * alpha) terms it addresses; the authors argue it captures the dominant corrections but acknowledge it modifies the inclusive cross section beyond formal NLO accuracy.

What would settle it

If the resonance-aware dipole difference D^{a,res}_{ij,k} - D^a_{ij,k} were not finite in four dimensions, the numerical integration in Eq. 2.20 would fail and the entire subtraction scheme would be invalid. Additionally, if the additional Sudakov factor on H-events introduced biases larger than the O(alpha_s * alpha) terms it removes, photon observables would be systematically distorted rather than corrected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06059 by Joanne Roper, Lois Flower, Marek Sch\"onherr.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of all four dipole types. with the help of the splitting kernels, K𝑛 (Φ1) = ∑︁ 𝑎∈ {QCD,QED} K 𝑎 𝑛 (Φ1) , (2.3) encoding both QCD and QED splittings. In consequence, K QCD 𝑛 is of O (𝛼𝑠) while K QED 𝑛 is of O (𝛼). Conversely, the Sudakov form factor of the 𝑛-parton configuration, Δ𝑛 (𝑡, 𝑡′ ) = exp  − ∫ 𝑡 𝑡 ′ dΦ1 K𝑛 (Φ1)  = exp       − ∫ 𝑡 𝑡 ′ dΦ1 ∑︁ 𝑎∈ {QCD,QED} K 𝑎 𝑛 (Φ1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Diagrams of standard (left) and resonant-aware (right) subtraction terms and parton shower kernels. changes the definition of the H events of Eq. (2.15) to H sud 𝑛 (Φ𝑛+1) = H𝑛 (Φ𝑛+1) Δ𝑛 (𝑡𝑛, 𝑡𝑛+1) . (2.17) While this choice introduces terms beyond our formal accuracy, it serves to reduce the unphysical effects of the already present higher-order contributions. With this change, Eq. (2.16) becomes ⟨𝑂 𝛾 ⟩ = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diagrams of standard (left) and resonant-aware (right) subtraction terms and parton shower kernels in Drell￾Yan production in the quark-initiated channels with positive dipoles shown in red and negative in blue (the initial-final/final-initial dipoles would have the opposite sign for 𝑑-type quarks). The regimes are separated by the emission scale 𝑡res and 𝑍 boson virtuality Δres. The photon initiated chann… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observables for pp → 𝜈𝜈¯ at NLO QCD+EW compared to single-emission MC@NLO QCD+EW with S￾and H-events shown separately. MC@NLO events are further separated according to the term of Eqns. (2.14) and (2.15) that they are generated from. For convenience, we have defined S B = B𝑛 ⊗ F¯ 𝑛 and S 𝑎 = h V˜ 𝑎 𝑛 (Φ𝑛) + ∫ 𝑡𝑛 0 dΦ1 D 𝑎 𝑛 (Φ𝑛·Φ1) i ⊗ F¯ 𝑛. Considerations on photon splittings. Photon splittings, as discus… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observables for pp → 𝜈𝜈¯ at NLO QCD+EW compared to a full MC@NLO QCD+EW calculation as well as one truncated at the first emission. dominated by S-events which first exceed the fixed order result, by approximately 30% in the jet rate—this is the B¯ /B prefactor to the S-event emissions kernel—then display the characteristic Sudakov suppression as the scale of the emission, and likewise 𝑝⊥,𝑍, tends to zero.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observables for pp → 𝜈𝜈¯ calculated at MC@NLO QCD+EW, QCD, and EW. adding their four-momenta with those of all photons in a cone of 𝑅 = 0.1 around the bare electron. The leading dressed electron-positron pair is required to have an invariant mass 60 GeV ≤ 𝑚𝑒𝑒 ≤ 120 GeV, a transverse momentum 𝑝⊥,𝑒± ≥ 20 GeV, and rapidity −2.5 ≤ 𝜂𝑒 ± ≤ 2.5. We set all hard scales to the invariant mass of the dressed lepton p… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Observables for pp → 𝑒 + 𝑒 − at NLO QCD+EW compared to a full MC@NLO QCD+EW calculation, with and without a Sudakov applied to the H-events, as well as one truncated at a the first emission. Worse, the 𝑝⊥,𝛾 spectrum turns negative for 15 GeV ≲ 𝑝⊥,𝛾 ≲ 40 GeV. And while including the full parton shower evolution restores the rate to roughly those predicted at fixed-order, it exemplifies that the source of mo… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observables for pp → 𝑒 + 𝑒 − calculated at MC@NLO QCD+EW, MC@NLO QCD, and MC@NLO QCD+YFS, along with the same calculations using MC@NLOsud . NLO-parton-shower-matching in QCD only, with QED corrections to the 𝑍 → 𝑒 + 𝑒 − decay generated through the soft-photon resummation in the Yennie-Frautschi-Suura (YFS) scheme [30, 66], dubbed MC@NLO QCD+YFS and MC@NLOsud QCD+YFS. This soft-photon resummation provides … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observables for pp → 𝑒 + 𝑒 − calculated at NLO QCD+EW using standard Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction (black) and using resonance-aware dipoles (red and orange). We show variations of both 𝑡res and Δres. by QCD effects as these are the hardest emissions from the initial state, maximising recoil against the electron pair. A small impact originating in the description of final-state radiation off the lepton… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Observables for resonance aware pp → 𝑒 + 𝑒 − with MC@NLO QCD+EW with enhanced QED splittings in the first emission. We also show the average number of photons generated per event, with and without accounting for event weights. generation of MC@NLO S-events, for some constant enhance factor 𝑐, then correcting for this in the event weight, see Sec. 2.2. No enhancement to the subsequent parton shower is appl… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Observables for pp → 𝑒 + 𝑒 − calculated at MC@NLOsud QCD+EW standard dipoles and with resonance￾aware dipoles. We show variations of both 𝑡res and Δres. emission of our parton evolution in the following. 3.2 Resonance-aware parton-showered-matched predictions Having validated both the interleaved MC@NLOsud QCD+EW implementation and the resonance aware subtraction scheme, we now use these in tandem to make… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As we approach HL-LHC, there is a growing need for increased precision in theoretical predictions so that meaningful comparisons with experimental data can be made. It is no longer sufficient to include only QCD higher-order corrections, with EW effects becoming increasingly important. Even at hadron colliders, QED radiation provides large corrections to some observables. In this paper, we present the first automated matching of NLO QCD+EW to an interleaved QCD+QED parton shower using the MC@NLO matching method in the Catani-Seymour dipole formalism. When considering such a matched parton shower, the presence of resonances can lead to spurious higher order terms, originating in the recoil assignment, within the standard dipole construction. We therefore develop a resonance-aware modification to the MC@NLO algorithm that can be applied to QCD- and QED-singlet resonances. We validate our interleaved matching and its resonance-aware modification against fixed-order NLO QCD+EW and pure MC@NLO QCD combined with YFS resummation. Finally, we present resonance-aware MC@NLO QCD+EW predictions for Drell-Yan lepton pair production, a vital precision process at hadron colliders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first automated matching of NLO QCD+EW corrections to an interleaved QCD+QED parton shower using the MC@NLO method in the Catani-Seymour dipole formalism, implemented within the SHERPA framework. The authors extend the standard MC@NLO algorithm with a resonance-aware modification applicable to colour- and charge-neutral resonances, which constrains dipoles spanning the resonance based on whether the emission can resolve it. The H-event definition is modified by an additional Sudakov factor (MC@NLO_sud) to mitigate uncontrolled O(alpha_s * alpha) artifacts arising from the interleaved QCD Sudakov suppression of QED H-events. The method is validated against fixed-order NLO QCD+EW calculations and against MC@NLO QCD combined with YFS soft-photon resummation, and phenomenological predictions for pp -> e+e- at the LHC are presented, showing per-mille-level distortions in the dilepton mass distribution and up to 15% changes in hard photon pT when the resonance-aware treatment is applied.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important problem for HL-LHC precision physics: the consistent matching of NLO QCD+EW corrections to interleaved parton showers in the presence of resonances. The implementation within the automated SHERPA+OPENLOOPS framework, using Catani-Seymour dipoles, is a concrete and reproducible deliverable. The resonance-aware dipole construction and the H-event Sudakov modification are both validated through parameter variation scans (t_res, Delta_res) and cross-checks against fixed-order and YFS results. The identification and resolution of unphysical artifacts (negative cross sections, cusps) in the standard MC@NLO formulation when applied to interleaved QCD+QED evolution is a valuable contribution. The phenomenological claims are falsifiable and quantified with uncertainty bands.

major comments (1)
  1. Eq. (2.17) and surrounding text (Sec. 2.2): The additional Sudakov factor applied to H-events modifies the inclusive cross section by O(alpha_s * alpha). The authors justify this by stating the introduced Sudakov factors are 'the dominant O(alpha_s * alpha) corrections expected in that region' citing Refs. [40, 41]. However, Refs. [40, 41] address Sudakov factors in the context of MEPS@NLO multi-jet merging, not mixed QCD x EW corrections in Drell-Yan specifically. While the physical motivation is reasonable, the claim that these are 'the dominant' O(alpha_s * alpha) corrections is not formally established for this context. The cancellation in Eq. (2.18) between the barred Sudakov and the injected Delta relies on both being 'similar enough,' i.e., on the leading-colour, spin-averaged shower approximation being adequate. The authors should clarify the scope of this claim: either soften 'd
minor comments (6)
  1. Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.9): The choice of infrared cutoffs, particularly t_c^{FS,QED} = 10^{-6} GeV^2, is motivated but the impact of this specific value on the photon spectrum (Fig. 7, lower left) could be briefly commented on. How sensitive are the pT_gamma distributions to this cutoff?
  2. Fig. 9 caption: 'Resonance aware, tres = Gamma_Z^2 Delta_res = 10' appears to be missing a line break or separator between the t_res and Delta_res values.
  3. Sec. 3.1: The statement 'the parton shower infrared cutoff appears is now clearly visible' contains a grammatical error ('appears is').
  4. Fig. 11, right panel: The factor-10 variation band for t_res becomes very large near pT_gamma ~ 1 GeV. The text notes that results are 'not expected to be entirely reliable with very low t_res.' It would help to indicate which variation drives the band (presumably the downward variation to t_res = (Gamma_Z/10)^2) directly in the figure legend or caption for clarity.
  5. Sec. 2.3, Eq. (2.21): The Breit-Wigner approximation used for the Born weight in H-event clustering is stated to be applied 'regardless of the value of t_{n+1}'. A brief comment on the size of the error introduced by this approximation, particularly for non-resonant topologies, would strengthen the discussion.
  6. References [12] and [37] appear to be by one of the current authors (L. Flower) and are cited for the core interleaved QED shower and MC@NLO EW matching framework. This is standard practice for building on prior work, but the authors should ensure that the novelty of the present manuscript relative to Ref. [12] is clearly delineated in the introduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and positive assessment of our work. The referee raises one major comment concerning the scope of the claim that the Sudakov factors introduced in the MC@NLO_sud construction are 'the dominant' O(alpha_s * alpha) corrections, given that the cited references [40, 41] address MEPS@NLO multi-jet merging rather than mixed QCD×EW corrections in Drell-Yan specifically. We agree that the wording should be softened and the scope clarified.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Eq. (2.17) and surrounding text (Sec. 2.2): The additional Sudakov factor applied to H-events modifies the inclusive cross section by O(alpha_s * alpha). The authors justify this by stating the introduced Sudakov factors are 'the dominant O(alpha_s * alpha) corrections expected in that region' citing Refs. [40, 41]. However, Refs. [40, 41] address Sudakov factors in the context of MEPS@NLO multi-jet merging, not mixed QCD x EW corrections in Drell-Yan specifically. While the physical motivation is reasonable, the claim that these are 'the dominant' O(alpha_s * alpha) corrections is not formally established for this context. The cancellation in Eq. (2.18) between the barred Sudakov and the injected Delta relies on both being 'similar enough,' i.e., on the leading-colour, spin-averaged shower approximation being adequate. The authors should clarify the scope of this claim: either soften 'd

    Authors: We thank the referee for this comment and agree that the wording should be clarified. The referee is correct that Refs. [40, 41] address Sudakov factors in the context of MEPS@NLO multi-jet merging, not mixed QCD×EW corrections in Drell-Yan specifically. Our citation was intended to reference the general technique of injecting Sudakov factors to control higher-order artifacts in matched calculations, not to claim a formal proof of dominance for the Drell-Yan mixed-order case. We will revise the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we will soften the claim from 'the dominant O(alpha_s * alpha) corrections expected in that region' to a more precise statement that the injected Sudakov factors capture the leading logarithmic O(alpha_s * alpha) contributions in the soft/collinear regime where the shower approximation is valid, and that they are physically motivated by the same resummation logic underlying the MEPS@NLO construction of [40, 41]. We will also add an explicit statement that a formal proof of completeness of the O(alpha_s * alpha) correction is beyond the scope of this work, and that the adequacy of the cancellation in Eq. (2.18) is instead validated empirically through the comparisons presented in Sec. 3.1 — in particular, the agreement with the YFS-resummed calculation (Fig. 8) and the removal of unphysical artifacts (negative cross sections, cusps) demonstrated in Fig. 7. Regarding the reliance on the leading-colour, spin-averaged shower approximation: we agree this is a limitation and will add a sentence noting that the quality of the cancellation depends on the shower approximation being adequate, which is supported by the validation results but not formally proven. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; self-citations are framework references validated against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the interleaved MC@NLO QCD+EW matching, the H-event Sudakov modification (Eq. 2.17), and the resonance-aware dipole subtraction (Eq. 2.19)—are new algorithmic contributions validated against external benchmarks: fixed-order NLO QCD+EW (Fig. 7), MC@NLO QCD+YFS resummation (Fig. 8), and parameter-stability variations (Figs. 9, 11). The self-citations to SHERPA framework papers ([12, 13, 27, 28, 29]) are standard tool references whose validity has been independently established in the literature; they are not invoked to forbid alternatives or to define the target result. The H-event Sudakov factor (Eq. 2.17) is introduced transparently as a physically motivated modification that changes the inclusive cross section by O(α_s α), and the paper explicitly states this is not formally proven—it is a phenomenological ansatz, not a circular derivation. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The predictions in Sec. 3.2 are genuine comparisons between resonance-aware and standard treatments, not fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The only minor concern is that the resonance-aware phenomenological effects in Fig. 11 lack fully independent external validation (YFS does not include ISR-FSR interference dipoles), but this is a correctness/validation gap, not circularity. Score 1 reflects the presence of self-citations that are not load-bearing for the central claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The free parameters are algorithmic choices (cutoffs, resonance thresholds) rather than physical constants fitted to data. The ad-hoc axioms are approximations within the MC@NLO framework, not new physical postulates.

free parameters (6)
  • Δ_res = 2 to 10
    Parameter defining whether a propagator is resonant based on |√s_r - m_r|/Γ_r. Varied in validation (Fig. 9, 11). Not fitted to data but chosen by hand based on prior work [19,33].
  • t_res = ~Γ²_Z
    Scale delineating whether an emission can resolve the resonance, chosen of order Γ²_r. Varied in validation (Fig. 9, 11). Not fitted to data.
  • t_c^IS,QCD = 3 GeV²
    Infrared cutoff for initial-state QCD splittings, motivated by PDF validity region.
  • t_c^FS,QCD = 1 GeV²
    Infrared cutoff for final-state QCD splittings.
  • t_c^IS,QED = 3 GeV²
    Infrared cutoff for initial-state QED splittings.
  • t_c^FS,QED = 10⁻⁶ GeV²
    Infrared cutoff for final-state QED splittings, set to m_e² scale.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Catani-Seymour dipole factorization in the soft-collinear limit
    Standard NLO subtraction formalism [14,15] used throughout Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption Large-N_c limit for QCD color correlators
    Used in Eq. 2.6 to cast color correlators into scalar form for the parton shower.
  • domain assumption Factorization of resonance production and decay for hard emissions when the propagator is near on-shell
    Core assumption in Sec. 2.3 enabling resonance-aware subtraction; justified by Γ/m suppression [46].
  • ad hoc to paper The additional Sudakov factor on H-events (Eq. 2.17) approximates the dominant O(α_s α) corrections
    Introduced in Sec. 2.2 to mitigate unphysical artifacts. Stated as physically motivated but not formally derived; validated empirically in Fig. 7-8.
  • ad hoc to paper Breit-Wigner approximation for Born weight in H-event clustering
    Eq. 2.21 uses a Breit-Wigner shape to approximate the matrix element for clustering history selection, replacing the exact (computationally expensive) Born.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 34726 in / 3227 out tokens · 496828 ms · 2026-07-08T17:43:24.524753+00:00 · methodology

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

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 60 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A New Method for Combining NLO QCD with Shower Monte Carlo Algorithms

    P. Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004), 040, [hep-ph/0409146]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber,Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations, JHEP06 (2002), 029, [hep-ph/0204244]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Matching NLO QCD with parton shower in Monte Carlo scheme - the KrkNLO method

    S. Jadach, W. Płaczek, S. Sapeta, A. Siódmok and M. Skrzypek,Matching NLO QCD with parton shower in Monte Carlo scheme — the KrkNLO method, JHEP10(2015), 052, [arXiv:1503.06849[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    P.NasonandG.P.Salam,Multiplicative-accumulativematchingofNLOcalculationswithpartonshowers,JHEP 01(2022), 067, [arXiv:2111.03553[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, J. Helliwell, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez and S. Zanoli,Logarithmically-accurate and positive-definite NLO shower matching, JHEP10(2025), 038, [arXiv:2504.05377[hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Combining NLO QCD and Electroweak Radiative Corrections to W boson Production at Hadron Colliders in the POWHEG Framework

    C. Bernaciak and D. Wackeroth,Combining NLO QCD and Electroweak Radiative Corrections to W boson Pro- ductionatHadronCollidersinthePOWHEGFramework,Phys.Rev.D85(2012),093003,[arXiv:1201.4804 [hep-ph]]. 20

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Neutral current Drell-Yan with combined QCD and electroweak corrections in the POWHEG BOX

    L. Barze, G. Montagna, P. Nason, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini and A. Vicini,Neutral current Drell-Yan with combined QCD and electroweak corrections in the POWHEG BOX, Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013), no. 6, 2474, [arXiv:1302.4606[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    L.Barze,G.Montagna,P.Nason,O.NicrosiniandF.Piccinini,Implementationofelectroweakcorrectionsinthe POWHEG BOX: single W production, JHEP04(2012), 037, [arXiv:1202.0465[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    Resonance-improved parton-shower matching for the Drell-Yan process including electroweak corrections

    A. Mück and L. Oymanns,Resonace-improved parton-shower matching for the Drell-Yan process including electroweak corrections, JHEP05(2017), 090, [arXiv:1612.04292[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    NLO QCD+NLO EW corrections to diboson production matched to parton shower

    M. Chiesa, C. Oleari and E. Re,NLO QCD+NLO EW corrections to diboson production matched to parton shower,arXiv:2005.12146[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    F.Granata,J.M.Lindert,C.OleariandS.Pozzorini,NLOQCD+EWpredictionsforHVandHV+jetproduction including parton-shower effects, JHEP09(2017), 012, [arXiv:1706.03522[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Flower and M

    L. Flower and M. Schönherr,𝑒+𝑒− →𝑍 𝐻at NLO EW matched to a QED parton shower,arXiv:2603.05585 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert,A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP09 (2012), 049, [arXiv:1111.1220[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    A General Algorithm for Calculating Jet Cross Sections in NLO QCD

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour,A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD, Nucl. Phys. B485(1997), 291–419, [arXiv:hep-ph/9605323[hep-ph]], [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B510,503(1998)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    The Dipole Formalism for Next-to-Leading Order QCD Calculations with Massive Partons

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour and Z. Trocsanyi,The Dipole formalism for next-to-leading order QCD calculations with massive partons, Nucl. Phys.B627(2002), 189–265, [arXiv:hep-ph/0201036[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    SHERPA 1.alpha, a proof-of-concept version

    T. Gleisberg, S. Höche, F. Krauss, A. Schälicke, S. Schumann and J.-C. Winter,SHERPA 1. alpha: A Proof of concept version, JHEP02(2004), 056, [hep-ph/0311263]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    Event generation with SHERPA 1.1

    T. Gleisberg, S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, S. Schumann, F. Siegert and J. Winter,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP02(2009), 007, [arXiv:0811.4622[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  18. [18]

    Bothmann et al.,Event Generation with SHERPA 2.2, 2019

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event Generation with SHERPA 2.2, 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Event generation with Sherpa 3

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    On the Treatment of Resonances in Next-to-Leading Order Calculations Matched to a Parton Shower

    T. Ježo and P. Nason,On the Treatment of Resonances in Next-to-Leading Order Calculations Matched to a Parton Shower, JHEP12(2015), 065, [arXiv:1509.09071[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Off-shell single-top production at NLO matched to parton showers

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, A. S. Papanastasiou, S. Prestel and P. Torrielli,Off-shell single-top production at NLO matched to parton showers, JHEP06(2016), 027, [arXiv:1603.01178[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    T. Ježo, J. M. Lindert and S. Pozzorini,Resonance-aware NLOPS matching for off-shell𝑡𝑡+ tW production with semileptonic decays, JHEP10(2023), 008, [arXiv:2307.15653[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    S.Frixione, Z.KunsztandA.Signer,Threejetcross-sectionstonext-to-leadingorder, Nucl.Phys.B467(1996), 399–442, [arXiv:hep-ph/9512328[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  24. [24]

    Resonance-aware subtraction in the dipole method

    S. Höche, S. Liebschner and F. Siegert,Resonance-Aware Subtraction in the Dipole Method, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019), no. 9, 728, [arXiv:1807.04348[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Resonance-aware parton-shower matching for off-shell top-antitop production with semi-leptonic decays at electron-positron colliders

    A. Denner, D. Lombardi, M. Pellen and G. Pelliccioli,Resonance-aware parton-shower matching for off-shell top-antitop production with semi-leptonic decays at electron-positron colliders,arXiv:2602.22046[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Resonance- and Width-aware Parton Shower Evolution and NLO Matching

    S. Höche and D. Reichelt,Resonance- and Width-aware Parton Shower Evolution and NLO Matching, arXiv:2604.13978[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    S.SchumannandF.Krauss,APartonshoweralgorithmbasedonCatani-Seymourdipolefactorisation,JHEP03 (2008), 038, [arXiv:0709.1027[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Hard photon production and matrix-element parton-shower merging

    S. Höche, S. Schumann and F. Siegert,Hard photon production and matrix-element parton-shower merging, Phys. Rev. D81(2010), 034026, [arXiv:0912.3501[hep-ph]]. 21

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    An automated subtraction of NLO EW infrared divergences

    M. Schönherr,An automated subtraction of NLO EW infrared divergences, Eur. Phys. J.C78(2018), no. 2, 119, [arXiv:1712.07975[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    D. R. Yennie, S. C. Frautschi and H. Suura,The infrared divergence phenomena and high-energy processes, Annals Phys.13(1961), 379–452

    work page 1961

  31. [31]

    A General Approach To Photon Radiation Off Fermions

    S. Dittmaier,A general approach to photon radiation off fermions, Nucl. Phys.B565(2000), 69–122, [arXiv:hep-ph/9904440[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Polarized QED splittings of massive fermions and dipole subtraction for non-collinear-safe observables

    S.Dittmaier,A.KabelschachtandT.Kasprzik,PolarizedQEDsplittingsofmassivefermionsanddipolesubtrac- tion for non-collinear-safe observables, Nucl. Phys.B800(2008), 146–189, [arXiv:0802.1405[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

    S.Kallweit,J.M.Lindert,S.PozzoriniandM.Schönherr,NLOQCD+EWpredictionsfor2ℓ2𝜈dibosonsignatures at the LHC, JHEP11(2017), 120, [arXiv:1705.00598[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Plätzer, Simon and Sjödahl, Malin,The Sudakov Veto Algorithm Reloaded, Eur. Phys. J. Plus127(2012), 26, [arXiv:1108.6180[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Fooling Around with the Sudakov Veto Algorithm

    L. Lönnblad,Fooling Around with the Sudakov Veto Algorithm, Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013), no. 3, 2350, [arXiv:1211.7204[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    C.Bierlichetal.,AcomprehensiveguidetothephysicsandusageofPYTHIA8.3,arXiv:2203.11601[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    L. P. Flower,Automated inclusion of QED corrections in Monte Carlo event generators, Ph.D. thesis, Durham U., Durham U., IPPP, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    On the Impact of Lepton PDFs

    V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, D. Pagani and M. Zaro,On the Impact of Lepton PDFs, JHEP11(2015), 194, [arXiv:1508.07002[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    Leptons in the Proton

    L. Buonocore, P. Nason, F. Tramontano and G. Zanderighi,Leptons in the proton, JHEP08(2020), no. 08, 019, [arXiv:2005.06477[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    S.Höche,F.Krauss,M.SchönherrandF.Siegert,QCDmatrixelements+partonshowers: TheNLOcase,JHEP 04(2013), 027, [arXiv:1207.5030[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    NLO QCD matrix elements + parton showers in e+e- -> hadrons

    T. Gehrmann, S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert,NLO QCD matrix elements + parton showers in𝑒 +𝑒− —>hadrons, JHEP01(2013), 144, [arXiv:1207.5031[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    On the reduction of negative weights in MC@NLO-type matching procedures

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, S. Prestel and P. Torrielli,On the reduction of negative weights in MC@NLO-type matching procedures, JHEP07(2020), 238, [arXiv:2002.12716[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Reducing negative weights in Monte Carlo event generation with Sherpa

    K. Danziger, S. Höche and F. Siegert,Reducing negative weights in Monte Carlo event generation with Sherpa, arXiv:2110.15211[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    V. A. Khoze, W. J. Stirling and L. H. Orr,Soft gluon radiation in e+ e- —>t anti-t, Nucl. Phys. B378(1992), 413–442, DTP-92-14, UCD-92-05

    work page 1992

  45. [45]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, L. H. Orr and W. J. Stirling,Properties of soft radiation near𝑡¯𝑡and𝑊 −𝑊 − threshold, Nucl. Phys. B403(1993), 65–100, [hep-ph/9302250]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  46. [46]

    V. A. Khoze,Interconnection phenomena in W+ W- and t anti-t events,hep-ph/9805505

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    L.Basso,S.Dittmaier,A.HussandL.Oggero,TechniquesforthetreatmentofIRdivergencesindecayprocesses at NLO and application to the top-quark decay, Eur. Phys. J.C76(2016), no. 2, 56, [arXiv:1507.04676 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Uncertainties in NLO + parton shower matched simulations of inclusive jet and dijet production

    S. Höche and M. Schönherr,Uncertainties in next-to-leading order plus parton shower matched simulations of inclusive jet and dijet production, Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 094042, [arXiv:1208.2815[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    V.Bertone, S.Carrazza,N.P.HartlandandJ.Rojo,Illuminatingthephotoncontentoftheprotonwithinaglobal PDF analysis,arXiv:1712.07053[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    A.Buckley,J.Ferrando,S.Lloyd,K.Nordström,B.Page,M.Rüfenacht,M.SchönherrandG.Watt,LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era, Eur. Phys. J.C75(2015), no. 3, 132, [arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]]. 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Electroweak corrections to charged-current e+e- --> 4 fermion processes - technical details and further results

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and L. H. Wieders,Electroweak corrections to charged-current 𝑒+𝑒− →4fermion processes: Technical details and further results, Nucl. Phys.B724(2005), 247–294, [arXiv:hep-ph/0505042[hep-ph]], [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B854,504(2012)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  52. [52]

    On the direct determination of $\sin^2 \theta^\ell_{eff}$ at hadron colliders

    M. Chiesa, F. Piccinini and A. Vicini,Direct determination ofsin2 𝜃ℓ 𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 7, 071302, [arXiv:1906.11569[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    AMEGIC++ 1.0, A Matrix Element Generator In C++

    F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and G. Soff,AMEGIC++ 1.0: A Matrix element generator in C++, JHEP02(2002), 044, [arXiv:hep-ph/0109036[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  54. [54]

    Comix, a new matrix element generator

    T. Gleisberg and S. Höche,Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP12(2008), 039, [arXiv:0808.3674 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  55. [55]

    Automating dipole subtraction for QCD NLO calculations

    T. Gleisberg and F. Krauss,Automating dipole subtraction for QCD NLO calculations, Eur. Phys. J.C53(2008), 501–523, [arXiv:0709.2881[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    F.Cascioli,P.MaierhöferandS.Pozzorini,ScatteringAmplitudeswithOpenLoops,Phys.Rev.Lett.108(2012), 111601, [arXiv:1111.5206[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    NLO electroweak automation and precise predictions for W+multijet production at the LHC

    S. Kallweit, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierhöfer, S. Pozzorini and M. Schönherr,NLO electroweak automation and precisepredictionsforW+multijetproductionattheLHC,JHEP04(2015),012,[arXiv:1412.5157[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    F.Buccioni,J.-N.Lang,J.M.Lindert,P.Maierhöfer,S.Pozzorini,H.ZhangandM.F.Zoller,OpenLoops2,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 10, 866, [arXiv:1907.13071[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Collier: a fortran-based Complex One-Loop LIbrary in Extended Regularizations

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer,Collier: a fortran-based Complex One-Loop LIbrary in Extended Regu- larizations, Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017), 220–238, [arXiv:1604.06792[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    CutTools: a program implementing the OPP reduction method to compute one-loop amplitudes

    G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau,CutTools: A Program implementing the OPP reduction method to compute one-loop amplitudes, JHEP03(2008), 042, [arXiv:0711.3596[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  61. [61]

    OneLOop: for the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions

    A. van Hameren,OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions, Comput. Phys. Commun.182 (2011), 2427–2438, [arXiv:1007.4716[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  62. [62]

    Rivet user manual

    A. Buckley et al.,Rivet user manual, Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013), 2803–2819, [arXiv:1003.0694 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    Robust Independent Validation of Experiment and Theory: Rivet version 4 release note

    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]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    S.Catani,Y.L.Dokshitzer,M.H.SeymourandB.R.Webber,Longitudinallyinvariant𝐾 𝑡 clusteringalgorithms for hadron hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B406(1993), 187–224, CERN-TH-6775-93, LU-TP-93-2

    work page 1993

  65. [65]

    M.Cacciari,G.P.SalamandG.Soyez,FastJetUserManual,Eur.Phys.J.C72(2012),1896,[arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [66]

    Soft Photon Radiation in Particle Decays in SHERPA

    M. Schönherr and F. Krauss,Soft Photon Radiation in Particle Decays in SHERPA, JHEP12(2008), 018, [arXiv:0810.5071[hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  67. [67]

    Accurate simulation of W, Z and Higgs boson decays in Sherpa

    F. Krauss, J. M. Lindert, R. Linten and M. Schönherr,Accurate simulation of W, Z and Higgs boson decays in Sherpa, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 2, 143, [arXiv:1809.10650[hep-ph]]. 23

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019