Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

QED-enhanced PDF implications for the Higgs sector

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that adopting the LUX prescription for the photon PDF reduces the QED-PDF-dependent spread in NLO electroweak and photon-induced Higgs corrections to the per-mille level, leaving an overall 3-4% residual PDF variation drive

desk verdict Useful QED-PDF benchmark for Higgs cross sections, but the 'LUX stabilizes' claim needs a pre-LUX baseline or a softer wording. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06603 v1 pith:SAN3BFJS submitted 2025-08-08 hep-ph

Amanda M. Cooper-Sarkar , Thomas Cridge , T. J. Hobbs , Joey Huston , Pavel Nadolsky , Maximiliano Ponce-Chavez , Keping Xie This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords LUXphotonPDFQED-enhancedPDFsHiggsproductionHiggs-strahlungNLOelectroweakcorrectionsphoton-initiatedcontributionspartondistributionfunctionsPDF4LHC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that the way modern global PDF fits model the photon inside the proton is no longer a major source of uncertainty for LHC Higgs predictions. By comparing CT18, MSHT20, and NNPDF3.1/4.0 sets that include the LUX photon PDF, the authors find the QED- and electroweak-driven spread in Higgs production cross sections has shrunk to roughly 3-4%, and that differences among photon PDF implementations contribute only at the per-mille level. The remaining spread is traced to differences in the baseline QCD fits. If correct, it means the community can treat NLO electroweak corrections to Higgs-strahlung as essentially PDF-independent and estimate QED corrections by simple averaging, while the next big precision gain must come from improving the QCD parton distributions themselves.

What carries the argument

The central object is the LUXQED formula (Eq. 2.1), which expresses the photon PDF $x\gamma(x,\mu^2)$ as an integral over measured DIS structure functions $F_{2,L}$, turning the photon content of the proton into a quantity controlled by data rather than by fit assumptions. A second piece is the factorization ansatz of Eq. (4.1), $$d\sigma_{\rm QCD\times EW} = (1+\delta_{\rm EW})\,d\sigma_{\rm QCD} + d\sigma_\gamma,$$ which lets the authors combine NLO electroweak K-factors from HAWK with N3LO QCD total cross sections and treat the photon-initiated part additively.

What would settle it

Compute the complete NNLO QCD × NLO electroweak cross section for pp→W+H without the factorization ansatz of Eq. (4.1) and compare with the factorized prediction across pT up to 500 GeV; if the two deviate by more than ~1% in any bin, the per-mille PDF-independence conclusion for the electroweak corrections would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the LUX prescription for the photon PDF has removed the earlier large scatter among QED-enhanced PDF predictions for Higgs observables. For total cross sections (gg→H, VBFH, ZH, W±H), inclusion of QED effects consistently reduces the cross sections by roughly 0.5-1.5% relative to the corresponding QCD-only sets, and the full spread across all sets is ~3-4%, governed by baseline QCD fit differences. For pp→W+H with leptonic W decay, the virtual NLO electroweak corrections reduce the cross section by ~8%, photon-initiated graphs add back ~3-4%, and both pieces show only per-mille-level PDF dependence once LUX-based photon PDFs are used. T

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that NLO electroweak corrections factorize from the perturbative QCD contributions, as written in Eq. (4.1), so that one can multiply QCD cross sections by an electroweak K-factor and add the photon-initiated piece separately; if this factorization fails at the ~1% level, the per-mille PDF-independence conclusion would have to be revised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For total Higgs production cross sections, QED-enhanced PDFs from all three groups shift predictions down by 0.5-1.5% relative to QCD-only sets, with the size of the shift tracking the redistribution of gluon and quark momentum to the photon.
  • In pp→W+H, the photon-initiated contribution is ~3-4% of the NLO electroweak result and varies only at the per-mille level across the LUX-based PDF sets, so a single photon-PDF choice suffices for this correction.
  • The residual 3-4% spread in the full electroweak-corrected Higgs-strahlung cross sections originates in the baseline QCD fits, not in photon PDF modeling, so improving Higgs precision requires better QCD PDFs.
  • The proposed PDF4LHC21 QED reweighting, which averages QED shifts across CT, MSHT, and NNPDF, estimates QED corrections to 0.5-0.7% with an error smaller than omitting the QED corrections altogether.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the factorization ansatz of Eq. (4.1) holds only at the few-percent level rather than the per-mille level, the per-mille PDF-independence conclusion for NLO electroweak corrections could be an artifact of that ansatz; a full NNLO QCD × NLO electroweak calculation for W+H would test this directly.
  • The same benchmarking logic could be extended to other photon-sensitive LHC processes such as W/Z production or diphoton final states, where photon-initiated contributions are larger and the residual spread may be more visible.
  • A natural next step is a full PDF4LHC-style combination of QED-enhanced PDFs; the paper's finding that QED corrections vary little across groups suggests such a combination would be dominated by QCD-fit differences rather than photon modeling.
  • The strong correlation between gluon momentum loss and the gg→H cross-section reduction (slope ≈ 2) gives a simple diagnostic: measuring the gg→H rate more precisely would indirectly constrain how much momentum the photon takes from the gluon.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the impact of QED-enhanced PDFs (i.e., PDF sets including a photon density via the LUX formalism) on benchmark Higgs-production cross sections at the LHC: gluon fusion, VBF, and associated WH/ZH production, including a differential study of pp -> W+H at NLO electroweak accuracy using HAWK2.0. Using public codes (n3loxs, proVBFH-inclusive, HAWK2.0) and a range of recent CT18, MSHT20, and NNPDF QED PDF sets at NNLO and aN3LO, it finds that the inclusion of QED effects shifts total cross sections by roughly -0.5% to -1.5% relative to QCD-only baselines, that photon-initiated contributions to Higgs-strahlung are ~3-4% of the full NLO cross section but with a very small (per-mille-level) PDF dependence, and that the overall spread across QED-enhanced PDF sets remains ~3-4%, attributed mainly to baseline QCD differences. A simple PDF4LHC-style averaging prescription is proposed to estimate QED corrections to PDF4LHC21.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this provides a useful quantitative benchmark for the Higgs precision program: modern QED-enhanced PDFs are consistent on the QED side, so residual PDF variability is mostly a QCD-fit issue rather than a photon-PDF modeling issue. The paper is valuable as a side-by-side comparison of the most recent CT, MSHT, and NNPDF QED PDFs for important Higgs channels, and it uses well-established public codes with cross-checks against Ref. [37]. The proposed simple averaging for PDF4LHC21 is pragmatic, though approximate. The main conceptual claims—LUX adoption 'substantially reduced' the PDF spread, and NLO electroweak corrections have 'minimal PDF dependence'—are stated in the abstract and conclusion and need to be supported with the missing quantitative comparisons described below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2 and Conclusion] The central claim that 'the widespread adoption of the LUX prescription has substantially reduced the QED PDF-dependent spread' is not supported by the evidence presented. All eight QED PDF sets used in Table 2 and Figs. 6-8 already incorporate the LUXQED formula; no pre-LUX QED PDF set (e.g., NNPDF2.3QED or CT14QED-style treatments) is included or computed. The sentence in Sec. 4.2 that 'this relative agreement has emerged in the wake of adopting the LUX formalism' is a temporal correlation, not a demonstration of reduction. To support the causal claim, the authors would need either a quantitative pre-LUX vs. post-LUX comparison of the same observable, or a softened conclusion that merely reports the agreement among current LUX-based sets. As written, this is a load-bearing claim in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Eq. (4.1)] The factorization ansatz dsigma_QCDxEW = (1 + delta_EW) dsigma_QCD + dsigma_gamma is assumed rather than validated. This ansatz underlies the hybrid predictions in Table 2 (applying HAWK K-factors to n3loxs results) and the conclusion that NLO electroweak corrections have minimal PDF dependence. The paper itself says this is 'typically assumed' (Sec. 4). Since the paper targets percent-level precision, the validity of factorization should be tested at that level—for example, by comparing the full HAWK NLO QCD+EW result against the factorized prediction for a representative PDF set, or by showing that residual factorization-breaking effects are below ~1%. Without this, the per-mille PDF-independence claim for NLO EW corrections is not fully established.
  3. [Table 2 and Figs. 6-8] PDF uncertainties are quoted only for NNPDF3.1QED in the differential plots, and Table 2 lists no PDF uncertainties at all. As a result, the observed ~3-4% spread is not compared with the PDF error bands of CT18 and MSHT (or NNPDF4.0), making it unclear whether these differences are statistically significant relative to the uncertainties of the individual fits. This is directly relevant to the conclusion that the residual spread is dominated by baseline QCD differences. The authors should either include PDF uncertainties (or a representative subset) in the benchmark table and ratio plots, or explicitly state why the uncertainties are omitted and why the comparison is still meaningful.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3] In the bullet list of methodological variations, the phrase 'the scale at which the photon PDF is extracted' is not fully precise: Eq. (2.1) expresses the photon PDF as an integral over Q^2, and the 'scale' refers to the upper limit. Please clarify.
  2. [Table 1 and footnotes] The footnotes on CT18QEDproton and CT18LUX are slightly confusing because the momentum sum rule is stated in terms of different components (inelastic vs. elastic). Consider adding a sentence in the main text explaining the physical interpretation of the total momentum being slightly above 1 in these two cases.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] In the discussion of Fig. 6, the phrase 'with the NNLO and aN3LO NNPDF4.0QED predictions yielding the largest and next-to-largest predictions' is ambiguous. Please specify which order (NNLO or aN3LO) yields the largest prediction.
  4. [General] References to 'CT18 QEDproton' are sometimes written as 'CT18QEDproton' (e.g., Table 1 and Fig. 5 text) and sometimes with a space. Please unify the notation. Also, Ref. [35] appears as 'Les Houches 2025 Proceedings' with a placeholder arXiv number; please update.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper benchmarks existing public LUX-based PDF sets and does not fit parameters or redefine inputs as predictions.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitting stage and no parameter that is renamed as a prediction. It compares publicly available QED-enhanced PDF sets from CTEQ-TEA, MSHT, and NNPDF using external public codes (n3loxs, proVBFH-inclusive, HAWK2.0) and standard benchmark cross sections. The factorization ansatz in Eq. (4.1) is explicitly introduced as an assumption ('it is typically assumed...') and is not derived from the data, so it is not a circular reduction. The averaging prescription in Eq. (4.4) is labeled an approximation and is not used to derive the main claims about PDF spread; it is an explicit reweighting of existing results. Authors overlap with CTEQ-TEA and MSHT, and the paper cites their own PDF analyses, but the central comparison also includes independent NNPDF sets and the LUX formalism is cited to external original papers (Manohar et al.). These citations are supported by public, reproducible PDF releases. The main caveat—the claim that LUX adoption 'substantially reduced' the PDF spread—is stated without a pre-LUX baseline, since all eight QED PDF sets already implement the LUX formalism. This is a strength-of-evidence or causal-inference limitation, not a circularity: the observed agreement among current sets is measured, not assumed, and the causal attribution to LUX is not derived from the equations. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. Its central results are comparisons of publicly available PDF sets using public codes. The main assumptions are the LUX relation for the photon PDF, the factorization of electroweak and QCD corrections, the reliability of the external PDF fits, and the correctness of HAWK2.0. One hand-chosen input, the equal-weight averaging in the PDF4LHC QED prescription, is explicitly acknowledged as an approximation.

free parameters (1)
  • PDF4LHC QED averaging weights (w_CT, w_MSHT, w_NNPDF) = 1/3, 1/3, 1/3
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (4.4) to estimate QED corrections from group-level shifts; not derived from a fit or from the PDF4LHC combination. The text argues alternative choices would not change results appreciably.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The LUX formalism correctly relates the photon PDF to measured F2 and FL structure functions (Eq. 2.1).
    The paper's comparisons presuppose this relation and the control of low-Q contributions to the photon PDF; it is cited to Refs. [10,11] and not rederived.
  • domain assumption NLO electroweak corrections factorize from QCD corrections: dsigma_QCDxEW = (1+delta_EW) dsigma_QCD + dsigma_gamma (Eq. 4.1).
    Load-bearing for combining n3loxs total cross sections with HAWK K-factors and for interpreting electroweak corrections as PDF-independent; the paper calls it 'typically assumed'.
  • domain assumption QED DGLAP evolution effects factorize from the QCD order, so QED corrections can be combined with NNLO or aN3LO QCD predictions.
    Invoked in Sec. 4 to justify comparing NNLO and aN3LO QED PDFs; based on the prior observation cited as Ref. [8].
  • domain assumption The public QED-enhanced PDF ensembles (CT18, MSHT20, NNPDF3.1/4.0) faithfully represent the proton, including the photon density.
    All comparisons inherit the global fits' data, fitting methodology, and theory assumptions; no re-fit is performed in this paper.
  • domain assumption HAWK2.0 computes the correct NLO electroweak corrections for W+H Higgs-strahlung.
    The differential results in Sec. 4.2 and the K-factors used for Table 2 rest on this public code, with validation against Ref. [37].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QED-enhanced PDF implications for the Higgs sector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAN3BFJS

@misc{pith2026250806603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QED-enhanced PDF implications for the Higgs sector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAN3BFJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06603}
}
abstract

In this work, we examine the implications of electroweak corrections beyond leading order for processes of special interest in the Higgs sector. We especially explore the role of these corrections given the introduction of an explicit parton distribution function (PDF) for the photon in the proton, an object which emerges necessarily in global PDF fits which include QED effects (i.e., QED-enhanced PDFs). We concentrate on several representative cases, including total Higgs-production cross sections through gluon fusion, $gg \to H$, vector-boson fusion (VBFH), and associated production, $pp \to VH$; we also examine differential distributions, taking a representative Higgs-strahlung process, $pp \to W^+H$. We find that the recently developed LUX formalism for the photon PDF significantly stabilizes the PDF dependence of both QED-PDF and electroweak corrections in the Higgs sector, while leaving overall $\sim\!3\!-\!4\%$ cross-section-level variations, depending on the chosen QED-enhanced PDF. We illustrate this QED-enhanced PDF dependence by exploring predictions based upon recent analyses of the CTEQ-TEA, MSHT, and NNPDF analysis groups, fitted either at NNLO or approximate N3LO in QCD.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Next-to-leading order QCD and electroweak corrections to Higgs-strahlung processes at the LHC,

    P. Obul, S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, A. Tursun, and N. Yalkun, “Next-to-leading order QCD and electroweak corrections to Higgs-strahlung processes at the LHC,” Chin. Phys. C 42 no. 9, (2018) 093105, arXiv:1801.06851 [hep-ph]. – 23 –

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Approximate N 3LO parton distribution functions with theoretical uncertainties: MSHT20aN 3LO PDFs,

    J. McGowan, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, and R. S. Thorne, “Approximate N 3LO parton distribution functions with theoretical uncertainties: MSHT20aN 3LO PDFs,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 no. 3, (2023) 185, arXiv:2207.04739 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 302 (2023)]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Quantifying the interplay of experimental constraints in analyses of parton distributions,

    X. Jing et al. , “Quantifying the interplay of experimental constraints in analyses of parton distributions,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 3, (2023) 034029, arXiv:2306.03918 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    The Impact of LHC Jet and $Z$ $p_T$ Data at up to Approximate N${}^3$LO Order in the MSHT Global PDF Fit

    T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, and R. S. Thorne, “The impact of LHC jet and Z pT data at up to approximate N 3LO order in the MSHT global PDF fit,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 4, (2024) 446, arXiv:2312.12505 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Les Houches 2023: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report,

    J. Andersen et al. , “Les Houches 2023: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report,” in Physics of the TeV Scale and Beyond the Standard Model: Intensifying the Quest for New Physics . 6, 2024. arXiv:2406.00708 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    The path to N 3LO parton distributions,

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al. , “The path to N 3LO parton distributions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 7, (2024) 659, arXiv:2402.18635 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    A Benchmarking of QCD Evolution at Approximate N 3LO,

    A. Cooper-Sarkar, T. Cridge, F. Giuli, L. A. Harland-Lang, F. Hekhorn, J. Huston, G. Magni, S. Moch, and R. S. Thorne, “A Benchmarking of QCD Evolution at Approximate N 3LO,” arXiv:2406.16188 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Combination of aN 3LO PDFs and implications for Higgs production cross-sections at the LHC,

    MSHT, NNPDF Collaboration, T. Cridge et al. , “Combination of aN 3LO PDFs and implications for Higgs production cross-sections at the LHC,” arXiv:2411.05373 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Combining QED and approximate N 3LO QCD corrections in a global PDF fit: MSHT20qed an3lo PDFs,

    T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, and R. S. Thorne, “Combining QED and approximate N 3LO QCD corrections in a global PDF fit: MSHT20qed an3lo PDFs,” SciPost Phys. 17 no. 1, (2024) 026, arXiv:2312.07665 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    NNPDF4.0 aN 3LO PDFs with QED corrections,

    A. Barontini, N. Laurenti, and J. Rojo, “NNPDF4.0 aN 3LO PDFs with QED corrections,” in 31st International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects . 6, 2024. arXiv:2406.01779 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    How bright is the proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function,

    A. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, “How bright is the proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 no. 24, (2016) 242002, arXiv:1607.04266 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    The Photon Content of the Proton,

    A. V. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, “The Photon Content of the Proton,” JHEP 12 (2017) 046, arXiv:1708.01256 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Photon PDF within the CT18 global analysis,

    CTEQ-TEA Collaboration, K. Xie, T. J. Hobbs, T.-J. Hou, C. Schmidt, M. Yan, and C. P. Yuan, “Photon PDF within the CT18 global analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 5, (2022) 054006, arXiv:2106.10299 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    The photon content of the neutron,

    CTEQ-TEA Collaboration, K. Xie, B. Zhou, and T. J. Hobbs, “The photon content of the neutron,” JHEP 04 (2024) 022, arXiv:2305.10497 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    QED parton distribution functions in the MSHT20 fit,

    T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, “QED parton distribution functions in the MSHT20 fit,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82 no. 1, (2022) 90, arXiv:2111.05357 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Photons in the proton: implications for the LHC,

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al. , “Photons in the proton: implications for the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 5, (2024) 540, arXiv:2401.08749 [hep-ph]. – 21 –

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    NNPDF progress and the path to proton structure at N3LO accuracy,

    A. Barontini, N. Laurenti, and J. Rojo, “NNPDF progress and the path to proton structure at N3LO accuracy,” PoS DIS2024 (2025) 039

    2025

  10. [17]

    Snowmass 2021 Whitepaper: Proton Structure at the Precision Frontier,

    S. Amoroso et al. , “Snowmass 2021 Whitepaper: Proton Structure at the Precision Frontier,” Acta Phys. Polon. B 53 no. 12, (2022) 12–A1, arXiv:2203.13923 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III,

    PDF4LHC W orking GroupCollaboration, R. D. Ball et al. , “The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III,” J. Phys. G 49 no. 8, (2022) 080501, arXiv:2203.05506 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    PDF4LHC21: Update on the benchmarking of the CT, MSHT and NNPDF global PDF fits,

    PDF4LHC21 combination group Collaboration, T. Cridge, “PDF4LHC21: Update on the benchmarking of the CT, MSHT and NNPDF global PDF fits,” SciPost Phys. Proc. 8 (2022) 101, arXiv:2108.09099 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ad Lucem: QED Parton Distribution Functions in the MMHT Framework,

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, R. Nathvani, and R. S. Thorne, “Ad Lucem: QED Parton Distribution Functions in the MMHT Framework,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79 no. 10, (2019) 811, arXiv:1907.02750 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,

    T.-J. Hou et al. , “New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 1, (2021) 014013, arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs,

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, “Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 no. 4, (2021) 341, arXiv:2012.04684 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, “LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 132, arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al. , “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 no. 10, (2017) 663, arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy,

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al. , “The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82 no. 5, (2022) 428, arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    NNPDF4.0 QED Website: https://nnpdf.mi.infn.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ NNPDF40_nnlo_as_01180_qcd.tar.gz

    2024

  20. [27]

    Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global PDF analysis,

    NNPDF Collaboration, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland, and J. Rojo, “Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global PDF analysis,” SciPost Phys. 5 no. 1, (2018) 008, arXiv:1712.07053 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Inclusive production cross sections at N3LO,

    J. Baglio, C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger, and R. Szafron, “Inclusive production cross sections at N3LO,” JHEP 12 (2022) 066, arXiv:2209.06138 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at N 3LO,

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, “Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at N 3LO,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 11, (2018) 114016, arXiv:1811.07906 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    HA WK 2.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs production in vector-boson fusion and Higgs strahlung at hadron colliders,

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. M¨ uck, “HA WK 2.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs production in vector-boson fusion and Higgs strahlung at hadron colliders,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 195 (2015) 161–171, arXiv:1412.5390 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,

    LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking Group Collaboration, D. de Florian et al. , “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,” arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]. – 22 –

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Higgs Boson Production and Decay at Hadron Colliders,

    M. Spira, “Higgs Boson Production and Decay at Hadron Colliders,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95 (2017) 98–159, arXiv:1612.07651 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    An Overview of Standard Model Calculations for Higgs Boson Production & Decay,

    S. P. Jones, “An Overview of Standard Model Calculations for Higgs Boson Production & Decay,” LHEP 2023 (2023) 442

    2023

  27. [34]

    Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at √s = 13.6 TeV,

    A. Karlberg et al. , “Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at √s = 13.6 TeV,” arXiv:2402.09955 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [35]

    Les Houches 2025 Proceedings,

    T. Cridge and J. M. Cruz-Martinez, “Les Houches 2025 Proceedings,” 2025. arXiv:25xx.xxxxx [hep-ph]

    2025

  29. [36]

    Trilinear Higgs coupling determination via single-Higgs differential measurements at the LHC,

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji, and X. Zhao, “Trilinear Higgs coupling determination via single-Higgs differential measurements at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 no. 12, (2017) 887, arXiv:1709.08649 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.