Two-loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays

A. Vicini; G. Degrassi; R. Bonciani; U. Aglietti

REVIEW

Two-loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays

U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi, A. Vicini

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 7 Apr 2004 · 24 references

Pith's verdict: A genuine first two-loop calculation with a secure 9% gluon-fusion number and a less secure -10% two-photon number that the abstract states without the caveat the text gives.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0404071 (version 1)

Pith IDIJDEHRMF, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA. Vicini, G. Degrassi, R. Bonciani, U. Aglietti. "Two-loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays." arXiv:hep-ph/0404071 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/IJDEHRMF

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, with one caveat about how the headline is sold. This is the first exact two-loop computation of the light-fermion electroweak corrections to gg → H, H → γγ, and H → gg, done as a straight Feynman-diagram evaluation: reduction to master integrals, differential equations in the external variables, closed analytic results in Eqs. (5), (6), (12), (13), with the generalized harmonic polylogarithms defined in Appendix A. The machinery is standard and the authors say they checked the gauge-invariance constraints explicitly. Nothing here is fitted or restated; it is a derivation, and the self-citations to Refs. [8] and [15] supply method and definitions that Appendix A reproduces, so I would not count those as a soft spot. The physics framing is also honest: they say repeatedly that light fermions are only a small piece of the electroweak corrections and that a full calculation is still needed. That is the right thing to say and they say it without hedging into uselessness. The two headline numbers do not have the same footing. The 9% gluon-fusion result is solid: A1[x] in Eq. (6) carries sqrt(1-4x) only in the numerator, so there is no spurious threshold singularity, and the 9% is a real cusp at mH = 2mW. The -10% in H → γγ is the soft spot. Eq. (13) has a 1/sqrt(1-4x) term that diverges at x = 1/4, regulated by hand with mW → mW - iΓW/2, and the regulator dependence is reported only qualitatively: 'less than 5%' above 165 GeV, 'insensitive' at 170 GeV, 'larger' below 150 GeV. No table of δ versus ΓW is given. The authors themselves write that for 150 ≲ mH ≲ 170 GeV the result should be taken with caution, and the -10% peak sits right at or just above the 2W threshold, i.e. in or next to that window. So the abstract's -10% is stated as firm while the text flags the region as unreliable; that is an abstract-versus-text mismatch, not a hidden flaw, and it is the one thing I would push on in review. Minor: all numerics are figure-only, so the 9% and -10% are read off plots. For a 2004 phenomenology paper that is normal, but a small table would cost nothing. Who should read it: anyone doing precision Higgs phenomenology at hadron colliders, and anyone who needs a worked example of GHPLs at two loops with mixed thresholds. It deserves a serious referee, mainly to pin down the regulator dependence quantitatively and to get the abstract caveat aligned with the text.

Referee report

Major objections (2)

[Abstract, sentence abstract:s3, versus the paragraph following Fig. 4] The abstract states without qualification that the Γ(H→γγ) correction 'for Higgs mass above 160 GeV can reach −10% of the lowest order term', whereas the text itself says that 'in the region 150 ≲ mH ≲ 170 GeV our result should be taken with some caution'. The −10% peak in Fig. 4 sits at or immediately adjacent to that window, so the abstract presents as a firm number a result that the body of the paper explicitly flags as unreliable in the region where it is largest. The abstract should carry the caveat, or the number should be quoted together with its estimated uncertainty. This is a load-bearing point because the −10% figure is one of the two headline results of the paper.
[Eq. (13) and the paragraph following Fig. 4] The 1/√(1−4x) term in Eq. (13) diverges at x = 1/4, and the divergence is regulated by the ad hoc replacement mW → mW − iΓW/2, which is a first-order insertion of the W width rather than a systematic resummation of the W propagator in the two-loop diagram. The regulator dependence is reported only qualitatively ('changes by less than 5%' above 165 GeV, 'insensitive' at 170 GeV, 'the variation is larger' below 150 GeV), with no table of δ versus ΓW/mW. A 5% variation is itself comparable to the size of the effect being claimed near threshold, so the reader cannot tell how much of the quoted −10% is physical and how much is regulator artifact. The authors should provide a quantitative table of δ at representative masses (for example 150, 160, 165, 170, 180 and 200 GeV) for at least two or three values of ΓW/mW spanning the range they quote, and should state explicitly the residual uncertainty on the −10% number. If such a bound cannot be established, the threshold-region numbers should be presented as indicative rather than as a prediction.

Minor objections (6)

[Eqs. (5) and (12)] The numerical coefficients 2c⁴(5/4 − 73s² + 229s⁴) and the analogous Z-boson coefficients in Eq. (12) depend on the definition adopted for s² = sin²θW. The paper should state explicitly which scheme is used (on-shell, MS-bar, or other), since a reader combining this subset with the rest of the electroweak corrections will need to know.
[Figs. 2 and 4] The numerical results are given only graphically. A short table of δ at representative Higgs masses (for example 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200 GeV) for both figures would let the numbers be quoted without digitizing the plots, and would make the comparison with the QCD corrections in Fig. 4 easier to check.
[Eq. (13)] The parameter q in A2[q, x] is not defined in the text. One sentence stating what q represents (the squared charge weighting of the fermion in the loop, with q = −2/9 for quarks and q = 0 for leptons) would make Eq. (12) readable without reverse-engineering it.
[Paragraph following Eq. (5)] For the third generation the paper includes only the Z-mediated contribution for the bottom quark, arguing that it is finite and gauge invariant by itself. A sentence explaining why the W-mediated bottom contribution is not part of this subset (for example, that it requires a flavour-changing W coupling and belongs to a different topology) would preempt the obvious question from a careful reader.
[Ref. [15] and Appendix A] The generalized harmonic polylogarithm machinery on which the analytic results rest is cited to Ref. [15], which is listed only as an arXiv preprint with no journal reference. The appendix does supply the definitions and the explicit expressions of the eleven GHPLs entering Eqs. (6) and (13), so the paper is self-contained enough to be followed, but the status of Ref. [15] should be updated if it has since appeared.
[Eq. (7)] The relation between Γ(H→gg) and σ(gg→H) is written in its lowest-order form. It would be worth one clause noting that the relation holds for the full form factor including the two-loop correction, so that the reader does not wonder whether the light-fermion correction to the width is being obtained from a tree-level relation applied beyond its validity.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The light-fermion two-loop electroweak corrections to Higgs production and to the $H$ to two-photon and two-gluon widths are computed exactly, and they turn out large enough to matter: up to 9% below 160 GeV for gluon fusion, and about $-10

The reading

The paper asks a narrow but practical question: how big is the piece of the electroweak correction to Higgs physics that comes from the light, essentially massless fermions running in two-loop diagrams? At one loop these fermions are negligible, because their coupling to the Higgs is proportional to their mass. At two loops they can dodge that suppression by attaching instead to a $W$ or $Z$ boson which then couples to the Higgs, so the authors compute exactly that subset for three processes: gluon fusion production $gg to H$, the decay $H to gg$, and the decay $H to gamma gamma$. The answer is that this subset is not negligible at all: it reaches about 9% of the one-loop result for gluon fusion and $H to gg$ in the Higgs-mass window below the $W$-pair threshold, and about $-10%$ for $H to gamma gamma$ above 160 GeV. Since the residual QCD uncertainty on gluon fusion is itself estimated below 10% in that region, a correction of this size has to be known before the LHC can turn a measured Higgs rate into a statement about new physics.

What carries the argument

The calculation is carried by a set of integrals the authors call Generalized Harmonic Polylogarithms (GHPLs). Ordinary harmonic polylogarithms are repeated integrals over the basis functions $1/(1+x)$, $1/x$ and $1/(1-x)$, and they suffice when a diagram's only thresholds sit at $0$ and $m^2$ or $0$ and $4m^2$. Here the relevant topologies develop thresholds at $q^2 = 0$, $m_W^2$ and $4m_W^2$, so the alphabet has to be enlarged with two more letters, $g(-4;x) = 1/(4+x)$ and $g(-r;x) = 1/sqrt{x(4+x)}$, the second of which is what generates the logarithm of $z = (sqrt{x+4}-sqrt{x})/(sqrt{x+4}+sqrt{x})$. The diagrams themselves are reduced to a small set of master integrals by two independent methods, then by integration-by-parts identities, and the masters are evaluated from differential equations in the external invariants; the results are continued to the physical region $s = m_H^2 > 0$ with the usual $+i epsilon$ prescription, $x to -y - i epsilon$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors compute the two-loop electroweak corrections induced by light fermions to $sigma(gg to H)$, $Gamma(H to gamma gamma)$ and $Gamma(H to gg)$, and present them as closed analytic expressions rather than as numerical fits. The gluon-fusion and $H to gg$ results are the same object up to a constant, since the decay width is fixed by the production cross section through $Gamma(H to gg) = 8 m_H^3 sigma(gg to H) / pi^2$, so one formula covers both. Written in units of $alpha/(2 pi s^2)(m_W^2/m_H^2)$ the correction is a sum of two structures, $A_1[w_H]$ from $W$ exchange and a $Z$-exchange term weighted by the fermion charges, with $w_H = m_W^2/m_H^2$ and $z_H = m_Z^2/m_H^2$. The resulting relative correction rises toward the opening of the two-$W$ threshold, reaching up to 9% of the lowest-order term for $m_H$ below 160 GeV, drops sharply once the threshold is passed, shows a small bump at the two-$Z$ threshold, and stays under 2% above 200 GeV. For $H to gamma gamma$ the light-fermion correction is small and negative below about 140 GeV, where it partly cancels the QCD correction, becomes large and negative as the two-$W$ threshold is approached, and reaches roughly $-10%$ of the lowest-order width above 160 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The $H to gamma gamma$ amplitude contains a term proportional to $1/sqrt{1-4x}$ that blows up at the $W$-pair threshold $x = 1/4$, and the authors tame it by hand by replacing $m_W$ with $m_W - i Gamma_W/2$; the claim that the quoted numbers are physical in the threshold region rests on their qualitative statement that the result changes by less than 5% above 165 GeV and more below, which they themselves flag by saying results between 150 and 170 GeV should be taken with caution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A complete electroweak correction to gluon fusion cannot be assembled from the large-$m_t$ limit alone, because the light-fermion piece alone reaches 9% of the one-loop result below 160 GeV.
The $H to gamma gamma$ light-fermion correction and the QCD correction nearly cancel for $m_H$ around 120 GeV, leaving a total correction below 1%, which is why this channel stays a clean discovery mode in that window.
Any future extraction of Higgs couplings from LHC rates in the intermediate mass region has to carry this correction, since it is comparable in size to the residual QCD uncertainty quoted for the same region.
The GHPL machinery built here for thresholds at $m_W^2$ and $4m_W^2$ carries over to other two-loop electroweak amplitudes with the same threshold structure.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the light-fermion piece is only one slice of the electroweak correction, the natural next step is the full two-loop electroweak amplitude; the size of this slice suggests the remaining pieces will not be uniformly small either.
The same enlarged alphabet should be reusable for two-loop corrections to $H to Z gamma$ and to vector-boson-fusion channels, where the same $W$-pair threshold appears.
If the gluon-fusion correction is confirmed at the several-percent level, then the standard practice of quoting a single QCD uncertainty band for $sigma(gg to H)$ understates the theory error budget in the 120 to 160 GeV window.
The regulator dependence of the $H to gamma gamma$ result between 150 and 170 GeV is a concrete target: a calculation that keeps the full $W$ width in the propagator, rather than inserting it only in the square root, would settle whether the $-10%$ figure survives near threshold.

Original abstract

We compute the electroweak corrections due to the light fermions to the production cross section $\sigma(g g \to H)$ and to the partial decay widths $\Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ and $\Gamma (H \to g g)$. We present analytic results for these corrections that are expressed in terms of Generalized Harmonic Polylogarithms. We find that for the gluon fusion production cross section and for the decay width $\Gamma (H \to g g)$ the corrections are large in the Higgs mass region below 160 GeV where they reach up to 9% of the lowest order term. For the decay width $\Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ the corrections for Higgs mass above 160 GeV can reach $-$10% of the lowest order term.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,754 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.19 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.19 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.59 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We compute the electroweak corrections due to the light fermions to the production cross section $\sigma(g g \to H)$ and to the partial decay widths $\Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ and $\Gamma (H \to g g)$. We present analytic results for these corrections that are expressed in terms of Generalized Harmonic Polylogarithms. We find that for the gluon fusion production cross section and for the decay width $\Gamma (H \to g g)$ the corrections are large in the Higgs mass region below 160 GeV where they reach up to 9% of the lowest order term. For the decay width $\Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ the corrections for Higgs mass above 160 GeV can reach $-$10% of the lowest order term.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We compute the electroweak corrections due to the light fermions to the production cross section $\sigma(g g \to H)$ and to the partial decay widths $\Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ and $\Gamma (H \to g g)$.	contribution 1.00	0.96	0.07	asserted 0.99
s1	We present analytic results for these corrections that are expressed in terms of Generalized Harmonic Polylogarithms.	contribution 0.52	0.95	0.06	asserted 1.00
s2	We find that for the gluon fusion production cross section and for the decay width $\Gamma (H \to g g)$ the corrections are large in the Higgs mass region below 160 GeV where they reach up to 9% of the lowest order term.	result 1.00	0.97	0.36	asserted 1.00
s3	For the decay width $\Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ the corrections for Higgs mass above 160 GeV can reach $-$10% of the lowest order term.	result 1.00	0.93	0.17	asserted 0.74

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.83.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Two-loop topologies involving light fermions contributing to

**Figure 2.** Relative corrections to the production cross section

**Figure 3.** Two-loop topologies involving light fermions contributing to

**Figure 4.** Relative corrections to the decay width H → γγ. figure is obtained by regulating the singularity at x = 1 4 with ΓW /mW = 2.5 · 10−2 . We check the dependence of the result on the regulator by varying ΓW /mW down to 2.5 · 10−9 . Above the threshold already at mH = 165 GeV the result changes by less than 5% and becomes insensitive to the size of the regulator at mH = 170 GeV. Below the threshold, down to mH = 150 GeV the variation is larger. However, for a Higgs mass value around 150 GeV the light fermion correction is small and therefore it is not surprising that the relative…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0404071 by the authors.

References

Works cited (24)

[8]

U. Aglietti and R. Bonciani, Nucl. Phys. B 668 (2003) 3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0304028]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[15]

U. Aglietti and R. Bonciani, arXiv:hep-ph/0401193

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

[LEP Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0312023. 9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[2]

H. M. Georgi, S. L. Glashow, M. E. Machacek and D. V. Nanopoulos , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 692

View on Pith 1978
[3]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B 359 (1991) 283

View on Pith 1991
[4]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 453 (1995) 17 [arXiv:hep-ph/9504378]; A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991) 440

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[5]

R. V. Harlander, Phys. Lett. B 492 (2000) 74. [arXiv:hep-ph/0007289]; S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, JHEP 0105 (2001) 025 [arXiv:hep- ph/0102227]; R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 013015 [arXiv:hep- ph/0102241]; R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 201801 [arXiv:hep- ph/0201206]; C. Anastasiou a...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[6]

S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini and P. Nason, JHEP 0307 (2003) 028 [arXiv:hep-ph/0306211]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[7]

A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2528 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406432]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[9]

E. W. N. Glover and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Su ppl. 89 (2000) 196 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010031]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[10]

R. Bonciani, P. Mastrolia and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B 661 (2003) 289 [arXiv:hep- ph/0301170]

View on Pith 2003
[11]

F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B 100 (1981) 65; K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B 192 (1981) 159

View on Pith 1981
[12]

A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 254 (1991) 158, Phys. Lett. B 259 (1991) 314, Phys. Lett. B 267 (1991) 123; E. Remiddi, Nuovo Cim. A 110 (1997) 1435 [arXiv:hep-th/9711188]; M. Caﬀo, H. Czyz, S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Acta Phys. Polon. B 29 (1998) 2627 [arXiv:hep-th/9807119]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1991
[13]

E. Remiddi and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 725 [arXiv:hep- ph/9905237]

View on Pith 2000
[14]

T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 144 (2002) 200 [arXiv:hep- ph/0111255]. 10

View on Pith 2002
[16]

T. Inami, T. Kubota and Y. Okada, Z. Phys. C 18 (1983) 69

View on Pith 1983
[17]

J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B 106 (1976) 292; M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, S ov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30 (1979) 711 [Yad. Fiz. 30 (1979) 1368]

View on Pith 1976
[18]

H. . Zheng and D. . Wu, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3760; A. Djouadi, M. Spira, J. J. van der Bij and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett . B 257, 187 (1991); S. Dawson and R. P. Kauﬀman, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 1264; A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B 311 (1993) 255 [arXiv:hep- ph/9305335]; K. Melnikov and O. I. Yakovlev, Phys. Lett. B 312 (1993) 179 [a...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1990
[19]

Y. Liao and X. y. Li, Phys. Lett. B 396 (1997) 225 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605310]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[20]

J. G. Korner, K. Melnikov and O. I. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 3737 [arXiv:hep-ph/9508334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[21]

B. S. Dewitt, Phys. Rev. 162, 1195 (1967); J. Honerkamp, Nucl. Phys. B 48, 269 (1972); H. Kluberg-Stern and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D 12, 482 (1975)

View on Pith 1967
[22]

L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B 185 (1981) 189

View on Pith 1981
[23]

A. Denner, G. Weiglein and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 440 (1995) 95 [arXiv:hep- ph/9410338]

View on Pith 1995
[24]

G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, arXiv:hep-ph/0307122. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Showing 60 of 85 Pith papers that cite this

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 306 citations worldwide. See all 85 Pith citations

Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC
hep-ex 2012-07 accept novelty 9.0 of 10

A new boson with mass 125.3 GeV is observed at 5.0 sigma in the CMS detector, decaying to photon pairs and Z pairs, matching the long-sought Standard Model Higgs boson.
Two-loop QCD corrections to $CP$-even Higgs boson decays into $V\gamma$ in the Type-I Two-Higgs-Doublet Model
hep-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Two-loop QCD corrections to H->Zγ and H->γγ in the Type-I Two-Higgs-Doublet Model are computed with full mass dependence, yielding corrections of -20% to +20% and up to +38% in non-alignment scenarios.
Factorization and NNLL Resummation for Higgs Production with a Jet Veto
hep-ph 2012-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The authors derive the first all-order factorization theorem for Higgs production with a sequential-recombination jet veto and present NNLL resummed cross sections and efficiencies for the LHC at 8 TeV.
HiggsTools for LHC Run 3 and Beyond
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The HiggsTools toolbox is upgraded for LHC Run 3 with 13.6 and 14 TeV cross-sections, resonant and non-resonant di-Higgs predictions including interference, and a recast four-top search limit.
Precise Predictions for Event Shapes in Hadronic Higgs Decays
hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

First NNLO QCD predictions for six classical event-shape distributions and soft-drop thrust in hadronic Higgs decays, for both H to b bbar and H to gg channels.

Show 55 more citing papers

Search for chargino--neutralino pair production in final states with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2021-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No excess of three-lepton events from chargino-neutralino production appears in 139 fb^-1 of 13 TeV ATLAS data, so 95% CL exclusions are set on wino masses up to 640 GeV and higgsino masses up to 210 GeV.
Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC
hep-ph 2016-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Loop-induced shifts in single-Higgs rates at the LHC already constrain the Higgs trilinear coupling about as tightly as direct double-Higgs searches, via a one-parameter fit to 8 TeV data.
Test of CP Invariance in vector-boson fusion production of the Higgs boson using the Optimal Observable method in the ditau decay channel with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2016-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No CP violation is observed in Higgs boson couplings to electroweak gauge bosons in VBF production, giving the 68% CL constraint d~ in [-0.11, 0.05].
High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC
hep-ph 2016-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The gluon-fusion Higgs production cross-section at 13 TeV is predicted to be 48.58 pb, with theory and PDF uncertainties broken down, using QCD corrections through N3LO in the heavy-top limit.
Applying Exclusion Likelihoods from LHC Searches to Extended Higgs Sectors
hep-ph 2015-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A clustering algorithm maps any multi-Higgs model onto CMS's single-resonance tau-tau likelihood, yielding a continuous exclusion confidence that reproduces CMS's dedicated MSSM exclusion contours.
Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b} b\bar{b}$ final state from $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No Higgs boson pair production is observed in the four-bottom-quark final state at 8 TeV; 95% CL upper limits of 3.2 (2.3) fb are set for a Kaluza-Klein graviton of mass 1.0 (1.5) TeV, and 202 fb for the non-resonant ...
Exclusive Radiative Higgs Decays as Probes of Light-Quark Yukawa Couplings
hep-ph 2015-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD factorization plus a ratio to h to gamma gamma turns rare h to V gamma decays into a quantitatively controlled probe of the charm, bottom and strange Yukawa couplings.
Search for new phenomena in final states with an energetic jet and large missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In 20.3 fb^-1 of 8 TeV ATLAS data, monojet events agree with Standard Model expectations, yielding 95% CL limits on dark matter pair production, large extra dimensions, light gravitinos, and invisible Higgs decay.
Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

ATLAS finds 4.5-sigma evidence that the 125 GeV Higgs boson decays to tau leptons, with a signal strength of 1.43 times the Standard Model value.
Higgs boson gluon-fusion production beyond threshold in N3LO QCD
hep-ph 2014-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The complete next-to-soft term and the exact coefficients of log^5,4,3(1-z) are computed for Higgs production at N3LO, and the threshold approximation is shown not to converge at that order.
Weak corrections to Higgs hadroproduction in association with a top-quark pair
hep-ph 2014-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The first calculation of weak next-to-leading-order corrections to pp -> ttH finds them at the few-percent level inclusively but around 8 percent in boosted kinematics, comparable to QCD scale uncertainties there.
Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of tau leptons
hep-ex 2014-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS reports 3.2 sigma evidence, from 7 and 8 TeV LHC data, that the 125 GeV Higgs boson decays to tau lepton pairs, with a fitted signal strength of 0.78 +/- 0.27 times the Standard Model prediction.
Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 and 8 TeV
hep-ex 2013-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Combining five decay channels in LHC 7 and 8 TeV data, CMS observes a new boson at 125.3 GeV with 5 sigma local significance and finds its couplings consistent with the Standard Model Higgs boson.
Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal
hep-ph 2012-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For a 125 GeV Higgs decaying to W or Z pairs, neglecting off-shell contributions and signal-background interference misnormalises the signal by up to 10 percent, and a transverse-mass cut below the Higgs mass largely ...
Hopf algebras, coproducts and symbols: an application to Higgs boson amplitudes
hep-ph 2012-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The coproduct of multiple polylogarithms, unlike the symbol, retains zeta-value information, and it is used to compress the two-loop Higgs-plus-three-gluon helicity amplitudes into classical polylogarithms.
Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM
hep-ph 2011-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors extend the POWHEG generator for gluon-fusion Higgs production to carry exact quark and squark masses at NLO QCD in both the Standard Model and the MSSM, matched to parton showers.
Higgs Production with a Central Jet Veto at NNLL+NNLO
hep-ph 2010-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Summing jet-veto logarithms to NNLL and matching to NNLO gives a 15 to 20 percent scale uncertainty on the zero-jet Higgs cross section, larger than the 7 percent used in current Tevatron bounds.
NLO QCD bottom corrections to Higgs boson production in the MSSM
hep-ph 2010-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Explicit analytic formulas for the two-loop bottom-sbottom-gluino contribution to MSSM Higgs production via gluon fusion, valid when superpartners are much heavier than the bottom quark and the Higgs bosons.
Finite top mass effects for hadronic Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order
hep-ph 2009-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Top mass corrections to the NNLO gluon fusion Higgs cross section are below 0.5 percent for Higgs masses of 100 to 300 GeV, confirming the heavy-top limit.
HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron
hep-ph 2008-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

HiggsBounds automates the comparison of arbitrary Higgs-sector predictions against LEP and Tevatron topological cross-section limits, selecting the single most sensitive search channel and returning a 95% CL exclusion...
Mixed QCD-electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion
hep-ph 2008-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The three-loop mixed QCD-electroweak correction to light-quark Higgs production gives a Wilson coefficient of 7/6 rather than the factorized 11/4, and lowers Tevatron Higgs cross sections by 4 to 6 percent.
NNLO Computational Techniques: the Cases H -> gamma gamma and H -> g g
hep-ph 2008-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Complete two-loop electroweak corrections to H to gamma gamma and H to gg are computed without mass expansions, giving corrections between -4% and +6% over 100 to 500 GeV, with threshold behaviour smoothed by complex ...
NLO Electroweak Corrections to Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders
hep-ph 2008-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Including the full NLO electroweak corrections raises the NNLO-QCD gluon-fusion Higgs cross section by about 5% at 120 GeV under complete factorization, and about 2% under partial factorization, at both LHC and Tevatr...
Measurement of the Higgs boson decay to a low-mass dilepton system and a photon in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combined Run-2+Run-3 ATLAS measurement of H to ell ell gamma (m_ll < 30 GeV) gives mu = 1.03 (+0.35/-0.32) with 3.4 sigma observed (3.3 sigma expected) significance, consistent with the Standard Model.
Special Fano geometry from Feynman integrals
hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Special Fano varieties, which include Calabi-Yau spaces as the Q=1 case, arise from the Symanzik polynomials of several families of Feynman integrals.
HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals
hep-ph 2022-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals are rebuilt as one C++ package, HiggsTools, with JSON-encoded search limits, better particle clustering and mass-uncertainty handling, new di-Higgs and doubly charged Higgs searches, and C...
Searches for additional Higgs bosons and for vector leptoquarks in $\tau\tau$ final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV
hep-ex 2022-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No discovery, but CMS sets the strongest tau-pair limits to date on an extra Higgs-like scalar from 60 GeV to 3.5 TeV and on a U1 leptoquark coupling, while reporting two roughly three-sigma local excesses.
Measurement of the properties of Higgs boson production at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV in the $H\to\gamma\gamma$ channel using $139$ fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data with the ATLAS experiment
hep-ex 2022-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Using 139 fb^-1 of LHC data in the H to gamma gamma channel, ATLAS measures Higgs production cross-sections in 28 STXS regions and finds agreement with the Standard Model at the 93% p-value level.
A search for the dimuon decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2020-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

With 139 fb^-1 of 13 TeV ATLAS data, the H to mu mu search gives a 2.0 sigma excess (1.7 expected), signal strength 1.2 +/- 0.6, and a 95% CL upper limit of 2.2 times the Standard Model rate.
Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections in the 4$\ell$ decay channel at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV
hep-ex 2020-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS measures inclusive and differential H to ZZ* to 4-lepton fiducial cross sections with the full Run 2 dataset, finds agreement with the Standard Model, and sets limits on contact interactions and on the charm and...
Higgs boson production cross-section measurements and their EFT interpretation in the $4\ell$ decay channel at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2020-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS measures the Higgs boson production cross-section times H to ZZ* to four-lepton branching ratio at 1.34 +/- 0.12 pb, consistent with the Standard Model, and converts the differential bins into limits on CP-even ...
Search for the Higgs boson decays $H \to ee$ and $H \to e\mu$ in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2019-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS sets 95% CL upper limits of 3.6x10^-4 on B(H to ee) and 6.2x10^-5 on B(H to e mu), finding no evidence for either decay in 139 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data.
Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to $80$ fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment
hep-ex 2019-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining all ATLAS Run 2 Higgs channels through 2017 gives a global signal strength of 1.11 (+0.09/-0.08), 6.5 sigma evidence for vector-boson fusion, and coupling limits consistent with the Standard Model.
MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios for Run 2 and Beyond
hep-ph 2018-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Six new MSSM Higgs benchmark scenarios are defined, each with a 125 GeV SM-like scalar, computed with FeynHiggs/SusHi and checked against Run 2 Higgs and SUSY searches.
Search for additional neutral MSSM Higgs bosons in the $\tau\tau$ final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No heavy neutral MSSM Higgs boson appears in 35.9 fb^-1 of 13 TeV CMS data; 95% CL limits exclude tan(beta) above 6 below 250 GeV and reach 1.6 TeV at tan(beta) = 60.
iHixs 2 - Inclusive Higgs Cross Sections
hep-ph 2018-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors release iHixs 2, a public code combining third-order QCD, electroweak, and finite quark-mass corrections to give 48.67 pb for gluon-fusion Higgs production at 13 TeV with an automated uncertainty budget.
Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections in the $H \rightarrow ZZ^* \rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2017-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

With 36.1 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data, ATLAS measures the H to ZZ* to 4-lepton fiducial cross section as 3.62 +/- 0.50 (stat) +0.25/-0.20 (sys) fb, consistent with the Standard Model prediction of 2.91 +/- 0.13 fb.
Search for a high-mass Higgs boson decaying to a $W$ boson pair in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No heavy Higgs boson appears in 8 TeV ATLAS data; for a narrow-width scalar at 1500 GeV the production cross section times WW branching ratio is bounded below 22 fb (gluon fusion) and 6.6 fb (vector-boson fusion) at 95% CL.
Search for an additional, heavy Higgs boson in the $H\rightarrow ZZ$ decay channel at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV in $pp$ collision data with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No heavy Higgs boson signal appears in 20.3 fb^-1 of 8 TeV ATLAS data across four ZZ decay channels, yielding 95% CL cross-section limits from 0.53 pb at 195 GeV to 0.008 pb at 950 GeV and 2HDM exclusion contours.
Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and coupling strengths using $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and $8$ TeV in the ATLAS experiment
hep-ex 2015-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining seven Higgs decay channels plus off-shell constraints, ATLAS measures a global signal strength of 1.18 and finds Higgs couplings to fermions and vector bosons consistent with the Standard Model.
Search for a CP-odd Higgs boson decaying to $Zh$ in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No CP-odd Higgs boson A→Zh signal is observed in 20.3 fb⁻¹ of 8 TeV ATLAS data; 95% CL limits on σ(gg→A)×BR(A→Zh)×BR(h→ff) run from 0.098 to 0.013 pb for f=τ and 0.57 to 0.014 pb for f=b over mA = 220–1000 GeV.
Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining seven decay channels and four production modes, CMS measures the Higgs boson mass as 125.02 GeV and finds all signal strengths and coupling scale factors consistent with standard model predictions.
Soft-virtual corrections to Higgs production at N$^3$LO
hep-ph 2014-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

An independent three-loop calculation reproduces the known N3LO Higgs soft-virtual term and yields a new result for scalar pair production in N=4 super Yang-Mills.
Search for neutral Higgs bosons of the minimal supersymmetric standard model in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2014-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess of MSSM neutral Higgs bosons in the tau-tau final state is seen in about 20 fb^-1 of 8 TeV ATLAS data, and 95% CL limits exclude tan beta above 5.4 at mA = 140 GeV in the mmaxh scenario.
Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in $pp$ collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2014-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS finds Higgs boson production and diphoton decay rates consistent with Standard Model predictions, with a combined signal strength of 1.17 ± 0.27 and per-production-mode strengths ranging from 0.1 to 1.6 with lar...
Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the four-lepton channel in $pp$ collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2014-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The Higgs boson decaying to four leptons is observed at 8.1 standard deviations in ATLAS Run 1 data, with a combined signal strength of 1.44 (+0.40/-0.33) relative to the Standard Model expectation.
Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions
hep-ex 2014-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess of tau-lepton pairs above standard-model backgrounds appears in 24.6 inverse femtobarns of CMS data, which excludes large regions of MSSM tan beta versus mA in seven benchmark scenarios.
Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with ATLAS
hep-ex 2014-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS measures the pp to H to two-photon fiducial cross section as 43.2 +/- 9.4 (stat) fb and twelve differential distributions, all broadly consistent with Standard Model predictions within the statistical precision.
Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: New Physics Working Group Report
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Twenty contributed studies from the 2013 Les Houches New Physics working group cover Higgs coupling fits, vector-like quark and composite Higgs benchmarks, SUSY constraints, flavour observables and dark matter, includ...
Search for Higgs boson decays to a photon and a Z boson in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2014-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No significant H to Z gamma signal is observed in 4.5 fb-1 (7 TeV) plus 20.3 fb-1 (8 TeV) of ATLAS data; 95% CL upper limits on the cross section times branching ratio range from 0.13 to 0.5 pb at 8 TeV.
Measurement of Higgs boson production and properties in the WW decay channel with leptonic final states
hep-ex 2013-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS observes a 4.3-sigma excess in H to WW with a signal strength of 0.72 relative to the standard model, and finds the data favor spin-parity 0+ over 2+ or 0-.
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties
hep-ph 2013-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group's third handbook sets the state-of-the-art Standard Model and MSSM Higgs production and decay predictions at 125-126 GeV with quantified theory uncertainties, and adds a first...
SusHi: A program for the calculation of Higgs production in gluon fusion and bottom-quark annihilation in the Standard Model and the MSSM
hep-ph 2012-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

SusHi packages published QCD and electroweak corrections into one downloadable code that predicts neutral-Higgs production cross sections in the Standard Model and the MSSM, inclusive and differential, with user-selec...
Search for a Higgs boson in the decay channel H to ZZ(*) to q qbar l-l+ in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2012-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No Higgs signal appears in the H to ZZ to qqbar l+l- channel in 4.6 fb-1 of 7 TeV CMS data, and 95% CL upper limits are set for Higgs masses between 130 and 600 GeV.
From polygons and symbols to polylogarithmic functions
math-ph 2011-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper gives a polygon-based recipe for the symbol of a multiple polylogarithm, an algorithm for integrating symbols back to functions, and a spanning set for harmonic polylogarithms up to weight four.

See all 85 Pith citations

How later papers used it

117 later papers cite it

Evidence: thin. 102 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 39 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 2 of the 137 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 1 of 22 papers with this label

Included two-loop electroweak corrections from light-quark loops from the first two generations as given by this paper, in the complex mass scheme.

The NNLO gluon fusion Higgs production cross-section with many heavy quarks (2010) · 0.84 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

117 arXiv papers cite this in 137 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 75 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

Finally, the known SM results for the EW contributions [ref] are adapted to the MSSM by rescaling the Higgs couplings to top quarks and to gauge bosons.

Towards precise predictions for Higgs-boson production in the MSSM · Introduction · 0.85

Uses its method or tool 21 papers

The code implements the full top and bottom-loop contributions at NLO in QCD from Refs. [ref] , NNLO-QCD top contributions in the heavy-top limit from Refs. [ref] , and electroweak contributions by light quarks from Refs. [ref] .

Prospects for Higgs physics at energies up to 100 TeV · The gluon fusion process · 0.98
The production of the SM Higgs boson via gluon–gluon fusion (), via vector-boson fusion (), with an associated vector boson (, where $V$ is a $W$ or $Z$ boson), and with a top quark pair () was modelled with the Powheg-Box v2 Monte Carlo (MC) event generator [ref] .

Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections in the 4$\ell$ decay channel at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV · Theoretical predictions and event simulation · 1.00
The cross sections for gluon–gluon fusion (ggF) production calculated with [ref] include next-to-leading-order (NLO) supersymmetric-QCD corrections [ref] , next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD corrections for the top quark [ref] , and light-quark electroweak effects [ref] .

Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV · Introduction · 1.00

Uses its data or values 18 papers

These include production via gluon–gluon fusion () [ref] , vector boson fusion () [ref] , associated production with a vector boson (, where $V = W, Z$) [ref] , associated production with a top-quark pair () [ref] , and associated production with a bottom-quark pair () [ref] .

Search for the Higgs boson decay to a $Z$ boson and a photon in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and $13.6$ TeV with the ATLAS detector · Data and simulation samples · 0.95
The sample is normalised to a N$^3$LO QCD calculation including NLO EW corrections [ref] .

Measurements of the Higgs boson production, fiducial and differential cross-sections in the four lepton decay channel using 164 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector · Signal normalisation and branching ratios · 0.90
The two-loop EW corrections to $σ(gg→H)$ in the SM were obtained in Refs. [ref] .

Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC · Computation of the $C_1$ coefficients · 0.90

Cites it as background 21 papers

Up to few years ago, mixed QCD-Electroweak corrections were known exactly only at LO [ref] , while NLO results were first computed using a HEFT approach [ref] , and later in a purely massless case [ref] .

Next-to-leading order mixed QCD-electroweak corrections to Higgs production at the LHC · Motivations · 0.95
The 2-loop LO and 3-loop virtual NLO corrections to $gg →H$ have been computed in [ref] and [ref] , respectively, while the 1-loop LO quark-initiated contributions $qqgH$ and the related 1-loop real contributions $qqHgg$ and $qqHqq$ have been addressed in [ref] .

Mixed QCD-electroweak corrections to Higgs plus jet production at the LHC · Tensor structure decomposition · 0.84
The combination of predictions at fixed order with threshold resummation (together with electroweak corrections [ref] , bottom and charm quark contributions through NLO and subleading mass corrections at NNLO [ref] ) provided the default predictions for the interpretation of Higgs production data in the LHC Run 1 [ref] .

High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC · Introduction · 0.86

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [8]

U. Aglietti and R. Bonciani, Nucl. Phys. B 668 (2003) 3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0304028]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[2] [15]

U. Aglietti and R. Bonciani, arXiv:hep-ph/0401193

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[3] [1]

[LEP Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0312023. 9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [2]

H. M. Georgi, S. L. Glashow, M. E. Machacek and D. V. Nanopoulos , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 692

View on Pith 1978

[5] [3]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B 359 (1991) 283

View on Pith 1991

[6] [4]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 453 (1995) 17 [arXiv:hep-ph/9504378]; A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991) 440

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[7] [5]

R. V. Harlander, Phys. Lett. B 492 (2000) 74. [arXiv:hep-ph/0007289]; S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, JHEP 0105 (2001) 025 [arXiv:hep- ph/0102227]; R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 013015 [arXiv:hep- ph/0102241]; R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 201801 [arXiv:hep- ph/0201206]; C. Anastasiou a...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[8] [6]

S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini and P. Nason, JHEP 0307 (2003) 028 [arXiv:hep-ph/0306211]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[9] [7]

A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2528 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406432]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[10] [9]

E. W. N. Glover and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Su ppl. 89 (2000) 196 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010031]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[11] [10]

R. Bonciani, P. Mastrolia and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B 661 (2003) 289 [arXiv:hep- ph/0301170]

View on Pith 2003

[12] [11]

F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B 100 (1981) 65; K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B 192 (1981) 159

View on Pith 1981

[13] [12]

A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 254 (1991) 158, Phys. Lett. B 259 (1991) 314, Phys. Lett. B 267 (1991) 123; E. Remiddi, Nuovo Cim. A 110 (1997) 1435 [arXiv:hep-th/9711188]; M. Caﬀo, H. Czyz, S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Acta Phys. Polon. B 29 (1998) 2627 [arXiv:hep-th/9807119]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1991

[14] [13]

E. Remiddi and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 725 [arXiv:hep- ph/9905237]

View on Pith 2000

[15] [14]

T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 144 (2002) 200 [arXiv:hep- ph/0111255]. 10

View on Pith 2002

[16] [16]

T. Inami, T. Kubota and Y. Okada, Z. Phys. C 18 (1983) 69

View on Pith 1983

[17] [17]

J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B 106 (1976) 292; M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, S ov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30 (1979) 711 [Yad. Fiz. 30 (1979) 1368]

View on Pith 1976

[18] [18]

H. . Zheng and D. . Wu, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3760; A. Djouadi, M. Spira, J. J. van der Bij and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett . B 257, 187 (1991); S. Dawson and R. P. Kauﬀman, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 1264; A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B 311 (1993) 255 [arXiv:hep- ph/9305335]; K. Melnikov and O. I. Yakovlev, Phys. Lett. B 312 (1993) 179 [a...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1990

[19] [19]

Y. Liao and X. y. Li, Phys. Lett. B 396 (1997) 225 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605310]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[20] [20]

J. G. Korner, K. Melnikov and O. I. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 3737 [arXiv:hep-ph/9508334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[21] [21]

B. S. Dewitt, Phys. Rev. 162, 1195 (1967); J. Honerkamp, Nucl. Phys. B 48, 269 (1972); H. Kluberg-Stern and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D 12, 482 (1975)

View on Pith 1967

[22] [22]

L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B 185 (1981) 189

View on Pith 1981

[23] [23]

A. Denner, G. Weiglein and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 440 (1995) 95 [arXiv:hep- ph/9410338]

View on Pith 1995

[24] [24]

G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, arXiv:hep-ph/0307122. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv