Two-loop electroweak corrections to Higgs production at hadron colliders

Fabio Maltoni; Giuseppe Degrassi

REVIEW

Two-loop electroweak corrections to Higgs production at hadron colliders

Giuseppe Degrassi, Fabio Maltoni

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 21 Jul 2004 · 14 references

Pith's verdict: A genuine, competently executed completion of the two-loop electroweak correction to gg→H; the only real soft spot is the h4w truncation near m_H = 2m_W, which weakens the 'at most 15%' claim at the top of the range but not the headline 5-8%.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 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 →

· 4 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/0407249 (version 1)

Pith IDPDZDIYB7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationFabio Maltoni, Giuseppe Degrassi. "Two-loop electroweak corrections to Higgs production at hadron colliders." arXiv:hep-ph/0407249 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/PDZDIYB7

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

Short version: this is the missing half of a calculation people have been quoting piecemeal, and it holds up. Degrassi and Maltoni compute the two-loop electroweak correction to gg→H from top-quark diagrams, the piece Ref. [9] did not cover. Together with the published light-fermion result this gives the total electroweak correction in the intermediate mass window. The number that matters, 5-8% of LO for 115 < m_H < 2m_W, is modest but real and comparable to the residual QCD uncertainty they cite, so it belongs in the precision bookkeeping. What is done well: the BFM choice is not decoration. It makes the 1PI part and the wave-function/coupling part separately finite, which is what lets them write Eq. (10) as a clean split. The helicity argument for why no cut appears below 2m_W is correct and earns its paragraph. Table 1 row sums reproduce, and the one-loop normalization back-solved from Table 2 falls monotonically as it should. The physics conclusion, top opposite in sign to light fermions above 120 GeV and smaller in size, is consistent with what they show. Soft spots, in order of weight. The h4w expansion is load-bearing, and at m_H = 160 GeV h4w is about 0.99, right at the 2m_W branch point. The bos series there (1.80, 1.07, 0.52, 0.29) has ratios around 0.5 to 0.6, not small. Taking the last term as the error is a heuristic, not a bound, and near a branch point the tail can beat the geometric estimate. That makes the 'at most 15%' of abstract:s2 the fragile claim at the top of the range; the 5-8% of abstract:s3 survives even a large error in the top piece. To their credit they flag m_H = 160 as needing a more refined analysis and patch the Kr singularity with a complex W mass, which is standard practice and cited, but still a prescription rather than a derivation. Second, Eq. (11) prints only the leading term; the h4w coefficients that actually generate Table 2 are not shown, so nobody can redo the truncation check without redoing the loops. Annoying, not disqualifying. Who it is for: anyone doing Higgs precision at the LHC, and the Higgs cross section working group. Worth a serious referee. The calculation is first-principles, the arithmetic checks, and the open question is a bounded numerical one, not a conceptual one.

Referee report

Significance

If it holds, this is a genuinely useful result: it is a first-principles analytic Feynman-diagram computation with no fitted parameters, and it closes a real gap, since the light-fermion half of the two-loop electroweak correction was already known and the top half was the missing ingredient for a complete statement in the intermediate-mass window relevant to the Tevatron and the LHC. The paper is commendably explicit about its inputs (m_t = 178, m_W = 80.4, m_Z = 91.18 GeV) and about where the calculation stops applying, and the comparison with the large-m_t limit of Ref. [8] (-m_t^2/(6m_W^2) = -0.82) is a useful sanity check that correctly shows that limit to be a poor guide here. The headline 5-8% range is robust against a substantial error in the top piece, since the top contribution is a small fraction of the total. The main caveats are presentational and endpoint-related rather than structural.

Major objections (4)

[Eq. (11) and the paragraph beginning 'We follow this strategy'] The paper's entire new content is the 1PI amplitude, yet only its leading term in h4w is written out; the authors state that 'the complete expression is quite long' and give the O(h4w^4) result only through the numerical entries of Table 1. As it stands the central result cannot be independently reproduced or checked from the manuscript. Please supply the full expression, either as an appendix or as an ancillary/deposited file, or at minimum give the coefficients of the h4w^n terms for n = 1,...,4 separately for the 'fer' and 'bos' classes, so that every entry of Table 1 can be reconstructed from the text.
[Table 1 and the following paragraph (error estimate at m_H = 160 GeV)] At m_H = 160 GeV the expansion parameter is h4w = q^2/(4m_W^2) ~ 0.99, i.e. essentially at the 2m_W branch point, and the 'bos' series 1.7979, 1.0683, 0.5184, 0.2948 has successive ratios of about 0.59, 0.49, 0.57, which is not a settled geometric pattern. Taking the last computed term as the error is a heuristic, not a bound, and near a branch point the tail can exceed it. Since the 8% upper end of the abstract's 5-8% range (abstract:s3) is produced precisely by this m_H = 160 GeV entry, the least-controlled point in the paper drives the headline upper bound. Please either extend the expansion (e.g. to h4w^6 for the 'bos' class) or provide an independent cross-check of the m_H = 160 GeV point, or explicitly exclude m_H = 160 GeV from the quoted range and state the range as, say, 115-155 GeV.
[Eq. (8) and the paragraph on the 2m_W threshold singularity] The removal of the threshold singularity by replacing m_W^2 with m_W^2 - i Gamma_W m_W is applied only to the A(w_H)/sqrt(4w_H - 1) term of Eq. (8). Please state explicitly why this is the only singular piece (the log w_H/(1-w_H) and A(w_H) terms are indeed regular at w_H = 1/4, but the reader should not have to verify this), and quantify the residual scheme dependence at m_H = 160 GeV, for instance by varying Gamma_W or by comparing a fixed-width with a complex-mass treatment. Because the m_H = 160 GeV entry is the largest number in Table 2 and sets the upper end of the quoted correction, the size of this scheme dependence should be stated numerically rather than only cited to Refs. [13,14].
[Table 2 and abstract:s2] The claim that the top correction is 'at most 15%' of the light-fermion contribution cannot be checked from Table 2 as printed: at m_H = 160 GeV the top entry is +3.43 while the single-light-generation entry is -10.4, a ratio of 33%. The 15% figure evidently refers to the full light-fermion contribution, i.e. the tabulated single-generation column multiplied by the number of light generations, but this is never stated. Please give the explicit conversion used to obtain delta_ew (presumably delta_ew = 2 Re(G2l/G1l)) and state the normalization of the light-fermion column, so that the 15% statement of abstract:s2 can be reproduced from the table.

Minor objections (6)

[Table 1] The rows of Table 1 carry no m_H labels in the printed version; the caption refers to 'the hn4w terms' without identifying which row corresponds to which Higgs mass. Please label the rows explicitly and correct the caption to h4w^n.
[Eqs. (8) and (11)] Several coefficients are typeset ambiguously and cannot be parsed unambiguously: '289' in Eq. (11) (presumably 28/9), '2 sqrt(3) pi 16 w_H' in Eq. (8), and '5zt - 212(zt - 4)2', 'z2t - 62zt(zt - 4)3' in Eq. (11). Please add explicit bracketing so that the formulas are usable.
[Table 2 caption] The caption says the third-generation contribution is divided into a 'topless part (from Ref. [9], left number) and the rest', but the table also contains a separate '1 light gen' column; the phrase 'left number' is therefore ambiguous. Please state clearly which column is which.
[Abstract and conclusion] The abstract's 'allows a complete determination of the two-loop electroweak corrections' should be qualified to the intermediate-mass region, as the conclusion itself already notes that the top corrections for m_H > 2m_W are still needed. Also, the quoted range '5% to 8%' sits alongside a Table 2 entry of 4.7% at m_H = 115 GeV; please state that this is rounded to 5%.
[Paragraph after Table 2] The statement that the third generation is 'at most 20%' of a light fermion is marginally exceeded at m_H = 160 GeV, where (3.43 - 1.30)/10.4 is about 20.5%. Please say 'about 20%' or quote the actual maximum.
[Introduction] There are a few grammatical slips in the opening paragraph ('The Higgs bosons ... is actively searched for', 'one of the main objectives of experimental program'), which should be corrected.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The paper computes the missing top-quark two-loop electroweak correction to gluon fusion Higgs production, finding total electroweak corrections of 5% to 8% for Higgs masses from 115 GeV up to twice the W mass.

The reading

The authors want to know how electroweak quantum corrections change the rate at which two gluons fuse into a Higgs boson, the dominant production route at hadron colliders. The light-fermion part of the two-loop correction was already known; this paper supplies the missing top-quark part, so that for an intermediate-mass Higgs the electroweak correction can be stated as a complete number. The answer is modest: the total correction is 5% to 8% of the lowest-order rate for $115~GeV lesssim m_H lesssim 2m_W$, with the top piece opposing the light-fermion piece above 120 GeV but never exceeding 15% of its size. That matters because a 5-8% shift is comparable to the residual QCD uncertainty quoted for this process, so it must be accounted for when a measured Higgs signal is translated into a Standard Model cross section.

What carries the argument

The authors work in the Background Field Method, a quantization scheme that splits each field into a classical background field and a quantum field that appears only in loops. In background Feynman gauge the reducible correction $K_r$—Higgs wave-function renormalization plus the expansion of $g_0/m_{W0}$—and the two-loop one-particle-irreducible amplitude $G^{2ell}_{1PI}$ are separately finite, so $G^{2ell}_t=K_r G^{1ell}+G^{2ell}_{1PI}$. The 1PI amplitude is then Taylor-expanded in $h_{4w}=q^2/(4m_W^2)$ through fourth order; the expansion is legitimate because helicity mismatch on the massless bottom line removes the would-be $q=0$ cut, pushing the first cut to $2m_W$. This is the device that makes the two-loop calculation tractable and produces the explicit series in Eq. (11).

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding the top-quark two-loop piece to the known light-fermion piece gives a complete two-loop electroweak correction to $gg o H$ in the intermediate-mass region. The top piece is small and changes sign: in Table 2 it runs from $-0.22$ at 115 GeV to $+3.43$ at 160 GeV in units of $lpha/(4pi s^2)$, while one massless generation gives $-5.28$ to $-10.4$ over the same range. The resulting total relative correction $delta_{m ew}$ is 4.7% to 7.5%, which the abstract rounds to 5% to 8% for $115~GeV lesssim m_H lesssim 2m_W$. Above 120 GeV the top contribution has the opposite sign to the light-fermion contribution and remains at most 15% of its magnitude, so the light fermions dominate the electroweak correction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that truncating the Taylor series in $h_{4w}=q^2/(4m_W^2)$ at fourth order is accurate enough for the 'bos' diagrams up to $m_H simeq 2m_W$, where Table 1 shows the terms decreasing slowly and the quoted 9% bos uncertainty is estimated by taking the last computed term as the error rather than by a bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because the electroweak shift is 5% to 8%, it is comparable to the residual QCD uncertainty quoted for this process and must be included when a measured Higgs rate is converted into a Standard Model cross section.
Above 120 GeV the top contribution opposes the light-fermion contribution and stays below 15% of it, so the light fermions, not the top, dominate the electroweak correction in the intermediate-mass region.
The same correction applies to the $H o gg$ partial width through $Gamma(H o gg)=8m_H^3sigma(gg o H)/pi^2$, so the result feeds into Higgs decay branching-ratio predictions.
For $m_H>2m_W$ the top correction is not computed here; the authors expect the total electroweak correction to be small there because the light-fermion part is small, but that remains to be checked.
Near $2m_W$ the wave-function factor $K_r$ behaves as $1/sqrt{1-4w_H}$; replacing $m_W^2$ by $m_W^2-iGamma_W m_W$ removes the unphysical singularity and gives the quoted 160 GeV entry.

Reading between the lines

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

If the 5-8% electroweak shift is included consistently, percent-level measurements of $gg o H$ could constrain the top-Higgs coupling only after the QCD normalization uncertainty is pushed below the electroweak size; until then the two corrections remain degenerate.
Extending the calculation above $2m_W$ is primarily a problem of treating the $WW$ threshold, so keeping exact $W$ propagators or applying complex-pole resummation throughout, not just in $K_r$, is the natural next step.
The split into a finite reducible factor and a separately finite 1PI piece in background Feynman gauge is a reusable template for other loop-induced Higgs processes that combine heavy-quark and light-fermion corrections.

Original abstract

We compute the two-loop electroweak corrections due to the top quark to the gluon fusion production cross section of an intermediate-mass Higgs boson. This result, together with the previously known contribution due to the light fermions, allows a complete determination of the two-loop electroweak corrections to this production cross section. For Higgs mass values above 120 GeV the top corrections have opposite sign of the light fermions contribution, however they are always smaller in size reaching at most 15% of the latter. The total electroweak corrections to the gluon fusion production cross section for 115 GeV < m_H < 2 m_W range from 5% to 8% 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, 3,703 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.34 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.14 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.95 · 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 two-loop electroweak corrections due to the top quark to the gluon fusion production cross section of an intermediate-mass Higgs boson. This result, together with the previously known contribution due to the light fermions, allows a complete determination of the two-loop electroweak corrections to this production cross section. For Higgs mass values above 120 GeV the top corrections have opposite sign of the light fermions contribution, however they are always smaller in size reaching at most 15% of the latter. The total electroweak corrections to the gluon fusion production cross section for 115 GeV < m_H < 2 m_W range from 5% to 8% 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 two-loop electroweak corrections due to the top quark to the gluon fusion production cross section of an intermediate-mass Higgs boson.	contribution 1.00	0.97	0.15	asserted 1.00
s1	This result, together with the previously known contribution due to the light fermions, allows a complete determination of the two-loop electroweak corrections to this production cross section.	interpretation 0.48	0.52	0.22	asserted 1.00
s2	For Higgs mass values above 120 GeV the top corrections have opposite sign of the light fermions contribution, however they are always smaller in size reaching at most 15% of the latter.	result 0.97	0.87	0.32	asserted 1.00
s3	The total electroweak corrections to the gluon fusion production cross section for 115 GeV < m_H < 2 m_W range from 5% to 8% of the lowest order term.	result 1.00	0.87	0.33	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.99 · evidence from simulation or computation 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.** Examples of two-loop diagrams contributing to

**Figure 2.** a) The possible intermediate helicities of the mas

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0407249 by the authors.

References

Works cited (14)

[9]

U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, Phys . Lett. B 595 (2004) 432 [arXiv:hep- ph/0404071]

View on Pith 2004
[8]

A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2528 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406432]; A. Djouadi, P. Gambino and B. A. Kniehl, Nucl. Phys. B 523 (1998) 17 [arXiv:hep- ph/9712330]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[1]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[2]

B. C. Allanach, A. Djouadi, J. L. Kneur, W. Porod and P. Sla vich, arXiv:hep-ph/0406166; G. Degrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, P. Slavich and G. Weig lein, Eur. Phys. J. C 28 (2003) 133 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[3]

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

View on Pith 1978
[4]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B 359 (1991) 283; A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991) 440

View on Pith 1991
[5]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. P hys. B 453 (1995) 17 [arXiv:hep-ph/9504378]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[6]

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 and...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[7]

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

View on Pith 2003
[10]

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

View on Pith 1967
[11]

L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B 185 (1981) 189. 8

View on Pith 1981
[12]

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

View on Pith 1995
[13]

B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rept. 240 (1994) 211

View on Pith 1994
[14]

T. Bhattacharya and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4022; B. A. Kniehl, C. P. Palisoc and A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B 591 (2000) 296 [arXiv:hep- ph/0007002]; K. Melnikov, M. Spira and O. I. Yakovlev, Z. Phys. C 64 (1994) 401 [arXiv:hep-ph/9405301]. 9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

Forward citations

Cited by 35 Pith papers

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

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.
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.
NNLO QCD predictions for the H -> WW -> l l nu nu signal at the LHC
hep-ph 2007-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

At NNLO in QCD, the H -> WW -> l l nu nu signal at the LHC survives the experimental selection cuts with much smaller corrections and scale uncertainty than the inclusive Higgs cross section.
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.
Gluon-fusion Higgs production in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory
hep-ph 2017-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The chromomagnetic dimension-six operator's contribution to gluon-fusion Higgs production is computed at NLO in QCD, completing the three-operator SMEFT prediction and enabling NLO event generation.

Show 30 more citing papers

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.
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.
Resummed Higgs cross section at N$^3$LL
hep-ph 2014-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Adding N3LL soft-gluon resummation with analyticity-improved soft terms to the NNLO Higgs gluon-fusion cross section raises the prediction by up to 20 percent and reduces the scale uncertainty.
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 ...
Top-mass effects in differential Higgs production through gluon fusion at order \alpha_s^4
hep-ph 2012-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Including the first subleading top-mass correction at next-to-leading order, the heavy-top approximation for the Higgs-plus-jet differential K-factor remains accurate to 2-3 percent below 150 GeV in Higgs transverse momentum.
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.
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...
Scalar Particle Contribution to Higgs Production via Gluon Fusion at NLO
hep-ph 2007-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors derive the real-emission NLO QCD matrix elements for gg to Hg, q qbar to Hg, and qg to Hq with colored scalars in the loop, completing the NLO gluon-fusion Higgs cross section for models with scalar colore...
Two-loop corrections to Higgs boson production
hep-ph 2004-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The two-loop pseudo-scalar Higgs vertex is computed for general colour factors, and the second-order single pole is shown to equal half the anomalous dimension plus a function common to quark and gluon form factors.
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.
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.
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...
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...
Excluding Electroweak Baryogenesis in the MSSM
hep-ph 2012-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The light right-handed stop required by electroweak baryogenesis in the MSSM would raise gluon-fusion Higgs rates and suppress diphoton decays; combining 2012 ATLAS and CMS Higgs searches excludes that correlated patt...
On the Generalized Harmonic Polylogarithms of One Complex Variable
hep-ph 2010-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Two quadratic variable changes plus a scale-invariance identity reduce square-root-weighted generalized harmonic polylogarithms to linear-weight ones that public GiNaC routines can evaluate at complex argument.
Analytic Results for Virtual QCD Corrections to Higgs Production and Decay
hep-ph 2006-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors derive closed analytic expressions in Harmonic Polylogarithms for the NLO virtual QCD corrections to gluon fusion into a Higgs and Higgs decay into two photons, covering both colored fermion and colored sc...
eHDECAY: an Implementation of the Higgs Effective Lagrangian into HDECAY
hep-ph 2014-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The authors release eHDECAY, an extension of HDECAY that computes Higgs decay widths and branching ratios for the SILH effective Lagrangian, a general non-linear chiral Lagrangian, and the MCHM4/MCHM5 composite-Higgs ...
Search for neutral Higgs bosons decaying to tau pairs in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2012-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess of tau-pair events beyond background is observed, so CMS sets 95% CL upper limits of 3.2 times the Standard Model cross section at 115 GeV and excludes tan beta below 7.1 at mA = 160 GeV in the m_h^max MSSM ...
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Differential Distributions
hep-ph 2012-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group's second handbook fixes benchmark differential predictions, branching-ratio uncertainties, PDF correlations, and NLO+PS tuning prescriptions for LHC Higgs analyses.
Standard Model Higgs-Boson Branching Ratios with Uncertainties
hep-ph 2011-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Updated Standard Model Higgs branching ratios from 90 to 1000 GeV, each shipped with a parametric and theoretical uncertainty budget drawn from alpha_s, m_c, m_b, m_t, and estimated missing higher orders.
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables
hep-ph 2011-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The report provides a harmonized set of inclusive LHC Higgs cross sections and uncertainty estimates for Standard Model and MSSM production modes at 7 and 14 TeV.
New Physics at the LHC. A Les Houches Report: Physics at TeV Colliders 2009 - New Physics Working Group
hep-ph 2010-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The report compares mass-determination techniques, shows one proposed general method reduces to a linearized transverse mass, and gives LHC reach estimates for supersymmetry, composite Higgs and low-scale technicolor.
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector
hep-ph 2016-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The report fixes the community's baseline numbers for Higgs boson production and decay at the 13 TeV LHC, including a 48.6 pb gluon-fusion cross section at N3LO with an explicit uncertainty budget.
Collider Physics at the Precision Frontier
hep-ph 2020-09 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive survey of precision QCD and electroweak calculations for Higgs production at hadron colliders, together with the multi-loop and real-radiation techniques that produced them.

How later papers used it

47 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 44 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 15 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 9 of the 59 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 paper by the same authors is listed below: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 1 of 4 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Followed the approach of this paper, which computed the corrections via a Taylor expansion in q^2/(4 m_t^2) and q^2/(4 m_H^2), in its computation of the C_1 coefficient.

Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC (2016) (same authors) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

47 arXiv papers cite this in 59 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 · 32 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 4 papers

In our computation of the $C_1$ coefficient we followed the approach of Ref. [ref] where the corrections have been computed via a Taylor expansion in the parameters $q^2/(4 ^2), q^2/(4 ^2)$ where $q^2$ is the virtuality of the external Higgs momentum, to be set to $^2$ at the end of the computation.

Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC · Computation of the $C_1$ coefficients · 0.97
The $ggH_i$ reduced couplings are assumed to take care of also the EW corrections [ref] , since HiggsBounds effectively obtains the approximate partonic cross section $σ(gg→H_i)$ by multiplying $ggH_i$ with the SM counterpart, $σ(gg→h_SM)$, evaluated including the EW corrections [ref] .

A light NMSSM pseudoscalar Higgs boson at the LHC redux · Methodology · 0.81
HiggsBounds uses a number of experimental analyses [ref] , and internally uses several SM results [ref] to convert between experimental limits with different normalizations.

Characterizing simplified models for heavy Higgs decays to supersymmetric particles · Analysis Setup · 0.80

Uses its data or values 12 papers

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
The factor $C_hhf$ was computed[In [ref] $C_hhf$ is denoted by $C_1^σ_ggF$ ] in [ref] , so we use the value $C_hhf=0.0066$, which is independent of the centre of mass energy.

NLO electroweak corrections in general scalar singlet models · NLO gluon fusion cross section · 0.96
The various production cross sections and branching fractions for SM processes and their corresponding uncertainties are taken from references [ref] .

Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of tau leptons · The CMS experiment · 0.99

Cites it as background 10 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 knowledge of this process includes: the next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD contributions [ref] computed for arbitrary values of the Higgs and quark masses [ref] ; the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD contributions due to top-quark loops, in the heavy-top limit [ref] and including finite top-mass effects [ref] ; soft-gluon resummation effects [ref] and estimates of the next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (NNNLO) QCD contributions [ref] ; the first-order electroweak (EW) contributions [ref] and estimates of the mixed QCD-EW contributions [ref] .

Towards precise predictions for Higgs-boson production in the MSSM · Introduction · 0.96

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] [9]

U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, Phys . Lett. B 595 (2004) 432 [arXiv:hep- ph/0404071]

View on Pith 2004

[2] [8]

A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2528 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406432]; A. Djouadi, P. Gambino and B. A. Kniehl, Nucl. Phys. B 523 (1998) 17 [arXiv:hep- ph/9712330]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[3] [1]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [2]

B. C. Allanach, A. Djouadi, J. L. Kneur, W. Porod and P. Sla vich, arXiv:hep-ph/0406166; G. Degrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, P. Slavich and G. Weig lein, Eur. Phys. J. C 28 (2003) 133 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[5] [3]

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

View on Pith 1978

[6] [4]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B 359 (1991) 283; A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991) 440

View on Pith 1991

[7] [5]

M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. P hys. B 453 (1995) 17 [arXiv:hep-ph/9504378]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[8] [6]

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 and...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[9] [7]

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

View on Pith 2003

[10] [10]

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

View on Pith 1967

[11] [11]

L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B 185 (1981) 189. 8

View on Pith 1981

[12] [12]

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

View on Pith 1995

[13] [13]

B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rept. 240 (1994) 211

View on Pith 1994

[14] [14]

T. Bhattacharya and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4022; B. A. Kniehl, C. P. Palisoc and A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B 591 (2000) 296 [arXiv:hep- ph/0007002]; K. Melnikov, M. Spira and O. I. Yakovlev, Z. Phys. C 64 (1994) 401 [arXiv:hep-ph/9405301]. 9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993