Fully differential Higgs boson production and the di-photon signal through next-to-next-to-leading order

Charalampos Anastasiou; Frank Petriello; Kirill Melnikov

REVIEW

Fully differential Higgs boson production and the di-photon signal through next-to-next-to-leading order

Charalampos Anastasiou, Kirill Melnikov, Frank Petriello

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 14 Jan 2005 · 76 references

Pith's verdict: A real capability jump — first fully differential NNLO diphoton Higgs signal with realistic cuts, plus released code — but the external benchmarking is thinner than the paper's tone implies.

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 →

· 3 major objections · 12 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0501130 (version 2)

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

CitationCharalampos Anastasiou, Frank Petriello, Kirill Melnikov. "Fully differential Higgs boson production and the di-photon signal through next-to-next-to-leading order." arXiv:hep-ph/0501130 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/OVIDRODB

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, mainly as a methods paper with a real physics payoff: this is the first fully differential NNLO prediction for pp → H → γγ with the actual ATLAS/CMS photon acceptances and isolation cuts, and they ship the code (FEHiP) so you can impose your own. Tables I and II are the parts to read. The cut cross section comes out at 0.59–0.66 of the inclusive NNLO result, and the ratio of cut to inclusive K-factors sits within about 5% of unity — that is the practically useful statement that NLO shape times inclusive NNLO K-factor is a decent approximation, and it is a checkable number rather than a claim. The technical core (sector decomposition, phase space mapped to the unit hypercube in energy and rapidity parameterizations, numerical cancellation of the 1/ε poles) is laid out in more operational detail than I have seen elsewhere, and the two-loop virtuals are taken from published inclusive results rather than rederived. Good. Where I would push: the external validation is thinner than the confidence of the prose. Agreement with the NLO H+1 jet results of [59,60] is called 'excellent' with no numbers attached. More to the point, they never quote their own FJ = 1 inclusive NNLO number against [9,51,52], even though they compute it — it is the denominator in Table II. A percent-level match there would validate the entire chain in one line, and it is the cheapest test available. Its absence is not fatal, but it is a real omission. Same for the residual-pole cancellation: asserted, no table shown. The numerator identities that tame the quadratic singularities (Eqs. 83, 84) are stated rather than derived; checkable, but if one is wrong a topology fails quietly. The infinite-top-mass rescaling of Eq. 85 is the obvious modeling caveat, but it is stated openly and is standard practice — I would not weight it heavily, and I think the stress-test note is right that it is not the load-bearing gap. No PDF or α_s uncertainty is propagated, which caps how far the K-factors should be pushed quantitatively. The acknowledgments disclose that Figs. 7 and 9 were wrong in v1 and have been corrected; worth knowing if you saw the earlier version. Send it out. The audience is Higgs-at-LHC phenomenology and anyone building diphoton background estimates; the released code makes it more than a paper.

Referee report

Significance

If the machinery is correct, this is the first fully differential NNLO prediction for the diphoton Higgs signal with realistic experimental acceptances, and it is a genuine milestone: the double real emission at NNLO for a 2 → 3 process with a massive final-state particle, with arbitrary measurement function, had not been done before. The paper is also unusually generous in what it ships: the complete technical exposition of the subtraction algorithm, the topology catalogue of Section VIII, and a publicly downloadable Fortran code with a documented user interface and a user-editable constraint routine (Section X.C). That combination of a new method, a first-of-kind phenomenological result, and released reproducible code is exactly the kind of contribution that earns citation. The stated physics caveats are the standard ones for this process and are acknowledged by the authors: the infinite-top-mass effective theory with a LO rescaling by F(mt) (Eq. 85), and the narrow-width approximation for the decay.

Major objections (3)

[Section IX, Table II] The inclusive NNLO cross section is computed by this code -- it is the denominator of the second column of Table II -- yet the manuscript never reports a numerical comparison of that quantity with the independently published inclusive results of [9, 51, 52]. This is the single cheapest and most decisive validation available: the FJ = 1 limit is a strict special case of the same phase-space parameterization, sector decomposition, collinear subtraction and numerical pole cancellation that the fully differential result relies on, and the published value is known to percent accuracy. As it stands, the external validation of the new machinery is qualitative: Section IX states agreement with Refs. [59, 60] for the jet-vetoed/cone-size behaviour as 'excellent' but quotes no numbers, and the two-loop virtuals are of course imported. I would ask the authors to add a short table comparing their inclusive NNLO cross section (and, if available, the NLO one) with [9, 51, 52] for two or three Higgs masses and both scale choices, with the Monte Carlo errors quoted. This is a reporting request rather than an allegation of error, but it is the difference between an internally consistent calculation and an externally benchmarked one, and it costs the authors almost nothing.
[Section VII, Eq. (15)] The central correctness claim of the method is that the 1/epsilon poles cancel numerically between the double real, real-virtual and two-loop virtual components, order by order in 1/epsilon^2 and 1/epsilon, after the sector decomposition and plus-distribution expansion. Eq. (15) asserts this in the abstract form d sigma_real = sum_{i=0}^{4} A_i[{q_l}, F_J]/epsilon^i with the A_i non-singular, and Section VII states that 'the singularities in epsilon are canceled numerically'. No evidence for the cancellation is shown. Since the whole chain -- parameterization, sector decomposition, plus-distribution expansion, collinear subtraction, numerical pole cancellation -- must be simultaneously correct for the finite result to be right, a table of the summed coefficients of 1/epsilon^4, 1/epsilon^3, 1/epsilon^2 and 1/epsilon (real + real-virtual + virtual, per partonic channel, for a fixed measurement function) demonstrating that they vanish within Monte Carlo error would be a strong and direct check. I would encourage the authors to include such a table, or at minimum to state the residual size of the would-be poles relative to the finite part.
[Section IX, Eq. (85)] Every number in Table I, Table II and Figs. 3-9 is computed in the infinite-top-mass effective theory and then rescaled by F(mt) = sigma_LO(mt)/sigma_LO(mt = infinity). The authors state plainly that this 'provides an approximate description of the top mass dependence at higher orders' and that they 'expect it to work well at NNLO also', so the limitation is acknowledged and I do not raise it as a new finding. What is missing is any quantification: the headline numbers of the paper are NNLO K-factors, and the residual m_t dependence of the NNLO correction is precisely the piece that the LO rescaling does not capture. A short quantitative statement would materially strengthen the paper -- for example, the size of the deviation of the exact NLO m_t dependence from the rescaled one (which is known), used as a proxy for the NNLO residual, or a comparison at NLO between the rescaled and exact calculations. I recognize that Section IX explicitly disclaims a comprehensive phenomenological analysis, and I am not asking for a full uncertainty budget; I am asking only for an estimate of the one systematic that multiplies every quoted K-factor.

Minor objections (12)

[Section II vs. Table I] Section II quotes the NLO enhancement of the inclusive cross section as a factor 1.5-1.7 for mh = 100-130 GeV at sqrt(s) = 14 TeV, citing [47, 48]. The LO-to-NLO ratios in Table I are noticeably larger, about 1.88-1.98 across the mass range and both scale choices (e.g. 15.02 → 28.30 at mh = 120 GeV, mu = mh/2). Since Table II indicates that the cut and inclusive K-factors agree to a few percent, the two statements appear to be in tension. Please reconcile, presumably by noting the different pdf set (MRST2001 here versus the sets used in [47, 48]) and the different scale choices.
[Section IX, discussion of Table II] The text states that the reduction of the cross section caused by the cuts 'ranges from 40% for mh < 120 GeV to 30% for mh > 150 GeV', but Table II stops at mh = 135 GeV, where the ratio is 0.652 (a 35% reduction). The statement about mh > 150 GeV is therefore not supported by the table as presented; either extend the table or restrict the sentence to the mass range shown. Similarly, the claim that 'the isolation cuts decrease the ratio by less than 3%' is not backed by any number in the tables; a single entry separating the pT/eta cuts from the isolation cuts would make it verifiable.
[Section II and Table II caption] The K-factor notation is inconsistent. Section II defines K_NNLO = sigma_NNLO/sigma_LO, whereas Table II and its caption define K^(2) = sigma_NNLO/sigma_NLO. Since the third column of Table II is the ratio of cut to inclusive K-factors and the discussion turns on whether that ratio is near unity, the reader needs to know unambiguously which definition is in force. Please use one symbol throughout and state the definition at each use.
[Section VII, step 3 of the algorithm] The assertion that 'we can restrict ourselves to singular regions where two of the lambda_i variables vanish; there is no need to consider triple or quadruple singular limits' is load-bearing for the automation and is stated without justification. A sentence explaining why the triple and quadruple soft/collinear limits are either absent for these topologies or already covered by the pairwise treatment would help the reader trust the algorithm's completeness.
[Section VII, Eqs. (79)-(80)] The passage from Eq. (79) to the two sectors I_0 and I_1 of Eq. (80) is compressed; in particular the definitions of A_1^(0), A_2^(0), A_1^(1), A_2^(1) and the way the lambda_2 rescaling acts on them are not derived. Since this is the one place in the paper where a line singularity is handled by hand rather than by the automated algorithm, a few intermediate lines would make the reduction checkable.
[Section IX, Fig. 6 discussion] The statement that the authors 'have compared our results with those in Refs. [59, 60], and have found excellent agreement' should be accompanied by at least one number or a quantitative statement of the level of agreement, since this is one of the few external cross-checks in the paper.
[Section IX, numerical accuracy] The paper states that 'the NNLO results are accurate to 1%, while the LO and NLO numbers are accurate to 0.1%'. It is worth a sentence explaining why the highest-order result carries the largest Monte Carlo error (presumably the higher-dimensional and more highly sector-decomposed integrand), so that the reader does not read the 1% as a theory uncertainty.
[Section X.B, input file prototype] The prototype input file contains the line 'Fermi constant = = ' with a duplicated equals sign, and the surrounding formatting (the rows of '=====' separators) does not match the output file format shown later in the same subsection. Please make the two consistent.
[Section X.A and Section XI] Typographical errors to correct: 'sussesfully' (Section X.A), 'accompaning' (Section XI), 'pesudorapidity' in the caption of Fig. 9, and 'HInchliiffe' in Ref. [43].
[Reference [37]] The companion letter [37] is cited as 'Phys. Rev. Lett., in press'. Since the present manuscript is the detailed exposition of that result, the citation should be updated to the published reference if it is now available.
[Section III, footnote 1] The footnote stating that the claim that the H → gamma gamma kinematics is unaltered by QCD is 'violated by the decay of the Higgs boson into two gluons and two photons, H → gg gamma gamma' is cryptic as written; a clause explaining why this channel is irrelevant at the accuracy considered would prevent misreading.
[Figs. 3 and 4 captions] Both captions describe 'bin-integrated' distributions but the bin widths are not stated. Please give them, and state explicitly whether the bands are from mu = mh/2 to 2mh with mu_f = mu_r.

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

The paper

The paper claims

A fully differential QCD prediction for the Higgs diphoton signal, carried to next-to-next-to-leading order with every final-state particle's kinematics kept.

The reading

The paper sets out to compute the Higgs boson production cross section through gluon fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD while keeping the full kinematics of the Higgs and of all accompanying radiation. That matters because the interesting experimental quantity is not the total rate but the rate that survives cuts on photon transverse momentum, pseudorapidity, and isolation, and those cuts cannot be applied to an inclusive number. The authors build the calculation around a numerical treatment of the double real emission contribution: instead of integrating singularities analytically, they map the phase space to a unit hypercube, split overlapping singular regions by sector decomposition, and expand in plus distributions so that the $1/ǫ$ poles cancel numerically while the kinematics stay intact. They then fold in the two-loop virtual corrections and the collinear counterterms, implement the whole thing in a Fortran code called FEHiP, and report NNLO K-factors for the ATLAS and CMS photon acceptances together with distributions in photon transverse momentum and pseudorapidity difference. If the result holds, experimenters get a genuinely differential NNLO signal prediction for $pp → H + X → γγ + X$ rather than an inclusive rate rescaled by guesswork.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a method for extracting infrared and collinear singularities from real-emission phase space without performing any analytic integration. The phase space is parameterized so that the integration region is the unit hypercube and the singular limits sit on its boundaries; two parameterizations are developed, an 'energy' one in which the invariants $s_{if}$ take a factorized form, and a 'rapidity' one in which $s_{34}$, $s_{ih}$, and two of the $s_{if}$ factorize. Entangled singularities of the form $1/(λ_1+λ_2)$ are separated by sector decomposition, which splits the region into ordered sectors and remaps each to the unit cube; line singularities along an edge, such as the $1/s_{13}$ case, are first reduced to entangled form by a nonlinear change of variables and a split of the $λ_2$ integration at the point where the two competing terms coincide. Once a singularity is factorized, the expansion $λ^{-1+ǫ} = δ(λ)/ǫ + ∑_n ǫ^n/n! [ln^n(λ)/λ]_+$ converts it into delta functions and plus distributions that act on the measurement function, so the $1/ǫ$ poles can be cancelled numerically and discarded, leaving a finite integrand that still knows the full final-state kinematics. The authors emphasize that this is what distinguishes the approach from dipole subtraction, which needs process-independent counterterms and analytic integrals.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fully differential cross section for Higgs production in gluon fusion, including the decay $H → γγ$, can be computed through NNLO in perturbative QCD with arbitrary cuts on the final state. The authors report that the NNLO corrections to the diphoton signal follow the pattern of the inclusive cross section, raising the NLO result by up to roughly 20 percent depending on scale and Higgs mass, and that the NNLO scale-dependence band is about a factor of two narrower than at NLO. For the standard photon cuts they find the cut cross section is 0.59 to 0.66 of the inclusive NNLO result, most of that reduction coming from the transverse-momentum and pseudorapidity cuts rather than from isolation, and they find that the ratio of the cut K-factor to the inclusive K-factor stays within about 5 percent of unity. They also present distributions — the average photon transverse momentum and the pseudorapidity separation between the two photons — showing that features present at leading order, such as the peak near $p_⊥ = m_h/2$ and the peak at $|η_{γ,1} - η_{γ,2}| = 0$, survive at NNLO.

Load-bearing premise

The whole QCD correction is computed in the limit of an infinitely heavy top quark, with the Higgs coupling to two gluons treated as point-like, and the finite-top-mass effects are restored only by multiplying by a ratio of leading-order cross sections, which is exact at leading order but only asserted to be accurate at NNLO.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Experimental collaborations gain an NNLO-accurate, cut-dependent prediction for the diphoton Higgs signal rather than an inclusive rate multiplied by an acceptance factor.
The finding that the cut K-factor tracks the inclusive K-factor to within about 5 percent means existing NLO differential distributions can be rescaled to approximate NNLO with a quantifiable error.
The scale choice $μ ≈ m_h/2$ is argued to be preferred, since the NNLO corrections are small there and the fixed-order result agrees with threshold resummation.
The same machinery applies to any $2 → 1$ process with one massive final-state particle, since the singular denominator structures are universal and only the numerators are process-specific.
Because full kinematics are retained, the calculation can in principle be turned into a partonic-level event generator or extended to other Higgs decay channels.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own comparison of its jet-vetoed results with NLO $H+1$ jet calculations suggests a practical shortcut: NNLO inclusive results minus NLO $H+1$ jet results reproduces the vetoed cross section, which is a cheaper route for observables where the veto is the only complication.
The observation that the NNLO correction is smallest near $μ = m_h/2$, together with the agreement with threshold resummation there, hints that the residual theoretical uncertainty quoted at $μ = m_h$ may be overestimated rather than underestimated.
Since the method's main cost is expression size — roughly a hundred sectors for this process — the practical ceiling on extending it to $2 →$ more complicated final states is likely set by phase-space parameterization quality rather than by the singularity extraction itself.

Original abstract

We describe a calculation of the fully differential cross section for Higgs boson production in the gluon fusion channel through next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in perturbative QCD. The decay of the Higgs boson into two photons is included. Technical aspects of the computation are discussed in detail. The implementation of the calculation into a numerical code, called FEHiP, is described. The NNLO K-factors for completely realistic photon acceptances and isolation cuts, including those employed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations, are computed. We study various distributions of the photons from Higgs decay through NNLO.

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, 4,766 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.13 · compares with prior results 0.11 · mentions code or data availability 0.14.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We describe a calculation of the fully differential cross section for Higgs boson production in the gluon fusion channel through next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in perturbative QCD. The decay of the Higgs boson into two photons is included. Technical aspects of the computation are discussed in detail. The implementation of the calculation into a numerical code, called FEHiP, is described. The NNLO K-factors for completely realistic photon acceptances and isolation cuts, including those employed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations, are computed. We study various distributions of the photons from Higgs decay through NNLO.

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 describe a calculation of the fully differential cross section for Higgs boson production in the gluon fusion channel through next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in perturbative QCD.	contribution 1.00	0.96	0.21	asserted 0.99
s1	The decay of the Higgs boson into two photons is included.	contribution 0.77	0.61	0.04	asserted 0.99
s2	Technical aspects of the computation are discussed in detail.	method 0.92	0.74	0.02	asserted 0.94
s3	The implementation of the calculation into a numerical code, called FEHiP, is described.	method 0.86	0.93	0.03	asserted 1.00
s4	The NNLO K-factors for completely realistic photon acceptances and isolation cuts, including those employed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations, are computed.	result 0.83	0.95	0.20	asserted 1.00
s5	We study various distributions of the photons from Higgs decay through NNLO.	contribution 0.97	0.94	0.09	asserted 0.98

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.58 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.98.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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.** FIG. 1: Examples of diagrams that contribute to the

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Examples of diagrams that contribute to the producti

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Bin-integrated Higgs boson rapidity distribution a

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Bin-integrated Higgs boson rapidity distributions

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: The Higgs boson production cross section at the LHC as

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6: The Higgs boson production cross section at the LHC wi

**Figure 9.** FIG. 9: The distribution in the pesudorapidity difference of t

Showing 8 of the paper's 9 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0501130 by the authors.

References

Works cited (76)

[1]

F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B100, 65 (1981); K.G. Chetyrkin and F.V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B192, 159 (1981)

View on Pith 1981
[2]

V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 460, 397 (1999); J. B. Tausk, Phys. Lett. B 469, 225 (1999); V. A. Smirnov and O. L. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B 566, 469 (2000); C. Anastasiou, T. Gehrmann, C. Oleari, E. Remiddi and J.B. Tausk, Nucl. Phys. B580, 577 (2000); T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B580, 485 (2000); T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B601, 248...

View on Pith 1999
[3]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and A. Ghinculov, Phys. Rev. D63, 053007 (2001); C. Anastasiou, E.W.N. Glover, C. Oleari and M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Nucl. Phys. B601, 318 (2001); Nucl. Phys. B601, 341 (2001); C. Anastasiou, E.W.N. Glover, C. Oleari and M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Nucl. Phys. B605, 486 (2001); E.W.N. Glover, C. Oleari and M.E. Tejeda-Yeoma ns, Nucl. Phys. B605,...

View on Pith 2001
[4]

L.W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover, A. Koukoutsak is and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B627, 107 (2002); L.W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover, A. Ko ukoutsakis and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B642, 227 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[5]

S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 5087 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[6]

F. Bloch and A. Nordsieck, Phys. Rev. 52, 54 (1937)

View on Pith 1937
[7]

T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. 3, 650 (1962)

View on Pith 1962
[8]

T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. 133, B1549 (1964)

View on Pith 1964
[9]

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 646, 220 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0207004]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[10]

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D 67, 037501 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0208115]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[11]

C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. P roc. Suppl. 116, 193 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211141]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[12]

C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello , Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 182002 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0306192]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[13]

C. Anastasiou, L. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, P hys. Rev. D 69, 094008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0312266]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[14]

K. Melnikov and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034027 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404143]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[15]

A. Mitov, arXiv:hep-ph/0410205

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

G. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1436 (1977)

View on Pith 1977
[17]

S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B 485, 291 (1997) [Erratum-ibid. B 510, 503 (1997)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9605323]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[18]

S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour and Z. Trocsanyi, Nucl. Phys. B 627, 189 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201036]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[19]

R. K. Ellis, D. A. Ross and A. E. Terrano, Nucl. Phys. B 178, 421 (1981); W. T. Giele and E. W. N. Glover, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1980 (1992); K. Fabricius, I. Schmitt, G. Schierholz and G. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B 97, 431 (1980); F. Gutbrod, G. Kramer and G. Schierholz, Z. Phys . 45 C 21, 235 (1984); Z. Kunszt, A. Signer and Z. Trocsanyi, Phys. Let t. B 336, 529 ...

View on Pith 1981
[20]

D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D 67, 116003 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0212097]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[21]

D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 061602 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0301069]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[22]

S. Weinzierl, JHEP 0303, 062 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302180]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[23]

S. Weinzierl, JHEP 0307, 052 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0306248]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[24]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and G. Heinrich, Nuc l. Phys. B 682, 265 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311276]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[25]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, N ucl. Phys. B 691, 195 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403057]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[26]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, h ep-ph/0407023

View on Pith
[27]

W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 70, 031501 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403128]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[28]

S. Frixione and M. Grazzini, arXiv:hep-ph/0411399

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

S. Catani, Phys. Lett. B 427, 161 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9802439]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[30]

G. Sterman and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Lett. B 552, 48 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0210130]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[31]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 425, 217 (1994); D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 552, 319 (1999); D. A. Kosower and P. Uwer, Nucl. Phys. B 563, 477 (1999); Z. Bern, V. Del Duca and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Lett . B 445, 168 (1998); Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, W. B. Kilgore and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev . D 60, 116001 (1999); S. Catan...

View on Pith 1994
[32]

C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D 69, 076010 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311311]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[33]

T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, Nucl. Phys. B 585, 741 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[34]

K. Hepp, Commun. Math. Phys. 2, 301 (1966)

View on Pith 1966
[35]

M. Roth and A. Denner, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 495 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9605420]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[36]

C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 032002 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402280]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[37]

C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. Lett., in press [arXiv:hep-ph/0409088]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[38]

M. Carena and H. E. Haber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 50, 63 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0208209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[39]

G. Altarelli and M. W. Grunewald, arXiv:hep-ph/040416 5

View on Pith
[40]

J.R. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard, D.V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys . B106, 292 (1976); M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, M.B. Voloshin and V.I. Zakha rov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30, 711 46 (1979)

View on Pith 1976
[41]

J.F. Gunion, P. Kalyniak, M. Soldate and P. Galison, Phy s. Rev. D34, 101 (1986); J.F. Gunion, G. L. Kane and J. Wudka, Nucl. Phys. B299, 231 (1988)

View on Pith 1986
[42]

ATLAS collaboration, “Atlas detector and physics perf ormance; technical design report.”, vol. 2, report CERN/LHCC 99-15, ATLAS-TDR-15; CMS collaboration. “CMS: The electromagnetic calorimeter , technical design report.”, report CERN/LHCC 97-33, CMS-TDR-4; V. Tisserand, Ph.D. thesis, LAL 97-01. February 1997; M. Wielers, “Isolation of photons.”, report AT...

View on Pith 1997
[43]

R. K. Ellis, I. HInchliﬀe, M. Soldate and J.J. van der Biij , Nucl. Phys. B297, 221 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[44]

S. Frixione, arXiv:hep-ph/9809397

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[45]

T. Binoth, J. P. Guillet, E. Pilon and M. Werlen, Eur. Phy s. J. C 16, 311 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9911340]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[46]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074018 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206194]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[47]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B359, 283 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[48]

A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B264, 440 (1991); D. Graudenz, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1372 (1993); M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P.M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B453, 17 (1995)

View on Pith 1991
[49]

S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, JHEP 0105, 025 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0102227]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[50]

R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 64, 013015 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0102241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[51]

R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 201801 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201206]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[52]

V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 665, 325 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302135]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[53]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[54]

V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. Van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 634, 247 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201114]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[55]

C. Balazs and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Lett., B478, 192 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[56]

G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, Phys . Lett. B564, 65 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[57]

A. Kulesza, G. Sterman, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D69, 014012 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[58]

E.L. Berger and J. Qiu. Phys. Rev. D67, 034026 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[59]

D. de Florian, M. Grazzini and Z. Kunszt, Phys. Rev. Lett . 82, 5209 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9902483]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[60]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114012 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006304]; http://mcfm.fnal.gov

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[61]

S. Frixione and B.R. Webber, JHEP 0206, 029 (2002); S. Frixione, P. Nason and B.R. Webber, JHEP 0308, 007 (2003)

View on Pith 2002
[62]

Lance J. Dixon and M. S. Siu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 252001 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302233]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[63]

G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298 (1977)

View on Pith 1977
[64]

G. Curci, W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B 175, 27 (1980); W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Phys. Lett. B 97, 437 (1980); E. G. Floratos, D. A. Ross and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 129, 66 (1977) [Erratum-ibid. B 139, 545 (1978)], Nucl. Phys. B 152, 493 (1979)

View on Pith 1980
[65]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 688, 101 (2004) 47 [arXiv:hep-ph/0403192]; A. Vogt, S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermas eren, Nucl. Phys. B 691, 129 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404111]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[66]

K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, Phys. R ev. Lett. 79, 353 (1997); Nucl. Phys. B510, 61 (1998); T. Inami, T. Kubota and Y. Okada; Z. Phys. C 18, 69 (1983)

View on Pith 1997
[67]

R. V. Harlander, Phys. Lett. B 492, 74 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0007289]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[68]

C. Anastasiou and A. Lazopoulos, JHEP 0407, 046 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404258]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[69]

G. Altarelli, R.K. Ellis and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B157, 461 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[70]

A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorn e, Phys. Lett. B531, 216 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[71]

S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, JHEP 0201, 015 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[72]

M. Dittmar and H. K. Dreiner, Phys. Rev. D 55, 167 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9608317]; G. Davatz, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Grazzini and F. Paus s, JHEP 0405, 009 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402218]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[73]

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~kirill/FEHiP.htm

View on Pith
[74]

G. P. Lepage, CLNS-80/447

View on Pith
[75]

T. Hahn, arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[76]

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Co mmun. 108, 56 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9704448]. 48

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

Forward citations

Cited by 59 Pith papers

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

N3LO Corrections to Jet Production in Deep Inelastic Scattering using the Projection-to-Born Method
hep-ph 2018-03 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

A new subtraction method delivers third-order QCD corrections for single-jet production in deep inelastic scattering, the first N3LO calculation for an exclusive final state, and improves agreement with HERA data.
NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production
hep-ph 2013-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

A MINLO Higgs-plus-jet simulation reweighted by the ratio of NNLO to NLO inclusive rapidity spectra reproduces the NNLO rapidity distribution exactly and, by a short theorem, keeps NNLO accuracy for all infrared-safe ...
Double-real corrections to $e^+e^-\to q\bar{q}$ with partial fractioned scalar radiators and identified particle kinematics mappings
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

A parton-shower-inspired local subtraction scheme for double-real corrections in color singlet decays is introduced, with finiteness verified for the e+e- to qqbar remainder and phase-space integrals computed analytic...
Higher-Order Corrections to Higgs Boson Amplitudes with Full Quark Mass Dependence in Quantum Chromodynamics
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The thesis computes three-loop and two-loop QCD corrections to Higgs processes with full quark mass dependence, including a new analytic series-expansion treatment of elliptic two-loop master integrals for Higgs-plus-...
Linearly polarized gluons at next-to-next-to leading order and the Higgs transverse momentum distribution
hep-ph 2019-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The two-loop matching coefficient for the linearly polarized gluon TMD is computed in closed form, completing NNLO accuracy for the gluon contribution to the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum within TMD factorization.

Show 54 more citing papers

Precise QCD predictions for the production of Higgs+jet final states
hep-ph 2014-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The gluonic contribution to Higgs-plus-one-jet production is computed fully differentially at NNLO in QCD, raising the cross section by about 45 percent over NLO and reducing the residual scale uncertainty to roughly ...
Matching Fully Differential NNLO Calculations and Parton Showers
hep-ph 2013-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A general construction is given for Monte Carlo cross sections that combine fully differential NNLO QCD calculations with leading-logarithmic resummation and can be handed to a parton shower, together with explicit co...
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.
Theory Uncertainties for Higgs and Other Searches Using Jet Bins
hep-ph 2011-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Estimating theory uncertainties from inclusive rather than exclusive jet-bin cross sections gives larger, more realistic error bars and a correlation matrix whose jet-boundary component cancels when neighbouring bins ...
Factorization and Resummation of Higgs Boson Differential Distributions in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory
hep-ph 2009-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The Higgs pT and rapidity cross section factorizes, at leading power, into a hard coefficient, two impact-parameter beam functions, an inverse soft function, and standard PDFs, with large logarithms resummed by renorm...
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.
Next-to-Leading order Higgs + 2 jet production via gluon fusion
hep-ph 2006-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The first next-to-leading-order QCD calculation of Higgs plus two jet production via gluon fusion finds modest corrections (15 to 40 percent) but a residual renormalization-scale uncertainty of roughly 35 percent.
Measurement of off-shell Higgs boson production in the $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channel using a neural simulation-based inference technique in 13 TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Using neural simulation-based inference, ATLAS improves evidence for off-shell Higgs production in ZZ -> 4l to 2.5 sigma observed (1.3 sigma expected) and measures Gamma_H = 4.3 +2.7 -1.9 MeV.
Precision phenomenology with MCFM
hep-ph 2019-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A rewritten MCFM release reaches per-mille numerical precision at NNLO by correlated sampling of multiple jettiness cutoffs and hundreds of PDF members inside a single integration.
NNLO QCD corrections to jet production in deep inelastic scattering
hep-ph 2017-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Full NNLO QCD corrections to inclusive single-jet and di-jet production in deep inelastic scattering are computed, and they bring the HERA jet data into substantially better agreement than NLO while cutting the theory...
N-jettiness Subtractions for NNLO QCD Calculations
hep-ph 2015-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

N-jettiness, computed from soft-collinear effective theory factorization, provides a systematic and process-independent subtraction that makes fully differential NNLO QCD calculations feasible for arbitrary jet multip...
NNLO QCD corrections to jet production at hadron colliders from gluon scattering
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The sub-leading colour contribution to gluon-channel dijet production at NNLO adds roughly 10% to the correction, rising from 8% at low jet pT to 15% at high pT, and antenna subtraction handles it without new ingredients.
Probing top-partners in Higgs + jets
hep-ph 2013-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Higgs plus a high-momentum jet is sensitive to top-partner mass and coupling, unlike inclusive Higgs production, and 300 fb⁻¹ at 14 TeV would probe mixing angles down to 0.05.
Jet p_T Resummation in Higgs Production at NNLL'+NNLO
hep-ph 2013-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Resumming jet-veto logarithms to NNLL' matched to NNLO yields a zero-jet Higgs cross section with roughly 10% perturbative uncertainty plus a predicted correlation matrix across jet bins.
Factorization and N^3LL_p+NNLO Predictions for the Higgs Cross Section with a Jet Veto
hep-ph 2013-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The two-loop collinear-anomaly coefficient for the Higgs jet-veto cross section is derived analytically in soft-collinear effective theory, agrees with the independent QCD result, and yields N3LLp+NNLO predictions wit...
Reducing theoretical uncertainties for exclusive Higgs plus one-jet production at the LHC
hep-ph 2013-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Adding the full one-loop soft function extends jet-veto resummation for exclusive Higgs plus one-jet production to NLL-prime accuracy and reduces the estimated theoretical uncertainty by roughly a quarter.
Soft triple-real radiation for Higgs production at N3LO
hep-ph 2013-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The three-parton real-emission contribution to Higgs production at N3LO is reduced, in the soft limit, to ten master integrals computed analytically through weight-six zeta values, yielding the first two coefficients ...
Higgs and Z-boson production with a jet veto
hep-ph 2012-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper derives the first NNLL resummation of jet-veto efficiencies in Higgs and Z-boson production, matches it to NNLO, and validates the new clustering corrections against MCFM at two fixed orders.
Resummation Properties of Jet Vetoes at the LHC
hep-ph 2012-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Jet clustering spoils complete resummation of jet-veto logarithms beyond NLL for both large and small jet radius, with explicit two-loop calculations of the offending terms.
The fully differential hadronic production of a Higgs boson via bottom quark fusion at NNLO
hep-ph 2012-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors present the first fully differential NNLO QCD calculation of Higgs production via bottom-quark fusion, with differential distributions and factorization-scale uncertainties for the 8 TeV LHC.
NLL+NNLO predictions for jet-veto efficiencies in Higgs-boson and Drell-Yan production
hep-ph 2012-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

At NLL accuracy the jet-veto efficiency resummation collapses to a single Sudakov form factor, and matching it to NNLO gives stable Z-boson predictions but 10 to 20 percent scheme-driven uncertainties for gluon-fusion...
Two-Loop QCD Corrections to the Helicity Amplitudes for $H \to$ 3 partons
hep-ph 2011-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-loop helicity amplitudes for H to ggg and H to q qbar g are derived analytically in the infinite-top-mass effective theory, supplying the missing ingredient for NNLO Higgs-plus-jet predictions.
The fully differential decay rate of a Higgs boson to bottom-quarks at NNLO in QCD
hep-ph 2011-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

First fully differential next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD calculation of Higgs decay to bottom quarks, validated against the known inclusive width and extended to JADE jet rates and leading-jet energy spectra.
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.
Antenna subtraction at NNLO with hadronic initial states: double real radiation for initial-initial configurations with two quark flavours
hep-ph 2010-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors derive the 12 phase-space master integrals and the integrated four-parton initial-initial antenna functions with two quark flavours, a building block for NNLO antenna subtraction in hadron collisions.
SecDec: A general program for sector decomposition
hep-ph 2010-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper documents SecDec, a public Mathematica/perl/Fortran program that sector-decomposes parametric integrals, subtracts dimensional-regularisation poles, and Monte Carlo integrates the finite coefficients, valida...
On the factorization of overlapping singularities at NNLO
hep-ph 2010-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A non-linear variable-transformation technique factorizes overlapping singularities in NNLO QCD integrals with far fewer sectors than sector decomposition, demonstrated on double-real topologies and two crossed two-lo...
Antenna subtraction for gluon scattering at NNLO
hep-ph 2010-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A working antenna subtraction term for the six-gluon double-real contribution to NNLO dijet production, validated numerically in all single and double unresolved limits.
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.
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...
A subtraction scheme for computing QCD jet cross sections at NNLO: regularization of doubly-real emissions
hep-ph 2006-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper builds explicit subtraction counterterms, with exact phase-space factorization, that regularize the doubly-real emission contribution to NNLO jet cross sections in electron-positron annihilation.
Combining Monte Carlo generators with next-to-next-to-leading order calculations: event reweighting for Higgs boson production at the LHC
hep-ph 2006-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Reweighting Monte Carlo events to the NNLO double differential Higgs pT and rapidity distribution gives accurate photon distributions from H to gamma gamma, and leaves H to WW lepton shapes almost unchanged.
Higgs production and decay: Analytic results at next-to-leading order QCD
hep-ph 2005-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Closed-form analytic expressions are given for the NLO virtual QCD corrections to gg to H/A and for the H/A to two-photon amplitudes at arbitrary Higgs and quark masses.
Two-loop QCD corrections to $ H \rightarrow b + \bar{b} + g $ at higher powers in the dimensional regulator
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Two-loop QCD corrections to H → b b-bar g amplitude computed at higher orders in ε via Lorentz projection.
New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC
hep-ph 2019-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

New CT18 PDFs at NLO and NNLO from global fit to HERA plus LHC jet, Drell-Yan, top-pair and Z data, with Hessian errors, Lagrange-multiplier studies, and alternate sets for data tensions and scale choices.
Fully differential NNLO computations with MATRIX
hep-ph 2017-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

MATRIX delivers fully differential NNLO QCD predictions for a broad set of colour-singlet LHC processes, with an automated procedure that controls the subtraction-cutoff uncertainty down to the few permille level.
Color singlet production at NNLO in MCFM
hep-ph 2016-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

MCFM v8.0 ships validated NNLO QCD predictions for pp to H, Z, W, ZH, WH and diphoton, with quantified jettiness-cut systematics and cluster scaling benchmarks.
Higgs boson decay into b-quarks at NNLO accuracy
hep-ph 2015-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper validates a general NNLO subtraction scheme by applying it to Higgs decay into b-quarks, showing analytically that its integrated counterterms cancel the infrared poles of the two-loop amplitude and reproduc...
Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator
hep-ph 2015-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Higgs-production event generator now includes finite top- and bottom-quark masses at NLO accuracy, and its bottom-mass uncertainty is estimated to sit inside ordinary renormalization and factorization scale uncertainties.
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.
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...
Shift in the LHC Higgs diphoton mass peak from interference with background
hep-ph 2012-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Signal-background interference in gg to H to diphoton shifts the reconstructed Higgs mass peak downward by of order 150 MeV at leading order, a bias comparable to the projected LHC mass precision.
W physics at the LHC with FEWZ 2.1
hep-ph 2012-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The FEWZ 2.1 release extends next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD predictions to W production, adds new observables and an order-of-magnitude speedup, and shows that fiducial-region comparisons discriminate proton PDF se...
FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z production at next-to-next-to-leading order
hep-ph 2010-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The upgraded FEWZ code delivers NNLO QCD predictions for LHC Z production with sub-percent numerical integration error, automatic histograms and PDF errors, and shows that detector acceptance qualitatively reshapes th...
Automating the POWHEG method in Sherpa
hep-ph 2010-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

POWHEG next-to-leading-order matching is automated inside the Sherpa event generator using Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction, validated across six processes and applied to W-pair production for the first time.
THE TOOLS AND MONTE CARLO WORKING GROUP Summary Report from the Les Houches 2009 Workshop on TeV Colliders
hep-ph 2010-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The Les Houches 2009 Tools and Monte Carlo group specifies updated event-file, flavour-observable and NLO runtime interfaces, and reports that the major LHC simulation chains agree in shape within roughly 20 to 50 percent.
HPro: A NLO Monte-Carlo for Higgs production via gluon fusion with finite heavy quark masses
hep-ph 2009-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo (HPro) computes Higgs production via gluon fusion with exact top and bottom quark masses, finding bottom-loop corrections of up to about 8 percent for a light Higgs boson.
Renormalization-Group Improved Prediction for Higgs Production at Hadron Colliders
hep-ph 2008-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Resumming pi-squared-enhanced corrections via a time-like matching scale raises the NNLO Higgs production cross section by 8% at the LHC and 13% at the Tevatron for m_H = 120 GeV.
Transverse-momentum resummation and the spectrum of the Higgs boson at the LHC
hep-ph 2005-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A unitarity-constrained b-space resummation formalism predicts the Higgs boson transverse-momentum spectrum at the LHC at NNLL+NLO accuracy with roughly 10% perturbative uncertainty over small and intermediate momenta.
The two-loop helicity amplitudes for $q \bar q' \to V_1 V_2 \to 4~\mathrm{leptons}$
hep-ph 2015-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The authors independently recompute the two-loop helicity amplitudes for off-shell vector-boson pair production, confirm a prior calculation after correcting one of its form factors, and release a fast public numerical code.
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.
NLO matrix elements and truncated showers
hep-ph 2010-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The MENLOPS algorithm merges POWHEG NLO matching with ME+PS multijet merging, preserving O(alpha_s) accuracy while adding hard tree-level emissions, and is checked against LEP, HERA and Tevatron data.
Hadronic production of a Higgs boson and two jets at next-to-leading order
hep-ph 2010-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Swapping semi-numerical one-loop amplitudes for analytic ones makes the NLO Higgs-plus-two-jet calculation fast enough to include Higgs decays, and yields updated Tevatron and LHC predictions with roughly halved scale...
Sector Decomposition
hep-ph 2008-03 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Sector decomposition is presented as a general, automatable recipe for isolating UV and IR divergences in multi-loop and real-radiation integrals.

How later papers used it

65 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 55 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 19 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 12 of the 108 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

4 later papers by other authors are listed below: 4 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 4 of 17 papers with this label

Used FEHiP to translate a figure into NNLO bounds on the LHC Higgs production cross section.

Smoking Guns for On-Shell New Physics at the LHC (2008) · 0.83 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the publicly available code FEHiP for the fixed-order rapidity distribution of the pseudo-scalar Higgs, applying the scalar Higgs result with a ratio factor.

Rapidity distribution of pseudo-scalar Higgs boson to $\rm{\textbf{NNLO}_A+\overline{\textbf {NNLL}}}$ (2023) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
While f.o results up to NNLO are obtained using publicly available code FEHIP [ref] , the resummed contributions are included up to NNLL using an in-house Fortran code.

Threshold resummation in rapidity for colorless particle production at LHC (2018) · Higgs rapidity distribution · 0.98
Used the publicly available code FEHIP to obtain its gluon rapidity distribution up to NNLO.

Threshold resummation of the rapidity distribution for Higgs production at NNLO+NNLL (2017) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

58 arXiv papers cite this in 96 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 · 45 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 12 papers

In this paper we compute accepted cross-sections and kinematic distributions at NNLO using the programs FEHIP [ref] and HNNLO [ref] .

Perturbative QCD effects and the search for a H->WW->l nu l nu signal at the Tevatron · Introduction · 0.95
Figure [ref] shows the EFT prediction of this ratio calculated at NLO in $α_S$ using Fehip [ref] for a range of Higgs masses in the large-$m_t$ limit.

Smoking Guns for On-Shell New Physics at the LHC · Introduction · 0.90
In our analysis we obtain $σ^(τ^)$ and $σ^(τ^)$ numerically using the publicly available program [ref] , which allows one to obtain the fixed-order NNLO Higgs production cross section for generic phase-space cuts.

Higgs Production with a Central Jet Veto at NNLL+NNLO · Nonsingular Contributions · 1.00

Uses its data or values 3 papers

Here one finds [ref]

Theory Uncertainties for Higgs and Other Searches Using Jet Bins · Higgs + $0$ Jets · 0.95
For example, for $gg→H$ (with $√(s) =7$, $m_H = 165$, $μ_f = μ_r = m_H/2$), one finds [ref]

The SM and NLO Multileg and SM MC Working Groups: Summary Report · Structure of the Perturbative Series · 0.91
The signal cross-section is known with a scale uncertainty of about $±7%$ at NNLO [ref] .

QCD radiation effects on the H->WW->l nu l nu signal at the LHC · Introduction · 0.96

Compares with it 6 papers

We will show resummed results up to NNLL+NNLO order and also compare with the results obtained in fixed-order perturbation theory at NNLO using [ref] .

Higgs Production with a Central Jet Veto at NNLL+NNLO · Numerical Results · 0.97
We check that the results up to $O(α_s^4)$ of the previous section are reproduced (which turns out to happen in a rather nontrivial way), we construct an explicit analytic matched $O(α_s^3)$ expression in the finite $m_top$ case, and compare it to known numerical results [ref] .

Small x resummation of rapidity distributions: the case of Higgs production · Introduction · 0.99
In this paper, we restrict ourselves to the production of a scalar Higgs boson at the LHC and present the numerical impact of the resummed result over the fixed-order result known to NNLO level [ref] .

Threshold resummation of the rapidity distribution for Higgs production at NNLO+NNLL · Introduction · 0.88

Cites it as support 2 papers

The main reason is that, ultimately, the observable that is experimentally used is the cross section $σ^cuts_gg→H$ in which selection cuts have been applied and the theoretical prediction for $σ^cuts_gg→H$ is available only to NNLO [ref] .

Addendum to: Predictions for Higgs production at the Tevatron and the associated uncertainties · 1. The normalization of the $𝐠𝐠→𝐇$ cross section · 0.97
An example for this behavior can be found in the study of the jet-veto at NNLO [ref] .

NNLO QCD predictions for the H -> WW -> l l nu nu signal at the LHC · Introduction · 0.96

Cites it as background 25 papers

The rapidity spectrum for gluon-fusion Higgs production is known to * [ref] , while the * corrections are available in the threshold limit [ref] .

Resummation Improved Rapidity Spectrum for Gluon Fusion Higgs Production · Higgs rapidity spectrum · 0.93
Rapidity distribution has been known to NNLO for the Higgs production through gluon fusion [ref] , as well as in bottom quark annihilation [ref] .

Higgs boson rapidity distribution in bottom annihilation at NNLL and beyond · Introduction · 0.88
As NLO corrections to the core process $gg→h→τ^+τ^-$ are rather large, tremendous efforts have been made to perform fully differential calculations at NNLO [ref] and several predictions have been presented which merged such fixed-order results with resummation at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy [ref] .

NLO matrix elements and truncated showers · Higgs boson production · 0.89

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] [1]

F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B100, 65 (1981); K.G. Chetyrkin and F.V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B192, 159 (1981)

View on Pith 1981

[2] [2]

V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 460, 397 (1999); J. B. Tausk, Phys. Lett. B 469, 225 (1999); V. A. Smirnov and O. L. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B 566, 469 (2000); C. Anastasiou, T. Gehrmann, C. Oleari, E. Remiddi and J.B. Tausk, Nucl. Phys. B580, 577 (2000); T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B580, 485 (2000); T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B601, 248...

View on Pith 1999

[3] [3]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and A. Ghinculov, Phys. Rev. D63, 053007 (2001); C. Anastasiou, E.W.N. Glover, C. Oleari and M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Nucl. Phys. B601, 318 (2001); Nucl. Phys. B601, 341 (2001); C. Anastasiou, E.W.N. Glover, C. Oleari and M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Nucl. Phys. B605, 486 (2001); E.W.N. Glover, C. Oleari and M.E. Tejeda-Yeoma ns, Nucl. Phys. B605,...

View on Pith 2001

[4] [4]

L.W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover, A. Koukoutsak is and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B627, 107 (2002); L.W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover, A. Ko ukoutsakis and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B642, 227 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[5] [5]

S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 5087 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[6] [6]

F. Bloch and A. Nordsieck, Phys. Rev. 52, 54 (1937)

View on Pith 1937

[7] [7]

T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. 3, 650 (1962)

View on Pith 1962

[8] [8]

T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. 133, B1549 (1964)

View on Pith 1964

[9] [9]

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 646, 220 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0207004]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[10] [10]

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D 67, 037501 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0208115]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[11] [11]

C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. P roc. Suppl. 116, 193 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211141]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[12] [12]

C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello , Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 182002 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0306192]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[13] [13]

C. Anastasiou, L. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, P hys. Rev. D 69, 094008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0312266]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[14] [14]

K. Melnikov and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034027 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404143]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[15] [15]

A. Mitov, arXiv:hep-ph/0410205

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [16]

G. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1436 (1977)

View on Pith 1977

[17] [17]

S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B 485, 291 (1997) [Erratum-ibid. B 510, 503 (1997)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9605323]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[18] [18]

S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour and Z. Trocsanyi, Nucl. Phys. B 627, 189 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201036]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[19] [19]

R. K. Ellis, D. A. Ross and A. E. Terrano, Nucl. Phys. B 178, 421 (1981); W. T. Giele and E. W. N. Glover, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1980 (1992); K. Fabricius, I. Schmitt, G. Schierholz and G. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B 97, 431 (1980); F. Gutbrod, G. Kramer and G. Schierholz, Z. Phys . 45 C 21, 235 (1984); Z. Kunszt, A. Signer and Z. Trocsanyi, Phys. Let t. B 336, 529 ...

View on Pith 1981

[20] [20]

D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D 67, 116003 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0212097]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[21] [21]

D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 061602 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0301069]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[22] [22]

S. Weinzierl, JHEP 0303, 062 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302180]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[23] [23]

S. Weinzierl, JHEP 0307, 052 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0306248]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[24] [24]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and G. Heinrich, Nuc l. Phys. B 682, 265 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311276]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[25] [25]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, N ucl. Phys. B 691, 195 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403057]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[26] [26]

A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, h ep-ph/0407023

View on Pith

[27] [27]

W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 70, 031501 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403128]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[28] [28]

S. Frixione and M. Grazzini, arXiv:hep-ph/0411399

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[29] [29]

S. Catani, Phys. Lett. B 427, 161 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9802439]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[30] [30]

G. Sterman and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Lett. B 552, 48 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0210130]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[31] [31]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 425, 217 (1994); D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 552, 319 (1999); D. A. Kosower and P. Uwer, Nucl. Phys. B 563, 477 (1999); Z. Bern, V. Del Duca and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Lett . B 445, 168 (1998); Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, W. B. Kilgore and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev . D 60, 116001 (1999); S. Catan...

View on Pith 1994

[32] [32]

C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D 69, 076010 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311311]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[33] [33]

T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, Nucl. Phys. B 585, 741 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[34] [34]

K. Hepp, Commun. Math. Phys. 2, 301 (1966)

View on Pith 1966

[35] [35]

M. Roth and A. Denner, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 495 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9605420]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[36] [36]

C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 032002 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402280]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[37] [37]

C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. Lett., in press [arXiv:hep-ph/0409088]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[38] [38]

M. Carena and H. E. Haber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 50, 63 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0208209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[39] [39]

G. Altarelli and M. W. Grunewald, arXiv:hep-ph/040416 5

View on Pith

[40] [40]

J.R. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard, D.V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys . B106, 292 (1976); M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, M.B. Voloshin and V.I. Zakha rov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30, 711 46 (1979)

View on Pith 1976

[41] [41]

J.F. Gunion, P. Kalyniak, M. Soldate and P. Galison, Phy s. Rev. D34, 101 (1986); J.F. Gunion, G. L. Kane and J. Wudka, Nucl. Phys. B299, 231 (1988)

View on Pith 1986

[42] [42]

ATLAS collaboration, “Atlas detector and physics perf ormance; technical design report.”, vol. 2, report CERN/LHCC 99-15, ATLAS-TDR-15; CMS collaboration. “CMS: The electromagnetic calorimeter , technical design report.”, report CERN/LHCC 97-33, CMS-TDR-4; V. Tisserand, Ph.D. thesis, LAL 97-01. February 1997; M. Wielers, “Isolation of photons.”, report AT...

View on Pith 1997

[43] [43]

R. K. Ellis, I. HInchliﬀe, M. Soldate and J.J. van der Biij , Nucl. Phys. B297, 221 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[44] [44]

S. Frixione, arXiv:hep-ph/9809397

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[45] [45]

T. Binoth, J. P. Guillet, E. Pilon and M. Werlen, Eur. Phy s. J. C 16, 311 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9911340]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[46] [46]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074018 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206194]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[47] [47]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B359, 283 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[48] [48]

A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B264, 440 (1991); D. Graudenz, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1372 (1993); M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P.M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B453, 17 (1995)

View on Pith 1991

[49] [49]

S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, JHEP 0105, 025 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0102227]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[50] [50]

R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 64, 013015 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0102241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[51] [51]

R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 201801 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201206]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[52] [52]

V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 665, 325 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302135]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[53] [53]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[54] [54]

V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. Van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 634, 247 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201114]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[55] [55]

C. Balazs and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Lett., B478, 192 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[56] [56]

G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, Phys . Lett. B564, 65 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[57] [57]

A. Kulesza, G. Sterman, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D69, 014012 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[58] [58]

E.L. Berger and J. Qiu. Phys. Rev. D67, 034026 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[59] [59]

D. de Florian, M. Grazzini and Z. Kunszt, Phys. Rev. Lett . 82, 5209 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9902483]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[60] [60]

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114012 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006304]; http://mcfm.fnal.gov

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[61] [61]

S. Frixione and B.R. Webber, JHEP 0206, 029 (2002); S. Frixione, P. Nason and B.R. Webber, JHEP 0308, 007 (2003)

View on Pith 2002

[62] [62]

Lance J. Dixon and M. S. Siu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 252001 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302233]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[63] [63]

G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298 (1977)

View on Pith 1977

[64] [64]

G. Curci, W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B 175, 27 (1980); W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Phys. Lett. B 97, 437 (1980); E. G. Floratos, D. A. Ross and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 129, 66 (1977) [Erratum-ibid. B 139, 545 (1978)], Nucl. Phys. B 152, 493 (1979)

View on Pith 1980

[65] [65]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 688, 101 (2004) 47 [arXiv:hep-ph/0403192]; A. Vogt, S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermas eren, Nucl. Phys. B 691, 129 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404111]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[66] [66]

K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, Phys. R ev. Lett. 79, 353 (1997); Nucl. Phys. B510, 61 (1998); T. Inami, T. Kubota and Y. Okada; Z. Phys. C 18, 69 (1983)

View on Pith 1997

[67] [67]

R. V. Harlander, Phys. Lett. B 492, 74 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0007289]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[68] [68]

C. Anastasiou and A. Lazopoulos, JHEP 0407, 046 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404258]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[69] [69]

G. Altarelli, R.K. Ellis and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B157, 461 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[70] [70]

A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorn e, Phys. Lett. B531, 216 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[71] [71]

S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, JHEP 0201, 015 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[72] [72]

M. Dittmar and H. K. Dreiner, Phys. Rev. D 55, 167 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9608317]; G. Davatz, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Grazzini and F. Paus s, JHEP 0405, 009 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402218]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[73] [73]

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~kirill/FEHiP.htm

View on Pith

[74] [74]

G. P. Lepage, CLNS-80/447

View on Pith

[75] [75]

T. Hahn, arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[76] [76]

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Co mmun. 108, 56 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9704448]. 48

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998