Threshold Resummation for Higgs Production in Effective Field Theory

Ahmad Idilbi; Feng Yuan; Jian-Ping Ma; Xiangdong Ji

REVIEW

Threshold Resummation for Higgs Production in Effective Field Theory

Ahmad Idilbi, Xiangdong Ji, Jian-Ping Ma, Feng Yuan

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 26 Sep 2005 · 24 references

Pith's verdict: A real EFT cross-check of the known Higgs threshold-resummation result, with the load-bearing all-orders step asserted rather than shown.

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 · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0509294 (version 2)

Pith IDQ4GBO737, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAhmad Idilbi, Feng Yuan, Jian-Ping Ma, Xiangdong Ji. "Threshold Resummation for Higgs Production in Effective Field Theory." arXiv:hep-ph/0509294 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/Q4GBO737

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 if you work on threshold resummation, but read it as a derivation-route paper, not a new prediction. The abstract says as much: the N3LL sum is 'identical to that of standard pQCD factorization method' (abstract:s2). The value is in the route, not the number. What is actually new: the EFT assembly for Higgs, with the matching coefficients C_g^(1,2) (Eq. 6) and M_N^(1,2) (Eq. 13) written out for this process, and the demonstration that the EFT bookkeeping reproduces D_g^(3) (Eq. 26). That number lands on Moch-Vogt and Laenen-Magnea, who are not the authors. That is a genuine external check and it is the reason to read the paper. The methodological point, that you do not need to write down an effective lagrangian and can just use full QCD in the soft-collinear limit, is a good one and makes the approach portable to other processes. Where it is soft: Eq. (23), the rewriting I = I_Delta + ln DeltaC with D_g defined implicitly, is the load-bearing step for the 'valid to all orders in sub-leading logarithms' claim, and it is dismissed as 'a matter of some technical steps.' The stress-test note is right that the N3LL agreement is weaker than it first looks, because both sides draw on A_g from Vogt-Moch-Vermaseren, f_g^(3) from Moch et al., and M_N^(1,2) from Catani et al. So the agreement confirms the EFT assembly reproduces the standard assembly at that order; it does not test the all-orders structure, and a defect there would first surface at D_g^(4) or in the DeltaC terms, neither of which is exhibited. That is a real gap in what is demonstrated, not evidence the structure is wrong. The exponentiation is standard and the authors are upfront that the result is 'fully equivalent to the standard resummation.' Two smaller things. Ref. [24], the DIS/DY analogues, is listed as 'to be published,' so that leg of the generality claim cannot be checked here. And the abstract carries a typo ('indepaendent'), which tells you the copy-editing was light. Who it is for: people building SCET or EFT resummation for hadron-collider processes who want a worked Higgs template and a sanity check on their own bookkeeping. It will not change a number in your Higgs rate. Peer review: yes, send it out. The claim is checkable, the cross-check is external, and the compressed step is exactly what a referee should press on.

Referee report

Significance

If the result holds, the paper provides a clean and physically transparent re-derivation of the known N3LL threshold-resummation result for Higgs production, organized by explicit scale separation rather than by the traditional factorization formula. The genuine strengths are: (i) an external, independent cross-check of the central claim, namely the complete agreement of D_g^(3) in Eq. (26) with the Moch-Vogt and Laenen-Magnea results of Refs. [9,10], which are not the present authors' work; (ii) an explicit and honest statement of the kinematic hierarchy used (Q = M_H taken to infinity first, z -> 1 subsequently), which deliberately avoids the region (1-z) ~ Λ_QCD/Q where an EFT formulation would be subtle; and (iii) a parameter-free derivation in the sense that no coefficient is tuned to force agreement, all inputs (A_g, B_2,g, f_g, M_N) being taken from cited published calculations. The result is a useful organizational and cross-checking tool for threshold resummation, though the letter format means the phenomenological payoff mentioned in the conclusion is not quantified here.

Major objections (4)

[Section 5, Eqs. (21)-(23)] The claim of validity 'to all orders in sub-leading logarithms' (abstract; Section 5) rests entirely on the decomposition I = I_Δ + ln ΔC of Eq. (21) and on the implicit all-orders relation for D_g in Eq. (23). The derivation of these equations is compressed into the single sentence 'it is a matter of some technical steps to get'. Because this is the load-bearing structural step of the paper, the reader cannot verify it from the text as written. I ask the authors to supply at least a sketch of the derivation, ideally as an appendix: how the operator ∂_{αs}Γ_2(∂_{αs}) acting on [4A_g - ∂_{αs}D_g] arises from the Mellin transform of the plus-distribution in Eq. (22), why the resulting equation for D_g is the correct all-orders statement, and why the iterative solution displayed in Eq. (25) is the appropriate one. Without this, the all-orders claim is asserted rather than demonstrated.
[Section 5, Ref. [24]] The only support offered for the analogous all-orders derivation in deep-inelastic scattering and Drell-Yan is Ref. [24], which is listed as 'to be published'. Since the present letter does not display the derivation of Eq. (23) and defers the analogous derivation to unpublished work, the reader has no way to check the central structural claim. Please either include the relevant steps here or, if the companion paper is now published, update the reference and state explicitly which parts of the present derivation are contained there.
[Abstract vs. Section 6, Eq. (26)] The abstract states that 'the result of summing the next-to-next-to-next leading logarithms is identical to that of standard pQCD factorization method', whereas Section 6 demonstrates agreement of a single coefficient, D_g^(3), with Refs. [9,10]. Since the remaining N3LL ingredients (A_g^(1,2,3), B_2,g, f_g^(3)) are taken from the same published sources used in the traditional calculation, the agreement is really a check that the EFT assembly reproduces the standard assembly at that order. That is a meaningful check, but the abstract should say so precisely: state that D_g^(3) agrees and that, given the shared inputs, the full N3LL sum then coincides. Please also note explicitly that the all-orders structure of Eq. (23) is not tested by this comparison, and indicate at which order (N4LL, i.e. D_g^(4)) or in which ΔC term a discrepancy would first appear.
[Section 1 and Section 5] The paper is framed as an effective field theory approach, yet the authors state that 'our approach uses the full QCD results in the soft-collinear limit, and thus an actual formulation of an effective lagrangian is unnecessary'. This is a legitimate and pragmatic choice, but it leaves unclear what the EFT adds beyond the standard multi-scale factorization: the scale separation M_H -> µ_I -> µ_F, the matching at µ_I, and the DGLAP evolution are all standard ingredients. Please state explicitly, in one or two sentences, what the EFT organizing principle buys the reader, for example whether it provides a systematic definition of the non-logarithmic ΔC terms or a cleaner route to higher orders than the traditional method. As written, the novelty relative to Refs. [1-10] is asserted more strongly than the body of the letter establishes.

Minor objections (8)

[Abstract] Typo: 'indepaendent' should read 'independent'.
[Section 1, first paragraph] The definition of the Mellin variable is garbled: 'N = N exp(γ_E) with N, the order of moment' presumably means N̄ = N exp(γ_E). The same symbol is then used for both N and N̄ in λ = β_0 ln N α_s(M_H) in Section 6. Please distinguish N and N̄ consistently, since the leading-logarithm structure depends on which appears in the log.
[Section 5, Eqs. (18)-(19) and (22)-(23)] The notation for the integration limits and for the symbol Δ is inconsistent: I_1 and I_2 appear with one orientation of the µ_I and M_H limits while I_3 appears with the opposite one, and the symbol is rendered variously as Δ, △, and I_△. Please fix the orientation of the limits in I_1, I_2, I_3 and use a single glyph for Δ throughout.
[Section 2, Eq. (6) and Section 3, Eq. (13)] The finite constants in C_g^(1,2) and M_N^(1,2) are quoted without derivation. Since these enter the non-logarithmic pieces of the final result, a brief indication of their origin (which diagrams, which scheme, and whether the ζ_2 and ζ_3 terms are MS-bar) would help the reader who wishes to check them.
[Section 2] Typos: 'Renormaliztion' should be 'Renormalization', 'dimenstion' should be 'dimension', and 'summarize the physics' should be 'sum up the physics' or 'resum the physics'.
[Section 5, Eq. (17)] The reference cross section σ_0 is not defined. Please state what it contains (the effective coupling C_φ, the phase-space factors, and any overall normalization), so that Eq. (17) is reproducible.
[Section 5, Eq. (16)] The product g(µ_F,N) g(µ_F,N) is the two gluon distributions appropriate to gg fusion; please say so explicitly rather than leaving the doubled notation unexplained.
[Section 6, concluding paragraph] The remark that including the newly calculated D_g^(3) may reduce theoretical uncertainties is not quantified. Either give a numerical estimate of the effect on the resummed cross section or soften the statement to indicate that this is left for future work.

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

The paper

The paper claims

An effective field theory reproduces the standard threshold resummation for Higgs production.

The reading

The paper proposes an effective-field-theory route to summing the large soft-gluon logarithms that spoil fixed-order QCD predictions for Higgs production near threshold. The strategy splits the physics by scale: matching at the Higgs mass, running down to an intermediate scale $M_H/N$, and then evolving the parton distributions to $M_H$. The central demonstration is that the resulting resummed coefficient, expanded through N$^3$LL, reproduces the standard pQCD factorization answer, including the coefficient $D_g^{(3)}$ that had recently been computed by the conventional method. A reader should care because an independent derivation of the same resummation checks the standard formalism and gives a template for other production processes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a scale-by-scale factorization of the gluon-Higgs coefficient function. A matching coefficient $C_g$ is extracted at $M_H$ from the gluon form factor, evolved down to $M_H/N$ with an anomalous dimension built from the cusp anomalous dimension $A_g$ and the soft coefficients $B_{1,g}$, and then connected to the parton distributions by DGLAP evolution. The matching coefficient $M_N$ at the intermediate scale is computed from full QCD in the soft limit, and the final resummed factor $G_N(M_H)$ is assembled from $|C|^2$, $M_N$, and the evolution exponentials. The decomposition $I=I_0+2B_2+2B_1+2B_0$ is what turns this EFT product into the standard resummation formula and defines the $D_g$ coefficients.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the EFT matching and evolution can be reorganized into exactly the conventional threshold-resummation formula, order by order in the large logarithms. Its central identity is $I=I_0+2B_2+2B_1+2B_0$ in the exponent, and the paper states that this structure is valid to all orders in leading and sub-leading logarithms. Solving the resulting relations iteratively yields $D_g^{(1)}=0$, $D_g^{(2)}$, and the explicit $D_g^{(3)}$ in Eq. (26). The paper states that this $D_g^{(3)}$ agrees completely with the recent conventional calculations of Refs. [9,10], which is the concrete evidence offered for the equivalence at N$^3$LL.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the all-orders exponentiation encoded in Eqs. (20)-(23), especially the decomposition $I=I_0+2B_2+2B_1+2B_0$ and the definition of $D_g$, is correct; the paper derives this structure only in outline, calling it 'a matter of some technical steps,' and verifies it explicitly only at N$^3$LL.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same EFT matching and evolution can be applied to Drell-Yan production of $\gamma^*$, $W$, and $Z$ bosons, where only color factors change.
Including the newly reproduced $D_g^{(3)}$ term should reduce the residual scale uncertainty in threshold-resummed Higgs production rates.
The method provides an independent cross-check of the conventional pQCD resummation at N$^3$LL and can be extended to other observables that suffer from soft-gluon double logarithms.
If the all-orders structure holds, the $D_g$ coefficients can be generated iteratively from known anomalous dimensions and matching coefficients rather than from a new full resummation calculation each time.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's scale-separation logic suggests that threshold resummation is not tied to the details of a soft-collinear Lagrangian; any correct matching onto light-cone operators should give the same $D_g$ coefficients.
If the EFT route is reliable, it could be used to predict the next tower of logarithms for processes where the conventional calculation is cumbersome, such as joint threshold and small-$x$ resummation.
A natural extension is to check whether the same decomposition organizes rapidity-dependent or transverse-momentum-dependent observables, where the relevant soft function has more than one scale.

Original abstract

We present an effective field theory to resum the large double logarithms originated from soft-gluon radiations at small final-state hadron invariant masses in Higgs and vector boson (\gamma^*, $W$ and $Z$) production at hadron colliders. The approach is conceptually simple, indepaendent of details of an effective field theory formulation, and valid to all orders in sub-leading logarithms. As an example, we show the result of summing the next-to-next-to-next leading logarithms is identical to that of standard pQCD factorization method.

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, 3,024 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.14 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.15 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.08 · compares with prior results 0.96 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

We present an effective field theory to resum the large double logarithms originated from soft-gluon radiations at small final-state hadron invariant masses in Higgs and vector boson (\gamma^*, $W$ and $Z$) production at hadron colliders. The approach is conceptually simple, indepaendent of details of an effective field theory formulation, and valid to all orders in sub-leading logarithms. As an example, we show the result of summing the next-to-next-to-next leading logarithms is identical to that of standard pQCD factorization method.

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 present an effective field theory to resum the large double logarithms originated from soft-gluon radiations at small final-state hadron invariant masses in Higgs and vector boson (\gamma^*, $W$ and $Z$) production at hadron colliders.	contribution 0.96	0.91	0.35	asserted 1.00
s1	The approach is conceptually simple, indepaendent of details of an effective field theory formulation, and valid to all orders in sub-leading logarithms.	method 0.38	0.44	0.13	asserted 1.00
s2	As an example, we show the result of summing the next-to-next-to-next leading logarithms is identical to that of standard pQCD factorization method.	result 0.98	0.91	0.25	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 0.81 · evidence from proof or derivation 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

References

Works cited (24)

[24]

A. Idilbi, X. Ji, J. P. Ma, and F. Yuan, to be published

View on Pith
[1]

G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 281, 310 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[2]

S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B 327, 323 (1989); Nucl. Phys. B 353, 183 (1991)

View on Pith 1989
[3]

S. Forte and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B 650, 229 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[4]

T. Matsuura, S. C. van der Marck and W. L. van Neer- ven, To The Nucl. Phys. B 319, 570 (1989); R. Ham- berg, W. L. van Neerven and T. Matsuura, Drell-Yan Nucl. Phys. B 359, 343 (1991) [Erratum-ibid. B 644, 403 (2002)]

View on Pith 1989
[5]

S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, corrections at JHEP 0105, 025 (2001); R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kil- gore, Phys. Rev. D 64, 013015 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[6]

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 646, 220 (2002); W. B. Kilgore, arXiv:hep-ph/0208143; V. Ravin- dran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, production in Nucl. Phys. B 665, 325 (2003)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[7]

S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini and P. Nason, col- liders,” JHEP 0307, 028 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[8]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 726, 317 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[9]

S. Moch and A. Vogt, production,” arXiv:hep-ph/0508265

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

E. Laenen and L. Magnea, data,” arXiv:hep-ph/0508284

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, light Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001); C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002); C. Chay, C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 65, 114016 (2002)

View on Pith 2001
[12]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014017 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[13]

A. V. Manohar, eﬀective Phys. Rev. D 68, 114019 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[14]

A. Idilbi and X. Ji, eﬀective arXiv:hep-ph/0501006

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

B. D. Pecjak, large x,” arXiv:hep-ph/0506269

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

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

View on Pith 1991
[17]

K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 353 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[18]

R. V. Harlander, limit,” Phys. Lett. B 492, 74 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[19]

J. C. Collins, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 573 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[20]

G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Nucl. Phys. B 283, 342 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[21]

A. Vogt, S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. B 691, 129 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[22]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B 625, 245 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[23]

V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 704, 332 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

Forward citations

Cited by 29 Pith papers

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

The Three-Point Energy Correlator in the Coplanar Limit
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A new tau_p projection makes the coplanar limit of the three-point energy correlator a TMD-factorized trijet observable, resummed to N3LL, the first trijet event shape at this order.
The Four Loop QCD Rapidity Anomalous Dimension
hep-ph 2022-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The authors derive the four-loop QCD rapidity anomalous dimension by computing the three-loop fully differential soft function to O(epsilon) and using the conformal relation between rapidity and soft anomalous dimensions.
Higgs $p_T$ Spectrum and Total Cross Section with Fiducial Cuts at Third Resummed and Fixed Order in QCD
hep-ph 2021-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The gluon-fusion Higgs pT spectrum and total fiducial cross section are computed at N3LL'+N3LO with ATLAS photon cuts, giving sigma_fid/B_gammagamma = 25.41 +/- 0.68 pb.
The Transverse Energy-Energy Correlator in the Back-to-Back Limit
hep-ph 2019-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The transverse energy-energy correlator in the back-to-back limit factorizes into standard beam and jet functions times a dijet soft function that reduces to the known color-singlet TMD soft function through two loops.
On the next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to heavy-quark production in deep-inelastic scattering
hep-ph 2012-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

New NNLO threshold and small-x logarithms plus high-scale matching are combined into approximate heavy-quark DIS coefficient functions whose uncertainty is large only below x about 10^-3.

Show 24 more citing papers

Direct photon production with effective field theory
hep-ph 2009-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A three-direction SCET factorization theorem yields an NNLL resummed direct photon pT spectrum whose theoretical uncertainty is smaller than the NLO fixed-order result at high transverse momentum.
Heavy Jet Mass in Hadronic Higgs Decays
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Heavy jet mass in hadronic Higgs decays is predicted at N³LL′ (dijet) plus NNLL (Sudakov shoulder) plus NNLO, with new analytic trijet-region logarithms for H→gg and H→q̄q.
Threshold Resummation for Semi-Inclusive Single-Hadron Production with Effective Field Theory
hep-ph 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Momentum-space SCET threshold resummation for SIA is extended to N4LL for quark and gluon channels, with new large-x coefficients through N3LO and partial N4LO.
Modeling BSM effects on the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum in an EFT approach
hep-ph 2016-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Resummed Higgs transverse-momentum spectra at NLL+NLO including three dimension-six operators show that combined shifts in top, bottom, and gluon couplings can reshape the spectrum well beyond scale uncertainties whil...
Pseudo-scalar Form Factors at Three Loops in QCD
hep-ph 2015-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The three-loop massless QCD pseudo-scalar Higgs form factors are computed, and the three-loop operator mixing and finite renormalisation are independently re-derived from infrared factorization, confirming earlier OPE...
QCD evolution of (un)polarized gluon TMDPDFs and the Higgs $q_T$-distribution
hep-ph 2015-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Gluon transverse-momentum distributions can be defined without rapidity divergences and share a single evolution kernel, with new next-to-leading-order coefficients enabling Higgs and quarkonium predictions.
Soft Theorems from Effective Field Theory
hep-th 2014-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A new one-loop subleading soft theorem for gauge-theory amplitudes, derived from soft-collinear effective theory, replaces the tree-level Low-Burnett-Kroll theorem that breaks down when collinear particles or loops ar...
Resummation of Double-Differential Cross Sections and Fully-Unintegrated Parton Distribution Functions
hep-ph 2014-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

An extended Soft-Collinear Effective Theory with collinear-soft modes yields a single factorized formula for double-differential Drell-Yan cross sections valid across all three phase-space regions, verified against an...
Approximate N^3LO Higgs-boson production cross section using physical-kernel constraints
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using single-log constraints from the physical evolution kernel, the authors derive the ln^5,4,3(1-z) N3LO coefficients for Higgs production and estimate that N3LO increases the 14 TeV cross section by (10±2)% at mu_R...
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.
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.
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.
On non-singlet physical evolution kernels and large-x coefficient functions in perturbative QCD
hep-ph 2009-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Physical evolution kernels for non-singlet DIS, SIA and Drell-Yan show only single-logarithmic large-x growth, and this conjectured all-order pattern yields explicit predictions for the top large-x logarithms of highe...
Higher-Order threshold effects to inclusive processes in QCD
hep-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using resummed soft-gluon distributions, the paper derives partial N3LO threshold corrections for bottom-quark Higgs production and partial N4LO corrections for Drell-Yan and Higgs production.
On Sudakov and Soft resummations in QCD
hep-ph 2005-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The soft radiation distribution in Drell-Yan and Higgs production is a single universal object up to a color factor, and it satisfies a Sudakov-type equation whose solution yields threshold resummation exponents up to...
Leading-logarithmic threshold resummation of Higgs production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading power
hep-ph 2019-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

At next-to-leading power, the all-orders leading-logarithmic threshold corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs production equal the Drell-Yan result with the colour factor C_F replaced by C_A.
Diagrammatic resummation of leading-logarithmic threshold effects at next-to-leading power
hep-ph 2019-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Leading-logarithmic next-to-leading-power threshold corrections can be resummed for any QCD process with a colour-singlet final state using generalised Wilson lines and diagrammatic exponentiation.
Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with ATLAS
hep-ex 2014-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS measures the pp to H to two-photon fiducial cross section as 43.2 +/- 9.4 (stat) fb and twelve differential distributions, all broadly consistent with Standard Model predictions within the statistical precision.
SusHi: A program for the calculation of Higgs production in gluon fusion and bottom-quark annihilation in the Standard Model and the MSSM
hep-ph 2012-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

SusHi packages published QCD and electroweak corrections into one downloadable code that predicts neutral-Higgs production cross sections in the Standard Model and the MSSM, inclusive and differential, with user-selec...
Calculation of the quark and gluon form factors to three loops in QCD
hep-ph 2010-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An independent three-loop calculation of the QCD quark and gluon form factors confirms the 2009 Baikov et al. result and adds the subleading fermion-loop terms needed for four-loop anomalous dimensions and SCET matching.
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.
SusHi Bento: Beyond NNLO and the heavy-top limit
hep-ph 2016-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Version 1.6.0 of the SusHi code assembles N3LO soft-expansion, finite top-mass, and dimension-5 operator effects into one Higgs cross-section tool, predicting 48.28 pb for the 125 GeV SM Higgs at 13 TeV.
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.

How the literature uses it

50 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 · 30 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 3 papers

In the two-step procedure of Refs. [ref] one first integrates out the top quark at a scale $μ_t≊m_t$ and subsequently matches from the effective Lagrangian onto at $μ_h ≊m_H$.

Jet-veto resummation at N$^3$LL$_\text{p}$+NNLO in boson production processes · Implementation of the two-step procedure · 0.94
The calculation of $σ(gg →h)_SM$ is based on [ref] , which combines the next-to-next-to-leading fixed-order corrections [ref] with resummation of both threshold logarithms from soft-gluon emission [ref] and terms of the form $(N_c πα_s )^n$ [ref] .

The Custodial Randall-Sundrum Model: From Precision Tests to Higgs Physics · Higgs-Boson Production · 0.87
For the derivation of the CS kernel, we follow closely [ref] , where the kernel of the Collins-Soper evolution equation is defined through the $y_c$ dependence of the renormalized soft factor, [equation] and is itself subject to the following renormalization group equation, [equation] where $Γ_cusp^A$ is the cusp anomalous dimension in the adjoint representation, see [ref] for higher order terms.

Transverse Momentum Dependent Gluon Distribution within High Energy Factorization at Next-to-Leading Order · A comparison of the kernels of CS and BFKL evolution · 0.98

Uses its data or values 11 papers

For the regular anomalous dimensions $γ[α_s, …]$, with the dots representing potential dependence on kinematical variables, we also expand them in $α_s/(4π)$, [equation] The quark and gluon anomalous dimensions through to three loops are [ref] [equation] Next, The soft anomalous dimension up to three loops is [ref] [equation] Finally, the rapidity anomalous dimension up to three loops is [ref] [equation]

The Three-Point Energy Correlator in the Coplanar Limit · Anomalous dimensions · 0.93
The quark and gluon anomalous dimensions through to three loops are [ref] [equation]

The Transverse Energy-Energy Correlator at Next-to-Next-to-Next-to-Leading Logarithm · Anomalous Dimensions · 0.92
The relevant color sums are [equation] The non-cusp hard anomalous dimension $γ^'_H$ is also color diagonal up to two loop order, and is thus a sum of quark and gluon pieces, (i.e) [equation] These are extracted from the expressions in [ref] and are given by [equation] where [ref] [equation] Using Eqns.

NNLL Resummation of Sudakov Shoulder Logarithms in the Heavy Jet Mass Distribution · Hard Functions · 0.88

Cites it as background 14 papers

A complete calculation at NNLO [ref] and leading logarithms at N$^3$LO in the threshold limit [ref] and NNLL soft gluon resummation [ref] for the scalar Higgs boson production are known for more than a decade.

Pseudo-scalar Higgs Boson Production at Threshold N$^3$LO and N$^3$LL QCD · Introduction · 0.87
Soft gluon resummation of the gluon fusion cross section has been performed to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic(N$^3$LL) accuracy for the scalar Higgs case [ref] and to next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic(NNLL) accuracy for the pseudo-scalar case [ref] .

Rapidity distribution of pseudo-scalar Higgs boson to $\rm{\textbf{NNLO}_A+\overline{\textbf {NNLL}}}$ · Introduction · 0.96
The fixed order cross-section is further improved by performing threshold resummation at the next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNLL) accuracy [ref] and to the third logarithmic accuracy (N3LL) [ref] as well as resummation of $π^2$ terms [ref] arising from time-like Sudakov form factor.

Higgs boson rapidity distribution in bottom annihilation at NNLL and beyond · Introduction · 0.87

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] [24]

A. Idilbi, X. Ji, J. P. Ma, and F. Yuan, to be published

View on Pith

[2] [1]

G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 281, 310 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[3] [2]

S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B 327, 323 (1989); Nucl. Phys. B 353, 183 (1991)

View on Pith 1989

[4] [3]

S. Forte and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B 650, 229 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[5] [4]

T. Matsuura, S. C. van der Marck and W. L. van Neer- ven, To The Nucl. Phys. B 319, 570 (1989); R. Ham- berg, W. L. van Neerven and T. Matsuura, Drell-Yan Nucl. Phys. B 359, 343 (1991) [Erratum-ibid. B 644, 403 (2002)]

View on Pith 1989

[6] [5]

S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, corrections at JHEP 0105, 025 (2001); R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kil- gore, Phys. Rev. D 64, 013015 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[7] [6]

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 646, 220 (2002); W. B. Kilgore, arXiv:hep-ph/0208143; V. Ravin- dran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, production in Nucl. Phys. B 665, 325 (2003)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[8] [7]

S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini and P. Nason, col- liders,” JHEP 0307, 028 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[9] [8]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 726, 317 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[10] [9]

S. Moch and A. Vogt, production,” arXiv:hep-ph/0508265

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[11] [10]

E. Laenen and L. Magnea, data,” arXiv:hep-ph/0508284

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [11]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, light Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001); C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002); C. Chay, C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 65, 114016 (2002)

View on Pith 2001

[13] [12]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014017 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[14] [13]

A. V. Manohar, eﬀective Phys. Rev. D 68, 114019 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[15] [14]

A. Idilbi and X. Ji, eﬀective arXiv:hep-ph/0501006

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [15]

B. D. Pecjak, large x,” arXiv:hep-ph/0506269

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [16]

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

View on Pith 1991

[18] [17]

K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 353 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[19] [18]

R. V. Harlander, limit,” Phys. Lett. B 492, 74 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[20] [19]

J. C. Collins, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 573 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[21] [20]

G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Nucl. Phys. B 283, 342 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[22] [21]

A. Vogt, S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. B 691, 129 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[23] [22]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B 625, 245 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[24] [23]

V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 704, 332 (2005)

View on Pith 2005