On the role of hard rescattering in exclusive diffractive Higgs production

A.D. Martin; M.G. Ryskin; V.A. Khoze

REVIEW

On the role of hard rescattering in exclusive diffractive Higgs production

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 28 Feb 2006 · 41 references

Pith's verdict: A defensive but mostly honest note: the new Regge-ratio estimate and HERA leading-neutron check are useful, but the main suppression argument leans on an explicitly conditional rapidity-threshold assumption.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 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 · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0602247 (version 2)

Pith IDX2AMUJZF, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, V.A. Khoze. "On the role of hard rescattering in exclusive diffractive Higgs production." arXiv:hep-ph/0602247 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/X2AMUJZF

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

You should know two things about this paper. First, it is a defensive note: Khoze, Martin and Ryskin are protecting their exclusive Higgs rate estimate against a specific claim by Bartels et al. that semi-enhanced rescattering reduces it significantly. Second, within that goal it is mostly honest and clearly argued, but the strongest suppression argument is explicitly conditional.

The genuinely new content is the Regge-ratio estimate in Eq. (10), which maps the semi-enhanced correction to 4 σ_SD/σ_tot times a logarithmic factor, yielding about 0.1 at the LHC from measured cross sections. This is a neat, independent order-of-magnitude argument that does not depend on the BFKL-threshold assumption. The second new element is the HERA leading-neutron test: if semi-enhanced rescattering filled the pion-exchange gap, the leading-neutron yield should fall with photon energy, but the data are flat. Using existing data this way is a good phenomenological move.

The soft spots are real. The paper's main suppression argument is the ΔY = 2.3 rapidity threshold, obtained by equating the NLL BFKL intercept correction with a threshold-type suppression. That equating is an assumption, not a calculation of the triple-Pomeron vertex, and the paper says so with "If, indeed." The LHC interval for MH = 120–140 GeV is δy ≈ 4.6–4.8, so the threshold sits right at the edge: a slightly smaller ΔY, or an ordinary intercept shift, would reopen the phase space. The HERA check is qualitative—no prediction from the competing model is compared to the data—and pion exchange may probe a different vertex. Eq. (10) has no uncertainty attached, but as a rough estimate it is reasonable. The citation pattern is heavy on the authors' own work, but the new estimate uses measured cross sections, so that is not a real problem.

The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is fair. The conclusion that semi-enhanced corrections are small is plausible and supported by several independent lines of argument, but it is not established unless the threshold form is independently verified. The stress-test's "entirely" overstates: Eq. (10) stands on its own. But the strong "will not appreciably affect" leans heavily on the threshold. This is clear thinking and honest engagement with the literature; the authors flag their own conditionality.

Who gets value? Anyone assessing forward proton tagging at the LHC or the exclusive H→bb search. It deserves a serious referee; a good referee would push for an independent check of the threshold form and for a quantitative prediction of the HERA neutron W-dependence. Recommendation: engage with it, but do not treat the suppression as settled.

Referee report

Significance

If the conclusion holds, the paper is important because it defends the KMR prediction for exclusive Higgs production at the LHC, which is the basis for experimental proposals such as FP420. The paper contributes to an active debate and has the merit of assembling several independent arguments rather than relying on a single calculation. It is explicit about the main uncertainty, namely the unknown NLL correction to the triple-Pomeron vertex, and it uses measured data (σ_tot, σ_SD, and HERA leading-neutron cross sections) where possible. The main limitation is that the most quantitative argument, the ΔY threshold, is conditional, and the supporting arguments are either order-of-magnitude or qualitative. Nevertheless, the paper is a useful and balanced assessment that should stimulate further analysis of enhanced corrections.

Major objections (3)

[Section 3, Eq. (9)] The argument that the LHC rapidity interval is below the threshold for semi-enhanced rescattering depends entirely on the assumption that the NLL correction to the triple-Pomeron vertex acts as a rapidity threshold ΔY=2.3. The paper derives this value by equating the BFKL NLL intercept shift in Eq. (7) with the threshold form in Eq. (8), but this is not a calculation of the triple-Pomeron vertex; it is an assumption, acknowledged in the text as 'if, indeed'. However, the conclusion in Section 5 states that 'there is just not sufficient room in rapidity for the triple-Pomeron vertex' without carrying this caveat. The authors should either present independent evidence for the threshold form of the specific NLL correction to the triple-Pomeron vertex, or quantify how the conclusion changes if ΔY is smaller, for example ΔY=1.5 or 2.0. This is particularly important for MH=120 GeV, where δy=ln(√s/MH)≈4.76 exceeds 2ΔY=4.6, so the threshold does not strictly forbid the contribution; the paper's statement that the available phase space is 'minute' is not quantified.
[Section 4, leading neutrons] The HERA leading-neutron data are used as a phenomenological check, but the argument is qualitative. The paper asserts that if the semi-enhanced correction were large, the probability to observe a leading neutron would fall with energy, and that the data show a flat dependence. However, no quantitative prediction from the model of Ref. [13] (or any model with a large semi-enhanced contribution) is compared with the data. Without an estimate of the expected W-dependence in the competing scenario, the flatness of the data cannot be interpreted as a strong confirmation of the smallness of the correction. The authors should provide a schematic estimate of the energy dependence expected from a large semi-enhanced correction and show that it is inconsistent with the measured flat behaviour.
[Section 3, Eq. (10)] The order-of-magnitude estimate σ_H^(d)/σ_H^(b) ≈ 0.1 is used as a second argument for smallness, but no uncertainty is given for this ratio. The inputs σ_SD and σ_tot at LHC energies are extrapolations, and the logarithmic factor is approximate; the ratio could plausibly vary by a factor of 2-3 or more. While such a variation would still leave the correction relatively small, the authors should state clearly that this is an order-of-magnitude estimate and discuss the sensitivity to the inputs. It would also be useful to clarify whether this estimate is intended to be independent of the ΔY threshold argument or whether it is expected to be modified by the threshold.

Minor objections (6)

[Section 2, Eq. (3)] The symbol \hat{S}^2 is introduced as the probability that the rapidity gaps survive; the notation may be confused with a squared amplitude. Please define the notation unambiguously, e.g., as S^2_{\rm gap}.
[Figure 1] The legend states that dashed lines represent Pomeron exchanges, but the difference between the soft eikonal diagram (c) and the semi-enhanced diagram (d) is not visually clear. Please label the vertices or add a more detailed caption.
[Section 3] The sentence 'There is a tendency that at low Q^2 < 2-3 GeV^2 and x < 10^{-3} for the gluon density to start to decrease with x decreasing' would benefit from specifying which global analyses are meant and at what Q^2 the trend sets in.
[Section 4] The reference to Tables 14, 18 and Figs. 11, 12 of Ref. [35] is specific, but it would be more convincing to quote a numerical measure of the flatness, such as the fitted slope of the W-dependence, if available.
[Section 3, Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the strong coupling α_s is not defined; please specify the scale at which α_s is evaluated in the NLL BFKL expression.
[Introduction] There are minor typographical errors, such as 'a possibility that the contribution may be evaluated' in Section 3; it should read 'there is a possibility'.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that semi-enhanced hard rescattering will not appreciably reduce the exclusive diffractive Higgs production cross section at the LHC, preserving the event-rate estimate made in its Section 2.

The reading

This paper defends the predicted rate of exclusive diffractive Higgs production at the LHC, the process $pp \to p + H + p$ in which both protons survive and a Higgs boson is produced in the middle. A recent calculation claimed that a 'semi-enhanced' hard rescattering correction—an extra scattering of the exchanged gluons that could fill the rapidity gaps and suppress the signal—could be large; the authors argue it is small. The main theoretical reason is that the next-to-leading-logarithmic correction to the triple-Pomeron vertex (the coupling where three Pomeron exchanges meet) is equivalent to a rapidity threshold of about $\Delta Y = 2.3$, and a central Higgs heavier than about 140 GeV leaves less than twice that span at the LHC, so the correction cannot act. They add a phenomenological check: HERA data on leading-neutron production show the analogous gap survival probability is flat over a factor of ten in photon energy, which would not hold if the semi-enhanced correction were large. If the paper is right, the estimated exclusive Higgs event rate stands, and forward proton tagging remains a viable way to measure the Higgs mass cleanly.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semi-enhanced diagram of Fig. 1(d): a second Pomeron (a color-singlet gluonic exchange) emitted from one proton rescatters off an intermediate parton of the other proton's gluon ladder through the triple-Pomeron vertex $V_{3P}$, adding an integration over the rapidity of that vertex. The suppression mechanism is the $\Delta Y$ threshold: comparing the NLL correction to the hard Pomeron intercept, $\omega^{NLL} \simeq \omega_0(1 - 6.2\alpha_s)$, with the threshold form $\omega = \omega_0 e^{-\omega_0 \Delta Y}$, gives $\Delta Y = 6.2/((4\ln 2)N_c/\pi) \simeq 2.3$. Since both rapidity intervals bordering the vertex must exceed $\Delta Y$, the contribution only turns on when $\delta y = \ln(\sqrt{s}/M_H) > 2\Delta Y$, which fails at the LHC for $M_H > 140$ GeV. The second piece of machinery is the analogy to pion-exchange leading-neutron production at HERA: the measured gap-survival probability is flat over more than a factor of ten in photon energy, providing a phenomenological bound on the same class of semi-enhanced rescattering.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that semi-enhanced hard rescattering corrections to central exclusive Higgs production $pp \to p + H + p$ at the LHC are small and will not appreciably affect the cross section estimate of Section 2. The decisive argument is kinematic: if the next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) correction to the triple-Pomeron vertex acts as a threshold $\Delta Y = 2.3$, then the semi-enhanced diagram needs the interval between the proton and the Higgs in rapidity to exceed $2\Delta Y \simeq 4.6$; at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV, $\delta y = \ln(\sqrt{s}/M_H)$ is below $4.6$ for $M_H > 140$ GeV, so the correction has no room to act. Supporting arguments are that the low-$x$, low-$Q^2$ gluon density appears to fall rather than rise, that the perturbative expansion in the saturation region is unreliable and higher Reggeon graphs reduce the effective triple-Pomeron vertex, and that a Regge-ratio estimate gives $\sigma_H^{(d)}/\sigma_H^{(b)} \simeq 0.1$. The paper then cites HERA leading-neutron data, where the analogous pion-exchange gap survives with a probability independent of photon energy, as direct experimental evidence that the semi-enhanced correction is small.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes an unknown quantum correction to the key three-gluon coupling behaves as a hard threshold requiring two interaction vertices to be separated by at least about 2.3 units of rapidity; if that threshold is wrong, the suppression on which the paper relies can disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The exclusive process $pp \to p + H + p$ keeps the Section 2 cross section estimate, roughly $10^{-4}$ of the inclusive Higgs rate, so the expected handful of events at $60$ fb$^{-1}$ remains the benchmark for LHC searches.
For $M_H > 140$ GeV the semi-enhanced correction is below the $\Delta Y$ threshold, so the central prediction and its stated uncertainty stand; the gap survival factor $\hat{S}^2 \simeq 0.026$ is not further reduced.
Energy-flat leading-neutron survival at HERA gives an empirical anchor: any future measurement of exclusive production at the LHC can be compared with the uncorrected prediction without inserting an additional suppression parameter.
At a higher-energy proton-proton collider the interval $\ln(\sqrt{s}/M_H)$ would eventually exceed $2\Delta Y$, so the semi-enhanced correction should turn on and visibly suppress exclusive production, a distinctive energy dependence that follows directly from the threshold mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

The threshold mechanism predicts a mass-dependent turn-on: at a fixed collider energy, exclusive production of states heavier than roughly $M \sim \sqrt{s}\, e^{-2\Delta Y}$ should start to be suppressed; measuring exclusive production of quarkonia or other masses could map the threshold.
The double-counting argument implies that combining the eikonal $\hat{S}^2$ with a separately computed semi-enhanced correction would over-subtract; a consistent treatment should remove the enhanced rescattering already folded into the phenomenological soft amplitude.
The HERA flatness argument is qualitative; a quantitative fit to the energy dependence of leading-neutron production could set an upper bound on the effective triple-Pomeron vertex and propagate that bound into the uncertainty of the exclusive Higgs cross section.

Original abstract

We discuss the contribution of so-called semi-enhanced hard rescattering corrections to central exclusive diffractive Higgs production, pp -> p+H+p, at the LHC. We present arguments to show that these corrections are small. We confirm these expectations by considering HERA data for leading neutron production.

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, 2,845 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.31 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.10 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.46 · 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 discuss the contribution of so-called semi-enhanced hard rescattering corrections to central exclusive diffractive Higgs production, pp -> p+H+p, at the LHC. We present arguments to show that these corrections are small. We confirm these expectations by considering HERA data for leading neutron production.

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 discuss the contribution of so-called semi-enhanced hard rescattering corrections to central exclusive diffractive Higgs production, pp -> p+H+p, at the LHC.	contribution 0.94	0.48	0.05	unclear 0.73
s1	We present arguments to show that these corrections are small.	result 0.86	0.73	0.82	asserted 0.98
s2	We confirm these expectations by considering HERA data for leading neutron production.	method 0.51	0.81	0.10	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.54 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.81.

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.** Schematic diagrams for central exclusive Higgs productio

**Figure 2.** The leading Reggeon contributions to the total and the sin

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0602247 by the authors.

References

Works cited (41)

[13]

J. Bartels, S. Bondarenko, K. Kutak and L. Motyka, arXiv:hep-ph/0601128

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

V.A. Khoze, A.B. Kaidalov, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, arXiv:hep-ph/0507040; B. Cox, arXiv:hep-ph/0501064

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[2]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C14 (2000) 525

View on Pith 2000
[3]

FP420 project: M.G. Albrow et al., CERN-LHCC-2005-025, Jun 20 05

View on Pith 2005
[4]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C19 (2001) 477

View on Pith 2001
[5]

A. De Roeck, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, R. Orava and M.G. Ryskin, Eu r. Phys. J. C25 (2002) 391. 10

View on Pith 2002
[6]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J . C31 (2003) 387

View on Pith 2003
[7]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C33 (2004) 261

View on Pith 2004
[8]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C23 (2002) 311

View on Pith 2002
[9]

M.A. Kimber, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114027; G. Watt, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C31 (2003) 73

View on Pith 2001
[10]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C18 (2000) 167

View on Pith 2000
[11]

L. L¨ onnblad and M. Sjodahl, JHEP 0505 (2005) 038

View on Pith 2005
[12]

E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, in HERA and the LHC , CERN-2005-014, p. 221

View on Pith 2005
[14]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J . C35 (2004) 211

View on Pith 2004
[15]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C21 (2001) 521

View on Pith 2001
[16]

I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 99; Y.V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034008; ibid., D61 (2000) 074018

View on Pith 1996
[17]

J. Bartels and M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Z. Phys. C66 (1995) 157

View on Pith 1995
[18]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, Yu.F. Pirogov and N.L. Ter-Issakyan, Phys. Lett. B45 (1973) 493; A.B. Kaidalov and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, Nucl. Phys. B75 (1974) 471

View on Pith 1973
[19]

A.B. Kaidalov, L.A. Ponomarev and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, Sov. J . Nucl. Phys. 44 (1986) 468

View on Pith 1986
[20]

V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 127; G. Camici and M. Ciafaloni, Phys. Lett B430 (1998) 349

View on Pith 1998
[21]

B. Andersson, G. Gustafson and J. Samuelsson, Nucl. Phys. B467 (1996) 443; J. Kwieci´ nski, A.D. Martin and P.J. Sutton, Z. Phys. C71 (1996) 585: M. Ciafaloni, D. Colferai and G. Salam, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 114036

View on Pith 1996
[22]

C.R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 074003; J. R. Forshaw, D. A. Ross and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. B455 (1999) 273; see also, G. Chachamis, M. Lublinsky and A. Sabio Vera, Nucl. Phys. A748 (2005) 649

View on Pith 1999
[23]

CTEQ collaboration, J. Pumplin et al., JHEP 07 (2002) 012

View on Pith 2002
[24]

A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne, Phys. Le tt. B604 (2004) 61. 11

View on Pith 2004
[25]

A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, in HERA and the LHC , CERN-2005-014, p. 369

View on Pith 2005
[26]

J. Bartels and M.G. Ryskin, Z. Phys. C60 (1993) 751

View on Pith 1993
[27]

V.A. Abramovsky, Pis’ma v JETP 23 (1976) 228

View on Pith 1976
[28]

V.A. Abramovsky, A.V. Dmitriev and A.A. Schneider, arXiv:hep-ph/0512199; A.Capella, J. Kaplan and J. Tran Thanh Van, Nucl. Phys. B105 (1976) 333; V.A. Abramovsky and R.G. Betman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 49 (1989) 747

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1976
[29]

V. Abramovsky, V.N. Gribov and O.V. Kancheli, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys . 18 (1974) 308

View on Pith 1974
[30]

E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, in HERA and the LHC , CERN-2005-014, p.221 (and references therein)

View on Pith 2005
[31]

K.Goulianos, arXiv:hep-ph/0407035 (and references therein)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

M.L. Good and W.D. Walker, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 1857

View on Pith 1960
[33]

V.A. Khoze, M.G. Ryskin, W.J. Stirling and P.H. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. C26 (2003) 429

View on Pith 2003
[34]

ZEUS Collaboration, M. Derrick et al., Phys. Lett B384 (1996) 388; J. Breitweg et al., Nucl. Phys. B596 (2001) 3; Eur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 81; ibid. C2 (1998) 237

View on Pith 1996
[35]

ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Nucl. Phys. B637 (2002) 3

View on Pith 2002
[36]

ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Phys. Lett. B610 (2005) 199

View on Pith 2005
[37]

H1 Collaboration, C. Adloﬀ et al., Eur. Phys. J. C6 (1999) 587

View on Pith 1999
[38]

H1 Collaboration, C. Adloﬀ et al., Nucl. Phys. B619 (2001) 3

View on Pith 2001
[39]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, arXiv:hep-ph/0602215, Eur. Phys. J. C in press

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[40]

M.G. Albrow and A. Hamilton, presentation at the Workshop on Future of Forward Physics at the LHC , Manchester, December 2005

View on Pith 2005
[41]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J . C38 (2005) 475. 12

View on Pith 2005

How the literature uses it

8 arXiv papers cite this in 12 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 whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States a conflicting result 1 paper

We find that the correction due to the exchange of a single hard rescattering is negative, large and infrared sensitive.

Exclusive Higgs boson production at the LHC: hard rescattering corrections · 0.96

Papers citing it · 8 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

The intensities of transitions between the initial $qq̅$ pair (its quantum numbers, including flavour, are abbreviated by $α$) and the various meson-meson pairs $i$ allowed by quantum numbers are given by coupling constants $g_αi$ determined via the recoupling scheme of Ref. [ref] .

Relating multichannel scattering and production amplitudes in a microscopic OZI-based model · Introduction · 0.93

Cites it as support 1 paper

Furthermore, the diffractive production can be an alternative way to detect the Higgs boson in hadron colliders, since it provides a higher signal-to-background ratio [ref] .

Estimations for the Single Diffractive production of the Higgs boson at the Tevatron and the LHC · Results and comments · 0.98

Cites it as background 2 papers

The theoretical study of MPI and rescattering, in various approaches, has received renewed attention in recent years [ref] .

Multiparton Interactions and Rescattering · Multiparton Interaction Physics · 0.96
Here we shall present a simple model of gap survival which should provide a good starting point for understanding the more sophisticated treatments in Refs. [ref] .

Central Exclusive Particle Production at High Energy Hadron Colliders · Perturbative QCD · 0.86

Discussion

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

[1] [13]

J. Bartels, S. Bondarenko, K. Kutak and L. Motyka, arXiv:hep-ph/0601128

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

V.A. Khoze, A.B. Kaidalov, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, arXiv:hep-ph/0507040; B. Cox, arXiv:hep-ph/0501064

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[3] [2]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C14 (2000) 525

View on Pith 2000

[4] [3]

FP420 project: M.G. Albrow et al., CERN-LHCC-2005-025, Jun 20 05

View on Pith 2005

[5] [4]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C19 (2001) 477

View on Pith 2001

[6] [5]

A. De Roeck, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, R. Orava and M.G. Ryskin, Eu r. Phys. J. C25 (2002) 391. 10

View on Pith 2002

[7] [6]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J . C31 (2003) 387

View on Pith 2003

[8] [7]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C33 (2004) 261

View on Pith 2004

[9] [8]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C23 (2002) 311

View on Pith 2002

[10] [9]

M.A. Kimber, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114027; G. Watt, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C31 (2003) 73

View on Pith 2001

[11] [10]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C18 (2000) 167

View on Pith 2000

[12] [11]

L. L¨ onnblad and M. Sjodahl, JHEP 0505 (2005) 038

View on Pith 2005

[13] [12]

E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, in HERA and the LHC , CERN-2005-014, p. 221

View on Pith 2005

[14] [14]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J . C35 (2004) 211

View on Pith 2004

[15] [15]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C21 (2001) 521

View on Pith 2001

[16] [16]

I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 99; Y.V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034008; ibid., D61 (2000) 074018

View on Pith 1996

[17] [17]

J. Bartels and M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Z. Phys. C66 (1995) 157

View on Pith 1995

[18] [18]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, Yu.F. Pirogov and N.L. Ter-Issakyan, Phys. Lett. B45 (1973) 493; A.B. Kaidalov and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, Nucl. Phys. B75 (1974) 471

View on Pith 1973

[19] [19]

A.B. Kaidalov, L.A. Ponomarev and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, Sov. J . Nucl. Phys. 44 (1986) 468

View on Pith 1986

[20] [20]

V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 127; G. Camici and M. Ciafaloni, Phys. Lett B430 (1998) 349

View on Pith 1998

[21] [21]

B. Andersson, G. Gustafson and J. Samuelsson, Nucl. Phys. B467 (1996) 443; J. Kwieci´ nski, A.D. Martin and P.J. Sutton, Z. Phys. C71 (1996) 585: M. Ciafaloni, D. Colferai and G. Salam, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 114036

View on Pith 1996

[22] [22]

C.R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 074003; J. R. Forshaw, D. A. Ross and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. B455 (1999) 273; see also, G. Chachamis, M. Lublinsky and A. Sabio Vera, Nucl. Phys. A748 (2005) 649

View on Pith 1999

[23] [23]

CTEQ collaboration, J. Pumplin et al., JHEP 07 (2002) 012

View on Pith 2002

[24] [24]

A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne, Phys. Le tt. B604 (2004) 61. 11

View on Pith 2004

[25] [25]

A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, in HERA and the LHC , CERN-2005-014, p. 369

View on Pith 2005

[26] [26]

J. Bartels and M.G. Ryskin, Z. Phys. C60 (1993) 751

View on Pith 1993

[27] [27]

V.A. Abramovsky, Pis’ma v JETP 23 (1976) 228

View on Pith 1976

[28] [28]

V.A. Abramovsky, A.V. Dmitriev and A.A. Schneider, arXiv:hep-ph/0512199; A.Capella, J. Kaplan and J. Tran Thanh Van, Nucl. Phys. B105 (1976) 333; V.A. Abramovsky and R.G. Betman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 49 (1989) 747

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1976

[29] [29]

V. Abramovsky, V.N. Gribov and O.V. Kancheli, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys . 18 (1974) 308

View on Pith 1974

[30] [30]

E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, in HERA and the LHC , CERN-2005-014, p.221 (and references therein)

View on Pith 2005

[31] [31]

K.Goulianos, arXiv:hep-ph/0407035 (and references therein)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[32] [32]

M.L. Good and W.D. Walker, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 1857

View on Pith 1960

[33] [33]

V.A. Khoze, M.G. Ryskin, W.J. Stirling and P.H. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. C26 (2003) 429

View on Pith 2003

[34] [34]

ZEUS Collaboration, M. Derrick et al., Phys. Lett B384 (1996) 388; J. Breitweg et al., Nucl. Phys. B596 (2001) 3; Eur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 81; ibid. C2 (1998) 237

View on Pith 1996

[35] [35]

ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Nucl. Phys. B637 (2002) 3

View on Pith 2002

[36] [36]

ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Phys. Lett. B610 (2005) 199

View on Pith 2005

[37] [37]

H1 Collaboration, C. Adloﬀ et al., Eur. Phys. J. C6 (1999) 587

View on Pith 1999

[38] [38]

H1 Collaboration, C. Adloﬀ et al., Nucl. Phys. B619 (2001) 3

View on Pith 2001

[39] [39]

A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, arXiv:hep-ph/0602215, Eur. Phys. J. C in press

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[40] [40]

M.G. Albrow and A. Hamilton, presentation at the Workshop on Future of Forward Physics at the LHC , Manchester, December 2005

View on Pith 2005

[41] [41]

V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J . C38 (2005) 475. 12

View on Pith 2005