Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$, $q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first complete next-to-leading-order QCD calculation of the rare $Z$-boson decays $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$ and $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$, and finds that the corrections reduce the partial widths by $6.03\%$ and…

desk verdict First NLO QCD calculation for Z -> q qbar gamma and Z -> q qbar gamma gamma gives credible percent-level corrections; the main caveat is an unshown K=5 cut plateau and no Monte Carlo errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08802 v1 pith:ICE7OZEI submitted 2024-11-13 hep-ph

Pankaj Agrawal , Subhadip Bisal , Biswajit Das , Debottam Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords ZbosonraredecaysNLOQCDcorrectionstwojetsplusphotonphotonsdecaywidthdipolesubtractionfuturee+e-colliders
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper computes the first complete next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections to the rare $Z$-boson decay channels $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$ and $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$, treating the final quarks as massless and applying photon isolation cuts suitable for hadron-collider analyses. It finds that the NLO corrections reduce the inclusive partial width of $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$ by about $6.03\%$ and of $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$ by about $12.39\%$ relative to leading order. At the jet level the reductions are larger, reaching about $20\%$ for the two-jet-plus-one-photon mode and more than $30\%$ for the one-jet-plus-two-photon mode. These NLO-improved widths are the numbers that future high-statistics electron-positron Z-pole measurements will need to compare against.

What carries the argument

The calculation is carried by a one-loop QCD amplitude machinery: helicity amplitudes built from spinor products and vector currents, dimensional regularization in the 't Hooft-Veltman scheme, on-shell renormalization for the massless quarks, and a dipole subtraction scheme that cancels infrared singularities between virtual and real-emission contributions before numerical Monte Carlo integration. For the pentagon diagrams that appear in $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$, the paper applies a local K-factor cut, discarding rare phase-space points where the ratio of the virtual amplitude to the Born amplitude exceeds a fixed threshold, set to $K=5$ after a reported plateau for $4<K<6$. The calculation is checked by pole cancellation, gauge invariance through Ward identities, agreement with an independent tree-level generator, and reproduction of the known NLO width of $Z\to q\bar{q}$.

What would settle it

Recompute the NLO widths with the local K-factor cut removed or moved far outside the reported $4<K<6$ plateau, or with a different infrared-subtraction scheme, and check whether the $-6.03\%$ and $-12.39\%$ shifts survive within Monte Carlo errors; an independent NLO calculation of $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$ would settle the claim directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is quantitative: the one-loop QCD corrections to $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$ and $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$ are negative and sizable, shifting the partial widths from $6.30$ MeV to $5.92$ MeV and from $11.3$ keV to $9.90$ keV respectively, while the same correction to the benchmark $Z\to q\bar{q}$ width is positive, $3.77\%$. The paper argues that these shifts are large enough that any high-precision test of $Z$-boson decays must include them, and that the corrected channels have observable rates at a high-luminosity hadron collider or at a future electron-positron Z-pole machine.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the local K-factor cut at $K=5$ does not bias the integrated widths; the paper reports a plateau for $4<K<6$ but does not show how the results behave outside that range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The corrected inclusive partial widths are $5.92$ MeV for $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$ and $9.90$ keV for $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$, corresponding to NLO QCD shifts of $-6.03\%$ and $-12.39\%$.
  • At jet level the NLO corrections are larger: $-13.75\%$ and $-20.26\%$ for the one-jet and two-jet modes with one photon, and $-31.80\%$ and $-21.47\%$ for the one-jet and two-jet modes with two photons.
  • The NLO processes produce events with one, two, or three jets accompanied by one or two photons, so jet-clustering and photon-isolation cuts become part of the predicted observables.
  • At a high-luminosity hadron collider the estimated production cross sections, roughly $0.13$ nb for $q\bar{q}\gamma$ and $0.22$ pb for $q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$, make these decay channels experimentally testable.
  • For future electron-positron Z-pole runs, the $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$ partial width alone is larger than the current theoretical uncertainty assigned to unaccounted higher-order corrections, so the NLO shift is material at the projected precision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the larger negative shift in the two-photon channel suggests that each additional photon roughly doubles the size of the NLO QCD correction, a pattern that could be tested by computing the NLO correction to $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma\gamma$.
  • Inference: because the local K-factor cut only removes extreme virtual-to-Born ratios, publishing the integrated width as a function of $K$ over a wider range would make the reported plateau directly auditable by other groups.
  • Inference: the same dipole-subtraction setup can be applied to other rare $Z$-boson decays with photons in the final state, such as $Z$ to $q\bar{q}$ plus a Higgs boson, where NLO QCD corrections have not yet been computed.
  • Inference: experimental analyses that count jets should use the jet-level NLO widths rather than the inclusive widths, since real gluon emission moves events among one-, two-, and three-jet topologies and steepens the effective corrections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a calculation of the NLO QCD corrections to the Z-boson decay channels Z -> q qbar, Z -> q qbar gamma, and Z -> q qbar gamma gamma, with the aim of providing predictions for the corresponding two-jet-plus-photon(s) observables at the HL-LHC and at future e+e- colliders. The amplitudes are generated with FeynArts/FormCalc and processed with in-house FORM routines, tensor integrals are reduced with OVReduce, scalar integrals are evaluated with OneLoop, and phase-space integration is performed with AMCI/VEGAS. Infrared singularities are handled with Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction, including a finite alpha parameter. The authors list several validation checks: pole cancellation, dipole cancellation, alpha variation, Ward identities, agreement with MadGraph at tree level, and an exact match of the NLO Z -> q qbar width to Ref. [13]. Their central numerical results are the relative increments RI = +3.77% for Z -> q qbar, -6.03% for Z -> q qbar gamma, and -12.39% for Z -> q qbar gamma gamma, together with jet-level widths and a set of differential distributions.

Significance. If the quoted results are robust, this is a useful calculation: the two negative NLO corrections are the first complete one-loop QCD results for these rare Z-decay channels, and the paper provides concrete numbers for observables that could be tested at future Tera-Z factories and possibly at the HL-LHC. The calculation is a direct Standard Model computation with no free parameters fitted to the target observables, and the listed internal checks (pole cancellation, Ward identities, MadGraph comparison, exact NLO Z -> q qbar match) are appropriate and give reasonable confidence in the technical implementation. The main weakness is numerical documentation: the local K-factor stability is asserted but not demonstrated, and no Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties are quoted, so the precision implied by the two-decimal percentages is not currently supported. These are fixable presentation and validation gaps rather than apparent errors in the derivation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III, Eq. (1); §IV, Table I] The local K-factor cut defined in Eq. (1) is the only stabilization described for the pentagon amplitudes, and the text states that there is a plateau region for the final results between 4 < K < 6 without showing the actual K-dependence of Gamma_NLO or RI. Because the cut removes phase-space points where the pointwise ratio |2 Re(M_virt M_LO*)|/|M_LO|^2 exceeds K, and because the virtual-Born interference is signed, the removed region can have a nonzero integral and can therefore bias the total correction if the plateau is not exactly flat. Please include a table or plot of Gamma_NLO and RI as a function of K, with statistical errors at each K value, or alternatively demonstrate that the total discarded weight is numerically negligible. This is necessary to verify the quoted 12.39% (and, if the cut is used there, the 6.03%) correction.
  2. [§IV, Tables I and II; Figs. 8–16] No Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties are reported for Gamma_LO, Gamma_NLO, RI, or any of the differential distributions. The headline numbers are quoted to two decimals (6.03% and 12.39%), but without error bars the reader cannot assess whether the K=5 value is stable within integration errors, whether the alpha-variation check in §III.C.3 is meaningfully passed, or whether the final digits are significant. Please quote the statistical uncertainty for each width and for the derived RI. This documentation is essential for the central numerical claim of the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.B] The sentence 'following Ref[]' contains an empty citation; please insert the appropriate reference for the alpha-modified dipole kernel.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'prosesses' in §IV, 'diagramns' in the Fig. 7 caption, 'to to mass' in the Fig. 15(d) caption, and 'spitting matrix' in §III.B should be corrected.
  3. [§IV, Table I] The quantity RI is called the 'relative increment'; for negative corrections this is more naturally called a relative change, and the caption could be adjusted for clarity.
  4. [§IV.A] The paper does not state the number of phase-space points or the VEGAS iterations used to obtain the quoted widths; adding this information would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§III.C] The claims of agreement with MadGraph and of an exact match to Ref. [13] are not quantified; please state the numerical comparison and the achieved agreement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the NLO widths and RI values are direct outputs of a Standard Model perturbative calculation with external cross-checks; the K-cut is a technical stability cut, not a fitted observable.

full rationale

The central claims are the NLO QCD corrected widths for Z → q qbar gamma and Z → q qbar gamma gamma and the corresponding RI ratios. These are computed from the Standard Model Lagrangian using fixed inputs (Eq. 15), Feynman diagram amplitudes, and Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction. No parameter is fitted to the target observables: RI is defined as (Gamma_NLO − Gamma_LO)/Gamma_LO, i.e., a ratio of two computed quantities, so the 6.03% and 12.39% values cannot reduce to their inputs by construction. The paper reports two independent checks: the Born-level widths agree with MadGraph, and the NLO Z → q qbar width exactly matches Ref. [13]; both checks are external to the present fitting choices. Self-citations appear (OVReduce in Refs. [53,54], the authors' PhD thesis [50], and Ref. [10]), but they supply computational tools or prior context, not the load-bearing physics result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to forbid alternatives. The one passage that deserves explicit flagging is the local K-factor discussion near Eq. (1): 'We see a plateau region for the final results between 4 < K < 6, so we set K = 5 for our computations.' The plateau is asserted without a table or plot, and no Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty is quoted; this is a numerical robustness concern that could affect the precision of the quoted shifts, but it is not circularity because K is a phase-space stability cut, not a parameter fitted to reproduce the final widths, and the result is not defined in terms of K. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained, and no prediction reduces to an input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation uses only established Standard Model inputs and standard QCD techniques. The only hand-chosen technical parameter is the K-factor cut, which is intended to be numerically neutral. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Local K-factor cut = 5
    Chosen by hand to reject phase-space points with large virtual-to-Born ratios; a plateau in the result between K=4 and K=6 is reported, but the residual K dependence is not shown.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption External quarks and anti-quarks, including the b quark, are treated as massless.
    Stated in Section III and used for spinor helicity amplitudes; valid for MZ >> m_b but ignores b-mass effects.
  • domain assumption The 't Hooft-Veltman dimensional scheme is used for loop integrals, with only the loop parts evaluated in d dimensions.
    Mentioned in Section III as the HV scheme; this is a standard scheme choice but is an assumption about the regularization.
  • standard math Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction correctly cancels infrared singularities for these decay processes with final-state partons only.
    The method is used as presented in Refs. [62]; the paper verifies pole cancellation and dipole cancellation, so this is a standard mathematical tool.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $Z\to q\bar{q}\gamma$, $q\bar{q}\gamma\gamma$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICE7OZEI

@misc{pith2026241108802,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $Z\to q\barq\gamma$, $q\barq\gamma\gamma$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICE7OZEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08802}
}
abstract

We consider the rare decay channels of the $Z$ boson: $Z \to \text{two}\ \textrm{jets} + \gamma$ and $Z \to \text{two}\ \textrm{jets} +2\, \gamma$. To obtain the widths and distributions for these processes, we compute the effect of NLO QCD corrections to the processes $Z \to q {\bar q}+ \gamma$ and $Z \to q {\bar q} +2\, \gamma$. We find that these corrections reduce the widths of these processes by about $6.03\%$ and $12.39\%$, respectively. The reduction in the partial widths is larger at the jet level. These NLO-improved decay observables may be tested in future runs of the LHC or at future $e^{+}e^{-}$ colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08802 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Tree-level diagram, (b) virtual correction, and (c), (d) real emission diagram for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Tree-level diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. One-loop diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Real emission diagrams corresponding to the Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Tree-level diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. one-loop diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Real emission diagramns corresponding to the Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Distributions of the width with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Distributions of the width with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Distributions of the width with respect to cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Distributions of the width with respect to the mass of a two-jet system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Distributions of the width with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Distributions of the width with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Distributions of the width with respect to cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Distributions of the width with respect to to mass of a two-jet system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Distributions of the width with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Huang and F

    T.-C. Huang and F. Petriello, Rare exclusive decays of the Z-boson revisited, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 014007, [1411.5924]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    7, we have checked that it removed all poles from virtual amplitudes for each process

    Pole cancellation: With the I-term given in the Eq. 7, we have checked that it removed all poles from virtual amplitudes for each process

    work page

  3. [2]

    Two numerical numbers corresponding to real and dipole terms are large in the singular re- gion, but their subtraction lies in the regular region

    Cancellation with dipoles: The dipole terms display explicitly the same singular behav- ior as the real emission amplitude in the collinear and soft regions in each process. Two numerical numbers corresponding to real and dipole terms are large in the singular re- gion, but their subtraction lies in the regular region. This leads to stable dipole subtract...

    work page

  4. [3]

    By varyingα ∈ (0,1], we see consistent results for all processes within statistical uncertainties

    α parameter: Introduction of α parameter in dipole subtraction not only saves CPU time but also helps to validate the implementation of dipole subtraction. By varyingα ∈ (0,1], we see consistent results for all processes within statistical uncertainties

    work page

  5. [4]

    For all real emission processes, in addition to the photons, there are also gluons in the final state

    Gauge invariance: There are massless gauge bosons (photons) in the process (2) and (3) at the LO. For all real emission processes, in addition to the photons, there are also gluons in the final state. We have checked the Ward-Identity by replacing the gauge boson polarization with its momentum. This gives a vanishing contribution. This check has been done...

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    P ARTICLE DATA GROUP collaboration, R. L. Workman et al., Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Schael et al., Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP E LECTROWEAK WORKING GROUP, SLD ELECTROWEAK GROUP, SLD H EAVY FLAVOUR GROUP collaboration, S. Schael et al., Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257–454, [hep-ex/0509008]

    arXiv 2006

  8. [7]

    Blondel et al., Standard model theory for the FCC-ee Tera-Z stage, in Mini Workshop on Precision EW and QCD Calculations for the FCC Studies : Methods and Techniques, vol

    A. Blondel et al., Standard model theory for the FCC-ee Tera-Z stage, in Mini Workshop on Precision EW and QCD Calculations for the FCC Studies : Methods and Techniques, vol. 3/2019 of CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, (Geneva), CERN, 9, 2018. 1809.01830. DOI

    arXiv 2019

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    Dubovyk, A

    I. Dubovyk, A. Freitas, J. Gluza, T. Riemann and J. Usovitsch, Complete electroweak two-loop corrections to Z boson production and decay, Phys. Lett. B 783 (2018) 86–94, [1804.10236]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Bernardi et al., The Future Circular Collider: a Summary for the US 2021 Snowmass Process, 2203.06520

    G. Bernardi et al., The Future Circular Collider: a Summary for the US 2021 Snowmass Process, 2203.06520

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Schael et al., Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP E LECTROWEAK collaboration, S. Schael et al., Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 119–244, [1302.3415]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Tenchini, Precision Electroweak Measurements at FCC-ee, Nucl

    R. Tenchini, Precision Electroweak Measurements at FCC-ee, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275 (2016) 2244–2248, [1412.2928]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Patrignani et al., Review of Particle Physics, Chin

    P ARTICLE DATA GROUP collaboration, C. Patrignani et al., Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001

    2016

  6. [14]

    Bisal and D

    S. Bisal and D. Das, Testing Z boson rare decays Z → H1γ,A1γ with (g − 2)µ ,MW , and BR(hSM → Zγ) in the NMSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 630, [2308.06558]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. A. Akhundov, D. Y . Bardin and T. Riemann,Electroweak One Loop Corrections to the Decay of the Neutral Vector Boson, Nucl. Phys. B 276 (1986) 1–13

    1986

  8. [16]

    Bernabeu, A

    J. Bernabeu, A. Pich and A. Santamaria, Gamma (Z —> B anti-B): A Signature of Hard Mass Terms for a Heavy Top, Phys. Lett. B 200 (1988) 569–574. 17

    1988

  9. [17]

    Beenakker and W

    W. Beenakker and W. Hollik, The Width of the Z Boson, Z. Phys. C 40 (1988) 141

    1988

  10. [18]

    Dubovyk, A

    I. Dubovyk, A. Freitas, J. Gluza, T. Riemann and J. Usovitsch, The two-loop electroweak bosonic corrections to sin2 θ b eff, Phys. Lett. B 762 (2016) 184–189, [1607.08375]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Djouadi and C

    A. Djouadi and C. Verzegnassi, Virtual Very Heavy Top Effects in LEP / SLC Precision Measurements, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987) 265–271

    1987

  12. [20]

    Djouadi, O(alpha alpha-s) Vacuum Polarization Functions of the Standard Model Gauge Bosons, Nuovo Cim

    A. Djouadi, O(alpha alpha-s) Vacuum Polarization Functions of the Standard Model Gauge Bosons, Nuovo Cim. A 100 (1988) 357

    1988

  13. [21]

    B. A. Kniehl, Two Loop Corrections to the Vacuum Polarizations in Perturbative QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 347 (1990) 86–104

    1990

  14. [22]

    B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin, Dispersion relations for vacuum polarization functions in electroweak physics, Nucl. Phys. B 371 (1992) 141–148

    1992

  15. [23]

    Djouadi and P

    A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, Electroweak gauge bosons selfenergies: Complete QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 3499–3511, [hep-ph/9309298]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 53, 4111 (1996)]

    1994 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Barbieri, M

    R. Barbieri, M. Beccaria, P. Ciafaloni, G. Curci and A. Vicere, Radiative correction effects of a very heavy top, Phys. Lett. B 288 (1992) 95–98, [hep-ph/9205238]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 312, 511–511 (1993)]

    1992 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Barbieri, M

    R. Barbieri, M. Beccaria, P. Ciafaloni, G. Curci and A. Vicere, Two loop heavy top effects in the Standard Model, Nucl. Phys. B 409 (1993) 105–127

    1993

  18. [26]

    Fleischer, O

    J. Fleischer, O. V . Tarasov and F. Jegerlehner,Two loop heavy top corrections to the rho parameter: A Simple formula valid for arbitrary Higgs mass, Phys. Lett. B 319 (1993) 249–256

    1993

  19. [27]

    Fleischer, O

    J. Fleischer, O. V . Tarasov and F. Jegerlehner,Two loop large top mass corrections to electroweak parameters: Analytic results valid for arbitrary Higgs mass, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 3820–3837

    1995

  20. [28]

    Degrassi, P

    G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and A. Vicini, Two loop heavy top effects on the m(Z) - m(W) interdependence, Phys. Lett. B 383 (1996) 219–226, [hep-ph/9603374]

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Degrassi, P

    G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and A. Sirlin, Precise calculation of M(W), sin**2 theta(W) (M(Z)), and sin**2 theta(eff)(lept), Phys. Lett. B 394 (1997) 188–194, [hep-ph/9611363]

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Degrassi and P

    G. Degrassi and P. Gambino, Two loop heavy top corrections to the Z0 boson partial widths, Nucl. Phys. B 567 (2000) 3–31, [hep-ph/9905472]

    2000 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Freitas, W

    A. Freitas, W. Hollik, W. Walter and G. Weiglein, Complete fermionic two loop results for the M(W) - M(Z) interdependence, Phys. Lett. B 495 (2000) 338–346, [hep-ph/0007091]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 570, 265 (2003)]

    2000 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Freitas, W

    A. Freitas, W. Hollik, W. Walter and G. Weiglein, Electroweak two loop corrections to the MW − MZ mass correlation in the standard model, Nucl. Phys. B 632 (2002) 189–218, [hep-ph/0202131]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 666, 305–307 (2003)]

    2002 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Awramik, M

    M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and G. Weiglein, Complete two-loop electroweak fermionic corrections to sin2 θ lept eff and indirect determination of the Higgs boson mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 201805, [hep-ph/0407317]

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hollik, U

    W. Hollik, U. Meier and S. Uccirati, The Effective electroweak mixing angle sin**2 theta(eff) with two-loop fermionic contributions, Nucl. Phys. B 731 (2005) 213–224, [hep-ph/0507158]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Awramik, M

    M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and B. A. Kniehl, Two-loop electroweak fermionic corrections to sin**2 theta**b anti-b(eff), Nucl. Phys. B 813 (2009) 174–187, [0811.1364]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Freitas and Y .-C

    A. Freitas and Y .-C. Huang, Electroweak two-loop corrections to sin2θ b¯b e f f and Rb using numerical Mellin-Barnes integrals, JHEP 08 (2012) 050, [1205.0299]. [Erratum: JHEP 05, 074 (2013), Erratum: JHEP 10, 044 (2013)]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Freitas, Two-loop fermionic electroweak corrections to the Z-boson width and production rate, Phys

    A. Freitas, Two-loop fermionic electroweak corrections to the Z-boson width and production rate, Phys. Lett. B 730 (2014) 50–52, [1310.2256]. 18

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Freitas, Higher-order electroweak corrections to the partial widths and branching ratios of the Z boson, JHEP 04 (2014) 070, [1401.2447]

    A. Freitas, Higher-order electroweak corrections to the partial widths and branching ratios of the Z boson, JHEP 04 (2014) 070, [1401.2447]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Avdeev, J

    L. Avdeev, J. Fleischer, S. Mikhailov and O. Tarasov, 0(αα 2 s ) correction to the electroweak ρ parameter, Phys. Lett. B 336 (1994) 560–566, [hep-ph/9406363]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 349, 597–598 (1995)]

    1994 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, Corrections of order O(GFM2 t α2 s ) to the ρ parameter, Phys. Lett. B 351 (1995) 331–338, [hep-ph/9502291]

    1995 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. J. van der Bij, K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Faisst, G. Jikia and T. Seidensticker, Three loop leading top mass contributions to the rho parameter, Phys. Lett. B 498 (2001) 156–162, [hep-ph/0011373]

    2001 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Faisst, J

    M. Faisst, J. H. Kuhn, T. Seidensticker and O. Veretin, Three loop top quark contributions to the rho parameter, Nucl. Phys. B 665 (2003) 649–662, [hep-ph/0302275]

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Schroder and M

    Y . Schroder and M. Steinhauser, Four-loop singlet contribution to the rho parameter, Phys. Lett. B 622 (2005) 124–130, [hep-ph/0504055]

    2005 arXiv

  36. [44]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Faisst, J. H. Kuhn, P. Maierhofer and C. Sturm, Four-Loop QCD Corrections to the Rho Parameter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 102003, [hep-ph/0605201]

    2006 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Boughezal and M

    R. Boughezal and M. Czakon, Single scale tadpoles and O(G(F m(t)**2 alpha(s)**3)) corrections to the rho parameter, Nucl. Phys. B 755 (2006) 221–238, [hep-ph/0606232]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    ILC collaboration, The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics, 1306.6352

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bicer et al., First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP, JHEP 01 (2014) 164, [1308.6176]

    TLEP D ESIGN STUDY WORKING GROUP collaboration, M. Bicer et al., First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP, JHEP 01 (2014) 164, [1308.6176]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    d’Enterria, Physics at the FCC-ee, in 17th Lomonosov Conference on Elementary Particle Physics, pp

    D. d’Enterria, Physics at the FCC-ee, in 17th Lomonosov Conference on Elementary Particle Physics, pp. 182–191, 2017. 1602.05043. DOI

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ahmad et al., CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report

    M. Ahmad et al., CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and Detector,

  42. [50]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3, Comput

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431, [hep-ph/0012260]

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kublbeck, M

    J. Kublbeck, M. Bohm and A. Denner, Feyn Arts: Computer Algebraic Generation of Feynman Graphs and Amplitudes, Comput. Phys. Commun. 60 (1990) 165–180

    1990

  44. [52]

    M. E. Peskin, Simplifying Multi-Jet QCD Computation, in 13th Mexican School of Particles and Fields, 1, 2011. 1101.2414

    2011 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kleiss and W

    R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Cross-sections for the Production of an Arbitrary Number of Photons in Electron - Positron Annihilation, Phys. Lett. B 179 (1986) 159–163

    1986

  46. [54]

    Das, Probing Anomalous Higgs Boson Couplings at Colliders

    B. Das, Probing Anomalous Higgs Boson Couplings at Colliders. PhD thesis, Bhubaneswar, Inst. Phys., 2023. 2409.01264

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hahn and M

    T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one loop calculations in four-dimensions and D-dimensions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153–165, [hep-ph/9807565]

    1999 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, New features of FORM, math-ph/0010025

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Agrawal and A

    P. Agrawal and A. Shivaji, Di-Vector Boson + Jet Production via Gluon Fusion at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 073013, [1207.2927]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Agrawal and G

    P. Agrawal and G. Ladinsky, Production of two photons and a jet through gluon fusion, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 117504, [hep-ph/0011346]

    2001 arXiv

  51. [59]

    G. J. van Oldenborgh and J. A. M. Vermaseren, New Algorithms for One Loop Integrals, Z. Phys. C 46 (1990) 425–438

    1990

  52. [60]

    van Hameren, OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions, Comput

    A. van Hameren, OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2427–2438, [1007.4716]. 19

    2011 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Veseli, Multidimensional integration in a heterogeneous network environment, Comput

    S. Veseli, Multidimensional integration in a heterogeneous network environment, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 9–19, [physics/9710017]

    1998 arXiv

  54. [62]

    G. P. Lepage, A New Algorithm for Adaptive Multidimensional Integration, J. Comput. Phys. 27 (1978) 192

    1978

  55. [63]

    Geist, A

    A. Geist, A. Beguelin, J. Dongarra, W. Jiang, R. Manchek and V . S. Sunderam,PVM: A Users’ Guide and Tutorial for Network Parallel Computing. The MIT Press, 11, 1994, 10.7551/mitpress/5712.001.0001

    1994 doi

  56. [64]

    Kleiss, W

    R. Kleiss, W. J. Stirling and S. D. Ellis, A New Monte Carlo Treatment of Multiparticle Phase Space at High-energies, Comput. Phys. Commun. 40 (1986) 359

    1986

  57. [65]

    Greiner, Automation of the dipole substraction method

    N. Greiner, Automation of the dipole substraction method. PhD thesis, Zurich U., 2010. 10.5167/uzh-32633

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 291–419, [hep-ph/9605323]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 510, 503–504 (1998)]

    1997 arXiv

  59. [67]

    S.-F. Ge, Z. Qian, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and J. Zhou, New Physics Off the Z-Pole: e+e− → f ¯f at Future Lepton Colliders, 2410.17605

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Dawson and P

    S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, Electroweak and QCD corrections to Z and W pole observables in the standard model EFT, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 013001, [1909.02000]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Tanabashi et al., Review of Particle Physics, Phys

    P ARTICLE DATA GROUP collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  62. [70]

    V . A. Novikov, L. B. Okun, A. N. Rozanov and M. I. Vysotsky,Theory of Z boson decays, Rept. Prog. Phys. 62 (1999) 1275–1332, [hep-ph/9906465]

    1999 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Dawson, J. de Blas, G. Durieux, P. Savard, A. Denner et al., Electroweak input parameters, 2111.12515

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, [1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Cacciari and G

    M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Dispelling the N3 myth for the kt jet-finder, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57–61, [hep-ph/0512210]

    2006 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y . L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour and B. R. Webber,Longitudinally invariant Kt clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 406 (1993) 187–224

    1993

  67. [75]

    S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 3160–3166, [hep-ph/9305266]. 20

    1993 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.