Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 120 references

Automated NLO calculations for asymmetric hadron-hadron collisions in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The authors present an extension of MadGraph5_aMC@NLO that automates NLO QCD predictions for asymmetric hadron-hadron collisions (pA, AB, pion-hadron), validated against MCFM and JAM, with automatic scale and PDF uncertainties.

desk verdict Useful, well-validated tooling extension for asymmetric NLO collisions; the alpha_s-from-second-PDF bookkeeping is a real but documented caveat, not a reason to hold it up. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14487 v1 pith:QUSRPBE3 submitted 2025-01-24 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords asymmetrichadron-hadroncollisionsnext-to-leadingorderQCDcollinearfactorizationnuclearpartondistributionfunctionsMadGraph5_aMC@NLODrell-YanproductionmodificationfactorpionPDFs
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 reports an extension of the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO event generator that enables automated next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD calculations for hadronic collisions of two different species: proton–nucleus, nucleus–nucleus, pion–hadron, and pion–nucleus. The authors' aim is to give the heavy-ion and pion-beam communities a public tool that returns NLO cross sections, scale uncertainties, and PDF uncertainties for essentially any Standard Model or beyond-Standard-Model process, without the need for private modified codes. They validate the implementation against established references for W/Z production in proton–lead collisions and for Drell-Yan production in pion–tungsten collisions, and they illustrate it with nuclear modification factors for W, Z, charm, bottom, and associated Higgs production. If the extension is correct, it closes a gap that has forced asymmetric-collision predictions to rely on non-public or leading-order-only programs.

What carries the argument

The key object is the factorisation formula for asymmetric collisions (Eq. (7)), in which the two incoming hadrons $h_1$ and $h_2$ carry independent parton distributions. The extension leans on the existing NLO weight decomposition of MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, where each contribution to the cross section is written as a product of PDFs and a weight $W^{(\alpha)}$ whose scale dependence is factored into coefficients; this lets the code reweight for different scales and PDFs without recomputing matrix elements. The practical modifications are a list of two or more LHAIDs in the run_card (the first is hadron $h_1$, the rest are $h_2$ variants), an `asymm_choice` flag to activate the mode, and a `cms_frame` flag that selects whether the cuts and output are in the laboratory or hadronic centre-of-mass frame.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to run the code for a process in pPb or PbPb collisions where power corrections are expected to be large—for example forward $J/\psi$ production, which the paper lists among processes sensitive to non-factorising effects—and compare the NLO prediction against LHC data; a systematic discrepancy growing toward forward rapidity or with nuclear size would signal that the factorisation assumption underlying the extension is breaking down. A second, more direct test of the implementation choices is to recompute the same asymmetric observable with the LHAID order reversed, so that $\alpha_S$ is taken from the other PDF set, and check that the shift stays within the quoted uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the collinear-factorisation machinery of MadGraph5_aMC@NLO can accommodate asymmetric hadron collisions with a minimal modification: the run_card accepts two distinct LHAPDF sets, one per incoming hadron, and the cross section is computed from the factorisation formula with $f_{a/h_1}$ and $f_{b/h_2}$, with the strong coupling $\alpha_S$ taken from the second PDF set. The code then automatically produces both symmetric and asymmetric cross sections, with scale and PDF uncertainties, in the laboratory frame by default and optionally in the hadronic centre-of-mass frame. The validations—$W^+$ and $Z$ production in $p$Pb at 5.02 TeV against MCFM, and $\pi^-W$ Drell-Yan at 21.7 GeV against the JAM prediction and E615 data—are reported as agreeing within uncertainties, which the paper takes as establishing the numerical correctness of the asymmetric implementation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that collinear factorization remains valid when the two incoming hadrons are of different species, an assumption the paper itself flags as not formally proven for most asymmetric systems, with power-suppressed corrections believed to be enhanced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy-ion analyses can obtain NLO QCD predictions for pA and AB reactions from a single public tool, with automatic scale and nuclear-PDF uncertainties, instead of maintaining private modified codes.
  • Nuclear modification factors for any process—including W, Z, charm, bottom, and associated $H+b\bar b$ production—can be produced in one run, with the nPDF uncertainty propagated as recommended by the PDF sets.
  • Pion-beam phenomenology, such as Drell-Yan and heavy-flavour production used to constrain pion PDFs, becomes accessible at NLO in an automated generator.
  • Because the extension inherits the process automation of MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, it applies to any Standard Model or BSM process, not only the illustrative examples in the paper.
  • The laboratory-frame default with an optional centre-of-mass frame accommodates fixed-target and other asymmetric-energy configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the authors did not report is to quantify how much the cross section changes when $\alpha_S$ is taken from the first PDF set instead of the second; if that shift is sizable relative to the quoted uncertainties, the $\alpha_S$-compatibility assumption would need a more careful treatment.
  • The automatic NMF computation from stored histograms could be extended to ratios between different nuclear species in a single run, which would make system-size scans (for example $p$Ne versus $p$Pb) straightforward for the LHC fixed-target programme.
  • If collinear factorization proves insufficient in the nuclear case, the two-PDF input interface built here is a natural platform for generalising the framework toward $k_T$-factorisation or other schemes, though that would require new subtraction machinery.
  • The validations cover electroweak-boson and Drell-Yan processes; applying the tool to heavy-flavour production at forward rapidities—where the gluon nPDF is poorly constrained—would be a stronger test of the implementation's numerical accuracy.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports an extension of MadGraph5_aMC@NLO in which the two incoming hadrons can be assigned distinct LHAPDF sets, enabling NLO QCD fixed-order cross sections for asymmetric collisions such as pPb, pi-p, pi-A, and AB. The authors adapt the existing reweighting machinery so that scale and PDF uncertainties are computed automatically for both symmetric and asymmetric settings, add a lab-frame/c.m.s.-frame option, and provide automatic computation of the two orderings h1h2 and h2h1. The implementation is validated by comparing W and Z production in pPb at sqrt(s_NN)=5.02 TeV against MCFM and Drell-Yan pair production in pi-W collisions at sqrt(s)=21.7 GeV against the JAM collaboration's NLO calculation, with good agreement. Illustrative pPb results for W/Z, c and b quark production, and H+b bbar production, including nuclear modification factors, are also presented, and the code is publicly available at nloaccess.in2p3.fr.

Significance. If the advertised capabilities hold, this fills a concrete gap: there is no publicly available, automated NLO QCD code for asymmetric hadronic collisions. The validations in Figs. 1 and 2 are genuine benchmarks against independent physics targets, and the automatic treatment of scale and PDF uncertainties is a practical strength. The pPb W/Z comparison is particularly valuable because it includes nPDF uncertainties, and the pi-W Drell-Yan validation against JAM is an important complement. The main caveats are that the MCFM comparison relies on an APPLgrid setup previously developed by the same group (refs. [110,111]), that the heavy-flavour predictions in Fig. 6 are not independently cross-checked, and that the collinear-factorisation assumption for pA/AB is not formally proven (acknowledged in Sec. 2.1). These caveats do not invalidate the central claim, but they should be visible to users. The code is downloadable from a URL, though no versioned archive is provided.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (7); item 2 of the default computations] Equation (7) fixes the strong coupling used in the matrix element from LHAID_h2, i.e. from the PDF set of the second hadron. When the code computes 'both h1h2 and h2h1 collisions', as stated in item 2 of Sec. 3.1, the roles of the two PDF sets are exchanged and the alpha_s source is therefore swapped. If the two LHAPDF sets do not share the same alpha_s value and running, a case the paper explicitly anticipates in Sec. 3.1 for pion PDFs, then dsigma(h1h2) and dsigma(h2h1) will not be mirror images under y -> -y even though they describe the same physical process. The paper warns that the choice 'can have practical consequences' but the code still silently outputs both orderings, so a user can obtain two different results for one physical observable depending on the arbitrary ordering of the LHAID list. This inconsistency is load-bearing for the advertised both-ordering capability. Please either enforce alpha_s consistency when both orderings are requested, or compute both orderings with alpha_s taken from a single designated PDF set, and document the residual ambiguity in the run_card documentation.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] All validation plots test only one ordering: h1h2 for pPb and for pi-W. The h2h1 ordering is advertised as an automatic output but is never validated, and because of the alpha_s asymmetry in Eq. (7) it is not guaranteed to equal the appropriately reflected h1h2 result. I request at least one explicit numerical check, e.g. a process with consistent PDF sets where the h2h1 output is compared with the reflected h1h2 output, or a clear statement limiting the h2h1 output to PDF sets with identical alpha_s.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'We compare our MG5aMC-based computation for d2sigma/dsqrt(tau)dx_F with with that of the JAM Collaboration'; 'with with' should be 'with'.
  2. [Appendix] The run_card template in the appendix contains the placeholder 'For details see: arXiv:XXXX'; this should be replaced with the actual paper identifier.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 6] The heavy-flavour and H+b bbar predictions in Fig. 6 are not cross-checked against any independent calculation; the text should state explicitly that these are illustrative and not validated, rather than leaving this to be inferred from the general disclaimer at the start of Sec. 4.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2] The LO MG5aMC band is significantly below the data and the NLO result; a brief comment on whether this is the expected K-factor for this kinematics would help the reader interpret the figure.
  5. [Sec. 5] The code availability statement gives a URL but no version or checksum; for reproducibility, consider referencing a versioned archive (e.g. Zenodo) in addition to the live service.
  6. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.1] The notation for the hadron is 'h' in the symmetric formulas of Sec. 2.2 and 'h1/h2' in the asymmetric formulas of Sec. 3.1; using h1/h2 consistently throughout would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the code extension is validated against external codes and no prediction reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central deliverable is a technical extension of MadGraph5_aMC@NLO to asymmetric hadron collisions. The governing formula, Eq. (7), is the standard collinear-factorization expression with two independent PDF sets and an explicit convention for alpha_s taken from the second PDF set; no parameter is fitted in this paper, and no advertised result is obtained by renaming an input as an output. The validations in Figs. 1 and 2 compare against MCFM and JAM numerical results, both external to the authors, using shared external PDFs (CT10nlo/nCTEQ15 and JAM21/EPPS16), so the agreement is an independent numerical benchmark rather than a self-referential prediction. The only self-citation is the use of the authors' earlier MCFM+APPLgrid setup in footnote 12 (refs. [110,111]); this is a validation cross-check, not a load-bearing argument for the physics claim, because MCFM itself is an established independent code and the comparison does not define the result. The paper's own limitations are candidly stated: factorization for most asymmetric systems is not formally proven (Sec. 2.1), and the alpha_s-from-h2 convention in Eq. (7) 'can have practical consequences' (Sec. 3.1). These are consistency and interpretation caveats, and the alpha_s convention is explicitly acknowledged rather than disguised as a prediction. There is no circular derivation chain here, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a software capability; the ledger records the physics and technical assumptions the capability inherits. No free parameters are introduced: PDFs, alpha_s and scale choices come from LHAPDF and run_card settings. No new entities are postulated. The main assumptions are the validity of collinear factorization for asymmetric systems (flagged by the authors), the consistency of alpha_s between the two PDF sets, and the approximation used for nuclear-modification-factor uncertainties.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Collinear QCD factorization applies to asymmetric hadronic collisions (pA, AB, pi-hadron), with the same form as Eq. (1) and only the PDFs changed.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1; the paper notes factorization is not formally proven for pA/AB and power corrections may be enhanced.
  • domain assumption The two LHAPDF PDF sets used in an asymmetric run are sufficiently consistent in alpha_s and heavy-quark treatment; alpha_s is taken from the h2 set.
    Sec. 3.1, Eq. (7); the authors state this can have practical consequences when PDFs have different alpha_s settings.
  • domain assumption The MG5aMC reweighting scheme (bW coefficients are PDF-independent) remains valid when two different PDFs are combined.
    Sec. 2.2-2.3 and Sec. 3.1 rely on the scale/PDF reweighting; validated indirectly via MCFM/JAM comparisons.
  • ad hoc to paper Proton-PDF uncertainty is negligible relative to nPDF uncertainty when computing NMF uncertainty, enabling Eq. (11).
    Sec. 4.2, stated as an approximation used for automatic NMF error computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated NLO calculations for asymmetric hadron-hadron collisions in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUSRPBE3

@misc{pith2026250114487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated NLO calculations for asymmetric hadron-hadron collisions in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUSRPBE3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14487}
}
abstract

We have extended {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO} capabilities by implementing computations for asymmetric hadron-hadron collisions, including proton-nucleus, pion-hadron or nucleus-nucleus collisions in order to obtain a tool for automated perturbative computations of cross sections (or ratios of cross sections) in asymmetric reactions at next-to-leading (NLO) order in $\alpha_S$ in collinear factorisation. This tool, like the original symmetric version of \texttt{MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO}, automatically computes cross sections for different factorisation and renormalisation scales and PDFs provided by the {\tt LHAPDF} library, thereby allowing for an easy assessment of the associated theoretical uncertainties. In this paper, we present the validation of our code using $W$ and $Z$ boson production in $p$Pb collisions and Drell-Yan-pair production in $\pi W$ collisions. We also illustrate the capabilities of the framework by providing cross section and nuclear modification factors with their uncertainties for the production of $W$ and $Z$ bosons, charm and bottom quarks as well as associated production of $b\bar b+H^0$ in $p$Pb collisions at the LHC.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nuclear PDFs After the First Decade of LHC Data,

    M. Klasen and H. Paukkunen, “Nuclear PDFs After the First Decade of LHC Data,” Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 74 (2024) 49–87, arXiv:2311.00450 [hep-ph]

  2. [2]

    Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,” Adv. Ser . Direct. High Energy Phys. 5 (1989) 1–91, arXiv:hep-ph/0409313

  3. [3]

    nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework,

    K. Kovarik et al., “nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 8, (2016) 085037, arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph]

  4. [4]

    Impact of heavy quark and quarkonium data on nuclear gluon PDFs,

    P. Duwentäster, T. Ježo, M. Klasen, K. Kovaˇrík, A. Kusina, K. F. Muzakka, F. I. Olness, R. Ruiz, I. Schienbein, and J. Y . Yu, “Impact of heavy quark and quarkonium data on nuclear gluon PDFs,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 11, (2022) 114043, arXiv:2204.09982 [hep-ph]

  5. [5]

    EPPS16: Nuclear parton distributions with LHC data,

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS16: Nuclear parton distributions with LHC data,” Eur . Phys. J. C77 no. 3, (2017) 163, arXiv:1612.05741 [hep-ph]

  6. [6]

    EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs,

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs,” Eur . Phys. J. C82 no. 5, (2022) 413, arXiv:2112.12462 [hep-ph]

  7. [7]

    Nuclear parton distributions from lepton-nucleus scattering and the impact of an electron-ion collider,

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. Abdul Khalek, J. J. Ethier, and J. Rojo, “Nuclear parton distributions from lepton-nucleus scattering and the impact of an electron-ion collider,” Eur . Phys. J. C79 no. 6, (2019) 471, arXiv:1904.00018 [hep-ph]

  8. [8]

    nNNPDF2.0: quark flavor separation in nuclei from LHC data,

    R. Abdul Khalek, J. J. Ethier, J. Rojo, and G. van Weelden, “nNNPDF2.0: quark flavor separation in nuclei from LHC data,” JHEP 09 (2020) 183, arXiv:2006.14629 [hep-ph]

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei,

    R. Abdul Khalek, R. Gauld, T. Giani, E. R. Nocera, T. R. Rabemananjara, and J. Rojo, “nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei,” Eur . Phys. J. C82 no. 6, (2022) 507, arXiv:2201.12363 [hep-ph]

  2. [10]

    Open-source QCD analysis of nuclear parton distribution functions at NLO and NNLO,

    M. Walt, I. Helenius, and W. V ogelsang, “Open-source QCD analysis of nuclear parton distribution functions at NLO and NNLO,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 9, (2019) 096015, arXiv:1908.03355 [hep-ph]

  3. [11]

    NNLO nuclear parton distribution functions with electroweak-boson production data from the LHC,

    I. Helenius, M. Walt, and W. V ogelsang, “NNLO nuclear parton distribution functions with electroweak-boson production data from the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 9, (2022) 094031, arXiv:2112.11904 [hep-ph]

  4. [12]

    Nuclear parton distribution functions with uncertainties in a general mass variable flavor number scheme,

    H. Khanpour, M. Soleymaninia, S. Atashbar Tehrani, H. Spiesberger, and V . Guzey, “Nuclear parton distribution functions with uncertainties in a general mass variable flavor number scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 3, (2021) 034010, arXiv:2010.00555 [hep-ph]

  5. [13]

    Extending nuclear PDF analyses into the high-x , low-Q2 region,

    E. P. Segarra et al., “Extending nuclear PDF analyses into the high-x , low-Q2 region,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 11, (2021) 114015, arXiv:2012.11566 [hep-ph]

  6. [14]

    Scale evolution of nuclear parton distributions,

    K. J. Eskola, V . J. Kolhinen, and P. V . Ruuskanen, “Scale evolution of nuclear parton distributions,” Nucl. Phys. B 535 (1998) 351–371, arXiv:hep-ph/9802350

  7. [15]

    Determination of nuclear parton distributions,

    M. Hirai, S. Kumano, and M. Miyama, “Determination of nuclear parton distributions,” Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 034003, arXiv:hep-ph/0103208

  8. [16]

    Nuclear parton distributions at next-to-leading order,

    D. de Florian and R. Sassot, “Nuclear parton distributions at next-to-leading order,” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 074028, arXiv:hep-ph/0311227

  9. [17]

    The A dependence of the nuclear structure function ratios,

    New Muon Collaboration, M. Arneodo et al., “The A dependence of the nuclear structure function ratios,” Nucl. Phys. B 481 (1996) 3–22. 14

  10. [18]

    The Q**2 dependence of the structure function ratio F2 Sn / F2 C and the difference R Sn - R C in deep inelastic muon scattering,

    New Muon Collaboration, M. Arneodo et al., “The Q**2 dependence of the structure function ratio F2 Sn / F2 C and the difference R Sn - R C in deep inelastic muon scattering,” Nucl. Phys. B 481 (1996) 23–39

  11. [19]

    Measurements of the a-Dependence of Deep Inelastic electron Scattering from Nuclei,

    R. G. Arnold et al., “Measurements of the a-Dependence of Deep Inelastic electron Scattering from Nuclei,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 727

  12. [20]

    Measurement of the A-dependence of deep inelastic electron scattering,

    J. Gomez et al., “Measurement of the A-dependence of deep inelastic electron scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4348–4372

  13. [21]

    A Measurement of Nuclear Effects in Deep Inelastic Muon Scattering on Deuterium, Nitrogen and Iron Targets,

    BCDMS Collaboration, G. Bari et al., “A Measurement of Nuclear Effects in Deep Inelastic Muon Scattering on Deuterium, Nitrogen and Iron Targets,”Phys. Lett. B 163 (1985) 282

  14. [22]

    Parton energy loss limits and shadowing in Drell-Yan dimuon production,

    NuSea Collaboration, M. A. Vasilev et al., “Parton energy loss limits and shadowing in Drell-Yan dimuon production,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 2304–2307, arXiv:hep-ex/9906010

  15. [23]

    Precise measurement of neutrino and anti-neutrino differential cross sections,

    NuTeV Collaboration, M. Tzanov et al., “Precise measurement of neutrino and anti-neutrino differential cross sections,” Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 012008, arXiv:hep-ex/0509010

  16. [24]

    Shadowing and absorption effects on J/psi production in dA collisions,

    R. V ogt, “Shadowing and absorption effects on J/psi production in dA collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 054902, arXiv:hep-ph/0411378

  17. [25]

    Cold nuclear matter effects on J/psi production: Intrinsic and extrinsic transverse momentum effects,

    E. G. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. P. Lansberg, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Cold nuclear matter effects on J/psi production: Intrinsic and extrinsic transverse momentum effects,” Phys. Lett. B 680 (2009) 50–55, arXiv:0809.4684 [hep-ph]

  18. [26]

    Is bottomonium suppression in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at LHC energies due to the same effects?,

    E. G. Ferreiro and J.-P. Lansberg, “Is bottomonium suppression in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at LHC energies due to the same effects?,” JHEP 10 (2018) 094, arXiv:1804.04474 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 03, 063 (2019)]

  19. [27]

    Impact of fully coherent energy loss on heavy meson production in pA collisions,

    F. Arleo, G. Jackson, and S. Peigné, “Impact of fully coherent energy loss on heavy meson production in pA collisions,” JHEP 01 (2022) 164, arXiv:2107.05871 [hep-ph]

  20. [28]

    Fully coherent energy loss effects on light hadron production in pA collisions,

    F. Arleo, F. Cougoulic, and S. Peigné, “Fully coherent energy loss effects on light hadron production in pA collisions,” JHEP 09 (2020) 190, arXiv:2003.06337 [hep-ph]

  21. [29]

    Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton–proton to heavy-ion collisions,

    A. Andronic et al., “Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton–proton to heavy-ion collisions,” Eur . Phys. J. C76 no. 3, (2016) 107, arXiv:1506.03981 [nucl-ex]

  22. [30]

    Inclusive J/ψ production at forward and backward rapidity in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 8.16 TeV,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Inclusive J/ψ production at forward and backward rapidity in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 8.16 TeV,” JHEP 07 (2018) 160, arXiv:1805.04381 [nucl-ex]

  23. [31]

    Measurement of prompt D0, D+, D∗+, and D+ S production in p–Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of prompt D0, D+, D∗+, and D+ S production in p–Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP 12 (2019) 092, arXiv:1906.03425 [nucl-ex]

  24. [32]

    Measurement of B+, B0 andΛ0 b production in pPb collisions at√sNN = 8.16TeV,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of B+, B0 andΛ0 b production in pPb collisions at√sNN = 8.16TeV,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 5, (2019) 052011, arXiv:1902.05599 [hep-ex]

  25. [33]

    Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-Flavor Production at the LHC,

    A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-Flavor Production at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 5, (2018) 052004, arXiv:1712.07024 [hep-ph]

  26. [34]

    A fixed-target programme at the LHC: Physics case and projected performances for heavy-ion, hadron, spin and astroparticle studies,

    C. Hadjidakis et al., “A fixed-target programme at the LHC: Physics case and projected performances for heavy-ion, hadron, spin and astroparticle studies,” Phys. Rept. 911 (2021) 1–83, arXiv:1807.00603 [hep-ex]

  27. [35]

    Non-quadratic improved Hessian PDF reweighting and application to CMS dijet measurements at 5.02 TeV,

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, and H. Paukkunen, “Non-quadratic improved Hessian PDF reweighting and application to CMS dijet measurements at 5.02 TeV,” Eur . Phys. J. C79 no. 6, (2019) 511, arXiv:1903.09832 [hep-ph]

  28. [36]

    Reweighted nuclear PDFs using heavy-flavor production data at the LHC,

    A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Reweighted nuclear PDFs using heavy-flavor production data at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 1, (2021) 014010, arXiv:2012.11462 [hep-ph]

  29. [37]

    Prospects for quarkonium studies at the high-luminosity LHC,

    E. Chapon et al., “Prospects for quarkonium studies at the high-luminosity LHC,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 122 (2022) 103906, arXiv:2012.14161 [hep-ph]

  30. [38]

    Impact of inclusive hadron production data on nuclear gluon PDFs,

    P. Duwentäster, L. A. Husová, T. Ježo, M. Klasen, K. Kovaˇrík, A. Kusina, K. F. Muzakka, F. I. Olness, I. Schienbein, and J. Y . Yu, “Impact of inclusive hadron production data on nuclear gluon PDFs,” Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 094005, arXiv:2105.09873 [hep-ph]

  31. [39]

    Physics case for quarkonium studies at the Electron Ion Collider,

    D. Boer et al., “Physics case for quarkonium studies at the Electron Ion Collider,” arXiv:2409.03691 [hep-ph]

  32. [40]

    Properties of Hot Nuclear Matter,

    O. Benhar, A. Lovato, and L. Tonetto, “Properties of Hot Nuclear Matter,” Universe 9 no. 8, (2023) 345, arXiv:2306.01351 [nucl-th]

  33. [41]

    The exploration of hot and dense nuclear matter: introduction to relativistic heavy-ion physics,

    H. Elfner and B. Müller, “The exploration of hot and dense nuclear matter: introduction to relativistic heavy-ion physics,” J. Phys. G 50 no. 10, (2023) 103001, arXiv:2210.12056 [nucl-th]

  34. [42]

    Cold and Hot Nuclear Matter Effects on Charmonium Production in p+Pb Collisions at LHC Energy,

    B. Chen, T. Guo, Y . Liu, and P. Zhuang, “Cold and Hot Nuclear Matter Effects on Charmonium Production in p+Pb Collisions at LHC Energy,” Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017) 323–327, arXiv:1607.07927 [nucl-th]

  35. [43]

    Observation of Associated Near-Side and Away-Side Long-Range Correlations in√sNN =5.02 TeV Proton-Lead Collisions with the ATLAS Detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Observation of Associated Near-Side and Away-Side Long-Range Correlations in√sNN =5.02 TeV Proton-Lead Collisions with the ATLAS Detector,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 110 no. 18, (2013) 182302, arXiv:1212.5198 [hep-ex]

  36. [44]

    Multiplicity and Transverse Momentum Dependence of Two- and Four-Particle Correlations in pPb and PbPb Collisions,

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Multiplicity and Transverse Momentum Dependence of Two- and Four-Particle Correlations in pPb and PbPb Collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 724 (2013) 213–240, arXiv:1305.0609 [nucl-ex]

  37. [45]

    Evidence for Collective Multiparticle Correlations in p-Pb Collisions,

    CMS Collaboration, V . Khachatryanet al., “Evidence for Collective Multiparticle Correlations in p-Pb Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 no. 1, (2015) 012301, arXiv:1502.05382 [nucl-ex]

  38. [46]

    Measurement of multi-particle azimuthal correlations in pp, p+Pb and low-multiplicity Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Measurement of multi-particle azimuthal correlations in pp, p+Pb and low-multiplicity Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector,”Eur . Phys. J. C 77 no. 6, (2017) 428, arXiv:1705.04176 [hep-ex]

  39. [47]

    Azimuthal Anisotropy of Heavy-Flavor Decay Electrons in p-Pb Collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Azimuthal Anisotropy of Heavy-Flavor Decay Electrons in p-Pb Collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 no. 7, (2019) 072301, arXiv:1805.04367 [nucl-ex]

  40. [48]

    Transverse momentum and process dependent azimuthal anisotropies in√sNN = 8.16 TeV p+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Transverse momentum and process dependent azimuthal anisotropies in√sNN = 8.16 TeV p+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector,”Eur . Phys. J. C80 no. 1, (2020) 73, arXiv:1910.13978 [nucl-ex]

  41. [49]

    Strange hadron collectivity in pPb and PbPb collisions,

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., “Strange hadron collectivity in pPb and PbPb collisions,”JHEP 05 (2023) 007, arXiv:2205.00080 [nucl-ex]

  42. [50]

    Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies at forward and backward rapidity with muons in high-multiplicity p–Pb collisions at sNN=8.16 TeV,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies at forward and backward rapidity with muons in high-multiplicity p–Pb collisions at sNN=8.16 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 137782, arXiv:2210.08980 [nucl-ex]

  43. [51]

    Inclusive and multiplicity dependent production of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays in pp and p-Pb collisions,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Inclusive and multiplicity dependent production of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays in pp and p-Pb collisions,” JHEP 08 (2023) 006, arXiv:2303.13349 [nucl-ex]

  44. [52]

    Azimuthal correlations of heavy-flavor hadron decay electrons with charged particles in pp and p–Pb collisions at√sNN √sNN √sNN = 5.02 TeV,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Azimuthal correlations of heavy-flavor hadron decay electrons with charged particles in pp and p–Pb collisions at√sNN √sNN √sNN = 5.02 TeV,” Eur . Phys. J. C83 no. 8, (2023) 741, arXiv:2303.00591 [nucl-ex]

  45. [53]

    Pion production in p + p interactions and Be + Be collisions at the CERN SPS energies,

    NA61 Collaboration, A. Aduszkiewicz, “Pion production in p + p interactions and Be + Be collisions at the CERN SPS energies,” Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275 (2016) 1519–1525, arXiv:1502.07881 [nucl-ex]

  46. [54]

    System size dependence of particle production in EPOS,

    K. Werner, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, G. Sophys, and M. Stefaniak, “System size dependence of particle production in EPOS,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser .1070 no. 1, (2018) 012007

  47. [55]

    Mass-number dependence of statistical model parameters and its impact on incomplete fusion fraction calculations,

    A. Ojha, S. Gupta, U. Gupta, P. P. Singh, A. Yadav, D. P. Singh, M. Shuaib, B. P. Singh, and R. Prasad, “Mass-number dependence of statistical model parameters and its impact on incomplete fusion fraction calculations,” Phys. Rev. C 104 no. 3, (2021) 034615

  48. [56]

    System-size dependence of particle production at mid- and forward rapidity with ALICE,

    ALICE Collaboration, A. Modak, “System-size dependence of particle production at mid- and forward rapidity with ALICE,” PoS ICHEP2022 (11,

  49. [57]

    System-size dependence of the charged-particle pseudorapidity density at sNN=5.02TeV for pp, pPb, and PbPb collisions,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “System-size dependence of the charged-particle pseudorapidity density at sNN=5.02TeV for pp, pPb, and PbPb collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 845 (2023) 137730, arXiv:2204.10210 [nucl-ex]

  50. [58]

    First performance results from upgraded LHCb and SMOG II,

    LHCb Collaboration, C. Lucarelli, “First performance results from upgraded LHCb and SMOG II,” PoS HardProbes2023 (2024) 196

  51. [59]

    Constraining gluon density of pions at large x by pion-induced J/ψ production,

    W.-C. Chang, J.-C. Peng, S. Platchkov, and T. Sawada, “Constraining gluon density of pions at large x by pion-induced J/ψ production,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 5, (2020) 054024, arXiv:2006.06947 [hep-ph]

  52. [60]

    Measurement of the Gluon Structure Function of the Pion,

    J. G. McEwen et al., “Measurement of the Gluon Structure Function of the Pion,” Phys. Lett. B 121 (1983) 198–202

  53. [61]

    Nucleus-nucleus collisions and interpretation of cosmic ray cascades,

    J. Engel, T. K. Gaisser, T. Stanev, and P. Lipari, “Nucleus-nucleus collisions and interpretation of cosmic ray cascades,” Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 5013–5025

  54. [62]

    Production of J / psi and psi (2S) mesons in pi- Be collisions at 515-GeV/c,

    E672, E706 Collaboration, A. Gribushin et al., “Production of J / psi and psi (2S) mesons in pi- Be collisions at 515-GeV/c,” Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 4723–4733

  55. [63]

    Parton distributions for the pion extracted from Drell-Yan and prompt photon experiments,

    P. J. Sutton, A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, and W. J. Stirling, “Parton distributions for the pion extracted from Drell-Yan and prompt photon experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2349–2359

  56. [64]

    Pionic parton distributions revisited,

    M. Gluck, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein, “Pionic parton distributions revisited,” Eur . Phys. J. C10 (1999) 313–317, arXiv:hep-ph/9903288

  57. [65]

    The pion parton distribution function in the valence region,

    K. Wijesooriya, P. E. Reimer, and R. J. Holt, “The pion parton distribution function in the valence region,” Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 065203, arXiv:nucl-ex/0509012

  58. [66]

    First Monte Carlo Global QCD Analysis of Pion Parton Distributions,

    P. C. Barry, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk, and C.-R. Ji, “First Monte Carlo Global QCD Analysis of Pion Parton Distributions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 15, (2018) 152001, arXiv:1804.01965 [hep-ph]

  59. [67]

    Valence parton distribution function of pion from fine lattice,

    T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Kallidonis, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Shugert, and 16 S. Syritsyn, “Valence parton distribution function of pion from fine lattice,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 3, (2019) 034516, arXiv:1905.06349 [hep-lat]

  60. [68]

    Parton Distribution Functions of the Charged Pion Within The xFitter Framework,

    I. Novikov et al., “Parton Distribution Functions of the Charged Pion Within The xFitter Framework,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 1, (2020) 014040, arXiv:2002.02902 [hep-ph]

  61. [69]

    Towards the three-dimensional parton structure of the pion: Integrating transverse momentum data into global QCD analysis,

    Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum Collaboration, N. Y . Cao, P. C. Barry, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk, “Towards the three-dimensional parton structure of the pion: Integrating transverse momentum data into global QCD analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 11, (2021) 114014, arXiv:2103.0...

  62. [70]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP...

  63. [71]

    A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms,

    P. Nason, “A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms,” JHEP 11 (2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

  64. [72]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method,

    S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method,” JHEP 11 (2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

  65. [73]

    A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX,

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX,” JHEP 06 (2010) 043, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

  66. [74]

    Vector Boson Pair Production at the LHC,

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, “Vector Boson Pair Production at the LHC,” JHEP 07 (2011) 018, arXiv:1105.0020 [hep-ph]

  67. [75]

    Precision Phenomenology with MCFM,

    J. Campbell and T. Neumann, “Precision Phenomenology with MCFM,” JHEP 12 (2019) 034, arXiv:1909.09117 [hep-ph]

  68. [76]

    HELAC-Onia: An automatic matrix element generator for heavy quarkonium physics,

    H.-S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia: An automatic matrix element generator for heavy quarkonium physics,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2562–2570, arXiv:1212.5293 [hep-ph]

  69. [77]

    HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quarkonium physics,

    H.-S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quarkonium physics,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 198 (2016) 238–259, arXiv:1507.03435 [hep-ph]

  70. [78]

    Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note,

    J. Bellm et al., “Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note,” Eur . Phys. J. C76 no. 4, (2016) 196, arXiv:1512.01178 [hep-ph]

  71. [79]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,” arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

  72. [80]

    Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2,

    Sherpa Collaboration, E. Bothmann et al., “Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2,” SciPost Phys. 7 no. 3, (2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

  73. [81]

    Factorization of the Drell-Yan Cross-Section in Perturbation Theory,

    G. T. Bodwin, “Factorization of the Drell-Yan Cross-Section in Perturbation Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 2616. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 34, 3932 (1986)]

  74. [82]

    Factorization for Short Distance Hadron - Hadron Scattering,

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, “Factorization for Short Distance Hadron - Hadron Scattering,” Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 104–142

  75. [83]

    Hard scattering factorization with heavy quarks: A General treatment,

    J. C. Collins, “Hard scattering factorization with heavy quarks: A General treatment,” Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 094002, arXiv:hep-ph/9806259

  76. [84]

    Collins, F oundations of Perturbative QCD, vol

    J. Collins, F oundations of Perturbative QCD, vol. 32. Cambridge University Press, 2011

  77. [85]

    Handbook of perturbative QCD: Version 1.0,

    CTEQ Collaboration, R. Brock et al., “Handbook of perturbative QCD: Version 1.0,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 67 (1995) 157–248

  78. [86]

    Perturbation Theory and the Parton Model in QCD,

    R. K. Ellis, H. Georgi, M. Machacek, H. D. Politzer, and G. G. Ross, “Perturbation Theory and the Parton Model in QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B 152 (1979) 285–329

  79. [87]

    Relating Hard QCD Processes Through Universality of Mass Singularities. 2.,

    D. Amati, R. Petronzio, and G. Veneziano, “Relating Hard QCD Processes Through Universality of Mass Singularities. 2.,” Nucl. Phys. B 146 (1978) 29–49

  80. [88]

    Soft Gluons and Factorization,

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, “Soft Gluons and Factorization,” Nucl. Phys. B 308 (1988) 833–856

  81. [89]

    QCD factorization and rescattering in proton nucleus collisions,

    J.-w. Qiu, “QCD factorization and rescattering in proton nucleus collisions,” arXiv:hep-ph/0305161

  82. [90]

    Hard probes in heavy ion collisions at the lhc: pdfs, shadowing and pa collisions,

    A. Accardi et al., “Hard probes in heavy ion collisions at the lhc: pdfs, shadowing and pa collisions,” in 3rd Workshop on Hard Probes in Heavy Ion Collisions: 3rd Plenary Meeting . 10, 2004. arXiv:hep-ph/0308248

  83. [91]

    J/ψ Suppression From Hadron - Nucleus to Nucleus-nucleus Collisions,

    S. Gavin and R. V ogt, “J/ψ Suppression From Hadron - Nucleus to Nucleus-nucleus Collisions,” Nucl. Phys. B 345 (1990) 104–124

  84. [92]

    Coherence phenomena in charmonium production off nuclei at the energies of RHIC and LHC,

    B. Kopeliovich, A. Tarasov, and J. Hufner, “Coherence phenomena in charmonium production off nuclei at the energies of RHIC and LHC,” Nucl. Phys. A 696 (2001) 669–714, arXiv:hep-ph/0104256

  85. [93]

    Revisiting scaling properties of medium-induced gluon radiation,

    F. Arleo, S. Peigne, and T. Sami, “Revisiting scaling properties of medium-induced gluon radiation,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 114036, arXiv:1006.0818 [hep-ph]

  86. [94]

    High transverse momentum quarkonium production and dissociation in heavy ion collisions,

    R. Sharma and I. Vitev, “High transverse momentum quarkonium production and dissociation in heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 87 no. 4, (2013) 044905, arXiv:1203.0329 [hep-ph]

  87. [95]

    Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order,

    S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, and A. Signer, “Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order,” Nucl. Phys. B 467 (1996) 399–442, arXiv:hep-ph/9512328

  88. [96]

    A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, “A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,” Nucl. 17 Phys. B 485 (1997) 291–419, arXiv:hep-ph/9605323. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 510, 503–504 (1998)]

  89. [97]

    Automating dipole subtraction for QCD NLO calculations,

    T. Gleisberg and F. Krauss, “Automating dipole subtraction for QCD NLO calculations,” Eur . Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 501–523, arXiv:0709.2881 [hep-ph]

  90. [98]

    RECOLA: REcursive Computation of One-Loop Amplitudes,

    S. Actis, A. Denner, L. Hofer, J.-N. Lang, A. Scharf, and S. Uccirati, “RECOLA: REcursive Computation of One-Loop Amplitudes,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 214 (2017) 140–173, arXiv:1605.01090 [hep-ph]

  91. [99]

    Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops,

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini, “Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

  92. [100]

    An Automated Implementation of On-Shell Methods for One-Loop Amplitudes,

    C. F. Berger, Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, F. Febres Cordero, D. Forde, H. Ita, D. A. Kosower, and D. Maitre, “An Automated Implementation of On-Shell Methods for One-Loop Amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 036003, arXiv:0803.4180 [hep-ph]

  93. [101]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr, and G. Watt, “LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,” Eur . Phys. J. C75 (2015) 132, arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

  94. [102]

    Four-lepton production at hadron colliders: aMC@NLO predictions with theoretical uncertainties,

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pittau, and P. Torrielli, “Four-lepton production at hadron colliders: aMC@NLO predictions with theoretical uncertainties,” JHEP 02 (2012) 099, arXiv:1110.4738 [hep-ph]

  95. [103]

    NLO calculations in QCD: A General algorithm,

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, “NLO calculations in QCD: A General algorithm,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 51 (1996) 233–242, arXiv:hep-ph/9607318

  96. [104]

    A General approach to jet cross-sections in QCD,

    S. Frixione, “A General approach to jet cross-sections in QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B 507 (1997) 295–314, arXiv:hep-ph/9706545

  97. [105]

    The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao, and M. Zaro, “The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,” JHEP 07 (2018) 185, arXiv:1804.10017 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)]

  98. [106]

    QCD Radiative Corrections to Parton Parton Scattering,

    R. K. Ellis and J. C. Sexton, “QCD Radiative Corrections to Parton Parton Scattering,” Nucl. Phys. B 269 (1986) 445–484

  99. [107]

    Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations,

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations,” JHEP 06 (2002) 029, arXiv:hep-ph/0204244

  100. [108]

    Automation of next-to-leading order computations in QCD: The FKS subtraction,

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, F. Maltoni, and T. Stelzer, “Automation of next-to-leading order computations in QCD: The FKS subtraction,” JHEP 10 (2009) 003, arXiv:0908.4272 [hep-ph]

  101. [109]

    A posteriori inclusion of parton density functions in NLO QCD final-state calculations at hadron colliders: The APPLGRID Project,

    T. Carli, D. Clements, A. Cooper-Sarkar, C. Gwenlan, G. P. Salam, F. Siegert, P. Starovoitov, and M. Sutton, “A posteriori inclusion of parton density functions in NLO QCD final-state calculations at hadron colliders: The APPLGRID Project,” Eur . Phys. J. C66 (2010) 503–524, a...

  102. [110]

    Impact of LHC vector boson production in heavy ion collisions on strange PDFs,

    A. Kusina et al., “Impact of LHC vector boson production in heavy ion collisions on strange PDFs,” Eur . Phys. J. C80 no. 10, (2020) 968, arXiv:2007.09100 [hep-ph]

  103. [111]

    Vector boson production in pPb and PbPb collisions at the LHC and its impact on nCTEQ15 PDFs,

    A. Kusina, F. Lyonnet, D. B. Clark, E. Godat, T. Jezo, K. Kovarik, F. I. Olness, I. Schienbein, and J. Y . Yu, “Vector boson production in pPb and PbPb collisions at the LHC and its impact on nCTEQ15 PDFs,” Eur . Phys. J. C 77 no. 7, (2017) 488, arXiv:1610.02925 [nucl-th]

  104. [112]

    New parton distributions for collider physics,

    H.-L. Lai, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. M. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, and C. P. Yuan, “New parton distributions for collider physics,” Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024, arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph]

  105. [113]

    Experimental Study of Muon Pairs Produced by 252-GeV Pions on Tungsten,

    J. S. Conway et al., “Experimental Study of Muon Pairs Produced by 252-GeV Pions on Tungsten,” Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 92–122

  106. [114]

    Z boson production in p+Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV measured with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Z boson production in p+Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV measured with the ATLAS detector,”Phys. Rev. C 92 no. 4, (2015) 044915, arXiv:1507.06232 [hep-ex]

  107. [115]

    Study of Z boson production in pPb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, V . Khachatryanet al., “Study of Z boson production in pPb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 759 (2016) 36–57, arXiv:1512.06461 [hep-ex]

  108. [116]

    Study of W boson production in pPb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, V . Khachatryanet al., “Study of W boson production in pPb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 565–586, arXiv:1503.05825 [nucl-ex]

  109. [117]

    New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics,

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, “New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 3, (2016) 033006, arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]

  110. [118]

    W±-boson production in p−Pb collisions at√sNN = 8.16 TeV and PbPb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “W±-boson production in p−Pb collisions at√sNN = 8.16 TeV and PbPb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP 05 (2023) 036, arXiv:2204.10640 [nucl-ex]

  111. [119]

    NLOAccess: automated online computations for collider physics,

    C. Flore, “NLOAccess: automated online computations for collider physics,” Eur . Phys. J. A59 no. 3, (2023) 46, arXiv:2301.09167 [hep-ph]

  112. [2022]

    461, arXiv:2211.07576 [nucl-ex]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.