Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Invariant-mass threshold resummation for the production of four top quarks at the LHC

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By resumming soft-gluon logarithms in the invariant-mass threshold, this paper claims to obtain the most precise QCD predictions for four-top-quark production, with the spread across scale choices cut from 36% to 3%.

desk verdict A careful, transparent first invariant-mass threshold resummation for four-top production, whose own Table 2 shows a 40% scheme ambiguity that the 'most precise' claim does not cover. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10381 v1 pith:CDSBBXV3 submitted 2025-05-15 hep-ph

Melissa van Beekveld , Anna Kulesza , Michele Lupattelli , Tommaso Saracco This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords four-top-quarkproductionthresholdresummationsoft-gluonnext-to-leadinglogarithmicaccuracyinvariant-massdistributionQCDprecisionpredictionstopquark
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

Soft-gluon emissions near the invariant-mass threshold of the $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ system produce large logarithmic corrections, and this paper tries to establish that they can be resummed to all orders at NLL$'$ accuracy, giving the most precise QCD predictions for four-top-quark production at the LHC. The central quantitative payoff is a large reduction of scale uncertainty: the spread between predictions obtained with three different central scale choices drops from 36% at NLO to about 3% after matching the resummed result to NLO. If the claim holds, future LHC measurements of this rare process can be compared with a theoretical baseline whose main parametric ambiguity has been substantially reduced, which matters because four-top production is a direct probe of the top-Higgs coupling and of new physics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is invariant-mass threshold resummation: in the limit where the invariant mass $Q$ of the $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ system approaches the partonic centre-of-mass energy, soft-gluon emissions produce logarithms that are resummed to all orders in Mellin space. The resummed partonic cross section factorises into a hard function $H$, a soft function $S$ obtained from the renormalisation-group evolution of the soft anomalous dimension matrix $\Gamma$, and collinear jet functions $\Delta_i$ for the incoming partons (Eq. (2.3)). At NLL$'$ accuracy the one-loop hard function and one-loop soft boundary condition are needed; the one-loop soft anomalous dimension for $2\to n$ massive final states is computed from the cusp anomalous dimension $\gamma^{(0)}_{\rm cusp}(\beta_{IJ}) = \gamma^{(0)}_{\rm cusp}\,\beta_{IJ}\coth\beta_{IJ}$, with the Coulomb limit $\beta_{IJ}\to 0$ handled by an effective-particle replacement below a cutoff $\delta$ (Eq. (3.6)).

What would settle it

Recompute the one-loop soft anomalous dimension for $2\to 4$ massive final states in a colour basis that handles the $\beta_{IJ}\to 0$ singularities analytically, without the effective-particle cutoff, and re-evaluate the NLO+NLL$'$ cross section and invariant-mass distribution; a difference larger than the quoted scale bands (about 15-25%) would show the Coulomb-limit treatment is numerically significant rather than benign.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that invariant-mass threshold resummation—resumming logarithms of $1-\hat\rho_Q$ where $\hat\rho_Q = Q^2/\hat s$ is the partonic threshold variable and $Q$ the invariant mass of the four-top final state—can be applied to a $2\to 4$ process with six coloured particles, and that at NLL$'$ accuracy it removes most of the scale-choice dependence of the fixed-order prediction. Working in Mellin space, the resummed cross section is matched additively to exact NLO QCD and electroweak results. For $\sqrt{S}=13.6$ TeV the matched NLO+NLL$'$ total cross sections are 12.38 fb, 12.00 fb and 12.25 fb for $\mu_0=M/2$, $\mu_0=Q/2$ and $\mu_0=H_T/2$, respectively, with the spread among the three central scales falling from 36% at NLO to 3% at NLO+NLL$'$; the predicted NLL$'$ corrections themselves range from $-10\%$ to $+18\%$ depending on the scale choice, and the inclusion of electroweak corrections raises the cross section by 5-8%.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that when a pair of top quarks in the final state is produced almost at rest, soft gluons effectively see the pair as a single particle with the combined colour charge, so the Coulomb-singular part of the one-loop soft anomalous dimension can be replaced by a Casimir-scaled effective-particle term below a small cutoff; if that replacement is wrong, the NLL$'$ predictions would shift outside the quoted uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • These NLO+NLL$'$ cross sections (about 12 fb at 13.6 TeV) provide the sharpest QCD baseline for comparing with the four-top measurements at the LHC.
  • The NLL$'$ corrections alter the shape of the invariant-mass distribution by up to about 25% (with sign and size depending on the scale choice), so differential data will be able to test the resummation rather than only the total rate.
  • The expansion of the NLL$'$ result to NLO reproduces the exact NLO QCD invariant-mass distribution within 1-4% (outside the small quark-gluon channel), so the resummation calculation doubles as a fast approximate-NLO description of this process.
  • Because the results are essentially independent of the Mellin contour parameters and of the Coulomb cutoff $\delta\in\{0.1,0.01,0.001\}$, the numerical implementation is stable under the choices the paper varied.
  • The same Mellin-space invariant-mass threshold machinery can now be applied to other multi-heavy-particle processes with more than two massive coloured final-state particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A further step the paper leaves implicit: the same scale-convergence improvement is likely to show up in other $2\to n$ heavy processes (e.g. $t\bar{t}b\bar{b}$ or associated four-top-plus-jet production), which would make this formalism a general tool for sharpening BSM search backgrounds.
  • The sign flip of the NLL$'$ correction between $\mu_0=M/2$ and $\mu_0=Q/2$ is a residual signature that scale-log ambiguities are not fully removed; comparing the predicted shape of the invariant-mass distribution against Run 3 data could choose the preferred dynamical scale empirically.
  • The drop in scale spread from 36% to 3% should not be read as a 3% total theoretical error: the per-scale uncertainties quoted remain 15-24%, so the real achievement is removing the choice of central scale as a dominant source of disagreement, not eliminating higher-order uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first invariant-mass threshold (IMT) resummation for the production of four top quarks at the LHC. It computes the invariant-mass distribution and the total cross section for $pp\to t\bar t t\bar t$ at 13.6 and 13 TeV at NLL' accuracy, matched to NLO QCD and to NLO QCD+EW, with the resummation performed in Mellin space using a colour-space soft function. The main numerical results are NLO+NLL' total cross sections of 12.38, 12.00 and 12.25 fb for $\mu_0=M/2$, $Q/2$ and $H_T/2$ at 13.6 TeV, with a substantial reduction of the 7-point scale uncertainty relative to NLO. The paper also validates the logarithmic expansion against exact NLO excluding $qg$ channels, tests the dependence on the Mellin contour and on the Coulomb cutoff $\delta$, and compares the IMT scheme with the earlier absolute-mass threshold (AMT) scheme in Appendix A.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a technically demanding and useful computation: it extends invariant-mass threshold resummation to a process with six coloured particles, provides differential predictions beyond NLO for a rare process, and includes several robustness checks. The strongest points are the explicit validation in Appendix C, where the NLL' expansion reproduces the NLO no-$qg$ distribution within a few percent, the demonstrated insensitivity to technical parameters (Mellin contour and Coulomb cutoff), and the use of independent NLO tools (MG5 aMC@NLO and OpenLoops) for matching. However, the headline claim that these are the most precise QCD predictions is weakened by the large scheme spread documented in Table 2, which is not reflected in the quoted scale uncertainties.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5 and Appendix A, Table 2] The summary claim that these results constitute "the most precise/accurate QCD predictions" for four-top production is not supported by the quoted uncertainties. At the same nominal accuracy (NLO+NLL') and same central scale $\mu_0=M/2$, the IMT-res cross section obtained here is 12.38 fb, while the AMT-res cross section computed with the same framework is 17.36 fb; the fictitious "IMT-res test" of Appendix A, which replaces $Q^2$ by $M^2$ in $g_2$ (Eq. (A.1)), moves the IMT-res result to 17.91 fb. This roughly 40% spread in the central value is larger than the 7-point scale bands (about $\pm 20\%$-$24\%$) and is traced in Appendix A to threshold-variable logarithms. The authors should either incorporate this scheme ambiguity into the quoted theoretical uncertainty or explicitly restrict the "most precise" claim to the invariant-mass threshold scheme.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3.6)] The Coulomb-limit replacement $\beta_{IJ}\coth\beta_{IJ}\to 1$ for $b_{IJ}<\delta$ is introduced through an effective-particle/Casimir-scaling picture, but the manuscript does not derive this replacement from a controlled resummation of Coulomb exchanges for a subset of particles at rest in a $2\to 4$ process. The numerical $\delta$-sensitivity tests and the NLO-reproduction test in Appendix C are encouraging, but varying $\delta$ probes only the region in which the singular term is removed, not the validity of the finite part of the replacement. The authors should either provide a derivation of the effective-particle reduction, including the relation between the two forms of the finite terms in Eq. (3.5), or explicitly label this treatment as an approximation and estimate its effect on the final uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.5)] The term $C^{(1)}$ in the definition of the one-loop hard function is not defined in the text; please specify its construction and its relation to the soft-collinear endpoint contributions when it is not captured by the NLL jet functions.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3.6)] The notation $\gamma_{\rm cusp}^{(0)}\times 1$ is confusing; please state explicitly that the factor 1 is the finite part of $\beta\coth\beta$ in the limit $b_{IJ}\to 0$ and that the $(-i\pi)/b_{IJ}$ term is dropped because Coulomb contributions are already contained in the hard function.
  3. [Appendix A] The construction of the "AMT-res" differential distribution from the IMT-res distribution is described only in words; a formula analogous to Eq. (A.2) would make the reweighting procedure unambiguous.
  4. [Figure 3 and Section 4.2] The statement that the NLO spread decreases from 36% to 3% refers to the shown invariant-mass range; please state that range explicitly in the caption and in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NLL' predictions are computed from standard resummation ingredients and independent NLO inputs, with self-citations only providing context and comparison.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained. The resummed cross section is assembled from standard threshold-resummation ingredients (jet functions from refs. [62,64], soft evolution from refs. [37,62,63,67], hard function from OpenLoops one-loop amplitudes) with no parameter fitted to any observable. The NLO matching in Eq. (2.11) uses independent MG5 aMC@NLO and OpenLoops results, and Appendix C verifies that the NLL'|NLO expansion reproduces the exact NLO (no-qg) distributions within 1-4%, so the central prediction is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. Self-citations, e.g. Ref. [58] for the colour-space dimension or the AMT-res comparison in Appendix A, provide technical context or an independent (if same-group) comparison scheme and are not used to forbid alternatives; the IMT/AMT discrepancy in Table 2 is explicitly diagnosed via the g2 scale-ratio logarithms, which is a robustness concern rather than a circular step. The Coulomb-limit replacement in Eq. (3.6) is an ansatz whose numerical impact is explicitly checked, not a result derived from the target prediction. No step reduces a prediction to a fit or to an identity, so the circularity score is zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard soft-gluon factorization, a first-order soft anomalous dimension, PDF inputs, and a new Coulomb-limit cutoff delta. No data fitting is involved, and no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Coulomb cutoff delta = 0.1 (varied over 0.001-0.1; dependence negligible)
    Introduced in Eq. (3.6) to regulate Coulomb singularities in the one-loop soft anomalous dimension. Chosen by hand; numerically tested but not derived from first principles.
  • Mellin minimal-prescription contour parameters C_MP and phi_MP = C_MP=2.1, phi_MP=0.75 pi
    Numerical parameters for the inverse Mellin transform in Eq. (2.10); tested over a range and found not to affect results. Not physical, but chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Soft-gluon factorization of the cross section in Mellin space, Eq. (2.3), following Refs [60-63].
    Basis of all threshold resummation formulas; invoked in Section 2 without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption At NLL' accuracy only the first-order soft anomalous dimension Gamma^(1) is needed, and color-space diagonalization can be performed on a phase-space point basis.
    Standard for NLL' resummation, but for a 2 to 4 process with six colored particles the extension is assumed rather than proven in detail.
  • ad hoc to paper Casimir-scaling replacement for the massive cusp function when b_IJ < delta, Eq. (3.6), modeling a pair of slowly moving heavy particles as a single effective colored particle.
    New treatment of Coulomb singularities for multi-heavy-particle final states; numerically tested but not derived from a full Coulomb resummation.
  • domain assumption The qg-initiated channels are next-to-leading power and are not resummed; their fixed-order contribution is included through NLO matching.
    Explicitly used in Appendix C, where NLO without qg is the baseline for validating the NLL' expansion.
  • domain assumption PDFs and electroweak inputs are taken from LUXqed plus PDF4LHC15 nnlo 100 and standard PDG values.
    Standard external inputs listed in Section 4.1; not fitted within this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Invariant-mass threshold resummation for the production of four top quarks at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDSBBXV3

@misc{pith2026250510381,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Invariant-mass threshold resummation for the production of four top quarks at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDSBBXV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10381}
}
abstract

Using invariant-mass threshold resummation, we compute the invariant-mass distribution and the total cross section for $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ production at the LHC with centre-of-mass energy of 13.6 TeV at NLL' accuracy. This accuracy includes next-to-leading logarithmic contributions together with relative $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ non-logarithmic terms present in the threshold limit. We match the NLL' results to NLO in QCD and to complete NLO with electroweak corrections. We find that the inclusion of NLL' soft-gluon corrections significantly reduces the size of the theoretical uncertainties and greatly improves the convergence of the predictions when considering various choices of renormalisation and factorisation scales.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The inseparable three and four tops

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Full-NLO predictions for tttW production, combined with tttt through a new window-removal prescription, give a joint inclusive rate more than 10% above the on-shell four-top prediction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [58]

    van Beekveld, A

    M. van Beekveld, A. Kulesza and L. M. Valero, Threshold Resummation for the Production of Four Top Quarks at the LHC , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 211901 [ 2212.03259]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for four-top-quark production in the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 052009 [1811.02305]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [2]

    ATLAS collaboration, Evidence for t¯tt¯t production in the multilepton final state in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1085 [ 2007.14858]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the tttt production cross section in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 11 (2021) 118 [ 2106.11683]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    ATLAS collaboration, Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 496 [ 2303.15061]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    CMS collaboration, Search for the production of four top quarks in the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 11 (2019) 082 [ 1906.02805]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    CMS collaboration, Search for production of four top quarks in final states with same-sign or multiple leptons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 75 [ 1908.06463]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of four top quark production in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV , Phys. Lett. B 847 (2023) 138290 [ 2305.13439]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 96 references
  1. [8]

    Cao, S.-L

    Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen and Y. Liu, Probing Higgs Width and Top Quark Yukawa Coupling from t¯tH and t¯tt¯t Productions, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 053004 [ 1602.01934]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Cao, S.-L

    Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen, Y. Liu, R. Zhang and Y. Zhang, Limiting top quark-Higgs boson interaction and Higgs-boson width from multitop productions , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 113003 [ 1901.04567]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    ATLAS collaboration, Constraint on the total width of the Higgs boson from Higgs boson and four-top-quark measurements in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139277 [ 2407.10631]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Darm´ e, B

    L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks and M. Goodsell, Cornering sgluons with four-top-quark events , Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 223 [ 1805.10835]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Toharia and J

    M. Toharia and J. D. Wells, Gluino decays with heavier scalar superpartners , JHEP 02 (2006) 015 [hep-ph/0503175]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Craig, J

    N. Craig, J. Hajer, Y.-Y. Li, T. Liu and H. Zhang, Heavy Higgs bosons at low tanβ: from the LHC to 100 TeV, JHEP 01 (2017) 018 [ 1605.08744]. – 16 –

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Dicus, A

    D. Dicus, A. Stange and S. Willenbrock, Higgs decay to top quarks at hadron colliders , Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 126 [ hep-ph/9404359]

    1994 arXiv

  8. [15]

    G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet, Phenomenology of the Production, Decay, and Detection of New Hadronic States Associated with Supersymmetry , Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575

    1978

  9. [16]

    L. Beck, F. Blekman, D. Dobur, B. Fuks, J. Keaveney and K. Mawatari, Probing top-philic sgluons with LHC Run I data , Phys. Lett. B 746 (2015) 48 [ 1501.07580]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Calvet, B

    S. Calvet, B. Fuks, P. Gris and L. Valery, Searching for sgluons in multitop events at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV , JHEP 04 (2013) 043 [ 1212.3360]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Plehn and T

    T. Plehn and T. M. P. Tait, Seeking Sgluons, J. Phys. G 36 (2009) 075001 [ 0810.3919]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Craig, F

    N. Craig, F. D’Eramo, P. Draper, S. Thomas and H. Zhang, The Hunt for the Rest of the Higgs Bosons , JHEP 06 (2015) 137 [ 1504.04630]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Abasov et al., Search for dark matter mediator in the production of three and four top quarks , 2407.08308

    E. Abasov et al., Search for dark matter mediator in the production of three and four top quarks , 2407.08308

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    N. P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou et al., A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector , JHEP 04 (2019) 100 [1901.05965]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    SMEFiT collaboration, Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC, JHEP 11 (2021) 089 [ 2105.00006]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Aoude, H

    R. Aoude, H. El Faham, F. Maltoni and E. Vryonidou, Complete SMEFT predictions for four top quark production at hadron colliders , JHEP 10 (2022) 163 [ 2208.04962]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Zhang, Constrainingqqtt operators from four-top production: a case for enhanced EFT sensitivity , Chin

    C. Zhang, Constrainingqqtt operators from four-top production: a case for enhanced EFT sensitivity , Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 023104 [ 1708.05928]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Barducci et al., Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory , 1802.07237

    D. Barducci et al., Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory , 1802.07237

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Banelli, E

    G. Banelli, E. Salvioni, J. Serra, T. Theil and A. Weiler, The Present and Future of Four Top Operators , JHEP 02 (2021) 043 [ 2010.05915]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Darm´ e, B

    L. Darm´ e, B. Fuks and F. Maltoni,Top-philic heavy resonances in four-top final states and their EFT interpretation, JHEP 09 (2021) 143 [ 2104.09512]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bevilacqua and M

    G. Bevilacqua and M. Worek, Constraining BSM Physics at the LHC: Four top final states with NLO accuracy in perturbative QCD, JHEP 07 (2012) 111 [ 1206.3064]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [ 1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani and I. Tsinikos, Associated production of a top-quark pair with vector bosons at NLO in QCD: impact on ttH searches at the LHC , JHEP 02 (2016) 113 [ 1507.05640]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Frederix, D

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani and M. Zaro, Large NLO corrections in t¯tW± and t¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions , JHEP 02 (2018) 031 [ 1711.02116]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Jeˇ zo and M

    T. Jeˇ zo and M. Kraus,Hadroproduction of four top quarks in the powheg box , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 114024 [2110.15159]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Nason, A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms , JHEP 11 (2004) 040 [ hep-ph/0409146]

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

    2004 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Alioli, P

    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 [ 1002.2581]. – 17 –

    2010 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Dimitrakopoulos and M

    N. Dimitrakopoulos and M. Worek, Four top final states with NLO accuracy in perturbative QCD: 4 lepton channel, JHEP 06 (2024) 129 [ 2401.10678]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Dimitrakopoulos and M

    N. Dimitrakopoulos and M. Worek, Four top final states with NLO accuracy in perturbative QCD: 3 lepton channel, 2410.05960

    arXiv

  30. [37]

    Kidonakis and G

    N. Kidonakis and G. F. Sterman, Resummation for QCD hard scattering , Nucl. Phys. B 505 (1997) 321 [hep-ph/9705234]

    1997 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Bonciani, S

    R. Bonciani, S. Catani, M. L. Mangano and P. Nason, NLL resummation of the heavy quark hadroproduction cross-section, Nucl. Phys. B 529 (1998) 424 [ hep-ph/9801375]

    1998 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Kidonakis, E

    N. Kidonakis, E. Laenen, S. Moch and R. Vogt, Sudakov resummation and finite order expansions of heavy quark hadroproduction cross-sections, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 114001 [ hep-ph/0105041]

    2001 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov and G. F. Sterman, Threshold Resummation for Top-Pair Hadroproduction to Next-to-Next-to-Leading Log, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 074017 [ 0907.1790]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Falgari and C. Schwinn, Soft radiation in heavy-particle pair production: All-order colour structure and two-loop anomalous dimension , Nucl. Phys. B 828 (2010) 69 [ 0907.1443]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Ahrens, A

    V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Yang, Renormalization-Group Improved Predictions for Top-Quark Pair Production at Hadron Colliders , JHEP 09 (2010) 097 [ 1003.5827]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov and P. Nason, Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation , Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 612 [1111.5869]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein and C. Schwinn, Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation, Nucl. Phys. B 855 (2012) 695 [ 1109.1536]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Ferroglia, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, B. D. Pecjak, D. J. Scott et al., Resummation for (boosted) top-quark pair production at NNLO+NNLL’ in QCD , JHEP 05 (2018) 149 [ 1803.07623]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Soft gluon resummation for associated t¯tH production at the LHC , JHEP 03 (2016) 065 [ 1509.02780]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Soft gluon resummation at fixed invariant mass for associatedt¯tH production at the LHC , PoS LHCP2016 (2016) 084 [ 1609.01619]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Associatedt¯tH production at the LHC: Theoretical predictions at NLO+NNLL accuracy, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 114007 [ 1704.03363]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, D. Schwartl¨ ander, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Associated production of a top quark pair with a heavy electroweak gauge boson at NLO +NNLL accuracy, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 249 [1812.08622]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Kulesza, L

    A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, D. Schwartl¨ ander, T. Stebel and V. Theeuwes, Associated top quark pair production with a heavy boson: differential cross sections at NLO+NNLL accuracy , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 428 [ 2001.03031]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [51]

    van Beekveld and W

    M. van Beekveld and W. Beenakker, The role of the threshold variable in soft-gluon resummation of the tth production process, JHEP 05 (2021) 196 [ 2012.09170]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    H. T. Li, C. S. Li and S. A. Li, Renormalization group improved predictions for t¯tW± production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 094009 [ 1409.1460]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, B. D. Pecjak, A. Signer and L. L. Yang, Associated production of a top pair and a Higgs boson beyond NLO , JHEP 03 (2016) 124 [ 1510.01914]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, G. Ossola and B. D. Pecjak, Associated production of a top pair and a W boson at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy, JHEP 09 (2016) 089 [ 1607.05303]. – 18 –

    2016 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Yang, NNLL resummation for the associated production of a top pair and a Higgs boson at the LHC , JHEP 02 (2017) 126 [ 1611.00049]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, G. Ossola, B. D. Pecjak and R. D. Sameshima, Associated production of a top pair and a Z boson at the LHC to NNLL accuracy , JHEP 04 (2017) 105 [ 1702.00800]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, R. Frederix, D. Pagani, B. D. Pecjak and I. Tsinikos, Top-quark pair hadroproduction in association with a heavy boson at NLO+NNLL including EW corrections , JHEP 08 (2019) 039 [ 1907.04343]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Simon, QCD resummation in the light of the LHC Run 3 , Ph.D

    Y. Simon, QCD resummation in the light of the LHC Run 3 , Ph.D. thesis, Paris, LPTHE, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    G. F. Sterman, Summation of Large Corrections to Short Distance Hadronic Cross-Sections , Nucl. Phys. B 281 (1987) 310

    1987

  53. [61]

    Catani and L

    S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Resummation of the QCD Perturbative Series for Hard Processes , Nucl. Phys. B 327 (1989) 323

    1989

  54. [62]

    Contopanagos, E

    H. Contopanagos, E. Laenen and G. F. Sterman, Sudakov factorization and resummation , Nucl. Phys. B 484 (1997) 303 [ hep-ph/9604313]

    1997 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kidonakis, G

    N. Kidonakis, G. Oderda and G. F. Sterman, Evolution of color exchange in QCD hard scattering , Nucl. Phys. B 531 (1998) 365 [ hep-ph/9803241]

    1998 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and L. Trentadue, The Resummation of soft gluons in hadronic collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 273 [ hep-ph/9604351]

    1996 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Catani, D

    S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini and P. Nason, Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders , JHEP 07 (2003) 028 [ hep-ph/0306211]

    2003 arXiv

  58. [66]

    van Beekveld, W

    M. van Beekveld, W. Beenakker, R. Basu, E. Laenen, A. Misra and P. Motylinski, Next-to-leading power threshold effects for resummed prompt photon production , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 056009 [1905.11771]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kidonakis, G

    N. Kidonakis, G. Oderda and G. F. Sterman, Threshold resummation for dijet cross-sections , Nucl. Phys. B 525 (1998) 299 [ hep-ph/9801268]

    1998 arXiv

  60. [68]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. Marchesini, Resummation of large infrared corrections using Wilson loops , Phys. Lett. B 313 (1993) 433

    1993

  61. [69]

    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 [ hep-ph/9605323]

    1997 arXiv

  62. [70]

    V. E. Lyubovitskij, F. Wunder and A. S. Zhevlakov, New ideas for handling of loop and angular integrals in D-dimensions in QCD , JHEP 06 (2021) 066 [ 2102.08943]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Falgari and C. Schwinn, Threshold resummation for pair production of coloured heavy (s)particles at hadron colliders , Nucl. Phys. B 842 (2011) 414 [ 1007.5414]

    2011 arXiv

  64. [72]

    V. S. Fadin, V. A. Khoze and T. Sjostrand, On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production , Z. Phys. C 48 (1990) 613

    1990

  65. [73]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and L. Trentadue, The Top cross-section in hadronic collisions , Phys. Lett. B 378 (1996) 329 [ hep-ph/9602208]

    1996 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Kulesza and L

    A. Kulesza and L. Motyka, Soft gluon resummation for the production of gluino-gluino and squark-antisquark pairs at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 095004 [ 0905.4749]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, Infrared singularities of QCD amplitudes with massive partons , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 125004 [ 0904.1021]

    2009 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen and I. Niessen, Supersymmetric top and bottom squark production at hadron colliders , JHEP 08 (2010) 098 [ 1006.4771]. – 19 –

    2010 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Manohar, P

    A. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, How bright is the proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 242002 [1607.04266]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    A. V. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, The Photon Content of the Proton , JHEP 12 (2017) 046 [ 1708.01256]

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht et al.,LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 132 [ 1412.7420]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II , J

    J. Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II , J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001 [1510.03865]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    NNPDF collaboration, Parton distributions for the LHC Run II , JHEP 04 (2015) 040 [ 1410.8849]

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski and R. S. Thorne, Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 204 [ 1412.3989]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky et al., New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 033006 [ 1506.07443]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Ossola, C

    G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau, CutTools: A Program implementing the OPP reduction method to compute one-loop amplitudes , JHEP 03 (2008) 042 [ 0711.3596]

    2008 arXiv

  77. [85]

    van Hameren, C

    A. van Hameren, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau, Automated one-loop calculations: A Proof of concept, JHEP 09 (2009) 106 [ 0903.4665]

    2009 arXiv

  78. [86]

    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 [ 1007.4716]

    2011 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer and S. Pozzorini, Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 111601 [ 1111.5206]

    2012 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer, Collier: a fortran-based Complex One-Loop LIbrary in Extended Regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 220 [ 1604.06792]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Buccioni, S

    F. Buccioni, S. Pozzorini and M. Zoller, On-the-fly reduction of open loops , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 70 [1710.11452]

    2018 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Buccioni, J.-N

    F. Buccioni, J.-N. Lang, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierh¨ ofer, S. Pozzorini, H. Zhang et al., OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 866 [ 1907.13071]

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Frederix, S

    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 [ 1804.10017]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, Harmonic sums, Mellin transforms and integrals , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14 (1999) 2037 [hep-ph/9806280]

    1999 arXiv

  85. [93]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Higher-order corrections in threshold resummation, Nucl. Phys. B 726 (2005) 317 [ hep-ph/0506288]

    2005 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A. A H, G. Das, M. C. Kumar, P. Mukherjee, V. Ravindran and K. Samanta, Resummed Drell-Yan cross-section at N 3LL, JHEP 10 (2020) 153 [ 2001.11377]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Das, S.-O

    G. Das, S.-O. Moch and A. Vogt, Soft corrections to inclusive deep-inelastic scattering at four loops and beyond, JHEP 03 (2020) 116 [ 1912.12920]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    A H and H.-S

    A. A H and H.-S. Shao, N3LO+N3LL QCD improved Higgs pair cross sections , JHEP 02 (2023) 067 [2209.03914]. – 20 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.