Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

NNLO+PS Double Higgs boson production with top-quark mass corrections in GENEVA

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents the first NNLO+PS implementation of double Higgs boson production via gluon fusion that includes all currently known top-quark mass corrections, validated against independent fixed-order NNLO results.

desk verdict First NNLO+PS generator for double Higgs with finite top-mass effects in the FTapprox scheme: a solid, useful tool paper that deserves a serious referee, though the reweighting ambiguity is unquantified and the 'all known corrections' claim is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08558 v1 pith:DR7TSU5F submitted 2025-07-11 hep-ph hep-ex

Simone Alioli , Giulia Marinelli , Davide Napoletano This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords doubleHiggsproductiontop-quarkmasscorrectionsFTapproxNNLOQCDpartonshowermatchingzero-jettinessresummationself-couplinggluonfusion
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

Double Higgs boson production is the key LHC process for measuring the Higgs trilinear self-coupling, but its simulations have mostly relied on the infinite-top-mass limit, which fails outside a narrow phase-space region. This paper extends the GENEVA event generator so that NNLO QCD corrections to gluon-fusion di-Higgs production are matched to a parton shower while including all currently known finite top-quark mass effects: exact effects through NLO and approximate effects at NNLO via a Born-level reweighting of the unknown double-virtual and real-virtual pieces. The result is a fully differential, shower-ready implementation whose total rate and $m_{HH}$ distribution agree with independent NNLO fixed-order predictions within scale uncertainties. If correct, it makes precision di-Higgs phenomenology for the LHC and future colliders possible, including shape-sensitive observables that the infinite-mass approximation distorts.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the FTapprox reweighting: unknown NNLO double-virtual and real-virtual corrections, and the corresponding hard-function coefficients, are multiplied by the ratio $\mathcal{B}_n(\Phi_n,m_t)/\mathcal{B}_n(\Phi_n,m_t\to\infty)$ of Born squared matrix elements with exact and infinite top mass. This encodes the known mass dependence of the lower-order contributions while leaving the resummation framework unchanged, because the soft and beam functions are insensitive to hard-mass effects. Around the double-unresolved limit, the exact double-real matrix element is replaced by the infinite-mass one reweighted through an FKS projection, with a technical cut $\alpha_{\rm cut}=10^{-4}$, chosen so that local subtraction counterterms (evaluated with exact mass dependence) cancel the singularities. The resummation itself uses the $\mathcal{T}_0$ factorization formula: a hard function times beam and soft functions, with NNLL$'$ accuracy and fixed-order matching.

What would settle it

One concrete check: when the exact top-mass-dependent NNLO double-virtual and real-virtual amplitudes become available (partial three-loop results are already appearing), compare the total rate and the $m_{HH}$ distribution computed exactly with the FTapprox predictions; disagreement larger than the quoted scale uncertainties would disprove the Born-reweighting assumption. A cheaper test is to repeat the FTapprox construction with different reweighting choices and use their spread as evidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the FTapprox scheme—exact top-mass dependence in the Born, real-emission, and one-loop virtual contributions, with the unknown NNLO double-virtual and real-virtual corrections rescaled by the ratio of the massive to the infinite-mass Born squared matrix elements—can be embedded in a zero-jettiness ($\mathcal{T}_0$) resummation at NNLL$'$ accuracy and matched to a parton shower inside GENEVA. The reweighting equations (2.2) and (2.3) are the load-bearing step, applied consistently to the real-virtual term and the hard-function coefficients so that resummed and fixed-order pieces cancel correctly. The authors validate the partonic FTapprox predictions against an independent fixed-order NNLO calculation, finding agreement in $m_{HH}$, pair rapidity, and hardest-Higgs $p_T$ within scale uncertainties, and they show that the $m_t\to\infty$ limit distorts both shape and normalization of $m_{HH}$ and $p_T$ distributions while a Born-projected reweighting (B-proj) captures some shapes but overestimates the total rate and distorts other observables. They consequently present FTapprox as the most accurate currently available prediction for shape-sensitive observables.

Load-bearing premise

The unknown NNLO double-virtual and real-virtual corrections are assumed to inherit the top-mass dependence of the corresponding Born squared matrix elements, so that reweighting by the ratio of massive to infinite-mass Born values captures the dominant finite-mass effects; the paper acknowledges this choice is not unique because the relative contributions of resonant triangle and non-resonant box diagrams vary across phase space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total cross section and the $m_{HH}$ distribution of the FTapprox implementation reproduce independent NNLO fixed-order results within scale uncertainties, so the generator can be used for LHC analyses.
  • The $m_t\to\infty$ approximation is unreliable for shape-sensitive observables such as $m_{HH}$ and the hardest-Higgs $p_T$; the FTapprox result is presented as the most accurate current prediction.
  • The B-proj Born-reweighted approximation improves over $m_t\to\infty$ for $m_{HH}$ but overestimates the total rate and distorts $p_T^{H_1}$ and the $\chi$ distribution, so it cannot replace FTapprox.
  • Parton shower, hadronisation, and multi-parton interaction effects are largely independent of the top-mass treatment and are concentrated at low transverse momentum; $m_{HH}$ remains unaffected at NNLO accuracy.
  • Resummation of $\mathcal{T}_0$ at NNLL$'$ visibly changes $p_{HH}^T$ up to large values because $m_{HH}$ is large; hybrid $p_T$–$\mathcal{T}_0$ scales are noted as a possible future improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct scan over formally equivalent reweighting schemes would turn the ambiguity acknowledged in Eqs. (2.2)–(2.3) into a quantitative uncertainty band; the paper does not do this.
  • The same Born-reweighting idea may carry over to other loop-induced processes with unavailable two-loop mass dependence, with the same caveat that reweighting is not unique where multiple topologies contribute.
  • Because the top-quark Yukawa scheme dependence is of order 20% and bottom-quark effects are neglected, the practical precision of the implementation may soon be limited by electroweak and mass-scheme uncertainties rather than by QCD, which the authors list as future work.
  • The failures of the $m_t\to\infty$ and B-proj approximations at large hardest-Higgs $p_T$ suggest that observables probing asymmetric kinematics are the most discriminating place to test any projected-reweighting approximation.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the extension of the GENEVA event generator to double Higgs boson production at NNLO+PS accuracy, replacing the previous infinite-top-mass limit by three treatments of top-quark mass effects: the exact-infinite-mass limit, the Born-projected (B-proj) approximation, and the FTapprox approximation. In FTapprox, exact top-quark mass dependence is used for all Born, real, double-real, and NLO virtual contributions, while the unknown NNLO double-virtual and real-virtual corrections are reweighted by the ratio of massive to infinite-mass Born squared matrix elements. The implementation is validated against fixed-order MATRIX results for the reconstructed NNLO correction and for differential distributions, and showered predictions are compared across the three mass treatments. The central claim is that this is the first NNLO+PS implementation of gg->HH including all currently known top-quark mass corrections in an event generator ready for LHC analyses.

Significance. If the FTapprox reweighting is accepted as a controlled approximation, the paper delivers a genuinely useful tool: it is the first implementation of double Higgs production at NNLO+PS with finite top-mass effects in a general-purpose event generator, and it includes non-trivial technical work on the double-real matrix-element stability, the interface to HHgrid, and the consistency of the resummation expansion. The validation against MATRIX is a meaningful check of the implementation, and the comparison of FTapprox, B-proj, and mt->infinity provides useful phenomenology. The main weakness is that the central accuracy claim rests on an unquantified reweighting assumption for the unknown NNLO mass corrections, and the phrase 'all currently known top-quark mass corrections' is broader than what is actually included.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2.2)-(2.3)] The FTapprox prescription reweights the unknown NNLO double-virtual and real-virtual corrections by the ratio of massive to infinite-mass Born squared matrix elements. As the paper itself notes in Sec. 1, for gg->HH this ratio is not unique because the process contains both triangle and box topologies with phase-space-dependent relative weights. The ambiguity is acknowledged but not quantified, and the quoted scale uncertainties therefore do not include the approximation error. The difference between FTapprox and the equally plausible B-proj scheme reaches roughly 20% near the mHH threshold (Fig. 4), so the scheme dependence is not negligible. I recommend adding a quantitative estimate of this uncertainty, for example by comparing the exact one-loop virtual corrections (available from HHgrid) with the Born-ratio reweighted one-loop approximation pointwise in mHH; if the exact one-loop correction does not track the Born ratio, the NNLO extrapolation has no demonstrated basis.
  2. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 6] The abstract and conclusions state that the implementation includes 'all currently known top-quark mass corrections.' This is overstated: Sec. 1 cites Refs. [25-27], which contain recently computed three-loop mass-dependent amplitudes that are not included in the present calculation. The statement should be qualified, for instance as 'all currently known top-quark mass corrections included in the FTapprox scheme' or 'all known corrections that enter the FTapprox approximation.' This wording directly supports the claimed novelty, so it should be made precise.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2] The validation against MATRIX checks the consistency of two implementations of the same FTapprox approximation rather than the physics of the mass-correction ansatz. Since both codes use the same reweighting of the unknown NNLO terms, agreement with the dashed line at 3.27 fb in Fig. 1 confirms that the GENEVA implementation is correct, but it does not validate the assumed mass dependence of the double-virtual and real-virtual corrections. In addition, the differential comparisons in Fig. 2 show no statistical uncertainties for the MATRIX points and no uncertainty bands for the GENEVA curves, making it difficult to assess whether the visible discrepancies in the pT distribution are significant. Please provide uncertainties or at least state the statistical precision of both sets of predictions.
  4. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.4)] The approximation of the double-real matrix element below alpha_cut uses the infinite-mass gg->HHgg matrix element reweighted by a massive Born-level factor rather than the full massive double-real matrix element. This is a practical and well-motivated choice to preserve the subtraction structure, but it means that the 'exact mass dependence' of the double-real contribution is not exact in the deep IR region. The paper discusses the resulting power corrections at O(alpha_cut), but it would be useful to state explicitly which observables and phase-space regions are affected by this approximation and to quantify its impact, for instance by comparing predictions with different alpha_cut values in the relevant distributions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2] The caption and text refer to the PDF set as 'PDF4LHC15_nnlo_100', but Fig. 4 uses 'PDFLHC21_nnlo' without the '4'; please correct the typo in the figure caption and text.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The notation V1(Phi1) in Eq. (2.2) is used both for the real-virtual contribution and for its reweighted approximation; please introduce a distinct symbol or state explicitly that the left-hand side denotes the reweighted object.
  3. [Sec. 3, Table 1 and Table 2] The two tables report the FTapprox inclusive cross section at sqrt(S)=13 TeV as 31.19 fb and 29.11 fb respectively; the difference is presumably due to the different scale choice and PDF set, but the text does not explicitly state this. Please add a sentence clarifying the setup difference.
  4. [Sec. 5, Fig. 5] The third ratio panels in Fig. 5 ('PYh/noMPI - 1') show large relative effects at low T0, but the labeling is compressed; please ensure the axes and panel labels are readable in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; FTapprox reweighting is an explicitly acknowledged external ansatz, and validation against MATRIX checks implementation consistency rather than deriving the approximation.

full rationale

The paper does not derive the top-quark mass dependence of NNLO corrections from its inputs; it adopts the literature's FTapprox ansatz, reweighting unknown double-virtual and real-virtual terms by Born-level mass ratios (Eqs. 2.2-2.3). This is an explicitly stated approximation, with the paper acknowledging multiple formally equivalent reweighting choices for di-Higgs production. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The NNLO validation against MATRIX is a cross-check that both codes implement the same FTapprox, not evidence that the ansatz is exact; that limitation is stated in Sec. 1 and does not make the derivation circular. The paper's extension of the authors' earlier GENEVA implementation (Ref. [24]) is standard code reuse, not a load-bearing self-citation: the resummation formalism and factorization theorem are external, and the hard-function coefficients are taken from the cited literature. The 'all known top-quark mass corrections' claim is a completeness statement subject to known three-loop results not being included, a correctness/scope issue, not circularity. No circular steps found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction is a simulation pipeline rather than a derivation, so there are no fitted constants. The main inputs are technical parameters (alpha_cut, T0_cut, profile scales) and the FTapprox reweighting ansatz adopted from the literature. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_cut = 1e-4
    Technical cutoff in Eq. (2.4) below which the double-real matrix element gg -> HHgg is approximated by reweighting the mt->infinity matrix element. Chosen after Ref. [29] for numerical stability; not scanned in this paper, with effects argued to enter at O(alpha_cut) power corrections.
  • T0_cut (and T1_cut) = 1 GeV
    Resolution cutoff separating resummed and fixed-order regions; results checked at 1 and 4 GeV in Fig. 2. Lower values are unstable due to matrix-element issues, so the T_cut dependence is not fully removed.
  • Profile scale transition points = from Ref. [24], not restated
    The resummed prediction depends on profile scales and transition points inherited unchanged from the mt->infinity GENEVA implementation, so these are external parameters not re-derived in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Leading-power SCET factorization for zero-jettiness T0 (Eq. 2.1).
    The resummed cross section assumes factorization of hard, beam, and soft functions at leading power in T0/mHH, standard for this process but still an assumption about the structure of mass effects.
  • domain assumption Top-quark mass effects enter only through the hard function.
    Section 2.1 states soft and collinear modes are insensitive to the top-quark mass, so mass effects appear exclusively in the hard function coefficients. This justifies reweighting only H coefficients and leaving beam/soft functions unchanged.
  • ad hoc to paper FTapprox reweighting ansatz for unknown NNLO virtual corrections (Eqs. 2.2 and 2.3).
    Unknown double-virtual and real-virtual terms are rescaled by the ratio of massive to mt->infinity Born matrix elements. The authors note in Section 1 that this reweighting is ambiguous for di-Higgs production because the process mixes triangle and box contributions.
  • ad hoc to paper Double-real matrix element approximation below alpha_cut (Eq. 2.4).
    In the deep IR region the exact gg -> HHgg matrix element is replaced by an mt->infinity expression reweighted with a projected NLO matrix element, introducing power corrections to the top-mass treatment.
  • domain assumption HHgrid interpolation provides accurate NLO virtual amplitudes.
    Section 2.1: NLO virtual corrections are taken from precomputed two-dimensional grids and interpolated; the accuracy of these grids is trusted as an external input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NNLO+PS Double Higgs boson production with top-quark mass corrections in GENEVA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DR7TSU5F

@misc{pith2026250708558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NNLO+PS Double Higgs boson production with top-quark mass corrections in GENEVA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DR7TSU5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08558}
}
abstract

We present the implementation of the NNLO QCD corrections to double Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in GENEVA, matched to the parton shower. We include all the known top-quark mass effects and the resummation of large logarithms of the zero-jettiness $\mathcal{T}_0$, up to NNLL$^\prime$ accuracy. This work extends our previous study, which was performed in the $m_t\to \infty$ infinite top-quark mass approximation, providing a more realistic simulation framework for Higgs boson pair production. We validate our approach against NNLO predictions by MATRIX and assess the importance of mass effects comparing with our $m_t\to \infty$ previous implementation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Fully differential Higgs boson pair production at N$^3$LO with top quark mass effects

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First fully differential N3LO QCD predictions for gg->hh in the heavy-top limit, with NLO top-mass effects added; heavy-top scale uncertainty shrinks about 3x, to roughly 1-3%.

  2. Higgs-Pair Production via Gluon Fusion: Top-Yukawa- and light-quark-induced electroweak Corrections

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The top-Yukawa and light-quark electroweak corrections to Higgs-pair production at the LHC shift the total cross section by about −3.4%, with differential corrections of 5–10% at high invariant mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    CMS collaboration, A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel , Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135425 [ 2002.06398]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the Higgs boson mass with H ßγγ decays in 140 fb −1 of s=13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Lett. B 847 (2023) 138315 [2308.07216]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    ATLAS collaboration, Study of the spin and parity of the Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 476 [ 1506.05669]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    ATLAS collaboration, Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 101801 [2406.09971]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, HIGGS BOSON PAIR PRODUCTION VIA GLUON FUSION, Nucl. Phys. B 309 (1988) 282

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    O. J. P. Eboli, G. C. Marques, S. F. Novaes and A. A. Natale, TWIN HIGGS BOSON PRODUCTION, Phys. Lett. B 197 (1987) 269

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    Plehn, M

    T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Pair production of neutral Higgs particles in gluon-gluon collisions , Nucl. Phys. B 479 (1996) 46 [ hep-ph/9603205]. – 17 –

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Two-loop virtual corrections to Higgs pair production

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Two-loop virtual corrections to Higgs pair production , Phys. Lett. B 724 (2013) 306 [ 1305.5206]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    de Florian, M

    D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, C. Hanga, S. Kallweit, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierh¨ ofer et al., Differential Higgs Boson Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD , JHEP 09 (2016) 151 [ 1606.09519]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    L.-B. Chen, H. T. Li, H.-S. Shao and J. Wang, Higgs boson pair production via gluon fusion at N 3LO in QCD , Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135292 [ 1909.06808]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al., Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass Dependence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 012001 [ 1604.06447]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al., Full top quark mass dependence in Higgs boson pair production at NLO , JHEP 10 (2016) 107 [1608.04798]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. Jones, M. Kerner, T. Stone and A. Vestner, Electroweak corrections to Higgs boson pair production: the top-Yukawa and self-coupling contributions , JHEP 11 (2024) 040 [2407.04653]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bonetti, P

    M. Bonetti, P. Rendler and W. J. Torres Bobadilla, Two-loop light-quark Electroweak corrections to Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion , 2503.16620

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Grigo, J

    J. Grigo, J. Hoff, K. Melnikov and M. Steinhauser, On the Higgs boson pair production at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B 875 (2013) 1 [ 1305.7340]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Grigo, K

    J. Grigo, K. Melnikov and M. Steinhauser, Virtual corrections to Higgs boson pair production in the large top quark mass limit , Nucl. Phys. B 888 (2014) 17 [ 1408.2422]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Grigo, J

    J. Grigo, J. Hoff and M. Steinhauser, Higgs boson pair production: top quark mass effects at NLO and NNLO , Nucl. Phys. B 900 (2015) 412 [ 1508.00909]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, P. Torrielli et al., Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects , Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 142 [1401.7340]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Maltoni, E

    F. Maltoni, E. Vryonidou and M. Zaro, Top-quark mass effects in double and triple Higgs production in gluon-gluon fusion at NLO , JHEP 11 (2014) 079 [ 1408.6542]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Maierh¨ ofer and A

    P. Maierh¨ ofer and A. Papaefstathiou,Higgs Boson pair production merged to one jet , JHEP 03 (2014) 126 [ 1401.0007]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Luisoni and E. Vryonidou, NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers , JHEP 08 (2017) 088 [ 1703.09252]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Luisoni and L. Scyboz, Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects , JHEP 06 (2019) 066 [ 1903.08137]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jones and S

    S. Jones and S. Kuttimalai, Parton Shower and NLO-Matching uncertainties in Higgs Boson Pair Production, JHEP 02 (2018) 176 [ 1711.03319]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alioli, G

    S. Alioli, G. Billis, A. Broggio, A. Gavardi, S. Kallweit, M. A. Lim et al., Double Higgs production at NNLO interfaced to parton showers in GENEV A , JHEP 06 (2023) 205 [2212.10489]. – 18 –

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Davies, K

    J. Davies, K. Sch¨ onwald, M. Steinhauser and M. Vitti, Three-loop corrections to Higgs boson pair production: reducible contribution , JHEP 08 (2024) 096 [ 2405.20372]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Z. Hu, T. Liu and J. M. Yang, gg → HH amplitude induced by bottom quarks at two-loop level: planar master integrals , 2503.10051

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Davies, K

    J. Davies, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser,Three-loop large-Nc virtual corrections to gg → HH in the forward limit , 2503.17449

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    De Florian and J

    D. De Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson pair production including finite M t effects, JHEP 08 (2018) 156 [ 1807.03704]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Grazzini, G

    M. Grazzini, G. Heinrich, S. Jones, S. Kallweit, M. Kerner, J. M. Lindert et al., Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects , JHEP 05 (2018) 059 [ 1803.02463]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Alasfar et al., Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production , SciPost Phys

    L. Alasfar et al., Effective Field Theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production , SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 2024 (2024) 2 [ 2304.01968]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cadamuro, T

    L. Cadamuro, T. Ingebretsen Carlson and J. Sj¨ olin, Di-Higgs and Effective Field Theory: Signal Reweighting Beyond mhh, 2502.20976

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bi, L.-H

    H.-Y. Bi, L.-H. Huang, R.-J. Huang, Y.-Q. Ma and H.-M. Yu, Electroweak Corrections to Double Higgs Production at the LHC , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 231802 [ 2311.16963]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bagnaschi, G

    E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi and R. Gr¨ ober, Higgs boson pair production at NLO in the POWHEG approach and the top quark mass uncertainties , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1054 [2309.10525]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Grazzini and H

    M. Grazzini and H. Sargsyan, Heavy-quark mass effects in Higgs boson production at the LHC, JHEP 09 (2013) 129 [ 1306.4581]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mueller and D

    R. Mueller and D. G. ¨Ozt¨ urk,On the computation of finite bottom-quark mass effects in Higgs boson production, JHEP 08 (2016) 055 [ 1512.08570]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Grober, M

    R. Grober, M. Muhlleitner, M. Spira and J. Streicher, NLO QCD Corrections to Higgs Pair Production including Dimension-6 Operators , JHEP 09 (2015) 092 [ 1504.06577]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Grober, M

    R. Grober, M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Higgs Pair Production at NLO QCD for CP-violating Higgs Sectors , Nucl. Phys. B 925 (2017) 1 [ 1705.05314]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    de Florian, I

    D. de Florian, I. Fabre and J. Mazzitelli, Higgs boson pair production at NNLO in QCD including dimension 6 operators , JHEP 10 (2017) 215 [ 1704.05700]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Alioli, W

    S. Alioli, W. Dekens, M. Girard and E. Mereghetti, NLO QCD corrections to SM-EFT dilepton and electroweak Higgs boson production, matched to parton shower in POWHEG , JHEP 08 (2018) 205 [ 1804.07407]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner and L. Scyboz, A non-linear EFT description of gg → HH at NLO interfaced to POWHEG , JHEP 10 (2020) 021 [ 2006.16877]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Homiller and M. Sullivan, Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT contributions: A case study, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 115013 [ 2110.06929]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    de Florian, I

    D. de Florian, I. Fabre, G. Heinrich, J. Mazzitelli and L. Scyboz, Anomalous couplings in Higgs-boson pair production at approximate NNLO QCD , JHEP 09 (2021) 161 [2106.14050]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Heinrich, J

    G. Heinrich, J. Lang and L. Scyboz, SMEFT predictions for gg → hh at full NLO QCD and truncation uncertainties, JHEP 08 (2022) 079 [ 2204.13045]. – 19 –

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler, The standard model effective field theory at work , Rev. Mod. Phys. 96 (2024) 015006 [ 2303.16922]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober, G. Heinrich, J. Lang and M. Vitti, γ5 schemes and the interplay of SMEFT operators in the Higgs-gluon coupling , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 095024 [2310.18221]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Heinrich and J

    G. Heinrich and J. Lang, Combining chromomagnetic and four-fermion operators with leading SMEFT operators for gg → hh at NLO QCD , JHEP 05 (2024) 121 [ 2311.15004]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Heinrich and J

    G. Heinrich and J. Lang, Renormalisation group effects in SMEFT for di-Higgs production , SciPost Phys. 18 (2025) 113 [ 2409.19578]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, N-Jettiness: An Inclusive Event Shape to Veto Jets , Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 092002 [ 1004.2489]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Factorization at the LHC: From PDFs to Initial State Jets , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 094035 [ 0910.0467]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cascioli, P

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

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    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

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, On the Structure of Infrared Singularities of Gauge-Theory Amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2009) 081 [ 0903.1126]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, A next-to-next-to-leading order calculation of soft-virtual cross sections, JHEP 12 (2012) 088 [ 1209.0673]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Frixione, Z

    S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt and A. Signer, Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order , Nucl.Phys. B467 (1996) 399 [ hep-ph/9512328]

    1996 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Catani, D

    S. Catani, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera and M. Grazzini, Vector boson production at hadron colliders: transverse-momentum resummation and leptonic decay , 1507.06937

    arXiv

  49. [57]

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

    J. Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II , J. Phys. G43 (2016) 023001 [1510.03865]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    P. Cal, R. von Kuk, M. A. Lim and F. J. Tackmann, qT spectrum for Higgs boson production via heavy quark annihilation at N3LL’+aN3LO , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 076005 [2306.16458]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Lustermans, J

    G. Lustermans, J. K. L. Michel, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Joint two-dimensional resummation in qT and 0-jettiness at NNLL , JHEP 03 (2019) 124 [ 1901.03331]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    PDF4LHC Working Groupcollaboration, The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III , J. Phys. G 49 (2022) 080501 [ 2203.05506]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    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. C75 (2015) 132 [ 1412.7420]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Billis, M

    G. Billis, M. A. Ebert, J. K. L. Michel and F. J. Tackmann, A toolbox for qT and 0-jettiness subtractions at N 3LO, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (2021) 214 [ 1909.00811]. – 20 –

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    M. A. Ebert, J. K. L. Michel, F. J. Tackmann et al., SCETlib: A C++ Package for Numerical Calculations in QCD and Soft-Collinear Effective Theory , DESY-17-099 http://scetlib.desy.de

  56. [64]

    H¨ oche and S

    S. H¨ oche and S. Prestel,The midpoint between dipole and parton showers , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 461 [ 1506.05057]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    7 (2019) 034 [1905.09127]

    Sherpa collaboration, Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2 , SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034 [1905.09127]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al., An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 [ 1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Alioli, C

    S. Alioli, C. W. Bauer, C. Berggren, F. J. Tackmann and J. R. Walsh, Drell-Yan production at NNLL’+NNLO matched to parton showers , Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 094020 [ 1508.01475]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Alioli, C

    S. Alioli, C. W. Bauer, S. Guns and F. J. Tackmann, Underlying event sensitive observables in Drell-Yan production using GENEV A, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 614 [ 1605.07192]. – 21 –

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.