Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Precise Predictions for Event Shapes in Hadronic Higgs Decays

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · 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 QCD event-shape distributions for hadronic Higgs decays, for both H→gg and H→bb̄, and finds moderate corrections in the bulk with an enhanced gluon fraction in three-jet configurations.

desk verdict First NNLO event-shape predictions for H→gg and H→bbar decays, solidly done; the main caveat is that the gluonic channel rests on author-derived ingredients not independently cross-checked in the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14282 v2 pith:5ORT42J5 submitted 2025-08-19 hep-ph

Elliot Fox , Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder , Thomas Gehrmann , Nigel Glover , Matteo Marcoli , Christian T. Preuss This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords hadronicHiggsdecaysevent-shapevariablesNNLOQCDthrustheavyjetmassC-parameterbroadeningsoft-drop
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 aims to establish the first next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD predictions for event-shape distributions in hadronic Higgs-boson decays, covering the two dominant decay modes: H→gg in the heavy-top limit and H→bb̄ via the Yukawa coupling with kinematically massless quarks. It computes thrust, heavy jet mass, the C-parameter, total and wide jet broadening, the Durham three-jet resolution, and soft-drop thrust. The central finding is that NNLO corrections are moderate in the bulk of each distribution—typically below 20%—but grow near the Sudakov shoulders, and that the gluon-decay channel contributes roughly 25% of the total in three-jet-like configurations, more than double its inclusive fraction. If correct, these predictions give future electron-positron Higgs factories a benchmark for precision tests of QCD and for separating quark-initiated from gluon-initiated Higgs decays.

What carries the argument

The calculation is built on an effective field theory in which the Higgs couples to gluons through an effective Hgg vertex in the heavy-top limit and to massless bottom quarks through a non-vanishing Yukawa coupling, so the two decay channels have no interference and can be computed as separate processes. Infrared singularities are handled with generalized antenna subtraction, a systematic scheme that cancels divergences between real-emission and virtual contributions by subtracting antenna functions derived from the relevant infrared limits. The two-loop three-parton amplitudes for H→ggg and H→bb̄g supply the NNLO virtual input, and all distributions are evaluated in the Higgs rest frame wi

What would settle it

Recalculate the two-loop H→ggg helicity amplitudes by an independent method and rerun the full NNLO subtraction for the gluonic channel; any mismatch in the residual divergences or finite parts would change every displayed H→gg distribution. A shorter path is to measure normalized thrust and heavy-jet-mass distributions at a future e+e− Higgs factory and check whether the NNLO bands, including their scale variation, contain the data across the bulk and shoulder region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the six classical event-shape distributions and the soft-drop thrust in hadronic Higgs decays can be computed to NNLO accuracy, with the two dominant channels treated separately in an effective field theory where interference between them vanishes. Working in the Higgs rest frame and normalizing by the inclusive NNLO widths, the calculation finds mild corrections in the bulk—less than roughly 10–20% depending on the observable—with reduced scale uncertainty, good perturbative convergence for heavy jet mass, broadenings, and y23, and poorer convergence for thrust and in the region beyond the Sudakov shoulder. A recurring quantitative result is t

Load-bearing premise

The H→gg predictions all ride on the correctness of the two-loop three-gluon helicity amplitudes and the completeness of the antenna subtraction used to combine them with real radiation; the paper verifies its H→bb̄g amplitudes against an independent calculation but reports no such independent cross-check for the gluonic channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future electron-positron Higgs-factory measurements of these distributions can be compared directly with these NNLO predictions, turning event shapes into a precision QCD test in the Higgs sector.
  • The quantified differences between the H→bb̄ and H→gg channels serve as a baseline for quark-gluon discrimination studies using hadronic Higgs decays.
  • The earlier breakdown of fixed-order perturbation theory in the gluonic channel identifies exactly where resummation is needed and which region will most constrain it.
  • Soft-drop thrust is shown to improve perturbative convergence toward the infrared, suggesting groomed observables as the practical choice for precision extraction.
  • The near-constant 75/25 channel split in the bulk offers a simple phenomenological rule for estimating background contributions in Higgs-decay analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gluonic-mode enhancement beyond the Sudakov shoulder persists after resummation, event-shape tails may act as an experimentally accessible proxy for the elusive H→gg decay at lepton colliders.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same soft-drop grooming to the C-parameter and broadenings; based on the thrust result, the strongest grooming (β=0) should push the fixed-order range further into the infrared.
  • Because the paper reports no independent numerical cross-check of the gluonic two-loop amplitudes or of the full gluonic NNLO subtraction, a dedicated recalculation of those amplitudes would be the fastest way to certify the H→gg distributions.
  • Since all distributions are normalized by inclusive widths, small shifts in the inclusive decay-rate corrections rescale every plot; this couples the event-shape precision to the accuracy of the inclusive width input.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents fixed-order NNLO QCD predictions for a suite of event-shape distributions in hadronic Higgs decays. The two dominant decay modes, H→bbar (non-vanishing Yukawa coupling, kinematically massless b) and H→gg (heavy-top effective coupling), are treated as independent channels. The calculation uses the NNLOJET antenna-subtraction framework with generalized antenna functions and published two-loop amplitudes. Results are shown for thrust, heavy jet mass, C-parameter, total and wide jet broadening, Durham y23, and soft-drop thrust, normalized to the corresponding total decay width, with central scale μ_R=m_H/2 and factor-two variations. The main findings are moderate NNLO corrections in the bulk, Sudakov shoulders, and an enhanced gluonic fraction for large event-shape values, with the breakdown of fixed-order perturbation theory identified by the onset of negative gluonic distributions at small y.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is the first NNLO QCD differential event-shape prediction for hadronic Higgs decays and a substantive input for future Higgs-factory phenomenology and quark–gluon discrimination studies. The paper is not a fit: the central predictions are parameter-free perturbative QCD results, and the authors clearly state the region where fixed-order perturbation theory breaks down. They also provide scale-variation uncertainties and verify the H→bbg amplitude class against ref. [91]. The main weakness is a verification gap: the H→gg predictions rely on author-derived two-loop amplitudes (ref. [95]) and generalized antenna functions (ref. [77]), and no independent numerical cross-check of these ingredients or of the full NNLO subtraction in the gluonic channel is reported. This gap is load-bearing for the quantitative gluonic results and for the headline claim of an enhanced gluonic fraction in three-jet-like configurations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2, Table 1 and Figs. 2–5] The central H→gg predictions rest on two ingredients that are not independently verified in this manuscript: the two-loop H→ggg and H→gqqbar helicity amplitudes from ref. [95], derived by some of the same authors, and the generalized antenna functions of ref. [77]. The text states that the calculation agrees with the numerical results of ref. [91], but that check concerns the H→bbg amplitude class; no analogous check is reported for the gluonic amplitudes or for the full NNLO antenna subtraction in the H→gg channel. An error in either ingredient would propagate into every displayed H→gg curve and would alter the qualitative observation that the gluonic fraction is enhanced in three-jet-like configurations. Please add a dedicated validation subsection. Concretely: (i) integrate the unnormalized coefficients A, B, C of Eq. (2.3) over the full phase space and compare with the inclusive NNLO
  2. [Sec. 2, after Eq. (2.1)] The statement that 'all interferences between the H→bbar and H→gg decay channels vanish' is load-bearing for treating the two channels as independent and for the total sum in Eqs. (3.2)–(3.3). This assertion is not proved in the manuscript. A standard justification for massless quarks is that the Yukawa amplitude and the Hgg→bbar g amplitude have opposite chirality/helicity structures and hence do not interfere after spin summation, but this should be stated explicitly. Please add a short derivation or a precise reference; if any interference survives at O(α_s^3) in the total rate, the total predictions would need to be revisited.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.1)] In the expression for C_{bbar}(μ_R), the term [(β1+2γ1)L_R + (β0+γ0)(β0+2γ0)L_R^2] appears to multiply B_{bbar}(μ0). By comparison with the gluonic formula in Eq. (B.3) and with the standard structure of scale-dependent expansion coefficients, the final line should multiply A_{bbar}(μ0). Please check and correct.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] Typo: 'obersables' should be 'observables' in the jet-broadening paragraph.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The notation 'y 1/Γ(k) dΓ/dy' is ambiguous as typeset; please write it as y (1/Γ(k)) dΓ/dy or an equivalent unambiguous form.
  4. [Figs. 2–5] The truncation values (τ>0.015, ρH>0.01, BT>0.05, etc.) are given in the text but not in the captions. Adding them to the captions would make the plots self-contained and avoid the impression of arbitrary cutoffs.
  5. [General] No numerical tables or supplementary data files are provided. For a precision paper of this type, making the central NNLO distributions available in tabulated form would improve reproducibility and allow direct use by the community.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the NNLO distributions are parameter-free fixed-order QCD calculations with prior independent inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard fixed-order QCD calculation: the differential rate in Eq. (2.3) is defined directly from partonic matrix elements and the antenna-subtraction framework [75–77,99,100]. No event-shape distribution is used as an input to define those ingredients, and no parameter is fitted to the quantities being predicted. The only author-overlapping inputs are the two-loop H→3-parton helicity amplitudes from ref. [95] and the generalised antenna functions of ref. [77]. Both are prior, separate derivations with stated assumptions (heavy-top limit for the amplitudes; QCD infrared limits for the antenna functions) and do not use the present event-shape results as inputs. They therefore constitute independent support in the sense required here, even though they are not machine-checked in this paper. The paper reports an external check of the H→bb̄g amplitudes against ref. [91], and although no analogous numerical cross-check is documented for the gluonic two-loop amplitudes or for the full NNLO subtraction in the gluonic channel, that is a verification gap and a correctness risk, not a circularity: no equation in the paper reduces the predicted distributions to the fitted values, to the asserted conclusions, or to a self-citation chain. No self-definitional reasoning, fitted-input-as-prediction, imported uniqueness, or renaming of known results occurs. The central claim is therefore self-contained against external perturbative inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation has no fitted free parameters in the statistical sense; alpha_s, quark masses, m_H, and G_F are external inputs from prior measurements. The renormalisation scale is a conventional choice, varied for uncertainty. The central new results are derived from previously published parameter-free amplitudes and antenna functions, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (1)
  • Central renormalisation scale mu_R = m_H/2 = 62.545 GeV, varied by a factor 2
    Chosen by hand following the inclusive Higgs production convention; all displayed NNLO curves are evaluated at this scale, and the uncertainty bands come from varying it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Heavy-top effective theory for H to gg and massless b-quarks with a non-zero Yukawa coupling, with all interferences between the two channels vanishing
    Invoked in Section 2 to treat H to bb and H to gg as separate processes; finite quark mass effects or interference corrections would change the distributions.
  • domain assumption The generalized antenna functions of refs. [75-77] form a complete NNLO subtraction scheme for these processes
    Core technical framework of the calculation; correctness is assumed from prior work by overlapping authors.
  • domain assumption The two-loop three-parton amplitudes from refs. [95, 91, 98] are correct
    Amplitudes are taken from the literature; only the H to b bbar g amplitudes are numerically cross-checked against ref. [91] in this paper.
  • standard math Three-loop running of alpha_s and quark masses using the results of ref. [87]
    Used for renormalization scale evolution of the strong coupling, Yukawa couplings, and quark masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precise Predictions for Event Shapes in Hadronic Higgs Decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ORT42J5

@misc{pith2026250814282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precise Predictions for Event Shapes in Hadronic Higgs Decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ORT42J5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14282}
}
abstract

We present NNLO QCD predictions for a wide range of event-shape observables in hadronic Higgs decays, taking into account the two dominant decay modes $H\to gg$ and $H\to b\bar{b}$. Specifically, we consider the six classical event shapes thrust, heavy jet mass, $C$-parameter, total and wide jet broadening, and the three-jet resolution $y_{23}$ in the Durham algorithm. We also present results for the soft-drop variant of thrust. Decays of the Higgs boson to two gluons are treated in the heavy-top limit, whereas decays to a bottom-quark pair are mediated by a non-vanishing Yukawa coupling, despite considering kinematically massless quarks. Our results highlight the importance of NNLO QCD corrections in the calculation of event-shape observables and provide means to quantify the intrinsic difference between the two Higgs decay modes.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Heavy Jet Mass in Hadronic Higgs Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heavy jet mass in hadronic Higgs decays is predicted at N³LL′ (dijet) plus NNLL (Sudakov shoulder) plus NNLO, with new analytic trijet-region logarithms for H→gg and H→q̄q.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [95]

    Two-Loop QCD Corrections to the Helicity Amplitudes for $H \to$ 3 partons

    T. Gehrmann, M. Jaquier, E. W. N. Glover, and A. Koukoutsakis, Two-Loop QCD Corrections to the Helicity Amplitudes for H → 3 partons, JHEP 02 (2012) 056, [arXiv:1112.3554]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  2. [91]

    Mondini and C

    R. Mondini and C. Williams, H → bbj at next-to-next-to-leading order accuracy , JHEP 06 (2019) 120, [ arXiv:1904.08961]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [77]

    E. Fox, N. Glover, and M. Marcoli, Generalised antenna functions for higher-order calculations, JHEP 12 (2024) 225, [ arXiv:2410.12904]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

    Decamp et al., Measurement of the strong coupling constant αs from global event shape variables of hadronic Z decays , Phys

    ALEPH Collaboration, D. Decamp et al., Measurement of the strong coupling constant αs from global event shape variables of hadronic Z decays , Phys. Lett. B 255 (1991) 623–633

    1991

  5. [2]

    OP ALCollaboration, M. Z. Akrawy et al., A Measurement of Global Event Shape Distributions in the Hadronic Decays of the Z 0, Z. Phys. C 47 (1990) 505–522

    1990

  6. [3]

    Adrian et al., Determination of αs from hadronic event shapes measured on the Z 0 resonance, Phys

    L3 Collaboration, O. Adrian et al., Determination of αs from hadronic event shapes measured on the Z 0 resonance, Phys. Lett. B 284 (1992) 471–481

    1992

  7. [4]

    Abreu et al., Energy dependence of event shapes and of αs at LEP-2, Phys

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Energy dependence of event shapes and of αs at LEP-2, Phys. Lett. B 456 (1999) 322–340

    1999

  8. [5]

    Abdallah et al., A Study of the energy evolution of event shape distributions and their means with the DELPHI detector at LEP , Eur

    DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., A Study of the energy evolution of event shape distributions and their means with the DELPHI detector at LEP , Eur. Phys. J. C 29 (2003) 285–312, [hep-ex/0307048]

    arXiv 2003

Show all 112 references
  1. [6]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, NNLO corrections to event shapes in e+e− annihilation, JHEP 12 (2007) 094, [ arXiv:0711.4711]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, NNLO moments of event shapes in e+e− annihilation, JHEP 05 (2009) 106, [ arXiv:0903.4658]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, EERAD3: Event shapes and jet rates in electron-positron annihilation at order α3 s, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 3331, [ arXiv:1402.4140]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Weinzierl, The infrared structure of e+e− → 3 jets at NNLO reloaded , JHEP 07 (2009) 009, [arXiv:0904.1145]

    S. Weinzierl, The infrared structure of e+e− → 3 jets at NNLO reloaded , JHEP 07 (2009) 009, [arXiv:0904.1145]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Weinzierl, Event shapes and jet rates in electron-positron annihilation at NNLO , JHEP 06 (2009) 041, [ arXiv:0904.1077]

    S. Weinzierl, Event shapes and jet rates in electron-positron annihilation at NNLO , JHEP 06 (2009) 041, [ arXiv:0904.1077]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Weinzierl, Moments of event shapes in electron-positron annihilation at NNLO , Phys

    S. Weinzierl, Moments of event shapes in electron-positron annihilation at NNLO , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 094018, [ arXiv:0909.5056]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, Z. Sz˝ or, Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, and Z. Tulip´ ant,Jet production in the CoLoRFulNNLO method: event shapes in electron-positron collisions , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 074019, [ arXiv:1606.03453]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Kardos, G

    A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi,Soft-drop event shapes in electron–positron annihilation at next-to-next-to-leading order accuracy , Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 313–318, [arXiv:1807.11472]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Becher, G

    T. Becher, G. Bell, and M. Neubert, Factorization and Resummation for Jet Broadening , Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 276–283, [ arXiv:1104.4108]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Becher and G

    T. Becher and G. Bell, NNLL Resummation for Jet Broadening , JHEP 11 (2012) 126, [arXiv:1210.0580]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Balsiger, T

    M. Balsiger, T. Becher, and D. Y. Shao, NLL′ resummation of jet mass , JHEP 04 (2019) 020, [arXiv:1901.09038]. – 18 –

    2019 arXiv

  12. [17]

    A. H. Hoang, D. W. Kolodrubetz, V. Mateu, and I. W. Stewart, C-parameter distribution at N 3LL’ including power corrections , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 094017, [ arXiv:1411.6633]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Banfi, H

    A. Banfi, H. McAslan, P. F. Monni, and G. Zanderighi, A general method for the resummation of event-shape distributions in e+e− annihilation, JHEP 05 (2015) 102, [arXiv:1412.2126]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Banfi, B

    A. Banfi, B. K. El-Menoufi, and P. F. Monni, The Sudakov radiator for jet observables and the soft physical coupling , JHEP 01 (2019) 083, [ arXiv:1807.11487]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Bhattacharya, M

    A. Bhattacharya, M. D. Schwartz, and X. Zhang, Sudakov shoulder resummation for thrust and heavy jet mass , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 074011, [ arXiv:2205.05702]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Bhattacharya, J

    A. Bhattacharya, J. K. L. Michel, M. D. Schwartz, I. W. Stewart, and X. Zhang, NNLL resummation of Sudakov shoulder logarithms in the heavy jet mass distribution , JHEP 11 (2023) 080, [ arXiv:2306.08033]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Gehrmann, M

    T. Gehrmann, M. Jaquier, and G. Luisoni, Hadronization effects in event shape moments , Eur. Phys. J. C 67 (2010) 57–72, [ arXiv:0911.2422]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Luisoni, P

    G. Luisoni, P. F. Monni, and G. P. Salam, C-parameter hadronisation in the symmetric 3-jet limit and impact on αs fits, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 158, [ arXiv:2012.00622]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Caola, S

    F. Caola, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. Limatola, K. Melnikov, and P. Nason, On linear power corrections in certain collider observables , JHEP 01 (2022) 093, [ arXiv:2108.08897]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Caola, S

    F. Caola, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. Limatola, K. Melnikov, P. Nason, and M. A. Ozcelik, Linear power corrections to e +e– shape variables in the three-jet region , JHEP 12 (2022) 062, [arXiv:2204.02247]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Agarwal, M

    N. Agarwal, M. van Beekveld, E. Laenen, S. Mishra, A. Mukhopadhyay, and A. Tripathi, Next-to-leading power corrections to event-shape variables , Pramana 98 (2024) 60, [arXiv:2306.17601]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1–29, [ arXiv:1207.7214]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30–61, [arXiv:1207.7235]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Abada et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2 , Eur

    FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2 , Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019) 261–623

    2019

  25. [30]

    Dong et al., CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector , arXiv:1811.10545

    CEPC Study GroupCollaboration, M. Dong et al., CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector , arXiv:1811.10545

    arXiv

  26. [31]

    Baer et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics , arXiv:1306.6352

    ILC Collaboration, H. Baer et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics , arXiv:1306.6352

    arXiv

  27. [32]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, Infrared safe definition of jet flavor , Eur. Phys. J. C 47 (2006) 113–124, [ hep-ph/0601139]. – 19 –

    2006 arXiv

  28. [33]

    P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, An operational definition of quark and gluon jets, JHEP 11 (2018) 059, [ arXiv:1809.01140]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Caletti, O

    S. Caletti, O. Fedkevych, S. Marzani, D. Reichelt, S. Schumann, G. Soyez, and V. Theeuwes, Jet angularities in Z+jet production at the LHC , JHEP 07 (2021) 076, [arXiv:2104.06920]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Caletti, A

    S. Caletti, A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and D. Reichelt, A fragmentation approach to jet flavor, JHEP 10 (2022) 158, [ arXiv:2205.01117]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Caletti, A

    S. Caletti, A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and D. Reichelt, Practical jet flavour through NNLO , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 632, [ arXiv:2205.01109]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet, Infrared-safe flavoured anti-kT jets, JHEP 04 (2023) 138, [ arXiv:2205.11879]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [38]

    Gauld, A

    R. Gauld, A. Huss, and G. Stagnitto, Flavor Identification of Reconstructed Hadronic Jets , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 161901, [ arXiv:2208.11138]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 132, 159901 (2024)]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [39]

    Caola, R

    F. Caola, R. Grabarczyk, M. L. Hutt, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz, and J. Thaler, Flavored jets with exact anti-kt kinematics and tests of infrared and collinear safety , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 094010, [ arXiv:2306.07314]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [40]

    J. Andersen et al., Les Houches 2023: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, in Physics of the TeV Scale and Beyond the Standard Model: Intensifying the Quest for New Physics , 6, 2024. arXiv:2406.00708

    2023 arXiv

  36. [41]

    Behring et al., Flavoured jet algorithms: a comparative study , arXiv:2506.13449

    A. Behring et al., Flavoured jet algorithms: a comparative study , arXiv:2506.13449

  37. [42]

    Aaboud et al., Observation of H → b¯b decays and V H production with the ATLAS detector , Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Observation of H → b¯b decays and V H production with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 59–86, [ arXiv:1808.08238]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [43]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 121801, [ arXiv:1808.08242]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [44]

    S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin, and L. R. Surguladze, Corrected three-loop QCD correction to the correlator of the quark scalar currents and ΓTot(H 0 → hadrons), Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5 (1990) 2703–2712

    1990

  40. [45]

    S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin, and L. R. Surguladze, Scheme dependence of the next-to-next-to-leading QCD corrections to ΓTot(H 0 → hadrons) and the spurious QCD infrared fixed point, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 1633–1640

    1991

  41. [46]

    A. L. Kataev and V. T. Kim, The Effects of the QCD corrections to Γ(H 0 → b¯b), Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9 (1994) 1309–1326

    1994

  42. [47]

    L. R. Surguladze, Quark mass effects in fermionic decays of the Higgs boson in O(α2 s) perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B 341 (1994) 60–72, [ hep-ph/9405325]

    1994 arXiv

  43. [48]

    S. A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, The Large top quark mass expansion for Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and into gluons , Phys. Lett. B 362 (1995) 134–140, [ hep-ph/9506465]. – 20 –

    1995 arXiv

  44. [49]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and A. Kwiatkowski, Second order QCD corrections to scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs decays into massive bottom quarks , Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 3–18, [hep-ph/9505358]

    1996 arXiv

  45. [50]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, Correlator of the quark scalar currents and ΓTot(H → hadrons at O(α3 s) in pQCD , Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 309–317, [ hep-ph/9608318]

    1997 arXiv

  46. [51]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kuhn, Scalar correlator at O(α4 s), Higgs decay into b-quarks and bounds on the light quark masses , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 012003, [hep-ph/0511063]

    2006 arXiv

  47. [52]

    Spira, A

    M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. M. Zerwas, Higgs boson production at the LHC , Nucl. Phys. B 453 (1995) 17–82, [ hep-ph/9504378]

    1995 arXiv

  48. [53]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser, Hadronic Higgs decay to order α4 s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 353–356, [ hep-ph/9705240]

    1997 arXiv

  49. [54]

    P. A. Baikov and K. G. Chetyrkin, Top Quark Mediated Higgs Boson Decay into Hadrons to Order α5 s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 061803, [ hep-ph/0604194]

    2006 arXiv

  50. [55]

    Davies, M

    J. Davies, M. Steinhauser, and D. Wellmann, Completing the hadronic Higgs boson decay at order α4 s, Nucl. Phys. B 920 (2017) 20–31, [ arXiv:1703.02988]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [56]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, On Higgs decays to hadrons and the R-ratio at N 4LO, JHEP 08 (2017) 113, [ arXiv:1707.01044]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [57]

    Wilczek, Decays of Heavy Vector Mesons Into Higgs Particles , Phys

    F. Wilczek, Decays of Heavy Vector Mesons Into Higgs Particles , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 1304

    1977

  53. [58]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Remarks on Higgs Boson Interactions with Nucleons, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 443–446

    1978

  54. [59]

    Inami, T

    T. Inami, T. Kubota, and Y. Okada, Effective Gauge Theory and the Effect of Heavy Quarks in Higgs Boson Decays , Z. Phys. C 18 (1983) 69–80

    1983

  55. [60]

    Fleischer and F

    J. Fleischer and F. Jegerlehner, Radiative Corrections to Higgs Decays in the Extended Weinberg-Salam Model, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 2001–2026

    1981

  56. [61]

    D. Y. Bardin, B. M. Vilensky, and P. K. Khristova, Calculation of the Higgs boson decay width into fermion pairs , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 53 (1991) 152–158

    1991

  57. [62]

    Dabelstein and W

    A. Dabelstein and W. Hollik, Electroweak corrections to the fermionic decay width of the standard Higgs boson , Z. Phys. C 53 (1992) 507–516

    1992

  58. [63]

    B. A. Kniehl, Radiative corrections for H → f ¯f (γ) in the standard model , Nucl. Phys. B 376 (1992) 3–28

    1992

  59. [64]

    Aglietti, R

    U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi, and A. Vicini, Two loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays , Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 432–441, [ hep-ph/0404071]

    2004 arXiv

  60. [65]

    Degrassi and F

    G. Degrassi and F. Maltoni, Two-loop electroweak corrections to Higgs production at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B 600 (2004) 255–260, [ hep-ph/0407249]. – 21 –

    2004 arXiv

  61. [66]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm, and S. Uccirati, NLO Electroweak Corrections to Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders , Phys. Lett. B 670 (2008) 12–17, [arXiv:0809.1301]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [67]

    Aglietti, R

    U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi, and A. Vicini, Master integrals for the two-loop light fermion contributions to gg → H and H → γγ , Phys. Lett. B 600 (2004) 57–64, [hep-ph/0407162]

    2004 arXiv

  63. [68]

    Mondini, M

    R. Mondini, M. Schiavi, and C. Williams, N3LO predictions for the decay of the Higgs boson to bottom quarks , JHEP 06 (2019) 079, [ arXiv:1904.08960]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [69]

    E. Fox, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, M. Marcoli, and C. T. Preuss, Jet Rates in Higgs Boson Decay at Third Order in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 251905, [arXiv:2502.17333]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [70]

    R. W. L. Jones, M. Ford, G. P. Salam, H. Stenzel, and D. Wicke, Theoretical uncertainties on αs from event shape variables in e+e− annihilations, JHEP 12 (2003) 007, [hep-ph/0312016]

    2003 arXiv

  66. [71]

    Coloretti, A

    G. Coloretti, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, and C. T. Preuss, QCD predictions for event-shape distributions in hadronic Higgs decays , JHEP 06 (2022) 009, [ arXiv:2202.07333]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [72]

    J. Gao, V. Shtabovenko, and T.-Z. Yang, Energy-energy correlation in hadronic Higgs decays: analytic results and phenomenology at NLO , JHEP 02 (2021) 210, [arXiv:2012.14188]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [73]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, C

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, C. T. Preuss, and C. Williams, Four-jet event shapes in hadronic Higgs decays, JHEP 03 (2024) 104, [ arXiv:2310.09354]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [74]

    Campillo Aveleira, A

    B. Campillo Aveleira, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, and C. T. Preuss, A comparative study of flavour-sensitive observables in hadronic Higgs decays , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 789, [arXiv:2402.17379]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [75]

    Braun-White, N

    O. Braun-White, N. Glover, and C. T. Preuss, A general algorithm to build real-radiation antenna functions for higher-order calculations , JHEP 06 (2023) 065, [ arXiv:2302.12787]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [76]

    Braun-White, N

    O. Braun-White, N. Glover, and C. T. Preuss, A general algorithm to build mixed real and virtual antenna functions for higher-order calculations , JHEP 11 (2023) 179, [arXiv:2307.14999]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [78]

    Huss et al., NNLOJET: a parton-level event generator for jet cross sections at NNLO QCD accuracy , arXiv:2503.22804

    NNLOJET Collaboration, A. Huss et al., NNLOJET: a parton-level event generator for jet cross sections at NNLO QCD accuracy , arXiv:2503.22804

    arXiv

  73. [79]

    Brandt, C

    S. Brandt, C. Peyrou, R. Sosnowski, and A. Wroblewski, The Principal axis of jets. An Attempt to analyze high-energy collisions as two-body processes , Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 57–61

    1964

  74. [80]

    Farhi, A QCD Test for Jets , Phys

    E. Farhi, A QCD Test for Jets , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 1587–1588

    1977

  75. [81]

    Clavelli and D

    L. Clavelli and D. Wyler, Kinematical Bounds on Jet Variables and the Heavy Jet Mass Distribution, Phys. Lett. B 103 (1981) 383–387. – 22 –

    1981

  76. [82]

    Parisi, Super Inclusive Cross-Sections, Phys

    G. Parisi, Super Inclusive Cross-Sections, Phys. Lett. B 74 (1978) 65–67

    1978

  77. [83]

    J. F. Donoghue, F. E. Low, and S.-Y. Pi, Tensor Analysis of Hadronic Jets in Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 2759

    1979

  78. [84]

    P. E. L. Rakow and B. R. Webber, Transverse Momentum Moments of Hadron Distributions in QCD Jets , Nucl. Phys. B 191 (1981) 63–74

    1981

  79. [85]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, New clustering algorithm for multi-jet cross-sections in e+e− annihilation, Phys. Lett. B 269 (1991) 432–438

    1991

  80. [86]

    Marzani, D

    S. Marzani, D. Reichelt, S. Schumann, G. Soyez, and V. Theeuwes, Fitting the Strong Coupling Constant with Soft-Drop Thrust , JHEP 11 (2019) 179, [ arXiv:1906.10504]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [87]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin, and T. van Ritbergen, The four loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass , Phys. Lett. B 405 (1997) 327–333, [hep-ph/9703284]

    1997 arXiv

  82. [88]

    Del Duca, A

    V. Del Duca, A. Frizzo, and F. Maltoni, Higgs boson production in association with three jets, JHEP 05 (2004) 064, [ hep-ph/0404013]

    2004 arXiv

  83. [89]

    Anastasiou, F

    C. Anastasiou, F. Herzog, and A. Lazopoulos, The fully differential decay rate of a Higgs boson to bottom-quarks at NNLO in QCD , JHEP 03 (2012) 035, [ arXiv:1110.2368]

    2012 arXiv

  84. [90]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, G. Somogyi, F. Tramontano, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi,Higgs boson decay into b-quarks at NNLO accuracy , JHEP 04 (2015) 036, [ arXiv:1501.07226]

    2015 arXiv

  85. [92]

    L. J. Dixon and Y. Sofianatos, Analytic one-loop amplitudes for a Higgs boson plus four partons, JHEP 08 (2009) 058, [ arXiv:0906.0008]

    2009 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Badger, E

    S. Badger, E. W. Nigel Glover, P. Mastrolia, and C. Williams, One-loop Higgs plus four gluon amplitudes: Full analytic results , JHEP 01 (2010) 036, [ arXiv:0909.4475]

    2010 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Badger, J

    S. Badger, J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, Analytic results for the one-loop NMHV Hqqgg amplitude , JHEP 12 (2009) 035, [ arXiv:0910.4481]

    2009 arXiv

  88. [96]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and M. Jaquier, Precise QCD predictions for the production of Higgs + jet final states , Phys. Lett. B 740 (2015) 147–150, [arXiv:1408.5325]

    2015 arXiv

  89. [97]

    X. Chen, J. Cruz-Martinez, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and M. Jaquier, NNLO QCD corrections to Higgs boson production at large transverse momentum , JHEP 10 (2016) 066, [arXiv:1607.08817]. – 23 –

    2016 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Ahmed, M

    T. Ahmed, M. Mahakhud, P. Mathews, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, Two-loop QCD corrections to Higgs → b + b + g amplitude, JHEP 08 (2014) 075, [ arXiv:1405.2324]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and E. W. N. Glover, Antenna subtraction at NNLO, JHEP 09 (2005) 056, [ hep-ph/0505111]

    2005 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Currie, E

    J. Currie, E. W. N. Glover, and S. Wells, Infrared Structure at NNLO Using Antenna Subtraction, JHEP 04 (2013) 066, [ arXiv:1301.4693]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4

    LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking GroupCollaboration, D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector , arXiv:1610.07922

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Brown and W

    N. Brown and W. J. Stirling, Jet cross-sections at leading double logarithm in e+e− annihilation, Phys. Lett. B 252 (1990) 657–662

    1990

  95. [103]

    Brown and W

    N. Brown and W. J. Stirling, Finding jets and summing soft gluons: A New algorithm , Z. Phys. C 53 (1992) 629–636

    1992

  96. [104]

    W. J. Stirling, Hard QCD working group: Theory summary , J. Phys. G 17 (1991) 1567–1574

    1991

  97. [105]

    Bethke, Z

    S. Bethke, Z. Kunszt, D. E. Soper, and W. J. Stirling, New jet cluster algorithms: Next-to-leading order QCD and hadronization corrections , Nucl. Phys. B 370 (1992) 310–334. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 523, 681–681 (1998)]

    1992

  98. [106]

    Catani, G

    S. Catani, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, Jet broadening measures in e+e− annihilation, Phys. Lett. B 295 (1992) 269–276

    1992

  99. [107]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Soft Drop, JHEP 05 (2014) 146, [arXiv:1402.2657]

    2014 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, Better jet clustering algorithms, JHEP 08 (1997) 001, [ hep-ph/9707323]

    1997 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Wobisch and T

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering, in Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics (Plenary Starting Meeting), pp. 270–279, 4, 1998. hep-ph/9907280

    1998 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Baron, S

    J. Baron, S. Marzani, and V. Theeuwes, Soft-Drop Thrust, JHEP 08 (2018) 105, [arXiv:1803.04719]. [Erratum: JHEP 05, 056 (2019)]

    2018 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Spira, QCD effects in Higgs physics , Fortsch

    M. Spira, QCD effects in Higgs physics , Fortsch. Phys. 46 (1998) 203–284, [hep-ph/9705337]

    1998 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Catani and B

    S. Catani and B. R. Webber, Infrared safe but infinite: Soft gluon divergences inside the physical region, JHEP 10 (1997) 005, [ hep-ph/9710333]. – 24 –

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.