pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11083 · v1 · pith:CGA4VDSMnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Matrix element method at NLO: A fine proof of concept in POWHEG

Ulrich Haisch , Jakob Linder , Luc Schnell , Marius Wiesemann , Giulia Zanderighi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 12:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords matrix element methodnext-to-leading orderPOWHEGWW productioneffective field theorybeyond standard modeltriple gauge couplingslepton correlations
0
0 comments X

The pith

The matrix element method can be extended to NLO in QCD by projecting real-emission events onto Born kinematics inside the POWHEG framework.

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

The paper establishes a practical way to carry the matrix element method to next-to-leading order by borrowing the event mappings already present in POWHEG. Real-emission events are folded back onto the Born-level phase space so that the hardest QCD radiation is retained while the overall normalization stays accurate at NLO. The approach is tested on fully leptonic WW production in an effective field theory that includes a CP-even dimension-six operator modifying triple-gauge couplings. The resulting NLO matrix-element weights exploit lepton spin and polarization correlations to separate standard-model from beyond-standard-model events. A reader would care because the method supplies a statistically optimal way to test subtle new-physics effects once higher-order QCD corrections matter.

Core claim

By projecting real-emission events onto Born kinematics via the mappings inherited from the tilde B(Phi) function, the matrix element method reaches NLO accuracy in QCD, consistently includes the hardest radiation, and preserves the correct NLO normalization; when applied to WW production in the presence of a CP-even dimension-six triple-gauge operator, the NLO implementation functions as a near-optimal classifier that uses spin- and polarization-dependent lepton correlations to discriminate beyond-the-SM from SM events.

What carries the argument

The projection of real-emission events onto Born kinematics using the mappings from the tilde B(Phi) function in POWHEG, which folds in the hardest QCD emission while maintaining NLO normalization for the matrix-element weights.

If this is right

  • The NLO MEM acts as a near-optimal classifier that exploits lepton spin and polarization correlations to separate BSM from SM events.
  • The method retains NLO-accurate normalization while incorporating the hardest QCD radiation through the inherited POWHEG mappings.
  • The approach opens a route to precision studies of electroweak processes that include subtle beyond-the-SM effects at next-to-leading order.
  • The same projection technique can be applied to other processes where infrared divergences and extra partons complicate the matrix element method.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The technique may improve sensitivity in global fits of effective field theory operators once NLO QCD corrections are required for background modeling.
  • Similar projections could be explored in processes with more complex color structures or additional jets to test how far the method generalizes.
  • The near-optimal classification property suggests that experimental analyses could adopt these weights directly for event-by-event hypothesis testing rather than binned likelihoods.

Load-bearing premise

That folding real-emission events back onto Born kinematics with the POWHEG mappings always captures the hardest QCD radiation without spoiling the NLO normalization.

What would settle it

A direct comparison, in the same Monte Carlo samples of WW events, of the area under the ROC curve obtained with the NLO MEM weights versus the leading-order MEM weights when the dimension-six operator is present.

read the original abstract

The matrix element method (MEM) provides a fully probabilistic approach to confront experimental events with theory, retaining all correlations in the scattering matrix element. While leading-order MEM is widely used and automated, extending it to next-to-leading order (NLO) in QCD is challenging due to infrared divergences, negative weights, extra final-state partons, and multi-dimensional phase-space integration. We demonstrate that the POWHEG method offers a practical path to MEM at NLO accuracy. By projecting real-emission events onto Born kinematics via the mappings inherited from the $\tilde{B} (\Phi)$ function, our method consistently includes the hardest QCD radiation while preserving the NLO-accurate normalization. As a proof of concept, we apply it to fully leptonic $W^+ W^-$ production in the Standard Model (SM) effective field theory, focusing on a CP-even dimension-six triple-gauge-boson operator. Our NLO MEM implementation acts as a near-optimal classifier, exploiting spin- and polarization-dependent correlations among the final-state leptons to efficiently distinguish beyond-the-SM (BSM) from SM events. This demonstrates the potential of MEM at NLO for precision studies of electroweak processes and subtle BSM effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a method to perform the matrix element method (MEM) at next-to-leading order (NLO) accuracy in QCD by leveraging the POWHEG framework. Specifically, real-emission events are projected onto Born kinematics using mappings from the ilde{B}(\Phi) function, allowing inclusion of the hardest QCD radiation while maintaining NLO normalization. As a proof of concept, the method is applied to fully leptonic W^+W^- production in the Standard Model effective field theory with a CP-even dimension-six operator, claiming that the NLO MEM serves as a near-optimal classifier by exploiting spin- and polarization-dependent lepton correlations to distinguish beyond-the-Standard-Model events from Standard Model ones.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this work would represent a significant advance by providing a practical implementation of NLO-accurate MEM, addressing challenges like infrared divergences and extra partons. The reliance on established POWHEG infrastructure is a strength that could facilitate adoption and reproducibility in precision electroweak studies and BSM searches at the LHC.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the NLO MEM 'acts as a near-optimal classifier' lacks any supporting quantitative evidence such as classification metrics, ROC curves, or comparisons to LO MEM. This is load-bearing for the central claim of efficient BSM discrimination.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of the projection via \tilde{B}(\Phi) mappings states that it 'consistently includes the hardest QCD radiation while preserving the NLO-accurate normalization,' but does not address whether these mappings (which involve boosts and rescalings) preserve the differential lepton kinematics and angular correlations in the WW rest frame at the precision required for polarization-dependent observables. This directly impacts the validity of exploiting spin correlations for the classifier.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would benefit from a brief mention of the specific process and operator considered to provide context for the proof of concept.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below, proposing targeted revisions to the abstract and methods to strengthen the presentation while preserving the proof-of-concept nature of the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the NLO MEM 'acts as a near-optimal classifier' lacks any supporting quantitative evidence such as classification metrics, ROC curves, or comparisons to LO MEM. This is load-bearing for the central claim of efficient BSM discrimination.

    Authors: The manuscript demonstrates the classification improvement through explicit comparisons of NLO versus LO likelihood ratios and lepton angular distributions in the results section, showing enhanced separation for the SMEFT operator. However, we agree that the abstract would benefit from referencing these quantitative aspects more explicitly. We will revise the abstract to note the observed improvement in discrimination power and add ROC-curve comparisons (and LO versus NLO metrics) to the results section in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The description of the projection via \tilde{B}(\Phi) mappings states that it 'consistently includes the hardest QCD radiation while preserving the NLO-accurate normalization,' but does not address whether these mappings (which involve boosts and rescalings) preserve the differential lepton kinematics and angular correlations in the WW rest frame at the precision required for polarization-dependent observables. This directly impacts the validity of exploiting spin correlations for the classifier.

    Authors: The POWHEG mappings are defined to leave the Born-level four-momenta of the W bosons (and therefore the lepton momenta in the WW rest frame) unchanged; only the additional QCD radiation is accounted for via the projection. Consequently, the lepton angular correlations that encode polarization and spin information remain exactly those of the underlying Born configuration. We will insert a short clarifying paragraph in the methods section explaining this preservation of lepton observables under the ilde{B}(\Phi) mappings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the NLO MEM extension via POWHEG.

full rationale

The paper presents a methodological extension of the established POWHEG framework to implement MEM at NLO, with the central claim (near-optimal classification via lepton spin correlations) offered as a proof-of-concept demonstration rather than a quantity derived by construction. The projection step via mappings from the tilde{B}(Phi) function is described as inheriting from external POWHEG infrastructure and is not reduced to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain within the provided text. No steps match the enumerated circularity patterns; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on abstract; work rests on standard perturbative QCD and SMEFT frameworks without new free parameters or entities introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Validity of POWHEG mappings from the \tilde{B}(\Phi) function for event projection at NLO.
    Invoked as the mechanism to include hardest radiation while preserving normalization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5758 in / 1384 out tokens · 41325 ms · 2026-06-27T12:34:55.739750+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 85 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Kondo, J

    K. Kondo, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.57, 4126 (1988)

    1988

  2. [2]

    Kondo, J

    K. Kondo, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.60, 836 (1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    R. H. Dalitz and G. R. Goldstein, Phys. Rev. D45, 1531 (1992)

    1992

  4. [4]

    R. H. Dalitz and G. R. Goldstein, Phys. Lett. B287, 225 (1992)

    1992

  5. [5]

    Kondo, T

    K. Kondo, T. Chikamatsu, and S. H. Kim, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.62, 1177 (1993)

    1993

  6. [6]

    Fiedler, A

    F. Fiedler, A. Grohsjean, P. Haefner, and P. Schieferdecker, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A624, 203 (2010), arXiv:1003.1316 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Matrix element method in hep: Transfer functions, efficiencies, and likelihood normalization,

    I. Volobouev, “Matrix element method in hep: Transfer functions, efficiencies, and likelihood normalization,” (2011), arXiv:1101.2259 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    J. S. Gainer, J. Lykken, K. T. Matchev, S. Mrenna, and M. Park, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013) arXiv:1307.3546 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Albertssonet al., J

    K. Albertssonet al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1085, 022008 (2018), arXiv:1807.02876 [physics.comp-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Phys. Lett. B617, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0404040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Nature429, 638 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0406031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    Abulenciaet al.(CDF), Phys

    A. Abulenciaet al.(CDF), Phys. Rev. D74, 032009 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0605118

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [13]

    V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Phys. Rev. D74, 092005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0609053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  14. [14]

    Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys

    T. Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 101802 (2009), arXiv:0906.5613 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys

    T. Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys. Rev. D80, 071101 (2009), arXiv:0908.3534 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys

    T. Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252001 (2010), arXiv:1010.4582 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 032001 (2011), arXiv:1104.5194 [hep-ex]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Phys. Rev. D84, 032004 (2011), arXiv:1105.6287 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys

    T. Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys. Rev. D84, 071105 (2011), arXiv:1108.1601 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [20]

    Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys

    T. Aaltonenet al.(CDF), Phys. Rev. D85, 072001 (2012), arXiv:1112.4358 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    V. M. Abazovet al.(D0), Phys. Rev. D94, 032004 (2016), arXiv:1606.02814 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D89, 092007 (2014), arXiv:1312.5353 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B736, 64 (2014), arXiv:1405.3455 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D90, 052004 (2014), arXiv:1406.3827 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D91, 012006 (2015), arXiv:1408.5191 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D92, 012004 (2015), arXiv:1411.3441 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Eur

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C75, 251 (2015), arXiv:1502.02485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C75, 349 (2015), arXiv:1503.05066 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B756, 228 (2016), arXiv:1511.05980 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B758, 321 (2016), arXiv:1511.06170 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP11, 047 (2017), arXiv:1706.09936 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP08, 066 (2018), arXiv:1803.05485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D99, 112003 (2019), arXiv:1901.00174 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 061801 (2020), arXiv:2003.10866 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Rept

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 057803 (2025), arXiv:2412.01548 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Rept

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 067801 (2025), arXiv:2412.01600 [physics.data-an]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Y. Gao, A. V. Gritsan, Z. Guo, K. Melnikov, M. Schulze, and N. V. Tran, Phys. Rev. D 81, 075022 (2010), arXiv:1001.3396 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Bolognesi, Y

    S. Bolognesi, Y. Gao, A. V. Gritsan, K. Melnikov, M. Schulze, N. V. Tran, and A. Whitbeck, Phys. Rev. D86, 095031 (2012), arXiv:1208.4018 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    J. R. Andersen, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D87, 015019 (2013), arXiv:1211.3011 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Freitas and J

    A. Freitas and J. S. Gainer, Phys. Rev. D88, 017302 (2013), arXiv:1212.3598 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Artoisenet, P

    P. Artoisenet, P. de Aquino, F. Maltoni, and O. Mattelaer, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 091802 (2013), arXiv:1304.6414 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Andersonet al., Phys

    I. Andersonet al., Phys. Rev. D89, 035007 (2014), arXiv:1309.4819 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, JHEP04, 060 (2014), arXiv:1311.3589 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Schouten, A

    D. Schouten, A. DeAbreu, and B. Stelzer, Comput. Phys. Commun.192, 54 (2015), arXiv:1407.7595 [physics.comp-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    A. V. Gritsan, R. Röntsch, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D94, 055023 (2016), arXiv:1606.03107 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Elahi and A

    F. Elahi and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D96, 015021 (2017), arXiv:1705.02563 [hep-ph]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Betancur, D

    A. Betancur, D. Debnath, J. S. Gainer, K. T. Matchev, and P. Shyamsundar, Phys. Rev. D 99, 116007 (2019), arXiv:1708.07641 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    A. V. Gritsan, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Schulze, M. Xiao, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D102, 056022 (2020), arXiv:2002.09888 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Bahl and S

    H. Bahl and S. Brass, JHEP03, 017 (2022), arXiv:2110.10177 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Haisch and G

    U. Haisch and G. Koole, JHEP02, 030 (2022), arXiv:2111.12589 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Haisch and G

    U. Haisch and G. Koole, JHEP04, 166 (2022), arXiv:2201.09711 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Butter, T

    A. Butter, T. Heimel, T. Martini, S. Peitzsch, and T. Plehn, SciPost Phys.15, 094 (2023), arXiv:2210.00019 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Heimel, N

    T. Heimel, N. Huetsch, R. Winterhalder, T. Plehn, and A. Butter, SciPost Phys.17, 129 (2024), arXiv:2310.07752 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Balzani, R

    E. Balzani, R. Gröber, and M. Vitti, JHEP10, 027 (2023), arXiv:2304.09772 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Haisch, M

    U. Haisch, M. Ruhdorfer, K. Schmid, and A. Weiler, SciPost Phys.16, 112 (2024), arXiv:2311.03995 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Mastandrea, B

    R. Mastandrea, B. Nachman, and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D110, 056004 (2024), arXiv:2405.15847 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Ghosh, M

    A. Ghosh, M. Griese, U. Haisch, and T. H. Park, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 415 (2026), arXiv:2507.02032 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Silva, R

    M. Silva, R. Barrué, I. Ochoa, and P. Conde Muíño, Phys. Rev. D113, 056011 (2026), arXiv:2509.03307 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    H. Bahl, T. Plehn, and N. Schmal, (2025), arXiv:2509.05409 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Artoisenet and O

    P. Artoisenet and O. Mattelaer, PoSCHARGED2008, 025 (2008)

    2008

  61. [61]

    Artoisenet, V

    P. Artoisenet, V. Lemaitre, F. Maltoni, and O. Mattelaer, JHEP12, 068 (2010), arXiv:1007.3300 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    Brochet, C

    S. Brochet, C. Delaere, B. François, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, and S. Wertz, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 126 (2019), arXiv:1805.08555 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Alwall, A

    J. Alwall, A. Freitas, and O. Mattelaer, Phys. Rev. D83, 074010 (2011), arXiv:1010.2263 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    J. M. Campbell, W. T. Giele, and C. Williams, JHEP11, 043 (2012), arXiv:1204.4424 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    J. M. Campbell, W. T. Giele, and C. Williams, in47th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions(2012) pp. 319–322, arXiv:1205.3434 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [66]

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, W. T. Giele, and C. Williams, Phys. Rev. D87, 073005 (2013), arXiv:1301.7086 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [67]

    Martini and P

    T. Martini and P. Uwer, JHEP09, 083 (2015), arXiv:1506.08798 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  68. [68]

    Baumeister and S

    R. Baumeister and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. D95, 036019 (2017), arXiv:1612.07252 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    Kraus, T

    M. Kraus, T. Martini, and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D100, 076010 (2019), arXiv:1901.08008 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    Kraus, T

    M. Kraus, T. Martini, S. Peitzsch, and P. Uwer, (2019), arXiv:1908.09100 [hep-ph]. – 39 –

    arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    Martini, T

    T. Martini, T. Nuraliyev, and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D107, 076013 (2023), arXiv:2301.03280 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Tartarin,Contribution to the study of the Higgs boson self-coupling in theb ¯bγγchannel using the matrix element method at NLO with the ATLAS experiment at LHC, CERN, Ph.D

    M. Tartarin,Contribution to the study of the Higgs boson self-coupling in theb ¯bγγchannel using the matrix element method at NLO with the ATLAS experiment at LHC, CERN, Ph.D. thesis (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    Tartarin and J

    M. Tartarin and J. Stark, PoSEPS-HEP2025, 363 (2026), arXiv:2602.02303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Nason, JHEP11, 040 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    P. Nason, JHEP11, 040 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  75. [75]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, JHEP11, 070 (2007), arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, JHEP06, 043 (2010), arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  77. [77]

    Buchmüller and D

    W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  78. [78]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  79. [79]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rept.793, 1 (2019), arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 015006 (2024), arXiv:2303.16922 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.