Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Photon-fusion WW production supplies the leading bosonic dimension-8 effects and a practical test of EFT validity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 20:36 UTC pith:NMTB6TNT

load-bearing objection Solid, usable SMEFT paper: γγ bosonic dim-8 dominates qq and gives a practical bin-by-bin validity cut; the fermionic omission is flagged and does not break the result inside its stated scope. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04251 v1 pith:NMTB6TNT submitted 2026-07-05 hep-ph hep-ex

Anomalous triple gauge couplings in the light of dimension-8 operators in W^+W^-

Daniel Gillies , Andrea Banfi , Adam Martin This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords SMEFTdimension-8 operatorsanomalous triple gauge couplingsWW productionphoton fusionjet vetoEFT validityHL-LHC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper shows that, once only bosonic higher-dimensional operators are kept, the photon-photon initial state dominates the dimension-8 contribution to W-pair production at the LHC. Those operators generate both anomalous triple and quadruple gauge couplings, and the photon channel grows much faster with energy than the usual quark-antiquark channel. By comparing the squared dimension-6 and dimension-8 pieces bin-by-bin in the dilepton mass, the authors obtain a concrete lower bound on the new-physics scale that must be respected if the Effective Field Theory is to remain valid. They then translate that validity cut into limits on the four bosonic dimension-6 Wilson coefficients, first from existing ATLAS data and then as projected sensitivity at the High-Luminosity LHC, carefully folding in jet-veto resummation, electroweak Sudakov uncertainties, and experimental systematics.

Core claim

When fermionic dimension-8 operators are neglected, the γγ channel supplies the dominant bosonic dimension-8 contribution to WW production. Comparing its squared amplitude with the leading dimension-6 squared amplitude therefore yields a practical, bin-by-bin diagnostic of EFT validity that can be used to place controlled constraints on the bosonic dimension-6 Wilson coefficients.

What carries the argument

The matching of bosonic dimension-6 and dimension-8 operators onto the anomalous triple-gauge-coupling Lagrangian of MCFM-RE (and the corresponding scale choice µ_F = p_T,veto in MadGraph for the photon channel), which allows NLL jet-veto resummation and a direct numerical comparison of dim-6 versus dim-8 squared contributions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis assumes a universal (purely bosonic) EFT and simply drops all fermionic dimension-8 operators that would generate qqWW contact terms.

What would settle it

A dedicated calculation of the leading fermionic dimension-8 operators that generate qqWW contact interactions, showing that their squared contribution already exceeds the γγ dimension-8 piece inside the bins used for the present fits.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any fit that uses only the quark-initiated channel will underestimate the size of bosonic dimension-8 effects and therefore quote overly optimistic validity ranges.
  • Jet-veto resummation for both quark and photon channels must be performed consistently if high-energy tails are to be used for EFT constraints.
  • Projected HL-LHC limits on the four bosonic Wilson coefficients are weaker once the validity cut is enforced, and become limited by electroweak Sudakov uncertainties above a few TeV.
  • Photon-induced WW (and other diboson) measurements should be retained in global SMEFT analyses even though they are sub-dominant in the Standard Model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same γγ diagnostic can be applied immediately to WZ and ZZ production, where photon-fusion contributions are also present and grow with energy.
  • Once mixed QCD-electroweak corrections are resummed, the high-mass bins that currently drop out of the validity cut may re-enter the fit and tighten the projected HL-LHC bounds.
  • If fermionic dimension-8 operators turn out to be comparable to the bosonic γγ piece, the entire hierarchy used to define Λ_min will have to be rebuilt from a complete operator basis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies bosonic dimension-6 and dimension-8 SMEFT operators that generate anomalous triple and quadruple gauge couplings in fully leptonic W^{+}W^{-} production at the LHC. It matches the operators that affect the q q-bar channel to the aTGC Lagrangian of MCFM-RE (Appendix A, eqs. 2.3), enabling NLL jet-veto resummation, while the γγ channel is treated in MadGraph with the factorisation scale fixed to the jet-veto scale. The central claim is that, once fermionic dimension-8 operators are neglected, the γγ-initiated bosonic dimension-8 contributions dominate their q q-bar counterparts and grow rapidly enough to furnish a practical, bin-by-bin diagnostic of EFT validity (Λ_min defined by requiring dim-6 squared > dim-8 squared). Using this cut, the authors extract constraints on the four bosonic dimension-6 Wilson coefficients from 36.1 fb⁻¹ ATLAS data and present HL-LHC sensitivity projections that incorporate QCD, EW and systematic uncertainties.

Significance. If the hierarchy holds within the stated universal-EFT scope, the work supplies a concrete, publicly reproducible method for deciding which M_eμ bins may be retained in aTGCs/SMEFT fits of WW data. The matching dictionary, the μ_F = p_T,veto prescription for photon-initiated processes, and the explicit profiling of additive versus multiplicative EW schemes are immediately usable by other groups. The multivariate (c_i, Λ) constraints and the demonstration that jet-veto effects do not dramatically alter the BSM/SM ratio for these operators are useful inputs for HL-LHC projections and for global SMEFT fits that currently treat the photon channel as negligible.

major comments (2)
  1. Introduction and §4.1: the entire validity diagnostic and the resulting constraints rest on the explicit neglect of fermionic dimension-8 operators that generate qqWW contact interactions. The paper acknowledges that these operators “do likely grow with energy” and that their size is “beyond the scope of this work.” Because they can alter both the dimension-8 background and the extracted Λ_min, the claim that the γγ channel “can be used to understand the range of validity of the EFT” is strictly limited to universal theories. The abstract and conclusions should state this restriction more prominently, and a short estimate (or reference to existing literature) of the possible size of the leading fermionic dim-8 interference would strengthen the central claim.
  2. §4.1, eq. (4.1) and Fig. 12: Λ_min is defined by comparing the single largest dim-6 squared operator (O_WWW) with the single largest dim-8 squared operator (O_8BBWW3) in the γγ channel. While this is a transparent and conservative choice within the bosonic sector, it is not a complete basis comparison; different Lorentz structures or relative signs among the twenty dim-8 operators could shift the ratio. A brief robustness check (e.g., summing all dim-8 squared contributions in quadrature or scanning a few representative linear combinations) would make the bin-by-bin cut more convincing.
minor comments (5)
  1. Table 2: O_8D2H2X24 and O_8D2H2X28 are listed as “No contribution”; a one-sentence explanation of why they vanish at LO would help the reader.
  2. Fig. 6 and Fig. 8: absolute values of interference terms produce artificial discontinuities; a short note in the caption would avoid confusion.
  3. §3.2 and Fig. 4: the improved LO–NLO convergence when μ_F = p_T,veto is clear, but the residual scale uncertainty after this choice is not quantified; a brief statement would be useful.
  4. Appendix C: the 140 fb⁻¹ extrapolation without EFT validity is presented only for comparison with ATLAS; the caption should reiterate that these numbers are not to be used as physical constraints.
  5. Typos: “logaritms”, “peturbative”, “na¨ıve”, “coeffiecients”, “symmmetry” appear in the text and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citations supply the SM baseline and the prior EFT-validity methodology; the new γγ-vs-qq dim-8 hierarchy and the validity-aware Wilson-coefficient constraints are independently computed from public codes and external ATLAS data.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.1 (and Intro. reference to [32])]
    "This follows from the discussion in our previous paper [31]. The method we use involves the comparison of dimension-6 and dimension-8 squared contributions in order to establish the regime of EFT stability. … In a previous letter [32], we showed that enforcing a cut of M_WW < Λ only on the EFT simulation is not sufficient…"

    The concrete numerical recipe for Λ_min (eq. 4.1) and the SM prediction used as the null hypothesis are imported from the authors’ own prior papers rather than re-derived or externally re-validated inside this manuscript. The citations are not uniqueness theorems and do not force the new γγ-dominance hierarchy or the Wilson-coefficient bounds, so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper’s central results—the relative size of bosonic dim-8 contributions in the γγ versus qq channels, the resulting bin-by-bin Λ_min diagnostic, and the χ²/MCMC constraints on the four dim-6 Wilson coefficients—are obtained by explicit matching of operators to aTGCs (Appendix A), NLL/LO Monte-Carlo evaluation with MCFM-RE and MadGraph (μ_F = p_T,veto), and direct comparison of squared matrix elements (eq. 4.1 and Figs. 8–12). These steps do not reduce by construction to any fitted input or self-defined quantity. The only self-citations that appear are (i) the SM NNLL+NNLO+EW baseline taken from the authors’ earlier work [31] and (ii) the general idea of comparing dim-6 versus dim-8 squared contributions, first explored in their letter [32]. Both are used as reusable infrastructure, not as uniqueness theorems or load-bearing premises that force the present conclusions. Wilson coefficients remain free parameters fitted to external ATLAS data (or to SM pseudo-data for HL-LHC projections). No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or ansatz smuggling is present. Score 2 therefore reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations; the derivation chain itself is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the SMEFT power counting, the restriction to bosonic operators, standard Monte-Carlo tools, and a set of conventional electroweak and PDF inputs. No new particles or forces are postulated; the free parameters are the Wilson coefficients themselves, which are fitted rather than predicted.

free parameters (2)
  • Wilson coefficients c_i (c_HW, c_HB, c_HWB, c_WWW and their dim-8 analogues)
    Fitted to data or scanned; the paper never claims to predict their values from a UV model.
  • New-physics scale Λ
    Scanned over discrete values (1,2,4,8 TeV); each choice selects a different set of valid bins.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption SMEFT is a valid expansion in powers of energy/Λ up to the scale where dim-8 squared exceeds dim-6 squared
    Used throughout Sections 1 and 4.1 to define the bin-by-bin validity cut.
  • ad hoc to paper Only bosonic (universal) operators need be retained; fermionic dim-8 operators can be neglected
    Stated explicitly in the Introduction and Section 4.1; the claim about γγ dominance holds only under this restriction.
  • domain assumption Jet-veto logarithms in the colour-singlet γγ channel are fully captured by setting μ_F = p_T,veto
    Section 3.2; justified by collinear factorisation but not proven to all orders for the BSM amplitudes.
  • domain assumption Multiplicative combination of NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections adequately estimates missing mixed terms
    Section 3.1 and Appendix B; the difference between additive and multiplicative schemes is taken as the uncertainty.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 39632 in / 2712 out tokens · 29931 ms · 2026-07-11T20:36:43.703618+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compare the size of dimension-8 effects on $W^+W^-$ production at the LHC arising from the $q\bar q$ and $\gamma\gamma$ initial states. In particular, we consider bosonic operators, which contribute to the anomalous triple and quadruple gauge couplings. The relevant dimension-6 and dimension-8 operators are matched to the anomalous triple gauge couplings that contribute to the $q\bar q$ channel, allowing for the resummation of large logarithmic contributions arising in the presence of a jet-veto through the program MCFM-RE. For the $\gamma\gamma$ channel, which receives contributions from both triple and quadruple gauge couplings, such resummation can be performed through the program MadGraph, by simply setting the factorisation scale to the jet-veto scale. We find that, when neglecting fermionic dimension-8 operators, the $\gamma\gamma$ channel has a dominant bosonic dimension-8 contribution and this channel can be used to understand the range of validity of the Effective Field Theory. With this in mind, and carefully considering theoretical and experimental uncertainties, we provide constraints on higher dimensional operators using current and future data.

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

51 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Grazzini, S

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, S. Pozzorini, D. Rathlev and M. Wiesemann,W +W − production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD, JHEP08(2016) 140, [1605.02716]. [2]ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweakcollaboration, S. Schael et al.,Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP,Phys. Re...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Corbett, O

    T. Corbett, O. J. P. Eboli, J. Gonzalez-Fraile and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia,Robust Determination of the Higgs Couplings: Power to the Data,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 015022, [1211.4580]. [4]ALEPH, CDF, D0, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak, Heavy Flavour Groupscollaboration,Precision Electrowe...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Villa,Gauge boson couplings at LEP,Nucl

    S. Villa,Gauge boson couplings at LEP,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.142(2005) 391–396, [hep-ph/0410208]. [8]OPALcollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Measurement of triple gauge boson couplings fromW +W − production at LEP energies up to 189-GeV,Eur. Phys. J. C 19(2001) 1–14, [hep-ex/0009022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Ellis, H.-J

    J. Ellis, H.-J. He, R.-Q. Xiao and S.-P. Zeng,Probing Neutral Triple Gauge Couplings viaZZProduction ate +e− Colliders with Machine Learning, 2506.21433

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    K. Mimasu,New insights on testing neutral triple gauge couplings and their CP properties at future electron-positron colliders,Science China Physics, Mechanics &amp; Astronomy68(2025) 121063

    2025

  6. [6]

    Guo, M.-Q

    Y.-C. Guo, M.-Q. Ruan, J.-C. Yang and C.-J. Pan,Search for neutral triple gauge couplings with ZZ production at future electron-positron colliders,Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) 035033, [2411.04804]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Ellis, H.-J

    J. Ellis, H.-J. He and R.-Q. Xiao,Probing CP-violating neutral triple gauge couplings at electron-positron colliders,Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68(2025) 121062, [2504.13135]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Rahaman and R

    R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh,On polarization parameters of spin-1 particles and anomalous couplings ine +e− →ZZ/Zγ,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 539, [1604.06677]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    El Faham, G

    H. El Faham, G. Ventura and E. Vryonidou,Diboson production in the SMEFT at dimension-8,2511.04338

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    El Faham, G

    H. El Faham, G. Pelliccioli and E. Vryonidou,Triple-gauge couplings in LHC diboson production: a SMEFT view from every angle,JHEP08(2024) 087, [2405.19083]

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Butter, O

    A. Butter, O. J. P. ´Eboli, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, T. Plehn and – 44 – M. Rauch,The Gauge-Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I,JHEP07(2016) 152, [1604.03105]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    D. R. Green, P. Meade and M.-A. Pleier,Multiboson interactions at the LHC,Rev. Mod. Phys.89(2017) 035008, [1610.07572]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Zhang,Time to Go Beyond Triple-Gauge-Boson-Coupling Interpretation ofW Pair Production,Phys

    Z. Zhang,Time to Go Beyond Triple-Gauge-Boson-Coupling Interpretation ofW Pair Production,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 011803, [1610.01618]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson and I. M. Lewis,An NLO QCD effective field theory analysis of W +W − production at the LHC including fermionic operators,Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 073003, [1708.03332]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Ellis, C

    J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz and T. You,Updated Global SMEFT Fit to Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Data,JHEP06(2018) 146, [1803.03252]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson and I. M. Lewis,NLO effects in EFT fits toW +W − production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 035029, [1812.00214]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson and S. Homiller,QCD corrections in Standard Model EFT fits toW ZandW Wproduction,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 113010, [1909.11576]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Bellan et al.,A sensitivity study of VBS and diboson WW to dimension-6 EFT operators at the LHC,JHEP05(2022) 039, [2108.03199]

    R. Bellan et al.,A sensitivity study of VBS and diboson WW to dimension-6 EFT operators at the LHC,JHEP05(2022) 039, [2108.03199]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    E. d. S. Almeida, A. Alves, O. J. P. ´Eboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia,Electroweak legacy of the LHC run II,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 013006, [2108.04828]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Degrande, N

    C. Degrande, N. Greiner, W. Kilian, O. Mattelaer, H. Mebane, T. Stelzer et al., Effective Field Theory: A Modern Approach to Anomalous Couplings,Annals Phys. 335(2013) 21–32, [1205.4231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. Gonzalez-Alonso, A. Greljo, D. Marzocca and M. Son,Anomalous Triple Gauge Couplings in the Effective Field Theory Approach at the LHC,JHEP 02(2017) 115, [1609.06312]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Aoude and W

    R. Aoude and W. Shepherd,Jet Substructure Measurements of Interference in Non-Interfering SMEFT Effects,JHEP08(2019) 009, [1902.11262]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Di Noi, H

    S. Di Noi, H. El Faham, R. Gr¨ ober, M. Vitti and E. Vryonidou,Constraining four-heavy-quark operators with top-quark, Higgs, and electroweak precision data, JHEP01(2026) 025, [2507.01137]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    El Faham, K

    H. El Faham, K. Mimasu, D. Pagani, C. Severi, E. Vryonidou and M. Zaro, Electroweak corrections in the SMEFT: four-fermion operators at high energies, JHEP06(2025) 241, [2412.16076]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    J. D. Wells and Z. Zhang,Effective theories of universal theories,JHEP01(2016) 123, [1510.08462]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Gillies, A

    D. Gillies, A. Banfi, A. Martin and M. A. Lim,Dimension-8 operators in W+W- production via gluon fusion,JHEP06(2025) 111, [2412.16020]. – 45 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Gillies, A

    D. Gillies, A. Banfi and A. Martin,Probing EFT breakdown in the tails ofW +W − observables,2601.19495

    arXiv

  28. [28]

    Corbett, J

    T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Martines and P. Reimitz,Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT operators in the electroweak precision observables and triple gauge couplings analysis in universal SMEFT,Phys. Rev. D 107(2023) 115013, [2304.03305]. [34]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurements ofW +W − production cross-sections...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Brivio et al.,Truncation, validity, uncertainties,2201.04974

    I. Brivio et al.,Truncation, validity, uncertainties,2201.04974. [36]ATLAScollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Measurement of fiducial and differential W +W − production cross-sections at √s= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 884, [1905.04242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  31. [31]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Brivio,SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide,JHEP04(2021) 073, [2012.11343]

    I. Brivio,SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide,JHEP04(2021) 073, [2012.11343]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Brivio, Y

    I. Brivio, Y. Jiang and M. Trott,The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools,JHEP 12(2017) 070, [1709.06492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    C. W. Murphy,Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP10(2020) 174, [2005.00059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Corbett, J

    T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. Eboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia,Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 033003, [2404.03720]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu and Y.-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D 104(2021) 015026, [2005.00008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Lehman and A

    L. Lehman and A. Martin,Hilbert Series for Constructing Lagrangians: expanding the phenomenologist’s toolbox,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 105014, [1503.07537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama,Hilbert series and operator bases with derivatives in effective field theories,Commun. Math. Phys.347(2016) 363–388, [1507.07240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Lehman and A

    L. Lehman and A. Martin,Low-derivative operators of the Standard Model effective field theory via Hilbert series methods,JHEP02(2016) 081, [1510.00372]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama,2, 84, 30, 993, 560, 15456, 11962, – 46 – 261485, ...: Higher dimension operators in the SM EFT,JHEP08(2017) 016, [1512.03433]. [48]https://github.com/danieljgillies/MCFM-RE

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and W. T. Giele,A Multi-Threaded Version of MCFM, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 246, [1503.06182]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm,JHEP 04(2008) 063, [0802.1189]. [51]NNPDFcollaboration, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland and J. Rojo, Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global PDF analysis,SciPost Phys.5(2018) 008, [1712.07053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [43]

    Grazzini, S

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. M. Lindert, S. Pozzorini and M. Wiesemann,NNLO QCD + NLO EW with Matrix+OpenLoops: precise predictions for vector-boson pair production,JHEP02(2020) 087, [1912.00068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Bierweiler, T

    A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik and J. H. K¨ uhn,Vector-boson pair production at the LHC toO(α 3)accuracy,JHEP12(2013) 071, [1305.5402]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Bierweiler, T

    A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik, J. H. K¨ uhn and S. Uccirati,Electroweak corrections to W-boson pair production at the LHC,JHEP11(2012) 093, [1208.3147]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    Accomando, A

    E. Accomando, A. Denner and A. Kaiser,Logarithmic electroweak corrections to gauge-boson pair production at the LHC,Nucl. Phys. B706(2005) 325–371, [hep-ph/0409247]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  47. [47]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Pozzorini,One loop leading logarithms in electroweak radiative corrections. 1. Results,Eur. Phys. J. C18(2001) 461–480, [hep-ph/0010201]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  48. [48]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,Eur

    L. Darm´ e et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format,Eur. Phys. J. C 83(2023) 631, [2304.09883]. [59]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to80fb −1 of proton-proton collision data at √s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 012002, [1909.02845]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,¡tt¿emcee¡/tt¿: The mcmc hammer,Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125(Mar.,

  51. [51]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Rode,Automated resummation of electroweak Sudakov logarithms in diboson production at future colliders,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 542, [2402.10503]. – 47 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024