Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Precision phenomenology at multi-TeV muon colliders

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A QED-resummed fixed-order prescription yields percent-level electroweak predictions across the full phase space of multi-TeV muon colliders.

desk verdict Solid first application of a new VBF-improved EW framework, but the abstract's all-phase-space percent-level claim is contradicted by the paper's own Sudakov and scheme-dependence caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10733 v3 pith:3FFR22PA submitted 2025-06-12 hep-ph

Stefano Frixione , Fabio Maltoni , Davide Pagani , Marco Zaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords muoncolliderelectroweakcorrectionsQEDresummationvector-bosonfusiontop-quarkpairproductionW-pairSudakovlogarithmsleptonPDFs
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

The paper argues that top-pair and W-pair production at multi-TeV muon colliders can be predicted at the percent level across the entire phase space without relying on electroweak parton distribution functions. The prescription combines next-to-leading-log resummation of collinear QED radiation into muon and photon PDFs with fixed-order next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections, and then adds a gauge-invariant subset of NNLO double-real corrections that contains the neutral vector-boson-fusion topologies. The authors show for $t\bar{t}$ and $W^+W^-$ production at 3 and 10 TeV that scale and factorisation-scheme uncertainties fall to a few percent or below, while the effective-$W$ approximation and current EW PDFs disagree with full matrix elements by tens to hundreds of percent. If the framework holds, it supplies a systematically improvable alternative for precision physics at a future high-energy lepton collider.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the formula for $\mathrm{d}\hat{\Sigma}_{\delta\mathrm{NNLO}_\Gamma}$ (eq. (3.4) of this paper, eq. (7.3) of the companion), a combination of the $2\to 2+m$ matrix elements for $\mu^+\mu^-$, $\mu^+\gamma$, $\gamma\mu^-$, and $\gamma\gamma$ initial states with plus-distribution subtractions controlled by the parameter $\delta_I$ and by the functions $Q_{\gamma\mu}^{(\delta_I)'}$. Those subtractions remove the QED collinear singularities from the double-real neutral-current emission and are compensated by the lepton PDFs, which resum the lepton-mass logarithms at next-to-leading-log accuracy; the weak part of the diagrams is kept exactly at fixed order, preserving $Z/\gamma$ interference and power corrections in $m_Z$. This is what lets the framework add the NNLO VBF-like topologies to an NLO calculation without double counting, and the independence of the final result from $\delta_I$ provides a built-in numerical check.

What would settle it

Compute the complete NNLO electroweak corrections for $W^+W^-$ production at a 10 TeV muon collider and compare them with the NLO plus $\delta\mathrm{NNLO}_\Gamma$ predictions in the region $m(W^+W^-)\gtrsim 8$ TeV or $p_T(W^+)\gtrsim 2$ TeV; a deviation beyond about a percent there would contradict the all-phase-space claim. Alternatively, measure the $p_T(W^+)$ tail at such a collider and check that the recombined-photon prediction with the NNLO Sudakov estimate stays positive and matches the data within the quoted uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the $\delta\mathrm{NNLO}_\Gamma$ term of the companion paper --- the complete squared matrix elements for $\mu^+\mu^-\to X\bar{X}\mu^+\mu^-$ (and the related one-photon and two-photon channels) with QED collinear divergences subtracted and reshuffled into lepton PDFs --- can be added to NLO electroweak results without double counting. Applied to $t\bar{t}$ and $W^+W^-$ production at a 3 or 10 TeV muon collider, this one-step improvement makes the perturbative series well behaved in the threshold region dominated by $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma Z$, and $ZZ$ fusion, and it leaves an NLO-quality description in the muon-annihilation region. The paper reports that the resulting predictions carry uncertainties at the percent level across all considered observables, that no breakdown occurs that would call for EW PDFs or fragmentation functions, and that in the kinematic corners where the EW-PDF approximations are formally valid the cross section is small. For $W^+W^-$ at high transverse momentum, the authors show that at least the NNLO electroweak Sudakov logarithms --- estimated by exponentiating the NLO SDK$_{\text{weak}}$ result --- must be included to restore positive cross sections; full Sudakov resummation is identified as the route to percent precision there.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the contributions left out --- the full NNLO electroweak terms beyond the neutral double-real subset, the LO-only charged-current and $Z$-associated channels, and the exponentiated estimate of the NNLO Sudakov logarithms --- are together small enough that the remaining error stays at the percent level everywhere, including the high-mass $W^+W^-$ tail where the fixed-order core is only NLO.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For both $t\bar{t}$ and $W^+W^-$ at 3 and 10 TeV, the $\delta\mathrm{NNLO}_\Gamma$ term brings factorisation-scale uncertainty down to a few percent in the VBF-dominated threshold region, reducing it by large factors relative to LO and NLO.
  • The effective-$W$ approximation and, by extension, current LO EW PDFs are not reliable for phenomenology: even in deliberately favourable comparisons their ratios to the full matrix elements reach tens of percent in rates and up to 100% in shapes, and the PDF-versus-EWA luminosity differences are smaller than the intrinsic approximation error.
  • For $W^+W^-$ production at 10 TeV, the NLO prediction in the high-$p_T$ tail can become negative; adding the exponentiated NNLO electroweak Sudakov estimate restores a positive, sensible cross section, while full Sudakov resummation would be needed to push precision to the percent level there.
  • The factorisation-scheme dependence between $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ and $\Delta$ schemes is as large as 50% at LO but shrinks to about a percent after inclusion of NLO plus $\delta\mathrm{NNLO}_\Gamma$ in photon-dominated regions, making the scheme choice a manageable part of the uncertainty budget.
  • The framework is process- and observable-independent and can be extended to charged-current VBF, to QCD corrections through the quark and gluon content of lepton PDFs, and to other final states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same $\delta\mathrm{NNLO}_\Gamma$ construction should transfer to other neutral-current final states (for example Higgs or $ZH$ production) and to $e^+e^-$ machines; the paper only illustrates two processes but the mechanism is process-independent.
  • A conservative reading of the results is that percent-level accuracy in all phase space holds for $t\bar{t}$ as stated, while for $W^+W^-$ it is contingent on adding the NNLO electroweak Sudakov term; the paper itself flags this in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
  • The strong EWA and EW-PDF discrepancies suggest that luminosity and acceptance determinations for a muon collider will need exact-matrix-element event generation rather than VBF approximations, a practical consequence the paper does not develop in detail.
  • A natural next test is to compare the $\delta\mathrm{NNLO}_\Gamma$-improved predictions with a full NNLO EW calculation for one observable (for example $m(W^+W^-)$ at 10 TeV); the scheme- and scale-dependence diagnostics here predict sub-percent agreement in photon-dominated regions.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a framework for precision electroweak predictions at high-energy lepton colliders, focusing on multi-TeV muon colliders. The approach combines NLO+NLL lepton and photon PDFs with NLO fixed-order electroweak corrections, and supplements these with a gauge-invariant subset of NNLO double-real contributions (the neutral-current VBF-like term dΣ^δNNLOΓ, eq. (3.4)) that is designed to avoid double counting. The framework is applied to t-tbar and W+W- production at 3 TeV and 10 TeV, with detailed differential distributions, comparisons against the Effective Weak-boson Approximation and EW PDFs, studies of factorisation-scale and factorisation-scheme dependence, and an approximate treatment of NNLO electroweak Sudakov logarithms via eq. (4.6). The central advertised claim is that the approach yields percent-level predictions for arbitrary observables in all of phase space. The calculations are internally consistent and extensively cross-checked, but the paper's own caveats in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 show that this blanket claim is not supported by the presented evidence.

Significance. If the advertised precision were fully established, this would be an important step toward reliable SM predictions for multi-TeV muon colliders: the framework is process-independent, systematically improvable, retains exact mass dependence, and avoids the kinematic approximations of EWA and EW-PDF methods. The paper contains several genuine strengths: the numerical implementation is detailed, the companion-paper derivation is used rather than re-derived, and the results include multiple cross-checks (factorisation-scale variation, MS-vs-Delta scheme comparison, NLO-without-virtual comparisons, and EWA/ME comparisons). The comparison with EWA and EW PDFs in Figs. 2 and 4 convincingly demonstrates the limitations of those approximations. However, the central claim of percent-level accuracy for arbitrary observables in all phase space is weakened by the paper's own statements about residual O(10%) higher-order EWSL effects in W+W- production at high pT, and about the need for full NNLO EW corrections to control factorisation-scheme dependence at large invariant masses.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract's claim of 'predictions for arbitrary observables in all of the phase space which are precise at the percent level' is not supported by the paper's own qualifications. In Section 4.2, after eq. (4.6), the text states that 'further effects of O(10%) can still appear due to EWSL of higher orders' and that 'the resummation of the full EWSL tower would be necessary for precision physics.' Similarly, Section 4.3 states that reducing the factorisation-scheme dependence at large invariant masses 'would require the full NNLO EW results, or at least its mixed weak-QED part.' These statements directly contradict the blanket percent-level claim. The abstract and the Introduction's point (i) should be revised to specify the phase-space regions and observables for which percent-level accuracy is actually demonstrated, or the missing contributions must be included and quantified.
  2. [Section 4.2, eq. (4.6)] The approximate NNLO Sudakov correction δSDKNNLO_weak is defined by eq. (4.6) as half the square of the NLO SDKweak term divided by the LO. This captures the α^2 log^4 term exactly but estimates the α^2 log^3 term by naive exponentiation. In the W+W- case at 10 TeV, the NLO-reco prediction becomes negative at large pT(W+), and positivity is restored only by adding this approximate term. The text itself estimates residual higher-order EWSL effects at the O(10%) level. Therefore, for the high-pT tail of W+W- production, the framework does not provide evidence of percent-level accuracy; at best it cures the positivity problem. Either full EWSL resummation must be included, or the paper should explicitly exclude such regions from the percent-level claim.
  3. [Section 4.3, Figs. 17 and 18] The factorisation-scheme dependence study shows that at large invariant masses the MS-vs-Delta scheme difference remains at the NLO level, with values up to about 10% for m(t-tbar) at 10 TeV, and the paper acknowledges that reducing this dependence to the percent level would require the full NNLO EW results, or at least the mixed weak-QED part, which is not included in the NNLOΓ term. Since the claim is for arbitrary observables in all phase space, the scheme dependence at large invariant masses is a load-bearing limitation: the omitted NNLO weak-QED contributions could be as large as the observed scheme spread, so the percent-level statement is not established in that region. This should be either computed, estimated quantitatively, or explicitly carved out of the claim.
  4. [Section 4.1.2, Figs. 13 and 14] The associated-production channels W+W-νν-bar and W+W-Z, and their t-tbar analogues, are included only at LO accuracy. The paper notes on page 32 that 'this associated channel is simulated at the LO accuracy only, while NLO corrections are likely to reduce its impact significantly.' Yet in several kinematic regions these channels contribute at the level of tens of percent relative to the NNLOΓ prediction (e.g., W+W-νν-bar at pT(W+) ~ 1 TeV, and W+W-Z in the high-pT tail). Without NLO corrections to these channels, the paper cannot claim percent-level accuracy for arbitrary observables in those regions. At minimum, the claim should be restricted to observables where these LO-only channels are numerically negligible, or the NLO corrections should be computed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, eq. (3.1)] In eq. (3.1), the second PDF is written as Γ_{j/µ-}(ζ1); it should be Γ_{j/µ-}(ζ2), consistent with the convolution structure.
  2. [Section 4.3, eqs. (4.10) and (4.11)] The second equation, for K^Δ_{γµ}(z), is labeled K^Δ_{µµ}(z) in the text; the label appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [References] Reference [21] contains the placeholder '25xx.yyyyy' and should be updated with the full arXiv identifier and publication data before submission.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Fig. 16] The inset label '1 / LO' in Fig. 16 is somewhat ambiguous; since the main text explains that the ratios are taken with respect to LO, the label could be made more explicit, for example 'δ / LO'.
  5. [Section 4 and eq. (4.5)] The technical cut m(µ+µ-) > 200 GeV is stated to have negligible phenomenological impact, but this is asserted by reference to the companion paper rather than demonstrated for the observables shown here; a brief numerical statement for the presented distributions would be helpful.
  6. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'arbitrary observables' is not defined; the paper should specify the class of observables for which the claims apply, particularly regarding photon recombination and IR-safety, since the Sudakov discussion in Section 4.2 explicitly depends on the clustering radius R.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the VBF-improved NNLOGamma cross sections are genuine fixed-order matrix-element predictions, and the Sudakov estimate in eq. (4.6) is an explicitly labelled approximation rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The VBF-improved cross section of eq. (3.4) is imported from the companion paper [17] as a derived formula, not as a quantity fitted to the distributions it later predicts. The NLO and NNLOGamma predictions are computed from unmodified matrix elements and lepton PDFs; no parameter is tuned to reproduce the reported observables. The Sudakov improvement in eq. (4.6), deltaSDKNNLO_weak = deltaSDKweak^2/(2 LO), is explicitly presented as the second term of a Taylor expansion of a naive exponentiation of the NLO SDKweak term, and the text states that it 'estimates by means of a naive exponentiation' the subleading NNLO Sudakov logarithms. This is a transparent approximation, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The paper does rely on self-citations, notably the companion paper [17] and the SDKweak scheme [49,52], but these are cited as derived technical tools, not as forbidden alternatives or as results equivalent to the target cross sections. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical pattern is repackaged under new coordinates. The abstract's blanket 'percent level in all of phase space' claim is weakened by the paper's own limitations: Section 4.2 states that 'further effects of O(10%) can still appear due to EWSL of higher orders' and that 'the resummation of the full EWSL tower would be necessary for precision physics,' while Section 4.3 notes that reducing factorisation-scheme dependence at large invariant masses 'would require the full NNLO EW results, or at least its mixed weak-QED part.' These are accuracy and consistency caveats, not circular steps: they do not show that an output was fed back as an input. The honest finding is therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or degrees of freedom are introduced; the calculation uses Standard Model fields only. The 'parton muon' is a standard collinear-factorization constituent, not a new entity. The main load-bearing inputs are the NLO+NLL lepton PDFs, the deltaNNLOGamma construction, and the approximate NNLO Sudakov exponentiation, all listed above.

free parameters (1)
  • Technical invariant-mass cut on outgoing muons, m(mu+mu-) > 200 GeV = 200 GeV
    Introduced in eq. (4.5) to screen uncancelled singularities in the deltaNNLOGamma corrections; the paper states it is phenomenologically negligible based on the companion paper, but this is not demonstrated here, so the numerical results inherit this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Collinear factorization for lepton and photon PDFs, with NLO+NLL accuracy muon/photon PDFs as initial conditions at scale m_mu.
    Used in eq. (3.1) to convolute PDFs with partonic cross sections; relies on refs [18-21], including an unreleased version.
  • domain assumption The set of NNLO double-real contributions defined by eq. (3.4) (deltaNNLOGamma) is a complete, gauge-invariant, and numerically dominant subset of the full NNLO electroweak corrections.
    Taken from companion paper [17]; the paper does not derive it and cannot quantify the omitted NNLO terms.
  • domain assumption Charged-current VBF and associated Z/neutrino production can be accounted for at LO accuracy without spoiling the percent-level claim.
    These channels are shown as separate LO symbols in figs. 6-15 and are not included in the NNLOGamma curves; the paper assumes their NLO corrections are not critical.
  • ad hoc to paper The approximate NNLO EW Sudakov correction, deltaSDKNNLO_weak = (1/2)(deltaSDKweak/LO)^2, captures the dominant NNLO Sudakov logarithms.
    Defined in eq. (4.6) and used to restore positivity of the W+W- high-pT cross section; it is a naive exponentiation truncated at O(alpha^2), not a complete NNLO calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper The technical cut m(mu+mu-) > 200 GeV does not affect physical predictions.
    Stated in section 4, eq. (4.5), with the justification deferred to ref. [17].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision phenomenology at multi-TeV muon colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FFR22PA

@misc{pith2026250610733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision phenomenology at multi-TeV muon colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FFR22PA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10733}
}
abstract

Future lepton colliders, such as those based on linear $e^+e^-$ or circular $\mu^+\mu^-$ accelerators, are expected to attain centre-of-mass energies in the multi-TeV range. In this regime the impact of QED and of weak radiation, in both the initial and the final state, can become a leading effect. By employing a general framework presented in a companion paper - suitable for any flavour of colliding leptons - we improve next-to-leading order electroweak predictions by including higher-order contributions, which encompass, but are not limited to, vector-boson-fusion processes. We apply this approach to the study of $t\bar{t}$ and $W^+W^-$ production at a muon collider operating at centre-of-mass energies up to 10 TeV. We show that such an approach, where both QED and weak contributions are included at fixed order, in addition to the all-order resummation of initial-state QED effects, can provide predictions for arbitrary observables in all of the phase space which are precise at the percent level.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Double neutral-current corrections to NLO electroweak leptonic cross sections

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A process-independent NNLO-type correction for vector-boson-fusion topologies is derived and added to NLO predictions, retaining exact W/Z mass dependence and QED resummation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [17]

    Double neutral-current corrections to NLO electroweak leptonic cross sections

    S. Frixione, F. Maltoni, D. Pagani and M. Zaro,Double neutral-current corrections to NLO electroweak leptonic cross sections, 2506.10732

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Gschwendtner et al.,The AWAKE Run 2 Programme and Beyond, Symmetry 14 (2022) 1680, [2206.06040]

    A W AKEcollaboration, E. Gschwendtner et al.,The AWAKE Run 2 Programme and Beyond, Symmetry 14 (2022) 1680, [2206.06040]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Accettura et al.,The Muon Collider, 2504.21417

    International Muon Collider collaboration, C. Accettura et al.,The Muon Collider, 2504.21417

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Buttazzo, D

    D. Buttazzo, D. Redigolo, F. Sala and A. Tesi,Fusing Vectors into Scalars at High Energy Lepton Colliders, JHEP 11 (2018) 144, [1807.04743]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Costantini, F

    A. Costantini, F. De Lillo, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz et al.,Vector boson fusion at multi-TeV muon colliders, JHEP 09 (2020) 080, [2005.10289]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Buttazzo, R

    D. Buttazzo, R. Franceschini and A. Wulzer,Two Paths Towards Precision at a Very High Energy Lepton Collider, JHEP 05 (2021) 219, [2012.11555]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Al Ali et al.,The Muon Smasher’s Guide, 2103.14043

    H. Al Ali et al.,The Muon Smasher’s Guide, 2103.14043

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Aime et al.,Muon Collider Physics Summary, 2203.07256

    C. Aime et al.,Muon Collider Physics Summary, 2203.07256

    arXiv

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Accettura et al.,Towards a muon collider, Eur

    C. Accettura et al.,Towards a muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 864, [2303.08533]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. Chen, T. Han and B. Tweedie,Electroweak Splitting Functions and High Energy Showering, JHEP 11 (2017) 093, [1611.00788]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    T. Han, Y. Ma and K. Xie,High energy leptonic collisions and electroweak parton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) L031301, [2007.14300]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    T. Han, Y. Ma and K. Xie,Quark and gluon contents of a lepton at high energies, JHEP 02 (2022) 154, [2103.09844]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Garosi, D

    F. Garosi, D. Marzocca and S. Trifinopoulos,LePDF: Standard Model PDFs for High-Energy Lepton Colliders, 2303.16964

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Capdevilla, F

    R. Capdevilla, F. Garosi, D. Marzocca and B. Stechauner,Testing the neutrino content of the muon at muon colliders, JHEP 04 (2025) 168, [2410.21383]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Marzocca and A

    D. Marzocca and A. Stanzione,On the impact of the mixedZ/γ PDF at muon colliders, 2408.13191

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    C. Han, T. Li and Y. Wang,Advances in electroweak pdfs for future collider experiments, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 055001, [2503.04567]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Provasoli and B. R. Webber,Standard Model Fragmentation Functions at Very High Energies, JHEP 11 (2018) 030, [1806.10157]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Frixione,Initial conditions for electron and photon structure and fragmentation functions, JHEP 11 (2019) 158, [1909.03886]

    S. Frixione,Initial conditions for electron and photon structure and fragmentation functions, JHEP 11 (2019) 158, [1909.03886]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bertone, M

    V. Bertone, M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, G. Stagnitto, M. Zaro and X. Zhao,Improving methods and predictions at high-energy e+e− colliders within collinear factorisation, JHEP 10 (2022) 089, [2207.03265]. – 45 –

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Frixione and G

    S. Frixione and G. Stagnitto,The muon parton distribution functions, JHEP 12 (2023) 170, [2309.07516]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bonvini, S

    M. Bonvini, S. Frixione and G. Stagnitto,Improved small-x resummation for DGLAP splitting functions: HELL 4.0, 25xx.yyyyy

  14. [22]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Altarelli, T

    G. Altarelli, T. Sjostrand and F. Zwirner, eds.,Physics at LEP2: Vol. 1, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings, 2, 1996. 10.5170/CERN-1996-001-V-1

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

    Dawson,The Effective W Approximation, Nucl

    S. Dawson,The Effective W Approximation, Nucl. Phys. B 249 (1985) 42–60

    1985

  17. [25]

    G. L. Kane, W. W. Repko and W. B. Rolnick,The Effective W+-, Z0 Approximation for High-Energy Collisions, Phys. Lett. B148 (1984) 367–372

    1984

  18. [26]

    Kunszt and D

    Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper,On the Validity of the EffectiveW Approximation, Nucl. Phys. B 296 (1988) 253–289

    1988

  19. [27]

    Dittmaier, P

    S. Dittmaier, P. Maierhöfer, C. Schwan and R. Winterhalder,Like-sign W-boson scattering at the LHC — approximations and full next-to-leading-order predictions, JHEP 11 (2023) 022, [2308.16716]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Alwall, R

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

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro,The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations, JHEP 07 (2018) 185, [1804.10017]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Frixione, O

    S. Frixione, O. Mattelaer, M. Zaro and X. Zhao,Lepton collisions in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, 2108.10261

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. Ruiz, A. Costantini, F. Maltoni and O. Mattelaer,The Effective Vector Boson Approximation in high-energy muon collisions, JHEP 06 (2022) 114, [2111.02442]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bigaran and R

    I. Bigaran and R. Ruiz,Weak bosons as partons below 10 TeV partonic center-of-momentum, 2502.07878

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sirlin,Radiative Corrections in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory: A Simple Renormalization Framework, Phys

    A. Sirlin,Radiative Corrections in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory: A Simple Renormalization Framework, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 971–981

    1980

  26. [34]

    Bertone, M

    V. Bertone, M. Cacciari, S. Frixione and G. Stagnitto,The partonic structure of the electron at the next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy in QED, JHEP 03 (2020) 135, [1911.12040]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Frixione,On factorisation schemes for the electron parton distribution functions in QED, JHEP 07 (2021) 180, [2105.06688]

    S. Frixione,On factorisation schemes for the electron parton distribution functions in QED, JHEP 07 (2021) 180, [2105.06688]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. M. Bredt, W. Kilian, J. Reuter and P. Stienemeier,NLO electroweak corrections to multi-boson processes at a muon collider, JHEP 12 (2022) 138, [2208.09438]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y. Ma, D. Pagani and M. Zaro,EW corrections and Heavy Boson Radiation at a high-energy muon collider, 2409.09129

  30. [38]

    Kilian, T

    W. Kilian, T. Ohl and J. Reuter,WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1742, [0708.4233]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    V. V. Sudakov,Vertex parts at very high-energies in quantum electrodynamics, Sov. Phys. JETP 3 (1956) 65–71. – 46 –

    1956

  32. [40]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro,Weak corrections to Higgs hadroproduction in association with a top-quark pair, JHEP 09 (2014) 065, [1407.0823]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Czakon, D

    M. Czakon, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos and M. Zaro,Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW, JHEP 10 (2017) 186, [1705.04105]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ciafaloni and D

    P. Ciafaloni and D. Comelli,Sudakov enhancement of electroweak corrections, Phys. Lett. B 446 (1999) 278–284, [hep-ph/9809321]

    1999 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ciafaloni and D

    P. Ciafaloni and D. Comelli,Electroweak Sudakov form-factors and nonfactorizable soft QED effects at NLC energies, Phys. Lett. B476 (2000) 49–57, [hep-ph/9910278]

    2000 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ciafaloni, P

    M. Ciafaloni, P. Ciafaloni and D. Comelli,Bloch-Nordsieck violating electroweak corrections to inclusive TeV scale hard processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.84 (2000) 4810–4813, [hep-ph/0001142]

    2000 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. Bell, J. H. Kuhn and J. Rittinger,Electroweak Sudakov Logarithms and Real Gauge-Boson Radiation in the TeV Region, Eur. Phys. J. C70 (2010) 659–671, [1004.4117]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Manohar, B

    A. Manohar, B. Shotwell, C. Bauer and S. Turczyk,Non-cancellation of electroweak logarithms in high-energy scattering, Phys. Lett. B740 (2015) 179–187, [1409.1918]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. Chen, A. Glioti, R. Rattazzi, L. Ricci and A. Wulzer,Learning from radiation at a very high energy lepton collider, JHEP 05 (2022) 180, [2202.10509]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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, 2412.16076

  41. [49]

    Pagani and M

    D. Pagani and M. Zaro,One-loop electroweak Sudakov logarithms: a revisitation and automation, JHEP 02 (2022) 161, [2110.03714]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Results, Eur. Phys. J. C18 (2001) 461–480, [hep-ph/0010201]

    2001 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Pozzorini,One loop leading logarithms in electroweak radiative corrections

  44. [53]

    Factorization of collinear singularities, Eur. Phys. J. C21 (2001) 63–79, [hep-ph/0104127]

    2001 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Pagani, T

    D. Pagani, T. Vitos and M. Zaro,Improving NLO QCD event generators with high-energy EW corrections, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) 514, [2309.00452]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras, D. W. Duke and T. Muta,Deep Inelastic Scattering Beyond the Leading Order in Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 3998

    1978

  47. [56]

    Frixione, Z

    S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt and A. Signer,Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order, Nucl. Phys. B467 (1996) 399–442, [hep-ph/9512328]

    1996 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Frixione,A General approach to jet cross-sections in QCD, Nucl

    S. Frixione,A General approach to jet cross-sections in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B507 (1997) 295–314, [hep-ph/9706545]

    1997 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer,Automation of next-to-leading order computations in QCD: The FKS subtraction, JHEP 0910 (2009) 003, [0908.4272]. – 47 –

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.