Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

A tale of $Z$+jet: SMEFT effects and the Lam-Tung relation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that current Z-width and Z+jet data exclude light-quark dipole operators as the source of the measured violation of the Lam-Tung relation.

desk verdict A solid, honest SMEFT paper that updates light-quark dipole constraints and likely kills the [22] explanation of the Lam-Tung discrepancy, though the key limit rests on a two-bin fit with an unmodeled SM offset. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13014 v2 pith:7WWUAZ6P submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph hep-ex

R. Gauld , U. Haisch , J. Weiss This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords StandardModelEffectiveFieldTheorylight-quarkdipoleoperatorsLam-TungrelationDrell-YanproductionZ+jetangularcoefficientsLHCelectroweakprecision
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 tests whether a specific class of beyond-Standard-Model effects—dimension-six light-quark dipole operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory—can explain the measured breaking of the Lam-Tung relation, the prediction that the angular coefficients $A_0$ and $A_2$ in lepton-pair production should be equal. It derives updated 95% confidence limits on the up- and down-quark dipole couplings using precision measurements of the $Z$-boson partial widths at SLC and LEP and the high-transverse-momentum tail of the normalized $p_{T,ll}$ spectrum in $Z$+jet production at the LHC. These limits exclude the parameter space that an earlier proposal needed to account for the observed $A_0-A_2$ discrepancy. If the paper is right, the largest allowed new-physics contribution to $A_0-A_2$ stays inside the Standard Model uncertainty band, so the Lam-Tung discrepancy must have another origin.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the dimension-six light-quark dipole operators of the Warsaw basis, which after electroweak symmetry breaking produce chirality-flipping couplings of light quarks to the photon and $Z$ boson. The paper keeps the photonic couplings zero and expresses all results through $C_u/\Lambda^2$ and $C_d/\Lambda^2$. The argument is carried by two properties: in $q\bar q\to Zg$ the dipole-squared correction factor is $\chi_q = 1 + N_q v^2 M_Z^2 \kappa(\hat s,\hat t)|C_q|^2/\Lambda^4$ with a universal kinematic factor $\kappa$ that grows like $\hat s/M_Z^2$ at high energy, and at tree level the dipole contributions give $A_0\neq 0$ while $A_2=0$, so the Lam-Tung relation $A_0-A_2=0$ is broken. This combination—an energy-enhanced signal in the $p_{T,ll}$ spectrum and a tree-level breaking of the Lam-Tung relation—is what lets the same data both constrain the operators and bound their impact on $A_0-A_2$.

What would settle it

A re-analysis that corrects the SM prediction so that it no longer sits below the ATLAS data, and shows that the resulting upper limits on $|C_u|/\Lambda^2$ and $|C_d|/\Lambda^2$ move above $C_u/\Lambda^2 = s_w/\mathrm{TeV}^2$, while the high-$p_{T,ll}$ excess in $A_0-A_2$ persists, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that light-quark dipole operators cannot account for the observed violation of the Lam-Tung relation. After electroweak symmetry breaking, the operators of interest generate photonic and $Z$-boson dipole couplings, and the paper works in the alignment $C_{q\gamma}=0$, which leaves the two combinations $C_u$ and $C_d$ as free parameters. The $Z$-pole decay-width measurements give $|C_u|/\Lambda^2 < 1/(1.7\,\text{TeV})^2$ and $|C_d|/\Lambda^2 < 1/(1.6\,\text{TeV})^2$, while the LHC $Z$+jet data give the stronger limits $|C_u|/\Lambda^2 < 1/(2.3\,\text{TeV})^2$ and $|C_d|/\Lambda^2 < 1/(1.9\,\text{TeV})^2$, because the dipole matrix elements grow with energy squared. Those limits exclude the benchmark $C_u/\Lambda^2 = s_w/\text{TeV}^2$ used in the earlier Lam-Tung proposal, and they imply that the maximum allowed dipole effect on $A_0-A_2$ lies within the current Standard Model uncertainty band.

Load-bearing premise

The exclusion depends on the accuracy of the Standard Model prediction for the normalized $p_{T,ll}$ spectrum that serves as the background, even though that prediction consistently lies below the ATLAS data in the bins that drive the limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current LHC $Z$+jet measurements constrain $C_u/\Lambda^2$ about 1.8 times more strongly than SLC/LEP $Z$-width measurements, and $C_d/\Lambda^2$ about 1.4 times more strongly.
  • The benchmark $C_u/\Lambda^2 = s_w/\mathrm{TeV}^2$ from the recent Lam-Tung proposal is excluded; it would produce roughly a 250% enhancement in the highest measured $p_{T,ll}$ bin, which the data do not show.
  • Even at the maximal allowed dipole couplings, the predicted $A_0-A_2$ stays within the SM uncertainty band and cannot bridge the gap between theory and data in the final bin of the ATLAS angular-coefficient measurement.
  • Extrapolating the fit to the HL-LHC with 3000 fb${}^{-1}$ of data, the limits on $|C_q|/\Lambda^2$ could improve by a factor of about 4.5, because the dipole corrections grow quadratically with energy.
  • Non-dipole SMEFT operators that shift $Z$-quark couplings, such as $C_{Hu}$, do not break the Lam-Tung relation at leading order and produce nearly flat corrections to the $p_{T,ll}$ spectrum, so the combination of the two observables discriminates between the two operator types.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the constant offset between the SM prediction and the ATLAS $p_{T,ll}$ data is later traced to an unmodelled $p_T$-dependent systematic effect rather than a fluctuation, the upper limits in Eq. (26) could shift; the paper's exclusion of the Lam-Tung explanation is only as secure as the background prediction.
  • The same chirality-flipping operators also generate a longitudinal structure function in neutral-current deep inelastic scattering and would violate the Callan-Gross relation; future higher-$Q^2$ DIS data could provide an independent, complementary probe of the same Wilson coefficients.
  • Because the allowed dipole effect on $A_0-A_2$ is bounded to lie within the SM band, a future HL-LHC measurement that resolves a dipole-shaped $\cos^2\theta$ contribution above that band would imply a breakdown of the background assumptions rather than a confirmation of the dipole scenario.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives constraints on dimension-six light-quark dipole operators in SMEFT from SLC/LEP Z-pole partial widths and from the ATLAS normalized pT,ll spectrum in Z+jet production. It obtains 95% CL limits |Cu|/Lambda^2 < 1/(2.3 TeV)^2 and |Cd|/Lambda^2 < 1/(1.9 TeV)^2 from the pT spectrum, which are stronger than the Z-width limits in Eq. (24), and then uses these limits to bound the BSM contribution to the angular coefficient difference A0 - A2. The central conclusion is that the parameter space of light-quark dipole operators that could explain the ATLAS Lam-Tung relation discrepancy is excluded, contradicting the recent proposal of Ref. [22].

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper provides a useful and timely negative result: it shows that the specific SMEFT dipole solution to the Lam-Tung discrepancy is already ruled out by existing LHC data, and it gives projections for HL-LHC improvements that are of practical value. The paper has real strengths: the analytic derivation of the energy-enhanced dipole matrix elements in Eqs. (10)-(13), the separate treatment of the Z-width and pT-spectrum constraints, the explicit discussion of why other dimension-six operators do not violate the Lam-Tung relation at LO, and the careful independent estimate of SM theory uncertainties in Appendix A. The A0 - A2 observable is genuinely not used in the fit that produces the limits, so the exclusion is not circular, although both the fit and the prediction depend on the same underlying operators.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Appendix B, Eq. (26)] The decisive numerical input is the upper limit in Eq. (26), which is obtained from a likelihood that uses only the two highest pT,ll bins, chosen post hoc because they give the most stringent bound (Appendix B). The authors themselves note that the SM prediction used as background consistently falls below the ATLAS data in all bins and that the fit generates spurious lower bounds |Cq|/Lambda^2 > 0. This is a load-bearing issue: although Eq. (24) alone already excludes the exact benchmark Cu/Lambda^2 = sw/TeV^2 of Ref. [22], the broader claim that no light-quark dipole parameter space can explain the Lam-Tung discrepancy uses the maximum A0 - A2 effect based on the stronger Eq. (26). If the offset reflects a pT-dependent shape effect rather than a statistical fluctuation, the upper limits could move upward by a factor of order 2.5 in |Cu|/Lambda^2, which would change the conclusion. I ask the authors to quantify the robustness of Eq. (26) by (i) adding a nuisance parameter for an offset or shape distortion in the background, (ii) reporting the size of an offset that would move the limit to 1/(1.4 TeV)^2, and (iii) implementing a trials correction or a pre-specified bin-selection rule for the two-bin choice.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (5)-(6), and Sec. 3] The analysis imposes the alignment Cq_gamma = 0 in Eq. (5), and the text argues that photon-dipole corrections can be neglected near the Z pole. This is not demonstrated numerically. The ATLAS pT,ll measurement uses the window 66 GeV < mll < 116 GeV, which includes off-shell photon and gamma*-Z interference contributions that are not negligible a priori. Since the pT fit is the stronger constraint, a nonzero Cq_gamma could modify Eqs. (25)-(26). The authors should quantify the sensitivity to Cq_gamma, for example by allowing Cq_gamma at the level permitted by the neutron and proton dipole-moment bounds cited in Sec. 2, or by showing explicitly that the mll window removes the photon contribution to the observable used in the fit.
  3. [Secs. 3 and 4] The BSM predictions for both the pT spectrum and A0 - A2 are computed at LO QCD, and the only BSM systematic is an ad hoc 5% uncertainty stated in Sec. 4. At pT in the 500-900 GeV range, missing higher-order QCD corrections to the dipole contribution could plausibly exceed 5%, and the limits in Eq. (26) depend on the signal shape and normalization in exactly those bins. The authors should either estimate the BSM scale uncertainty (e.g., by varying renormalization and factorization scales in the dipole MC samples) or justify why 5% is conservative. In addition, the text is ambiguous about whether the SM theoretical uncertainties from Appendix A, which are larger than those quoted by ATLAS, were actually used in the likelihood: Sec. 4 first says the background uncertainties from Ref. [1] are used, and then claims the Appendix A uncertainties make the limits more conservative. This should be clarified.
  4. [Sec. 3, paragraph on adding normalized predictions] The statement that the normalized SM and BSM pT,ll distributions 'can be directly added' is not generally correct if each histogram is normalized to its own fiducial cross section, because the BSM shift of the total cross section changes the normalization of the combined spectrum. The effect is presumably small, but it should be checked and either corrected or justified quantitatively, since the fit in Sec. 4 relies on the combined prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4, paragraph after Eq. (23)] The sentence 'measured with a precision of 5.9h at the 95% confidence level' appears to contain a rendering error; it should presumably read '5.9%'.
  2. [Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7] The figures in the manuscript text do not show axis labels or legend text; the printed version should include these for readability.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 2] The word 'model-independently' in the abstract overstates the analysis, since the results are restricted to the light-quark dipole operators (1) and to the alignment Cq_gamma = 0 in Eq. (5); I suggest softening the wording.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (23) and (25)] The coefficient 0.51 in Eq. (25) relative to 0.93 in Eq. (23) is not derived in the text; a brief explanation would help the reader interpret the relative up/down sensitivity.
  5. [Appendix D] The final paragraph says that even for Cu/Lambda^2 = 1/(1.4 TeV)^2 the BSM result for A0 - A2 is approximately 2 sigma (2.5 sigma) below the unregularized (regularized) data; the wording is confusing because the BSM prediction is described both as 'reducing the tension' and as lying below the data. Please rephrase to make the direction of the effect unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Lam-Tung exclusion follows from Z-width and pT,ll constraints propagated to a separate angular observable; the self-cited SM baselines are independent published calculations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that light-quark dipole operators cannot explain the ATLAS Lam-Tung deviation — is a genuine modus tollens rather than a restatement of its inputs. The Wilson-coefficient bounds in Eqs. (23)-(26) are obtained from two data sets that do not involve the angular coefficients: the SLC/LEP partial widths Γ(Z→qqbar) (Eq. 7) and the ATLAS normalized pT,ll spectrum [1] (via Eqs. 10-13). The A0−A2 effect is then computed, not fitted: the dipole angular matrix element (Eqs. 21-22) is a separate observable, and the 'maximum possible influence' shown in Fig. 3 is the propagation of the 95% CL limits through that matrix element to an angular observable used nowhere in the fit. The exclusion therefore compares an independently constrained coefficient region with an independently measured angular distribution. The self-citations that occur are not load-bearing in the circular sense under the review rules: the SM A0−A2 baseline in [57] (Gauld is one of five authors) is a published NNLO QCD calculation that is externally falsifiable by the very ATLAS angular data it describes (χ2/38 = 1.8 is quoted from [57]), and the pT,ll SM background from NNLOJET [47,48] is an external code output explicitly acknowledged from A. Huss; neither assumes the target result. The genuinely soft points, all flagged by the paper itself, are statistical and model-robustness issues rather than by-construction equivalences: the SM pT,ll prediction 'consistently falls below the ATLAS data' (Sec. 4 and App. B), the limits (26) are quoted from the two highest pT,ll bins chosen post hoc, and the Cqγ=0 alignment (Eqs. 5-6) restricts the fit to a line in Wilson space. These could shift the bounds (26) or alter the safety margin of the exclusion, but nothing in the derivation sets the A0−A2 prediction equal to its own fit input. No derived quantity in the paper equals its input by definition, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard SMEFT assumptions, the massless-quark approximation, a specific alignment in Wilson space (Cq_gamma = 0), and external SM predictions. No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are the two Wilson coefficients being constrained plus an ad hoc 5% BSM systematic.

free parameters (3)
  • Cu/Lambda^2 (up-quark Z-dipole coefficient) = |Cu|/Lambda^2 < 1/(2.3 TeV)^2 at 95% CL (LHC)
    The Wilson coefficient combination controlling the up-quark Z dipole; it is the parameter constrained by Eqs. (23)-(26).
  • Cd/Lambda^2 (down-quark Z-dipole coefficient) = |Cd|/Lambda^2 < 1/(1.9 TeV)^2 at 95% CL (LHC)
    The corresponding down-quark Wilson coefficient, constrained by the same fit.
  • BSM systematic uncertainty = 5%
    Chosen by hand for the BSM predictions in the Poisson likelihood; directly affects the derived limits in Eqs. (25)-(26).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dimension-six Warsaw-basis SMEFT with dipole operators (1) is a valid description of new physics, and only these operators are relevant for the Z+jet observables considered.
    Section 2, Eq. (1); the whole analysis assumes no other operators contribute to the fitted pT spectrum or to the Lam-Tung prediction.
  • domain assumption Light quarks are massless, so SM-BSM interference terms vanish and SM and BSM contributions can be added incoherently.
    Section 2, discussion after Eqs. (7) and (10); used to build the pT and A0-A2 predictions in Section 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The Wilson coefficients are aligned so that Cq_gamma = 0, and near the Z pole photon-dipole corrections are negligible.
    Eqs. (5)-(6) in Section 2; this restricts the fit to a one-parameter line in Wilson space and is argued, not demonstrated, to be irrelevant for the results.
  • domain assumption The ATLAS SM prediction for the normalized pT spectrum (NNLO QCD plus NLO EW) and the ATLAS angular-coefficient data are accurate, with uncertainties correctly estimated.
    Sections 3-4 and Appendix A; the fit treats these as the background and data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A tale of $Z$+jet: SMEFT effects and the Lam-Tung relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WWUAZ6P

@misc{pith2026241213014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A tale of $Z$+jet: SMEFT effects and the Lam-Tung relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WWUAZ6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13014}
}
abstract

We derive constraints on dimension-six light-quark dipole operators within the Standard Model (SM) effective field theory, based on measurements of $Z$ production at SLC and LEP, as well as $Z$+jet production at the LHC. Our new constraints exclude the parameter space that could potentially explain the observed discrepancy between theoretical predictions and experimental data for the Lam-Tung relation. With these updated limits, we model-independently determine the maximum possible influence that beyond-SM contributions could have on the angular coefficients $A_0$ and $A_2$, which enter the Lam-Tung relation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13014 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Contributions to the qq¯ → Zg process in the SM (left) and the SMEFT (right). The black squares represent an insertion of a light-quark dipole operator involving a Z bo￾son, as described by the Lagrangian (2). a longitudinally polarized virtual Z boson. This results in a violation of the Callan-Gross relation [42] — for an analysis of the effects of quark-lepton contact interactions on the Callan-Gross relation, see… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the normalized pT,ll distribution for pT,ll ∈ [200, 900] GeV. Black points represent the ATLAS measurement [1], with statistical uncertainties depicted as black bars. The gray histogram corresponds to the SM prediction, and its systematic uncertainties are shown in the lower ratio plot as a gray band. Predictions for the BSM effects are displayed for Cu/Λ 2 = 1/(1.5 TeV)2 and Cd/Λ 2 = 1/(1.5 TeV)2 , an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the predictions for A0 − A2 in the range pT,ll ∈ [50, 600] GeV. The black points show the central values of the ATLAS measurement [55], with statisti￾cal uncertainties represented by black error bars. The black solid curve and gray band represent the SM prediction and its systematic uncertainties. Predictions including BSM effects are shown for Cu/Λ 2 = 1/(2.3 TeV)2 and Cd/Λ 2 = 1/(1.9 TeV)2 , depicted… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The individual uncertainties and their combined effect for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 95% CL lower limits on Λ/ p |Cq| are shown as a function of the number of high￾pT,ll bins from the ATLAS measurement [1] included in the statistical analysis outlined in Section 4. The results for Cu and Cd are represented by red dots and green squares, respectively. A…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Similar to Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Similar to Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    X. Li, B. Yan and C. P. Yuan, Lam-Tung relation breaking in Z boson production as a probe of SMEFT effects (2024), 2405.04069

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. , Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of Drell–Yan lepton pairs in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 80(7), 616 (2020), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8001-z, 1912.02844

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. , Measurement of the mass dependence of the transverse momentum of lepton pairs in Drell-Yan production in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV , Eur. Phys. J. C 83(7), 628 (2023), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023- 11631-7, 2205.04897

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Aad et al., A precise determination of the strong-coupling constant from the recoil of Z bosons with the ATLAS experiment at √s = 8 TeV (2023), 2309.12986

    G. Aad et al., A precise determination of the strong-coupling constant from the recoil of Z bosons with the ATLAS experiment at √s = 8 TeV (2023), 2309.12986

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Aad et al., Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at √s = 7 TeV (2024), 2403.15085

    G. Aad et al., Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at √s = 7 TeV (2024), 2403.15085

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the W boson mass in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV (2024), CMS-PAS-SMP-23-002

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Buchm¨ uller and D

    W. Buchm¨ uller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation , Nucl. Phys. B 268, 621 (1986), doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(86)90262-2

    doi:10.1016/0550- 1986

  8. [7]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10, 085 (2010), doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)085, 1008.4884

    arXiv 2010

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory , Phys. Rept. 793, 1 (2019), doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.11.002, 1706.08945

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler, The standard model effective field theory at work, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96(1), 015006 (2024), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.96.015006, 2303.16922

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Alioli, W

    S. Alioli, W. Dekens, M. Girard and E. Mereghetti, NLO QCD corrections to SM- EFT dilepton and electroweak Higgs boson production, matched to parton shower in POWHEG, JHEP 08, 205 (2018), doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)205, 1804.07407

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Dawson, P

    S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino and A. Ismail, Standard model EFT and the Drell-Yan process at high energy , Phys. Rev. D 99(3), 035044 (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.035044, 1811.12260

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    da Silva Almeida, N

    E. da Silva Almeida, N. Rosa-Agostinho, O. J. P. ´Eboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Light-quark dipole operators at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 100(1), 013003 (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.013003, 1905.05187

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Alioli, R

    S. Alioli, R. Boughezal, E. Mereghetti and F. Petriello, Novel angular dependence in Drell-Yan lepton production via dimension-8 operators , Phys. Lett. B 809, 135703 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135703, 2003.11615. 21 SciPost Physics Submission

    2020

  7. [14]

    Horne, J

    A. Horne, J. Pittman, M. Snedeker, W. Shepherd and J. W. Walker, Shift- Type SMEFT Effects in Dileptons at the LHC , JHEP 03, 118 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)118, 2007.12698

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Torre, L

    R. Torre, L. Ricci and A. Wulzer, On the W&Y interpretation of high-energy Drell-Yan measurements, JHEP 02, 144 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)144, 2008.12978

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Greljo, S

    A. Greljo, S. Iranipour, Z. Kassabov, M. Madigan, J. Moore, J. Rojo, M. Ubiali and C. Voisey, Parton distributions in the SMEFT from high-energy Drell-Yan tails , JHEP 07, 122 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)122, 2104.02723

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Panico, L

    G. Panico, L. Ricci and A. Wulzer, High-energy EFT probes with fully differen- tial Drell-Yan measurements, JHEP 07, 086 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)086, 2103.10532

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Dawson and P

    S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, New physics through Drell-Yan standard model EFT measurements at NLO , Phys. Rev. D 104(7), 073004 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.073004, 2105.05852

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Boughezal, Y

    R. Boughezal, Y. Huang and F. Petriello, Exploring the SMEFT at dimension eight with Drell-Yan transverse momentum measurements , Phys. Rev. D 106(3), 036020 (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.036020, 2207.01703

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari and F. Wilsch, HighPT: A tool for high- pT Drell-Yan tails beyond the standard model, Comput. Phys. Commun. 289, 108749 (2023), doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108749, 2207.10756

    2023

  14. [21]

    Boughezal, Y

    R. Boughezal, Y. Huang and F. Petriello, Impact of high invariant-mass Drell-Yan forward-backward asymmetry measurements on SMEFT fits , Phys. Rev. D 108(7), 076008 (2023), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.076008, 2303.08257

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. S. Lam and W.-K. Tung, Structure Function Relations at Large Transverse Momenta in Lepton Pair Production Processes , Phys. Lett. B 80, 228 (1979), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90204-1

    1979 doi

  16. [24]

    C. S. Lam and W.-K. Tung, A Systematic Approach to Inclusive Lep- ton Pair Production in Hadronic Collisions , Phys. Rev. D 18, 2447 (1978), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.2447

    1978 doi

  17. [25]

    C. S. Lam and W.-K. Tung, A Parton Model Relation Without QCD Modifications in Lepton Pair Productions , Phys. Rev. D 21, 2712 (1980), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.2712

    1980 doi

  18. [26]

    J. Kley, T. Theil, E. Venturini and A. Weiler, Electric dipole moments at one-loop in the dimension-6 SMEFT , Eur. Phys. J. C 82(10), 926 (2022), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10861-5, 2109.15085

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. , Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110(3), 030001 (2024), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Schael et al., Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys

    S. Schael et al., Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept. 427, 257 (2006), doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.006, hep-ex/0509008. 22 SciPost Physics Submission

    2006 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Farina, G

    M. Farina, G. Panico, D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman, R. Torre and A. Wulzer, Energy helps accuracy: electroweak precision tests at hadron colliders , Phys. Lett. B 772, 210 (2017), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.06.043, 1609.08157

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Greljo and D

    A. Greljo and D. Marzocca, High-pT dilepton tails and flavor physics , Eur. Phys. J. C 77(8), 548 (2017), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5119-8, 1704.09015

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Alioli, M

    S. Alioli, M. Farina, D. Pappadopulo and J. T. Ruderman, Precision Probes of QCD at High Energies , JHEP 07, 097 (2017), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)097, 1706.03068

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Alioli, M

    S. Alioli, M. Farina, D. Pappadopulo and J. T. Ruderman, Catch- ing a New Force by the Tail , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(10), 101801 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.101801, 1712.02347

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Banerjee, C

    S. Banerjee, C. Englert, R. S. Gupta and M. Spannowsky, Probing Electroweak Pre- cision Physics via boosted Higgs-strahlung at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 98(9), 095012 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.095012, 1807.01796

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Grojean, M

    C. Grojean, M. Montull and M. Riembau, Diboson at the LHC vs LEP , JHEP 03, 020 (2019), doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2019)020, 1810.05149

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Di Luzio, R

    L. Di Luzio, R. Gr¨ ober and G. Panico, Probing new electroweak states via pre- cision measurements at the LHC and future colliders , JHEP 01, 011 (2019), doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)011, 1810.10993

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Fuentes-Martin, A

    J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Greljo, J. Martin Camalich and J. D. Ruiz-Alvarez, Charm physics confronts high-p T lepton tails , JHEP 11, 080 (2020), doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2020)080, 2003.12421

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Haisch and G

    U. Haisch and G. Koole, Beautiful and charming chromodipole moments , JHEP 09, 133 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2021)133, 2106.01289

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Haisch, L

    U. Haisch, L. Schnell and J. Weiss, LHC tau-pair production constraints on aτ and dτ , SciPost Phys. 16(2), 048 (2024), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.2.048, 2307.14133

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gauld, U

    R. Gauld, U. Haisch and L. Schnell, SMEFT at NNLO+PS: V hproduction, JHEP 01, 192 (2024), doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)192, 2311.06107

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hiller and D

    G. Hiller and D. Wendler, Missing energy plus jet in the SMEFT , JHEP 09, 009 (2024), doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)009, 2403.17063

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    F. D. Aaron et al. , Combined Measurement and QCD Analysis of the In- clusive e±p Scattering Cross Sections at HERA , JHEP 01, 109 (2010), doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2010)109, 0911.0884

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and D. J. Gross, High-energy electroproduction and the constitution of the electric current , Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 156 (1969), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.22.156

    1969 doi

  35. [43]

    Buchm¨ uller, B

    W. Buchm¨ uller, B. Lampe and N. Vlachos,Contact Interactions and the Callan-Gross Relation, Phys. Lett. B 197, 379 (1987), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90404-7

    1987 doi

  36. [44]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Angular Distribution of Dileptons in High-Energy Hadron Collisions , Phys. Rev. D 16, 2219 (1977), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.2219. 23 SciPost Physics Submission

    1977 doi

  37. [45]

    Arteaga-Romero, A

    N. Arteaga-Romero, A. Nicolaidis and J. Silva, Z0 Production at the p¯p Collider and the Spin of the Gluon , Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 172 (1984), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.172

    1984 doi

  38. [46]

    Mirkes and J

    E. Mirkes and J. Ohnemus, Angular distributions of Drell-Yan lepton pairs at the Tevatron: Order α2 s corrections and Monte Carlo studies , Phys. Rev. D 51, 4891 (1995), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.4891, hep-ph/9412289

    1995 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss and T. A. Morgan, Precise QCD predictions for the production of a Z boson in association with a hadronic jet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117(2), 022001 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.022001, 1507.02850

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss and T. A. Morgan, NNLO QCD corrections for Drell-Yan pZ T and ϕ∗ observables at the LHC , JHEP 11, 094 (2016), doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)094, [Erratum: JHEP 10, 126 (2018)], 1610.01843

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik and A. M¨ uck, Electroweak correc- tions to dilepton + jet production at hadron colliders , JHEP 06, 069 (2011), doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)069, 1103.0914

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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, 2250 (2014), doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012, 1310.1921

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022, 1108.2040

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07,...

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, 1410.3012

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    R. D. Ball et al. , Parton distributions from high-precision collider data , Eur. Phys. J. C 77(10), 663 (2017), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, 1706.00428

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    G. Aad et al., Measurement of the angular coefficients inZ-boson events using electron and muon pairs from data taken at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 08, 159 (2016), doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)159, 1606.00689

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. , Angular coefficients of Z bosons produced in pp collisions at√s = 8 TeV and decaying to µ+µ− as a function of transverse momentum and rapid- ity, Phys. Lett. B 750, 154 (2015), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.08.061, 1504.03512

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gauld, A

    R. Gauld, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and A. Huss, Precise predictions for the angular coefficients in Z-boson production at the LHC , JHEP 11, 003 (2017), doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)003, 1708.00008

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Butterworth et al

    J. Butterworth et al. , PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II , J. Phys. G 43, 023001 (2016), doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, 1510.03865. 24 SciPost Physics Submission

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Com- put

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Com- put. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001), doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(01)00290-9, hep- ph/0012260

    2001

  52. [60]

    T. Hahn, S. Paßehr and C. Schappacher, FormCalc 9 and Extensions , PoS LL2016, 068 (2016), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/762/1/012065, 1604.04611

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Gauld, A massive variable flavour number scheme for the Drell-Yan process , SciPost Phys

    R. Gauld, A massive variable flavour number scheme for the Drell-Yan process , SciPost Phys. 12(1), 024 (2022), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.1.024, 2107.01226

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood- based tests of new physics , Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 011-1554-0, [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)], 1007.1727

    2011 arXiv

  55. [63]

    H.-L. Lai, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, D. Stump and C. P. Yuan,Uncer- tainty induced by QCD coupling in the CTEQ global analysis of parton distributions , Phys. Rev. D 82, 054021 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.054021, 1004.4624

    2010 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. M. Lindert et al. , Precise predictions for V + jets dark matter backgrounds , Eur. Phys. J. C 77(12), 829 (2017), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5389-1, 1705.04664. 25

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.