Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Precise Standard-Model predictions for polarised Z-boson pair production and decay at the LHC

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First combination of NNLO QCD and NLO electroweak corrections for polarised Z-boson pairs produced at the LHC, validated across independent Monte Carlo implementations.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely useful precision paper whose headline NNLO QCD + NLO EW combination for polarised ZZ is credible but rests on an unpublished STRIPPER calculation that the manuscript itself does not fully document. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09686 v1 pith:E4MSWD7O submitted 2025-05-14 hep-ph hep-ex

Costanza Carrivale , Roberto Covarelli , Ansgar Denner , Dongshuo Du , Christoph Haitz , Mareen Hoppe , Martina Javurkova , Duc Ninh Le
show 14 more authors
Jakob Linder Rafael Coelho Lopes de Sa Olivier Mattelaer Susmita Mondal Giacomo Ortona Giovanni Pelliccioli Rene Poncelet Karolos Potamianos Richard Ruiz Marek Schönherr Frank Siegert Lailin Xu Xingyu Wu Giulia Zanderighi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords polarisedZ-bosonpairsNNLOQCDNLOelectroweakcorrectionsdouble-poleapproximationnarrow-widthpolarisationfractionsfour-leptonfinalstateLHCphenomenology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes the most precise Standard-Model predictions to date for the production of pairs of polarised Z bosons decaying to four charged leptons at the LHC. It reports the first combination of next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD corrections with next-to-leading-order (NLO) electroweak corrections for polarised intermediate bosons, and validates the result across several independent Monte Carlo implementations that use different definitions of the polarised signal. If the claim is right, experimental polarisation analyses now have reference cross sections, differential distributions, and joint polarisation fractions with percent-level QCD-scale uncertainties, ready for direct comparison with Run-2 and Run-3 data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polarisation projector used in the double-pole approximation (DPA) and narrow-width approximation (NWA): the sum over all polarisation states in each Z propagator numerator is replaced by the product of one specific polarisation vector with its conjugate, isolating the longitudinal or transverse state while all matrix-element numerators are evaluated with on-shell projected kinematics. On top of this, the NNLO QCD calculation uses sector-improved residue subtraction with two-loop helicity amplitudes, while the NLO EW calculations use dipole subtraction in the DPA. The paper combines the QCD and EW corrections additively and multiplicatively, which brackets the ambiguity of the combination.

What would settle it

Compute the NNLO QCD corrections to polarised ZZ production with an independent implementation (for example, a different subtraction scheme or a second set of two-loop amplitudes) and compare the LL, LT, TL, and TT fiducial cross sections in the ATLAS setup; disagreement beyond the quoted 7-point scale uncertainties would overturn the state-of-the-art claim. A direct differential check is the high-transverse-momentum tail of the LL distribution, where the additive combination stays positive while the multiplicative combination can become negative above roughly 250 GeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that polarised Z-boson pair production can now be predicted at NNLO QCD + NLO EW accuracy, combining an NNLO QCD calculation based on the double-pole approximation with three independent NLO EW calculations. The paper shows that all polarisation states (LL, LT, TL, TT) can be defined consistently at this accuracy: different on-shell definitions agree within about one to three percent, NNLO QCD adds +4% to +10% depending on polarisation, and NLO EW corrections are negative, reducing the fiducial cross section by about seven to ten percent. The resulting best predictions reproduce the normalisation of ATLAS Run-2 simulations in most angular distributions and pin down the size of non-resonant and interference effects at the percent level.

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that the NNLO QCD calculation for polarised ZZ production in the double-pole approximation is correct, even though its detailed derivation is not described here and is delegated to a companion paper; if that calculation carries an error in the polarised projection or in the subtraction, the quoted NNLO rows and the 'first combination' claim would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Polarised ZZ fiducial cross sections are now available with roughly 1-3% QCD-scale uncertainties (about 2-4% when gluon-fusion loop-induced contributions are included), matching the level needed for current experimental template fits.
  • The LL polarisation mode receives the largest NNLO QCD correction (about +10%) and the largest shape distortions at high transverse momentum, so future generator predictions should target hard radiation for longitudinal bosons.
  • Approximate NLO multi-jet merging reproduces the NNLO QCD tails better than pure NLO-plus-shower matching, indicating that hard real radiation, not soft resummation, drives the higher-order QCD effects.
  • The comparison with ATLAS Run-2 shows that reweighting LO-merged samples by NLO corrections is adequate for angular shapes in the quark channel, but biases kinematic regions probing large rapidity separations and moderate-to-high transverse momenta.
  • Off-shell and polarisation-interference contributions remain at the percent level; treating them as an explicit separate template, as the paper recommends, would reduce ambiguity in future polarisation-fraction measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same additive or multiplicative combination of NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections could be carried over to polarised WZ and WW production, where the separate ingredients already exist; the ZZ results suggest the correction pattern will depend strongly on polarisation state.
  • A testable consequence is that current event-generator reweighting in experimental analyses introduces larger biases for observables that probe suppressed LL phase space than for TT, so data in the high-transverse-momentum and large-rapidity-separation region should discriminate.
  • The observed difference of about 13% between two resummation schemes in the lowest transverse-momentum bin of the LL state suggests that resummation-scheme uncertainty, rather than fixed-order scale variation, may dominate longitudinal-boson transverse-momentum predictions.
  • Because inclusive joint polarisation fractions shift by only a few percent between NLO and NNLO+EW, detecting new-physics effects through polarisation fractions will likely require differential observables or high-energy tails rather than inclusive rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents Standard-Model predictions for the production of two polarised Z bosons decaying into four charged leptons at the 13 TeV LHC, using an ATLAS-like fiducial setup. It compares fixed-order and parton-shower-matched results from several independent Monte Carlo implementations based on the double-pole approximation, the narrow-width approximation, and the decay-chain approach, at LO, NLO QCD, NLO EW, and NNLO QCD accuracy, and studies NNLO QCD + NLO EW combinations, joint polarisation fractions, and comparisons with publicly available ATLAS Run-2 simulation predictions. The central claim is that this is the first combination of NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections for polarised ZZ production and decay, setting a new perturbative-accuracy benchmark for polarised diboson measurements.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper provides a valuable community benchmark: a systematic comparison of polarisation-signal definitions, parameter-free SM predictions, a large set of integrated and differential results, public numerical data in Yoda format, and a direct comparison with the ATLAS modelling. The extensive cross-validation among several DPA codes at LO, NLO QCD, and NLO EW, and the agreement of the unpolarised off-shell NNLO QCD result with MATRIX, are genuine strengths. The main caveat is that the novel NNLO QCD polarised ingredients are documented only by reference to an unpublished companion paper, so the headline first-combination claim cannot be fully independently assessed from this manuscript alone.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sect. 2.2, STRIPPER paragraph; ref. [116]; Tables 2-3; Figs. 7-8] The paper's central claim, the first NNLO QCD + NLO EW combination for polarised ZZ, rests entirely on the STRIPPER NNLO QCD numbers, which are documented only by a reference to an in-preparation companion paper [116], with two-loop amplitudes imported from VVamp [76]. The validation reported in Sect. 2.2 checks the unpolarised off-shell integrated cross section against MATRIX at NNLO QCD and checks polarised one-loop amplitudes against Recola; neither test exercises the genuinely new NNLO-polarised ingredients, namely the DPA-preserving treatment of double-real and real-virtual singular limits, the sector-improved subtraction for polarised projections, and the polarised two-loop amplitudes. Because the NNLO QCD corrections are large and helicity-dependent (+4% for TT and +10% for LL relative to NLO QCD, as quoted in Sect. 3.1), an error in any of these ingredients would shift the headline numbers by more than the quoted scale bands. This is a verifiability gap rather than a demonstrated error, but it is load-bearing for the main claim. Please include a technical description and at least one independent numerical check of the polarised NNLO ingredients in this manuscript, or make the companion paper available and cross-link the two papers explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 caption] The caption of Table 2 should state explicitly that the NNLO QCD rows exclude the loop-induced gg contribution; currently this information appears only in a footnote of Table 1 and in the text of Sect. 3.2.
  2. [Eq. (2.10)] There is a typo in the list of scale variations: after "(1, 1)" a comma is missing before "(1, 2)".
  3. [Fig. 9(b)] The axis label in the panel is garbled ("|ye+, ( + )|") and should read "|ye+ - ymu+mu-|" as in the caption.
  4. [Sect. 3.2] The text contains a duplicated word in "The corrections reach up to ~25% for for small Delta-phi" and a grammar error in "more the truncated-shower Sherpa results", which should be "nor the truncated-shower Sherpa results".
  5. [Sect. 3.4] The comparison with ATLAS simulations should state even more prominently that the ATLAS curves were constructed using MoCaNLO reweighting factors, so the agreement in Fig. 9 primarily validates the reweighting approximation and the polarisation modelling, not the NNLO QCD part of the predictions as an independent check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: predictions are parameter-free and cross-validated externally; residual concern is an unpublished companion NNLO calculation, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are fixed-order SM predictions with no fitted parameters and no quantity defined in terms of the claim it supports. The NNLO QCD polarised cross sections are produced by STRIPPER and quoted in Tables 1-3; the unpolarised off-shell NNLO result is checked against MATRIX [77], and polarised one-loop amplitudes are checked against a private Recola version [12]. The polarised NNLO implementation itself is described only by reference to an in-preparation companion paper [116] by one of the authors, which is a verifiability gap rather than a circular reduction: those numbers are not derived from the claims they are used to support, and no fitted parameter or target observable is reused as an input. The comparison with ATLAS pre-fit values is partly an internal consistency check because the ATLAS pre-fit used MoCaNLO predictions [15], but the paper's best predictions add NNLO QCD corrections and are not constructed from the ATLAS values. No equation or definition in the paper makes a prediction equal to an input by construction. The score of 2 reflects the load-bearing reliance on an unpublished same-group companion paper for the headline NNLO polarised rows; this is a provenance and verifiability concern, not evidence of circularity.

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

The calculation introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical entities. It relies on standard perturbative QCD and EW, on the accepted pole and narrow-width approximations for defining polarised signals, and on external PDFs and amplitudes. The main burden is that key computational ingredients are taken from unpublished or semi-private sources.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model is the correct description of the process.
    The entire calculation is a Standard Model prediction; BSM effects are not considered. Invoked throughout Sect. 2.
  • domain assumption The double-pole, narrow-width, and Breit-Wigner resonance approximations provide valid definitions of polarised signals with O(Gamma/M) accuracy.
    Sect. 2, Eqs. 2.3 and 2.4; the O(Gamma/M) accuracy estimate is cited from refs. [49,51].
  • domain assumption QCD factorization and collinear parton densities apply at LHC energies.
    Sect. 2.1, use of NNPDF31_nnlo_as_0118_luxqed as external input from global PDF fits.
  • domain assumption The additive and multiplicative combination schemes for NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections (Eq. 3.1) are valid approximations.
    Sect. 3.2, Eq. 3.1; this is the standard 'combined QCD+EW' prescription of ref. [41], but it assumes that mixed QCD-EW corrections are small.
  • domain assumption The two-loop helicity amplitudes for qqbar to V1 V2 to 4 leptons from the VVamp project [76] are correct.
    Used by STRIPPER for NNLO QCD; not independently checked in this paper. Mentioned in Sect. 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precise Standard-Model predictions for polarised Z-boson pair production and decay at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4MSWD7O

@misc{pith2026250509686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precise Standard-Model predictions for polarised Z-boson pair production and decay at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4MSWD7O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09686}
}
read the original abstract

Providing accurate theoretical predictions in the Standard Model for processes with polarised electroweak bosons is crucial to understand more in-depth the electroweak-symmetry breaking mechanism and to enhance the sensitivity to potential new-physics effects. Motivated by the rapidly increasing number of polarisation analyses of di-boson processes with LHC data, we carry out a comprehensive study of the inclusive production of two polarised Z bosons in the decay channel with four charged leptons. We perform a detailed comparison of fixed-order predictions obtained with various Monte Carlo programs which rely on different signal-definition strategies, assessing non-resonant and interference effects by contrasting polarised results with unpolarised and full off-shell ones. For the first time, we accomplish the combination of NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections, setting the new state-of-the-art perturbative accuracy for polarised Z-boson pairs at the LHC. The impact of parton-shower matching and multi-jet merging is investigated by scrutinising calculations obtained with event generators that are typically used in experimental analyses. Integrated and differential results are discussed in a realistic fiducial setup and compared to publicly available ATLAS results.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Tomography and Entanglement in Semi-Leptonic $h\to VV^*$ Decays at Higher Orders

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Semi-leptonic h→VV* decays retain an effective two-qutrit quantum description under NLO QCD and electroweak corrections, unlike the fully leptonic h→4ℓ channel.

  2. The Four Polarizations of the $W$ at High Energies

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Polarization interference in intermediate W bosons is generically nonzero even on-shell, can exceed width-over-mass corrections at low energies, and is suppressed at LHC energies; a 2P scheme is proposed to reduce gau...

  3. $CP$ violation in the $HZZ$ vertex and left-right asymmetries

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Flavor-changing Z and Higgs couplings can induce CP-violating HZZ form factors up to about 10^-7, and a new asymmetry in Z* -> Z H is proposed to search for them.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [116]

    Poncelet, NNLO QCD predictions for polarised ZZ production at the LHC , in preparation

    R. Poncelet, NNLO QCD predictions for polarised ZZ production at the LHC , in preparation

  2. [76]

    Gehrmann, A

    T. Gehrmann, A. von Manteuffel, and L. Tancredi, The two-loop helicity amplitudes for qq′→V1V2→ 4 leptons, JHEP 09 (2015) 128, [ arXiv:1503.04812]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [1]

    Aaboud et al., Measurement of W±Z production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Measurement of W±Z production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 535, [ arXiv:1902.05759]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [2]

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Measurement of the inclusive and differential WZ production cross sections, polarization angles, and triple gauge couplings in pp collisions at√s =13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2022) 032, [ arXiv:2110.11231]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [3]

    Aad et al., Observation of gauge boson joint-polarisation states in W ±Z production from pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of gauge boson joint-polarisation states in W ±Z production from pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Lett. B 843 (2023) 137895, [arXiv:2211.09435]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Aad et al., Studies of the Energy Dependence of Diboson Polarization Fractions and the Radiation-Amplitude-Zero Effect in WZ Production with the ATLAS Detector , Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Studies of the Energy Dependence of Diboson Polarization Fractions and the Radiation-Amplitude-Zero Effect in WZ Production with the ATLAS Detector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 101802, [ arXiv:2402.16365]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 133, 169901 (2024)]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Evidence of pair production of longitudinally polarised vector bosons and study of CP properties in ZZ→ 4ℓ events with the ATLAS detector at √s = 13 TeV, arXiv:2310.04350

    arXiv

  8. [6]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Measurements of production cross sections of polarized same-sign W boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 812 (2021) 136018, [ arXiv:2009.09429]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 133 references
  1. [7]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Evidence for longitudinally polarized W bosons in the electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in association with two jets in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , arXiv:2503.11317

  2. [8]

    Ballestrero, E

    A. Ballestrero, E. Maina, and G. Pelliccioli, W boson polarization in vector boson scattering at the LHC, JHEP 03 (2018) 170, [ arXiv:1710.09339]. – 26 –

    2018 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Buarque Franzosi, O

    D. Buarque Franzosi, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz, and S. Shil, Automated predictions from polarized matrix elements, JHEP 04 (2020) 082, [ arXiv:1912.01725]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Ballestrero, E

    A. Ballestrero, E. Maina, and G. Pelliccioli, Polarized vector boson scattering in the fully leptonic WZ and ZZ channels at the LHC , JHEP 09 (2019) 087, [ arXiv:1907.04722]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Ballestrero, E

    A. Ballestrero, E. Maina, and G. Pelliccioli, Different polarization definitions in same-sign WW scattering at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135856, [ arXiv:2007.07133]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Denner and G

    A. Denner and G. Pelliccioli, Polarized electroweak bosons in W +W− production at the LHC including NLO QCD effects , JHEP 09 (2020) 164, [ arXiv:2006.14867]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Denner and G

    A. Denner and G. Pelliccioli, NLO QCD predictions for doubly-polarized WZ production at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 814 (2021) 136107, [ arXiv:2010.07149]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Poncelet and A

    R. Poncelet and A. Popescu, NNLO QCD study of polarised W +W− production at the LHC , JHEP 07 (2021) 023, [ arXiv:2102.13583]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Denner and G

    A. Denner and G. Pelliccioli, NLO EW and QCD corrections to polarized ZZ production in the four-charged-lepton channel at the LHC , JHEP 10 (2021) 097, [ arXiv:2107.06579]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Pellen, R

    M. Pellen, R. Poncelet, and A. Popescu, Polarised W+j production at the LHC: a study at NNLO QCD accuracy, JHEP 02 (2022) 160, [ arXiv:2109.14336]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [17]

    D. N. Le and J. Baglio, Doubly-polarized WZ hadronic cross sections at NLO QCD + EW accuracy , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 917, [ arXiv:2203.01470]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [18]

    D. N. Le, J. Baglio, and T. N. Dao, Doubly-polarized WZ hadronic production at NLO QCD+EW: calculation method and further results , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 1103, [ arXiv:2208.09232]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Denner, C

    A. Denner, C. Haitz, and G. Pelliccioli, NLO QCD corrections to polarized diboson production in semileptonic final states , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 053004, [ arXiv:2211.09040]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [20]

    T. N. Dao and D. N. Le, Enhancing the doubly-longitudinal polarization in WZ production at the LHC, Commun. in Phys. 33 (2023) 223, [ arXiv:2302.03324]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Hoppe, M

    M. Hoppe, M. Sch¨ onherr, and F. Siegert, Polarised cross sections for vector boson production with Sherpa, JHEP 04 (2024) 001, [ arXiv:2310.14803]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Pelliccioli and G

    G. Pelliccioli and G. Zanderighi, Polarised-boson pairs at the LHC with NLOPS accuracy , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 16, [ arXiv:2311.05220]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Denner, C

    A. Denner, C. Haitz, and G. Pelliccioli, NLO EW corrections to polarised W +W− production and decay at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138539, [ arXiv:2311.16031]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [24]

    T. N. Dao and D. N. Le, NLO electroweak corrections to doubly-polarized W +W− production at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 244, [ arXiv:2311.17027]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Javurkova, R

    M. Javurkova, R. Ruiz, R. Coelho Lopes de S´ a, and J. Sandesara, Polarized ZZ pairs in gluon fusion and vector boson fusion at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138787, [ arXiv:2401.17365]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    T. N. Dao and D. N. Le, PolarizedW +W− pairs at the LHC: Effects from bottom-quark induced processes at NLO QCD + EW , Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 108, [ arXiv:2409.06396]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Denner, C

    A. Denner, C. Haitz, and G. Pelliccioli, NLO EW and QCD corrections to polarised same-sign WW scattering at the LHC , JHEP 11 (2024) 115, [ arXiv:2409.03620]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Grossi, G

    M. Grossi, G. Pelliccioli, and A. Vicini, From angular coefficients to quantum observables: a phenomenological appraisal in di-boson systems , JHEP 12 (2024) 120, [ arXiv:2409.16731]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Rahaman and R

    R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh, Anomalous triple gauge boson couplings in ZZ production at the LHC and the role of Z boson polarizations, Nucl. Phys. B 948 (2019) 114754, [ arXiv:1810.11657]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Baglio, S

    J. Baglio, S. Dawson, and S. Homiller, QCD corrections in Standard Model EFT fits to WZ and WW production, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 113010, [ arXiv:1909.11576]. – 27 –

    2019 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Rahaman and R

    R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh, Unravelling the anomalous gauge boson couplings in ZW± production at the LHC and the role of spin- 1 polarizations, JHEP 04 (2020) 075, [ arXiv:1911.03111]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [32]

    El Faham, G

    H. El Faham, G. Pelliccioli, and E. Vryonidou, Triple-gauge couplings in LHC diboson production: a SMEFT view from every angle , JHEP 08 (2024) 087, [ arXiv:2405.19083]

    2024

  27. [33]

    M. O. A. Thomas and E. Vryonidou, CP violation in loop-induced diboson production , arXiv:2411.00959

    arXiv

  28. [34]

    Searcy, L

    J. Searcy, L. Huang, M.-A. Pleier, and J. Zhu, Determination of the WW polarization fractions in pp→W±W±jj using a deep machine learning technique , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 094033, [arXiv:1510.01691]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Lee, et al., Polarization fraction measurement in same-sign WW scattering using deep learning , Phys

    J. Lee, et al., Polarization fraction measurement in same-sign WW scattering using deep learning , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 033004, [ arXiv:1812.07591]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Lee, et al., Polarization fraction measurement in ZZ scattering using deep learning , Phys

    J. Lee, et al., Polarization fraction measurement in ZZ scattering using deep learning , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 116010, [ arXiv:1908.05196]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Grossi, J

    M. Grossi, J. Novak, B. Kersevan, and D. Rebuzzi, Comparing traditional and deep-learning techniques of kinematic reconstruction for polarization discrimination in vector boson scattering , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1144, [ arXiv:2008.05316]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Kim and A

    T. Kim and A. Martin, A W± polarization analyzer from Deep Neural Networks , arXiv:2102.05124

    arXiv

  33. [39]

    J. Li, C. Zhang, and R. Zhang, Polarization measurement for the dileptonic channel of W+W- scattering using generative adversarial network , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 016005, [arXiv:2109.09924]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Grossi, M

    M. Grossi, M. Incudini, M. Pellen, and G. Pelliccioli, Amplitude-assisted tagging of longitudinally polarised bosons using wide neural networks , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 759, [ arXiv:2306.07726]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [41]

    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 , JHEP 02 (2020) 087, [arXiv:1912.00068]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [42]

    J. M. Lindert, D. Lombardi, M. Wiesemann, G. Zanderighi, and S. Zanoli, W±Z production at NNLO QCD and NLO EW matched to parton showers with MiNNLO PS, arXiv:2208.12660

    arXiv

  37. [43]

    R. G. Stuart, General renormalization of the gauge invariant perturbation expansion near the Z 0 resonance, Phys. Lett. B 272 (1991) 353–358

    1991

  38. [44]

    R. G. Stuart, Gauge invariance, analyticity and physical observables at the Z 0 resonance, Phys. Lett. B 262 (1991) 113–119

    1991

  39. [45]

    R. G. Stuart, Unstable particles, pp. 0235–246, 4, 1995. hep-ph/9504308

    1995 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Aeppli, G

    A. Aeppli, G. J. van Oldenborgh, and D. Wyler, Unstable particles in one loop calculations , Nucl. Phys. B428 (1994) 126–146, [ hep-ph/9312212]

    1994 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and D. Wackeroth, Electroweak radiative corrections to e+e−→WW → 4 fermions in double-pole approximation: The RACOONWW approach , Nucl. Phys. B587 (2000) 67–117, [ hep-ph/0006307]

    2000 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and L. Wieders, Electroweak corrections to charged-current e+e−→ 4 fermion processes: Technical details and further results , Nucl. Phys. B 724 (2005) 247–294, [hep-ph/0505042]. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 854 (2012) 504]

    2005 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Electroweak Radiative Corrections for Collider Physics , Phys. Rept. 864 (2020) 1–163, [ arXiv:1912.06823]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Richardson, Spin correlations in Monte Carlo simulations , JHEP 11 (2001) 029, [hep-ph/0110108]

    P. Richardson, Spin correlations in Monte Carlo simulations , JHEP 11 (2001) 029, [hep-ph/0110108]. – 28 –

    2001 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Uhlemann and N

    C. Uhlemann and N. Kauer, Narrow-width approximation accuracy, Nucl. Phys. B 814 (2009) 195–211, [arXiv:0807.4112]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations , JHEP 03 (2013) 015, [ arXiv:1212.3460]

    2013 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, R. L. Workman and Others, Review of Particle Physics , PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  48. [54]

    Bardin, A

    D. Bardin, A. Leike, T. Riemann, and M. Sachwitz, Energy-dependent width effects in e+e− annihilation near the Z-boson pole , Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988) 539–542

    1988

  49. [55]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, The complex-mass scheme for perturbative calculations with unstable particles, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 160 (2006) 22–26, [ hep-ph/0605312]

    2006 arXiv

  50. [56]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions from high-precision collider data , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, [ arXiv:1706.00428]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Bertone, S

    NNPDF Collaboration, 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, [arXiv:1712.07053]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Buckley, et al., LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era , Eur

    A. Buckley, et al., LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 132, [ arXiv:1412.7420]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [59]

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

    1997 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Wobisch and T

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

    1998 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm , JHEP 04 (2008) 063, [arXiv:0802.1189]

    2008 arXiv

  56. [62]

    Actis, A

    S. Actis, A. Denner, L. Hofer, A. Scharf, and S. Uccirati, Recursive generation of one-loop amplitudes in the Standard Model , JHEP 04 (2013) 037, [ arXiv:1211.6316]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Actis, et al., RECOLA: REcursive Computation of One-Loop Amplitudes , Comput

    S. Actis, et al., RECOLA: REcursive Computation of One-Loop Amplitudes , Comput. Phys. Commun. 214 (2017) 140–173, [ arXiv:1605.01090]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and L. Hofer, COLLIER: a fortran-based Complex One-Loop LIbrary in Extended Regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 220–238, [ arXiv:1604.06792]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. Seymour, A general algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD , Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 291–419, [hep-ph/9605323]. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 510 (1998) 503–504]

    1997 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Dittmaier, A general approach to photon radiation off fermions , Nucl

    S. Dittmaier, A general approach to photon radiation off fermions , Nucl. Phys. B 565 (2000) 69–122, [hep-ph/9904440]

    2000 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour, and Z. Trocsanyi, The dipole formalism for next-to-leading order QCD calculations with massive partons , Nucl. Phys. B 627 (2002) 189–265, [hep-ph/0201036]

    2002 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Czakon, A novel subtraction scheme for double-real radiation at NNLO , Phys

    M. Czakon, A novel subtraction scheme for double-real radiation at NNLO , Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010) 259–268, [ arXiv:1005.0274]

    2010 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Czakon and D

    M. Czakon and D. Heymes, Four-dimensional formulation of the sector-improved residue subtraction scheme, Nucl. Phys. B 890 (2014) 152–227, [ arXiv:1408.2500]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. van Hameren, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet, Single-jet inclusive rates with exact color atO (α4 s), JHEP 10 (2019) 262, [ arXiv:1907.12911]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Pellen, R

    M. Pellen, R. Poncelet, A. Popescu, and T. Vitos, Angular coefficients in W + j production at the LHC with high precision , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 693, [ arXiv:2204.12394]. – 29 –

    2022 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Bury and A

    M. Bury and A. van Hameren, Numerical evaluation of multi-gluon amplitudes for High Energy Factorization, Comput. Phys. Commun. 196 (2015) 592–598, [ arXiv:1503.08612]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Buccioni, et al., OpenLoops 2, Eur

    F. Buccioni, et al., OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 866, [ arXiv:1907.13071]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini, Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 111601, [ arXiv:1111.5206]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Buccioni, S

    F. Buccioni, S. Pozzorini, and M. Zoller, On-the-fly reduction of open loops , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 70, [ arXiv:1710.11452]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Grazzini, S

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and M. Wiesemann, Fully differential NNLO computations with MATRIX , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 537, [ arXiv:1711.06631]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput.Phys.Commun

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput.Phys.Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431

    2001

  72. [79]

    Hahn and M

    T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one-loop calculations in four and D dimensions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153–165

    1999

  73. [80]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. Veltman, One Loop Corrections for e+ e− Annihilation Into µ+ µ− in the Weinberg Model, Nucl.Phys. B160 (1979) 151

    1979

  74. [81]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Scalar One Loop Integrals, Nucl.Phys. B153 (1979) 365–401

    1979

  75. [82]

    D. T. Nhung and L. D. Ninh, D0C : A code to calculate scalar one-loop four-point integrals with complex masses, Comput.Phys.Commun. 180 (2009) 2258–2267, [ arXiv:0902.0325]

    2009 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Scalar one-loop 4-point integrals, Nucl.Phys. B844 (2011) 199–242

    2011

  77. [84]

    Kawabata, A New version of the multidimensional integration and event generation package BASES/SPRING, Comput

    S. Kawabata, A New version of the multidimensional integration and event generation package BASES/SPRING, Comput. Phys. Commun. 88 (1995) 309–326

    1995

  78. [85]

    Baglio et al., Release note: VBFNLO 3.0 , Eur

    J. Baglio et al., Release note: VBFNLO 3.0 , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1003, [ arXiv:2405.06990]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX , JHEP 06 (2010) 043, [ arXiv:1002.2581]

    2010 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Nason, A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms , JHEP 11 (2004) 040, [ hep-ph/0409146]

    P. Nason, A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms , JHEP 11 (2004) 040, [ hep-ph/0409146]

    2004 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method , JHEP 11 (2007) 070, [ arXiv:0709.2092]

    2007 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Chiesa, C

    M. Chiesa, C. Oleari, and E. Re, NLO QCD+NLO EW corrections to diboson production matched to parton shower , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 849, [ arXiv:2005.12146]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [90]

    Jeˇ zo and P

    T. Jeˇ zo and P. Nason,On the Treatment of Resonances in Next-to-Leading Order Calculations Matched to a Parton Shower , JHEP 12 (2015) 065, [ arXiv:1509.09071]

    2015 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Frixione, Z

    S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, and A. Signer, Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order , Nucl. Phys. B 467 (1996) 399–442, [ hep-ph/9512328]

    1996 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Sj¨ ostrand, et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [arXiv:1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Sj¨ ostrand,The PYTHIA Event Generator: Past, Present and Future , Comput

    T. Sj¨ ostrand,The PYTHIA Event Generator: Past, Present and Future , Comput. Phys. Commun. 246 (2020) 106910, [ arXiv:1907.09874]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Bothmann et al., Event generation with Sherpa 3 , JHEP 12 (2024) 156, [arXiv:2410.22148]

    Sherpa Collaboration, E. Bothmann et al., Event generation with Sherpa 3 , JHEP 12 (2024) 156, [arXiv:2410.22148]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A Parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP 03 (2008) 038, [ arXiv:0709.1027]. – 30 –

    2008 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Schonherr and F

    M. Schonherr and F. Krauss, Soft Photon Radiation in Particle Decays in SHERPA , JHEP 12 (2008) 018, [ arXiv:0810.5071]

    2008 arXiv

  90. [97]

    G. S. Chahal and F. Krauss, Cluster Hadronisation in Sherpa , SciPost Phys. 13 (2022) 019, [arXiv:2203.11385]

    2022 arXiv

  91. [98]

    H¨ oche, S

    S. H¨ oche, S. Kuttimalai, S. Schumann, and F. Siegert, Beyond Standard Model calculations with Sherpa, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 135, [ arXiv:1412.6478]

    2015 arXiv

  92. [99]

    I. G. Knowles, Angular Correlations in QCD , Nucl. Phys. B 304 (1988) 767–793

    1988

  93. [100]

    I. G. Knowles, Spin Correlations in Parton - Parton Scattering , Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988) 571–588

    1988

  94. [101]

    J. C. Collins, Spin Correlations in Monte Carlo Event Generators , Nucl. Phys. B 304 (1988) 794–804

    1988

  95. [102]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Hoeche, Comix, a new matrix element generator , JHEP 12 (2008) 039, [arXiv:0808.3674]

    2008 arXiv

  96. [103]

    Hoppe, M

    M. Hoppe, M. Sch¨ onherr, and F. Siegert, Loop-induced predictions for polarised bosons with Sherpa, in preparation

  97. [104]

    Hoeche, F

    S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, and F. Siegert, A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP 09 (2012) 049, [ arXiv:1111.1220]

    2012 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Lonnblad, Correcting the color dipole cascade model with fixed order matrix elements , JHEP 05 (2002) 046, [ hep-ph/0112284]

    L. Lonnblad, Correcting the color dipole cascade model with fixed order matrix elements , JHEP 05 (2002) 046, [ hep-ph/0112284]

    2002 arXiv

  99. [106]

    Hoeche, F

    S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann, and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements and truncated showers , JHEP 05 (2009) 053, [ arXiv:0903.1219]

    2009 arXiv

  100. [107]

    Gehrmann, S

    T. Gehrmann, S. Hoche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, and F. Siegert, NLO QCD matrix elements + parton showers in e+e−→ hadrons, JHEP 01 (2013) 144, [ arXiv:1207.5031]

    2013 arXiv

  101. [108]

    Hoeche, F

    S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers: The NLO case, JHEP 04 (2013) 027, [ arXiv:1207.5030]

    2013 arXiv

  102. [109]

    Hoeche, et al., Triple vector boson production through Higgs-Strahlung with NLO multijet merging, Phys

    S. Hoeche, et al., Triple vector boson production through Higgs-Strahlung with NLO multijet merging, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 093015, [ arXiv:1403.7516]

    2014 arXiv

  103. [110]

    Hoche, F

    S. Hoche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, and F. Siegert, NLO matrix elements and truncated showers , JHEP 08 (2011) 123, [ arXiv:1009.1127]

    2011 arXiv

  104. [111]

    Stelzer and W

    T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Automatic generation of tree level helicity amplitudes , Comput. Phys. Commun. 81 (1994) 357–371, [ hep-ph/9401258]

    1994 arXiv

  105. [112]

    J. Alwall, 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, [arXiv:1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  106. [113]

    Frederix, et al., The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations , JHEP 07 (2018) 185, [ arXiv:1804.10017]

    R. Frederix, et al., The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations , JHEP 07 (2018) 185, [ arXiv:1804.10017]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)]

    2018 arXiv

  107. [114]

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions , JHEP 01 (2007) 013, [ hep-ph/0611129]

    2007 arXiv

  108. [115]

    Alwall et al., Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions , Eur

    J. Alwall et al., Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions , Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473–500, [ arXiv:0706.2569]

    2008 arXiv

  109. [117]

    J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos, Derivation of Gauge Invariance from High-Energy Unitarity Bounds on the S Matrix, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 1145. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 972]

    1974

  110. [118]

    C. E. Vayonakis, Born Helicity Amplitudes and Cross-Sections in Nonabelian Gauge Theories , Lett. Nuovo Cim. 17 (1976) 383. – 31 –

    1976

  111. [119]

    M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, The TeV Physics of Strongly Interacting W’s and Z’s , Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 379–431

    1985

  112. [120]

    G. J. Gounaris, R. K¨ ogerler, and H. Neufeld, Relationship Between Longitudinally Polarized Vector Bosons and their Unphysical Scalar Partners , Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 3257

    1986

  113. [121]

    Bierweiler, T

    A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Vector-boson pair production at the LHC to O(α3) accuracy, JHEP 12 (2013) 071, [ arXiv:1305.5402]

    2013 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Frixione and B

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations , JHEP 06 (2002) 029, [ hep-ph/0204244]

    2002 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG , JHEP 04 (2009) 002, [ arXiv:0812.0578]

    2009 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Melia, P

    T. Melia, P. Nason, R. R¨ ontsch, and G. Zanderighi,W +W−, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 11 (2011) 078, [ arXiv:1107.5051]

    2011 arXiv

  117. [125]

    A TLASCollaboration, Modelling of Longitudinal-Longitudinal polarisation of the ZZ final state in the four-lepton decay channel at the ATLAS experiment , Tech. Rep. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-021,

    2025

  118. [126]

    Caola, K

    F. Caola, K. Melnikov, R. R¨ ontsch, and L. Tancredi,QCD corrections to ZZ production in gluon fusion at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 094028, [ arXiv:1509.06734]

    2015 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Grazzini, S

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, M. Wiesemann, and J. Y. Yook, ZZ production at the LHC: NLO QCD corrections to the loop-induced gluon fusion channel , JHEP 03 (2019) 070, [ arXiv:1811.09593]

    2019 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Gr¨ ober, A

    R. Gr¨ ober, A. Maier, and T. Rauh, Top quark mass effects in gg→ZZ at two loops and off-shell Higgs boson interference, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 114013, [ arXiv:1908.04061]

    2019 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Alioli, F

    S. Alioli, F. Caola, G. Luisoni, and R. R¨ ontsch, ZZ production in gluon fusion at NLO matched to parton-shower, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 034042, [ arXiv:1609.09719]

    2017 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Buonocore, et al., ZZ production at nNNLO+PS with MiNNLO PS , JHEP 01 (2022) 072, [arXiv:2108.05337]

    L. Buonocore, et al., ZZ production at nNNLO+PS with MiNNLO PS , JHEP 01 (2022) 072, [arXiv:2108.05337]

    2022 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Agarwal, S

    B. Agarwal, S. Jones, M. Kerner, and A. von Manteuffel, Complete Next-to-Leading Order QCD Corrections to ZZ Production in Gluon Fusion , Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 031901, [arXiv:2404.05684]

    2025 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Buckley, et al., Consistent, multidimensional differential histogramming and summary statistics with YODA 2 , arXiv:2312.15070

    A. Buckley, et al., Consistent, multidimensional differential histogramming and summary statistics with YODA 2 , arXiv:2312.15070. – 32 –

    arXiv

  125. [2025]

    https://cds.cern.ch/record/2932000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.