Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Fast interpolation grids for the Drell-Yan process

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that NNLO Drell-Yan theory can be stored in interpolation grids and reused for any PDF with negligible error, retiring the need for K-factor approximations.

desk verdict Useful, well-scoped technical release that fills the missing NNLO Drell-Yan grid gap; the K-factor fit study is the strongest part. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13167 v1 pith:IBIJHD52 submitted 2025-01-22 hep-ph

Juan Cruz-Martinez , Alexander Huss , Christopher Schwan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Drell-YanprocessNNLOQCDinterpolationgridsPDFfitsK-factorapproximationaccidentalcancellationsDGLAPevolutionFast-Kerneltables
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 reports a new interface between an NNLO parton-level Monte Carlo generator and an interpolation-grid library, and releases the first NNLO differential grids for the Drell-Yan process across the Tevatron and LHC measurements that commonly enter global PDF fits. The grids reproduce the exact NNLO calculation to better than one per-mille over most of phase space, with errors rising to a few per-mille only at the forward LHCb edge; once the small size of the NNLO coefficient is taken into account, those errors are negligible. Using the grids, the paper diagnoses the NNLO accidental cancellations as a basis effect and shows that the widely used K-factor approximation is stable at the per-mille level, with PDF fits using exact NNLO grids instead of K-factors agreeing within quoted uncertainties. This makes exact NNLO Drell-Yan theory a practical option for PDF determinations and provides a stepping stone toward approximate N3LO grids.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interpolation grid produced by the NNLOJET-PINEAPPL interface: a discretized store of the partonic cross section convolved with basis eigenfunctions, with separate entries for the renormalisation scale $\mu_R$, the factorisation scale $\mu_F$, the momentum fractions $x_1$ and $x_2$, each partonic channel, and each perturbative order. Evaluating a hadronic cross section from the grid reduces to a weighted sum over nodes, which is what makes re-evaluation for arbitrary PDFs almost instantaneous. A second mechanism, the rotation of the DGLAP evolution operator into the singlet and non-singlet evolution basis, does the work of isolating the accidental cancellations: it decouples the evolution of independent components and makes the scale dependence nearly flat, showing the large flavour-basis cancellations are driven by DGLAP-induced correlations inside the singlet sector.

What would settle it

Take one released grid outside the two closure-tested datasets, such as an ATLAS 8 TeV high-mass grid, evaluate it at the same NNLOJET reference settings, and compare bin-by-bin; if any bin's interpolation error on the NNLO coefficient exceeds the claimed few-per-mille level, or shifts the final cross section by more than one part in $10^{-5}$, the universal accuracy statement is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By linking the NNLO parton-level generator NNLOJET to the interpolation library PINEAPPL, the paper supplies the first differential NNLO interpolation grids for Drell-Yan, covering the Tevatron and LHC measurements that typically enter a global PDF determination. Closure tests against the exact calculation show that interpolation errors stay below one per-mille over most of phase space, with a few per-mille in the forward LHCb region; because the NNLO coefficient itself is only a few percent of the full prediction, those grid errors shift the final cross section by roughly one part in $10^{-5}$, well below the Monte Carlo and experimental uncertainties. The grids reveal that the striking NNLO cancellation between $\mathrm{q}\bar{\mathrm{q}}$ and $\mathrm{qg}+\bar{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{g}$ channels is largely an artefact of the flavour basis: in the evolution basis the cancellation is an order of magnitude smaller and the scale dependence nearly flat. Finally, the paper shows that the widely used K-factor approximation for Drell-Yan, NLO grids multiplied by an NNLO K-factor computed with one PDF set, is stable at the per-mille level across PDF sets, and that PDF fits using the exact NNLO grids instead of K-factors agree within quoted uncertainties even when only Drell-Yan data are fitted.

Load-bearing premise

The universal sub-per-mille accuracy claim for all released grids rests on closure tests for only two of the many datasets, and even those show deviations of a few per-mille in the forward and high-mass corners.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All released Drell-Yan datasets can be re-evaluated at NNLO for arbitrary PDF sets, scale choices, and $\alpha_s$ values in seconds, so global PDF fits can use exact NNLO theory instead of K-factor-approximated theory.
  • The evolution-basis analysis implies that comparisons of NNLO and N3LO Drell-Yan predictions should be made in the evolution basis, where the scale dependence is flat, rather than in the flavour basis.
  • Existing PDF fits that used NLO grids plus NNLO K-factors are not materially biased by that approximation, because the K-factor is stable at the per-mille level and the fit impact is within quoted uncertainties.
  • The released grids supply the NNLO ingredient needed to construct approximate N3LO grids from N3LO K-factors, the route the paper identifies toward N3LO PDF fits.
  • Scale-variation bands, cross-PDF pulls, and PDF uncertainties for Drell-Yan become effectively zero-cost analyses, making routine theory-uncertainty audits feasible for every dataset in the release.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The interface is process-agnostic, so the same recipe should produce NNLO grids for other NNLOJET processes such as jets, top-quark pairs, and DIS; a direct test would be a grid release for one of those processes.
  • Because closure tests are shown for only two datasets, a prudent user would run the same grid-versus-exact comparison on the high-mass ATLAS and 13 TeV LHCb grids before relying on the sub-per-mille statement at the kinematic edges; this is a cheap verification the paper does not itself include.
  • The evolution-basis flatness suggests that DGLAP evolution, not the hard matrix element, is the main driver of the NNLO scale sensitivity; a testable extension is whether approximate N3LO predictions in the same basis close the known gap between NNLO uncertainty bands and N3LO central values.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports on a new interface between the NNLOJET parton-level Monte Carlo generator and the PINEAPPL interpolation-grid library, and releases grids for 22 Drell-Yan datasets that commonly enter global PDF determinations. After describing the grid metadata and presenting closure tests for two representative datasets (CMS 7 TeV DY and LHCb 8 TeV W) to quantify interpolation errors, the paper demonstrates the use of the grids for scale and PDF uncertainty studies, investigates accidental cancellations between partonic channels at NNLO (including a rotation to the evolution basis), and validates the widely used K-factor approximation for DY in the context of PDF fits. The K-factor validation includes dedicated PDF fits with identical settings that compare exact NNLO grids against the K-factor approximation, both in a global-fit setup and in a DY-only worst-case scenario.

Significance. If the grids are accurate as claimed, this work fills a genuine gap: no differential NNLO interpolation grids for Drell-Yan were previously available, despite the process contributing roughly 20% of the data in recent global PDF fits. The released grids would allow fast, exact NNLO re-evaluations for arbitrary PDFs and scale choices, which is directly useful for the PDF-fitting community. The K-factor study is well designed: the PDF fits differ only in the theory treatment while keeping all other settings fixed, and the DY-only fit provides a meaningful worst-case test. The evolution-basis analysis offers a novel and plausible explanation for the accidental NNLO cancellations. The paper also ships reproducible artifacts: the grids, the NNLOJET runcards, and the PINEAPPL-based analysis tools are publicly available, which strengthens its practical value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Figs. 1a/1b] The closure tests are presented for only two of the 22 released datasets (CMS 7 TeV DY, Ref. [50], and LHCb 8 TeV W, Ref. [55]). The paper then states that interpolation errors are 'completely negligible' for any phenomenological application of the provided grids. This universal accuracy claim is extrapolated to untested datasets, including the high-mass ATLAS grids reaching m_ll = 1500 GeV (Refs. [42,47]) and the 13 TeV LHCb forward grids (Ref. [58]), which probe larger x and rapidity ranges where interpolation is hardest. The authors should either provide closure tests for at least one high-mass and one 13 TeV forward dataset, or explicitly restrict the accuracy claim to the tested kinematic regions.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, paragraph on dilution argument] The argument that 'an interpolation error of 1 permille on the coefficient translates to a 0.01 permille level of exactitude on the final results' applies only to the delta_NNLO coefficient, which is a few percent of the full cross section. The LO and delta_NLO coefficients contribute directly to the cross section, and Fig. 1b shows deviations of a few permille for these coefficients in the forward LHCb region; a 1% interpolation error on the delta_NLO coefficient in an untested bin would shift the absolute prediction by roughly 0.3-0.5%, which is not negligible compared with sub-percent PDF uncertainties. The closure test should separately quantify and report the interpolation error on the LO and delta_NLO coefficients, and the 'completely negligible' claim should be reassessed in light of those numbers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1] The sentence 'no differential predictions are available' is imprecise: Drell-Yan has been computed differentially at NNLO (Refs. [18-21]) and N3LO (Refs. [26-30]); the intended meaning is that no differential interpolation grids are available. Please rephrase.
  2. [Sec. 1] Typo: 'an approximation basted on NLO grids' should read 'based on NLO grids'.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, footnote 1] The sentence 'conversion from and to (pineappl [import|export] --help) this format facilitate its use as an universal converter' is garbled; please rephrase to clearly explain the import/export syntax.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'combined with the flexibly to evolve' should read 'combined with the flexibility to evolve'.
  5. [Fig. 4] The horizontal-axis label 'F (GeV)' should be 'mu_F (GeV)' in both panels for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the grid closure tests and K-factor checks are genuine internal validations, and the derived conclusions rest on independent cross-checks rather than on fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central technical claim is the construction of NNLO Drell-Yan interpolation grids via a new interface between NNLOJET and PINEAPPL, with closure tests that compare grid evaluations against the exact NNLOJET reference used to generate them. This is the appropriate internal test for interpolation error: the paper explicitly states that 'Any observed difference is thus solely due to interpolation errors,' so the closure test is not a prediction from fitted inputs but a calibration of the interpolation approximation. The subsequent phenomenological studies are also non-circular: the channel decomposition in Section 3.1 is an analysis of the grids using EKO evolution, and the conclusion that cancellations are driven by DGLAP evolution is a substantive observation, not an input assumption. The K-factor study in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 computes K-factors for multiple PDF sets with the exact grids, checks their stability across PDF choices, and then performs full PDF fits under 'Exact NNLO predictions' versus 'K-factors' while keeping all other settings identical; this is a genuine cross-check rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to the authors' own tools (PINEAPPL, NNLOJET, EKO, pineko) are references to independently developed and publicly available software; they are load-bearing only in the sense that any technical paper relies on its computational infrastructure, not as an unverified theorem or assumption that forces the conclusions. The extrapolation of sub-per-mille interpolation accuracy from two shown closure tests to all released grids is an evidentiary limitation and a possible correctness risk, but it is not a circularity: the accuracy claim is empirical, and no equation or definition in the paper reduces the claimed result to its own input.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the scale choice mu_R = mu_F = E_T,V is a convention, not a fitted parameter. The central claims depend on the correctness of NNLOJET, PINEAPPL, and EKO, which are prior tools rather than newly postulated entities.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Hadronic cross sections factorize into PDFs and partonic cross sections (QCD factorization).
    The entire grid method, described in Section 2, relies on this factorization to store partonic information separately from PDFs.
  • domain assumption NNLOJET provides correct NNLO reference cross sections.
    The grids are generated from NNLOJET reference numbers; the closure tests only validate the interpolation, not the underlying calculation.
  • domain assumption EKO provides correct DGLAP evolution kernels and evolution-basis decomposition.
    Section 3.1 uses EKO to evolve grids and to rotate to the singlet/non-singlet basis; the conclusion that cancellations are an artifact of the basis assumes this decomposition is physically meaningful.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast interpolation grids for the Drell-Yan process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IBIJHD52

@misc{pith2026250113167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast interpolation grids for the Drell-Yan process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IBIJHD52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13167}
}
read the original abstract

Modern analyses of experimental data from hadron colliders rely on theory predictions at high orders in perturbation theory and a variety of input settings. Interpolation grids facilitate an almost instant re-evaluation of theory predictions for different input parton distributions functions (PDFs) or scale settings and are thus indispensable in the study of the parton content of the proton. While interpolation grids at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) exist for some key processes relevant for PDF determinations, a notable exception is the Drell-Yan process that constitutes the production of electroweak gauge bosons at hadron colliders and provides important constraints on the quark content of the proton. To address this gap, we report on a new interface between the parton-level Monte Carlo generator NNLOJET and the interpolation grid library PINEAPPL and demonstrate its use for the Drell-Yan process. Accompanying this note, we release Drell-Yan grids covering a wide range of measurements that commonly enter global determinations of PDFs. We use the grids to study accidental cancellation between partonic channels at NNLO and inspect the validity of a K-factor approximation that was widely employed previously.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13167 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Grid closure between the interpolation and the exact NNLO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 9-point scale variations for the Z data from Ref. [43], evaluated using the PDF set (NNPDF40 nnlo as 01180) at all orders. pineappl uncert < grid > <pdf > -- scale - abs =9 -- orders < orders > where <orders> specifies the perturbative orders to be con￾sidered, e.g. --orders a2,as1a2 for NLO in the DY pro￾cess. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scale and PDF uncertainties for the W− data of Ref. [51]. Using interpolation grids we can obtain several different analyses with a single command of PineAPPL in a matter of seconds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Channel decomposition of the NNLO contribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the gluon PDF between two PDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of different PDF sets for NNLO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the qq luminosity between two PDF fits, one with exact NNLO grids and the other based on the K-factor approximation. The fit is repeated using only DY data (top) and the global dataset (bottom). tuned scenario where the impact of the approximation was max…

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. Impact of Z-boson transverse-momentum resummation on PDF determination

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    N3LL' resummation is required to reconcile the 13 TeV ATLAS Z-pT spectrum with global PDF fits, but lowering the pT cut below 30 GeV is not yet supported.

  2. MATRIX HAWAII: PineAPPL interpolation grids with MATRIX

    hep-ph 2025-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Matrix Hawaii provides a public interface between PineAPPL and MATRIX that generates interpolation grids at NNLO QCD + NLO EW accuracy for a range of LHC processes, with sub-permille interpolation errors.

  3. Parton distributions confront LHC Run II data: a quantitative appraisal

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic NNLO data-theory comparison shows that the main PDF sets generalise to unseen LHC and HERA data about equally well once PDF, alpha_s, and missing higher order uncertainties are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [50]

    Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 12 (2013) 030, arXiv:1310.7291

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 12 (2013) 030, arXiv:1310.7291

    arXiv 2013

  2. [55]

    Aaij et al., JHEP 01 (2016) 155, arXiv:1511.08039

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., JHEP 01 (2016) 155, arXiv:1511.08039

    arXiv 2016

  3. [58]

    Aaij et al., JHEP 09 (2016) 136, arXiv:1607.06495

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., JHEP 09 (2016) 136, arXiv:1607.06495

    arXiv 2016

  4. [1]

    Carli, D

    T. Carli, D. Clements, A. Cooper-Sarkar, C. Gwenlan, G. P. Salam, F. Siegert, P. Starovoitov and M. Sutton, Eur. Phys. J. C66 (2010) 503–524, arXiv:0911.2985

    arXiv 2010

  5. [2]

    FastNLO: Fast pQCD calculations for PDF fits,

    T. Kluge, K. Rabbertz and M. Wobisch, “FastNLO: Fast pQCD calculations for PDF fits,” in 14th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering, pp. 483–486. 9

    work page

  6. [3]

    New features in version 2 of the fastNLO project,

    fastNLO Collaboration, D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, F. Stober and M. Wobisch, “New features in version 2 of the fastNLO project,” in 20th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, pp. 217–221. 2012. arXiv:1208.3641

    arXiv 2012

  7. [4]

    Carrazza, E

    S. Carrazza, E. R. Nocera, C. Schwan and M. Zaro, JHEP 12 (2020) 108, arXiv:2008.12789

    arXiv 2020

  8. [5]

    PineAPPL: NLO EW corrections for PDF processes

    C. Schwan, SciPost Phys. Proc.8 (2022) 079, arXiv:2108.05816

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 68 references
  1. [6]

    Britzger et al., Eur

    D. Britzger et al., Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 845, arXiv:1906.05303. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 81, 957 (2021)]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Abt et al., Eur

    H1, ZEUS Collaboration, I. Abt et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 243, arXiv:2112.01120

    2022 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Britzger et al., Eur

    D. Britzger et al., Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 930, arXiv:2207.13735

    2022 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Czakon, D

    M. Czakon, D. Heymes and A. Mitov, arXiv:1704.08551

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    M. V. Garzelli, J. Mazzitelli, S. O. Moch and O. Zenaiev, JHEP 05 (2024) 321, arXiv:2311.05509

    2024 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Bertone, S

    V. Bertone, S. Carrazza and N. P. Hartland, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 205–209, arXiv:1605.02070

    2017 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Candido, F

    A. Candido, F. Hekhorn, G. Magni, T. R. Rabemananjara and R. Stegeman, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) 698, arXiv:2401.15187. Juan Cruz–Martinez et al.: Fast interpolation grids for the Drell–Yan process 9

    2024 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Barontini, A

    A. Barontini, A. Candido, J. M. Cruz-Martinez, F. Hekhorn and C. Schwan, Comput. Phys. Commun.297 (2024) 109061, arXiv:2302.12124

    2024 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Hou et al., Phys

    T.-J. Hou et al., Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 014013, arXiv:1912.10053

    2021 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Bailey, T

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 341, arXiv:2012.04684

    2021 arXiv

  11. [16]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 428, arXiv:2109.02653

    2022 arXiv

  12. [17]

    S. D. Drell and T.-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.25 (1970) 316–320. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 25, 902 (1970)]

    1970

  13. [18]

    Anastasiou, L

    C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 094008, arXiv:hep-ph/0312266

    2004 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Melnikov and F

    K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 114017, arXiv:hep-ph/0609070

    2006 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Catani, L

    S. Catani, L. Cieri, G. Ferrera, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Phys. Rev. Lett.103 (2009) 082001, arXiv:0903.2120

    2009 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Catani, G

    S. Catani, G. Ferrera and M. Grazzini, JHEP 05 (2010) 006, arXiv:1002.3115

    2010 arXiv

  17. [22]

    C. Duhr, F. Dulat and B. Mistlberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 172001, arXiv:2001.07717

    2020 arXiv

  18. [23]

    C. Duhr, F. Dulat and B. Mistlberger, JHEP 11 (2020) 143, arXiv:2007.13313

    2020 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Duhr and B

    C. Duhr and B. Mistlberger, JHEP 03 (2022) 116, arXiv:2111.10379

    2022 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Baglio, C

    J. Baglio, C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger and R. Szafron, JHEP 12 (2022) 066, arXiv:2209.06138

    2022 arXiv

  21. [26]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, A. Huss, T.-Z. Yang and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) 052001, arXiv:2107.09085

    2022 arXiv

  22. [27]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, P. F. Monni, E. Re, L. Rottoli and P. Torrielli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 252001, arXiv:2203.01565

    2022 arXiv

  23. [28]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, A. Huss, T.-Z. Yang and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B840 (2023) 137876, arXiv:2205.11426

    2023 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Neumann and J

    T. Neumann and J. Campbell, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) L011506, arXiv:2207.07056

    2023 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Campbell and T

    J. Campbell and T. Neumann, JHEP 11 (2023) 127, arXiv:2308.15382

    2023 arXiv

  26. [31]

    NNLOJET: a parton-level event generator for jet cross sections at NNLO QCD accuracy

    NNLOJET Collaboration, A. Huss et al., “NNLOJET: a parton-level event generator for jet cross sections at NNLO QCD accuracy.” 2025

    2025

  27. [32]

    Daleo, T

    A. Daleo, T. Gehrmann and D. Maitre, JHEP 04 (2007) 016, arXiv:hep-ph/0612257

    2007 arXiv

  28. [33]

    Boughezal, A

    R. Boughezal, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder and M. Ritzmann, JHEP 02 (2011) 098, arXiv:1011.6631

    2011 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Gehrmann and P

    T. Gehrmann and P. F. Monni, JHEP 12 (2011) 049, arXiv:1107.4037

    2011 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and M. Ritzmann, JHEP 10 (2012) 047, arXiv:1207.5779

    2012 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, JHEP 09 (2005) 056, arXiv:hep-ph/0505111

    2005 arXiv

  32. [37]

    CDF Collaboration, T. A. Aaltonen et al., Phys. Lett. B 692 (2010) 232–239, arXiv:0908.3914

    2010 arXiv

  33. [38]

    D0 Collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al., Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 012003, arXiv:hep-ex/0702025

    2007 arXiv

  34. [39]

    D0 Collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al., Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 091102, arXiv:1309.2591

    2013 arXiv

  35. [40]

    D0 Collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al., Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 032007, arXiv:1412.2862. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 079901 (2015)]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [41]

    Aad et al., JHEP 06 (2014) 112, arXiv:1404.1212

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., JHEP 06 (2014) 112, arXiv:1404.1212

    2014 arXiv

  37. [42]

    Aad et al., Phys

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B725 (2013) 223–242, arXiv:1305.4192

    2013 arXiv

  38. [43]

    Aad et al., Phys

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 072004, arXiv:1109.5141

    2012 arXiv

  39. [44]

    Aaboud et al., Eur

    ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 367, arXiv:1612.03016

    2017 arXiv

  40. [45]

    Aad et al., Eur

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 760, arXiv:1904.05631

    2019 arXiv

  41. [46]

    Aaboud et al., JHEP 12 (2017) 059, arXiv:1710.05167

    ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., JHEP 12 (2017) 059, arXiv:1710.05167

    2017 arXiv

  42. [47]

    Aad et al., JHEP 08 (2016) 009, arXiv:1606.01736

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., JHEP 08 (2016) 009, arXiv:1606.01736

    2016 arXiv

  43. [48]

    Chatrchyan et al., Phys

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 111806, arXiv:1206.2598

    2012 arXiv

  44. [49]

    Chatrchyan et al., Phys

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 032004, arXiv:1312.6283

    2014 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Khachatryan et al., Eur

    CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 469, arXiv:1603.01803

    2016 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Aaij et al., JHEP 02 (2013) 106, arXiv:1212.4620

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., JHEP 02 (2013) 106, arXiv:1212.4620

    2013 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Aaij et al., JHEP 08 (2015) 039, arXiv:1505.07024

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., JHEP 08 (2015) 039, arXiv:1505.07024

    2015 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Aaij et al., JHEP 05 (2015) 109, arXiv:1503.00963

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., JHEP 05 (2015) 109, arXiv:1503.00963

    2015 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Aaij et al., JHEP 10 (2016) 030, arXiv:1608.01484

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., JHEP 10 (2016) 030, arXiv:1608.01484

    2016 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Aad et al., Phys

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B759 (2016) 601–621, arXiv:1603.09222

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, C. T. Preuss and D. M. Walker, JHEP 05 (2023) 002, arXiv:2301.11827

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, F. Febres Cordero, S. H¨ oche, H. Ita, D. A. Kosower and D. Maitre, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1443–1460, arXiv:1310.7439

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ma ˆ ıtre,J

    D. Ma ˆ ıtre,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1525 (2020) 012014

    2020

  54. [62]

    Czakon, Z

    M. Czakon, Z. Kassabov, A. Mitov, R. Poncelet and A. Popescu, J. Phys. G51 (2024) 115002, arXiv:2304.05993

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    N3pdf/eko: Paper,

    A. Candido, F. Hekhorn and G. Magni, “N3pdf/eko: Paper,” Mar. 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6340153

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Candido, F

    A. Candido, F. Hekhorn and G. Magni, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 976, arXiv:2202.02338

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    McGowan, T

    J. McGowan, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 185, arXiv:2207.04739. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 302 (2023)]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 659, arXiv:2402.18635

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 958, arXiv:2109.02671

    2021 arXiv

  60. [2006]

    arXiv:hep-ph/0609285

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.