Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Effect of anomalous $HHH$ coupling on the decay $H\rightarrow Z\,Z^*\rightarrow$ 4 charged leptons

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A one-loop electroweak calculation shows that the decay $H\rightarrow ZZ^*\rightarrow 4\ell$ shifts by up to about 6% when the trilinear Higgs self-coupling is scaled from 4 to $-4$, providing a new handle on the Higgs potential.

desk verdict SM baseline is probably fine, but the κ-dependent few-percent shifts are not credible because the paper rescales only the h^3 vertex and leaves Goldstone couplings untouched, which is not a gauge-invariant deformation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23893 v1 pith:RWZXTWVM submitted 2025-06-30 hep-ph

Pankaj Agrawal , Biswajit Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords HiggstrilinearcouplingHHHkappaframeworkHtoZZ4leptonsdecayNLOelectroweakcorrectionspotentialshapefour-leptonHL-LHCself-coupling
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 computes the full one-loop electroweak corrections to $H\rightarrow ZZ^*\rightarrow 4\ell$ decays, with the trilinear Higgs self-coupling $HHH$ rescaled by a factor $\kappa$ in the $\kappa$-framework. The central finding is that the correction depends on $\kappa$: moving $\kappa$ from 4 to $-4$ changes the electroweak correction from less than 1% to about $-6$%, so a percent-level measurement of this decay would be sensitive to the shape of the Higgs potential. The authors argue that the scaling is gauge invariant because $HHH$ comes only from the scalar potential and the quartic-coupling self-energy diagram has vanishing derivative, and they validate their Standard Model results against an established independent Monte Carlo program. If the claim is correct, the standard $H\rightarrow 4\ell$ channel becomes a probe of the trilinear Higgs coupling and can tighten the experimental bound on $\kappa$ at the HL-LHC.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the full set of one-loop electroweak virtual, counterterm, and real-emission diagrams for $H\rightarrow ZZ^*\rightarrow 4$ charged leptons, with special attention to the $HHH$-dependent vertex diagrams and the $HHH$ contribution to the Higgs wave-function renormalization. Consistency of the $\kappa$-scaling rests on three statements: $HHH$ arises only from the scalar-potential term of the Lagrangian, the $HHHH$ self-energy diagram has zero derivative and therefore does not affect wave-function renormalization, and the $HHH$-containing diagrams are collectively UV finite. The observable that carries the argument is the relative increment $RI = (\Gamma_{\rm NLO}^{\kappa} - \Gamma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm SM})/\Gamma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm SM}$, evaluated in the $G_F$ and $\alpha(M_Z)$ input schemes with complex-mass renormalization.

What would settle it

Repeat the same $\kappa$-dependent NLO calculation with an independent setup that includes the $HHHH$ coupling in the Higgs wave-function renormalization or uses a different renormalization scheme; if the roughly $6\%$ depletion at $\kappa=-4$ does not survive, the claimed physical bound fails. Experimentally, a precision measurement of $H\rightarrow 4\ell$ at the HL-LHC with uncertainty near or below $1\%$ would either see the predicted shift or rule out the prediction for $\kappa=-4$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the $\kappa$-framework, rescaling the $HHH$ coupling changes the NLO electroweak correction to $H\rightarrow ZZ^*\rightarrow 4$ charged leptons in a controlled, gauge-invariant way. For $H\rightarrow e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$, the $G_F$-scheme correction is $+1.26\%$ at $\kappa=1$ and becomes $-6.31\%$ at $\kappa=-4$ (and $-23.91\%$ at $\kappa=-10$); the same pattern appears for $H\rightarrow 2e^+2e^-$, with somewhat larger shifts in the $\alpha(M_Z)$ scheme. The $\kappa$ dependence enters through the few one-loop diagrams containing the $HHH$ vertex together with the Higgs wave-function renormalization; the paper states that the $HHHH$ quartic coupling cannot be varied because the derivative of the corresponding self-energy diagram vanishes, so it does not enter the renormalization. The conclusion the authors draw is that these large corrections can be used to bound the $HHH$ coupling and to discriminate alternative shapes of the Higgs potential.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that rescaling only the $HHH$ coupling, while keeping every other coupling at its Standard Model value, gives a complete and gauge-invariant one-loop result; if the $HHHH$ coupling or some unaccounted $HHH$ diagram enters the renormalization, the computed $\kappa$ dependence would not represent a physical modification of the Higgs potential.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A percent-level measurement of $H\rightarrow 4\ell$ at the HL-LHC could distinguish $\kappa=-4$ from the Standard Model, since the predicted shift is about $-6\%$ in the $G_F$ scheme.
  • Negative $\kappa$ values produce the largest effects, so this channel is mainly a probe of a negative trilinear coupling deviation; the sign of the shift turns around near $\kappa\sim2$ to $4$.
  • Kinematic distributions near the peaks of lepton transverse-momentum and invariant-mass spectra carry the same $\kappa$ sensitivity, so a fit to shapes could supplement a fit to the total width.
  • Because the leptons are treated as massless, the $H\rightarrow 4\mu$ final state has exactly the same corrections as $H\rightarrow 2e^+2e^-$, extending the result to all four-lepton final states.
  • Combining the $G_F$ and $\alpha(M_Z)$ schemes shows the same qualitative $\kappa$ dependence, indicating the effect is not an artifact of the input-parameter choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not quantify the experimental precision, backgrounds, or systematics needed for the HL-LHC to see the $6\%$ shift; a realistic sensitivity study is the natural next step before the bound can be considered established.
  • The vanishing derivative of the $HHHH$ self-energy means this one-loop channel is insensitive to the quartic Higgs coupling, so constraining the quartic will require higher orders or double-Higgs production rather than this decay.
  • The near-monotonic growth of the negative correction as $\kappa$ becomes more negative suggests that this observable will mainly exclude negative deviations; positive deviations up to $\kappa=4$ produce sub-percent effects and would be harder to see.
  • The same dipole-subtraction and complex-mass treatment could be applied to $H\rightarrow WW^*\rightarrow 4\ell$ and to $H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ to see whether the trilinear coupling leaves similarly large imprints in other single-Higgs observables.
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. This paper presents a complete one-loop electroweak calculation of the decays H → e+e−μ+μ− and H → e+e−e+e− (and, by charge conjugation, the 4μ final state), including virtual, counterterm, and real-photon contributions, with Catani–Seymour dipole subtraction and the complex-mass scheme. The SM predictions are compared with Prophecy4f. In the κ-framework, the trilinear Higgs self-coupling is scaled by κHHH, and the resulting relative increments RI of the NLO width are tabulated for κ between 10 and −10 in the GF and α(MZ) schemes. For κ = −4 the paper reports RI ≈ −6.3% (GF) for e+e−μ+μ−, and it concludes that such corrections can be used to constrain the HHH coupling and could be observable at the HL-LHC.

Significance. If the κ-dependent results are valid, this is a useful addition to the Higgs self-coupling program: it shows that H → ZZ∗ → 4ℓ, through one-loop vertex and wave-function-renormalization diagrams, can discriminate κHHH at the few-percent level, complementing di-Higgs searches. The technical work is substantial: the calculation uses FeynArts, FORM, OneLOop, OVReduce, and a private Monte Carlo, and the SM baseline is checked against Prophecy4f. The paper also provides explicit tables of RI for two input-parameter schemes and several kinematic distributions, which would allow independent checks. However, the central κ-scaling prescription is asserted rather than derived, and the phenomenological HL-LHC claim is not backed by an uncertainty estimate; the significance is therefore conditional on resolving the gauge-invariance and numerical-validation issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.3, Fig. 5] The κ-scaling prescription is not defined at the operator level. In the SM, the h³, hG⁰G⁰ and hG⁺G⁻ vertices all descend from the same gauge-invariant potential term λ(H†H − v²/2)². Rescaling only the physical HHH vertex while leaving the Goldstone-boson vertices at their SM values (the calculation is in a non-unitary gauge, as Fig. 5 explicitly contains G⁰ lines) is not a gauge-invariant deformation of the scalar potential. The statement in Sec. 3.3 that "the HHH coupling comes from the scalar potential term ... and not from the gauge sector" does not address this, because the scalar potential is gauge invariant as a whole. The authors should either specify a concrete operator-level modification, with the accompanying rescalings of all vertices from the same operator and the corresponding counterterms, or demonstrate gauge-parameter independence of the κ-dependent amplitudes. Without this, the reported −6% effect may be a gauge artifact.
  2. [3.3, Fig. 6] The argument concerning the HHHH diagram is incomplete. Even if the derivative of the Higgs four-point self-energy diagram vanishes, a momentum-independent self-energy still contributes to the tadpole and mass counterterms, and the quartic coupling is an independent operator whose renormalization must be specified when κ is varied. The statement that "we do not have any freedom to vary HHHH coupling" does not follow from the vanishing derivative, and it is not sufficient to establish renormalizability. A complete treatment must specify how the scalar-potential parameters are renormalized under the κ deformation.
  3. [4.1, Tables 1-4] The numerical results are presented without Monte Carlo uncertainties. Tables 1-4 quote widths and relative increments to two decimals (e.g., 241.03 eV, 1.26%, −6.31%) but no integration errors; the same is true of the distributions in Figs. 7-11. Since the claimed κ effects at κ = 4 and κ = 2 are at the 0.2-0.4% level, and the HL-LHC claim rests on a few-percent shift, the statistical precision of the phase-space integration must be quantified. The "good agreement" with Prophecy4f in Secs. 1 and 4.1 is also not quantified: no comparison table, no relative difference, and no description of which inputs were matched. In addition, the large α(MZ)-scheme corrections (−7.45% and −8.87% in Tables 1-2) and their scheme-dependent κ response (e.g., −6.31% vs −7.12% at κ = −4 in Table 3) are not explained; the paper should comment on whether these shifts are the expected running-α effects and what scheme is most appropriate for the κ bound.
  4. [5] The claim in the Conclusion that the κ-dependent change "can be observable at the HL-LHC" is not supported by any experimental or even parton-level precision analysis. The paper does not provide the expected Higgs production rates, branching fractions, selection efficiencies, backgrounds, or systematic uncertainties; a −6% shift in the partial width does not directly imply an observable shift in the measured H → 4ℓ rate or distributions. This statement should be softened or supported by a dedicated estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [1, 3.1, 3.3, table captions] There are several typos and formatting issues: "ALTAS" should be "ATLAS" (Sec. 1), "diagrms" should be "diagrams" (Sec. 3.1), "enrgy" should be "energy" (Sec. 3.3), and "T able" in the captions of Tables 1-4 should be "Table".
  2. [4.2, Ref. [33]] The sentence "We vary κHHH from 10 to −10 [33]" cites an ATLAS public note on H(→γγ)H(→bb) prospects, which is not a measurement of κHHH. Please cite the actual bound(s) used (the ATLAS bbbb paper [9] is quoted in Sec. 1) and clarify whether the scan range is chosen for illustration.
  3. [Fig. 9] The caption of Fig. 9 says "Transverse momenta distributions," but the left panel shows dΓ/dMμ+μ−; please correct the caption. Also, the "κ = 1(SM)" labels in Figs. 9-11 are inconsistent with Tables 3-4, which do not list κ = 1; the convention should be stated explicitly.
  4. [4.2, definition of RI] The notation "ΓNLOκ" in the definition of RI is not typeset consistently; define it as the width with the scaled coupling and state explicitly that ΓNLOSM corresponds to κ = 1.
  5. [4] The paper states that the dipole-subtracted real-emission contribution is "at the permille level" and ignores it for distributions. Since the κ effects are also at the percent level, please state the numerical size of this neglect or justify it quantitatively for the distributions shown.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kappa-dependence is an input variation, the SM baseline is externally checked against Prophecy4f, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central numeric claim is the dependence of the NLO electroweak correction on the input parameter kappa_HHH. This is not a fitted quantity and it is not derived from itself: the paper scans kappa over a stated range and defines the relative increment RI relative to its own SM NLO width. The SM baseline is anchored externally by comparison with Prophecy4f, as stated in the text: "We have compared our standard model results with this code. There is good agreement" and "Our results are having good agreement with the Prophecy4f package [8, 32]". The self-citations to the authors' earlier neutrino-channel paper [5] and to the in-house OVReduce code [18,19] are for a previous computation and for a technical tensor-reduction tool; they do not supply the load-bearing premise that kappa scaling produces the quoted corrections. The Sec. 3.3 assertion that the HHH coupling can be scaled independently "with no loss of renormalizability and gauge invariance" is a physics assumption that could be scrutinized as a correctness issue, namely whether the kappa deformation is specified at the operator level, but it is not a circularity: the paper does not define the HHH scaling in terms of the final RI, nor does it fit RI to data. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The kappa framework introduces a scaling parameter, not a new entity. The calculation rests on standard technical assumptions (CMS, dipole subtraction, gamma5 scheme, massless leptons) and on a specific ad hoc assumption about the completeness of the HHH/HHHH coupling contributions. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • kappa_HHH = scanned from -10 to 10; SM=1
    The trilinear Higgs coupling is scaled by kappa as an input; the central result (RI vs kappa) is a scan over this parameter. Not fitted to data, but introduced by hand as the variable of interest.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Scaling only the HHH coupling in the kappa framework preserves gauge invariance and renormalizability for these processes.
    Sec 3.3 asserts that HHH comes from the scalar potential, not the gauge sector, so it can be scaled independently. This is load-bearing; the paper does not prove it beyond the stated vanishing of the HHHH self-energy derivative.
  • ad hoc to paper The derivative of the Higgs 4-point self-energy diagram is zero, so HHHH coupling does not enter the wave function renormalization.
    Sec 3.3, paragraph 2. If this derivative does not vanish, the kappa framework for these processes would be incomplete.
  • domain assumption The KKS gamma5 scheme gives correct finite parts for top-quark loops.
    Sec 3 uses KKS [14,15] for gamma5 traces; these processes involve top-quark triangles.
  • domain assumption The complex mass scheme with the stated widths correctly treats unstable Z, W, top and Higgs and preserves gauge invariance.
    Sec 3.1 applies CMS [24] to all unstable particles.
  • domain assumption The Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction as implemented per Ref [31] correctly cancels IR singularities for these EW processes.
    Sec 3.2 states 12 dipole terms are used; correctness is assumed.
  • domain assumption Leptons and light quarks can be treated as massless without affecting the central result.
    Sec 3 states leptons and light quarks are massless; standard for such computations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of anomalous $HHH$ coupling on the decay $H\rightarrow Z\,Z^*\rightarrow$ 4 charged leptons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWZXTWVM

@misc{pith2026250623893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of anomalous $HHH$ coupling on the decay $H\rightarrow Z\,Z^*\rightarrow$ 4 charged leptons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWZXTWVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23893}
}
abstract

We have computed the electroweak corrections to $H\rightarrow Z\,Z^*\rightarrow$ 4 charged leptons, including the effect of anomalous $HHH$ coupling in the $\kappa$-framework. The results of this scaling are gauge invariant. We have computed the results for $ H \to e^+ e^- \mu^+ \mu^-$ and $ H \to e^+ e^- e^+ e^-$ processes. The corrections for the both processes depend on the input parameter scheme. In the $G_F$ scheme, the electroweak corrections are about $1.26\%$ for the $ H \to e^+ e^- \mu^+ \mu^-$ and about $0.25\%$ for the $ H \to e^+ e^- e^+ e^-$ process. However changing the $\kappa$ from $4$ to $-4$, the corrections vary from less than $1\%$ to about $-6\%$. We have plotted a number of kinematic distributions. The corrections over most of the phase space regions are similar. These large corrections can be used to put a bound on the $HHH$ coupling. This can help in determining the structure of the Higgs potential.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Monig, Highlights and perspectives from the ATLAS experiment , The Large Hadron Collider Physics Conference, 25-30 May 2020

    K. Monig, Highlights and perspectives from the ATLAS experiment , The Large Hadron Collider Physics Conference, 25-30 May 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Mcbride, Highlights and perspectives from the CMS experiment , The Large Hadron Collider Physics Conference, 25-30 May 2020

    P. Mcbride, Highlights and perspectives from the CMS experiment , The Large Hadron Collider Physics Conference, 25-30 May 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Muon g-2collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb , 2506.03069

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Determining the Shape of Higgs Potential at Future Colliders

    P. Agrawal, D. Saha, L.-X. Xu, J.-H. Yu and C. P. Yuan, Determining the shape of the Higgs potential at future colliders , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 075023 [ 1907.02078]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Effect of anomalous $HHH$ and $ZZHH$ couplings on the decay width of $H\rightarrow \nu_e\bar{\nu}_e\nu_\mu\bar{\nu}_\mu$

    P. Agrawal and B. Das, Effect of anomalous HHH and ZZHH couplings on the decay width of H → νe ¯νeνµ ¯νµ, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39 (2024) 2430002 [ 2408.02255]. – 15 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M. M. Weber, Precise predictions for the higgs-boson decay h → ww/zz → 4 leptons, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 013004

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Boselli, C

    S. Boselli, C. M. Carloni Calame, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini and F. Piccinini, Higgs boson decay into four leptons at NLOPS electroweak accuracy , JHEP 06 (2015) 023 [ 1503.07394]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M. M. Weber, Precision calculations for the Higgs decays H — > ZZ/WW — > 4 leptons , Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 160 (2006) 131 [hep-ph/0607060]

    arXiv 2006

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    ATLAS Collaborationcollaboration, G. Aad, B. Abbott, K. Abeling, S. H. Abidi, A. Aboulhorma, H. Abramowicz et al., Search for nonresonant pair production of higgs bosons in the bbbb final state in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the atlas detector , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 052003

    2023

  2. [10]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418 [ hep-ph/0012260]

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. E. Peskin, Simplifying Multi-Jet QCD Computation , in 13th Mexican School of Particles and Fields , 1, 2011, 1101.2414

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Das, Probing Anomalous Higgs Boson Couplings at Colliders , Ph.D

    B. Das, Probing Anomalous Higgs Boson Couplings at Colliders , Ph.D. thesis, Bhubaneswar, Inst. Phys., 2023. 2409.01264

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Regularization and renormalization of gauge fields , Nuclear Physics B 44 (1972) 189

    1972

  6. [14]

    Shao, Y.-J

    H.-S. Shao, Y.-J. Zhang and K.-T. Chao, Dijet Invariant Mass Distribution in Top Quark Hadronic Decay with QCD Corrections , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 094021 [ 1106.5483]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. G. Korner, D. Kreimer and K. Schilcher, A Practicable gamma(5) scheme in dimensional regularization, Z. Phys. C 54 (1992) 503

    1992

  8. [16]

    Vermaseren, New features of FORM , math-ph/0010025

    J. Vermaseren, New features of FORM , math-ph/0010025

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    van Hameren, OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions , Comput

    A. van Hameren, OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2427 [ 1007.4716]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Agrawal and A

    P. Agrawal and A. Shivaji, Di-Vector Boson + Jet Production via Gluon Fusion at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 073013 [ 1207.2927]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Agrawal and G

    P. Agrawal and G. Ladinsky, Production of two photons and a jet through gluon fusion , Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 117504 [ hep-ph/0011346]

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Veseli, Multidimensional integration in a heterogeneous network environment , Comput

    S. Veseli, Multidimensional integration in a heterogeneous network environment , Comput. Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 9 [ physics/9710017]

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lepage, A New Algorithm for Adaptive Multidimensional Integration , J

    G. Lepage, A New Algorithm for Adaptive Multidimensional Integration , J. Comput. Phys. 27 (1978) 192

    1978

  14. [22]

    Geist, A

    A. Geist, A. Beguelin, J. Dongarra, W. Jiang, R. Manchek and V. S. Sunderam, PVM: A Users’ Guide and Tutorial for Network Parallel Computing . The MIT Press, 11, 1994, 10.7551/mitpress/5712.001.0001. – 16 –

    1994 doi

  15. [23]

    Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200 , Fortsch

    A. Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200 , Fortsch. Phys. 41 (1993) 307 [ 0709.1075]

    1993 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, The complex-mass scheme for perturbative calculations with unstable particles, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 160 (2006) 22

    2006

  17. [25]

    Denner and S

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

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and L. H. Wieders, Electroweak corrections to charged-current e+ e- — > 4 fermion processes: Technical details and further results , Nucl. Phys. B 724 (2005) 247 [ hep-ph/0505042]

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. R. Andersen et al., Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, 1405.1067

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Eidelman and F

    S. Eidelman and F. Jegerlehner, Hadronic contributions to g-2 of the leptons and to the effective fine structure constant alpha (M(z)**2) , Z. Phys. C 67 (1995) 585 [hep-ph/9502298]

    1995 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sirlin, Radiative corrections in the SU(2)L × U(1) theory: A simple renormalization framework, Phys

    A. Sirlin, Radiative corrections in the SU(2)L × U(1) theory: A simple renormalization framework, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 971

    1980

  22. [30]

    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 [ hep-ph/9605323]

    1997 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sch¨ onherr,An automated subtraction of NLO EW infrared divergences , Eur

    M. Sch¨ onherr,An automated subtraction of NLO EW infrared divergences , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 119 [ 1712.07975]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M. Weber, Precision calculations for the higgs decays h → zz/ww → 4 leptons , Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 160 (2006) 131

    2006

  25. [33]

    Prospects for measuring Higgs pair production in the channel H(→ γγ )H(→ bb) using the ATLAS detector at the HL-LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-019 , . – 17 –

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.