Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Precision tools for the simulation of double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New simulation tools for double-Higgs vector-boson fusion implement the kappa framework for non-standard Higgs couplings and match NLO QCD to parton showers.

desk verdict A solid, useful tools paper: first POWHEG BOX implementation of VBF HH with kappa couplings, well cross-checked in the SM, with a genuine but honest caveat about extending the NNLO-approximation claim to anomalous couplings. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09112 v2 pith:S7QEV3ZQ submitted 2025-02-13 hep-ph hep-ex

Barbara Jäger , Alexander Karlberg , Simon Reinhardt This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Higgspairproductionvector-bosonfusionNLOQCDpartonshowermatchingPOWHEGBOXkappaframeworknon-factorizablecorrectionsNNLO
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 claims that a new, publicly released implementation of Higgs-pair production via vector-boson fusion in the POWHEG BOX program gives next-to-leading-order QCD predictions matched to parton showers, and that these NLO+PS predictions reproduce the next-to-next-to-leading-order fixed-order results for inclusive observables of the tagging jets and the Higgs bosons. The same code, together with an extended version of the proVBFHH program, implements the kappa framework, letting users set non-standard values of the triple-Higgs coupling ($\kappa_\lambda$) and the Higgs-weak-boson couplings ($\kappa_V$, $\kappa_{2V}$). A sympathetic reader would care because the VBF double-Higgs channel is one of the few handles on the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC, and no public NLO+PS generator for it could previously be matched to the widely used PYTHIA-family showers. The paper also reports that the non-factorizable NNLO QCD corrections, normally a negligible fraction of the cross section, become highly sensitive to anomalous couplings and can grow by up to 40% relative to their Standard-Model size.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorized VBF approximation: QCD corrections to the upper and lower quark lines decouple, so the NLO and factorizable NNLO corrections factor from the electroweak $VV\to HH$ subprocess, whose couplings are parameterized by the kappa modifiers $\kappa_\lambda$, $\kappa_V$, and $\kappa_{2V}$ in Eq. (2.2). On top of this, the POWHEG BOX implementation uses helicity amplitudes for the fermionic currents with customized bosonic tensors, FKS subtraction for infrared divergences, and a phase-space parameterization adapted from proVBFHH; proVBFHH itself evaluates the same amplitudes through the structure-function formalism. The non-factorizable NNLO corrections are treated in the eikonal approximation, valid when the tagging-jet invariant mass is much larger than the relevant transverse momenta.

What would settle it

Compute the same fiducial VBF-HH cross sections with a full electroweak $HH+2j$ NLO QCD calculation that keeps all diagrams, including s-channel and non-factorizable contributions, for example at $\kappa_\lambda=7.2$, $\kappa_{2V}=0.6$, and $\kappa_V=1.1$, and compare with the factorized VBF predictions; a discrepancy beyond the percent level, or a non-factorizable correction deviating from the eikonal result by more than 40%, would falsify the claim that the approximation remains valid under anomalous couplings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the VBF approximation and the newly built NLO+PS generator remain a reliable proxy for the full NNLO calculation for the observables used in VBF-HH analyses: the invariant mass and rapidity separation of the two tagging jets and the transverse momenta of the Higgs bosons agree at the few-percent level, with shower differences mostly in normalization. Under the kappa framework, the same predictions expose dramatic distortions: a value of $\kappa_\lambda=7.2$ raises the fiducial cross section by a factor of about 22, and $\kappa_{2V}=0.6$ by a factor of about 4, reflecting delicate unitarity cancellations among the contributing diagrams. The paper's most notable finding is that the otherwise tiny non-factorizable NNLO QCD corrections, which sit at about $-0.23\%$ in the Standard Model, grow by more than 40% (to about $-0.33\%$) when the couplings are modified, because the anomalous couplings spoil the unitarity cancellation that suppresses them in the Standard Model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the factorized VBF approximation, in which QCD corrections to the two quark lines decouple and colour-exchange plus Higgs-strahlung contributions are neglected, stays quantitatively reliable when the Higgs couplings are shifted away from their Standard-Model values; the paper itself shows that the omitted non-factorizable corrections grow by up to 40% under such shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NLO+PS predictions with the Vincia shower are closest to the NNLO benchmark for inclusive observables, while HERWIG7 sits furthest away but mostly in normalization, so the new generator can substitute for the much costlier NNLO calculation in inclusive VBF-HH studies.
  • The kappa-framework option lets experimental analyses scan the ($\kappa_\lambda$, $\kappa_V$, $\kappa_{2V}$) parameter space with shower-matched predictions; because the inclusive measurement alone cannot disentangle the three couplings, the differential distributions from this tool are needed to separate them.
  • Anomalous couplings compatible with current bounds can change the fiducial cross section by factors of several to more than twenty, confirming that the VBF double-Higgs channel is a strong probe of the Higgs self-coupling and the $HHVV$ coupling.
  • Non-factorizable NNLO corrections, though still sub-leading, are enhanced by up to 40% under anomalous couplings, which indicates that the quality of the VBF approximation itself should be re-examined in non-standard scenarios; the paper leaves this to future work.
  • This is the first implementation that allows NLO+PS accurate predictions for VBF double-Higgs production to be matched with PYTHIA-type showers, overcoming a known obstruction for VBF processes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test of the factorization assumption under modified couplings would be a full NLO QCD calculation of electroweak $HH+2j$ production retaining all topologies, compared with the factorized VBF predictions at the same couplings; the fixed-order work the authors cite already hints that the approximation may deteriorate there.
  • Because the inclusive N3LO scan shows a hypersurface in coupling space where the cross section equals the Standard-Model value, the tool's differential predictions are essential; a practical extension would use them to optimize VBF-HH selection cuts that discriminate $\kappa_\lambda$ from $\kappa_{2V}$.
  • The eikonal treatment of non-factorizable corrections could be stress-tested by computing those corrections beyond the eikonal approximation for non-standard couplings, checking whether the 40% enhancement persists when the tagging-jet invariant mass is not much larger than the jet transverse momenta.
  • The larger spread among showers for third-jet observables suggests that analyses using a third jet should either treat it with lower accuracy or extend the matching to NLO for the third jet, as has been done for single-Higgs VBF production.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents two precision tools for Higgs-pair production via vector-boson fusion at the LHC: an extension of the proVBFHH code to the kappa framework (anomalous couplings kappa_lambda, kappa_2V, kappa_V) up to N3LO, and a new POWHEG BOX implementation of the VBF HH + 2 jets process at NLO QCD matched to parton showers. The authors validate the POWHEG implementation against MadGraph at tree level and against proVBFHH at LO/NLO for SM and non-SM couplings. They compare NLO+PS predictions from PYTHIA8 (dipole and Vincia) and HERWIG7 with fixed-order NNLO predictions for SM observables, finding agreement at the few-percent level for tagging-jet and Higgs observables but larger spread for third-jet observables. They then study the impact of anomalous couplings and show that non-factorizable NNLO corrections, though tiny in the SM, are strongly coupling-dependent.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper delivers a public, validated NLO+PS generator for VBF HH with a kappa framework, filling the practical gap that MadGraph5_aMC@NLO can only be reliably matched to HERWIG7 for this process. The cross-checks are concrete and give real confidence in the implementation; the tree-level MadGraph agreement and LO/NLO agreement with proVBFHH are notable strengths, as is the public availability of both codes. The observation that non-factorizable corrections depend sensitively on anomalous couplings is of theoretical interest, although its phenomenological impact is small. The main caveat is that the NNLO-level validation of the NLO+PS predictions is carried out only for SM couplings, while the kappa-extension results rely on the same factorized approximation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 3.4 (opening paragraph; see also Figs. 3-5 and Fig. 11)] The decision to show only POWHEG results for anomalous couplings is justified by the sentence 'Since the NLO+PS predictions have been found to provide a good approximation of the full NNLO results', but every NLO+PS-versus-NNLO distribution in Sec. 3.2 is computed with SM couplings. The paper's own Sec. 3.4.2 demonstrates that the non-factorizable corrections omitted in the POWHEG implementation change with kappa (from -0.23% to -0.33% in Fig. 11), and the text notes that Ref. [68] suggests the VBF approximation deteriorates for anomalous couplings. The claim that NLO+PS remains a good approximation of NNLO in the kappa framework is therefore not established by the presented evidence. I ask the authors to add a fixed-order NNLO (or, if that is not available, a full non-factorized NLO) comparison for at least the benchmark points (kappa_2V=0.6, kappa_V=1.1, kappa_lambda=7.2), or to explicitly restate the kappa results as NLO+PS predictions without the NNLO approximation claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 and Sec. 3.1] The fixed-order NLO and NNLO fiducial cross sections are quoted without scale uncertainties, although the text states that uncertainty estimates are obtained by a 7-point variation; without those numbers the reader cannot judge whether the 2-5% differences between NLO+PS and NNLO are significant.
  2. [Sec. 4] The sentence 'this is the first time that NLO+PS accurate predictions can be obtained with PYTHIA' should be clarified as 'for the VBF HH process', since NLO+PS with PYTHIA is available for other processes.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 3.4.2] The phrase 'enhancements of up to 40%' refers to a relative change of a correction that is -0.23% in the SM and -0.33% for modified couplings; this is an enhancement of the non-factorizable correction itself, not of the total cross section. The abstract and introduction state this without the qualifier that the effect remains sub-permille, which is potentially misleading.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that NLO+PS predictions provide a 'good approximation' of NNLO results would be more informative with a quantitative criterion; the ratios in Figs. 3-5 show a few-percent systematic offset, which is not discussed in the text.
  5. [Footnote 1 of Sec. 3.4.2] The eikonal approximation is stated to be valid when mtag_jj is much larger than pT_ji and pT_Hi; since the cuts only enforce mtag_jj > 600 GeV and pT,j > 25 GeV, it would be useful to confirm that the relevant phase-space region satisfies this hierarchy, especially for high-pT Higgs events.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are anchored by independent tree-level cross-checks and by previously published, publicly available NNLO calculations, with no fitted parameters or prediction-by-construction steps.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted inputs that are later renamed as predictions, and no centrally claimed observable is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict. Equation (2.2) simply parameterizes the kappa-framework couplings as inputs, so the coupling-sensitivity studies in Figs. 9-11 are parameter scans, not derived constants. The NLO+PS versus NNLO comparisons in Sec. 3.2 use NNLO predictions from proVBFHH, a code published and maintained by the authors but based on a separate structure-function formalism; the paper reports that the POWHEG tree-level matrix elements were independently cross-checked against MadGraph ('we have compared tree-level matrix elements for selected phase-space points with MadGraph-generated ones, finding full agreement'). The VBF factorization premise cites Ref. [24], which shares an author with the present work, but that cited result is an externally published, code-public calculation with stated assumptions that do not include the conclusions of this paper, so it is not a self-definitional loop. The paper's own caveats in Sec. 3.4.2, where it notes that non-factorizable corrections 'may have an impact of the quality of the VBF approximation' and that a detailed study is left for the future, are acknowledged limitations rather than circular reasoning; they affect robustness of the kappa-extension interpretation, not the internal validity of the derivation chain.

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

The central results rest on the factorized VBF approximation and the eikonal approximation, both inherited from earlier work, plus the phenomenological kappa parameterization. No new entities are introduced. The three kappa modifiers are scanned inputs, not fitted parameters, so they are listed for completeness but do not constitute a fit.

free parameters (3)
  • kappa_lambda (trilinear Higgs self-coupling modifier) = Scanned values including -1.2 and 7.2
    Input to the kappa framework, not fitted by the paper; chosen within experimental bounds for sensitivity scans.
  • kappa_2V (quartic HHVV coupling modifier) = Scanned values 0.6 and 1.5
    Input to the kappa framework, not fitted by the paper; chosen within experimental bounds for sensitivity scans.
  • kappa_V (single HVV coupling modifier) = Scanned values 0.98 and 1.1
    Input to the kappa framework, not fitted by the paper; chosen within experimental bounds for sensitivity scans.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption QCD corrections to the upper and lower quark lines decouple; colour exchange and Higgs-strahlung contributions are negligible.
    Invoked in Sec. 2 (paragraph on the VBF approximation) and relied on by both implementations; validated at percent level in Ref. [24] for the SM but not for anomalous couplings.
  • domain assumption Non-factorizable NNLO corrections can be computed in the eikonal approximation, valid when the tagging-jet invariant mass is much larger than the relevant transverse momenta.
    Used in Sec. 3.4.2 and footnote 1; VBF cuts are applied to enforce this regime.
  • domain assumption The kappa framework with constant coupling modifiers captures new physics effects without unitarization.
    Stated in Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.4; the authors acknowledge that large coupling deviations exceed the validity of the approach.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision tools for the simulation of double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7QEV3ZQ

@misc{pith2026250209112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision tools for the simulation of double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7QEV3ZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09112}
}
read the original abstract

We present two precision tools for the simulation of Higgs-pair production via vector-boson fusion in the kappa framework for the parameterization of non-standard Higgs couplings. A new implementation of the process is developed in the framework of the POWHEG BOX program that can be used to provide predictions at the next-to-leading order (NLO) of QCD matched to parton showers (PS). In addition, the existing proVBFHH program for the computation of next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD and next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections is extended to account for values of the Higgs couplings different from the expectation of the Standard Model. We systematically compare and analyse predictions obtained with the two programs and find that the NLO+PS predictions provide a good approximation of the NNLO results for observables of the tagging jets and Higgs bosons. The results turn out to be very sensitive to the values of the modified Higgs couplings. Finally we study the non-factorizable NNLO QCD corrections to the process in the presence of anomalous couplings. We find that the size of the non-factorizable corrections is very sensitive to the anomalous couplings.

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. Precise predictions for double Higgs production in association with a vector boson in Effective Field Theory

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First NNLO QCD cross sections for pp→Vhh in SMEFT and HEFT, provided as interpolated coefficients; W±hh K-factors are almost EFT-independent while Zhh is sensitive to gluon-initiated contributions.

  2. Double Higgs Production in Vector Boson Fusion at NLO QCD in HEFT

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Full NLO QCD predictions for pp -> hhjj production in VBF with HEFT couplings cλ, cV, c2V, including non-factorising and Higgs-strahlung diagrams, show that some allowed coupling combinations reshape key observables.

  3. Harnessing Higgs Kinematics for HEFT Constraints

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Reweighting Standard Model di-Higgs events with a momentum-dependent HEFT coupling gives expected Run 3 and HL-LHC constraints on a_22 and a_dd2, with four-top data helping to pin down a_22.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [68]

    Braun, P

    J. Braun, P. Bredt, G. Heinrich and M. H¨ ofer, Double Higgs Production in Vector Boson Fusion at NLO QCD in HEFT , 2502.09132. – 22 –

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys

    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [ 1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [3]

    Aad et al., Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector , Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 101801 [ 2406.09971]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    CMS collaboration, Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV , 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Baglio, A

    J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gr¨ ober, M. M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Quevillon and M. Spira,The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status , JHEP 04 (2013) 151 [1212.5581]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Bishara, R

    F. Bishara, R. Contino and J. Rojo, Higgs pair production in vector-boson fusion at the LHC and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 481 [ 1611.03860]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    Measurements of the SUSY Higgs self-couplings and the reconstruction of the Higgs potential

    F. Boudjema and A. Semenov, Measurements of the SUSY Higgs selfcouplings and the reconstruction of the Higgs potential , Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 095007 [ hep-ph/0201219]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Moretti, S

    M. Moretti, S. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa, Beyond the standard model Higgs boson self-couplings at the LHC , in 32nd International Conference on High Energy Physics, pp. 1256–1259, 11, 2004, hep-ph/0411039, DOI

    2004 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Moretti, S

    M. Moretti, S. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa, Higgs boson self-couplings at the LHC as a probe of extended Higgs sectors , JHEP 02 (2005) 024 [ hep-ph/0410334]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, N. Greiner and M. Spannowsky, Further on up the road: hhjj production at the LHC , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 101802 [ 1310.1084]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, N. Greiner, K. Nordstrom and M. Spannowsky, hhjj production at the LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 387 [ 1506.08008]. – 18 –

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Arnold et al., VBFNLO: A Parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons, Comput

    K. Arnold et al., VBFNLO: A Parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1661 [ 0811.4559]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Baglio et al., VBFNLO: A parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons – Manual for Version 3.0 , 1107.4038

    J. Baglio et al., VBFNLO: A parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons – Manual for Version 3.0 , 1107.4038

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    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 [ 2405.06990]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Figy, Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to light Higgs Pair production via vector boson fusion, Mod

    T. Figy, Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to light Higgs Pair production via vector boson fusion, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23 (2008) 1961 [ 0806.2200]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Domenech, C

    Anisha, D. Domenech, C. Englert, M. J. Herrero and R. A. Morales, HEFT’s appraisal of triple (versus double) Higgs weak boson fusion , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 055004 [2407.20706]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Alwall, R

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

    2014 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, P. Torrielli et al., Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects , Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 142 [1401.7340]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Ling, R.-Y

    L.-S. Ling, R.-Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, L. Guo, W.-H. Li and X.-Z. Li, NNLO QCD corrections to Higgs pair production via vector boson fusion at hadron colliders , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 073001 [1401.7754]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Cacciari, F

    M. Cacciari, F. A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, Fully Differential Vector-Boson-Fusion Higgs Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 082002 [ 1506.02660]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, Fully differential Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 074028 [ 1811.07918]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at N 3LO, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 114016 [ 1811.07906]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    F. A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg, J.-N. Lang and M. Pellen, Precise predictions for double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1037 [ 2005.13341]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    F. A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg and L. Tancredi, On the impact of non-factorisable corrections in VBF single and double Higgs production , JHEP 10 (2020) 131 [ 2005.11334]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Production at Three Loops in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 072001 [ 1606.00840]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    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 [1002.2581]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [27]

    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

  21. [28]

    Frixione, P

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

    2007 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Hagiwara, S

    K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, R. Szalapski and D. Zeppenfeld, Low-energy effects of new interactions in the electroweak boson sector , Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2182. – 19 –

    1993

  23. [30]

    David, A

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Groupcollaboration, A. David, A. Denner, M. Duehrssen, M. Grazzini, C. Grojean, G. Passarino et al., LHC HXSWG interim recommendations to explore the coupling structure of a Higgs-like particle , 1209.0040

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8 [ 2203.11601]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Fischer, S

    N. Fischer, S. Prestel, M. Ritzmann and P. Skands, Vincia for Hadron Colliders , Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 589 [ 1605.06142]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Bewick et al., Herwig 7.3 release note , Eur

    G. Bewick et al., Herwig 7.3 release note , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1053 [ 2312.05175]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Ballestrero et al., Precise predictions for same-sign W-boson scattering at the LHC , Eur

    A. Ballestrero et al., Precise predictions for same-sign W-boson scattering at the LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 671 [ 1803.07943]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [35]

    J¨ ager, A

    B. J¨ ager, A. Karlberg, S. Pl¨ atzer, J. Scheller and M. Zaro,Parton-shower effects in Higgs production via Vector-Boson Fusion, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 756 [ 2003.12435]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    J¨ ager, F

    B. J¨ ager, F. Schissler and D. Zeppenfeld, Parton-shower effects on Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion in association with three jets , JHEP 07 (2014) 125 [ 1405.6950]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [37]

    T. Han, G. Valencia and S. Willenbrock, Structure function approach to vector boson scattering in p p collisions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 3274 [ hep-ph/9206246]

    1992 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Dobrovolskaya and V

    A. Dobrovolskaya and V. Novikov, On heavy Higgs boson production , Z. Phys. C 52 (1991) 427

    1991

  32. [39]

    T. Liu, K. Melnikov and A. A. Penin, Nonfactorizable QCD Effects in Higgs Boson Production via Vector Boson Fusion , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 122002 [ 1906.10899]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Gates, On Evaluation of Nonfactorizable Corrections to Higgs Boson Production via Vector Boson Fusion, Phys

    L. Gates, On Evaluation of Nonfactorizable Corrections to Higgs Boson Production via Vector Boson Fusion, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138191 [ 2305.04407]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Asteriadis, C

    K. Asteriadis, C. Brønnum-Hansen and K. Melnikov, Nonfactorizable corrections to Higgs boson production in weak boson fusion , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 014031 [ 2305.08016]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Brønnum-Hansen, M.-M

    C. Brønnum-Hansen, M.-M. Long and K. Melnikov, Scale dependence of non-factorizable virtual corrections to Higgs boson production in weak boson fusion , JHEP 11 (2023) 130 [2309.06292]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [43]

    M.-M. Long, K. Melnikov and J. Quarroz, Non-factorizable virtual corrections to Higgs boson production in weak boson fusion beyond the eikonal approximation , JHEP 07 (2023) 035 [2305.12937]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Jager and G

    B. Jager and G. Zanderighi, NLO corrections to electroweak and QCD production of W+W+ plus two jets in the POWHEGBOX , JHEP 11 (2011) 055 [ 1108.0864]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Jager and G

    B. Jager and G. Zanderighi, Electroweak W+W-jj prodution at NLO in QCD matched with parton shower in the POWHEG-BOX , JHEP 04 (2013) 024 [ 1301.1695]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [46]

    J¨ ager, A

    B. J¨ ager, A. Karlberg and G. Zanderighi, Electroweak ZZjj production in the Standard Model and beyond in the POWHEG-BOX V2 , JHEP 03 (2014) 141 [ 1312.3252]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Jager, A

    B. Jager, A. Karlberg and J. Scheller, Parton-shower effects in electroweak W Zjjproduction at the next-to-leading order of QCD , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 226 [ 1812.05118]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    J¨ ager, A

    B. J¨ ager, A. Karlberg and S. Reinhardt, QCD effects in electroweak W Zjjproduction at current and future hadron colliders , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 587 [ 2403.12192]. – 20 –

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Frixione, Z

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

    1996 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Hagiwara and D

    K. Hagiwara and D. Zeppenfeld, Amplitudes for Multiparton Processes Involving a Current at e+ e-, e+- p, and Hadron Colliders , Nucl. Phys. B 313 (1989) 560

    1989

  44. [51]

    Stelzer and W

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

    1994 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Nason and C

    P. Nason and C. Oleari, NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG , JHEP 02 (2010) 037 [ 0911.5299]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Skands, S

    P. Skands, S. Carrazza and J. Rojo, Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune , Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024 [ 1404.5630]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Ferrario Ravasio and C

    S. Ferrario Ravasio and C. Oleari, NLO + parton-shower generator for W cproduction in the POWHEG BOX RES , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 684 [ 2304.13791]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Banfi, S

    A. Banfi, S. Ferrario Ravasio, B. J¨ ager, A. Karlberg, F. Reichenbach and G. Zanderighi, A POWHEG generator for deep inelastic scattering , JHEP 02 (2024) 023 [ 2309.02127]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Cabouat and T

    B. Cabouat and T. Sj¨ ostrand,Some Dipole Shower Studies , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 226 [1710.00391]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [57]

    H¨ oche, S

    S. H¨ oche, S. Mrenna, S. Payne, C. T. Preuss and P. Skands, A Study of QCD Radiation in VBF Higgs Production with Vincia and Pythia , SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 010 [ 2106.10987]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Cruz-Martinez, S

    J. Cruz-Martinez, S. Forte, N. Laurenti, T. R. Rabemananjara and J. Rojo, LO, NLO, and NNLO parton distributions for LHC event generators , JHEP 09 (2024) 088 [ 2406.12961]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht et al.,LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 132 [ 1412.7420]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  54. [61]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and D. Wackeroth, Electroweak radiative corrections to e+ e- — > W W — > 4 fermions in double pole approximation: The RACOONWW approach , Nucl. Phys. B 587 (2000) 67 [ hep-ph/0006307]

    2000 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Nason, MINT: A Computer program for adaptive Monte Carlo integration and generation of unweighted distributions , 0709.2085

    P. Nason, MINT: A Computer program for adaptive Monte Carlo integration and generation of unweighted distributions , 0709.2085

    arXiv

  56. [63]

    Cacciari, G

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

    2008 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896 [1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Bittrich, P

    C. Bittrich, P. Kirchgaeßer, A. Papaefstathiou, S. Pl¨ atzer and S. Todt, Soft QCD effects in VBS/VBF topologies, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 783 [ 2110.01623]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Hayrapetyan et al., Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from the combination of single and double Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV, Phys

    CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from the combination of single and double Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139210 [ 2407.13554]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Alboteanu, W

    A. Alboteanu, W. Kilian and J. Reuter, Resonances and Unitarity in Weak Boson Scattering at the LHC , JHEP 11 (2008) 010 [ 0806.4145]. – 21 –

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

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