License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2402.16276v2 [hep-ph] 19 Mar 2024

]Received March 2024

A Panoramic Study of K𝐾Kitalic_K-Factors for 111 Processes
at the 14 TeV LHC

Dongjoo Kim    Soojin Lee    Hanseok Jung    Dongchan Kim    Jinheung Kim    Jeonghyeon Song [email protected] Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea
([)
Abstract

In this comprehensive study, we investigate K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors (K=σNLO/σLO1+δK𝐾subscript𝜎NLOsubscript𝜎LO1𝛿𝐾K=\sigma_{\text{NLO}}/\sigma_{\text{LO}}\equiv 1+\delta Kitalic_K = italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT NLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ 1 + italic_δ italic_K) for a broad array of Standard Model processes at the 14 TeV LHC, which are pivotal for background assessments in Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) searches. Using MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, we calculate the leading-order and next-to-leading order (NLO) cross-sections and compute the corresponding K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for 111 processes. Our analysis reveals K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors ranging from 1.005 for ppjjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j italic_j to 4.221 for ppW±γγγ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾𝛾𝛾pp\to W^{\pm}\gamma\gamma\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ. Key findings include: (i) processes involving photons display significantly high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, attributed to gluon-initiated processes at NLO; (ii) processes with multiple particle productions, particularly those involving vector bosons, exhibit elevated K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors due to multiple real emission processes; (iii) there exists an inverse correlation between the number of jets and δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K, indicating that the addition of jets generally leads to a decrease in δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K. Additionally, our investigation into differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors relative to transverse momentum and invariant mass shows notable increases with higher pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, but minimal changes with invariant mass. This study highlights the indispensable role of precise K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor evaluations for accurate interpretations of BSM search outcomes.

Beyond the Standard Model, LHC, next-order correction

I Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics has been robustly validated through numerous experiments, culminating in the landmark discovery of a Higgs boson with a mass of 125GeV125GeV125{\;{\rm GeV}}125 roman_GeV at the LHCATLAS:2012yve ; CMS:2012qbp . Despite these achievements, the search for Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) theories persists, driven by unresolved questions such as the nature of dark matterNavarro:1995iw ; Bertone:2004pz , the origins of neutrino masses, the metastability of the SM vacuumDegrassi:2012ry , and the naturalness problemDimopoulos:1995mi ; Chan:1997bi ; Craig:2015pha . The lack of new signals akin to the discovery of the J/ψ𝐽𝜓J/\psiitalic_J / italic_ψ particleSLAC-SP-017:1974ind ; E598:1974sol suggests that BSM signals may be rare or hidden within complex particle processes, underscoring the importance of a comprehensive assessment of potential SM backgrounds to unearth promising BSM discovery channels.

Evaluating SM backgrounds typically relies on leading order (LO) cross sections. Yet, in certain cases, the next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections are notably high, indicating significant departures from the expected perturbative behavior. These discrepancies can have a profound impact on BSM searchesHankele:2007sb ; Campanario:2013mha , especially in scenarios where both signals and backgrounds are rareJueid:2023fgo .

The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor, representing the ratio of NLO or higher-order to LO cross sections, plays a pivotal role in enhancing the precision of background estimations in BSM searches. This methodology has proven to be particularly influential in studies of single Higgs production, where incorporating higher-order corrections has been crucial for comparing theoretical predictions with experimental dataSpira:1997dg ; Anastasiou:2002yz ; Ahrens:2009cxz ; Anastasiou:2015vya ; Spira:2016ztx .

Calculating observables beyond the Born approximation in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) presents considerable challenges, such as the complexity of computing virtual corrections, the issue of infrared divergences, and the integration of these elements with parton showers. The development of MadGraph_aMC@NLO (MG@NLO) has facilitated the automated computation of NLO cross sections, addressing these challenges with significant efficiencyAlwall:2014hca . However, the extensive computational resources needed to generate large NLO datasets continue to be an obstacle for rapid SM background estimation. Consequently, providing K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors across a broad range of SM processes emerges as an invaluable resource.

Previous studies have thoroughly documented the LO and NLO cross sections for a variety of SM processes at the 13 TeV LHCAlwall:2014hca ; Ghosh:2022lrf . Building on this foundation, our research extends these analyses to the 14 TeV collision energy, aligning with the forthcoming High-Luminosity LHC phase. We focus on identifying patterns in processes with notably high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, especially those involving photons and multiple particle productions. A key objective is to clarify the underlying reasons for these elevated K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors.

Additionally, we explore how K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors vary with kinematic variables like transverse momentum (pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) and invariant mass. Given that the BSM search usually targets specific parameter spaces, differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors play a pivotal role in distinguishing signals from backgrounds. Notably, regions of high pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which can be precisely investigated thanks to the LHC’s high luminosity, hold promise for the detection of BSM signals. Moreover, understanding the variation of K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors with invariant mass is essential for the accurate reconstruction of new particle masses. While previous studies have concentrated on particular processes for differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factorsAlioli:2010xd ; Frixione:2014qaa ; Zhang:2014gcy ; Kallweit:2015dum ; Frixione:2015zaa ; Czakon:2017wor , our comparative study across various processes seeks to reveal the universal behaviors of K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors concerning pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and invariant mass.

This paper is structured as follows: We begin with Section II, investrigating global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for 111 SM processes, derived from both LO and NLO cross-section calculations. Section III shifts the focus to processes with K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors above 1.5, particularly highlighting those involving photons. The study of differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors in relation to transverse momentum and invariant mass is the focus of Section IV. Finally, we conclude in Section V.

II K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for total rates

The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor is the ratio of the cross-section calculated at a higher order in perturbation theory to that calculated at LO, quantifying the impact of higher-order corrections on the considered process. In this section, we calculate K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for 111 processes at the 14 TeV LHC, expected to serve as backgrounds for most BSM searches. For the comparative study of these 111 processes, we define the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor as the ratio of the NLO (in QCD) cross-section to LO cross-sections:

K1+δK=σNLOσLO.𝐾1𝛿𝐾subscript𝜎NLOsubscript𝜎LOK\equiv 1+\delta K=\frac{\sigma_{\text{NLO}}}{\sigma_{\text{LO}}}.italic_K ≡ 1 + italic_δ italic_K = divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT NLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG . (1)

For the NLO cross section calculation, we used Fixed Order method in MG@NLO, termed as fNLO in Ref.Alwall:2014hca .

The primary physics parameters and definitions for final-state objects used in our computation are outlined as follows:

  • The Higgs boson and top quark masses are set as:

    mH=125GeV,mt=173GeV.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑚𝐻125GeVsubscript𝑚𝑡173GeVm_{H}=125{\;{\rm GeV}},\quad m_{t}=173{\;{\rm GeV}}.italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 125 roman_GeV , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 173 roman_GeV . (2)
  • For the parton distribution function set, we use NNPDF31_lo_as_0118NNPDF:2017mvq in the four-flavor scheme.

  • For the renormalization scale μRsubscript𝜇𝑅\mu_{R}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the factorization scale μFsubscript𝜇𝐹\mu_{F}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we adopt:

    μR=μF=HT2μ0,subscript𝜇𝑅subscript𝜇𝐹subscript𝐻𝑇2subscript𝜇0\mu_{R}=\mu_{F}=\frac{H_{T}}{2}\equiv\mu_{0},italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ≡ italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (3)

    where HTsubscript𝐻𝑇H_{T}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the scalar sum of the transverse masses of all final-state particles, defined by:

    HT=i(pTi)2+mi2.subscript𝐻𝑇subscript𝑖superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑖2superscriptsubscript𝑚𝑖2H_{T}=\sum_{i}\sqrt{(p_{T}^{i})^{2}+m_{i}^{2}}.italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG . (4)
  • A diagonal CKM matrix is assumed.

  • Jets are clustered using the ktsubscript𝑘𝑡k_{t}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT algorithmCatani:1993hr ; Ellis:1993tq with R=0.7𝑅0.7R=0.7italic_R = 0.7, pTj>30GeVsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗30GeVp_{T}^{j}>30{\;{\rm GeV}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 30 roman_GeV, and |ηj|<4subscript𝜂𝑗4|\eta_{j}|<4| italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | < 4.

  • Photons are reconstructed through the Frixione isolationFrixione:1998jh with R=0.4𝑅0.4R=0.4italic_R = 0.4, pTγ>20GeVsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝛾20GeVp_{T}^{\gamma}>20{\;{\rm GeV}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 20 roman_GeV, and |ηγ|<2.5subscript𝜂𝛾2.5|\eta_{\gamma}|<2.5| italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | < 2.5.

We acknowledge significant uncertainties stemming from the renormalization and factorization scales in calculating total cross-sections, noting that uncertainties from PDFs and integration errors are comparatively minor, typically on the order of a few percent. The scale uncertainty in the LO cross-section varies significantly across different processes. The production of W±superscript𝑊plus-or-minusW^{\pm}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT or Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, denoted to be V=W±,Z𝑉superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍V=W^{\pm},Zitalic_V = italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Z, illustrates this feature, with scale uncertainty around 15% for single V𝑉Vitalic_V production and decreasing to below 1% for three V𝑉Vitalic_V production.

Photon production processes exhibit higher uncertainties. For example, the uncertainty in the LO cross-section for ppγW±𝑝𝑝𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to\gamma W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is roughly double that for ppZW±𝑝𝑝𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to ZW^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Including jets further amplifies scale uncertainties. Adding a single jet to single V𝑉Vitalic_V production increases the uncertainty by about 20%, compared to the case without a jet. The uncertainty escalates about 40% with the inclusion of three jets. This trend peaks in jet productions without an electroweak gauge boson: specifically, the scale uncertainty can reach up to about 60% for ppbb¯jj𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝑗𝑗pp\to b\bar{b}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_j italic_j.

Our focus, however, is on NLO cross sections, which generally show reduced scale dependence due to the inclusion of higher-order corrections in quantum field theory calculations. This reduction is particularly significant in processes with large scale uncertainty at LO. For instance, transitioning from LO to NLO calculations in the ppW±jjj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j italic_j process results in about a 90% reduction in scale uncertainty. Therefore, in this paper, we do not further consider scale uncertainties.111Concerns might arise regarding certain processes that maintain high uncertainty at NLO. One example is ppγγj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑗pp\to\gamma\gamma jitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_j, which at LO shows a cross section of 17.5615.77%+17.92%pbsubscriptsuperscript17.56percent17.92percent15.77pb17.56^{+17.92\%}_{-15.77\%}{\;{\rm pb}}17.56 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 17.92 % end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 15.77 % end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_pb, and at NLO, 41.1114.38%+16.15%pbsubscriptsuperscript41.11percent16.15percent14.38pb41.11^{+16.15\%}_{-14.38\%}{\;{\rm pb}}41.11 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16.15 % end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 14.38 % end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_pb. This is based on the standard approach for μRsubscript𝜇𝑅\mu_{R}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and μFsubscript𝜇𝐹\mu_{F}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUBSCRIPT choices, considering the maximum value as 2μ02subscript𝜇02\mu_{0}2 italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the minimum as μ0/2subscript𝜇02\mu_{0}/2italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / 2. To determine the uncertainty in the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor, however, it is reasonable to first fix the scale choice from nine options and then compute the uncertainty. In this approach, we find K(γγj)=2.343.54%+5.66%𝐾𝛾𝛾𝑗subscriptsuperscript2.34percent5.66percent3.54K(\gamma\gamma j)=2.34^{+5.66\%}_{-3.54\%}italic_K ( italic_γ italic_γ italic_j ) = 2.34 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 5.66 % end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3.54 % end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, showcasing significantly less uncertainty compared to the LO or NLO cross sections alone.

Vector boson (+ jets) at the 14 TeV LHC
   Process Syntax σLO[pb]subscript𝜎LOdelimited-[]pb\sigma_{\rm LO}~{}[{\rm pb}]italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_pb ]  K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor  Ref.
   ppW±𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > wpm 1.390×1051.390superscript1051.390\times 10^{5}1.390 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3811.3811.3811.381
   ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > wpm j 2.289×1042.289superscript1042.289\times 10^{4}2.289 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4011.4011.4011.401 Campbell:2003hd
   ppW±jj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j p p > wpm j j 7.398×1037.398superscript1037.398\times 10^{3}7.398 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.234 Campbell:2003hd
   ppW±jjj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j italic_j p p > wpm j j j 2.055×1032.055superscript1032.055\times 10^{3}2.055 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.1151.1151.1151.115
   ppZ𝑝𝑝𝑍pp\to Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z p p > z 4.213×1044.213superscript1044.213\times 10^{4}4.213 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3711.3711.3711.371
   ppZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗pp\to Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j p p > z j 7.531×1037.531superscript1037.531\times 10^{3}7.531 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3811.3811.3811.381
   ppZjj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗𝑗pp\to Zjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j italic_j p p > z j j 2.387×1032.387superscript1032.387\times 10^{3}2.387 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2271.2271.2271.227
   ppZjjj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to Zjjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j italic_j italic_j p p > z j j j 6.671×1026.671superscript1026.671\times 10^{2}6.671 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.1131.1131.1131.113
   ppγj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑗pp\to\gamma jitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_j p p > a j 2.602×1042.602superscript1042.602\times 10^{4}2.602 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.9522.9522.9522.952
   ppγjj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑗𝑗pp\to\gamma jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_j italic_j p p > a j j 1.175×1041.175superscript1041.175\times 10^{4}1.175 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4661.4661.4661.466
Table 1: K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for single vector boson production and associated production with jets. The label wpm encompasses both W+superscript𝑊W^{+}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Wsuperscript𝑊W^{-}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, as specified in the command with define wpm = w+ w-.

Let us embark on an extensive exploration of the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, beginning with the production of single electroweak gauge vector bosons (W±superscript𝑊plus-or-minusW^{\pm}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, and γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ) and their associated production with jets. For the sake of brevity, these will be collectively referred to as vector bosons. In Table 1, we report the LO total cross section in picobarns (pb) along with their corresponding K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, as defined in Eq. (1). Additionally, we specify the syntax for each process, indicating that wpm collectively represents W+superscript𝑊W^{+}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Wsuperscript𝑊W^{-}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (defined in the command shell as define wpm = w+ w-). The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors display significant variation across different processes, highlighting the diverse impact of NLO corrections.

For processes ppV𝑝𝑝𝑉pp\to Vitalic_p italic_p → italic_V without jets, the variation in the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor, δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K, is approximately 40%. Adding a jet to the single V𝑉Vitalic_V production process yields a slight increase in δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K, about 1% higher than what is observed for the ppV𝑝𝑝𝑉pp\to Vitalic_p italic_p → italic_V process alone. However, incorporating more jets leads to a noticeable reduction in δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K. Specifically, when the single V𝑉Vitalic_V production includes three jets, δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K reduces to around 11%, showcasing a trend where δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K decreases with the inclusion of each additional jet.

An especially noteworthy observation from Table 1 is the significantly high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for photon productions accompanied by a jet, reaching approximately three. This pattern of elevated K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors in photon-involved productions is consistent across various processes, a phenomenon attributed to the different production mechanisms at LO and NLO. At LO, photon production predominantly occurs through quark-antiquark scattering, while NLO introduces the possibility of gluon-initiated processes. With gluon Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs) markedly increasing with Q2superscript𝑄2Q^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, gluon-initiated processes become dominant at the LHC’s high-energy scales once they are allowed.

Two vector Bosons (+ jets) at the 14 TeV LHC
   Process Syntax σLO[pb]subscript𝜎LOdelimited-[]pb\sigma_{\rm LO}~{}[{\rm pb}]italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_pb ]  K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor Note  Ref.
   ppW+W𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > w+ w- 8.213×108.213108.213\times 108.213 × 10 1.4171.4171.4171.417 Campbell:1999ah
   ppZZ𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍pp\to ZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z p p > z z 1.179×101.179101.179\times 101.179 × 10 1.3161.3161.3161.316 KNNLO=1.72subscript𝐾NNLO1.72K_{\rm NNLO}=1.72italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_NNLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1.72Cascioli:2014yka Campbell:1999ah ; Cascioli:2014yka
   ppZW±𝑝𝑝𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to ZW^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > z wpm 3.158×103.158103.158\times 103.158 × 10 1.5991.5991.5991.599 Campbell:1999ah
   ppγγ𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾pp\to{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ p p > a a 3.856×103.856103.856\times 103.856 × 10 2.7772.7772.7772.777 Campbell:1999ah
   ppγZ𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑍pp\to\gamma Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_Z p p > a z 3.346×103.346103.346\times 103.346 × 10 1.4981.4981.4981.498 Campbell:1999ah
   ppγW±𝑝𝑝𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to\gamma W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > a wpm 3.744×103.744103.744\times 103.744 × 10 2.6672.6672.6672.667 Campbell:1999ah
   ppW+Wj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > w+ w- j 3.332×103.332103.332\times 103.332 × 10 1.3221.3221.3221.322
   ppZZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑗pp\to ZZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_j p p > z z j 3.9383.9383.9383.938 1.3671.3671.3671.367
   ppZW±j𝑝𝑝𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to ZW^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > z wpm j 1.854×101.854101.854\times 101.854 × 10 1.3041.3041.3041.304
   ppγγj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑗pp\to{\gamma\gamma}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_j p p > a a j 1.761×101.761101.761\times 101.761 × 10 2.5282.5282.5282.528
   ppγZj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑍𝑗pp\to\gamma Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_Z italic_j p p > a z j 1.197×101.197101.197\times 101.197 × 10 1.5711.5711.5711.571
   ppγW±j𝑝𝑝𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to\gamma W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > a wpm j 3.501×103.501103.501\times 103.501 × 10 1.5941.5941.5941.594
   ppW+W+jj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗pp\to W^{+}W^{+}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j p p > w+ w+ j j 1.619×1011.619superscript1011.619\times 10^{-1}1.619 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.6101.6101.6101.610
   ppWWjj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗pp\to W^{-}W^{-}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j p p > w- w- j j 7.064×1027.064superscript1027.064\times 10^{-2}7.064 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.6631.6631.6631.663
   ppW+Wjj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗pp\to W^{+}W^{-}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j p p > w+ w- j j 1.388×101.388101.388\times 101.388 × 10 1.2021.2021.2021.202
   ppZZjj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑗𝑗pp\to ZZjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_j italic_j p p > z z j j 1.4371.4371.4371.437 1.3021.3021.3021.302
   ppZW±jj𝑝𝑝𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗𝑗pp\to ZW^{\pm}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j p p > z wpm j j 9.2239.2239.2239.223 1.1491.1491.1491.149
   ppγγjj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗pp\to{\gamma\gamma}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j p p > a a j j 1.164×101.164101.164\times 101.164 × 10 1.5391.5391.5391.539
   ppγZjj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑍𝑗𝑗pp\to\gamma Zjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_Z italic_j italic_j p p > a z j j 5.0485.0485.0485.048 1.3871.3871.3871.387
   ppγW±jj𝑝𝑝𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗𝑗pp\to\gamma W^{\pm}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j p p > a wpm j j 1.789×101.789101.789\times 101.789 × 10 1.2921.2921.2921.292
Table 2: K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for the production of two vector bosons, including processes with jets.

In Table 2, our focus shifts to the production of double vector bosons, incorporating scenarios both without and with jet involvement. We present the LO cross sections in pb alongside their respective K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors. Notably, we cite the NNLO K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for ZZ𝑍𝑍ZZitalic_Z italic_Z production, KNNLO(ZZ)1.72subscript𝐾NNLO𝑍𝑍1.72K_{\text{NNLO}}(ZZ)\approx 1.72italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT NNLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Z italic_Z ) ≈ 1.72Cascioli:2014yka , emphasizing the importance of higher-order corrections for accurate predictions.

Our analysis indicates that photon-involved processes command exceptionally high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, as in the cases of single vector boson production. In particular, γγ𝛾𝛾\gamma\gammaitalic_γ italic_γ and γW±𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus\gamma W^{\pm}italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT processes stand out with K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors of approximately 2.782.782.782.78 and 2.672.672.672.67, respectively. Table 2 also demonstrates that including jets in double vector boson productions leads to a decrease in δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K, suggesting an anti-correlation between the number of jets and δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K.

A key finding involves the same-sign W𝑊Witalic_W boson pair production processes, W+W+jjsuperscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗W^{+}W^{+}jjitalic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j and WWjjsuperscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗W^{-}W^{-}jjitalic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j, uniquely occurring with two jets. Despite their relatively low total cross-sections, σLO(ppW+W+jj)162fbsubscript𝜎LO𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗162fb\sigma_{\text{LO}}(pp\to W^{+}W^{+}jj)\approx 162{\;{\rm fb}}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j ) ≈ 162 roman_fb and σLO(ppWWjj)71fbsubscript𝜎LO𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗71fb\sigma_{\text{LO}}(pp\to W^{-}W^{-}jj)\approx 71{\;{\rm fb}}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j ) ≈ 71 roman_fb, these processes are crucial as backgrounds in searches for BSM signals leading to same-sign dilepton final states. The notable K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, K(W+W+jj)1.61𝐾superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗1.61K(W^{+}W^{+}jj)\approx 1.61italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j ) ≈ 1.61 and K(WWjj)1.66𝐾superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝑗1.66K(W^{-}W^{-}jj)\approx 1.66italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j ) ≈ 1.66, underscore their impact in BSM signal-to-background analyses.

In addition, our research delves into gluon fusion production of γγ𝛾𝛾\gamma\gammaitalic_γ italic_γ, W+Wsuperscript𝑊superscript𝑊W^{+}W^{-}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, ZZ𝑍𝑍ZZitalic_Z italic_Z, and Zγ𝑍𝛾Z\gammaitalic_Z italic_γ, a topic not covered in Table 2 but essential for a comprehensive understanding of both SM and BSM physics. Since the table presents LO and NLO cross-sections within perturbative calculations, gluon fusion is not included. The LO processes proceed through quark-antiquark annihilation (qq¯VV𝑞¯𝑞𝑉superscript𝑉q\bar{q}\to VV^{\prime}italic_q over¯ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG → italic_V italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) with αem2superscriptsubscript𝛼em2\alpha_{\text{em}}^{2}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT em end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT coupling. At NLO in QCD, virtual corrections and real emissions introduce αsαem2subscript𝛼𝑠superscriptsubscript𝛼em2\alpha_{s}\alpha_{\text{em}}^{2}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT em end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, occurring via quark-antiquark annihilation and gluon-quark scattering. Gluon fusion channels, enabled by quark box diagrams, exhibit αs2αem2superscriptsubscript𝛼𝑠2superscriptsubscript𝛼em2\alpha_{s}^{2}\alpha_{\text{em}}^{2}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT em end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT coupling and are thus considered at the NNLO level. However, the markedly higher gluon PDF, compared to the quark PDF, compensates for the extra αssubscript𝛼𝑠\alpha_{s}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT factor, highlighting the importance of these processes in detailed particle physics analyses.

Our calculations of the gluon fusion production cross-sections at the 14 TeV LHC are as follows:

σ(ggγγ)𝜎𝑔𝑔𝛾𝛾\displaystyle\sigma(gg\to\gamma\gamma)italic_σ ( italic_g italic_g → italic_γ italic_γ ) =3.451×10pb,absent3.45110pb\displaystyle=3.451\times 10{\;{\rm pb}},= 3.451 × 10 roman_pb , (5)
σ(ggW+W)𝜎𝑔𝑔superscript𝑊superscript𝑊\displaystyle\sigma(gg\to W^{+}W^{-})italic_σ ( italic_g italic_g → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) =4.412pb,absent4.412pb\displaystyle=4.412{\;{\rm pb}},= 4.412 roman_pb ,
σ(ggZZ)𝜎𝑔𝑔𝑍𝑍\displaystyle\sigma(gg\to ZZ)italic_σ ( italic_g italic_g → italic_Z italic_Z ) =1.450pb,absent1.450pb\displaystyle=1.450{\;{\rm pb}},= 1.450 roman_pb ,
σ(ggZγ)𝜎𝑔𝑔𝑍𝛾\displaystyle\sigma(gg\to Z\gamma)italic_σ ( italic_g italic_g → italic_Z italic_γ ) =8.827×101pb.absent8.827superscript101pb\displaystyle=8.827\times 10^{-1}{\;{\rm pb}}.= 8.827 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_pb .

Although these cross-sections do not encompass the complete NNLO results, they provide significant insights. For photon pair production, the gluon fusion process is as critical as the LO quark-antiquark annihilation. Incorporating this gluon fusion process, the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor escalates to 3.67. For the other three vector boson production processes, however, contributions from gluon fusion are relatively minor, with the cross-sections constituting only a few percent of the LO cross-section.

Three Vector Bosons (+ jets) at the 14 TeV LHC
   Process Syntax σLO[pb]subscript𝜎LOdelimited-[]pb\sigma_{\rm LO}~{}[{\rm pb}]italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_pb ]  K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor  Ref.
   ppW+WW±𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > w+ w- wpm 1.542×1011.542superscript1011.542\times 10^{-1}1.542 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5651.5651.5651.565 Binoth:2008kt ; Dittmaier:2017bnh
   ppZW+W𝑝𝑝𝑍superscript𝑊superscript𝑊pp\to Z{W^{+}W^{-}}italic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > z w+ w- 1.172×1011.172superscript1011.172\times 10^{-1}1.172 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.6591.6591.6591.659 Binoth:2008kt
   ppZZW±𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to ZZW^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > z z wpm 3.724×1023.724superscript1023.724\times 10^{-2}3.724 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.7631.7631.7631.763 Binoth:2008kt
   ppZZZ𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑍pp\to ZZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_Z p p > z z z 1.239×1021.239superscript1021.239\times 10^{-2}1.239 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3201.3201.3201.320 Binoth:2008kt
   ppγW+W𝑝𝑝𝛾superscript𝑊superscript𝑊pp\to\gamma{W^{+}W^{-}}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > a w+ w- 1.933×1011.933superscript1011.933\times 10^{-1}1.933 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.8301.8301.8301.830
   ppγγW±𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to{\gamma\gamma}W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > a a wpm 3.956×1023.956superscript1023.956\times 10^{-2}3.956 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3.6073.6073.6073.607 CMS:2021jji
   ppγZW±𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to\gamma ZW^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > a z wpm 6.838×1026.838superscript1026.838\times 10^{-2}6.838 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.2742.2742.2742.274
   ppγZZ𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑍𝑍pp\to\gamma ZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_Z italic_Z p p > a z z 3.132×1023.132superscript1023.132\times 10^{-2}3.132 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3561.3561.3561.356
   ppγγZ𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑍pp\to{\gamma\gamma}Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_Z p p > a a z 4.949×1024.949superscript1024.949\times 10^{-2}4.949 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5691.5691.5691.569 CMS:2021jji
   ppγγγ𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝛾pp\to{\gamma\gamma}\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ p p > a a a 2.403×1022.403superscript1022.403\times 10^{-2}2.403 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.9952.9952.9952.995
   ppW+WW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > w+ w- wpm j 1.109×1011.109superscript1011.109\times 10^{-1}1.109 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3071.3071.3071.307
   ppZW+Wj𝑝𝑝𝑍superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗pp\to Z{W^{+}W^{-}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > z w+ w- j 9.957×1029.957superscript1029.957\times 10^{-2}9.957 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2781.2781.2781.278
   ppZZW±j𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to ZZW^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > z z wpm j 3.348×1023.348superscript1023.348\times 10^{-2}3.348 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2991.2991.2991.299
   ppZZZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑍𝑗pp\to ZZZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_Z italic_j p p > z z z j 5.579×1035.579superscript1035.579\times 10^{-3}5.579 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3431.3431.3431.343
   ppγγW±j𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to{\gamma\gamma}W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > a a wpm j 7.073×1027.073superscript1027.073\times 10^{-2}7.073 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.6231.6231.6231.623
   ppγZW±j𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑍superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to\gamma ZW^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_Z italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > a z wpm j 8.356×1028.356superscript1028.356\times 10^{-2}8.356 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4051.4051.4051.405
   ppγZZj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝑍𝑍𝑗pp\to\gamma ZZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_Z italic_Z italic_j p p > a z z j 1.426×1021.426superscript1021.426\times 10^{-2}1.426 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4101.4101.4101.410
   ppγγZj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑍𝑗pp\to{\gamma\gamma}Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_Z italic_j p p > a a z j 2.490×1022.490superscript1022.490\times 10^{-2}2.490 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5961.5961.5961.596
   ppγγγj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝛾𝑗pp\to{\gamma\gamma}\gamma jitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ italic_j p p > a a a j 2.312×1022.312superscript1022.312\times 10^{-2}2.312 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.3322.3322.3322.332
Table 3: The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for three vector boson production, including the cases with jets.
Four Vector Bosons (+ jets) at the 14 TeV LHC
   Process Syntax σLO[pb]subscript𝜎LOdelimited-[]pb\sigma_{\rm LO}~{}[{\rm pb}]italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_pb ]  K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor  Ref.
   ppW+WW+W𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}{W^{+}W^{-}}italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > w+ w- w+ w- 7.235×1047.235superscript1047.235\times 10^{-4}7.235 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.6381.6381.6381.638
   ppW+WW±Z𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}W^{\pm}Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z p p > w+ w- wpm z 8.509×1048.509superscript1048.509\times 10^{-4}8.509 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.7291.7291.7291.729
   ppW+WW±γ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}W^{\pm}\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ p p > w+ w- wpm a 1.141×1031.141superscript1031.141\times 10^{-3}1.141 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.8561.8561.8561.856
   ppW+WZZ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑍𝑍pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}ZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_Z p p > w+ w- z z 5.483×1045.483superscript1045.483\times 10^{-4}5.483 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5541.5541.5541.554
   ppW+WZγ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑍𝛾pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}Z\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_γ p p > w+ w- z a 1.176×1031.176superscript1031.176\times 10^{-3}1.176 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.7331.7331.7331.733
   ppW+Wγγ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝛾𝛾pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ p p > w+ w- a a 8.291×1048.291superscript1048.291\times 10^{-4}8.291 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.8691.8691.8691.869
   ppW±ZZZ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝑍𝑍pp\to W^{\pm}ZZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_Z italic_Z p p > wpm z z z 7.713×1057.713superscript1057.713\times 10^{-5}7.713 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.9671.9671.9671.967
   ppW±ZZγ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝑍𝛾pp\to W^{\pm}ZZ\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_Z italic_γ p p > wpm z z a 1.677×1041.677superscript1041.677\times 10^{-4}1.677 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.5262.5262.5262.526
   ppW±Zγγ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝛾𝛾pp\to W^{\pm}Z{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_γ italic_γ p p > wpm z a a 1.760×1041.760superscript1041.760\times 10^{-4}1.760 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3.0893.0893.0893.089
   ppW±γγγ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾𝛾𝛾pp\to W^{\pm}\gamma{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ p p > wpm a a a 6.719×1056.719superscript1056.719\times 10^{-5}6.719 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4.2214.2214.2214.221
   ppZZZZ𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑍𝑍pp\to ZZZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_Z italic_Z p p > z z z z 2.449×1052.449superscript1052.449\times 10^{-5}2.449 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2621.2621.2621.262
   ppZZZγ𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑍𝛾pp\to ZZZ\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_Z italic_γ p p > z z z a 5.607×1055.607superscript1055.607\times 10^{-5}5.607 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2701.2701.2701.270
   ppZZγγ𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝛾𝛾pp\to ZZ{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_γ italic_γ p p > z z a a 9.284×1059.284superscript1059.284\times 10^{-5}9.284 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3631.3631.3631.363
   ppZγγγ𝑝𝑝𝑍𝛾𝛾𝛾pp\to Z\gamma{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ p p > z a a a 9.716×1059.716superscript1059.716\times 10^{-5}9.716 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5851.5851.5851.585
   ppγγγγ𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾pp\to{\gamma\gamma}{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ p p > a a a a 3.964×1053.964superscript1053.964\times 10^{-5}3.964 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.4052.4052.4052.405
Table 4: The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for four vector boson production, including the cases with jets.

Moving to more intricate scenarios, we analyze productions involving three or four vector bosons, with and without jet accompaniment, in Table 3 and Table 4. Here, we report the LO cross sections and their corresponding K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, citing key studies that provide detailed calculations or analyses in both theoretical and experimental contexts. It is consistently observed that photon-involved processes exhibit notably high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, such as K(γγW±)3.6similar-to-or-equals𝐾𝛾𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus3.6K(\gamma\gamma W^{\pm})\simeq 3.6italic_K ( italic_γ italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≃ 3.6, K(γγγ)3.0similar-to-or-equals𝐾𝛾𝛾𝛾3.0K(\gamma\gamma\gamma)\simeq 3.0italic_K ( italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ ) ≃ 3.0, and K(W±γγγ)4.2similar-to-or-equals𝐾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾𝛾𝛾4.2K(W^{\pm}\gamma\gamma\gamma)\simeq 4.2italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ ) ≃ 4.2.

Table 3 also illustrates the effect of jet inclusion on K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors. Similar to single and double vector boson productions, adding jets tends to reduce δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K. This reduction is particularly pronounced in scenarios where productions of three or four vector bosons without jets initially exhibit high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors. To illustrate, consider two scenarios: W+WW±superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊plus-or-minusW^{+}W^{-}W^{\pm}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with a conventional K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor, versus γγW±𝛾𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus\gamma\gamma W^{\pm}italic_γ italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which has a notably high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor. The inclusion of an additional jet presents contrasting impacts: for W+WW±superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊plus-or-minusW^{+}W^{-}W^{\pm}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of approximately 1.57 is reduced by about 17%, whereas for γγW±𝛾𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus\gamma\gamma W^{\pm}italic_γ italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, with a K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of approximately 3.61, the reduction is around 55%.

Light jet or Bottom quark productions at the 14 TeV LHC
  Process Syntax σLO[pb]subscript𝜎LOdelimited-[]pb\sigma_{\rm LO}~{}[{\rm pb}]italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_pb ] K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor Note  Ref.
  ppjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗pp\to jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j p p > j j 1.270×1061.270superscript1061.270\times 10^{6}1.270 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2901.2901.2901.290 pTj>100GeVsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗100GeVp_{T}^{j}>100{\;{\rm GeV}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 100 roman_GeV
  ppjjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j italic_j p p > j j j 3.431×1043.431superscript1043.431\times 10^{4}3.431 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.0051.0051.0051.005
  ppbb¯𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏pp\to b\bar{b}italic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG p p > b bsimilar-to\sim 2.972×1082.972superscript1082.972\times 10^{8}2.972 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3481.3481.3481.348 KNNLO1.30similar-to-or-equalssubscript𝐾NNLO1.30K_{\rm NNLO}\simeq 1.30italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_NNLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≃ 1.30Catani:2020kkl
  ppbb¯j𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝑗pp\to b\bar{b}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_j p p > b bsimilar-to\sim j 4.780×1064.780superscript1064.780\times 10^{6}4.780 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2681.2681.2681.268
  ppbb¯jj𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝑗𝑗pp\to b\bar{b}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_j italic_j p p > b bsimilar-to\sim j j 8.903×1058.903superscript1058.903\times 10^{5}8.903 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4991.4991.4991.499 MG v2.9.16
  ppbb¯bb¯𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝑏¯𝑏pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}italic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG p p > b bsimilar-to\sim b bsimilar-to\sim 3.714×1053.714superscript1053.714\times 10^{5}3.714 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.9971.9971.9971.997 MG v2.9.16
  ppbb¯W±𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to b\bar{b}W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > b bsimilar-to\sim wpm 3.451×1023.451superscript1023.451\times 10^{2}3.451 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.8082.8082.8082.808 Badger:2010mg
  ppbb¯Z𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝑍pp\to b\bar{b}Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_Z p p > b bsimilar-to\sim z 8.493×1028.493superscript1028.493\times 10^{2}8.493 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.7061.7061.7061.706 Frederix:2011qg
  ppbb¯γ𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝛾pp\to b\bar{b}\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_γ p p > b bsimilar-to\sim a 2.620×1032.620superscript1032.620\times 10^{3}2.620 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.1822.1822.1822.182 Frederix:2011qg
  ppbb¯W±j𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to b\bar{b}W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > b bsimilar-to\sim wpm j 2.246×1022.246superscript1022.246\times 10^{2}2.246 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.2312.2312.2312.231
  ppbb¯Zj𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝑍𝑗pp\to b\bar{b}Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_Z italic_j p p > b bsimilar-to\sim z j 1.891×1021.891superscript1021.891\times 10^{2}1.891 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.8961.8961.8961.896 MG v3.3.1
  ppbb¯γj𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝛾𝑗pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma jitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_γ italic_j p p > b bsimilar-to\sim a j 1.133×1031.133superscript1031.133\times 10^{3}1.133 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.7631.7631.7631.763
Table 5: The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for light jets or bottom quark production. We do not put any cut on b𝑏bitalic_b and b¯¯𝑏\bar{b}over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG quarks.
Top quark productions at the 14 TeV LHC
  Process Syntax σLO[pb]subscript𝜎LOdelimited-[]pb\sigma_{\rm LO}~{}[{\rm pb}]italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_pb ] K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor Note  Ref.
  pptb¯/t¯b𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑏¯𝑡𝑏pp\to t\bar{b}/\bar{t}bitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG / over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_b p p > t bsimilar-to\sim & p p > tsimilar-to\sim b 8.4958.4958.4958.495 1.3481.3481.3481.348
  pptt¯𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡pp\to{t\bar{t}}italic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG p p > t tsimilar-to\sim 5.302×1025.302superscript1025.302\times 10^{2}5.302 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4891.4891.4891.489 KaN3LO=1.719subscript𝐾superscriptaN3LO1.719K_{\rm aN^{3}LO}=1.719italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_aN start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1.719Kidonakis:2022hfa Nason:1987xz ; Beenakker:1990maa ; Czakon:2011xx ; Kidonakis:2019yji
  pptt¯j𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑗pp\to{t\bar{t}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_j p p > t tsimilar-to\sim j 3.522×1023.522superscript1023.522\times 10^{2}3.522 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4221.4221.4221.422
  pptt¯jj𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑗𝑗pp\to{t\bar{t}}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_j italic_j p p > t tsimilar-to\sim j j 1.550×1021.550superscript1021.550\times 10^{2}1.550 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4261.4261.4261.426
  pptt¯tt¯𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑡¯𝑡pp\to{t\bar{t}}{t\bar{t}}italic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG p p > t tsimilar-to\sim t tsimilar-to\sim 5.135×1035.135superscript1035.135\times 10^{-3}5.135 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2.2842.2842.2842.284 Bevilacqua:2012em ; ATLAS:2023ajo ; CMS:2023ftu
  pptt¯bb¯𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑏¯𝑏pp\to{t\bar{t}}b\bar{b}italic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG p p > t tsimilar-to\sim b bsimilar-to\sim 7.5007.5007.5007.500 2.5132.5132.5132.513 MG v3.3.2 Bredenstein:2009aj
  pptt¯W±𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to{t\bar{t}}W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > t tsimilar-to\sim wpm 4.685×1014.685superscript1014.685\times 10^{-1}4.685 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4561.4561.4561.456
  pptt¯Z𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑍pp\to{t\bar{t}}Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_Z p p > t tsimilar-to\sim z 6.103×1016.103superscript1016.103\times 10^{-1}6.103 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5111.5111.5111.511
  pptt¯γ𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝛾pp\to{t\bar{t}}\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_γ p p > t tsimilar-to\sim a 1.5131.5131.5131.513 1.5601.5601.5601.560
  pptt¯W±j𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to{t\bar{t}}W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > t tsimilar-to\sim wpm j 2.898×1012.898superscript1012.898\times 10^{-1}2.898 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4961.4961.4961.496
  pptt¯Zj𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑍𝑗pp\to{t\bar{t}}Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_Z italic_j p p > t tsimilar-to\sim z j 4.512×1014.512superscript1014.512\times 10^{-1}4.512 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4241.4241.4241.424
  pptt¯γj𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝛾𝑗pp\to{t\bar{t}}\gamma jitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_γ italic_j p p > t tsimilar-to\sim a j 1.1341.1341.1341.134 1.4561.4561.4561.456
  pptt¯W+W𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡superscript𝑊superscript𝑊pp\to{t\bar{t}}{W^{+}W^{-}}italic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > t tsimilar-to\sim w+ w- 8.492×1038.492superscript1038.492\times 10^{-3}8.492 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4661.4661.4661.466
  pptt¯W±Z𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍pp\to{t\bar{t}}W^{\pm}Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z p p > t tsimilar-to\sim wpm z 3.189×1033.189superscript1033.189\times 10^{-3}3.189 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3891.3891.3891.389
  pptt¯W±γ𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾pp\to{t\bar{t}}W^{\pm}\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ p p > t tsimilar-to\sim wpm a 3.933×1033.933superscript1033.933\times 10^{-3}3.933 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4391.4391.4391.439
  pptt¯ZZ𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑍𝑍pp\to{t\bar{t}}ZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_Z italic_Z p p > t tsimilar-to\sim z z 1.665×1031.665superscript1031.665\times 10^{-3}1.665 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3801.3801.3801.380
  pptt¯Zγ𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝑍𝛾pp\to{t\bar{t}}Z\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_Z italic_γ p p > t tsimilar-to\sim z a 3.318×1033.318superscript1033.318\times 10^{-3}3.318 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5311.5311.5311.531
  pptt¯γγ𝑝𝑝𝑡¯𝑡𝛾𝛾pp\to{t\bar{t}}{\gamma\gamma}italic_p italic_p → italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_γ italic_γ p p > t tsimilar-to\sim a a 4.924×1034.924superscript1034.924\times 10^{-3}4.924 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.4711.4711.4711.471
  ppt(–)W±𝑝𝑝(–)𝑡superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to\overset{\text{(--)}}{t}W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → over(–) start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > tt wpm 5.462×105.462105.462\times 105.462 × 10 1.4151.4151.4151.415 MG v2.9.16, 5 flavor
Table 6: The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for top quark production. Here t(–)(–)𝑡\overset{\text{(--)}}{t}over(–) start_ARG italic_t end_ARG (in syntax, tt) is a label that includes both t𝑡titalic_t and t¯¯𝑡\bar{t}over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG, defined from the shell with define tt = t tsimilar-to\sim. Here KaN3LOsubscript𝐾superscriptaN3LOK_{\rm aN^{3}LO}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_aN start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for the approximate NNNLO. We do not put any cut on b𝑏bitalic_b and b¯¯𝑏\bar{b}over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG quarks.

In Table 5 and Table 6, we explore scenarios involving light jets, bottom quarks, top quarks, and their association with vector bosons and/or jets. The LO cross sections and their respective K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors are meticulously detailed. Here, t(–)(–)𝑡\overset{\text{(--)}}{t}over(–) start_ARG italic_t end_ARG (in syntax, tt) includes both t𝑡titalic_t and t¯¯𝑡\bar{t}over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG, established with the command define tt = t tsimilar-to\sim. No kinematic cuts are applied to the bottom and top quarks in our analysis.

Additionally, we reference higher-level corrections for bb¯𝑏¯𝑏{b\bar{b}}italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG and tt¯𝑡¯𝑡{t\bar{t}}italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG: KNNLO(bb¯)=1.251.35subscript𝐾NNLO𝑏¯𝑏1.25similar-to1.35K_{\rm NNLO}({b\bar{b}})=1.25\sim 1.35italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_NNLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) = 1.25 ∼ 1.35Catani:2020kkl and KaN3LO(tt¯)=1.719subscript𝐾superscriptaN3LO𝑡¯𝑡1.719K_{\rm aN^{3}LO}({t\bar{t}})=1.719italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_aN start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) = 1.719Kidonakis:2022hfa , where KaN3LOsubscript𝐾superscriptaN3LOK_{\rm aN^{3}LO}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_aN start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for the approximate NNNLO. We also point out the employment of different MadGraph software versions for particular processes. Importantly, MadGraph v2.9.16 is used for bb¯jj𝑏¯𝑏𝑗𝑗b\bar{b}jjitalic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_j italic_j and bb¯bb¯𝑏¯𝑏𝑏¯𝑏b\bar{b}b\bar{b}italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG processes because this version uniquely offers stable and reliable NLO results, an attribute not shared by higher versions.

Including a vector boson in bottom quark pair production processes significantly increases the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors. This effect is highlighted by the ppbb¯W±𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to b\bar{b}W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT process, with a K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of 2.8082.8082.8082.808, and the ppbb¯γj𝑝𝑝𝑏¯𝑏𝛾𝑗pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma jitalic_p italic_p → italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_γ italic_j process, showcasing a K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of 1.7631.7631.7631.763. These elevated K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors significantly impact the search for new particles, particularly those decaying mainly into bottom quark pairs. Examples of interest include new neutral Higgs bosons within Two-Higgs-Doublet Models or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, as well as new Zsuperscript𝑍Z^{\prime}italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bosons in extended gauge symmetry models. The challenge posed by dijet backgrounds in bb¯𝑏¯𝑏b\bar{b}italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG resonance searches often necessitates the associated production of an additional vector boson, underscoring the critical need to account for high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors in detailed background analyses.

Higgs associated processes at the 14 TeV LHC
   Process Syntax σLO[pb]subscript𝜎LOdelimited-[]pb\sigma_{\rm LO}~{}[{\rm pb}]italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_pb ] K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor Note
   ppHW±𝑝𝑝𝐻superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to HW^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > h wpm 1.3521.3521.3521.352 1.1831.1831.1831.183
   ppHW±j𝑝𝑝𝐻superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to HW^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j p p > h wpm j 4.638×1014.638superscript1014.638\times 10^{-1}4.638 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2151.2151.2151.215
   ppHW±jj𝑝𝑝𝐻superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗𝑗pp\to HW^{\pm}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_j p p > h wpm j j 1.518×1011.518superscript1011.518\times 10^{-1}1.518 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.1961.1961.1961.196
   ppHZ𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑍pp\to HZitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_Z p p > h z 7.176×1017.176superscript1017.176\times 10^{-1}7.176 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.1921.1921.1921.192
   ppHZj𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑍𝑗pp\to HZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_Z italic_j p p > h z j 2.475×1012.475superscript1012.475\times 10^{-1}2.475 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2341.2341.2341.234
   ppHZjj𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑍𝑗𝑗pp\to HZjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_Z italic_j italic_j p p > h z j j 8.099×1028.099superscript1028.099\times 10^{-2}8.099 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2121.2121.2121.212
   ppHW+W𝑝𝑝𝐻superscript𝑊superscript𝑊pp\to H{W^{+}W^{-}}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > h w+ w- 1.009×1021.009superscript1021.009\times 10^{-2}1.009 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.2241.2241.2241.224
   ppHW±γ𝑝𝑝𝐻superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾pp\to HW^{\pm}\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ p p > h wpm a 3.418×1033.418superscript1033.418\times 10^{-3}3.418 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3281.3281.3281.328
   ppHW±Z𝑝𝑝𝐻superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍pp\to HW^{\pm}Zitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z p p > h wpm z 4.592×1034.592superscript1034.592\times 10^{-3}4.592 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3361.3361.3361.336
   ppHZZ𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑍𝑍pp\to HZZitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_Z italic_Z p p > h z z 2.467×1032.467superscript1032.467\times 10^{-3}2.467 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.1981.1981.1981.198
   ppHtt¯𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑡¯𝑡pp\to H{t\bar{t}}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG p p > h t tsimilar-to\sim 4.168×1014.168superscript1014.168\times 10^{-1}4.168 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3321.3321.3321.332
   ppHt(–)j𝑝𝑝𝐻(–)𝑡𝑗pp\to H\overset{\text{(--)}}{t}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_H over(–) start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_j p p > h tt j 4.773×1024.773superscript1024.773\times 10^{-2}4.773 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.5351.5351.5351.535 5-flavor
   ppHbb¯𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑏¯𝑏pp\to Hb\bar{b}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG p p > h b bsimilar-to\sim 5.248×1015.248superscript1015.248\times 10^{-1}5.248 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.1461.1461.1461.146
   ppHbb¯j𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑏¯𝑏𝑗pp\to Hb\bar{b}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG italic_j p p > h b bsimilar-to\sim j 8.504×1028.504superscript1028.504\times 10^{-2}8.504 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.3061.3061.3061.306 MG v3.3.1
   ppHHW±𝑝𝑝𝐻𝐻superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to HHW^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT p p > h h wpm 5.250×1045.250superscript1045.250\times 10^{-4}5.250 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.1071.1071.1071.107
   ppHHZ𝑝𝑝𝐻𝐻𝑍pp\to HHZitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_H italic_Z p p > h h z 3.248×1043.248superscript1043.248\times 10^{-4}3.248 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1.0711.0711.0711.071
Table 7: The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for the Higgs productions associated with vector bosons, bottom quarks, or top quarks. Here KaN3LOsubscript𝐾superscriptaN3LOK_{\rm aN^{3}LO}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_aN start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for the approximate NNNLO. We do not put any cut on bottom and top quarks.

Our analysis concludes in Table 7 with an examination of the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for various Higgs production processes at the 14 TeV LHC, covering associations with vector bosons, top quarks, bottom quarks, or multiple jets. This part highlights the multifaceted nature of Higgs production and the significance of investigating diverse channels to fully understand Higgs physics. The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors across these processes generally show modest increases, typically ranging from about 1.071.071.071.07 to 1.51.51.51.5.

We first focus on Higgs production associated with top or bottom quarks, instrumental in directly probing their Yukawa couplings. The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for these processes are noteworthy: the ppHtt¯𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑡¯𝑡pp\to H{t\bar{t}}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG process exhibits a K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of 1.3321.3321.3321.332, while the ppHbb¯𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑏¯𝑏pp\to Hb\bar{b}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG process reaches a K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of 1.1461.1461.1461.146. These findings underscore the importance of accurate theoretical predictions in analyzing the interactions between the Higgs boson and heavy quarks. Another significant observation is in the ppHtt¯j𝑝𝑝𝐻𝑡¯𝑡𝑗pp\to H{t\bar{t}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_j process, where the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor stands at 1.5351.5351.5351.535.

Finally, we observe that double Higgs production processes associated with a vector boson, such as ppHHW±𝑝𝑝𝐻𝐻superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to HHW^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_H italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ppHHZ𝑝𝑝𝐻𝐻𝑍pp\to HHZitalic_p italic_p → italic_H italic_H italic_Z, have K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors marginally above 1111. This subtle increment suggests that higher-order corrections for double Higgs production are less impactful than those for single Higgs production, marking a distinctive aspect of Higgs physics that merits thorough theoretical scrutiny.

III Panoramic view for high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor processes

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The processes with the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors in the range [1.5,1.8]1.51.8[1.5,1.8][ 1.5 , 1.8 ].

In the preceding section, we conducted a thorough analysis of K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for 111 processes at the 14 TeV LHC. This section aims to synthesize these findings into a concise summary of processes that display high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, offering an overview on processes where NLO corrections are notably significant.

Figure 1 zeroes in on processes with K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors ranging from 1.51.51.51.5 to 1.81.81.81.8. A prominent feature of these processes is the inclusion of multiple particles, especially vector bosons. Examples include K(W+WW±Z)=1.729𝐾superscript𝑊superscript𝑊superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍1.729K(W^{+}W^{-}W^{\pm}Z)=1.729italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z ) = 1.729 and K(W+Wγγ)=1.869𝐾superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝛾𝛾1.869K(W^{+}W^{-}\gamma\gamma)=1.869italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ ) = 1.869. The elevated K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors in these cases are attributed to the complexity of the interactions, which allow for multiple real emission processes. Furthermore, tt¯𝑡¯𝑡t\bar{t}italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG production and their associated processes with Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ, or both, have notably high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors: KaN3LO(tt¯)1.72subscript𝐾superscriptaN3LO𝑡¯𝑡1.72K_{\rm aN^{3}LO}({t\bar{t}})\approx 1.72italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_aN start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ≈ 1.72, K(tt¯Z)1.51𝐾𝑡¯𝑡𝑍1.51K({t\bar{t}}Z)\approx 1.51italic_K ( italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_Z ) ≈ 1.51, K(tt¯γ)1.56𝐾𝑡¯𝑡𝛾1.56K({t\bar{t}}\gamma)\approx 1.56italic_K ( italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_γ ) ≈ 1.56, and K(tt¯Zγ)1.53𝐾𝑡¯𝑡𝑍𝛾1.53K({t\bar{t}}Z\gamma)\approx 1.53italic_K ( italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_Z italic_γ ) ≈ 1.53. These figures highlight the indispensable role of higher-order corrections in top quark physics.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The processes with the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors larger than 1.8.

In Fig. 2, we explore processes exhibiting K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors above 1.8. It is observed that the associated production of a bottom quark pair with various particles, such as Zj𝑍𝑗Zjitalic_Z italic_j, bb¯𝑏¯𝑏b\bar{b}italic_b over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG, W±jsuperscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗W^{\pm}jitalic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j, and tt¯𝑡¯𝑡t\bar{t}italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG, all display K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors exceeding 1.9. This observation is particularly relevant for BSM theories predicting new bosons that predominantly decay into a bottom quark pair, highlighting the importance of accounting for these high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors in background analyses for BSM searches.

Our second standout observation concerns the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for the process of four top quark pair production (tt¯tt¯𝑡¯𝑡𝑡¯𝑡t\bar{t}t\bar{t}italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG), which registers at 2.284. This process holds particular significance for exploring potential new physics scenarios, including a top-philic Axion-Like Particle (ALP)Blasi:2023hvb and two-Higgs-doublet modelAnisha:2023vvu .

The most significant trend from our comprehensive study on K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors is the consistently high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors associated with photon-inclusive processes. Moreover, the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor values escalate with the addition of photons in the process. For instance, single W±superscript𝑊plus-or-minusW^{\pm}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT production associated with a photon (W±γsuperscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾W^{\pm}\gammaitalic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ) has a K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of 2.667, which climbs to 4.221 for W±γγγsuperscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾𝛾𝛾W^{\pm}\gamma\gamma\gammaitalic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ.

The high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for photon-inclusive processes are attributed to the introduction of a gluon as an initial particle at NLO, which is absent at LO. Consider ppγW+𝑝𝑝𝛾superscript𝑊pp\to\gamma W^{+}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This process primarily occurs through ud¯γW+𝑢¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊u\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+}italic_u over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at LO.222For the sake of simplicity in our discussions, contributions from cs¯γW+𝑐¯𝑠𝛾superscript𝑊c\bar{s}\to\gamma W^{+}italic_c over¯ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, while not negligible, are not mentioned. At NLO, there are three kinds of contributions: (i) virtual corrections to ud¯γW+𝑢¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊u\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+}italic_u over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT; (ii) real emissions via ud¯γW+g𝑢¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊𝑔u\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+}gitalic_u over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g; (iii) real emissions through guγW+d𝑔𝑢𝛾superscript𝑊𝑑gu\to\gamma W^{+}ditalic_g italic_u → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d and gd¯γW+u¯𝑔¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊¯𝑢g\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+}\bar{u}italic_g over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG, collectively represented as gqW+γq𝑔𝑞superscript𝑊𝛾superscript𝑞gq\to W^{+}\gamma q^{\prime}italic_g italic_q → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

The K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for γW+𝛾superscript𝑊\gamma W^{+}italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is broken down into:

K(γW+)𝐾𝛾superscript𝑊\displaystyle K(\gamma W^{+})italic_K ( italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) =σLO+virt(ud¯γW+)σLO+σNLO(ud¯γW+g)σLO+σNLO(gqW+γq)σLOabsentsubscript𝜎LOvirt𝑢¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊subscript𝜎LOsubscript𝜎NLO𝑢¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊𝑔subscript𝜎LOsubscript𝜎NLO𝑔𝑞superscript𝑊𝛾superscript𝑞subscript𝜎LO\displaystyle=\frac{\sigma_{\rm LO+virt}(u\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+})}{\sigma_{\rm LO% }}+\frac{\sigma_{\rm NLO}(u\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+}g)}{\sigma_{\rm LO}}+\frac{% \sigma_{\rm NLO}(gq\to W^{+}\gamma q^{\prime})}{\sigma_{\rm LO}}= divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO + roman_virt end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_NLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_NLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_g italic_q → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG (6)
Kvirt+Kud¯γW+g+KgqW+γq.absentsubscript𝐾virtsubscript𝐾𝑢¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊𝑔subscript𝐾𝑔𝑞superscript𝑊𝛾superscript𝑞\displaystyle\equiv K_{\rm virt}+K_{u\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+}g}+K_{gq\to W^{+}% \gamma q^{\prime}}.≡ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_virt end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g italic_q → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

With the global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor of K(γW+)=2.667𝐾𝛾superscript𝑊2.667K(\gamma W^{+})=2.667italic_K ( italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2.667, contributions are as follows:

KvirtK(γW+)50.0%,Kud¯γW+gK(γW+)8.8%,KgqW+γqK(γW+)41.2%.formulae-sequencesubscript𝐾virt𝐾𝛾superscript𝑊percent50.0formulae-sequencesubscript𝐾𝑢¯𝑑𝛾superscript𝑊𝑔𝐾𝛾superscript𝑊percent8.8subscript𝐾𝑔𝑞superscript𝑊𝛾superscript𝑞𝐾𝛾superscript𝑊percent41.2\displaystyle\frac{K_{\rm virt}}{K(\gamma W^{+})}\approx 50.0\%,\quad\frac{K_{% u\bar{d}\to\gamma W^{+}g}}{K(\gamma W^{+})}\approx 8.8\%,\quad\frac{K_{gq\to W% ^{+}\gamma q^{\prime}}}{K(\gamma W^{+})}\approx 41.2\%.divide start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_virt end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_K ( italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ≈ 50.0 % , divide start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u over¯ start_ARG italic_d end_ARG → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_K ( italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ≈ 8.8 % , divide start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g italic_q → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_K ( italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ≈ 41.2 % . (7)

This breakdown clearly demonstrates how the high PDF of a gluon at the 14 TeV LHC enhances the real emission contribution from the initial gluon. Without this gluon contribution, the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor would be about 1.57, emphasizing the pivotal role of gluon-initiated processes in determining the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor.

IV K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for differential distributions

The search for new particles at the LHC heavily relies on the analysis of kinematic variables of detected particles. Variables such as transverse momentum, invariant mass, missing transverse energy, azimuthal angle differences, and rapidity gaps, are fundamental in probing BSM phenomena. To effectively separate signals from backgrounds, analysis often concentrates on a limited parameter space, carefully selected based on the expected characteristics of new signals. Consequently, the distributions of K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors across these kinematic variables emerge as a significant area of interest.

Two kinematic variables, transverse momentum and invariant mass, are particularly crucial in the search for new particles. The decay products of a heavy new particle typically manifest with elevated pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, making high pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT thresholds a strategic choice to reduce backgrounds from lower-energy SM activities. This strategy also aids in the effective triggering of signal events. Equally critical is the invariant mass distribution of the decay products of a new particle, providing a straightforward method to determine the particle’s mass.

Therefore, we analyze the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor distributions for both transverse momentum and invariant mass. To achieve accurate differential cross-section calculations at both LO and NLO, we employ the LO+PS (Leading Order plus Parton Shower) and NLO+PS (Next-to-Leading Order plus Parton Shower) settings as detailed in Ref.Alwall:2014hca . The LO+PS method computes matrix elements with NLO perturbative accuracy, incorporating both tree-level and one-loop matrix elements, and then matches these to parton showers. This technique ensures that observables are reconstructed from the output of the Monte Carlo simulation. The NLO+PS configuration extends the LO+PS methodology by basing its computations on NLO, and integrates NLO matrix elements with parton showers following the MC@NLO formalism.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (Left-upper panel) Differential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the jet, pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, in the process ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j. The LO result is depicted by a blue solid line, while the NLO result is shown with an orange line. (Left-lower panel) K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor as a function of pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The horizontal black dashed line represents the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for the total cross section. (Right panel) K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors as a function of pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for various processes: ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j in blue, ppZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗pp\to Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j in orange, ppZZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑗pp\to ZZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_j in green, ppW+Wj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j in red, and ppW±Zj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_j in purple.

For the transverse momentum dependence of K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, we analyze five processes: ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j, ppZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗pp\to Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j, ppZZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑗pp\to ZZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_j, ppW+Wj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j, and ppW±Zj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_j.333The pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT dependence of K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor was extensively studied in Ref.Rubin:2010xp . These processes share similar global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor values, as outlined below:

K(W±j)K(Zj)K(ZZj)1.4,K(W+Wj)K(W±Zj)1.3.formulae-sequencesimilar-to-or-equals𝐾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗𝐾𝑍𝑗similar-to-or-equals𝐾𝑍𝑍𝑗similar-to-or-equals1.4similar-to-or-equals𝐾superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗𝐾superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝑗similar-to-or-equals1.3\displaystyle K(W^{\pm}j)\simeq K(Zj)\simeq K(ZZj)\simeq 1.4,\quad K({W^{+}W^{% -}}j)\simeq K(W^{\pm}Zj)\simeq 1.3.italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ) ≃ italic_K ( italic_Z italic_j ) ≃ italic_K ( italic_Z italic_Z italic_j ) ≃ 1.4 , italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ) ≃ italic_K ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_j ) ≃ 1.3 . (8)

In Fig. 3, we present the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor distributions as a function of the jet’s transverse momentum (pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT), by using Pythia v8.2Sjostrand:2014zea . The left panels specifically target the ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j process. The upper left panel contrasts the differential cross sections at LO (depicted in blue) and NLO (shown in orange) with respect to pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We generated additional events at higher transverse momentum bins that suffered from low event counts.444Event counts at the pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT threshold were adjusted to align with the differential cross sections.

The discrepancy between LO and NLO differential cross sections becomes more pronounced in high pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bins. The lower left panel in Fig. 3 details the differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor in relation to pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where the global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor is indicated by a horizontal dashed black line. As the bulk of event counts falls within the lower pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bins, the global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor aligns with the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor in the pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bin of [30,80]GeV3080GeV[30,80]{\;{\rm GeV}}[ 30 , 80 ] roman_GeV. Notably, the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor escalates as pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT increases, surpassing three for pTj>330GeVsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗330GeVp_{T}^{j}>330{\;{\rm GeV}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 330 roman_GeV. This underlines the critical need for careful background analysis in high pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT regions, when searching for a BSM signal where W±jsuperscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗W^{\pm}jitalic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j constitutes a primary background.

This pattern of a rising K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor with increasing pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT persists across the other four processes, as illustrated in the right panel of Fig. 3. Displayed are the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j (blue), ppZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗pp\to Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j (orange), ppZZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑗pp\to ZZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_j (green), ppW+Wj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j (red), and ppW±Zj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_j (purple). While this trend is universally observed, the magnitude of increase varies, despite the processes sharing similar global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, as noted in Eq. (8). Remarkably, ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j experiences the most significant rise, followed in sequence by ppZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗pp\to Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j, ppZZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑍𝑗pp\to ZZjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_Z italic_j, ppW+Wj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊superscript𝑊𝑗pp\to{W^{+}W^{-}}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j, and finally, ppW±Zj𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑍𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z italic_j. At a pivotal pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of approximately 200 GeV, ppW±j𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝑗pp\to W^{\pm}jitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j and ppZj𝑝𝑝𝑍𝑗pp\to Zjitalic_p italic_p → italic_Z italic_j report K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors surpassing two, whereas the remaining processes display more moderate K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor values.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Differential cross sections about the invariant mass of three jets in the process of ppjjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j italic_j (left) and the invariant mass of γγjj𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗{\gamma\gamma}jjitalic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j in the process of ppγγjj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗pp\to{\gamma\gamma}jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j (right). In the upper panels, we present the LO results in blue and the NLO results in orange. In the lower panels, we present K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors about the invariant mass. The horizontal black dashed lines denote the global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor for the total cross section.

Shifting our focus to K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor distributions related to invariant mass, we investigate two processes: ppjjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j italic_j and ppγγjj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗pp\to\gamma\gamma jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j. The recent CMS Collaboration’s search for narrow trijet resonancesCMS:2023tep emphasizes the relevance of the trijet process analysis. This research explores potential new particles, including a right-handed Z𝑍Zitalic_Z boson decaying into three gluonsHuitu:1996su , a Kaluza–Klein gluon excitation decaying through an intermediate radion to three gluonsAgashe:2016kfr ; Agashe:2020wph , and an excited quark decaying via a new bosonBaur:1989kv . In these analyses, the SM background is estimated using empirical functions to fit the mjjjsubscript𝑚𝑗𝑗𝑗m_{jjj}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_j italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spectrum, a technique challenging for phenomenological studies to mimic. Therefore, assessing whether the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor distribution for mjjjsubscript𝑚𝑗𝑗𝑗m_{jjj}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_j italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT markedly deviates from the global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor is crucial.

In the left panels of Fig. 4, we exhibit the LO (in blue) and NLO (in orange) differential cross sections for the invariant mass distribution of three jets, alongside the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor distribution. The analysis focuses on the invariant mass window of [0.8,2.0]0.82.0[0.8,2.0][ 0.8 , 2.0 ] TeV, aiming at heavy new particles. Unlike the pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT dependence, the invariant mass has a marginal impact on the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor, with deviations from the global value staying within approximately 10%.

The second process we examine is ppγγjj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗pp\to\gamma\gamma jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j. This process acts as a principal background for BSM Higgs decay scenarios into a pair of lighter new particles, such as a lighter Higgs boson or ALPs, which then decay into two photonsATLAS:2023ian ; Wang:2023pqx . Although the final state includes four photons, the background from four photons is negligible, with its total cross-section on the order of 105pbsuperscript105pb10^{-5}{\;{\rm pb}}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_pb. In contrast, the final state that consists of two photons and two jets (misidentified as photons) presents with a cross-section approximately 10 pb, thus becoming a significant background.

In the right panel of Fig. 4, the LO (in blue) and NLO (in orange) differential cross-sections relative to mγγjjsubscript𝑚𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗m_{\gamma\gamma jj}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the invariant mass of two photons and two jets, are illustrated. Similar to the ppjjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j italic_j process, the deviation of the differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor from the global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor across most mγγjjsubscript𝑚𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗m_{\gamma\gamma jj}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bins remains modest.

V Conclusions

In this study, we have extensively analyzed the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors (K=σNLO/σLO1+δK𝐾subscript𝜎NLOsubscript𝜎LO1𝛿𝐾K=\sigma_{\text{NLO}}/\sigma_{\text{LO}}\equiv 1+\delta Kitalic_K = italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT NLO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT LO end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ 1 + italic_δ italic_K) for a broad spectrum of SM processes at the 14 TeV LHC. Our analysis covers 111 processes, which are expected to serve as backgrounds for most BSM searches. Utilizing MadGraph5_aMC@NLO for our calculations, we presented the LO cross sections alongside their corresponding K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors. We observed significant variation of K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors across processes, from 1.001 (ppjjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j italic_j) to 4.221 (ppW±γγγ𝑝𝑝superscript𝑊plus-or-minus𝛾𝛾𝛾pp\to W^{\pm}\gamma\gamma\gammaitalic_p italic_p → italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ italic_γ). This variance underscores the diverse impact of NLO corrections for different processes. To provide a comprehensive overview, especially for processes with high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, we also highlighted processes where K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors exceed 1.5.

Key insights emerged from our analysis. Processes involving photons consistently showed exceptionally high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, mainly because of gluon-initiated processes at NLO that take advantage of the LHC’s high gluon PDFs. For instance, in the ppγW±𝑝𝑝𝛾superscript𝑊plus-or-minuspp\to\gamma W^{\pm}italic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT process, gluon-initiated real emissions account for about 40% of the K𝐾Kitalic_K-factor. Moreover, processes featuring multiple particles, especially vector bosons, yielded high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, a result of the interaction complexity and multiple real emission processes. An inverse correlation was also noted between the inclusion of jets and δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K, indicating that adding jets typically reduces δK𝛿𝐾\delta Kitalic_δ italic_K.

We also analyzed differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors concerning transverse momentum and invariant mass, emphasizing their critical importance for BSM searches at the LHC. The evaluation of differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for pTjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑇𝑗p_{T}^{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT across various processes revealed significant increases with rising pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, whereas the differential K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors for invariant mass in selected processes of ppjjj𝑝𝑝𝑗𝑗𝑗pp\to jjjitalic_p italic_p → italic_j italic_j italic_j and ppγγjj𝑝𝑝𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗pp\to\gamma\gamma jjitalic_p italic_p → italic_γ italic_γ italic_j italic_j showed minimal deviation from global K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors.

In conclusion, our extensive analysis underscores the necessity of accurately assessing the impact of high K𝐾Kitalic_K-factors, particularly in the high pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT region, on the BSM search. The findings from this comprehensive study are poised to guide future experimental strategies in the ongoing quest for new physics.

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by Konkuk University in 2023.

References

  • (1) 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) 1–29, [1207.7214].
  • (2) 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) 30–61, [1207.7235].
  • (3) J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J. 462 (1996) 563–575, [astro-ph/9508025].
  • (4) G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390, [hep-ph/0404175].
  • (5) G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori et al., Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP 08 (2012) 098, [1205.6497].
  • (6) S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, Naturalness constraints in supersymmetric theories with nonuniversal soft terms, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 573–578, [hep-ph/9507282].
  • (7) K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, Naturalness, weak scale supersymmetry and the prospect for the observation of supersymmetry at the Tevatron and at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 096004, [hep-ph/9710473].
  • (8) N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler and R. Sundrum, Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC, JHEP 07 (2015) 105, [1501.05310].
  • (9) SLAC-SP-017 collaboration, J. E. Augustin et al., Discovery of a Narrow Resonance in e+esuperscript𝑒superscript𝑒e^{+}e^{-}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 1406–1408.
  • (10) E598 collaboration, J. J. Aubert et al., Experimental Observation of a Heavy Particle J𝐽Jitalic_J, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 1404–1406.
  • (11) V. Hankele and D. Zeppenfeld, QCD corrections to hadronic WWZ production with leptonic decays, Phys. Lett. B 661 (2008) 103–108, [0712.3544].
  • (12) F. Campanario, C. Englert, M. Rauch, S. Sapeta and D. Zeppenfeld, Di-boson and Tri-boson production at the LHC, PoS DIS2013 (2013) 154, [1307.2261].
  • (13) A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee, J. Song and D. Wang, Exploring lepton flavor violation phenomena of the Z and Higgs bosons at electron-proton colliders, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 055024, [2305.05386].
  • (14) M. Spira, QCD effects in Higgs physics, Fortsch. Phys. 46 (1998) 203–284, [hep-ph/9705337].
  • (15) C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 646 (2002) 220–256, [hep-ph/0207004].
  • (16) V. Ahrens, T. Becher, M. Neubert and L. L. Yang, Renormalization-Group Improved Prediction for Higgs Production at Hadron Colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 62 (2009) 333–353, [0809.4283].
  • (17) C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, F. Herzog and B. Mistlberger, Higgs Boson Gluon-Fusion Production in QCD at Three Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 212001, [1503.06056].
  • (18) M. Spira, Higgs Boson Production and Decay at Hadron Colliders, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95 (2017) 98–159, [1612.07651].
  • (19) 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].
  • (20) A. Ghosh, B. Nachman, T. Plehn, L. Shire, T. M. P. Tait and D. Whiteson, Statistical patterns of theory uncertainties, SciPost Phys. Core 6 (2023) 045, [2210.15167].
  • (21) 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].
  • (22) S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro, Weak corrections to Higgs hadroproduction in association with a top-quark pair, JHEP 09 (2014) 065, [1407.0823].
  • (23) Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, C. Chen and L. Guo, QCD NLO and EW NLO corrections to tt¯H𝑡normal-¯𝑡𝐻t\bar{t}Hitalic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_H production with top quark decays at hadron collider, Phys. Lett. B 738 (2014) 1–5, [1407.1110].
  • (24) S. Kallweit, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierhofer, S. Pozzorini and M. Schönherr, NLO QCD+EW predictions for V + jets including off-shell vector-boson decays and multijet merging, JHEP 04 (2016) 021, [1511.08692].
  • (25) S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro, Electroweak and QCD corrections to top-pair hadroproduction in association with heavy bosons, JHEP 06 (2015) 184, [1504.03446].
  • (26) M. Czakon, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos and M. Zaro, Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW, JHEP 10 (2017) 186, [1705.04105].
  • (27) 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].
  • (28) S. Frixione, A General approach to jet cross-sections in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 507 (1997) 295–314, [hep-ph/9706545].
  • (29) G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau, Reducing full one-loop amplitudes to scalar integrals at the integrand level, Nucl. Phys. B 763 (2007) 147–169, [hep-ph/0609007].
  • (30) G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 151–207.
  • (31) S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations, JHEP 06 (2002) 029, [hep-ph/0204244].
  • (32) NNPDF collaboration, R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, [1706.00428].
  • (33) S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour and B. R. Webber, Longitudinally invariant Ktsubscript𝐾𝑡K_{t}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 406 (1993) 187–224.
  • (34) S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 3160–3166, [hep-ph/9305266].
  • (35) S. Frixione, Isolated photons in perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 369–374, [hep-ph/9801442].
  • (36) J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and D. L. Rainwater, Next-to-leading order QCD predictions for W𝑊Witalic_W + 2 jet and Z𝑍Zitalic_Z + 2 jet production at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 094021, [hep-ph/0308195].
  • (37) J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, An Update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 113006, [hep-ph/9905386].
  • (38) F. Cascioli, T. Gehrmann, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, P. Maierhöfer, A. von Manteuffel et al., ZZ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD, Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014) 311–313, [1405.2219].
  • (39) T. Binoth, G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau, NLO QCD corrections to tri-boson production, JHEP 06 (2008) 082, [0804.0350].
  • (40) S. Dittmaier, A. Huss and G. Knippen, Next-to-leading-order QCD and electroweak corrections to WWW production at proton-proton colliders, JHEP 09 (2017) 034, [1705.03722].
  • (41) CMS collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Measurements of the pp normal-→\to Wγ±γsuperscript𝛾plus-or-minus𝛾{}^{\pm}\gamma\gammastart_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT ± end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_γ and pp normal-→\to Zγγ𝛾𝛾\gamma\gammaitalic_γ italic_γ cross sections at s=𝑠absent\sqrt{s}=square-root start_ARG italic_s end_ARG = 13 TeV and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings, JHEP 10 (2021) 174, [2105.12780].
  • (42) S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit and J. Mazzitelli, Bottom-quark production at hadron colliders: fully differential predictions in NNLO QCD, JHEP 03 (2021) 029, [2010.11906].
  • (43) N. Kidonakis, Higher-order corrections for tt¯𝑡normal-¯𝑡t{\bar{t}}italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG production at high energies, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022, 2203.03698.
  • (44) P. Nason, S. Dawson and R. K. Ellis, The Total Cross-Section for the Production of Heavy Quarks in Hadronic Collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 303 (1988) 607–633.
  • (45) W. Beenakker, W. L. van Neerven, R. Meng, G. A. Schuler and J. Smith, QCD corrections to heavy quark production in hadron hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 351 (1991) 507–560.
  • (46) M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the Top-Pair Cross-Section at Hadron Colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930, [1112.5675].
  • (47) N. Kidonakis, Top-quark double-differential distributions at approximate N33{}^{3}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPTLO, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 074006, [1912.10362].
  • (48) G. Bevilacqua and M. Worek, Constraining BSM Physics at the LHC: Four top final states with NLO accuracy in perturbative QCD, JHEP 07 (2012) 111, [1206.3064].
  • (49) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 496, [2303.15061]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 156 (2024)].
  • (50) CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Observation of four top quark production in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B 847 (2023) 138290, [2305.13439].
  • (51) A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and S. Pozzorini, NLO QCD corrections to pp —>>> t anti-t b anti-b + X at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 012002, [0905.0110].
  • (52) S. Badger, J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, QCD Corrections to the Hadronic Production of a Heavy Quark Pair and a W-Boson Including Decay Correlations, JHEP 03 (2011) 027, [1011.6647].
  • (53) R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pittau and P. Torrielli, W and Z/γ*Z/\gamma*italic_Z / italic_γ * boson production in association with a bottom-antibottom pair, JHEP 09 (2011) 061, [1106.6019].
  • (54) S. Blasi, F. Maltoni, A. Mariotti, K. Mimasu, D. Pagani and S. Tentori, Top-philic ALP phenomenology at the LHC: the elusive mass-window, 2311.16048.
  • (55) Anisha, D. Azevedo, L. Biermann, C. Englert and M. Mühlleitner, Effective 2HDM Yukawa interactions and a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, JHEP 02 (2024) 045, [2311.06353].
  • (56) M. Rubin, G. P. Salam and S. Sapeta, Giant QCD K-factors beyond NLO, JHEP 09 (2010) 084.
  • (57) T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [1410.3012].
  • (58) CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Search for narrow trijet resonances in proton-proton collisions at s𝑠\sqrt{s}square-root start_ARG italic_s end_ARG = 13 TeV, 2310.14023.
  • (59) K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, A. Pietila and M. Raidal, Doubly charged Higgs at LHC, Nucl. Phys. B 487 (1997) 27–42, [hep-ph/9606311].
  • (60) K. S. Agashe, J. Collins, P. Du, S. Hong, D. Kim and R. K. Mishra, LHC Signals from Cascade Decays of Warped Vector Resonances, JHEP 05 (2017) 078, [1612.00047].
  • (61) K. Agashe, M. Ekhterachian, D. Kim and D. Sathyan, LHC Signals for KK Graviton from an Extended Warped Extra Dimension, JHEP 11 (2020) 109, [2008.06480].
  • (62) U. Baur, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Excited Quark and Lepton Production at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 815–824.
  • (63) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for short- and long-lived axion-like particles in Haa4γnormal-→𝐻𝑎𝑎normal-→4𝛾H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 4\gammaitalic_H → italic_a italic_a → 4 italic_γ decays with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, 2312.03306.
  • (64) D. Wang, J.-H. Cho, J. Kim, S. Lee, P. Sanyal and J. Song, Probing light fermiophobic Higgs boson via diphoton jets at the HL-LHC, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 015017, [2310.17741].