Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note
Abstract
A major new release of the Monte Carlo event generator Herwig++ (version 3.0) is now available. This release marks the end of distinguishing Herwig++ and HERWIG development and therefore constitutes the first major release of version 7 of the Herwig event generator family. The new version features a number of significant improvements to the event simulation, including: builtin NLO hard process calculation for virtually all Standard Model processes, with matching to both angularordered and dipole shower modules via both subtractive (MC@NLOtype) and multiplicative (Powhegtype) algorithms; QED radiation and spin correlations in the angularordered shower; a consistent treatment of perturbative uncertainties within the hard process and parton showering. Several of the new features will be covered in detail in accompanying publications, and an update of the manual will follow in due course.
Keywords
Parton Shower Spin Correlation Subtraction Term Standard Model Process Perturbative Uncertainty1 Introduction
Herwig is a multi purpose particle physics event generator. It is based on the experience gained with both the HERWIG [1] and the Herwig++ [2] event generators. The latest version of Herwig++, 3.0, marks the point at which the physics capabilities of the HERWIG version 6 series are fully superseded, and thus the last point at which their development is distinguished. Herwig++ 3.0 will henceforth be known as Herwig 7.0. It replaces any prior HERWIG or Herwig++ versions.
Herwig provides highly improved and extended physics capabilities compared to both its predecessors, in particular the ability to perform simulations at nexttoleading order in QCD, while keeping the key physics motivations such as coherent parton showers (including both angularordered and dipole evolution), the cluster hadronization model, an eikonal multiple interaction model, and highly flexible BSM capabilities.
The last major public version (2.7) of Herwig++ is described in great detail in [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. This release note summarizes the major changes and improvements introduced since then, which constitute the base for the Herwig 7 series. The physics questions addressed by the capabilities of Herwig 7 will be covered in detail in accompanying publications, as well as comparisons with the other wellknown generalpurpose event generators, Pythia [8, 9] and Sherpa [10]. A detailed manual covering all technical aspects will be prepared in due course. Please refer to [2] and the present paper if using Herwig 7.0.
1.1 Availability
The new program version, together with other useful files and information, can be obtained from the web site https://herwig.hepforge.org/. In order to improve our response to user queries, all problems and requests for user support should be reported via the bug tracker on our wiki. Requests for an account to submit tickets and modify the wiki should be sent to herwig@projects.hepforge.org.
Herwig is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 and the MCnet guidelines for the distribution and usage of event generator software in an academic setting, which are distributed together with the source, and can also be obtained from http://www.montecarlonet.org/.
1.2 Prerequisites
Herwig 7.0 is based on ThePEG 2.0, which is available along with the Herwig installation sources at https://herwig.hepforge.org/downloads. Further requirements are BOOST [11], gsl [12], fastjet [13] and LHAPDF [14], while a number of other dependencies are necessary in order to fully exploit the program’s capabilities. Amongst these are HepMC and/or Rivet [15] to analyze simulated events, as well as some or all of the external amplitude libraries discussed in Sect. 2.2.
In order to simplify the installation process, we provide a bootstrap script to facilitate a consistent build and installation of Herwig in a convenient way. The script requires a python installation, and is available from https://herwig.hepforge.org/herwigbootstrap.
1.3 Documentation
A significant new feature is the online documentation, which has been completely rewritten and greatly extended to reflect the major changes introduced with this version and replaces the wiki pages. It can be found at https://herwig.hepforge.org/tutorials/. An update of the more detailed physics and manual will be made available in a similar format in due course. Code snippets are provided for a wide variety of control functions for easy inclusion into input files. Detailed documentation of the source code and input file interfaces generated with doxygen is available at https://herwig.hepforge.org/doxygen/.
2 NLO event simulation
A key ingredient in the design and development of Herwig 7.0 was to provide event simulation at nexttoleading order (NLO) accuracy in the strong coupling by default for as many Standard Model processes as possible in an automated way. The program, with the help of external libraries used for amplitude calculation, is now able fully automatically to assemble NLO QCD corrections to virtually all Standard Model processes, including matching to both of its partonshower algorithms [16, 17], via methods inspired by either the MC@NLO [18] or Powheg [19] type algorithms, which we refer to as subtractive and multiplicative matching, respectively.
Based on extensions of the previously developed Matchbox module [20], NLO event simulation is now possible without the requirement of separately running external codes and/or dealing with intermediate event sample files. Slight changes have been made to improve Herwig’s steering at the level of input files, and significant improvements are provided to integration and unweighting, including parallelization to meet the requirements of more complex processes.
2.1 The matchbox module
The design of the Matchbox modules closely resembles the structure of the NLO QCD cross section calculated within a subtraction paradigm, including the matching subtractions required to consistently combine such calculations with parton showering downstream. Subtraction terms are available in a flexible way, though only Catani–Seymour dipoles [21, 22] are provided so far, including both massless and massive QCD as well as the subtraction terms required for supersymmetric QCD corrections.
Partonshower matching subtractions are provided on an equally flexible footing, including those required for the angularordered shower [16], the dipole shower [17], as well as matrixelement corrected showers forming the basis of Powhegtype matching. For the latter, we provide additional functionality to sample the matrixelement correction Sudakov using the adaptive method outlined in [23]. In order to simplify the calculation of matching subtractions for the angularordered shower, the kinematics reconstruction used to work out the final shower kinematics has been changed to avoid additional Jacobian factors when compared to the dipole parameterization in the case of a single (or in general, the hardest) emission.
2.2 External amplitude providers
In order to set up the full calculation of a cross section, Matchbox requires plugins to provide the respective tree and oneloop amplitudes. These plugins can be interfaced either at the level of matrix elements squared (or treeloop interferences, respectively), or at the level of helicity, colourordered subamplitudes with both trace and colour flow bases provided within the Matchbox core through adapted versions of the ColorFull [24] and CVolver [25] libraries.^{1} While we provide builtin amplitudes for a limited number of processes, the bulk of Standard Model processes can be simulated using external amplitude plugins.
Based on extensions of the BLHA standard [26, 27], Herwig currently supports interfaces to GoSam [28], MadGraph [29], NJet [30], OpenLoops[31] and VBFNLO [32, 33]. Amplitudes for a limited number of LHC relevant processes are directly provided along with the release, and amplitudes for electroweak Higgs plus jets production are available from the Matchbox plugin HJets++, which is available in the Contrib section of the Herwig 7.0 release.
2.3 Electroweak corrections to VV production
Electroweak corrections to the production of heavy vector boson pairs have been computed [34, 35] and implemented into the program, as outlined in [36]. The corrections are applied as an event reweighting factor \(K(\hat{s}, \hat{t})\). In order to apply this correction in a meaningful way one has to ensure that additional QCD corrections are not too large and apply reasonable cuts to the final state, as detailed in [36]. The reweighting is straightforward when applied together with Powhegmatched QCD corrections. If subtractive QCD matching is going to be applied one should rather apply the matching on information extracted directly from the leptons in the final state, this is detailed as an alternative method in [36]. In order to apply the method, one has to download grid files for the actual K factors from a public archive at hepforge.
3 Improvements to the angularordered parton shower
This release includes a number of improvements, which finally bring the default angularordered parton shower to the same level of accuracy as that in HERWIG 6.
3.1 QED showering

A maximum scale is selected for QED radiation in the same way as for QCD radiation, although selecting from the other charged particles in the process rather than the colour partner in order to determine the scale. This scale need not be the same as the maximum scale for QCD radiation.

Trial QCD and QED emissions are generated and the one with the higher scale selected, as required by the competition algorithm. This branching is generated as before and then any subsequent emissions of the same type are required to be angular ordered^{2} while those of a different type are only required to be ordered. For example if we generate a \(q\rightarrow q g \) emission at an evolution scale \(\tilde{q}_1\) and the quark has lightcone momentum fraction \(z_1\) then any subsequent \(q\rightarrow q g\) emissions must occur at a scale \(\tilde{q}_2<z\tilde{q}_1\), as required by angular ordering. However, any QED \(q\rightarrow q \gamma \) branchings need not be angular ordered and therefore can occur at an evolution scale \(\tilde{q}_2<\tilde{q}_1\).
3.2 Spin correlations in the shower
 1.
The soft correlation from the eikonal current, which correlates the direction of the emitted gluon and the colour partner.
 2.
Spin correlations in the collinear limit between the azimuthal angle of the branching and the hard process and any previous emissions.
As the spin correlations are currently not implemented in the shower subtraction terms used at nexttoleading order the spin correlations are switched off by default when using NLO matching. However, as we use the same formalism internally as MadGraph for the calculation of helicity amplitudes [42] the interface to MadGraph can fill the spindensity matrices used in the spincorrelation algorithm and therefore the correlations can be correctly generated at leading order.
3.3 \(g\rightarrow q\bar{q}\)
The branching \(g\rightarrow q\bar{q}\) is only singular in the collinear limit for massless quarks and does not have a soft singularity. It therefore should not be angular ordered in the parton shower, although given the nature of the parton shower algorithm it must continue to be ordered in the evolution variable. We therefore relax the constraint on this branching so that if a gluon is produced at a scale \(\tilde{q}_1\) with lightcone momentum fraction \(z_1\) the maximum scale of a subsequent \(g\rightarrow q\bar{q}\) branching is now \(\tilde{q}_1\), the maximum allowed by ordering of the evolution variable, rather than \(z_1\tilde{q}_1\) as required by angular ordering. The maximum evolution scale for other branchings remains unchanged.
Similarly, the arguments presented in [2, 43] that the scale used in the strong coupling for a branching should be the relative transverse momentum, \(p_\perp \), do not apply, and therefore we have changed this scale to be the invariant mass of the \(q\bar{q}\) pair for this branching only.^{3}
4 Perturbative and shower uncertainties
Perturbative uncertainties in all of the hard processes provided by the Matchbox module can be assessed by variation of the renormalization and factorization scales, respectively. When fixedorder predictions at leading or nexttoleading order are combined with subsequent parton showering, variations of the renormalization and factorization scales in the parton shower ( i.e. variations of the scale arguments of \(\alpha _s\) and the parton distribution functions) should be performed in a correlated way along with variations in the hard process. While independent variations are technically possible to assess patterns of scale compensation, the default uncertainty settings will perform a consistent variation.
In addition to estimating unknown higherorder corrections by variation of the renormalization and factorization scale, genuine partonshower uncertainties due to missing higher logarithmic orders and phasespace constraints can also be estimated by varying the hard scale in the parton shower. There is no unique definition of such a scale, and the relevant quantity is a specific detail of the partonshower algorithm and varies considerable between different approaches. We provide variations of the relevant scale in both the angularordered and the dipole shower algorithms, which can be used to assess these uncertainties, which are expected to be reduced by use of NLO matched simulations. Specifically for this purpose, easily usable settings of strict leadingorder simulation to be compared to improved NLO simulation are provided within the new steering formalism summarized in Sect. 6.
5 Tuning
The improvements to both shower modules, as well as the inclusion of nexttoleading order cross sections, have required a new tune to \(e^+e^\) data; this tune has been carried out using standard methods based on the Professor framework [44] using a representative set of \(e^+e^\) data as previously described in [2]. Similar parameters and an overall reasonable description of the data have been obtained for both the angularordered and the dipole shower. The results of these tuning efforts are the default for the Herwig 7.0 release.
5.1 Tuning of the multiparton interaction model
It was shown in Ref. [45] that a good description of both underlying event and double parton scattering data [46] can be obtained if one includes the latter in the data being fit to with a sufficiently high weight. We followed the procedure described in Ref. [45] using the MMHT2014 LO parton distribution function [47]^{4} and obtained a tune consistent with double parton scattering data (\(\sigma _{\!{eff}}\approx 15\,\mathrm {mb}\)) that also gives a good description of the underlying event data from the Tevatron’s lowest analysed energy point [50], \(\sqrt{s}=300\,\mathrm {GeV}\) to the LHC’s highest [51], \(\sqrt{s}=7\,\mathrm {TeV}\).
Herwig 7.0 is released together with the tune H7UEMMHT, which it uses by default. More information and other related tunes can be obtained from the Herwig tunes page.
6 Steering, integration and run modes
Owing to the complexity of the processes that can be simulated with Herwig, this version introduces some new run modes as well as highly simplified input files to ease steering the event generator. Two alternative integrator modules are provided in addition to the old default, ACDC of ThePEG, providing superior performance especially for more complex processes. One of the algorithms is based on the standard sampling algorithm contained in the ExSample library [23], while the other is based on the MONACO algorithm, a VEGAS [52] variant, used by VBFNLO [32, 33].
Since both of these algorithms require an integration grid to be set up prior to generating events, two levels of run mode have been introduced in addition to the old read and run steps, to meet the requirements of more complex processes. The new integrate step performs the grid adaptation; it is possible to parallelize this step in a way that does not require interprocess communication and the individual tasks in this parallelization can easily be submitted to standard batch or grid queues. The integrate step is to be preceded by a build step,^{5} which will assemble the full fixedorder or matched cross section, including subtraction terms and the possibility of external amplitude libraries generating dedicated code for the process of interest. As this step may also require considerable computational resources, the integrate and run steps both support reading in additional input files, socalled setup files, to modify run parameters independently of the process of building an event generator object. Detailed examples of these various new workflows are given in the new documentation.
Event generation itself can be parallelized either through submitting runs with explicitly set random seeds or through the newly introduced feature of forking several event generation jobs on multicore nodes.
7 Herwig contrib projects
A number of related codes have been developed along with the main Herwig 7.0 development; while these libraries are not supported at the same level as the core Herwig release, they are provided along with it. Amongst other tools, the new program version provides the following plugins:
7.1 Electroweak Higgs plus jets production
A dedicated Matchbox plugin providing amplitudes for the calculation of electroweak Higgs plus jets production at NLO QCD is available along with the release. This library has been used in the calculation reported in [53]. It provides a full calculation of \(pp\rightarrow h + n\) jets at \(\mathcal{O}(\alpha ^3\alpha _s^{n2})\) for \(n=2,3,4\) at leading, and \(n=2,3\) at nexttoleading order QCD. All relevant topologies of either VBF or HiggsStrahlung type are taken into account along with all interferences. The technical details of the library will be described elsewhere; its use is the same as for all other Matchboxbased calculations and a corresponding input file snippet to enable this class of processes is provided.
7.2 FxFx merging support
Herwig 7.0 contains interface support for FxFx merging [54], a method for merging multijet NLO samples with a parton shower. The interface allows usage of samples generated from MadGraph 5/aMC@NLO [55]. The module has been tested for \(\mathrm {W+jets}\) and \(\mathrm {Z+jets}\) events, and compared against LHC data at 7 and 8 TeV [56]. Other processes will be supported in future releases.
7.3 Higgs boson pair production
The HiggsPair and HiggsPairOL packages offer production of Higgs boson pairs via gluon fusion. The former uses code from HPAIR [57, 58] whereas the latter uses the OpenLoops oneloop generator for the matrix elements [31].
HiggsPair describes leadingorder Higgs boson pair production, either in the Standard Model or in its \(D=6\) effective field theory extension. The original implementation was described in [7] and its \(D=6\) EFT extension was examined in detail in [59].
HiggsPairOL describes SM Higgs boson pair production, with the optional use of Higgs–Higgs+one jet matrix elements merged to the parton shower via the MLM method. See [60] for a detailed description.
8 Sample results
The Monte Carlo results shown are from Herwig++ version 2.7 using leadingorder plus parton shower simulation and from Herwig 7.0 with the angularordered parton shower (LO \(\oplus \) PS), the angularordered parton shower supplemented by the internally implemented Powheg correction, which includes QCD and QED corrections for the case of \(e^+e^\rightarrow q\bar{q}\) (QCD \(\otimes \) QED \(\otimes \) PS), by the automatically calculated by Matchbox subtractive (MC@NLOtype) matching (NLO \(\oplus \) PS) and multiplicative (Powhegtype, NLO \(\otimes \) PS) corrections and, finally, the dipole shower supplemented by a subtractive matching to NLO cross sections (NLO \(\oplus \) Dipoles).
In Fig. 2, the effect of the inclusion of photon emission in the angularordered parton shower is shown. Events at \(z_\gamma =1\) are isolated photons (“jets” for which all of the jet energy is carried by a single photon), while events at lower \(z_\gamma \) come from hard collinear photon emission from the final state quark jets. We see clearly that the results from Herwig++ have no component at large \(z_\gamma \) at all, while all of the Herwig 7.0 variants are much closer to the data with that including matching to NLO QED as well as QCD giving the best agreement. QED radiation within the dipole shower is subject to ongoing development and will be available in a future release.
Finally, in Fig. 4 we show the jet activity in \(\mathrm {t\bar{t}}\) events at the LHC, as revealed by the gap fraction, i.e. the fraction of events for which the sum of the transverse momenta of all additional jets in the prescribed rapidity region is less than \(Q_{\mathrm {sum}}\). Herwig++ 2.7 is seen to have far too little jet activity (too many gap events). While Herwig 7.0 with the shower alone is somewhat closer to the data at small \(Q_\mathrm{{sum}}\), a clear deficit is seen for hard jet events at high \(Q_\mathrm{{sum}}\), while both the NLO matching schemes describe the data well.
This is of course just a very small selection of the large number of distributions that have been checked against data in the final preparations of Herwig version 7.0, and more will be shown for specific processes in a series of forthcoming papers.
9 Summary and outlook
We have presented version 7.0 of the Herwig event generator, based on previous Herwig++ development and the experience gained with the HERWIG event generator. The new program features significant improvements as compared to both the Herwig++ 2.x series and the HERWIG 6 event generator, amongst them a powerful framework for NLO calculations and a number of improvements to both shower modules. Several accompanying publications containing detailed coverage of both physics and technical aspects will follow in due course, as well as an updated large and detailed manual to replace [2]. A completely new documentation system is already in place for Herwig 7 to allow the user to exploit the full capability of the new program. The methods and code developed within this release will also form the basis for ongoing and future development such as multijet merging at both leading and nexttoleading order, and electroweak corrections.
Footnotes
 1.
Other choices of colour bases are straightforward to implement through a very transparent interface.
 2.
With the proviso discussed below for \(g\rightarrow q\bar{q}\) branchings or in the QED case \(\gamma \rightarrow f\bar{f}\) splittings.
 3.
A similar change has been introduced in the dipole shower.
 4.
 5.
The old read step is still available, representing the subsequent execution of both the build and the integrate steps in one step.
Notes
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the authors of the predecessor HERWIG and Herwig++ programs for their many inputs into the development of Herwig and to the many users whose feedback has led to its improvement. We are especially indebted to Leif Lönnblad for his authorship of ThePEG, on which Herwig is built, and his close collaboration, and also to the authors of Rivet and Professor. We would like to thank Terrance Figy for numerous discussions, testing and feedback. We are also grateful to Malin Sjödahl for providing the ColorFull library for distribution along with Herwig. This work was supported in part by the European Union as part of the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Network MCnetITN (PITNGA2012315877). It was also supported in part by the Lancaster–Manchester–Sheffield Consortium for Fundamental Physics under STFC Grant ST/L000520/1 and the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology under STFC Grant ST/G000905/1. AP and SP acknowledge support by FP7 Marie Curie Intra European Fellowships (PIEFGA2013622071 and PIEFGA2013628739 respectively). CR acknowledges support by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). SP is grateful to DESY Hamburg and KIT for kind hospitality while part of this work was completed, as well as for providing computing resources. We are also grateful to the Cloud Computing for Science and Economy project (CC1) at IFJ PAN (POIG 02.03.0300033/0904) in Cracow and the U.K. GridPP project whose resources were used to carry out some of the numerical calculations for this project. Thanks also to Mariusz Witek and Miłosz Zdybał for their help with CC1 and Oliver Smith for his help with grid computing.
References
 1.G. Corcella et al., HERWIG 6: an event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes). JHEP 01, 010 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0011363 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 2.M. Bähr et al., Herwig++ physics and manual. Eur. Phys. J. C 58, 639–707 (2008). arXiv:0803.0883 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 3.M. Bähr et al., Herwig++ 2.2 Release Note. arXiv:0804.3053
 4.M. Bähr et al., Herwig++ 2.3 Release Note. arXiv:0812.0529
 5.S. Gieseke et al., Herwig++ 2.5 Release Note. arXiv:1102.1672
 6.K. Arnold et al., Herwig++ 2.6 Release Note. arXiv:1205.4902
 7.J. Bellm et al., Herwig++ 2.7 Release Note. arXiv:1310.6877
 8.T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, A. Brief, Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1. Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852–867 (2008). arXiv:0710.3820 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 9.T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C.O. Rasmussen, P.Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2. Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159–177 (2015). arXiv:1410.3012 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, S. Schumann, F. Siegert, J. Winter, Event generation with SHERPA 1.1. JHEP 02, 007 (2009). arXiv:0811.4622
 11.
 12.M. Galassi et al., GNU Scientific Library Reference Manual. Network Theory Limited (2006)Google Scholar
 13.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet user manual. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012). arXiv:1111.6097 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 14.A. Buckley et al., LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015). arXiv:1412.7420 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 15.A. Buckley et al., Rivet user manual. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 2803–2819 (2013). arXiv:1003.0694 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 16.S. Gieseke, P. Stephens, B. Webber, New formalism for QCD parton showers. JHEP 12, 045 (2003). arXiv:hepph/0310083 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 17.S. Plätzer, S. Gieseke, Coherent parton showers with local recoils. JHEP 01, 024 (2011). arXiv:0909.5593 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 18.S. Frixione, B.R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations. JHEP 06, 029 (2002). arXiv:hepph/0204244 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms. JHEP 11, 040 (2004). arXiv:hepph/0409146 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 20.S. Plätzer, S. Gieseke, Dipole showers and automated NLO matching in Herwig++. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2187 (2012). arXiv:1109.6256 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.S. Catani, M.H. Seymour, A general algorithm for calculating jet crosssections in NLO QCD. Nucl. Phys. B 485, 291–419 (1997). hepph/9605323 (erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 510, 503, 1998)
 22.S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M.H. Seymour, Z. Trocsanyi, The dipole formalism for nexttoleading order QCD calculations with massive partons. Nucl. Phys. B 627, 189–265 (2002). arXiv:hepph/0201036 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 23.S. Plätzer, ExSample: a library for sampling Sudakovtype distributions. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1929 (2012). arXiv:1108.6182 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 24.M. Sjödahl, ColorFull—a C++ library for calculations in SU(Nc) color space. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 236 (2015). arXiv:1412.3967 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 25.S. Plätzer, Summing large\(N\) towers in colour flow evolution. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2907 (2014). arXiv:1312.2448 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 26.T. Binoth et al., A proposal for a standard interface between Monte Carlo tools and oneloop programs. Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1612–1622 (2010). arXiv:1001.1307
 27.S. Alioli et al., Update of the Binoth Les Houches Accord for a standard interface between Monte Carlo tools and oneloop programs. Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 560–571 (2014). arXiv:1308.3462 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 28.G. Cullen et al., GoSam2.0: a tool for automated oneloop calculations within the Standard Model and beyond. Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3001 (2014). arXiv:1404.7096 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 29.J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5: going beyond. JHEP 1106, 128 (2011). arXiv:1106.0522 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 30.S. Badger, B. Biedermann, P. Uwer, V. Yundin, Numerical evaluation of virtual corrections to multijet production in massless QCD. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1981–1998 (2013). arXiv:1209.0100 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 31.F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, S. Pozzorini, Scattering amplitudes with open loops. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111601 (2012). arXiv:1111.5206 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 32.K. Arnold et al., VBFNLO: a parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons. Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1661–1670 (2009). arXiv:0811.4559 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 33.J. Baglio et al., Release Note—VBFNLO 2.7.0. arXiv:1404.3940
 34.A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik, J.H. Kühn, Vectorboson pair production at the LHC to \({\cal O}(\alpha ^3)\) accuracy. JHEP 1312, 071 (2013). arXiv:1305.5402
 35.A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik, J.H. Kühn, S. Uccirati, Electroweak corrections to Wboson pair production at the LHC. JHEP 11, 093 (2012). arXiv:1208.3147 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 36.S. Gieseke, T. Kasprzik, J.H. Kühn, Vectorboson pair production and electroweak corrections in HERWIG++. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2988 (2014). arXiv:1401.3964 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 37.I.G. Knowles, Spin correlations in parton–parton scattering. Nucl. Phys. B 310, 571 (1988)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 38.I.G. Knowles, A linear algorithm for calculating spin correlations in hadronic collisions. Comput. Phys. Commun. 58, 271–284 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 39.J.C. Collins, Spin correlations in Monte Carlo event generators. Nucl. Phys. B 304, 794 (1988)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 40.P. Richardson, Spin correlations in Monte Carlo simulations. JHEP 11, 029 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0110108 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 41.M. Gigg, P. Richardson, Simulation of beyond Standard Model physics in Herwig++. Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 989–1008 (2007). arXiv:hepph/0703199 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 42.H. Murayama, I. Watanabe, K. Hagiwara, HELAS: HELicity amplitude subroutines for Feynman diagram evaluations. KEK9111Google Scholar
 43.A. Buckley et al., Generalpurpose event generators for LHC physics. Phys. Rep. 504, 145–233 (2011). arXiv:1101.2599 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 44.A. Buckley, H. Hoeth, H. Lacker, H. Schulz, J.E. von Seggern, Systematic event generator tuning for the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 65, 331–357 (2010). arXiv:0907.2973 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 45.M.H. Seymour, A. Siódmok, Constraining MPI models using \(\sigma _{\!{effective}}\) and recent Tevatron and LHC underlying event data. JHEP 10, 113 (2013). arXiv:1307.5015 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 46.M. Bähr, M. Myska, M.H. Seymour, A. Siódmok, Extracting \(\sigma _{\!{effective}}\) from the CDF gamma+3jets measurement. JHEP 1303, 129 (2013). arXiv:1302.4325 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 47.L.A. HarlandLang, A.D. Martin, P. Motylinski, R.S. Thorne, Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 204 (2015). arXiv:1412.3989
 48.S. Dulat et al., The CT14 Global Analysis of Quantum Chromodynamics. arXiv:1506.0744
 49.NNPDF Collaboration, R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions for the LHC Run II. JHEP 04, 040 (2015). arXiv:1410.8849
 50.CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., A Study of the Energy Dependence of the Underlying Event in Proton–Antiproton Collisions. arXiv:1508.0534
 51.ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of underlying event characteristics using charged particles in pp collisions at\(\sqrt{s} = 900 GeV\) and 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 83, 112001 (2011). arXiv:1012.0791
 52.G.P. Lepage, VEGAS: An Adaptive MultiDimensional Integration Program, CLNS80/447 (1980)Google Scholar
 53.F. Campanario, T.M. Figy, S. Plätzer, M. Sjödahl, Electroweak Higgs boson plus three jet production at nexttoleadingorder QCD. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 211802 (2013). arXiv:1308.2932 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 54.R. Frederix, S. Frixione, Merging meets matching in MC@NLO. JHEP 12, 061 (2012). arXiv:1209.6215 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 55.J. Alwall et al., The automated computation of treelevel and nexttoleading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP 07, 079 (2014). arXiv:1405.0301 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 56.R. Frederix, S. Frixione, A. Papaefstathiou, S. Prestel, P. Torrielli, A study of multijet production in association with an electroweak vector boson. arXiv:1511.0084
 57.S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, M. Spira, Neutral Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections. Phys. Rev. D 58, 115012 (1998). arXiv:hepph/9805244 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 58.T. Plehn, M. Rauch, The quartic higgs coupling at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D 72, 053008 (2005). arXiv:hepph/0507321 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 59.F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L.L. Yang, J. Zurita, Higgs boson pair production in the \(D=6\) extension of the SM. JHEP 04, 167 (2015). arXiv:1410.3471 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 60.P. Maierhöfer, A. Papaefstathiou, Higgs Boson pair production merged to one jet. JHEP 03, 126 (2014). arXiv:1401.0007 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 61.ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate et al., Studies of quantum chromodynamics with the ALEPH detector. Phys. Rep. 294, 1–165 (1998)Google Scholar
 62.ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al., First measurement of the quark to photon fragmentation function. Z. Phys. C 69, 365–378 (1996)Google Scholar
 63.C.M.S. Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Event shapes and azimuthal correlations in \(Z\) + jets events in \(pp\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=7\) TeV. Phys. Lett. B 722, 238–261 (2013). arXiv:1301.1646 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 64.ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of\(t \bar{t}\) production with a veto on additional central jet activity in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2043 (2012). arXiv:1203.5015
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP^{3}.