Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Bridging massive and massless schemes for soft gluon resummation in heavy-flavour production in $e^+e^-$ collisions

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Heavy-quark fragmentation in e+e− collisions can now be resummed at NLL′ accuracy through a single O(α_s) constant that interpolates between massive and massless schemes.

desk verdict Genuine NLL' extension of the mass/massless soft-gluon resummation framework, with a solid momentum-space derivation; one matching step is under-documented but the limit checks hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13261 v2 pith:PUBFBJV6 submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph

Andrea Ghira , Lorenzo Mai , Simone Marzani This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords soft-gluonresummationheavy-quarkfragmentationNLL′accuracymassiveandmasslessschemesquasi-collinearlimitMellintransformcharmratioe+e−annihilation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that soft-gluon resummation for heavy-quark fragmentation in e+e− collisions can be promoted from NLL to NLL′ accuracy by adding one O(α_S) constant, $δC_0^{{(1)}}$, that interpolates between the massive and massless schemes. The previous NLL formalism left the constant parts of the two schemes unequal, so it could not claim NLL′ accuracy; this work computes the missing constant from an O(α_S) momentum-space calculation in the quasi-collinear limit and inserts it into the Mellin-space resummed expression. If correct, the result gives a single resummed formula that smoothly reduces to the massless resummation as the quark mass goes to zero and to the massive-scheme resummation as N goes to infinity. A sympathetic reader would care because the matched formula removes an ambiguity in existing heavy-flavour predictions and gives a sharper basis for comparing charm and bottom fragmentation data with experiment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the correction constant $δC_0^{{(1)}}$ of Eq. (4.7), a function of y = \bar{N}\xi built from logarithms and dilogarithm functions that interpolates between the massive and massless constants. The mechanism that produces it is the anti-collinear (recoiling-quark) sector of the O(α_S) cross section, evaluated in the quasi-collinear limit, together with the formal Mellin identity (4.2), $x^{{N-1}}$ → -$e^{{\Gamma(1-\partial/\partial \log \bar{N}}$)}\Theta(1-x-1/\bar{N}), which converts plus distributions with ξ_2 dependence into constants plus logarithmically enhanced terms. Subtracting the logarithmic terms from the resummed exponent isolates $δC_0^{{(1)}}$; the functions F_1 and F_2 left over are asserted to be power-suppressed in N and are neglected. This is what carries the argument from momentum space to the Mellin-space NLL′ formula.

What would settle it

Take the exact O(α_S) massive-scheme cross section for e+e− → h + anti-h + X, compute its Mellin transform numerically without the large-N expansion, keep the functions F_1 and F_2 in Eqs. (4.4) and (4.5), and compare the resulting N → ∞ constant with $C_0^{{(1)}}$ + $δC_0^{{(1)}}$ + $D_0^{{(1)}}$ = C_F($π^{2}$/2 − 1); an O(α_S) mismatch beyond power-suppressed 1/N terms would show the claimed constant is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (4.6): the NLL′-accurate resummed cross section has the form \tilde{\$\sigma$}^{(NLL')} = \tilde{E}^{(sub)}(1 + \frac{\alpha_S}{\pi}($C_0^{{(1)}}$ + \delta $C_0^{{(1)}}$))(1 + \frac{\alpha_S}{\pi} $D_0^{{(1)}}$) \, \mathrm{Exp}[j + \bar{j}], where j and \bar{j} are the quasi-collinear jet exponents and $δC_0^{{(1)}}$, defined in Eq. (4.7), is a new O(α_S) function of y = \bar{N}\xi whose two limits close the scheme gap. In the massless limit $δC_0^{{(1)}}$ → 0, so the formula collapses to the standard massless resummation; as N → ∞, $C_0^{{(1)}}$ + $δC_0^{{(1)}}$ + $D_0^{{(1)}}$ → C_F(\$pi^{2}$/2 - 1), the known massive-scheme constant. The paper establishes this by computing the O(α_S) cross section from virtual, soft, collinear and anti-collinear sectors, using the anti-collinear sector in the quasi-collinear limit and plus-distribution identities to make the ξ → 0 limit well defined, then Mellin transforming with the large-N identity (4.2) and subtracting the logarithms already in the exponent.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rides on the assumption that the Mellin-space identity used to extract constants, together with dropping the two leftover functions F_1 and F_2, captures every constant piece needed at order α_S; if those neglected terms are not truly power-suppressed, the new constant is wrong and the smooth massless-to-massive interpolation fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy-quark fragmentation in e+e− annihilation can now be resummed at NLL′ accuracy while treating the mass exactly in the constant terms, not just in the logarithms.
  • The new formula reproduces the massless scheme smoothly as ξ → 0, with δC_0^{(1)} → 0 and the jet exponents reducing to their massless forms, and the massive scheme at large N with the constant C_F(π^2/2 − 1).
  • For the charm ratio R(N, q_A, q_B), the NLL′ correction changes the resummed prediction by up to about 15% at large N, while the scale-uncertainty bands are not significantly reduced.
  • The numerical size of these corrections indicates that a full NNLL resummation of mass and soft logarithms is needed to improve precision and address the current tendency of theory to overshoot charm data.
  • Because the framework is general, the same matching constant can be incorporated into future phenomenological studies of b- and c-quark fragmentation energy spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same anti-collinear subtraction and plus-distribution identities should also fix the O(α_S) constant in other heavy-flavour observables whose soft limit is sensitive to the recoiling massive quark, such as heavy-quark jet substructure, where the scale choice μ^2 = max(q^2/\bar{N}, m_c^2) already appears.
  • A natural next test is to compare the NLL′ formula against exact NNLO massive-scheme results at moderate x: the predictions should agree up to power-suppressed terms, which would confirm that δC_0^{(1)} is complete.
  • If a future full NNLL calculation becomes available, the scale μ left unfixed by NLL′ accuracy can be pinned down, and the dynamic-scale approximate-NNLL estimate in the paper can be checked against the exact running-coupling terms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a formalism to extend soft-gluon resummation for heavy-quark fragmentation in e+e- collisions from NLL to NLL' accuracy by including the O(alpha_s) constant term delta C_0^(1) in the Mellin-space resummed cross section. The constant is obtained from a momentum-space calculation of the quasi-collinear virtual, collinear, and anti-collinear contributions, and is designed to interpolate between the massless and massive schemes. The authors check that the resulting expression reduces to the known massless result as xi -> 0 and to the massive-scheme constant as N -> infinity, and they illustrate the impact on the charm-ratio observable.

Significance. The significance of this work, if the derivation is confirmed, is that it provides a scheme-consistent NLL' resummation for heavy-flavour production, which is a necessary ingredient for precision extraction of fragmentation functions and for comparisons with charm data. The calculation is first-principles and is validated by reproducing both limiting schemes. The numerical study indicates that the new constant has a sizeable effect (up to ~15% at N=50), which strengthens the motivation for a full NNLL calculation. The paper is clearly written and the technical framework is well-structured.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.4)-(4.7)] The derivation of the key constant delta C_0^(1) is not shown. The paper presents the Mellin transforms (4.4) and (4.5) without derivation and states that Eq. (4.7) follows by subtracting 'the logarithmic terms already present in the resummed exponent' from them, but this subtraction is not carried out or documented. Since this step determines the NLL' constant, the central claim is not fully verifiable as written. Please provide an explicit calculation of the O(alpha_s) expansion of Exp[j+jbar], or demonstrate that the O(alpha_s) expansion of Eq. (4.6) reproduces the Mellin transform of Eq. (3.22) up to O(1/N) terms.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.11)] The scale mu in Eq. (4.6) is not fixed by NLL' accuracy, and the two ad hoc choices used for the numerics lead to different predictions in Fig. 2. Please quantify the sensitivity of the charm ratio to this ambiguity, for example by showing both mu choices with their associated scale-variation bands.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.18)] The assertion that the limit 1-x << xi2 recovers Eq. (3.3) is not demonstrated. Given the non-commutativity of the soft and mass limits discussed throughout the paper, a short derivation or at least a reference to the relevant calculation would be helpful.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.4)-(4.5)] The functions F1 and F2 are stated to vanish as 1/N and as xi2 -> 0, but their numerical size at the finite-N values used in Fig. 2 (10-50) is not discussed. Please comment on whether the neglected terms could affect the numerical comparison, or state that they are expected to be negligible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: δC0^(1) is obtained from an independent momentum-space NLO calculation, and the limits used as checks are external known results, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central new quantity δC0^(1) is not fitted to the target observable. It is derived in Sec. 3 from a direct O(αS) momentum-space calculation in the quasi-collinear limit, Eq. (3.22), which is checked against the small-mass limits of known form-factor results and against the massless and massive fixed-order expressions. Its Mellin transform is taken using the standard identity (4.2) from refs. [11,34,35], an external mathematical result, and the paper explicitly subtracts only the logarithmic terms already present in the resummed exponent to define the constant in Eq. (4.7). At this order the exponent j+jbar contains no constant pieces, so the subtraction is well-defined rather than an inverse fit. The framework of the resummed exponent (2.22) is taken from the authors' prior work [18], but that is an independent published derivation with its own stated assumptions; the present paper's NLL' extension does not reduce to [18] by construction. The massless and massive limit checks in Eqs. (4.8)-(4.9) compare against external results (Cacciari-Catani and Laenen-Oderda-Sterman), and the asymptotic constant relation C0 + δC0 + D0 → CF(π²/2 − 1) is a consistency check, not an input. The neglected functions F1 and F2 are argued to be power-suppressed and therefore beyond NLL' accuracy. The unfixed scale μ in Eq. (4.6) is explicitly acknowledged as beyond the formal accuracy, so it is not a disguised fitted prediction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external fixed-order and resummation benchmarks, and no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD resummation and on the prior NLL framework of ref [18], which is the direct foundation. The genuinely new step is the quasi-collinear O(alpha_s) calculation and its Mellin transform. The two soft spots are the neglect of F1 and F2 and the undetermined scale mu. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • mu (coefficient-function scale in Eq. 4.6)
    The scale at which the NLL' coefficient function C_0^(1)+delta C_0^(1) is evaluated is not determined by the NLL' calculation. The paper uses either mu^2 = q^2 (natural) or the dynamical scale max(q^2/Nbar, m_c^2) for the 'approximate NNLL' (nNLL) variant. Numerical results for the charm ratio depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FONLL combination formula Eq. (2.7), with the double counting subtracted, is a valid way to merge massive and massless scheme results.
    Inherited from Ref. [22]; the paper builds its scheme interpolation on this matching structure without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption Soft-gluon exponentiation holds in both schemes, taking the form of Eq. (2.8) in the massless scheme and Eq. (2.10) in the massive scheme, including the jet-function decomposition Eq. (2.15).
    Taken from Refs. [21, 25] and Ref. [18]; the paper extends the prior NLL framework on top of this exponentiated structure.
  • domain assumption The O(alpha_S) heavy-quark cross section in the x -> 1, small-mass limit is given by the sum of virtual, soft, collinear and anti-collinear terms, with the quasi-collinear splitting function Eq. (3.7).
    Standard massive factorization from Refs. [26, 27]; used to derive Eqs. (3.14) and (3.17), the basis of the central result.
  • ad hoc to paper The Mellin-space identity Eq. (4.2) captures all logarithmic and constant terms in the large-N limit, and the neglected functions F1 and F2 in Eqs. (4.4) and (4.5) do not affect the NLL' constant delta C_0^(1).
    The identity is standard, but the neglect of F1 and F2 is an asserted asymptotic statement. This step fixes the new matching constant, so any incompleteness would change the central claim.
  • ad hoc to paper The scale mu at which the NLL' coefficient function is evaluated is left free; the numerical results adopt mu^2 = q^2 or mu^2 = max(q^2/Nbar, m_c^2).
    The paper explicitly states the scale is not fixed by NLL' accuracy, so the charm-ratio predictions are conditional on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging massive and massless schemes for soft gluon resummation in heavy-flavour production in $e^+e^-$ collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUBFBJV6

@misc{pith2026241213261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging massive and massless schemes for soft gluon resummation in heavy-flavour production in $e^+e^-$ collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUBFBJV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13261}
}
abstract

Perturbative calculations for processes involving heavy flavours can be carried out using two approaches: the massive and the massless schemes. These schemes can also be combined to leverage their respective strengths. Additionally, both massive and massless frameworks can be supplemented by soft-gluon resummation. However, matching resummed calculations across the two schemes presents significant challenges, primarily due to the non-commutativity of the soft and small mass limits. The consistent resummation of mass and soft logarithms has been recently achieved at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy. In this paper, we consider heavy-quark fragmentation functions in electron-positron collisions and we extend this framework to achieve the so-called NLL$^\prime$ accuracy, which accounts for finite terms in the soft limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correction factor δC (1) 0 in Mellin space for the three different energy values q1 = 10 GeV (solid red), q2 = 100 GeV (solid green) and q3 = 200 GeV (solid blue). The black dashed line corresponds to the asymptotic N → ∞ value CF 4 (π 2 +1). 4.2 Numerical results for the charm ratio In this section, we investigate the numerical impact of the contribution added to the resummation. As an example, we choose a fragment… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison in Mellin space for the charm ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Heavy Flavor Jet Substructure at Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    NLL-accurate predictions for heavy-flavor energy correlation functions and jet angularities in e+e- collisions show all tested Monte Carlo generators overestimate the dead-cone suppression.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [18]

    Ghira, S

    A. Ghira, S. Marzani, and G. Ridolfi, A consistent resummation of mass and soft logarithms in processes with heavy flavours, JHEP 11 (2023) 120, [arXiv:2309.06139]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Y . L. Dokshitzer, V . A. Khoze, and S. I. Troian,On specific QCD properties of heavy quark fragmentation (’dead cone’), J. Phys. G 17 (1991) 1602–1604

    work page 1991

  3. [2]

    Y . L. Dokshitzer, V . A. Khoze, and S. I. Troian, Specific features of heavy quark production. LPHD approach to heavy particle spectra, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 89–119, [hep-ph/9506425]

    arXiv 1996

  4. [3]

    Czakon, P

    M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders Through O(α4 S ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 252004, [arXiv:1303.6254]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [4]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, and H. Sargsyan, Top-quark pair hadroproduction at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 5 051501, [arXiv:1901.04005]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Catani, S

    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, [arXiv:2010.11906]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, and C. Savoini, Higgs Boson Production in Association with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair in Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 11 111902, [arXiv:2210.07846]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Buonocore, S

    L. Buonocore, S. Devoto, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, L. Rottoli, and C. Savoini, Associated production of a W boson and massive bottom quarks at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 7 074032, [arXiv:2212.04954]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Buonocore, S

    L. Buonocore, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, L. Rottoli, and C. Savoini, Associated production of a W boson with a top-antitop quark pair: next-to-next-to-leading order QCD predictions for the LHC, arXiv:2306.16311

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov, and P. Nason, Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 612–622, [arXiv:1111.5869]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gaggero, A

    D. Gaggero, A. Ghira, S. Marzani, and G. Ridolfi, Soft logarithms in processes with heavy quarks, JHEP 09 (2022) 058, [arXiv:2207.13567]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, High-energy factorization and small x heavy flavor production, Nucl. Phys. B 366 (1991) 135–188

    1991

  5. [12]

    R. D. Ball and R. K. Ellis, Heavy quark production at high-energy, JHEP 05 (2001) 053, [hep-ph/0101199]

    2001 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Grazzini, and A. Torre, Transverse-momentum resummation for heavy-quark hadroproduction, Nucl. Phys. B 890 (2014) 518–538, [arXiv:1408.4564]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Aglietti, L

    U. Aglietti, L. Di Giustino, G. Ferrera, and L. Trentadue, Resummed Mass Distribution for Jets Initiated by Massive Quarks, Phys. Lett. B 651 (2007) 275–292, [hep-ph/0612073]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    U. G. Aglietti and G. Ferrera, Improved factorization for threshold resummation in heavy quark to heavy quark decays, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023), no. 4 335, [arXiv:2211.14397]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. Corcella, and A. D. Mitov, Soft gluon resummation for bottom fragmentation in top quark decay, JHEP 12 (2002) 015, [hep-ph/0209204]

    2002 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Corcella and A

    G. Corcella and A. D. Mitov, Soft gluon resummation for heavy quark production in charged current deep inelastic scattering, Nucl. Phys. B 676 (2004) 346–364, [hep-ph/0308105]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Mele and P

    B. Mele and P. Nason, The Fragmentation function for heavy quarks in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 361 (1991) 626–644. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 921, 841–842 (2017)]

    1991

  12. [20]

    Melnikov and A

    K. Melnikov and A. Mitov, Perturbative heavy quark fragmentation function through O(α2 s ), Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 034027, [hep-ph/0404143]

    2004 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cacciari and S

    M. Cacciari and S. Catani, Soft gluon resummation for the fragmentation of light and heavy quarks at large x, Nucl. Phys. B 617 (2001) 253–290, [hep-ph/0107138]

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, The pT spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction., JHEP 05 (1998) 007, [hep-ph/9803400]

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Corcella, Fragmentation in H —> b anti-b processes, Nucl

    G. Corcella, Fragmentation in H —> b anti-b processes, Nucl. Phys. B 705 (2005) 363–383, [hep-ph/0409161]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 713, 609–610 (2005)]

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Altarelli, R

    G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, and S.-Y . Pi, Processes Involving Fragmentation Functions Beyond the Leading Order in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 301–329

    1979

  17. [25]

    Laenen, G

    E. Laenen, G. Oderda, and G. F. Sterman, Resummation of threshold corrections for single 12 particle inclusive cross-sections, Phys. Lett. B 438 (1998) 173–183, [hep-ph/9806467]

    1998 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, and Z. Trocsanyi, One loop singular behavior of QCD and SUSY QCD amplitudes with massive partons, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 149–160, [hep-ph/0011222]

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour, and Z. Trocsanyi, The Dipole formalism for next-to-leading order QCD calculations with massive partons, Nucl. Phys. B 627 (2002) 189–265, [hep-ph/0201036]

    2002 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Catani, B

    S. Catani, B. R. Webber, and G. Marchesini, QCD coherent branching and semiinclusive processes at large x, Nucl. Phys. B 349 (1991) 635–654

    1991

  21. [29]

    Caletti, A

    S. Caletti, A. Ghira, and S. Marzani, On heavy-flavour jets with Soft Drop, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024), no. 2 212, [arXiv:2312.11623]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cacciari, A

    M. Cacciari, A. Ghira, S. Marzani, and G. Ridolfi, An improved description of charm fragmentation data, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024), no. 9 889, [arXiv:2406.04173]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bonciani, P

    R. Bonciani, P. Mastrolia, and E. Remiddi, QED vertex form-factors at two loops, Nucl. Phys. B 676 (2004) 399–452, [hep-ph/0307295]

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bernreuther, R

    W. Bernreuther, R. Bonciani, T. Gehrmann, R. Heinesch, T. Leineweber, P. Mastrolia, and E. Remiddi, Two-loop QCD corrections to the heavy quark form-factors: The Vector contributions, Nucl. Phys. B 706 (2005) 245–324, [hep-ph/0406046]

    2005 arXiv

  25. [33]

    ter Hoeve, E

    J. ter Hoeve, E. Laenen, C. Marinissen, L. Vernazza, and G. Wang, Region analysis of QED massive fermion form factor, JHEP 02 (2024) 024, [arXiv:2311.16215]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Catani and L

    S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Resummation of the QCD Perturbative Series for Hard Processes, Nucl. Phys. B 327 (1989) 323–352

    1989

  27. [35]

    Catani, D

    S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason, Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders, JHEP 07 (2003) 028, [hep-ph/0306211]

    2003 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cacciari, P

    M. Cacciari, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, A Study of heavy flavored meson fragmentation functions in e+ e- annihilation, JHEP 04 (2006) 006, [hep-ph/0510032]

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bonino, M

    L. Bonino, M. Cacciari, and G. Stagnitto, Heavy Flavoured Meson Fragmentation Functions in e+e− annihilation up to NNLO + NNLL, in 57th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions, 6,

  30. [38]

    P. K. Dhani, O. Fedkevych, A. Ghira, S. Marzani, and G. Soyez, Heavy Flavour Jet Substructure, arXiv:2410.05415

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bonino, M

    L. Bonino, M. Cacciari, and G. Stagnitto, Heavy quark fragmentation in e+e− collisions to NNLO+NNLL accuracy in perturbative QCD, JHEP 06 (2024) 040, [arXiv:2312.12519]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    P. K. Dhani, G. Rodrigo, and G. F. R. Sborlini, Triple-collinear splittings with massive particles, JHEP 12 (2023) 188, [arXiv:2310.05803]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Craft, M

    E. Craft, M. Gonzalez, K. Lee, B. Mecaj, and I. Moult, The 1 → 3 massive splitting functions from QCD faactorization and SCET, JHEP 07 (2024) 080, [arXiv:2310.06736]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mele and P

    B. Mele and P. Nason, Next-to-leading QCD calculation of the heavy quark fragmentation function, Phys. Lett. B 245 (1990) 635–639

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.