Precision predictions for the t+t(bar) production cross section at hadron colliders

Andrea Ferroglia (NY City Colleage of Tech.); Ben D. Pecjak (Mainz U.); Li Lin Yang (Zurich U.); Matthias Neubert (Mainz U.); Valentin Ahrens (Mainz U.)

REVIEW

Precision predictions for the t+t(bar) production cross section at hadron colliders

Valentin Ahrens (Mainz U.), Andrea Ferroglia (NY City Colleage of Tech.), Matthias Neubert (Mainz U.), Ben D. Pecjak (Mainz U.), Li Lin Yang (Zurich U.)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 29 May 2011 · 50 references

Pith's verdict: A solid consolidation paper: the combined PIM/1PI approximate NNLO prediction with shipped code and fit coefficients, whose only real soft spot is an uncertainty band that is an honestly labeled prescription rather than a calibrated bound.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1105.5824 (version 1)

Pith IDPHFFBOY7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAndrea Ferroglia (NY City Colleage of Tech.), Ben D. Pecjak (Mainz U.), Li Lin Yang (Zurich U.), Matthias Neubert (Mainz U.), Valentin Ahrens (Mainz U.). "Precision predictions for the t+t(bar) production cross section at hadron colliders." arXiv:1105.5824 (2011). https://pith.science/paper/PHFFBOY7

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Short version: this is the consolidation paper from the Neubert group's SCET threshold-resummation program for top-pair production, and it is the version people will actually cite — the combined PIM/1PI prediction, the MS-bar and 1S conversions, and the polynomial fit coefficients, with code shipped alongside. The machinery itself is not new; the abstract says as much [abstract:s1], and the resummation ingredients come from the group's own [32], [33], [35], [42]. What is new is Eq. (9), the averaging of pair-invariant-mass and single-particle-inclusive kinematics with the spread folded into the error, plus the scheme conversions and the fits in Tables II and III. That is a modest but real contribution, and it is done carefully: the pole-to-MS-bar conversion is checked two ways (derivatives at the hadronic level versus the partonic level) and against HATHOR for the overlapping piece, the fits reproduce the underlying calculation to a permille, and Fortran plus a Mathematica notebook ship with the submission. The paper is also candid about what approximate NNLO leaves undetermined — the Dm coefficients are fixed, C0 only partly, R(xi) dropped — and says so at Eq. (7) rather than burying it. Credit for that; most papers in this genre do not. The soft spot is the error bar. Eq. (9) uses the PIM/1PI spread as a proxy for power corrections to the soft limit, and the paper labels it as an estimate. The stress-test's sharper version — that the spread cannot bound R(xi) — is half right. PIM and 1PI share the same threshold expansion, so their difference probes the leading xi-power correction, not the regular remainder. But because the resummed result is matched to the full NLO calculation, R is exact at NLO and only its NNLO piece is missing, so the unbound quantity is a higher-order correction rather than the whole regular term. That makes the concern real but smaller than 'the band is uncalibrated and could be badly off.' What genuinely is not validated is whether the two kinematics err in the same direction; the only check offered is NLO/approximate-NNLO overlap, which tests central values, not the width. I read that as a prescription honestly labeled, not a flaw that sinks the numbers. The disagreement with Langenfeld-Moch-Uwer on MS-bar convergence is argued from the size of the terms in Eq. (15) and the phase-space origin of the mass dependence — a physics argument, not a proof, but a checkable one, and they present it that way. Who should read it: anyone using the top-pair cross section as a mass extractor or background normalization at the Tevatron or LHC, and anyone weighing threshold-mass schemes. It deserves a serious referee; these numbers will be used.

Referee report

Significance

If the numbers hold, this is a genuinely useful Letter: it gives the experimental collaborations a documented, reproducible approximate NNLO prediction with an explicit uncertainty decomposition (scale, PIM/1PI spread, PDF, and alpha_s), together with mass-dependent fits in three schemes. The inclusion of the Fortran code and the Mathematica fit coefficients is a real strength and should be named as such; it makes the results directly usable for top-mass extraction. The paper is also candid about what approximate NNLO does and does not determine, and it cross-checks the scheme conversions both at the level of the hadronic cross section and at the level of the partonic differential cross section. The main open question is not the central values but the reliability of the quoted first error bar, which is the quantity on which the 'uncertainties reduced below NLO' claim rests.

Major objections (2)

[§II–III, Eq. (9) and Tables I, IV, V] The first error quoted in Tables I, IV, and V combines scale variation with the PIM/1PI spread, and the text is explicit that this spread is meant to estimate power corrections to the soft limit. That use is defensible: PIM and 1PI differ at subleading power in xi, so their difference does probe the leading power correction. The difficulty is that Eq. (7) also drops the regular term R(xi) and leaves C_0 only partly determined, and these are fixed-order omissions rather than soft-limit power corrections; the PIM/1PI spread does not probe them. At LHC7 and LHC14 a substantial fraction of the cross section comes from sqrt(s-hat) well above 2 m_t, where R(xi) is not small by construction. Because the headline claim is that the perturbative uncertainty is reduced below NLO, the paper should state explicitly whether the quoted first error is intended to cover R(xi) and the undetermined part of C_0, and if so on what basis. If it is not, a sentence quantifying the expected size of R(xi) (for instance from the size of the NLO regular term away from threshold) or flagging it as an additional unquantified uncertainty would make the error bar honest without changing the central values.
[§V and Tables I, IV, V] The Letter states that its results 'represent the state-of-the-art' and 'consolidate' the earlier work, and it cites [29], [31], and [34] as prior NNLL and approximate NNLO calculations, but it gives no numerical comparison with any of them. A short comparison at m_t = 173.1 GeV for the Tevatron and LHC7, even a single line per reference, would let readers and experimentalists judge the spread among independent implementations and would substantiate the state-of-the-art claim rather than merely asserting it. This is particularly relevant because the paper's disagreement with [3] on the MS-bar scheme is explained by the s-hat -> 4m_t^2 limit, and a numerical comparison would make that explanation concrete.

Minor objections (6)

[Eq. (17)] The 1S mass relation as printed is difficult to parse: the factors of alpha_s/pi and the counting 'pi alpha_s is O(1)' are not laid out in a way a reader can follow without consulting [37]. Please check the typesetting and, if possible, restate the relation in a form that makes the power counting explicit.
[Table II] The rows are labelled 'sigma', 'sigma + Delta sigma+', and 'sigma + Delta sigma-'. Since Delta sigma- is defined as a negative quantity in Eq. (9), the third row is the lower edge of the band; a note in the caption or a label such as 'sigma - |Delta sigma-|' would avoid the impression that the third row is an upward variation.
[Tables II and III] The fit coefficients in the tables are given only for MSTW2008; the CTEQ6.6 fits are said to be in the electronic file. Please state this in the caption or the surrounding text so that a reader of the printed version knows the CTEQ fits exist.
[§IV] The argument that the MS-bar scheme is not optimal because the pair-production phase space is 'more indicative of the pole mass' is a physics judgment rather than a demonstrated result. It would be strengthened by quoting the numerical size of the bracketed terms in Eq. (15), or softened to a remark.
[§IV, comparison with [3]] The statement that the MS-bar scheme does not show the improved convergence found in [3] is important and is explained by the s-hat -> 4m_t^2 limit. Making the explanation quantitative, for example by quoting the size of the approximate NNLO correction in the two treatments, would help the reader judge it.
[Electronic material] The Fortran implementation and Mathematica notebook are a strength. A sentence in the text stating what the code computes, its accuracy, and how it is invoked would help users locate and trust it.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The top-quark pair production cross section is computed to approximate next-to-next-to-leading order, with a new way of estimating what the soft-gluon approximation leaves out.

The reading

The paper asks how precisely theory can predict the total rate at which top-quark pairs are produced at the Tevatron and the LHC, given that this rate is now measured well enough to be used as a weighing scale for the top-quark mass. The authors take the standard next-to-leading-order calculation and add the tower of large logarithms that appear near threshold, resummed to next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy using soft-collinear effective theory, then re-expand the result into an approximate next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) formula. Their distinctive move is to run the same resummation in two different threshold settings, pair invariant-mass kinematics and single-particle inclusive kinematics, average the two answers, and fold the spread between them into the quoted error as a stand-in for the power corrections that the soft limit discards. The payoff is a set of numbers with perturbative uncertainties smaller than at NLO: at $m_t = 173.1$ GeV with MSTW2008 NNLO PDFs they quote $155^{+8+14}_{-9-14}$ pb at the 7 TeV LHC, $855^{+52+60}_{-38-59}$ pb at 14 TeV, and $6.63^{+0.07+0.63}_{-0.41-0.48}$ pb at the Tevatron, where the first error combines scale variation with the kinematics spread. They also give the same predictions as functions of the mass in the pole, $MS$-bar, and 1S schemes, with polynomial fits and released code so that experiments can extract a mass directly from a measured cross section.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the threshold factorization of the partonic cross section into a hard function and a soft function, $dhat{sigma}(xi, mu_f) propto Tr[H(mu_f), S(E_s(xi)/mu_f, alpha_s(mu_f))]$, where $xi$ vanishes as extra real radiation becomes soft. Because the soft function's renormalization-group equation is non-local, it is solved by Laplace transform and inverted analytically, producing the resummed form with the factor $e^{-2gamma_E eta} Gamma(2eta) xi^{-1+2eta}$ that sums the $[ln^m xi / xi]_+$ distributions to all orders. Re-expanding this in $alpha_s(mu_f)$ gives the approximate NNLO structure with unambiguous coefficients $D_m$ of the plus-distributions, a partially determined $C_0$, and an undetermined regular piece $R(xi)$. The second device is the bookkeeping rule in Eq. (9): compute the cross section and its scale uncertainty separately in pair invariant-mass and single-particle inclusive kinematics, take the central value as the average, and take the upper and lower errors as the envelope of the two, so that the kinematics difference enters the quoted uncertainty on the same footing as scale variation.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining two independent threshold-resummation treatments of top-pair production, each matched to the full NLO calculation and re-expanded to approximate NNLO, yields a total cross section whose perturbative error bar is genuinely smaller than the NLO one and whose central value sits comfortably inside the NLO range. The authors verify that the two kinematics agree well once the exact dependence on the soft-gluon energy is retained in the factorization formula, which is what licenses treating their difference as an error estimate for power corrections. Applying the machinery, they find the approximate NNLO corrections to be modest in the pole scheme, so the perturbative series appears well behaved there. Converting to the $MS$-bar scheme through the three-loop pole-to-$MS$-bar relation, they report results numerically close to the pole-scheme ones, and they explicitly disagree with earlier work that found a marked improvement in convergence in the $MS$-bar scheme; they argue instead that the phase-space factors governing the Born cross section are more indicative of an on-shell mass, and that threshold masses such as the 1S mass may be the more appropriate short-distance choice at this order. The 1S-scheme numbers behave, in their words, more like the pole scheme than like the $MS$-bar scheme.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted error bar assumes that the gap between the two threshold treatments, together with a factor-of-two variation of the renormalization and factorization scales, brackets the true size of the power corrections and of the undetermined regular term that the soft limit throws away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Experimental collaborations can convert a measured total $tbar{t}$ cross section into a top-quark mass in a well-defined renormalization scheme, using the polynomial fits in Tables II and III or the released Fortran and Mathematica code, with theory errors quoted alongside.
At the 7 TeV LHC the perturbative uncertainty on the total rate drops to roughly five percent, leaving the PDF plus $alpha_s$ uncertainty of comparable or larger size, so further progress on the prediction requires better parton distributions and a sharper $alpha_s(M_Z)$ as much as higher-order QCD.
The $alpha_s(M_Z)$ input contributes about three to four percent with MSTW2008 and one to two percent with CTEQ6.6, a contribution the authors argue should not be dropped at this level of accuracy.
Because the pole-scheme series shows no visible degradation up to approximate NNLO, the renormalon ambiguity of the pole mass is not yet a practical obstacle to mass extraction from the cross section at current precision.
The envelope method for estimating power corrections gives a template that can be reused for other threshold-dominated hadron-collider observables where two inequivalent threshold limits are available.

Reading between the lines

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

If the two kinematics err in the same direction, the quoted envelope would be too tight; a natural cross-check would be to add a third threshold variable, such as beam-thrust-like or $p_T$-based constructions, and see whether the envelope widens.
The paper's disagreement with earlier $s \to 4m_t^2$ treatments suggests that conclusions about which mass scheme converges best are sensitive to whether exact soft-energy dependence is kept, which is a caution for any scheme-comparison argument made at the level of the threshold expansion alone.
Because the fits are given as low-order polynomials in the mass, a reader comparing an extracted mass across the pole, $MS$-bar, and 1S schemes should propagate the scheme-conversion truncation error separately from the quoted cross-section error; the paper's tables make this possible but do not tabulate it.
The released code makes the prediction reproducible, which invites a direct closure test: recompute the cross section at a mass where an independent approximate NNLO implementation exists and compare the envelopes rather than only the central values.

Original abstract

We make use of recent results in effective theory and higher-order perturbative calculations to improve the theoretical predictions of the top-quark pair production cross section at hadron colliders. In particular, we supplement the fixed-order NLO calculation with higher-order corrections from soft gluon resummation at NNLL accuracy. Uncertainties due to power corrections to the soft limit are estimated by combining results from single-particle inclusive and pair invariant-mass kinematics. We present our predictions as functions of the top-quark mass in both the pole scheme and the MS(bar) scheme. We also discuss the merits of using threshold masses as an alternative, and calculate the cross section with the top-quark mass defined in the 1S scheme as an illustrative example.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,276 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.40 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.07 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.34 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We make use of recent results in effective theory and higher-order perturbative calculations to improve the theoretical predictions of the top-quark pair production cross section at hadron colliders. In particular, we supplement the fixed-order NLO calculation with higher-order corrections from soft gluon resummation at NNLL accuracy. Uncertainties due to power corrections to the soft limit are estimated by combining results from single-particle inclusive and pair invariant-mass kinematics. We present our predictions as functions of the top-quark mass in both the pole scheme and the MS(bar) scheme. We also discuss the merits of using threshold masses as an alternative, and calculate the cross section with the top-quark mass defined in the 1S scheme as an illustrative example.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We make use of recent results in effective theory and higher-order perturbative calculations to improve the theoretical predictions of the top-quark pair production cross section at hadron colliders.	contribution 0.96	0.88	0.15	asserted 1.00
s1	In particular, we supplement the fixed-order NLO calculation with higher-order corrections from soft gluon resummation at NNLL accuracy.	method 0.85	0.89	0.10	asserted 1.00
s2	Uncertainties due to power corrections to the soft limit are estimated by combining results from single-particle inclusive and pair invariant-mass kinematics.	method 0.96	0.84	0.05	asserted 1.00
s3	We present our predictions as functions of the top-quark mass in both the pole scheme and the MS(bar) scheme.	contribution 0.73	0.93	0.11	asserted 0.99
s4	We also discuss the merits of using threshold masses as an alternative, and calculate the cross section with the top-quark mass defined in the 1S scheme as an illustrative example.	contribution 0.83	0.93	0.08	asserted 0.95

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.95 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.62.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (50)

[32]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Y ang, Phys. Lett. B687, 331-337 (2010). [arXiv:0912.3375 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[33]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Y ang, JHEP 1009, 097 (2010). [arXiv:1003.5827 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[35]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Y ang, [arXiv:1103.0550 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[42]

A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Yang, JHEP 0911, 062 (2009). [arXiv:0908.3676 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[3]

U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D80, 054009 (2009). [arXiv:0906.5273 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[29]

S. Moch, P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D78, 034003 (2008). [arXiv:0804.1476 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[31]

M. Beneke, M. Czakon, P. Falgari, A. Mitov, C. Schwinn, P hys. Lett. B690, 483-490 (2010). [arXiv:0911.5166 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[34]

N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D82, 114030 (2010). [arXiv:1009.4935 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[1]

H. Fl¨ acher, M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. H¨ ocker, K. Monig, J . Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C60, 543-583 (2009). [arXiv:0811.0009 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[2]

V. M. Abazov et al. [ D0 Collaboration ], [arXiv:1104.2887 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[4]

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, G. F. Sterman, Adv. Ser. Direct . High Energy Phys. 5, 1-91 (1988). [hep-ph/0409313]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1988
[5]

P. Nason, S. Dawson, R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303, 607 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[6]

W. Beenakker, H. Kuijf, W. L. van Neerven, J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D40, 54-82 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[7]

W. Beenakker, W. L. van Neerven, R. Meng, G. A. Schuler, J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B351, 507-560 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[8]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, Nucl. Phys. B824, 111-135 (2010). [arXiv:0811.4119 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[9]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, S. Moch, Phys. Lett. B651, 147-159 (2007). [arXiv:0705.1975 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[10]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, S. Moch, Nucl. Phys. B798, 210-250 (2008). [arXiv:0707.4139 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[11]

M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B664, 307-314 (2008). [arXiv:0803.1400 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[12]

R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, T. Gehrmann, D. Maitre, C. St uderus, JHEP 0807, 129 (2008). [arXiv:0806.2301 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[13]

R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, T. Gehrmann, C. Studerus, JH EP 0908, 067 (2009). [arXiv:0906.3671 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[14]

R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, T. Gehrmann, A. Manteuﬀel, C . Studerus, JHEP 1101, 102 (2011). [arXiv:1011.6661 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[15]

J. G. Korner, Z. Merebashvili, M. Rogal, Phys. Rev. D77, 094011 (2008). [arXiv:0802.0106 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[16]

C. Anastasiou, S. M. Aybat, Phys. Rev. D78, 114006 (2008). [arXiv:0809.1355 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[17]

B. Kniehl, Z. Merebashvili, J. G. Korner, M. Rogal, Phys . Rev. D78, 094013 (2008). [arXiv:0809.3980 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[18]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 262002 (2007). [hep-ph/0703120 [HEP-PH]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[19]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, Nucl. Phys. Proc. S uppl. 183, 196-201 (2008). [arXiv:0807.1223 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[20]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, M. Worek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 162002 (2010). [arXiv:1002.4009 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[21]

K. Melnikov, M. Schulze, Nucl. Phys. B840, 129-159 (2010). [arXiv:1004.3284 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[22]

M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B693, 259-268 (2010). [arXiv:1005.0274 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[23]

M. Czakon, [arXiv:1101.0642 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[24]

C. Anastasiou, F. Herzog, A. Lazopoulos, JHEP 1103, 038 (2011). [arXiv:1011.4867 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[25]

G. Abelof, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, JHEP 1104, 063 (2011). [arXiv:1102.2443 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[26]

W. Bernreuther, C. Bogner, O. Dekkers, [arXiv:1105.05 30 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith
[27]

G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B281, 310 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[28]

S. Catani, L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B327, 323 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[30]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D80, 074017 (2009). [arXiv:0907.1790 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[36]

A. H. Hoang, M. Beneke, K. Melnikov, T. Nagano, A. Ota, A. A. Penin, A. A. Pivovarov, A. Signer et al. , Eur. Phys. J. direct C2, 1 (2000). [hep-ph/0001286]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[37]

A. H. Hoang, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D60, 114027 (1999). [hep-ph/9904468]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[38]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. W. Stewart, Phys. R ev. D63, 114020 (2001). [hep-ph/0011336]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[39]

C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D65, 054022 (2002). [hep-ph/0109045]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[40]

M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B643, 431-476 (2002). [hep-ph/0206152]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[41]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 082001 (2006). [hep-ph/0605050]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[43]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, G. Watt, Eur. P hys. J. C63, 189-285 (2009). [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[44]

P. M. Nadolsky, H. -L. Lai, Q. -H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumpl in, D. Stump, W. -K. Tung, C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D78, 013004 (2008). [arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[45]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, G. Watt, Eur. P hys. J. C64, 653-680 (2009). [arXiv:0905.3531 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[46]

H. -L. Lai, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, D. S tump, C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D82, 054021 (2010). [arXiv:1004.4624 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[47]

I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev, A. I. Vainsht ein, Phys. Rev. D50, 2234-2246 (1994). [hep-ph/9402360]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[48]

M. Beneke, V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B426, 301-343 (1994). [hep-ph/9402364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[49]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4001-4004 (1999). [hep-ph/9907509]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[50]

M. Aliev, H. Lacker, U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, P. Uwer, M. W iedermann, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 1034-1046 (2011). [arXiv:1007.1327 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

Top quark pair production at small transverse momentum in hadronic collisions
hep-ph 2013-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Soft-collinear effective theory plus heavy-quark effective theory yields a factorized, NNLL-resummed prediction for the top-pair transverse momentum spectrum, validated against exact fixed-order results and collider data.
NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction
hep-ph 2012-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The exact NNLO QCD correction to qg to ttbar lowers the predicted top-pair cross-section by about 1% and cuts the LHC scale uncertainty by roughly 2%, while a high-energy approximation deviates by up to 5% of the total.
NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: the all-fermionic scattering channels
hep-ph 2012-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper completes the NNLO QCD calculation for all fermion-pair-initiated top-pair production channels and extracts the constant term in their high-energy logarithmic rise to about 5% precision.
Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation
hep-ph 2011-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Adding next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation to the total top-pair cross section shifts the central value by a few percent and shrinks the scale uncertainty only marginally, so the dominant theory...
Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation
hep-ph 2011-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Joint soft-gluon and Coulomb resummation at NNLL accuracy gives top-pair cross sections of 7.22 pb at the Tevatron and 162.6 pb at the 7 TeV LHC, with approximate N3LO coefficients as a by-product.

Show 9 more citing papers

Constraining the dipole moments of the top quark
hep-ph 2011-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The neutron electric dipole moment bounds the top quark's chromo-electric dipole moment to below 2.1e-19 cm, two orders of magnitude tighter than previous limits, and ATLAS top-pair spectra bound the chromo-magnetic d...
The impact of the photon PDF and electroweak corrections on $t \bar t$ distributions
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Photon-initiated channels in top-pair production can cancel Sudakov electroweak suppression at high scales and in forward rapidities, but only if the photon PDF is as large as NNPDF2.3QED assumes, not as CT14QED assumes.
Associated production of a top pair and a Higgs boson beyond NLO
hep-ph 2015-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding a newly computed one-loop hard function to soft-gluon resummation yields approximate NNLO predictions for top-pair-plus-Higgs production that raise the 13 TeV cross section about 8 percent and cut the scale-unc...
Higgs boson pair production in the D=6 extension of the SM
hep-ph 2014-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Projected high-luminosity LHC data on gluon-fusion Higgs pair production into b-bbar tau-tau would constrain the dimension-6 Higgs self-coupling modifier c6 to roughly |c6| < 0.6 at 1 sigma, given projected single-Hig...
Determination of the top-quark pole mass and strong coupling constant from the t t-bar production cross section in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2013-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Comparing the CMS 7 TeV top-pair cross section to an NNLO+NNLL prediction gives a top pole mass of 176.7 GeV and, for the first time from top-quark events, alphaS(mZ) = 0.1151.
Constraints on the gluon PDF from top quark pair production at hadron colliders
hep-ph 2013-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Including Tevatron and LHC top-pair cross sections in a global NNLO PDF fit reduces the large-x gluon uncertainty by up to 20 percent and improves gluon-fusion predictions for heavy new particles.
Measurement of the top quark mass using proton-proton data at sqrt(s) = 7 and 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-09 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining three new 8 TeV measurements with four published 7 TeV CMS measurements gives a top quark mass of 172.44 +/- 0.13 (stat) +/- 0.47 (syst) GeV, with no kinematic bias observed in a binned differential study.
Charge asymmetries of top quarks at hadron colliders revisited
hep-ph 2011-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Including QED and weak corrections raises the Standard Model top charge asymmetry by about 20%, and a 20 GeV cut on the top pair transverse momentum raises it by another 30 to 50%.
Top Quark Production
hep-ph 2013-11 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Soft-gluon (NNLL) resummation expanded to NNLO reproduces exact NNLO top-pair total cross sections to better than 1% and supplies differential top-quark distributions where no exact NNLO calculation exists.

How later papers used it

54 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 47 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 15 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 13 of the 102 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

4 later papers by other authors are listed below: 3 used its data or values and 1 compared its own results with it. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 1 of 4 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Followed its procedure to base its stop production cross section predictions on an average of the PIM and 1PI kinematics calculations and to estimate the perturbative error from scale variation and the maximal difference between the two schemes.

Approximate NNLO Predictions for the Stop-Pair Production Cross Section at the LHC (2013) (same authors) · 0.94 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its data or values 3 of 8 papers with this label

Compared its NLO cross section, about 26% of the total inclusive ttbar production cross section given by this paper.

Top-Quark Charge Asymmetry with a Jet Handle (2012) · 0.91 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Their K factors are 1.6 (2.5) for $bb̅Z$ ($bb̅W^±$) [ref] , 1.3 (2.3) for $jjZ$ ($jjW^±$) [ref] and 1.8 for $tt̅$ [ref] .

The quark flavor-violating ALPs in light of B mesons and hadron colliders (2024) · FCNC search for invisibly decaying ALP at colliders · 1.00
Took the NNLO cross section of 382 pb for semi-leptonic ttbar including all lepton flavors from this paper.

New Physics Opportunities in the Boosted Di-Higgs plus \ET Signature (2015) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Compares with it 1 of 9 papers with this label

Reported that the non-PDF related uncertainties in this paper's x-space resummation approaches tend to be smaller than its own, by between about 25% and 40%.

Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation (2011) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

54 arXiv papers cite this in 102 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 59 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 4 papers

Precisely for this reason, following the procedure of [ref] , we decided to base our predictions for the stop production cross section on an average of the PIM and 1PI kinematics calculations and we estimated the perturbative error not only by means of the scale variation, but also by considering the maximal difference between the predictions obtained in the two kinematic schemes, as explained in this section.

Approximate NNLO Predictions for the Stop-Pair Production Cross Section at the LHC · Total cross section · 0.94
Since the total cross section can be obtained starting from either of the two kinematics, but each kinematics neglects different sets of subleading corrections, we follow the procedure already adopted in [ref] and average the two results.

NNLL Momentum-Space Resummation for Stop-Pair Production at the LHC · Matching and scale choices · 0.96
The row labeled “NNLO approx. PIM” in Table [ref] corresponds to the approximation used for the invariant mass distribution in computing the total cross section in [ref] ; i. e., only part of the scale dependent terms in $c̃_ij^(2,0)$ are included, together with a set of terms which are regular in the $z →1$ limit and are obtained by keeping the exact form of the soft emission energy in the SCET formalism, as explained in detail in [ref] .

Top-quark pair production at high invariant mass: an NNLO soft plus virtual approximation · Predictions for the pair invariant mass distribution at the LHC · 0.89

Uses its data or values 8 papers

The production cross section of top quark pair ($σ_tt$) is approximately 820 pb in pp collisions with a 13 TeV center-of-mass energy (CM) energy ($√(s)$), and it becomes $σ_tt ≃970$ pb at $√(s) = 14$ TeV [ref] .

Charming Top Decays with Flavor Changing Neutral Higgs Boson and WW at Hadron Colliders · Introduction · 0.98
For dominant SM backgrounds of $t t̅$ and $W^±Z$, the naive estimation of the signal significance may be made by using the theoretical uncertainties of $(δσ/σ)_t t̅≈10 %$ [ref] and $(δσ/σ)_ W^±Z ≈5 %$ [ref] due to the factorization scale uncertainties.

LHC searches for heavy neutral Higgs bosons with a top jet substructure analysis · The LHC Searches for The Heavy Neutral Higgs Bosons via The $t t̅$ Channel · 0.99
The cross sections for these processes [ref] at the LHC $14$ run read

LHC searches for the CP-odd Higgs by the jet substructure analysis · The SM backgrounds and signal benchmark · 0.93

Compares with it 9 papers

Secondly, regarding our implementation of the approximate (N)NLO kernels into a MC and the associated phase-space integration, when we are inclusive over the top decay products (i.e. no analysis cuts applied), we find complete agreement between the numbers produced by our code and n(N)LO inclusive cross sections results presented in [ref] .

Renormalization-group improved fully differential cross sections for top pair production · Checks · 1.00
At the Tevatron, on the other hand, the results from [ref] are significantly larger than those from [ref] .

Top-quark production and QCD · Total top-pair production cross section · 0.95
On the other hand it is fair to say that the difference between the full NNLO calculation of the top production cross section and the results of [ref] is an a posteriori indication that the neglected formally subleading terms in those works turned out to be numerically larger than the neglected subleading terms in the other approaches.

Approximate NNLO Predictions for the Stop-Pair Production Cross Section at the LHC · Total cross section · 0.85

Cites it as support 1 paper

At hadron colliders, where currently $δm_t ≲1 GeV$, the renormalon ambiguity is numerically subdominant; see also Ref. [ref] .

Determination of the top quark mass circa 2013: methods, subtleties, perspectives · Issues in precision top mass determination at hadron colliders · 0.97

Cites it as background 12 papers

More recently, thanks also to the calculation of the relevant soft anomalous dimensions [ref] , next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNLL) resummations [ref] , and approximated NNLO cross sections constructed from the re-expansion of the resummed result [ref] , have become available.

The top-quark pair production cross section at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic order · Introduction · 0.88
The resummed expressions have been used as generators of approximate NNLO corrections, and cross section calculations for top-pair production have appeared in [ref] .

Theoretical results for top quark production · Introduction · 0.85
In addition, the resummation of next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) soft gluon effects has been long established [ref] , and results beyond the NLO and NLL level of accuracy have recently been published [ref] .

Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation · Introduction · 0.90

What it cites · 29 sentences without a confident label

Contests 1 paper

Contrary to [ref] , we do not find a strong improvement of the perturbative series in the $$ scheme compared to the pole scheme.

Measuring the running top-quark mass · Introduction · contest 0.72

Uses the method or tool of 6 papers

Our calculation is based on [ref] , where threshold resummation using soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) [ref] is applied to $tt̅$ production at hadron colliders.

RG-improved single-particle inclusive cross sections and forward-backward asymmetry in $t\bar t$ production at hadron colliders · Ingredients of the calculation · 0.99
Our calculation is based on [ref] , where threshold resummation using soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) [ref] is applied to $tt̅$ production at hadron colliders.

Renormalization-Group Improved Predictions for Top-Quark Pair Production at Hadron Colliders · Ingredients of the calculation · 0.99
We estimate this uncertainty in combination with the PDF one by employing the method proposed in [ref] .

Uncertainties on alpha_S in global PDF analyses and implications for predicted hadronic cross sections · Cross sections in the pole scheme · 1.00

Uses data or values from 1 paper

We quote in Table [ref] the approximate NNLO predictions obtained with the above procedure at $m_t=173.1$ GeV, using the 90% CL sets of the MSTW2008 NNLO PDFs [ref] .

Parton distributions for the LHC · Cross sections in the pole scheme · 0.95

Compares with 3 papers

For this reason, the overlap between the NLO and approximate NNLO results is actually better in the pole scheme than in the $$ scheme.[The overlap between LO and NLO is worse at the Tevatron and improved at the LHC compared to the pole scheme, but as mentioned earlier we consider the more important issue the overlap between the NLO and approximate NNLO results.] These results differ from those obtained in the $ŝ→4m_t^2$ limit, where the approximated NNLO corrections and the perturbative uncertainties at that order are significantly smaller in the $$ scheme than in the pole scheme [ref] .

Measuring the running top-quark mass · Cross sections in the $$ and 1S schemes · 0.92
Indeed, our approximate NNLO results in the $$ scheme for the choice $=$ agree with those in the HATHOR program [ref] , apart from the piece related to the NNLO correction $σ^(2)$, which is of course different since we are not working in the $ŝ →4m_t^2$ limit of the partonic cross section.

-- HATHOR -- HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR · Cross sections in the $$ and 1S schemes · 0.99
For comparison, we also include the results using CTEQ6.6 PDFs [ref] in Table [ref].

Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables · Cross sections in the pole scheme · 0.84

Cites as background 14 papers

The second, referred to as single-particle inclusive (1PI) kinematics, works at the level of the transverse-momentum or rapidity distributions of the top quark [ref] .

RG-improved single-particle inclusive cross sections and forward-backward asymmetry in $t\bar t$ production at hadron colliders · Introduction · 0.80
Many efforts have been made in the calculation of two-loop virtual corrections [ref] , one-loop interference terms [ref] , and double real emission [ref] .

Heavy-quark production in gluon fusion at two loops in QCD · Introduction · 0.86
Many efforts have been made in the calculation of two-loop virtual corrections [ref] , one-loop interference terms [ref] , and double real emission [ref] .

Next-to-next-to-leading order ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ results for heavy quark pair production in quark--antiquark collisions: The one-loop squared contributions · Introduction · 0.86

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [32]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Y ang, Phys. Lett. B687, 331-337 (2010). [arXiv:0912.3375 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[2] [33]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Y ang, JHEP 1009, 097 (2010). [arXiv:1003.5827 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[3] [35]

V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Y ang, [arXiv:1103.0550 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [42]

A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, L. L. Yang, JHEP 0911, 062 (2009). [arXiv:0908.3676 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[5] [3]

U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D80, 054009 (2009). [arXiv:0906.5273 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[6] [29]

S. Moch, P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D78, 034003 (2008). [arXiv:0804.1476 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[7] [31]

M. Beneke, M. Czakon, P. Falgari, A. Mitov, C. Schwinn, P hys. Lett. B690, 483-490 (2010). [arXiv:0911.5166 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[8] [34]

N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D82, 114030 (2010). [arXiv:1009.4935 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[9] [1]

H. Fl¨ acher, M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. H¨ ocker, K. Monig, J . Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C60, 543-583 (2009). [arXiv:0811.0009 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[10] [2]

V. M. Abazov et al. [ D0 Collaboration ], [arXiv:1104.2887 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[11] [4]

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, G. F. Sterman, Adv. Ser. Direct . High Energy Phys. 5, 1-91 (1988). [hep-ph/0409313]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1988

[12] [5]

P. Nason, S. Dawson, R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303, 607 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[13] [6]

W. Beenakker, H. Kuijf, W. L. van Neerven, J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D40, 54-82 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[14] [7]

W. Beenakker, W. L. van Neerven, R. Meng, G. A. Schuler, J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B351, 507-560 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[15] [8]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, Nucl. Phys. B824, 111-135 (2010). [arXiv:0811.4119 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[16] [9]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, S. Moch, Phys. Lett. B651, 147-159 (2007). [arXiv:0705.1975 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[17] [10]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, S. Moch, Nucl. Phys. B798, 210-250 (2008). [arXiv:0707.4139 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[18] [11]

M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B664, 307-314 (2008). [arXiv:0803.1400 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[19] [12]

R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, T. Gehrmann, D. Maitre, C. St uderus, JHEP 0807, 129 (2008). [arXiv:0806.2301 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[20] [13]

R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, T. Gehrmann, C. Studerus, JH EP 0908, 067 (2009). [arXiv:0906.3671 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[21] [14]

R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, T. Gehrmann, A. Manteuﬀel, C . Studerus, JHEP 1101, 102 (2011). [arXiv:1011.6661 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[22] [15]

J. G. Korner, Z. Merebashvili, M. Rogal, Phys. Rev. D77, 094011 (2008). [arXiv:0802.0106 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[23] [16]

C. Anastasiou, S. M. Aybat, Phys. Rev. D78, 114006 (2008). [arXiv:0809.1355 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[24] [17]

B. Kniehl, Z. Merebashvili, J. G. Korner, M. Rogal, Phys . Rev. D78, 094013 (2008). [arXiv:0809.3980 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[25] [18]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 262002 (2007). [hep-ph/0703120 [HEP-PH]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[26] [19]

S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, S. Weinzierl, Nucl. Phys. Proc. S uppl. 183, 196-201 (2008). [arXiv:0807.1223 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[27] [20]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, M. Worek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 162002 (2010). [arXiv:1002.4009 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[28] [21]

K. Melnikov, M. Schulze, Nucl. Phys. B840, 129-159 (2010). [arXiv:1004.3284 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[29] [22]

M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B693, 259-268 (2010). [arXiv:1005.0274 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[30] [23]

M. Czakon, [arXiv:1101.0642 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [24]

C. Anastasiou, F. Herzog, A. Lazopoulos, JHEP 1103, 038 (2011). [arXiv:1011.4867 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[32] [25]

G. Abelof, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, JHEP 1104, 063 (2011). [arXiv:1102.2443 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[33] [26]

W. Bernreuther, C. Bogner, O. Dekkers, [arXiv:1105.05 30 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith

[34] [27]

G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B281, 310 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[35] [28]

S. Catani, L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B327, 323 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[36] [30]

M. Czakon, A. Mitov, G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D80, 074017 (2009). [arXiv:0907.1790 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[37] [36]

A. H. Hoang, M. Beneke, K. Melnikov, T. Nagano, A. Ota, A. A. Penin, A. A. Pivovarov, A. Signer et al. , Eur. Phys. J. direct C2, 1 (2000). [hep-ph/0001286]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[38] [37]

A. H. Hoang, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D60, 114027 (1999). [hep-ph/9904468]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[39] [38]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. W. Stewart, Phys. R ev. D63, 114020 (2001). [hep-ph/0011336]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[40] [39]

C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D65, 054022 (2002). [hep-ph/0109045]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[41] [40]

M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B643, 431-476 (2002). [hep-ph/0206152]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[42] [41]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 082001 (2006). [hep-ph/0605050]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[43] [43]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, G. Watt, Eur. P hys. J. C63, 189-285 (2009). [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[44] [44]

P. M. Nadolsky, H. -L. Lai, Q. -H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumpl in, D. Stump, W. -K. Tung, C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D78, 013004 (2008). [arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[45] [45]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, G. Watt, Eur. P hys. J. C64, 653-680 (2009). [arXiv:0905.3531 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[46] [46]

H. -L. Lai, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, D. S tump, C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D82, 054021 (2010). [arXiv:1004.4624 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[47] [47]

I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev, A. I. Vainsht ein, Phys. Rev. D50, 2234-2246 (1994). [hep-ph/9402360]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[48] [48]

M. Beneke, V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B426, 301-343 (1994). [hep-ph/9402364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[49] [49]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4001-4004 (1999). [hep-ph/9907509]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[50] [50]

M. Aliev, H. Lacker, U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, P. Uwer, M. W iedermann, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 1034-1046 (2011). [arXiv:1007.1327 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011