Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

How well does nonrelativistic QCD factorization work at next-to-leading order?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One set of nonrelativistic-QCD matrix elements, fitted to 42 data points, predicts quarkonium production across hadron, photon, and photon-photon collisions.

desk verdict A broad, honest NRQCD universality study whose main claim holds up, but the 360 GeV extrapolation rests on an indirect resummation argument that should be pinned down. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16384 v2 pith:JP6SHYR6 submitted 2024-11-25 hep-ph

Nora Brambilla , Mathias Butenschoen , Xiang-Peng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords nonrelativisticQCDfactorizationcolor-octetLDMEsquarkoniumproductionJ/psiUpsiloneta_cLDMEuniversalitynext-to-leadingorder
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 tests whether the long-distance matrix elements (LDMEs) of nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) factorization are universal: the same numbers describing how a heavy quark-antiquark pair becomes a quarkonium, regardless of how the pair is created. It fits three color-octet LDMEs to 42 data points of $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ production at the LHC, then uses those fixed numbers to predict a wide range of other quarkonium observables. The predictions work: $J/\psi$ hadroproduction up to $p_T = 360$ GeV, $\Upsilon(3S)$ production via potential-NRQCD relations, and $J/\psi$ production in $\gamma\gamma$ and $\gamma p$ collisions down to $p_T = 1$ GeV for inelasticity $z < 0.6$. The notable failures are low-$p_T$ hadroproduction and photoproduction at large $z$, which the authors trace to kinematic endpoint regions where fixed-order perturbation theory is expected to lose convergence. If the universality claim holds, a single set of LDMEs becomes a predictive tool for quarkonium yields at future colliders, and the residual discrepancies define where higher-order or resummed calculations are needed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set of three $J/\psi$ color-octet LDMEs, $\langle \mathcal{O}^{J/\psi}({}^3S_1^{[8]})\rangle$, $\langle \mathcal{O}^{J/\psi}({}^1S_0^{[8]})\rangle$ and $\langle \mathcal{O}^{J/\psi}({}^3P_J^{[8]})\rangle/m_c^2$, the nonperturbative parameters of NRQCD factorization that encode how a heavy quark-antiquark pair in a color-octet state evolves into a physical quarkonium. The machinery carrying the argument is the fit-and-predict procedure: three independent NLO least-squares fits are performed with renormalization and factorization scales set to $m_T/2$, $m_T$, and $2m_T$, the predicted error bands from each fit are superposed, and their envelope is the quoted theory uncertainty. The LHCb $\eta_c$ data directly constrain the ${}^1S_0^{[8]}$ matrix element, breaking the degeneracy that plagues fits using only $J/\psi$ yields. Heavy-quark spin symmetry relates the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ LDMEs, and pNRQCD relations transfer the fitted charmonium LDMEs to $\Upsilon(nS)$ production. The cancellation between the large positive ${}^3S_1^{[8]}$ and large negative ${}^3P_J^{[8]}$ contributions—not fine-tuning, because NLO mixing makes only their sum physical—is what keeps the high-$p_T$ $J/\psi$ prediction stable.

What would settle it

Compute the $p_T$-differential $J/\psi$ cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV up to $p_T=360$ GeV using the LDMEs fitted in this paper, now including resummation of the $\log(m_c^2/p_T^2)$ terms; the claim that the fit describes the ATLAS data fails if the resummed prediction at $p_T>100$ GeV moves outside the paper's quoted uncertainty envelope by more than the experimental precision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a 'fit-and-predict' procedure using a single set of $J/\psi$ color-octet long-distance matrix elements (LDMEs)—determined by a next-to-leading-order (NLO) fit to 42 points of CMS $J/\psi$ and LHCb $\eta_c$ data—can quantitatively describe quarkonium production across very different collision environments. The key new results are that the same LDMEs reproduce ATLAS $J/\psi$ hadroproduction up to $p_T = 360$ GeV, predict $\Upsilon(3S)$ production through potential-NRQCD (pNRQCD) derived relations, and describe $J/\psi$ production in $\gamma\gamma$ and $\gamma p$ collisions down to $p_T = 1$ GeV, provided the inelasticity $z$ is below about 0.6. The paper treats scale variation systematically by performing three separate fits at scales $m_T/2$, $m_T$, and $2m_T$ (with $m_T = \sqrt{p_T^2 + 4m_c^2}$) and taking the envelope of the resulting error bands as the theory uncertainty. On this basis the authors argue that LDME universality, a core conjecture of NRQCD factorization, survives these nontrivial tests, while the remaining discrepancies (low-$p_T$ hadroproduction, $z>0.6$ photoproduction, and possibly the highest-$p_T$ $J/\psi+Z$ bins) coincide with kinematic regions where fixed-order calculations are expected to lose convergence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that fixed-order next-to-leading-order calculations, with the three-scale envelope and a flat 30% theory error, adequately capture the true theoretical uncertainty; in particular, the paper infers rather than computes that resummation of $\log(m_c^2/p_T^2)$ terms is negligible for its own LDMEs at very high $p_T$, citing a resummed result for a different LDME set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same fitted LDMEs can be used to predict quarkonium yields at the EIC and the high-luminosity LHC, including J/psi photoproduction in the z < 0.6 region down to pT = 1 GeV.
  • The successful Upsilon(3S) prediction supports the pNRQCD relations linking charmonium and bottomonium matrix elements, so Upsilon data can be added as constraints in future global LDME fits.
  • The fit-and-predict scale-envelope procedure, by correlating scale variations with LDME uncertainties, offers a template for other NRQCD analyses that currently ignore scale variation or treat it as a global theory error.
  • The residual discrepancies in low-pT hadroproduction and high-z photoproduction identify specific kinematic windows where resummed or shape-function-improved calculations must be tested, and where new measurements would be most discriminating.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed universality extends to double-quarkonium channels, the same LDMEs should describe high-pT J/psi plus J/psi production at the LHC; this is a testable corollary the paper does not pursue.
  • The success of fixed-order NLO in z < 0.6 photoproduction down to pT = 1 GeV suggests the color-octet mechanism dominates even where the transverse momentum is below the charm mass, a regime where one might have expected the factorization to break; a dedicated high-statistics measurement at the EIC could confirm or refute this boundary.
  • The paper's justification for neglecting resummation at very high pT rests on a comparison with a different LDME set; a direct resummed calculation with the paper's own LDMEs would either close this gap or reveal that the high-pT agreement is partly accidental.
  • The sharpness of the z ~ 0.6 boundary in photoproduction, independent of pT, suggests the missing physics is governed by inelasticity rather than transverse momentum, pointing to universal endpoint behavior that could be modeled with shape functions or soft-gluon resummation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper performs a combined NLO NRQCD fit of three J/psi color-octet LDMEs to 42 data points from CMS J/psi and LHCb eta_c hadroproduction, using three scale choices (mT/2, mT, 2mT) and a global 30% theory error. The fitted LDMEs are then used to predict J/psi polarization, ATLAS high-pT J/psi production up to 360 GeV, low-pT LHCb J/psi production, Upsilon(3S) production via pNRQCD-based relations, J/psi+Z production, gamma gamma scattering at LEP, and HERA photoproduction in five z bins. The central claim is that a single set of CO LDMEs can describe a wide range of quarkonium observables, with failures only at low/medium pT hadroproduction and at large photoproduction inelasticity z; the paper interprets these patterns as evidence for NRQCD factorization and LDME universality, while also identifying regions where factorization appears to break down.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be a strong demonstration of LDME universality across hadroproduction, photoproduction, two-photon scattering, and bottomonium production. The paper's fit-and-predict procedure, which propagates scale variations through the fit and into predictions via an envelope over three scale choices, is a methodological improvement over fits that ignore scale dependence or treat it as a purely global uncertainty. The successful Upsilon(3S) prediction using pNRQCD relations is a particularly nontrivial cross-check. The paper also provides explicit falsifiable statements: low-pT hadroproduction and z>0.6 photoproduction are not described, and J/psi+Z production shows a possible discrepancy. These positive and negative results together make the paper valuable for the quarkonium-production community, provided the high-pT extrapolation and the treatment of theory uncertainty are adequately justified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Prediction of J/psi hadroproduction at very high pT (p. 3, Fig. 2c)] The claim that the fitted LDMEs describe ATLAS data up to pT = 360 GeV rests on fixed-order NLO without resummation of log(m_c^2/pT^2) terms, justified only by an inference from Fig. 3 of Ref. [53] that the effect is negligible because the Chao et al. LDMEs 'do not significantly differ' from the authors' default LDMEs. This inference is not demonstrated quantitatively: Table I shows that the fitted LDMEs vary strongly across the three scale choices (e.g., <O(3S1[8])> ranges from 0.59 to 1.38 x 10^-2 GeV^3 and <O(3P0[8])>/m_c^2 from 0.70 to 3.27 x 10^-2 GeV^3), so the size of resummation corrections, which depends on the Fock-state decomposition, cannot be reliably inferred from another LDME set. The authors should either compute the resummed result with their own LDMEs or provide a quantitative bound (e.g., compare the resummed and fixed-order predictions for the Chao et al. set and show the difference is small relative to the yellow band for the authors' LDME range). Without this, the headline high-pT success is a load-bearing unresolved assumption.
  2. [Fit and predict procedure, beginning of 'Introduction and overview' and 'Fit results' (p. 2, Table I)] The global 30% theory error is chosen by hand and applied uniformly, yet the resulting chi^2/d.o.f. values (0.21-0.34) are far below 1. This indicates that the data are fitted with substantially more freedom than the quoted errors suggest, and the yellow bands in the prediction plots are correspondingly wide. The central claim of 'good description' is therefore weakened: a chi^2/d.o.f. of 0.2-0.3 with an ad hoc 30% error does not by itself demonstrate that the model is correct, only that it is not excluded. The authors should justify the 30% value (e.g., by comparing relative sizes of relativistic corrections estimated from lattice or potential-model calculations) and discuss how the conclusions change if the theory error is reduced or eliminated; the current presentation makes the quality of the fit appear better than the input assumptions warrant.
  3. [Prediction of J/psi + Z production (Fig. 2f)] The paper states that the two highest pT bins lie about two experimental standard deviations below data and argues that underestimated DPS is 'unlikely, albeit not impossible,' based on the pocket formula. However, the text then acknowledges that the pocket formula itself is 'subject to debate.' This is an internal tension: if the DPS estimation is uncertain, the discrepancy with the SPS-subtracted data cannot be crisply interpreted, and the statement 'J/psi + Z production remains intricate to interpret' is appropriate but should be presented as a limitation of the prediction test, not as a confirmed failure or success. The authors should clarify whether the conclusion on J/psi+Z is robust under reasonable variations of sigma_eff and the DPS procedure.
  4. [Prediction of low-pT hadroproduction (Fig. 2d)] The paper explains the failure at low pT by the sign change of the 3PJ[8] SDCs below pT ~ 7 GeV, which turns the cancellation between 3S1[8] and 3PJ[8] into an amplification. This is a plausible mechanism, but the figure appears to show that the theoretical prediction is orders of magnitude above the data at pT = 1-3 GeV. The authors should state explicitly whether this failure is a violation of NRQCD factorization or an expected artifact of the fixed-order calculation in the endpoint region pT^2 << 4m_c^2, and whether resummation or shape-function effects (as cited in Refs. [55-57]) would be expected to cure the discrepancy. As written, the paper leaves the interpretation ambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The notation <O(3PJ[8])> in Fig. 2(d)-(f) instead of <O(3P0[8])> is confusing because the text consistently uses the J-summed <O(3P0[8])>/m_c^2 as the fit parameter; please define the plotted quantity.
  2. [Introduction and overview, p. 2] The sentence 'The latter approach thus appears to be the most promising fit strategy, and is the one we adopt here' is slightly misleading because the authors' approach differs from Refs. [16,17] in the treatment of scale variations; this difference should be stated in the same paragraph.
  3. [Prediction of J/psi hadroproduction at very high pT (p. 3)] Reference [53] is cited as the source of the resummed curve, but the text does not specify whether Ref. [53] uses the same CS LDME and feeddown treatment as the present paper; a brief note on compatibility would help.
  4. [Prediction of J/psi polarization (p. 3, Fig. 2b)] The LHCb polarization data extend down to pT = 2 GeV, while the fit is based on pT >= 7 GeV (eta_c) and pT >= 10 GeV (CMS J/psi); the paper should state whether the low-pT polarization points were included in the fit or are predictions, since the text is ambiguous.
  5. [Summary, p. 5] The abstract mentions 'the summary reveals an interesting pattern,' but the main text's Discussion section is short; a short table listing each observable, the data set, and the verdict (described/not described) would make the pattern more accessible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LDMEs are fitted to CMS J/psi and LHCb eta_c data, and all headline 'predictions' are independent observables compared to external data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a standard inverse-problem fit: three J/psi color-octet LDMEs are least-squares fitted to 42 CMS J/psi and LHCb eta_c data points, and the subsequent claims concern observables not in the fit (polarization, ATLAS high-pT J/psi, Upsilon(3S), J/psi+Z, gamma-gamma and gamma-p production). None of these predictions is a re-labeling of the fit input. The fit is constrained by data and the predicted curves are compared to independent measurements. The only potentially self-referential element is the Upsilon(3S) prediction, which uses pNRQCD relations (3.47)-(3.48) from Ref. [4], a paper with two overlapping authors. This is not circular: those relations are a derived theoretical map from J/psi to Upsilon LDMEs, not fitted to Upsilon data, and the prediction is tested against ATLAS data, so it is externally falsifiable. The high-pT (up to 360 GeV) claim relies on an inference from Ref. [53] that resummation effects are negligible for the authors' LDMEs because the Chao et al. LDMEs are similar; this is a robustness/correctness concern about an external benchmark, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Figure 1 is labeled 'Predictions' but the caption explicitly states that the data shown are exactly the data used for the fits, so no fitted input is disguised as a prediction. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard NRQCD factorization plus a set of derived relations (HQSS, pNRQCD) from prior work, and on three LDMEs fitted to 42 LHC data points. The 30% theory error is an ad hoc inflation factor that materially shapes the fit quality.

free parameters (4)
  • <O^{J/psi}(3S1[8])> = 1.050 +/- 0.121 10^-2 GeV^3 (central fit, mu=mT)
    Fitted to CMS J/psi and LHCb eta_c data. Central value of the three color-octet LDMEs.
  • <O^{J/psi}(1S0[8])> = 0.068 +/- 0.249 10^-2 GeV^3 (central fit)
    Fitted to CMS J/psi and LHCb eta_c data; mostly determined by eta_c production.
  • <O^{J/psi}(3P0[8])>/m_c^2 = 1.879 +/- 0.261 10^-2 GeV^3 (central fit)
    Fitted to CMS J/psi and LHCb eta_c data. Together with 3S1[8] gives the large cancellation in J/psi production.
  • Global 30% theory error = 0.30 (relative, chosen by hand)
    Ad hoc uncertainty assumed to account for unknown relativistic corrections; inflates theory errors and reduces chi2/dof to about 0.2 to 0.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization holds for quarkonium production at NLO.
    The entire analysis assumes the NRQCD factorization formula, splitting cross sections into short-distance coefficients and universal LDMEs. Introduced in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption Heavy quark spin symmetry (HQSS) relations between J/psi and eta_c CO LDMEs.
    Used to relate the fitted J/psi CO LDMEs to the eta_c CO LDMEs for the eta_c production calculation. Stated in 'Details and input of the calculation'.
  • domain assumption pNRQCD derived relations (3.47)-(3.48) of Ref. [4] relate Upsilon(nS) CO LDMEs to J/psi CO LDMEs.
    Used to predict Upsilon(3S) production. These relations come from prior work by the same authors and are not fitted to Upsilon data. Invoked in 'Prediction of Upsilon(3S) hadroproduction'.
  • domain assumption Weizsacker-Williams approximation and AFG04 BF PDF for resolved photons.
    Used to compute gamma p and gamma gamma cross sections. Stated in 'Details and input of the calculation'.
  • domain assumption Pocket formula for double parton scattering subtraction in J/psi+Z production.
    The ATLAS J/psi+Z data are used after subtracting DPS estimated with the pocket formula. The authors note this formula is subject to debate. Stated in the J/psi+Z section.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How well does nonrelativistic QCD factorization work at next-to-leading order?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JP6SHYR6

@misc{pith2026241116384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How well does nonrelativistic QCD factorization work at next-to-leading order?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JP6SHYR6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16384}
}
abstract

We perform a thorough investigation of the universality of the long distance matrix elements (LDMEs) of nonrelativistic QCD factorization based on a next-to-leading order (NLO) fit of $J/\psi$ color octet (CO) LDMEs to high transverse momentum $p_T$ $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ production data at the LHC. We thereby apply a novel fit-and-predict procedure to systematically take into account scale variations, and predict various observables never studied in this context before. In particular, the LDMEs can well describe $J/\psi$ hadroproduction up to the highest measured values of $p_T$, as well as $\Upsilon(nS)$ production via potential NRQCD based relations. Furthermore, $J/\psi$ production in $\gamma \gamma$ and $\gamma p$ collisions is surprisingly reproduced down to $p_T=1$ GeV, as long as the region of large inelasticity $z$ is excluded, which may be of significance in future quarkonium studies, in particular at the EIC and the high-luminosity LHC. In addition, our summary reveals an interesting pattern as to which observables still evade a consistent description.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Predictions for prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. g, we show predictions for p 2 T differential J/ψ pro￾duction in γγ scattering at LEP DELPHI [27], in the range 1 GeV2 < p2 T < 10 GeV2 . Contrary to the hadroproduction case, this low pT data is reasonably well described, even though the very low statistics of the measurement does not allow for more than an order-of￾magnitude comparison. We note that the cross sections are almost exclusively given by single-resolve… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Probing Heavy-Quark Spin Symmetry in Double $J/\psi$ Hadroproduction

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A complete O(alpha_s^5) NRQCD calculation for prompt J/psi pair hadroproduction finds LHC data fix one combination of color-octet LDMEs, yielding a set that tests heavy-quark spin symmetry via eta_c data.

  2. Next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to ${}^3S_1^{(8)}$ gluon fragmentation function for quarkonium

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    First NNLO QCD short-distance coefficients for the ³S₁⁽⁸⁾ gluon fragmentation function are obtained numerically to high precision, with analytic endpoint logarithms reconstructed for threshold resummation.

  3. Automated NRQCD and NRQED simulations of quarkonium and leptonium production with P-wave states and physical-mass effects

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MadSONS extends MadGraph to automated LO NRQCD/NRQED event generation for arbitrary S- and P-wave bound states, with dual-number projectors and physical-mass reshuffling.

  4. The role of the soft scale for $J/\psi$ production in the transverse momentum dependent framework

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper derives new TMD soft transition functions and shows they dominate J/psi production at small transverse momentum by a factor of 1/v over previously used shape functions.

  5. $\psi(2S)$ production in jets using NRQCD

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Applying NRQCD fragmenting jet functions and gluon-fragmentation-improved Pythia to psi(2S) in jets, the authors find that the LHCb data favor the Bodwin et al. LDME set and expose large tensions with other extractions.

  6. Ensuring that toponium is glued, not nailed

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QCD toponium and its excited states can explain the LHC near-threshold cross-section excess, while a short-range new-physics bound state would look different in the same data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [53]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2631 (2013), arXiv:1307.6379 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2013

  2. [8]

    Total s  7 TeV Data LHCb Promptηc, 2.0 < y < 4.5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1410-1 100 101 102 103 pT (GeV ) d σ( p p  ηc X) /d pT (nb /GeV ) 1 S0 [1] 1 S0 [8] 3 S1 [8] 1 P1

    work page

  3. [1]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D51, 1125 (1995), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 55, 5853 (1997)], arXiv:hep-ph/9407339 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1995

  4. [2]

    Total s  8 TeV Data LHCb Promptηc, 2.0 < y < 4.5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1410-1 100 101 102 103 pT (GeV ) d σ( p p  ηc X) /d pT (nb /GeV ) 1 S0 [1] 1 S0 [8] 3 S1 [8] 1 P1

    work page

  5. [3]

    Total s  13 TeV Data LHCb Promptηc, 2.0 < y < 4.5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1410-1 100 101 102 103 pT (GeV ) d σ( p p  ηc X) /d pT (nb /GeV ) FIG. 1. Predictions for prompt J/ψ production at CMS [25] and ηc production at LHCb [23, 24]. The data shown is exactly the data used for the LDME fits. The total cross section is broken down into feeddown contributions a...

    work page 2020

  6. [4]

    Brambilla, H

    N. Brambilla, H. S. Chung, A. Vairo, and X.-P. Wang, JHEP 03, 242 (2023), arXiv:2210.17345 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [5]

    G. P. Lepage, L. Magnea, C. Nakhleh, U. Magnea, and K. Hornbostel, Phys. Rev. D 46, 4052 (1992), arXiv:hep- lat/9205007

    work page arXiv 1992

  8. [6]

    Brambilla, H

    N. Brambilla, H. S. Chung, A. Vairo, and X.-P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111503 (2022), arXiv:2203.07778 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 62 references
  1. [7]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1423 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0410047

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Pineda and J

    A. Pineda and J. Soto, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 64, 428 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707481

    1998 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys. B566, 275 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907240 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Brambilla, H

    N. Brambilla, H. S. Chung, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 082003 (2021), arXiv:2007.07613 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Brambilla, H

    N. Brambilla, H. S. Chung, and A. Vairo, JHEP 09, 032 (2021), arXiv:2106.09417 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D 84, 051501 (2011), arXiv:1105.0820 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Butenschoen, Z.-G

    M. Butenschoen, Z.-G. He, and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092004 (2015), arXiv:1411.5287 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 041901 (2023), arXiv:2207.09366 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 172002 (2012), arXiv:1201.1872 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Y.-Q. Ma, K. Wang, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 042002 (2011), arXiv:1009.3655 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gong, L.-P

    B. Gong, L.-P. Wan, J.-X. Wang, and H.-F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 042002 (2013), arXiv:1205.6682 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Han, Y.-Q

    H. Han, Y.-Q. Ma, C. Meng, H.-S. Shao, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092005 (2015), arXiv:1411.7350 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Zhang, Z

    H.-F. Zhang, Z. Sun, W.-L. Sang, and R. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092006 (2015), arXiv:1412.0508 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    G. T. Bodwin, K.-T. Chao, H. S. Chung, U.-R. Kim, J. Lee, and Y.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034041 (2016), 6 arXiv:1509.07904 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28, 1350027 (2013), arXiv:1212.2037 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 04, 172 (2014), arXiv:1401.2831 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 229 (2015), arXiv:1412.6428 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 01, 095 (2020), arXiv:1909.13626 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 311 (2015), arXiv:1409.3612 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1274 (2024), arXiv:2407.14261 [hep-ex]

    2024

  21. [28]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191802 (2015), arXiv:1502.04155 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 169 (2024), arXiv:2309.17177 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Abdallah et al

    J. Abdallah et al. (DELPHI), Phys. Lett. B 565, 76 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0307049

    2003 arXiv

  24. [31]

    F. D. Aaron et al. (H1), Eur. Phys. J. C 68, 401 (2010), arXiv:1002.0234 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS), JHEP 02, 071 (2013), arXiv:1211.6946 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D 87, 052004 (2013), arXiv:1211.7255 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034003 (2023), arXiv:2207.09346 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 232001 (2011), arXiv:1109.1476 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 022003 (2011), arXiv:1009.5662 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Butenschoen, Z.-G

    M. Butenschoen, Z.-G. He, and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 032001 (2019), arXiv:1906.08553 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Butenschoen, Z.-G

    M. Butenschoen, Z.-G. He, and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D 88, 011501 (2013), arXiv:1303.6524 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Nucl. Phys. B 950, 114843 (2020), arXiv:1909.03698 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Nucl. Phys. B 957, 115056 (2020), arXiv:2003.01014 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [41]

    B. W. Harris and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D 65, 094032 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0102128

    2002 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Butenschoen and B

    M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 072001 (2010), arXiv:0909.2798 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, and W. K. Tung, JHEP 07, 012 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0201195

    2002 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Aurenche, M

    P. Aurenche, M. Fontannaz, and J. P. Guillet, Eur. Phys. J. C 44, 395 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503259

    2005 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  39. [46]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 07, 154 (2014), arXiv:1404.7035 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Y.-Q. Ma, K. Wang, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D 83, 111503 (2011), arXiv:1002.3987 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3092 (2014), arXiv:1407.7734 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [49]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1726 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9503356

    1995 arXiv

  43. [50]

    G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, D. Kang, J. Lee, and C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094017 (2008), arXiv:0710.0994 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 727, 381 (2013), arXiv:1307.6070 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 858, 139044 (2024), arXiv:2406.14409 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 10, 172 (2015), [Erratum: JHEP 05, 063 (2017)], arXiv:1509.00771 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), New J. Phys. 15, 033038 (2013), arXiv:1301.6872 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    H. S. Chung, U.-R. Kim, and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071902 (2025), arXiv:2408.04255 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Boer et al., Prog

    D. Boer et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.142, 104162 (2025), arXiv:2409.03691 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ma and R

    Y.-Q. Ma and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 192301 (2014), arXiv:1408.4075 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Beneke, I

    M. Beneke, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 408, 373 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9705286

    1997 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Fleming, A

    S. Fleming, A. K. Leibovich, and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. D 74, 114004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607121

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Pakhlov et al.(Belle), Phys

    P. Pakhlov et al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. D 79, 071101 (2009), arXiv:0901.2775 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Chen, X.-B

    A.-P. Chen, X.-B. Jin, Y.-Q. Ma, and C. Meng, JHEP 03, 202 (2022), arXiv:2201.04492 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.