Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ scheme

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper computes the leading three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the gaugeless limit of the pure $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ scheme, lowering the extracted Higgs VEV by about 3.5 MeV and cutting residual scale dependence…

desk verdict A solid new three-loop computation in the tadpole-free pure MS scheme; the central result is likely correct, but the advertised sub-MeV theory-error claim rests on scale variation alone and should be softened in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15946 v1 pith:J5NBILAJ submitted 2025-07-21 hep-ph

Stephen P. Martin This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Fermidecayconstantthree-loopradiativecorrectionstadpole-freepureMS-barschemegaugelesslimitHiggsvacuumexpectationvaluerenormalizationscaledependenceWbosonmassmasterintegrals
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

This paper computes the leading three-loop radiative corrections to the Fermi decay constant $G_F$ in the Standard Model, in the tadpole-free pure $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ scheme where $G_F = (1/\sqrt{2}v^2)(1+\Delta\tilde r)$ and $v$ is the Landau-gauge minimum of the loop-corrected Higgs potential. The calculation is exact in the gaugeless limit, meaning the QCD coupling, the top-quark Yukawa coupling, and the Higgs self-coupling are treated as large compared with the electroweak gauge couplings; in that limit only the zero-momentum $W$-boson self-energy contributes. Including the new three-loop terms lowers the extracted Higgs vacuum expectation value by about 3.5 MeV for fixed on-shell inputs, and reduces the renormalization-scale dependence of $G_F$ to less than $\pm 2\times 10^{-6}$ for scales between 90 and 250 GeV. The author reads this as a theoretical uncertainty in the VEV of well under 1 MeV, smaller than the parametric uncertainty from the top-quark mass, and notes a small upward shift of about 0.5 MeV in the predicted $W$-boson mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the three-loop term $\Delta\tilde r^{(3)}$ in the expansion $G_F = (1/\sqrt{2}v^2)(1+\Delta\tilde r)$, split by Eq. (2.21) into ten parts according to powers of $g_3$, $y_t$, and $\lambda$ and their color and fermion-loop structure. In the gaugeless limit all contributions collapse onto vacuum integrals from the zero-momentum $W$-boson self-energy. These are reduced with integration-by-parts to a small set of renormalized master integrals $A(x)$, $I(x,y,z)$, $F(w,x,y,z)$, $G(v,w,x,y,z)$, and $H(u,v,w,x,y,z)$ from ref. [65], chosen in an $\epsilon$-finite basis so that no extra poles appear. After renormalizing bare parameters and expanding in $\epsilon$, the Goldstone-boson squared mass is eliminated by resummation following refs. [60, 61], leaving results that depend only on $t=y_t^2v^2/2$ and $h=2\lambda v^2$. The renormalization-group identity (3.14) then supplies a final consistency check tying the result to the known $\beta$ functions.

What would settle it

Evaluate the omitted three-loop terms that are suppressed by the electroweak gauge couplings $g$ and $g'$ rather than enhanced by $g_3$, $y_t$, or $\lambda$ for the same benchmark inputs. If those terms change $G_F$ by more than about $2\times 10^{-6}$ in fractional terms, or shift the extracted VEV by more than about 1 MeV, the paper's central uncertainty claim would be contradicted, even if the leading-coefficient calculation stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is the complete leading three-loop contribution $\Delta\tilde r^{(3)}$ to the Fermi constant in the pure $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ tadpole-free scheme, valid in the gaugeless limit of Eq. (1.11). The result is organized into ten parts $\Delta a,\ldots,\Delta j$ corresponding to different powers of $g_3$, $y_t$, and $\lambda$ and different color and fermion-loop structures, as in Eq. (2.21). Seven of these parts are given explicitly in Eqs. (3.3)-(3.10), including the six single-scale top-mass parts and the scalar-only part $\Delta j$; the remaining two-scale parts $\Delta f$, $\Delta h$, and $\Delta i$ are provided in the ancillary file Deltartilde3.txt in terms of renormalized master integrals. The calculation is verified by cancellation of all $1/\epsilon^n$ poles, independent cancellation of the QCD gauge-fixing parameter, and the renormalization-group identity (3.14). The author concludes that including this contribution shifts the benchmark Higgs VEV downward by about 3.5 MeV and reduces the residual scale dependence of $G_F$ to below $\pm 2\times 10^{-6}$.

Load-bearing premise

The sub-MeV theoretical-uncertainty claim assumes that the small residual scale dependence of $G_F$ between 90 and 250 GeV is a faithful measure of all omitted higher-order and non-leading three-loop contributions; the paper itself cautions that the true error could be larger than this scale-dependence estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For fixed on-shell inputs, the extracted $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ Higgs VEV at $Q=172.4$ GeV is about 3.5 MeV lower than the previous two-loop value.
  • The residual renormalization-scale dependence of $G_F$ drops to less than $\pm 2\times 10^{-6}$ over $90$-$250$ GeV, about an order of magnitude smaller than the complete two-loop result.
  • The theoretical uncertainty in the VEV is estimated to be well under 1 MeV, much smaller than the parametric uncertainty, which is dominated by the top-quark mass at roughly 10.8 MeV per GeV in $M_t$.
  • For fixed $M_Z$, including the new three-loop term raises the predicted $W$-boson mass by about 0.5 MeV, leaving the pure-$\overline{\rm{MS}}$ prediction between the on-shell and hybrid-scheme results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the residual-scale-dependence reasoning is sound, then the missing electroweak-suppressed three-loop terms should contribute less than roughly one part in $10^6$ to $G_F$; computing those terms directly would convert this expectation into a tested result.
  • Applying the same master-integral machinery to the $W$- and $Z$-boson pole masses would give an independent observable whose scale dependence checks the sub-MeV uncertainty claim.
  • The pure-scalar part $\Delta j$ could be evaluated separately by a different method, providing a cross-check of the two-scale master-integral evaluations that carry $\Delta f$, $\Delta h$, and $\Delta i$.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the leading three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the pure MS, tadpole-free scheme, in the gaugeless limit of eq. (1.11) where the QCD coupling, top-quark Yukawa, and Higgs self-coupling are treated as large compared to the electroweak gauge couplings. The calculation is carried out by reducing the relevant three-loop W-boson self-energy vacuum diagrams to a set of master integrals, and the final result is decomposed into ten color/family structures (eq. (2.21)), with explicit analytic expressions for six of them and the remaining two-scale master-integral expressions provided in the ancillary file Deltartilde3.txt. The paper reports strong internal consistency checks: cancellation of 1/epsilon poles for each of the ten parts, cancellation of QCD gauge-parameter dependence, renormalization-group invariance according to eq. (3.14), cancellation of Goldstone-boson singularities, and numerical finiteness at special thresholds. Using a benchmark input set, the author finds that including the new three-loop contributions lowers the extracted Higgs VEV by about 3.5 MeV, reduces the residual renormalization-scale dependence of GF to less than +/-2e-6 between 90 and 250 GeV, and changes the predicted W mass by about 0.5 MeV.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is a substantial technical advance: it provides the first three-loop leading contributions to GF in the pure MS tadpole-free scheme, with explicit results that can be used in the SMDR code and in matching calculations. The internal checks described in Section II are extensive and give strong evidence that the computed leading coefficients are correct: independent pole cancellations for each color structure, gauge-parameter cancellation in the QCD sector, an RG-invariance check, and removal of Goldstone-boson singularities are all nontrivial and mutually supportive. The availability of analytic expressions for most contributions, plus the ancillary file and the open-source SMDR implementation, enhances reproducibility. However, the advertised theoretical-uncertainty claim, namely that the residual scale dependence implies a VEV theory error 'well under 1 MeV', is not established by the evidence presented. The residual-scale-dependence heuristic is a lower bound: it does not probe the constant part of omitted terms, and the numerical hierarchy of the gaugeless limit is marginal at the benchmark point.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV and abstract] The claim that the residual Q-dependence of GF (less than +/-2e-6 over 90-250 GeV) 'corresponds to a theoretical uncertainty in the VEV that is well under 1 MeV' is not supported. Residual renormalization-scale dependence is a lower-bound diagnostic: it says nothing about the constant part of omitted higher-order terms. At the benchmark parameter values in eqs. (3.22)-(3.27), one has g^2 = 0.419, y_t^2 = 0.867, and lambda = 0.126, so the gaugeless hierarchy of eq. (1.11) is numerically marginal: g^2/y_t^2 = 0.48 and lambda/g^2 = 0.30. Omitted three-loop terms of order g^2 y_t^4 are therefore comparable in size to the included y_t^6 terms (ratio g^2/y_t^2 ~ 0.48) and could shift v by an amount of order 1 MeV or more without being visible in the residual scale dependence. The author's own caveat in Sec. IV that 'the true theoretical error could be larger than indicated by the residual scale dependence' concedes exactly this point. The abstract and Sec. IV should either remove the 'well under 1 MeV' claim or replace it with a bound that accounts for the constant part of the omitted contributions.
  2. [Sec. III, eqs. (3.22)-(3.27)] The numerical application of the gaugeless-limit result to the Standard Model benchmark is not accompanied by any estimate of the omitted O(g^2 y_t^4) and O(g'^2 y_t^4) three-loop contributions. Because the expansion parameter of the gaugeless limit is not numerically small at the benchmark, the statement in the introduction that the calculation is 'exact' in the limit (1.11) is correct formally, but the paper should make explicit that the numerical hierarchy is only moderately satisfied and should quantify the expected size of the leading omitted terms, e.g., by comparing g^2 y_t^4 to y_t^6 at the benchmark scales. Without such an estimate, the 3.5 MeV shift in v and the 0.5 MeV shift in M_W are presented with more numerical authority than the approximation warrants.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. I] There are typographical slips in the extracted preprint text: 'deca y' should be 'decay' and 'DeKa lb' should be 'DeKalb'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 3.1] The axis label 'GFermi x 10^5 [GeV^-2]' is unclear; please use a standard notation such as 'G_F × 10^5 [GeV^{-2}]' and state explicitly in the caption that the plotted quantity is the MS-scheme Fermi constant.
  3. [Eq. (2.21) and Sec. III] It would improve readability to state explicitly which of the ten contributions Delta a through Delta j are displayed in the main text and which are relegated to the ancillary file; currently the reader must infer this from the text.
  4. [Eq. (3.14)] The RG-invariance equation would benefit from a sentence clarifying that the sum over X includes g and g' for ell = 1,2 but only v^2, g3, yt, lambda for ell = 3, as stated in the text; this is a minor notational point.
  5. [Reference [45]] The entry for SMDR in the bibliography contains a URL and a sentence about the latest version of the code; this material would be better placed in a data-availability section or footnote rather than in the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new three-loop result is an independent diagram computation, and the scale-dependence comparison is an explicitly stated consistency check rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central claim is the computation of the leading three-loop contribution to Delta-r-tilde(3) in the gaugeless limit, eq. (1.11). The derivation is a self-contained diagram calculation: bare diagrams are reduced with KIRA to master integrals, expanded in epsilon, renormalized using standard MS counterterms, and checked by cancellation of 1/epsilon poles, by cancellation of gauge-fixing dependence, by Goldstone-boson mass resummation, and by the renormalization-group identity eq. (3.14). The explicit results in eqs. (3.3)-(3.10) are new functions of t and h, not algebraic rearrangements of the input definitions. The 1- and 2-loop pieces taken from ref. [45] are prior independently published results and do not contain the 3-loop quantity being derived. Self-citations to the author's earlier work appear, but they are citations to separately established methods and results (master integrals, effective potential, resummation), and the paper's own consistency checks verify their application; they are not unverified load-bearing premises. The benchmark parameter set is indeed fixed so that GF reproduces its experimental value at Q = 172.4 GeV, as the paper states explicitly, so the small residual scale dependence in Figure 3.1 is a test of internal consistency between the GF formula and the SM beta functions, not a quantity fitted from the GF data. The paper also honestly notes in Sec. IV that 'the true theoretical error could be larger than indicated by the residual scale dependence,' which is a limitation on the uncertainty claim but not circularity. No equation or step was found in which the prediction reduces by construction to its input.

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

No free parameters are introduced by this paper; the MS parameters are external inputs fixed by prior fits. The calculation rests on standard perturbative QFT assumptions and on prior results for the scheme, the beta functions, and the master integrals, all of which are cited. No new particles or entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The factorization of the muon decay rate in eq. (1.1), with GF defined via the muon lifetime, is the correct low-energy description of the Standard Model.
    The entire paper relates GF to the MS vacuum expectation value through this relation; if the factorization missed terms, the definition of Delta r-tilde would change.
  • domain assumption The tadpole-free pure MS scheme, expanding about the minimum of the Landau-gauge effective potential, is a valid scheme for the Fermi constant, and the Landau-gauge restriction does not affect physical results.
    Refs. [45, 48] establish the scheme; this paper relies on that definition of v and on the resummation of Goldstone-boson contributions.
  • domain assumption In the gaugeless limit of eq. (1.11), the complete leading 3-loop contribution to Delta r-tilde comes only from zero-momentum W self-energy diagrams; box diagrams and internal electroweak vector propagators are power-suppressed.
    This limit defines which diagrams are included; if the limit were not numerically valid, the result would be an incomplete three-loop contribution.
  • domain assumption The counterterm coefficients and beta functions in eqs. (2.5)-(2.20) and from refs. [78-108] are correct.
    These are used for renormalization and for the RG-invariance check in eq. (3.14); an error in the beta functions would propagate into the final expressions and the scale-dependence plot.
  • domain assumption The master integrals defined in ref. [65] and evaluated by 3VIL are correct, including the epsilon-finite basis choices and the identities in the ancillary file.
    The final formulas are written in terms of these integrals, and the numerical evaluation of GF relies on 3VIL's series and Runge-Kutta results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5NBILAJ

@misc{pith2026250715946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the $\overline\rmMS$ scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5NBILAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15946}
}
abstract

I present the leading 3-loop contributions to the Fermi decay constant in the Standard Model, using the tadpole-free pure $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ scheme. The calculation is exact in the limit in which the QCD coupling, the top-quark Yukawa coupling, and the square root of the Higgs self-coupling are all treated as large compared to the electroweak gauge couplings. The effect of the 3-loop contribution is to decrease the estimate of the Higgs VEV, for fixed on-shell inputs, by about 3.5 MeV. The renormalization scale dependence of the computed Fermi constant is greatly reduced compared to the previously known complete 2-loop order result, and as a fraction is now less than $\pm 2 \times 10^{-6}$ for renormalization scales between 90 and 250 GeV. This corresponds to a theoretical uncertainty in the VEV that is well under 1 MeV, and much smaller than the current parametric uncertainties coming mostly from the top-quark mass. I also comment on the impact on the precise prediction of the $W$-boson mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15946 by the authors.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. FIG. 2.1: Some sample 3-loop diagrams contributing, as labeled, to ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. FIG. 2.2: Topologies for the 1-loop, 2-loop, and 3-loop master vacu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. FIG. 3.1: The Fermi decay constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Weinberg Angle, Neutron Abundance in BBN, and Lifetime

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Small shifts in the Weinberg angle change the effective Fermi constant enough to visibly alter the neutron abundance at BBN onset and the neutron lifetime in the early-Universe plasma.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    The Mass Ratio m(c) / m(b) in Semileptonic B Decays,

    Y. Nir, “The Mass Ratio m(c) / m(b) in Semileptonic B Decays,” Phys. Lett. B 221, 184-190 (1989) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91495-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91495-0 1989

  2. [3]

    Radiative corrections to Fermi interac tions,

    (2.20) In the Standard Model one has CG = Nc = 3 is the number of colors, and CF = 4/3 and TF = 1/2 are the quadratic Casimir and Dynkin index of the fundamenta l representation of SU (3)c, and ng = 3 is the number of generations. In order to facilitate maximally informative checks, the fin al result for the 3-loop contribu- tion ∆˜r(3) is split into 10 di...

    1959

  3. [4]

    On the precise determinatio n of the Fermi coupling constant from the muon lifetime,

    T. van Ritbergen and R. G. Stuart, “On the precise determinatio n of the Fermi coupling constant from the muon lifetime,” Nucl. Phys. B 564, 343-390 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9904240 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2000

  4. [5]

    Second order correctio ns to the muon lifetime and the semilep- tonic B decay,

    M. Steinhauser and T. Seidensticker, “Second order correctio ns to the muon lifetime and the semilep- tonic B decay,” Phys. Lett. B 467, 271-278 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9909436 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1999

  5. [6]

    Mass effects in muon and semileptonic b — > c decays,

    A. Pak and A. Czarnecki, “Mass effects in muon and semileptonic b — > c decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 241807 (2008) [arXiv:0803.0960 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [7]

    Considerations concerning t he radiative corrections to muon decay in the Fermi and standard theories,

    A. Ferroglia, G. Ossola and A. Sirlin, “Considerations concerning t he radiative corrections to muon decay in the Fermi and standard theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 560, 23-32 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905442 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [8]

    Third order correc tions to the semileptonic b →c and the muon decays,

    M. Fael, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser, “Third order correc tions to the semileptonic b →c and the muon decays,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.1, 016003 (2021) [arXiv:2011.13654 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    Three-loop correctio ns to the muon and heavy quark decay rates,

    M. Czakon, A. Czarnecki and M. Dowling, “Three-loop correctio ns to the muon and heavy quark decay rates,” Phys. Rev. D 103, L111301 (2021) [arXiv:2104.05804 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 107 references
  1. [10]

    Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determinat ion of the Fermi Constant to Part-per-Million Precision,

    D. M. Webber et al. [MuLan], “Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determinat ion of the Fermi Constant to Part-per-Million Precision,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 041803 (2011) [arXiv:1010.0991 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Detailed Report of the MuLan Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant,

    V. Tishchenko et al. [MuLan], “Detailed Report of the MuLan Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant,” Phys. Rev . D 87, no.5, 052003 (2013) [arXiv:1211.0960 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  4. [13]

    Radiative Corrections in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory: A Simple Renormalization Frame- work,

    A. Sirlin, “Radiative Corrections in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory: A Simple Renormalization Frame- work,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 971-981 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.971

    1980 doi

  5. [14]

    Radiative Corrections to Neutrino I nduced Neutral Current Phenomena in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory,

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, “Radiative Corrections to Neutrino I nduced Neutral Current Phenomena in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2695 (1980) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 31, 213 (1985)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2695

    1980 doi

  6. [15]

    Radiative Corrections to Muon-neu trino N — > mu- X and their Effect on the Determination of rho**2 and sin**2-Theta(W),

    A. Sirlin and W. J. Marciano, “Radiative Corrections to Muon-neu trino N — > mu- X and their Effect on the Determination of rho**2 and sin**2-Theta(W),” Nucl. Phys. B 189, 442-460 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90574-5

    1981 doi

  7. [16]

    Two Loop Correction to We ak Interaction Parameters Due to a 17 Heavy Fermion Doublet,

    J. J. van der Bij and F. Hoogeveen, “Two Loop Correction to We ak Interaction Parameters Due to a 17 Heavy Fermion Doublet,” Nucl. Phys. B 283, 477-492 (1987) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90284-7

    1987 doi

  8. [17]

    Virtual Very Heavy Top Effec ts in LEP / SLC Precision Measure- ments,

    A. Djouadi and C. Verzegnassi, “Virtual Very Heavy Top Effec ts in LEP / SLC Precision Measure- ments,” Phys. Lett. B 195, 265-271 (1987) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)91206-8

    1987 doi

  9. [18]

    O(alpha alpha-s) Vacuum Polarization Functions of the Standard Model Gauge Bosons,

    A. Djouadi, “O(alpha alpha-s) Vacuum Polarization Functions of the Standard Model Gauge Bosons,” Nuovo Cim. A 100, 357 (1988) doi:10.1007/BF02812964

    1988 doi

  10. [19]

    Two Loop Corrections to the Vacuum Polarizations in Perturbative QCD,

    B. A. Kniehl, “Two Loop Corrections to the Vacuum Polarizations in Perturbative QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B 347, 86-104 (1990) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90552-O

    1990 doi

  11. [20]

    ∆ r beyond one loop,

    F. Halzen and B. A. Kniehl, “∆ r beyond one loop,” Nucl. Phys. B 353, 567-590 (1991) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90319-S

    1991 doi

  12. [21]

    R adiative correction effects of a very heavy top,

    R. Barbieri, M. Beccaria, P. Ciafaloni, G. Curci and A. Vicere, “R adiative correction effects of a very heavy top,” Phys. Lett. B 288, 95-98 (1992) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 312, 511-511 (1993)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9205238 [hep-ph]]

    1992 arXiv

  13. [22]

    T wo loop heavy top effects in the Standard Model,

    R. Barbieri, M. Beccaria, P. Ciafaloni, G. Curci and A. Vicere, “T wo loop heavy top effects in the Standard Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 409, 105-127 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90448-X

    1993 doi

  14. [23]

    Two loop heav y top corrections to the rho parameter: A Simple formula valid for arbitrary Higgs mass,

    J. Fleischer, O. V. Tarasov and F. Jegerlehner, “Two loop heav y top corrections to the rho parameter: A Simple formula valid for arbitrary Higgs mass,” Phys. Lett. B 319, 249-256 (1993) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(93)90810-5

    1993 doi

  15. [24]

    Electroweak gauge bosons selfen ergies: Complete QCD corrections,

    A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, “Electroweak gauge bosons selfen ergies: Complete QCD corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 49, 3499-3511 (1994) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 53, 4111 (1996)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9309298 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Two loop heavy top effects on the m(Z) - m(W) interdepen- dence,

    G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and A. Vicini, “Two loop heavy top effects on the m(Z) - m(W) interdepen- dence,” Phys. Lett. B 383, 219-226 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9603374 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Precise calculation of M(W) , sin**2 theta(W) (M(Z)), and sin**2 theta(eff)(lept),

    G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and A. Sirlin, “Precise calculation of M(W) , sin**2 theta(W) (M(Z)), and sin**2 theta(eff)(lept),” Phys. Lett. B 394, 188-194 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9611363 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Complete O(N(f) α2) weak contributions to the muon lifetime,

    P. Malde and R. G. Stuart, “Complete O(N(f) α2) weak contributions to the muon lifetime,” Nucl. Phys. B 552, 41-66 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903403 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Complete fermionic two loop results for the M(W) - M(Z) interdependence,

    A. Freitas, W. Hollik, W. Walter and G. Weiglein, “Complete fermionic two loop results for the M(W) - M(Z) interdependence,” Phys. Lett. B 495, 338-346 (2000) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 570, no.3-4, 265 (2003)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0007091 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Electroweak two lo op corrections to the MW − MZ mass correlation in the standard model,

    A. Freitas, W. Hollik, W. Walter and G. Weiglein, “Electroweak two lo op corrections to the MW − MZ mass correlation in the standard model,” Nucl. Phys. B 632, 189-218 (2002) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 666, 305-307 (2003)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0202131 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Complete two loop bosonic contribut ions to the muon lifetime in the standard model,

    M. Awramik and M. Czakon, “Complete two loop bosonic contribut ions to the muon lifetime in the standard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 241801 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0208113 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Two loop bosonic electroweak c orrections to the muon lifetime and M(Z) - M(W) interdependence,

    A. Onishchenko and O. Veretin, “Two loop bosonic electroweak c orrections to the muon lifetime and M(Z) - M(W) interdependence,” Phys. Lett. B 551, 111-114 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0209010 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Boson ic corrections to Delta r at the two loop level,

    M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Onishchenko and O. Veretin, “Boson ic corrections to Delta r at the two loop level,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 053004 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0209084 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Complete two loop electroweak cont ributions to the muon lifetime in the standard model,

    M. Awramik and M. Czakon, “Complete two loop electroweak cont ributions to the muon lifetime in the standard model,” Phys. Lett. B 568, 48-54 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0305248 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  25. [34]

    0( αα2 s) correction to the electroweak ρ param- eter,

    L. Avdeev, J. Fleischer, S. Mikhailov and O. Tarasov, “0( αα2 s) correction to the electroweak ρ param- eter,” Phys. Lett. B 336, 560-566 (1994) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 349, 597-598 (1995)] [arXiv:hep- ph/9406363 [hep-ph]]

    1994

  26. [35]

    Corrections of order O(GF M 2 t α2 s) to the ρ param- eter,

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, “Corrections of order O(GF M 2 t α2 s) to the ρ param- eter,” Phys. Lett. B 351, 331-338 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9502291 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  27. [36]

    QCD correct ions from top quark to relations be- tween electroweak parameters to order alpha-s**2,

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, “QCD correct ions from top quark to relations be- tween electroweak parameters to order alpha-s**2,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3394-3397 (1995) [arXiv:hep- ph/9504413 [hep-ph]]

    1995

  28. [37]

    Three loop leading top mass contributions to the rho parameter,

    J. J. van der Bij, K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Faisst, G. Jikia and T. Seide nsticker, “Three loop leading top mass contributions to the rho parameter,” Phys. Lett. B 498, 156-162 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0011373 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Three loop top quark contributions to the rho parameter,

    M. Faisst, J. H. Kuhn, T. Seidensticker and O. Veretin, “Three loop top quark contributions to the rho parameter,” Nucl. Phys. B 665, 649-662 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302275 [hep-ph]]. 18

    2003 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Four-loop singlet contribut ion to the rho parameter,

    Y. Schroder and M. Steinhauser, “Four-loop singlet contribut ion to the rho parameter,” Phys. Lett. B 622, 124-130 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0504055 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Four-Loop QCD Corrections to the Rho Parameter,

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Faisst, J. H. Kuhn, P. Maierhofer and C. St urm, “Four-Loop QCD Corrections to the Rho Parameter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 102003 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605201 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Single scale tadpoles and O(G(F m (t)**2 alpha(s)**3)) corrections to the rho parameter,

    R. Boughezal and M. Czakon, “Single scale tadpoles and O(G(F m (t)**2 alpha(s)**3)) corrections to the rho parameter,” Nucl. Phys. B 755, 221-238 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0606232 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Precise Pred iction for the W Boson Mass in the Standard Model,

    M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and G. Weiglein, “Precise Pred iction for the W Boson Mass in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 69, 053006 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311148 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  34. [43]

    The mW − mZ interdependence in the Standard Model: a new scrutiny,

    G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and P. P. Giardino, “The mW − mZ interdependence in the Standard Model: a new scrutiny,” JHEP 05, 154 (2015) [arXiv:1411.7040 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Two-loop electrow eak threshold corrections in the Standard Model,

    B. A. Kniehl, A. F. Pikelner and O. L. Veretin, “Two-loop electrow eak threshold corrections in the Standard Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 896, 19-51 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.04.010 [arXiv:1503.02138 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [45]

    mr: a C++ library fo r the matching and running of the Standard Model parameters,

    B. A. Kniehl, A. F. Pikelner and O. L. Veretin, “mr: a C++ library fo r the matching and running of the Standard Model parameters,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 206, 84-96 (2016) [arXiv:1601.08143 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Standard model paramete rs in the tadpole-free pure MS scheme,

    S. P. Martin and D. G. Robertson, “Standard model paramete rs in the tadpole-free pure MS scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.7, 073004 (2019) [arXiv:1907.02500 [hep-ph]]. The latest version of the SMDR code can be obtained from https://github.com/davidgrobertson/SMDR or https://www...

    2019 arXiv

  38. [47]

    The Standard model effe ctive potential at two loops,

    C. Ford, I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, “The Standard model effe ctive potential at two loops,” Nucl. Phys. B 387, 373-390 (1992) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 504, 551-552 (1997)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0111190 [hep-ph]]

    1992 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Three-Loop Standard Model Effective Potentia l at Leading Order in Strong and Top Yukawa Couplings,

    S. P. Martin, “Three-Loop Standard Model Effective Potentia l at Leading Order in Strong and Top Yukawa Couplings,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no.1, 013003 (2014) [arXiv:1310.7553 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Effective potential at three loops,

    S. P. Martin, “Effective potential at three loops,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no.9, 096005 (2017) [arXiv:1709.02397 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Reno rmalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,

    S. P. Martin, “Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Reno rmalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 116003 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0111209 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Three-loop effective potential for softly broke n supersymmetry,

    S. P. Martin, “Three-loop effective potential for softly broke n supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.1, 015019 (2024) [arXiv:2311.09372 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Four-Loop Standard Model Effective Potential at Leading Order in QCD,

    S. P. Martin, “Four-Loop Standard Model Effective Potential at Leading Order in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no.5, 054029 (2015) [arXiv:1508.00912 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Pole Mass of the W Boson at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M S Scheme,

    S. P. Martin, “Pole Mass of the W Boson at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M S Scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 91, no.11, 114003 (2015) [arXiv:1503.03782 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Z-Boson Pole Mass at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M S Scheme,

    S. P. Martin, “ Z-Boson Pole Mass at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M S Scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no.1, 014026 (2015) [arXiv:1505.04833 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Three-loop QCD corrections to the electroweak boson masses,

    S. P. Martin, “Three-loop QCD corrections to the electroweak boson masses,” Phys. Rev. D 106, no.1, 013007 (2022) [arXiv:2203.05042 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Higgs boson mass in the Stan dard Model at two-loop order and beyond,

    S. P. Martin and D. G. Robertson, “Higgs boson mass in the Stan dard Model at two-loop order and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no.7, 073010 (2014) [arXiv:1407.4336 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Top-quark pole mass in the tadpole-free M S scheme,

    S. P. Martin, “Top-quark pole mass in the tadpole-free M S scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.9, 094017 (2016) [arXiv:1604.01134 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Matching relations for decoupling in the Standard Model at two loops and beyond,

    S. P. Martin, “Matching relations for decoupling in the Standard Model at two loops and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D 99, no.3, 033007 (2019) [arXiv:1812.04100 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Two-loop effective potential for g eneralized gauge fixing,

    S. P. Martin and H. H. Patel, “Two-loop effective potential for g eneralized gauge fixing,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no.7, 076008 (2018) [arXiv:1808.07615 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Standard model at 200 GeV,

    Z. Alam and S. P. Martin, “Standard model at 200 GeV,” Phys. Re v. D 107, no.1, 013010 (2023) [arXiv:2211.08576 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Taming the Goldstone contributions to the effect ive potential,

    S. P. Martin, “Taming the Goldstone contributions to the effect ive potential,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no.1, 016013 (2014) [arXiv:1406.2355 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Taming Infrar ed Divergences in the Effective Potential,

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa and T. Konstandin, “Taming Infrar ed Divergences in the Effective Potential,” JHEP 08, 034 (2014) [arXiv:1406.2652 [hep-ph]]. 19

    2014 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Kira—A Feynman int egral reduction program,

    P. Maierh¨ ofer, J. Usovitsch and P. Uwer, “Kira—A Feynman int egral reduction program,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 230, 99-112 (2018) [arXiv:1705.05610 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Kira 1.2 Release Notes,

    P. Maierh¨ ofer and J. Usovitsch, “Kira 1.2 Release Notes,” [arXiv :1812.01491 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  56. [65]

    Int egral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods,

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer and J. Usovitsch, “Int egral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 266, 108024 (2021) [arXiv:2008.06494 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Evaluation of the general 3 -loop vacuum Feynman integral,

    S. P. Martin and D. G. Robertson, “Evaluation of the general 3 -loop vacuum Feynman integral,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no.1, 016008 (2017) [arXiv:1610.07720 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [67]

    epsilo n-finite basis of master integrals for the integration-by-parts method,

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Faisst, C. Sturm and M. Tentyukov, “epsilo n-finite basis of master integrals for the integration-by-parts method,” Nucl. Phys. B 742, 208-229 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601165 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Three loop on-shell charge renormalizatio n without integration: Lambda-MS (QED) to four loops,

    D. J. Broadhurst, “Three loop on-shell charge renormalizatio n without integration: Lambda-MS (QED) to four loops,” Z. Phys. C 54, 599-606 (1992) doi:10.1007/BF01559486

    1992 doi

  60. [69]

    Recurrence relations for three loop prototyp es of bubble diagrams with a mass,

    L. V. Avdeev, “Recurrence relations for three loop prototyp es of bubble diagrams with a mass,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 98, 15-19 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9512442 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Massive three-loop Feynman diagrams red ucible to SC* primitives of algebras of the sixth root of unity,

    D. J. Broadhurst, “Massive three-loop Feynman diagrams red ucible to SC* primitives of algebras of the sixth root of unity,” Eur. Phys. J. C 8, 311-333 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9803091 [hep-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Single mass scale diagrams: Con struction of a basis for the epsilon expansion,

    J. Fleischer and M. Y. Kalmykov, “Single mass scale diagrams: Con struction of a basis for the epsilon expansion,” Phys. Lett. B 470, 168-176 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910223 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  63. [72]

    MATAD: A Program package for the computa tion of MAssive TADpoles,

    M. Steinhauser, “MATAD: A Program package for the computa tion of MAssive TADpoles,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 134, 335-364 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0009029 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  64. [73]

    High-precision epsilon expansion s of single-mass-scale four-loop vacuum bubbles,

    Y. Schroder and A. Vuorinen, “High-precision epsilon expansion s of single-mass-scale four-loop vacuum bubbles,” JHEP 06, 051 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0503209 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Massive Feynman diagra ms and inverse binomial sums,

    A. I. Davydychev and M. Y. Kalmykov, “Massive Feynman diagra ms and inverse binomial sums,” Nucl. Phys. B 699, 3-64 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0303162 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  66. [75]

    About higher order epsilon-expansion of some massive two- and three-loop master- integrals,

    M. Y. Kalmykov, “About higher order epsilon-expansion of some massive two- and three-loop master- integrals,” Nucl. Phys. B 718, 276-292 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0503070 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Three- loop on-shell Feynman integrals with two masses,

    S. Bekavac, A. G. Grozin, D. Seidel and V. A. Smirnov, “Three- loop on-shell Feynman integrals with two masses,” Nucl. Phys. B 819, 183-200 (2009) [arXiv:0903.4760 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Moments o f heavy quark correlators with two masses: exact mass dependence to three loops,

    J. Grigo, J. Hoff, P. Marquard and M. Steinhauser, “Moments o f heavy quark correlators with two masses: exact mass dependence to three loops,” Nucl. Phys. B 864, 580-596 (2012) [arXiv:1206.3418 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Renormalized ε-finite master integrals and their virtues: The three-loop self-ene rgy case,

    S. P. Martin, “Renormalized ε-finite master integrals and their virtues: The three-loop self-ene rgy case,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.5, 056014 (2022) [arXiv:2112.07694 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Two Loop Diagrams in Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. R. T. Jones, “Two Loop Diagrams in Yang-Mills Theory,” Nucl. Ph ys. B 75, 531 (1974) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90093-5

    1974 doi

  71. [80]

    Asymptotic Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theorie s to Two Loop Order,

    W. E. Caswell, “Asymptotic Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theorie s to Two Loop Order,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 244 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.244

    1974 doi

  72. [81]

    The Two Loop beta Function for a G(1) x G(2) G auge Theory,

    D. R. T. Jones, “The Two Loop beta Function for a G(1) x G(2) G auge Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 25, 581 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.581

    1982 doi

  73. [82]

    Two Loop Renormalization Gr oup Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Gr oup Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,” Nucl. Phys . B 222, 83-103 (1983) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90610-7

    1983 doi

  74. [84]

    Two Loop Renormalization Gr oup Equations in a General Quan- tum Field Theory. 3. Scalar Quartic Couplings,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Gr oup Equations in a General Quan- tum Field Theory. 3. Scalar Quartic Couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B 249, 70-92 (1985) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(85)90040-9

    1985 doi

  75. [85]

    Two loop renormalization group equations in the standard model,

    M. x. Luo and Y. Xiao, “Two loop renormalization group equations in the standard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 011601 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0207271 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  76. [86]

    The Gell-Man n-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation,

    O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, “The Gell-Man n-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation,” Phys. Lett. B 93, 429-432 (1980) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90358-5

    1980 doi

  77. [87]

    The Three loop QCD Beta f unction and anomalous dimensions,

    S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, “The Three loop QCD Beta f unction and anomalous dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 303, 334-336 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9302208 [hep-ph]]. 20

    1993 arXiv

  78. [88]

    Gauge Coupling Bet a Functions in the Standard Model to Three Loops,

    L. N. Mihaila, J. Salomon and M. Steinhauser, “Gauge Coupling Bet a Functions in the Standard Model to Three Loops,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 151602 (2012) [arXiv:1201.5868 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  79. [89]

    Renormalization co nstants and beta functions for the gauge couplings of the Standard Model to three-loop order,

    L. N. Mihaila, J. Salomon and M. Steinhauser, “Renormalization co nstants and beta functions for the gauge couplings of the Standard Model to three-loop order,” P hys. Rev. D 86, 096008 (2012) [arXiv:1208.3357 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  80. [90]

    Anomalous dimensions of gauge fields and gauge coupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Anomalous dimensions of gauge fields and gauge coupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,” JHEP 01, 017 (2013) [arXiv:1210.6873 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [91]

    The Fo ur loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics,

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, “The Fo ur loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics,” Phys. Lett. B 400, 379-384 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9701390 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  82. [92]

    The Four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous d imensions,

    M. Czakon, “The Four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous d imensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 710, 485-498 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0411261 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  83. [93]

    Four-loop strong coupling beta-function in the Standard Model,

    A. V. Bednyakov and A. F. Pikelner, “Four-loop strong coupling beta-function in the Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B 762, 151-156 (2016) [arXiv:1508.02680 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  84. [94]

    On the four-loop strong c oupling beta-function in the SM,

    A. V. Bednyakov and A. F. Pikelner, “On the four-loop strong c oupling beta-function in the SM,” EPJ Web Conf. 125, 04008 (2016) [arXiv:1609.02597 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  85. [95]

    Top-Yukawa effects on the β-function of the strong coupling in the SM at four-loop level,

    M. F. Zoller, “Top-Yukawa effects on the β-function of the strong coupling in the SM at four-loop level,” JHEP 02, 095 (2016) [arXiv:1508.03624 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  86. [96]

    Weyl Consistency Conditions and γ5,

    C. Poole and A. E. Thomsen, “Weyl Consistency Conditions and γ5,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, no.4, 041602 (2019) [arXiv:1901.02749 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [97]

    Gauge Coupling β Functions to Four-Loop Order in the Standard Model,

    J. Davies, F. Herren, C. Poole, M. Steinhauser and A. E. Thoms en, “Gauge Coupling β Functions to Four-Loop Order in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.7, 071803 (2020) [arXiv:1912.07624 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [98]

    Five-Loop Runn ing of the QCD Coupling Constant,

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, “Five-Loop Runn ing of the QCD Coupling Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no.8, 082002 (2017) [arXiv:1606.08659 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  89. [99]

    The five-loop beta function of Yang-Mills theory with fermions,

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, “The five-loop beta function of Yang-Mills theory with fermions,” JHEP 02, 090 (2017) [arXiv:1701.01404 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  90. [100]

    The five- loop Beta function for a general gauge group and anomalous dimensions beyond Feynman gauge,

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard and Y. Schr¨ oder, “The five- loop Beta function for a general gauge group and anomalous dimensions beyond Feynman gauge,” JHEP 10, 166 (2017) [arXiv:1709.07718 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [101]

    Three-loop \beta-functions for top-Yukawa and the Higgs self- interaction in the Standard Model,

    K. G. Chetyrkin and M. F. Zoller, “Three-loop \beta-functions for top-Yukawa and the Higgs self- interaction in the Standard Model,” JHEP 06, 033 (2012) [arXiv:1205.2892 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  92. [102]

    Yukawa c oupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Yukawa c oupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,” Phys. Lett. B 722, 336-340 (2013) [arXiv:1212.6829 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [103]

    Three-lo op SM beta-functions for matrix Yukawa couplings,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Three-lo op SM beta-functions for matrix Yukawa couplings,” Phys. Lett. B 737, 129-134 (2014) [arXiv:1406.7171 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  94. [104]

    Quark mass anomalous dimension to O(alpha- s**4),

    K. G. Chetyrkin, “Quark mass anomalous dimension to O(alpha- s**4),” Phys. Lett. B 404, 161-165 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9703278 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  95. [105]

    The 4 -loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass,

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen, “The 4 -loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass,” Phys. Lett. B 405, 327-333 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9703284 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  96. [106]

    Quark Mass an d Field Anomalous Dimensions to O(α5 s),

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, “Quark Mass an d Field Anomalous Dimensions to O(α5 s),” JHEP 10, 076 (2014) [arXiv:1402.6611 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  97. [107]

    β-function for the Higgs self-interaction in the Standard Model at three-loop level,

    K. G. Chetyrkin and M. F. Zoller, “ β-function for the Higgs self-interaction in the Standard Model at three-loop level,” JHEP 04, 091 (2013) [erratum: JHEP 09, 155 (2013)] [arXiv:1303.2890 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  98. [108]

    Higgs self -coupling beta-function in the Standard Model at three loops,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Higgs self -coupling beta-function in the Standard Model at three loops,” Nucl. Phys. B 875, 552-565 (2013) [arXiv:1303.4364 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  99. [109]

    Leading QCD-induced four-lo op contributions to the β-function of the Higgs self-coupling in the SM and vacuum stability,

    K. G. Chetyrkin and M. F. Zoller, “Leading QCD-induced four-lo op contributions to the β-function of the Higgs self-coupling in the SM and vacuum stability,” JHEP 06, 175 (2016) [arXiv:1604.00853 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.