Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The electroweak corrections to Higgs-pair production in gluon fusion split cleanly into top-Yukawa and light-quark parts that together reduce the cross section by 3.4%.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The top-Yukawa and light-quark electroweak corrections to Higgs-pair production at the LHC shift the total cross section by about −3.4%, with differential corrections of 5–10% at high invariant mass.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, ambitious two-loop calculation whose central numbers are not yet independently validated—worth refereeing, but the authors should be pushed to compare with [27] and [28] and to clarify the sign structure. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.14823 v1 pith:BIIXFSJD submitted 2025-12-16 hep-ph hep-ex

Higgs-Pair Production via Gluon Fusion: Top-Yukawa- and light-quark-induced electroweak Corrections

Arunima Bhattacharya , Francisco Campanario , Sauro Carlotti , Jamie Chang , Javier Mazzitelli , Margarete M\"uhlleitner , Jonathan Ronca , Michael Spira This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords Higgs pair productiongluon fusionelectroweak correctionstop-Yukawa couplingtwo-loop calculationslight-quark loopstrilinear Higgs self-couplingLHC phenomenology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 calculates the next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs-pair production (gg→HH) from top-Yukawa interactions and from light-quark loops. It isolates the top-Yukawa piece using the gaugeless limit, where the would-be Goldstone bosons are massless and contribute alongside the Higgs, and it evaluates every two-loop diagram numerically with full top-mass dependence. The central result is quantitative: after convoluting with parton luminosities, the top-Yukawa corrections reduce the total hadronic cross section by 1.9% and the light-quark corrections by 1.5%, a combined 3.4% reduction. This matters because Higgs-pair production is the principal handle on the trilinear Higgs self-coupling, and the HL-LHC aims for theory uncertainties below the few-percent level to match experimental precision.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the electroweak corrections to gg→HH admit a clean, physically transparent decomposition: a top-Yukawa-induced part and a light-quark-induced part, each computed at two loops. The top-Yukawa part is dominated by the one-loop-times-one-loop Higgs-exchange contribution and the genuine two-loop boxes, reaching 5–10% in the invariant-mass distribution; the light-quark part is tiny at large MHH and only significant near the production threshold, where the LO amplitude is suppressed by destructive interference. The integrated effect on the total hadronic cross section is −1.9% from the top-Yukawa sector and −1.5% from light quarks, reducing the total by 3.4% when

What carries the argument

The calculation is carried out by projecting the two-loop amplitude onto the two physical form factors F1 and F2, which correspond to the two gluon-fusion tensor structures (helicity-zero and helicity-two). Each diagram is treated with Feynman parametrization, endpoint subtractions to isolate divergences, and integration-by-parts to stabilize the integrals above virtual thresholds. To reach the narrow-width limit, propagator masses are given small imaginary parts and Richardson extrapolations are applied; near the ttbar threshold the extrapolation polynomials are modified because the regulator dependence scales as sqrt(eps) rather than as eps. The top-Yukawa sector is defined in the gaugeles

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the numerical regulator procedure: complex propagator masses plus Richardson extrapolation are assumed to recover the true narrow-width limit at the physical top mass, with the ttbar-threshold dependence following a sqrt(eps) law and the light-quark double boxes evaluated at eps=0.05 in a claimed plateau.

What would settle it

Recompute the total hadronic cross section from the paper's tabulated δ(MHH) interpolation with a standard parton distribution set and compare the invariant-mass distribution to the published complete two-loop electroweak calculation; if the difference exceeds the quoted uncertainties, or if integrating the plotted differential top-Yukawa corrections does not reproduce the quoted −1.9%, the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the 3.4% reduction must be combined with the known QCD corrections, lowering the central value of the gg→HH cross-section prediction at the HL-LHC.
  • The decomposition into top-Yukawa and light-quark pieces provides a way to separate genuine Higgs-sector effects from gauge-boson effects, sharpening the interpretation of a measured Higgs-pair rate.
  • The threshold behaviour—a shoulder rather than a kink at the virtual ttbar threshold, consistent with the P-wave property at LO—gives a characteristic shape that can be searched for in the MHH distribution.
  • The numerical grids interpolated from these results can be used directly in experimental analyses to compare against data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct point-by-point comparison of this decomposition against the complete electroweak two-loop result would test whether the two sectors add up to the full correction; the paper stops short of such a check.
  • The sign difference between the plotted differential top-Yukawa correction and the quoted integrated −1.9% suggests large cancellations; recomputing the integral of the published curves would identify which invariant-mass region drives the net sign.
  • The sqrt-eps Richardson extrapolation near heavy-quark thresholds could be applied to other gluon-fusion processes, such as single-Higgs production, where the same threshold regulator issue arises.
  • The gaugeless-limit setup gives a reusable framework for computing Yukawa-induced corrections in models with extended Higgs sectors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a numerical computation of two classes of two-loop electroweak corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs-pair production, gg→HH: (i) top-Yukawa-induced corrections in the gaugeless limit, including Higgs and Goldstone exchange with full top-mass dependence, and (ii) light-quark-loop induced corrections with W/Z exchange. The authors use Feynman parametrization, endpoint subtractions, integration-by-parts, complex propagator masses, and Richardson extrapolations to evaluate the two-loop form-factor shifts. They report integrated hadronic corrections of −1.9% for the top-Yukawa part, −1.5% for the light-quark part, and −3.4% combined, obtained by interpolating their results into the Hpair code. Validation consists of heavy-top-limit checks at mt=3 TeV (δ1→xt/2, Δ□→4xt) and comparison of the light-quark triangle/four-point diagrams with known single-Higgs results.

Significance. If correct, this work would provide the first complete diagram-class decomposition of the top-Yukawa and light-quark induced electroweak corrections to Higgs-pair production, complementing the complete calculation of Ref. [27] and the Higgs-exchange-only top-Yukawa result of Ref. [28]. The numerical technique is state of the art and builds on the authors' established QCD NLO machinery. The main deliverable, the individual and combined corrections to the total hadronic cross section, is directly relevant for HL-LHC projections. However, the paper's limited validation and an apparent inconsistency between the differential and integrated top-Yukawa results make the central numerical statement unsupported as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figs. 8–10 vs. Eq. (8)] The differential top-Yukawa correction δtop-Yukawa is presented as positive at the 5–10% level for moderate and large MHH and 'larger' near threshold, whereas the integrated hadronic correction is quoted as −1.9%. Since Eq. (8) defines δ as a positive-weighted average over the partonic cross section, a differential distribution that is positive over most of the phase space cannot integrate to a negative total. Please reconcile this sign conflict: either identify the MHH region where δtop-Yukawa is negative and show it in Fig. 10, or correct the quoted integrated value. This is the headline result of the paper and must be internally consistent.
  2. [Section 3.1.1–3.1.2, HTL checks] The only full-regime validation of the top-Yukawa two-loop integrals is that δ1 and Δ□ reproduce the heavy-top-limit constants when mt is artificially set to 3 TeV. This limit is taken from the authors' own Ref. [26] and probes a regime far from the physical top-mass thresholds, where the complex-mass regulator and Richardson extrapolation are benign. The paper cites the complete electroweak calculation [27] and the overlapping top-Yukawa calculation [28] but makes no numerical comparison. A direct breakdown comparison may be nontrivial because of the gaugeless limit and the inclusion of Goldstone exchange, but the paper should either provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., in a kinematic region where the diagram classes can be matched) or explicitly explain why such a comparison is impossible. Without an independent check, the physical-mass results are validated only by the method's in
  3. [Section 3.2, light-quark double boxes] The genuine light-quark double-box diagrams are computed at a fixed value ¯ǫ = 0.05, stated to lie in a plateau of the narrow-width limit. No convergence study is shown to support this plateau claim, and unlike the triangle and four-point diagrams (benchmarked against the single-Higgs results of Ref. [33]), the double boxes have no independent cross-check. Since the light-quark contribution is −1.5% and thus nearly half of the total combined correction, the regulator dependence of the double-box contribution should be quantified explicitly, e.g., by scanning ¯ǫ or by applying the same Richardson extrapolation used elsewhere in the paper.
  4. [Section 3.1.2, Eq. (22) and threshold extrapolation] The √ε Richardson polynomials are imported from Ref. [32] and used in a ±1 GeV window around the t¯t threshold. The text states that 'a deeper analysis on the convergences of the Richardson polynomials has been performed' and that a minimal regulator ¯ǫ ∼ 10^{-2} is required, but no convergence data, stability plots, or extrapolation-order checks are presented. The threshold region directly affects the integrated top-Yukawa correction, so the numerical procedure must be documented sufficiently for the reader to judge its reliability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 8 discussion] The phrase 'at the –5% level' is likely a typographical error for 'at the 5% level' or 'at the −5% level'; please clarify the sign, since Fig. 8's δHHH panel is plotted with positive ordinate up to 0.9.
  2. [Section 4, Hpair interpolation] The 'suitable interpolation of our results' used to obtain the hadronic cross sections is not described. Please specify the interpolation method, the grid density, and the associated uncertainty.
  3. [Section 3.1.1, notation] In Fig. 4, the label 'C1 δ1 = C1 xt' is confusing. Since δ1 = C1 xt, the plot shows C1 as a function of MHH; please relabel the caption and axes for clarity.
  4. [Section 1] The introduction states that the complete electroweak corrections were obtained in Ref. [27] and the top-Yukawa/Higgs self-interaction corrections in Ref. [28]. The novelty of the present work would be clearer if the text explicitly listed what is new compared to those references, e.g., Goldstone-exchange contributions and the light-quark decomposition.
  5. [Eq. (22)] The 'and so forth' after the Richardson polynomials is informal; give the general recursion or cite the explicit construction for the higher-order polynomials used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the two-loop computation is an independent derivation; self-citations are method/analytic inputs and consistency checks, not reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central numbers (-1.9%, -1.5%, -3.4%) are obtained by interpolating the newly computed two-loop form-factor corrections and inserting them into the NLO cross-section formula (Eqs. 6-8); they are not fitted parameters or renamed inputs. The analytic Delta_HHH taken from the authors' Ref. [26] enters Eq. (17) as one component of the top-Yukawa correction, but the new delta_1 and box contributions are computed independently, and the final claim is not definitionally equal to Delta_HHH. The HTL checks at mt=3 TeV (delta_1 -> xt/2, Delta_box -> 4xt) are external high-mass limits used as consistency cross-checks, not as definitions of the physical-mass result. The modified Richardson polynomials (Eq. 22) are a numerical regulator ansatz imported from the same group's Ref. [32]; while this is a self-citation for the method, it does not reduce the prediction to an input, and the single-Higgs light-quark corrections are benchmarked against the independent Ref. [33]. The absence of a direct numerical comparison with Refs. [27]/[28] is a validation gap, not a circular step. Therefore no circularity is established by the quoted evidence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No physics parameters are fitted: the inputs (GF, mt, mb, MH, MW, MZ, αs, scales) are prior-literature values; the two listed 'free parameters' are numerical regulators chosen by hand, not fitted physics. The paper introduces no new entities. The assumptions that carry the weight are the scheme definition (gaugeless limit), the massless-light-quark approximation, and the threshold-regulator ansatz imported from Ref. [32].

free parameters (2)
  • Imaginary regulator ε for light-quark double-box diagrams = 0.05
    Chosen by hand where the paper states it is 'in the plateau of the narrow-width limit' (Section 3.2); not extrapolated to 0 for these diagrams, so the quoted threshold results depend on this choice.
  • Richardson extrapolation window and polynomial order near the t-tbar threshold = ±1 GeV window, polynomials R1..R4 of Eq. (22)
    Numerical-method choice that determines the shape of the t-tbar threshold shoulder in Fig. 9; its correctness rests on the √ε asymptotic claim imported from Ref. [32].
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Standard Model with perturbative expansion in αs and electroweak couplings; two-loop order suffices
    The entire calculation is diagrammatic perturbation theory; no resummation, no BSM content. Used throughout Sections 3-4.
  • ad hoc to paper The gaugeless limit (Eqs. 12-16) defines the complete top-Yukawa-induced electroweak correction
    The split of electroweak corrections into top-Yukawa vs. light-quark vs. remaining parts is scheme-dependent; footnote 2 concedes that extracting the top-Yukawa Goldstone couplings in unitary gauge requires large-top-mass expansions.
  • domain assumption Light-quark masses are neglected in the light-quark loop contributions
    Section 3.2 defines the light-quark class with massless virtual quarks (up to bottom for Z, up to charm for W); residual mass effects are assumed negligible at the few-percent level.
  • domain assumption Near the t-tbar threshold the integrand's regulator dependence is ∝ √ε (from Ref. [32]), so the modified Richardson polynomials of Eq. (22) converge to the narrow-width limit
    This imported asymptotic form determines the threshold shoulder and the ±1 GeV window results; no proof or alternative check is given in this paper.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higgs-Pair Production via Gluon Fusion: Top-Yukawa- and light-quark-induced electroweak Corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIIXFSJD

@misc{pith2026251214823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higgs-Pair Production via Gluon Fusion: Top-Yukawa- and light-quark-induced electroweak Corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIIXFSJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.14823}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Gluon fusion, $gg\to HH$, is the dominant Higgs-pair production process at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and provides the first direct access to the trilinear Higgs self-interaction. The process is loop-induced, with the main contribution emerging from top-quark loops within the Standard Model. In the past, the QCD corrections have been calculated and found to increase the cross section significantly. With the anticipated accuracies achievable at the high-luminosity LHC (HL--LHC), the theoretical uncertainties will be of increased relevance to compete with the experimental precision at the level of less than 30\%. In this work, we take the next steps towards the determination of the complete electroweak corrections at next-to-leading order by calculating the full top-Yukawa and light-quark induced corrections. These corrections modify the cross section moderately in the kinematical regimes of interest.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14823 by Arunima Bhattacharya, Francisco Campanario, Jamie Chang, Javier Mazzitelli, Jonathan Ronca, Margarete M\"uhlleitner, Michael Spira, Sauro Carlotti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Typical diagrams of Higgs-boson pair production via gluon fusion at LO. The contri￾bution of the trilinear Higgs coupling is marked in red. At LO, Higgs pair production is generated primarily by top-quark loops, with minor contribu￾tions from bottom-quark loops. The contributing diagrams are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-loop triangle diagrams of the top-Yukawa-induced electroweak corrections to Higgs-boson pair production involving Higgs H and Goldstone G0 , G± exchanges. The bottom propagators only contribute to the diagrams with charged Goldstone exchange. The counterterm δ1,CT for the two-loop triangle diagrams consists of the counterterms for the on-shell Higgs wave function3 , the vacuum expectation value4 and th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of a two-loop tadpole diagram of the top-Yukawa induced electroweak cor￾rections to Higgs-boson pair production involving Higgs exchange. Goldstone exchange does not contribute to the tadpoles. The final result of the correction factor δ1 ≡ C1xt is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relative top-Yukawa-induced electroweak correction factor δ1 as a function of the invariant Higgs-pair mass MHH with the top-Yukawa factor xt stripped off. The dots along the curves represent the numerical numbers we generated. The dotted curve shows the HTL of the full result, C1 → 1/2 for large values of mt . 3.1.2 Two-loop box diagrams Sample two-loop diagrams describing the genuine box contribution… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sample two-loop box diagrams of the top-Yukawa-induced electroweak corrections to Higgs-boson pair production involving Higgs H and Goldstone G0 , G± exchanges. The bottom propagators only contribute to the diagrams with charged Goldstone exchange. The on-shell Higgs wave function, vacuum expectation value and on-shell top mass coun￾terterms appear in the counterterms of the two-loop box diagrams. They are… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sample two-loop box diagrams of the light-quark-induced electroweak corrections to Higgs-boson pair production. Shown are diagrams of the three classes – triangle diagrams, four￾point diagrams and genuine planar/non-planar double boxes. We have applied the same method as for the top-Yukawa induced diagrams for these cor￾rections, i.e. suitable Feynman parametrizations of the individual diagrams after proje… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The relative light-quark-induced electroweak correction factor δ1 as a function of the invariant Higgs-pair mass MHH. The dots along the curves represent the numerical numbers we have generated. Their error bars are negligible and thus not shown. 4 Results Now, we are in the position to present the relative top-Yukawa and light-quark induced elec￾troweak corrections to Higgs-pair production via gluon fusio… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relative two-loop triangle (upper plot) and one-loop times one-loop (lower plot) contributions to the electroweak corrections of the Higgs-pair production cross section as a func￾tion of the invariant Higgs-pair mass MHH . The dots along the curves represent the numerical numbers we have generated. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The relative two-loop box contribution to the electroweak corrections of the Higgs-pair production cross section as a function of the invariant Higgs-pair mass MHH . The lower plot shows the magnified region around the tt¯ threshold. The dots along the curves represent the numerical numbers we have generated and their error bars. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relative total two-loop top-Yukawa induced contribution to the electroweak cor￾rections of the Higgs-pair production cross section as a function of the invariant Higgs-pair mass MHH . The dots along the curves represent the numerical numbers we have generated and their error bars. thresholds, we introduced complex propagator masses with a small imaginary part and used Richardson extrapolations to arri… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The relative light-quark-induced contribution to the electroweak corrections of the Higgs-pair production cross section as a function of the invariant Higgs-pair mass MHH . The dots along the curves represent the numerical numbers we have generated and their error bars. ERDF funds from the European Commission “NextGenerationEU/PRTR” (CNS2022-136165, PID2023-151418NB-I00, MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/). … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Electroweak corrections to Higgs boson pair production: The quark channel

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Mixed QCD-EW corrections to qqbar -> HH computed analytically via differential equations, matched to large-mass limit, implemented in POWHEG-BOX, showing up to +10% effect on invariant mass distribution near threshold.

  2. Fully differential Higgs boson pair production at N$^3$LO with top quark mass effects

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0

    First fully differential N3LO QCD predictions for gg->hh in the heavy-top limit, with NLO top-mass effects added; heavy-top scale uncertainty shrinks about 3x, to roughly 1-3%.

  3. Analytic two-loop electroweak corrections at high energies

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Analytic two-loop electroweak corrections to four-point amplitudes are computed in the high-energy limit of the Standard Model, applied to Higgs pair production where logarithmic and power corrections yield sizeable effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1; S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30

    2012

  2. [2]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], JHEP 1608 (2016) 045; G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS-CONF-2019-005; A.M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collabora- tion], JHEP 01 (2021) 148

    2016

  3. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020), 135754 and arXiv:2507.12598 [hep-ex]; A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 05 (2023), 233

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Djouadi, W

    A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M¨ uhlleitner and P.M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J . C10 (1999), 45. 17

    1999

  5. [5]

    P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508 and Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156; F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321; G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585; T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554

    1964

  6. [6]

    C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Lett. 46B (1973) 233; J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 1145 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 972]; B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 883 and Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1519

    1973

  7. [7]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 35 (1971) 167; G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 44 (1972) 189

    1971

  8. [8]

    Spira, Fortsch

    M. Spira, Fortsch. Phys. 46 (1998) 203 and Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95 (2017) 98; A. Djouadi, Phys. Rept. 457 (2008), 1-216

    1998

  9. [9]

    Baglio, A

    J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gr¨ ober, M. M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Quevillon a nd M. Spira, JHEP 1304 (2013) 151; B. Di Micco, M. Gouzevitch, J. Mazzitelli, C. Vernieri, J. Alison, K. An- drosov, J. Baglio, E. Bagnaschi, S. Banerjee and P. Basler, et al. , Rev. Phys. 5 (2020) 100045

    2013

  10. [10]

    E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B309 (1988) 282; T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B479 (1996) 46, Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B531 (1998) 655]

    1988

  11. [11]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 115012

    1998

  12. [12]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Phys. Lett. B 724 (2013) 306 and Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 201801; J. Grigo, K. Melnikov and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phy s. B 888 (2014) 17

    2013

  13. [13]

    L. B. Chen, H. T. Li, H. S. Shao and J. Wang, Phys. Lett. B803 (2020) 135292 and JHEP 2003 (2020) 072

    2020

  14. [14]

    Borowka, N

    S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J . Schlenk, U. Schubert and T. Zirke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no.1, 012001 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no.7, 079901]; S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk and T. Zirke, JHEP 1610 (2016) 107

    2016

  15. [15]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. Spira and J . Streicher, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.6, 459; J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner , J. Ronca and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.5, 056002

    2019

  16. [16]

    Baglio, F

    J. Baglio, F. Campanario, S. Glaus, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Ronca, M. Spira and J. Streicher, JHEP 04 (2020), 181

    2020

  17. [17]

    Grigo, K

    J. Grigo, K. Melnikov and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B 888 (2014), 17-29; J. Grigo, J. Hoff and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B 900 (2015), 412-430; R. Gr¨ ober, A. Maier and T. Rauh, JHEP 03 (2018), 020; R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino and R. Gr¨ obe r, 18 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.16, 162003; J. Davies, G. Mishima, M. Steinhauser and D. Well...

    2014

  18. [18]

    Bagnaschi, G

    E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi and R. Gr¨ ober, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.11, 1054

    2023

  19. [19]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, Phys. Lett. B724 (2013) 306 and Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 201801; J. Grigo et al., Nucl. Phys. B888 (2014) 17; M. Grazzini, G. Heinrich, S. Jones, S. Kallweit, M. Kerner, J. M. Lindert and J. Mazzitelli, JHEP 1805 (2018) 059

    2013

  20. [20]

    D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li and J. Wang, JHEP 07 (2013), 169; D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, JHEP 09 (2015), 053 and JHEP 08 (2018), 156; A. H. Ajjath and H. S. Shao, JHEP 02 (2023), 067

    2013

  21. [21]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Luisoni and E. Vryonido u, JHEP 08 (2017), 088; S. Jones and S. Kuttimalai, JHEP 02 (2018), 176

    2017

  22. [22]

    Alioli, G

    S. Alioli, G. Marinelli and D. Napoletano, arXiv:2507.08558 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Davies, K

    J. Davies, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 845 (2023), 138146 and [arXiv:2503.17449 [hep-ph]]; J. Davies, K. Sch¨ onwald, M. Steinhauser and M. Vitti, JHEP 08 (2024), 096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Jaskiewicz, S

    S. Jaskiewicz, S. Jones, R. Szafron and Y. Ulrich, [arXiv:2501.00 587 [hep-ph]]

  25. [25]

    J. R. Espinosa and R. J. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 586 (2000), 3-38; A. Brignole, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. B 631 (2002), 195-218

    2000

  26. [26]

    M¨ uhlleitner, J

    M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Schlenk and M. Spira, JHEP 10 (2022), 185

    2022

  27. [27]

    H. Y. Bi, L. H. Huang, R. J. Huang, Y. Q. Ma and H. M. Yu, Phys. R ev. Lett. 132 (2024) no.23, 231802

    2024

  28. [28]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. Jones, M. Kerner, T. Stone and A. Vestner, JH EP 11 (2024), 040

    2024

  29. [29]

    Davies, G

    J. Davies, G. Mishima, K. Sch¨ onwald, M. Steinhauser and H. Zha ng, JHEP 08 (2022), 259, JHEP 10 (2023), 033 and JHEP 04 (2025), 193

    2022

  30. [30]

    Bonetti, P

    M. Bonetti, P. Rendler and W. J. Torres Bobadilla, JHEP 07 (2025), 024

    2025

  31. [31]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 153 (1979), 365-401

    1979

  32. [32]

    Bagnaschi, L

    E. Bagnaschi, L. Fritz, S. Liebler, M. M¨ uhlleitner, T. T. D. Nguy en and M. Spira, JHEP 03 (2023), 124; L. Fritz, PhD thesis, University of Zurich, 2023

    2023

  33. [33]

    Aglietti, R

    U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 432 and hep-ph/0610033; G. Degrassi and F. Maltoni, Phys. Lett. B 600 (2004) 255. R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011), 1253-1264. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  34. [34]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati, Phys. Lett. B 670 (2008) 12; S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati, Nucl. Phys. B 811 (2009) 182

    2008

  35. [35]

    https://gitea.psi.ch/ltpth/HPAIR 20

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.