Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 100 references

A three-loop Higgs-to-four-bottom integral family admits a single ε-factorized differential equation that mixes elliptic, K3 and polylog sectors, yielding analytic masters through O(ε).

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 02:46 UTC pith:MNMAQHMI

load-bearing objection Solid first non-trivial application of the ε-collaboration algorithm to a mixed elliptic/K3/MPL family with inter-sector mixing; the construction and checks hold up.

arxiv 2607.03398 v1 pith:MNMAQHMI submitted 2026-07-03 hep-ph hep-th

Analytic result of a three-loop integral family in the Higgs decay to four massive bottom quarks

Jian Wang , Xing Wang , Yefan Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords Higgs decaythree-loop Feynman integralsε-factorized differential equationselliptic curvesK3 surfacemaster integralsoptical theoremmultiple polylogarithms
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 paper shows that a complete three-loop integral family needed for the Higgs decay H → b b̄ b b̄ can be brought into ε-factorized form even though its sectors sit on three different geometries: multiple polylogarithms, an elliptic curve and a K3 surface. By applying a recent filtration algorithm sector by sector and then removing the residual inter-sector mixing, the authors obtain a canonical differential equation for all nine master integrals. Analytic solutions through the first two orders in ε follow once boundary constants are fixed, giving explicit series that enter the decay width. A sympathetic reader cares because the same unified procedure can be reused for other multi-loop families that mix geometries, removing a long-standing obstacle to precision Higgs phenomenology.

Core claim

The nine-master-integral family (sectors 150, 159, 191, 255) that contributes to the four-bottom cut of H → b b̄ b b̄ admits an ε-factorized differential equation that includes non-trivial mixing among the elliptic, K3 and polylogarithmic blocks; the masters are thereby obtained analytically through the first two orders in ε.

What carries the argument

The two-step filtration algorithm that first decomposes each sector according to Hodge-like weights (w,o) or (p,q) into an ε-pre-factorized basis and then systematically cancels residual ε^0 and lower terms (including inter-sector mixing) by successive rotations built from Picard–Fuchs operators and periods.

Load-bearing premise

Boundary constants for the non-banana masters are fixed by matching the analytic series against high-precision numerical values at a single regular kinematic point and then cross-checked at one other point; any undetected bias in those numerical evaluations would shift every higher-order term.

What would settle it

Recompute the same masters to high precision at an independent kinematic point (for example z = 50 or z = 200) with an independent numerical method and check whether they agree with the analytic series to the claimed digits.

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

If this is right

  • The leading-order masters can be inserted directly into the optical-theorem calculation of the C1C1 contribution to Γ(H → b b̄ b b̄) at O(α_s^4).
  • Higher orders in ε become available by iterated integration of the same ε-factorized matrix, limited only by the known boundary constants.
  • Any other multi-loop family whose sectors mix polylogarithmic, elliptic and Calabi–Yau geometries can be attacked with the identical filtration-plus-mixing procedure.
  • The explicit modular parametrizations (q, q_B) and eta-quotient periods supply closed-form building blocks for related banana and elliptic integrals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Once the same algorithm is applied to the remaining uncut integral families of the process, a complete analytic description of the massive four-bottom contribution becomes feasible.
  • The successful removal of inter-sector mixing suggests that the filtration method scales to families with still higher-genus or multi-variable geometries that appear in other Higgs or top-quark processes.
  • The compact leading-order banana results expressed solely in terms of q_B may serve as templates for automatic generation of higher-loop equal-mass banana masters.

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs and solves an ε-factorized differential equation for a nine-master-integral three-loop family that appears in the optical-theorem calculation of H o b b̄ b b̄ induced by the effective Higgs-gluon-gluon operator. The family comprises four sectors under four massive cuts: an elliptic top sector (255), an MPL kite (191), a non-trivial MPL sector (159), and the equal-mass banana sector (150) associated with a K3 surface. Using the filtration/rotation algorithm of Refs. [1,2], the authors obtain a pre-canonical basis sector by sector, remove unwanted lower-order terms via Picard–Fuchs-guided rotations, cancel the residual ε^{0} mixing between sectors, and arrive at a global connection matrix with only simple poles. Boundary constants are fixed by analytic continuation of published banana results plus AMFlow matching at a regular point; explicit analytic series for all masters through the first two orders in ε are given (and checked against independent numerics).

Significance. The work supplies the first complete analytic treatment of a mixed-geometry three-loop family that is directly relevant to a precision Higgs observable, and it demonstrates that the recent ε-collaboration algorithm extends without obstruction to non-trivial inter-sector mixing. The closed modular/eta expressions for the banana and elliptic periods, the explicit ε-factorized connection matrix, and the AMFlow-validated series (Fig. 5) constitute concrete, reusable results. The detailed, sector-by-sector exposition also serves as a practical template for other multi-loop calculations that mix MPL, elliptic and K3 geometries.

minor comments (4)
  1. The lengthy off-diagonal block ω^(159,150) is deferred entirely to the auxiliary file; a short schematic of its leading poles or a statement of its singularity structure in the main text would improve readability of §5.
  2. Notation for the two distinct modular variables (τ vs. τ_B) and their associated periods is dense; a compact summary table of the maps z(τ), z(τ_B) and the corresponding Jacobians would help the reader navigate §3.1 and §3.4.
  3. Fig. 3 caption mentions generation via ChatGPT; while the source is supplied, a one-sentence statement that the plotted modular tessellation was independently verified against the eta-quotient formula would remove any residual ambiguity.
  4. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., occasional missing spaces around “ε”, and the arXiv identifier of the companion paper [16] is still a placeholder-style number); a final proof-reading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ε-factorized DE and masters are constructed from filtrations/Picard–Fuchs plus external numerical boundary constants.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; §1 Introduction; §2 Setup]
    "We demonstrate how to construct and solve the canonical differential equation for the entire family, which includes mixing between different sectors, by using the recently proposed algorithm in [1, 2]. … Most recently, an algorithmic framework for the construction of a ε-factorized basis, proposed by the ε-collaboration [1, 2], can deal with Feynman integrals corresponding to different geometries in a unified way."

    The central methodological claim rests on the authors’ own recent algorithm papers. This is ordinary self-citation of a method, not a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives, and the present work still performs an independent, explicit construction (filtrations, rotations, mixing removal, modular periods, AMFlow boundaries). It is therefore only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Step 1 builds candidate master integrands from the loop-by-loop Baikov twist and filtrations (w,o)/(p,q); step 2 removes non-ε terms by rotations whose matrix elements are fixed by Picard–Fuchs operators (or first-order ODEs for mixing). The banana and elliptic periods are classical modular/eta expressions (or Frobenius series) already known for those geometries; mixing is cancelled by explicit total-derivative or series solutions for R41 and R51. Boundary constants for the banana sector recycle published uncut results via the optical theorem; the remaining constants are fixed by matching the analytic series against independent high-precision AMFlow evaluations at z=100 (cross-checked at a second point and against a prior 2-d numerical integration of the top-sector integral). Self-citations to the authors’ prior algorithm papers and to the companion phenomenology paper supply the method and the physical context, but do not force the target series by definition or by fit. No prediction reduces to a fitted input, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives. Score 1 reflects only the ordinary, non-load-bearing self-citation of the algorithm papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard multi-loop technology (IBP, differential equations, twisted cohomology) plus the recently published algorithmic construction of ε-factorized bases. No free parameters are fitted to data; the only external numerical input is a set of boundary constants extracted once and for all. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Integration-by-parts identities reduce the cut integral family to a finite set of nine master integrals.
    Invoked in §2; standard since Chetyrkin–Tkachov and Laporta.
  • domain assumption The loop-by-loop Baikov representation together with the filtrations of twisted cohomology correctly capture the geometry of each sector (elliptic curve for 255, K3 for 150, MPL for 159/191).
    Taken from the ε-collaboration papers [1,2] and used throughout §3.
  • domain assumption The optical theorem with four massive cuts correctly isolates the contribution of H→bbbb to the imaginary part of the forward amplitude.
    Stated in the introduction and §2; standard for cut-based calculations of decay widths.
  • domain assumption AMFlow numerical evaluations at regular kinematic points are accurate to the precision needed to fix the trailing-zero boundary constants.
    Used in §6 to determine the non-banana constants; cross-checked at a second point.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28121 in / 2364 out tokens · 21502 ms · 2026-07-12T02:46:33.784422+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

When calculating the decay width of $H\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ induced by the effective Higgs-gluon-gluon interaction using the optical theorem, the three-loop Feynman diagrams are encountered. Among them, there is an interesting integral family, which involves not only the sectors evaluated to multiple polylogarithms but also those related to an elliptic curve and a K3 surface. We demonstrate how to construct and solve the canonical differential equation for the entire family, which includes mixing between different sectors, by using the recently proposed algorithm in~\cite{e-collaboration:2025frv, Bree:2025tug}. Analytical results for all master integrals in this family up to the first two orders of $\varepsilon$ are given.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03398 by Jian Wang, Xing Wang, Yefan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four sectors in this integral family under the four massive cuts. The thick black and red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Organization of the vector space of master integrals in the sector 255 by two filtrations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Modular tessellation of z(τ) for τ ∈ H (the left panel) and of z(q) for q ∈ D (the right panel). The black thick lines indicate the kinematic flow of z ∈ R+i0 inside the tessellation. The hue records the complex phase arg(z) while the brightness records the magnitude |z|. So points with similar colors have similar complex phases and magnitudes. This plot is initially generated by Mathematica using (45) as … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Organization of the vector space of master integrals in the sector 159 by two filtrations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between analytical and numerical results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 80 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Breeet al., (2025), arXiv:2511.15381

    I. Breeet al., (2025), arXiv:2511.15381

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    ATLAS, Projections for measurements of Higgs boson cross sections, branching ratios, coupling parameters and mass with the ATLAS detector at the HL-LHC, 2018. 26

    2018

  3. [3]

    Y . Zhu, H. Cui, and M. Ruan, JHEP11, 100 (2022), arXiv:2203.01469

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Chenget al., The Physics potential of the CEPC

    CEPC Physics Study Group, H. Chenget al., The Physics potential of the CEPC. Prepared for the US Snowmass Community Planning Exercise (Snowmass 2021), inSnowmass 2021, 2022, arXiv:2205.08553

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Altmannet al.,ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs V ol

    J. Altmannet al.,ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs V ol. 5/2025 (, 2025), arXiv:2506.15390

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. P. Leveille, Phys. Rev. D22, 715 (1980)

    1980

  7. [7]

    Sakai, Phys

    N. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D22, 2220 (1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and A. Kwiatkowski, Nucl. Phys. B461, 3 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9505358

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  9. [9]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 012003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0511063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. V ogt, JHEP08, 113 (2017), arXiv:1707.01044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Davies, M

    J. Davies, M. Steinhauser, and D. Wellmann, Nucl. Phys. B920, 20 (2017), arXiv:1703.02988

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Primo, G

    A. Primo, G. Sasso, G. Somogyi, and F. Tramontano, Phys. Rev. D99, 054013 (2019), arXiv:1812.07811

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Mondini, U

    R. Mondini, U. Schubert, and C. Williams, JHEP12, 058 (2020), arXiv:2006.03563

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    J. Wang, X. Wang, and Y . Wang, JHEP03, 163 (2025), arXiv:2411.07493

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    J. Wang, X. Wang, and Y . Wang, (2026), arXiv:2603.18576

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    F. V . Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B100, 65 (1981)

    1981

  17. [17]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V . Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B192, 159 (1981)

    1981

  18. [18]

    R. N. Lee, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.523, 012059 (2014), arXiv:1310.1145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    von Manteuffel and C

    A. von Manteuffel and C. Studerus, (2012), arXiv:1201.4330

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Maierhöfer, J

    P. Maierhöfer, J. Usovitsch, and P. Uwer, Comput. Phys. Commun.230, 99 (2018), arXiv:1705.05610

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    A. V . Smirnov and F. S. Chukharev, Comput. Phys. Commun.247, 106877 (2020), arXiv:1901.07808

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Klappert, F

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierhöfer, and J. Usovitsch, Comput. Phys. Commun.266, 108024 (2021), arXiv:2008.06494

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Peraro, JHEP07, 031 (2019), arXiv:1905.08019

    T. Peraro, JHEP07, 031 (2019), arXiv:1905.08019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Z. Wu, J. Boehm, R. Ma, H. Xu, and Y . Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun.295, 108999 (2024), arXiv:2305.08783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    X. Guan, X. Liu, Y .-Q. Ma, and W.-H. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun.310, 109538 (2025), arXiv:2405.14621

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Laporta, Int

    S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 5087 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0102033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    Wang and L

    Z. Wang and L. L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D113, 116005 (2026), arXiv:2412.15962

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    B. Feng, X. Li, Y . Liu, Y .-Q. Ma, and Y . Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2509.21769

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    de la Cruz and D

    L. de la Cruz and D. A. Kosower, (2026), arXiv:2602.22111

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Smith and M

    S. Smith and M. Zeng, JHEP01, 102 (2026), arXiv:2507.11140

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Dlapa, G

    C. Dlapa, G. Kälin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, (2026), arXiv:2604.25916

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    B. Feng, X. Li, Y . Liu, Y . Ma, and Y . Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2605.09541

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    A. V . Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B267, 123 (1991), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 295, 409–409 (1992)]

    1991

  34. [34]

    Remiddi, Nuovo Cim

    E. Remiddi, Nuovo Cim. A110, 1435 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9711188. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  35. [35]

    Gehrmann and E

    T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B580, 485 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9912329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  36. [36]

    Hidding, Comput

    M. Hidding, Comput. Phys. Commun.269, 108125 (2021), arXiv:2006.05510

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Liu, Y .-Q

    X. Liu, Y .-Q. Ma, and C.-Y . Wang, Phys. Lett. B779, 353 (2018), arXiv:1711.09572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Liu and Y .-Q

    X. Liu and Y .-Q. Ma, Comput. Phys. Commun.283, 108565 (2023), arXiv:2201.11669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Armadillo, R

    T. Armadillo, R. Bonciani, S. Devoto, N. Rana, and A. Vicini, Comput. Phys. Commun.282, 108545 (2023), arXiv:2205.03345

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Chen, Comput

    W. Chen, Comput. Phys. Commun.312, 109607 (2025), arXiv:2408.06426

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    R. M. Prisco, J. Ronca, and F. Tramontano, JHEP07, 219 (2025), arXiv:2501.01943

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Liu and Y

    Y . Liu and Y . Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2606.26691

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Czakon and L

    M. Czakon and L. Tancredi, (2026), arXiv:2606.30354

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    J. M. Henn, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 251601 (2013), arXiv:1304.1806

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Chen, Bull

    K.-T. Chen, Bull. Am. Math. Soc.83, 831 (1977)

    1977

  46. [46]

    Remiddi and J

    E. Remiddi and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 725 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9905237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    A. B. Goncharov, Math. Res. Lett.5, 497 (1998), arXiv:1105.2076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  48. [48]

    A. B. Goncharov, M. Spradlin, C. Vergu, and A. V olovich, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 151605 (2010), arXiv:1006.5703

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    C. Duhr, H. Gangl, and J. R. Rhodes, JHEP10, 075 (2012), arXiv:1110.0458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    Duhr, JHEP08, 043 (2012), arXiv:1203.0454

    C. Duhr, JHEP08, 043 (2012), arXiv:1203.0454

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    Arkani-Hamed, J

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, and J. Trnka, JHEP06, 125 (2012), arXiv:1012.6032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  52. [52]

    R. N. Lee, JHEP04, 108 (2015), arXiv:1411.0911

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Prausa, Comput

    M. Prausa, Comput. Phys. Commun.219, 361 (2017), arXiv:1701.00725

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Gituliar and V

    O. Gituliar and V . Magerya, Comput. Phys. Commun.219, 329 (2017), arXiv:1701.04269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    Meyer, Comput

    C. Meyer, Comput. Phys. Commun.222, 295 (2018), arXiv:1705.06252

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    R. N. Lee, Comput. Phys. Commun.267, 108058 (2021), arXiv:2012.00279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Dlapa, J

    C. Dlapa, J. Henn, and K. Yan, JHEP05, 025 (2020), arXiv:2002.02340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    J. Henn, B. Mistlberger, V . A. Smirnov, and P. Wasser, JHEP04, 167 (2020), arXiv:2002.09492

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Laporta and E

    S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B704, 349 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406160

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    Bloch and P

    S. Bloch and P. Vanhove, J. Number Theor.148, 328 (2015), arXiv:1309.5865

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys.54, 052303 (2013), arXiv:1302.7004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys.56, 072303 (2015), arXiv:1504.03255

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, A. Schweitzer, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys.57, 122302 (2016), arXiv:1607.01571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

    Remiddi and L

    E. Remiddi and L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B925, 212 (2017), arXiv:1709.03622

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, and L. Tancredi, JHEP05, 093 (2018), arXiv:1712.07089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, B. Penante, and L. Tancredi, JHEP08, 014 (2018), arXiv:1803.10256

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, B. Penante, and L. Tancredi, JHEP01, 023 (2019), arXiv:1809.10698. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Weinzierl,Feynman Integrals

    S. Weinzierl,Feynman Integrals. A Comprehensive Treatment for Students and ResearchersUNITEXT for Physics (Springer, 2022), arXiv:2201.03593

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [69]

    Adams and S

    L. Adams and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Lett. B781, 270 (2018), arXiv:1802.05020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Delto, C

    M. Delto, C. Duhr, L. Tancredi, and Y . J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 231904 (2024), arXiv:2311.06385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Marzucca, A

    R. Marzucca, A. J. McLeod, and C. Nega, Phys. Rev. D112, 113007 (2025), arXiv:2501.14435

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Becchetti, C

    M. Becchetti, C. Dlapa, and S. Zoia, Phys. Rev. D112, L031501 (2025), arXiv:2503.03603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Schwanemann and S

    N. Schwanemann and S. Weinzierl, SciPost Phys.18, 172 (2025), arXiv:2412.07522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Klemm, C

    A. Klemm, C. Nega, and R. Safari, JHEP04, 088 (2020), arXiv:1912.06201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    Bönisch, F

    K. Bönisch, F. Fischbach, A. Klemm, C. Nega, and R. Safari, JHEP05, 066 (2021), arXiv:2008.10574

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Primo and L

    A. Primo and L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B921, 316 (2017), arXiv:1704.05465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  77. [77]

    Pögel, X

    S. Pögel, X. Wang, and S. Weinzierl, JHEP09, 062 (2022), arXiv:2207.12893

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Pögel, X

    S. Pögel, X. Wang, and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101601 (2023), arXiv:2211.04292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Pögel, X

    S. Pögel, X. Wang, and S. Weinzierl, JHEP04, 117 (2023), arXiv:2212.08908

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    J. L. Bourjaily, Y .-H. He, A. J. Mcleod, M. V on Hippel, and M. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 071603 (2018), arXiv:1805.09326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.