Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Kinematic cuts in Tevatron p¯p photon-hadron events make the kaon-to-pion cross-section ratio track the u-quark fragmentation-function ratio, so better-known pion FFs can constrain kaon FFs.

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

2026-07-11 21:57 UTC pith:3OTF2GE3

load-bearing objection Solid Tevatron extension of the kinematic-cut FF method; the few-percent claim is real inside the MC but still circular until checked with independent FFs. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04059 v1 pith:3OTF2GE3 submitted 2026-07-04 hep-ph

Phenomenological extraction of fragmentation functions in a pbar{p} environment

M. A. P\'erez de Le\'on , S. A. Ochoa-Oreg\'on , D. F. Renter\'ia-Estrada , R. J. Hern\'andez-Pinto This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords fragmentation functionsproton-antiproton collisionsTevatronphoton-hadron productionflavour separationkinematic cutsNLO QCDreconstructed momentum fractions
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.

Fragmentation functions describe how partons turn into observed hadrons and cannot be calculated from first principles, so they must be extracted from data. This paper shows that the same kinematic-cut strategy previously used at proton-proton colliders still works in the asymmetric proton-antiproton environment of the Tevatron. By reconstructing the partonic momentum fractions from the final-state photon and hadron, and by imposing cuts that enhance the up-quark-gluon channel, the authors demonstrate that the measurable ratio of differential cross sections for kaon versus pion production closely follows the ratio of the corresponding u-quark fragmentation functions. Because pion fragmentation functions are already known with higher precision, the relation supplies a practical route to tighter constraints on kaon (and potentially heavier-meson) fragmentation functions from existing collider data.

Core claim

After suitable kinematic cuts that isolate the ug-initiated channel, the reconstructed-z ratio of photon-plus-kaon to photon-plus-pion differential cross sections at Tevatron energy approximates the ratio of the u-quark fragmentation functions of kaons and pions to within a few percent (central-value deviations of order 1–7 % once the sub-leading down-quark term is included), so that the better-determined pion FFs can be rescaled to constrain the less-known kaon FFs.

What carries the argument

The reconstructed momentum fraction z_REC = p_h^T / p_γ^T together with the reconstructed parton fractions (x1,x2)_REC; under the cuts of Scenario 3 these variables convert the measurable cross-section ratio R_{K/π}(dσ) into a direct estimator of the fragmentation-function ratio R_{K/π}(d_u).

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on residual non-ug channels and higher-order corrections remaining small enough after the chosen cuts that the cross-section ratio truly equals the u-quark FF ratio; this is verified only inside the same Monte Carlo that already uses the fragmentation functions being tested.

What would settle it

Re-compute the same R_{K/π}(dσ)/R_{K/π}(d_u) ratios with an independent Monte Carlo that employs a different set of fragmentation functions (or with actual Tevatron photon-hadron data) and check whether the ratio still stays within a few percent of unity for z_REC in (0.5,0.8) under Scenario-3 cuts.

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

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies photon-hadron production (p + p-bar o γ + π/K) at Tevatron energy (√s = 1.986 TeV) with NLO QCD + LO QED corrections, smooth-cone isolation, and reconstructed partonic fractions z_REC = p_h^T / p_γ^T and (x_i)_REC. Building on the pp analysis of Ref. [1], the authors apply successive kinematic cuts (pseudorapidity windows and an x_REC window that enhances the ug channel) and show that the measurable ratio R_{K/π}(dσ) of differential cross sections tracks the u-quark FF ratio R_{K/π}(d_u) to within a few percent once the ug channel dominates (Eq. (12), Figs. 7, 9–11). A two-term (u+d) approximation further reduces residuals to the 1–7 % level under scale variation. The work concludes that Tevatron kinematics can usefully constrain kaon FFs from better-known pion FFs.

Significance. If the residual non-ug contamination after Scenario-3 cuts is under control, the method supplies a practical, experimentally accessible route to flavour-separated FFs that exploits the valence asymmetry of p p-bar collisions. The reconstruction of z and x from final-state momenta, the systematic comparison of three cut scenarios, and the explicit inclusion of NLO QCD + LO QED are solid technical contributions that complement the earlier LHC/FCC study. The result is of clear interest for global FF analyses and for planning future measurements at lower-energy colliders.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. III B–C and Eq. (12): the central claim that R_{K/π}(dσ) approximates R_{K/π}(d_u) after Scenario-3 cuts is validated exclusively inside the same Monte Carlo that already embeds the DSS2014/2017 FFs used to form the reference ratio. Residual weights of non-ug channels (d/s-initiated qg, qQ, gg) and of NLO kinematics that spoil z_REC ≈ z_REAL are therefore never measured against an independent FF set or a pure-ug toy. The 1–7 % deviations quoted in Sec. III C cannot be cleanly attributed to genuine contamination versus shared-input artifact. An external cross-check (different FF library, or a controlled pure-ug sample) is required before the method can be claimed to constrain kaon FFs from data.
  2. Sec. II (paragraph after Eq. (6)) and the error bands of Figs. 7, 9–11: PDF and FF uncertainties are deferred to future work; only hard-scale variation (± factor of two) is shown. Because the extraction strategy relies on the numerical dominance of a single partonic channel, the absence of PDF/FF error bands leaves the robustness of that dominance unquantified. At minimum a representative PDF-variation envelope (or a statement that the ug luminosity remains dominant under NNPDF replica variations) should be added for Scenario 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 2 caption and text: centre-of-mass energy is written both as 1.986 TeV and 1.938 TeV; the latter appears to be a typographical error.
  2. Eqs. (14)–(15): the reconstructed momentum fractions are defined with η_π even when the final-state hadron is a kaon; a brief clarification that the same formulae apply to any identified hadron would avoid confusion.
  3. Sec. II A: the restriction z ∈ (0.1, 0.8) is stated without a quantitative justification of why the reconstruction quality degrades outside this window; a short sentence or reference would help.
  4. Fig. 6: the linear-trend lines are shown but their slopes and intercepts are not reported; quoting them (or removing the lines) would improve reproducibility.
  5. Throughout: occasional inconsistencies in notation (z_REAL vs z_REAL, SC.M. vs s) and a few missing spaces after punctuation should be cleaned in a final pass.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Internal MC validation of R(dσ)≈R(d_u) re-uses the same DSS FFs on both sides of Eq. (12), so residual contamination after Scenario-3 cuts is quantified only inside the model being tested; methodology itself is imported from overlapping-author prior work.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. III, Eqs. (10) and (12); Figs. 9–11]
    "dσ_hi / dz = ∑_a3 d_hi_a3 imes g_a3(z); … R_K/π(dσ) = (dσ_K / dz_REC) / (dσ_π / dz_REC) ≈ d^K_u (z_REC) / d^π_u (z_REC) = R_K/π(d_u)"

    Once only the u-initiated channel survives, Eq. (12) is an algebraic identity from the factorization rewrite (10). The paper then evaluates both sides of the identity with the same DSS FFs, so the observed numerical agreement after cuts is partly forced by construction; residual non-ug weight is never measured with an independent FF set.

  2. self citation load bearing [Introduction and Sec. II; citations [1], [50], [51]]
    "Our study builds on the work in the Ref. [1], which clearly establishes a methodology for determining flavored parton fragmentation functions through kinematic cuts … we apply the referenced methodology to proton-antiproton collisions … Guided by the kinematic structure at LO, we define z_REC = p^h_T / p^γ_T … Motivated by the LO kinematics, we define the reconstructed momentum fractions as (x1)_REC = …"

    The entire cut-based isolation strategy and the operational definitions of z_REC and (x1,2)_REC are imported from prior papers whose author lists overlap substantially with the present work. Those citations supply the load-bearing justification that the reconstructed variables remain faithful after NLO corrections; no independent external derivation is supplied here.

full rationale

The paper is a feasibility study, not a new FF extraction. Factorization (Eq. 10) makes the pure-ug limit of Eq. (12) an identity by construction; the only non-trivial content is the claim that Scenario-3 cuts (plus |η| cuts) suppress non-ug channels enough for the identity to hold at the few-percent level. That claim is checked exclusively by generating both the cross-section ratios and the reference FF ratios from the identical DSS2014/2017 sets inside the same NLO+LO-QED Monte Carlo (Secs. III A–C, Figs. 7, 9–11). Consequently the quoted 1–7 % residuals measure model-internal contamination, not an independent test. In addition the kinematic-cut methodology and the z_REC / x_REC reconstructions are taken from prior papers with substantial author overlap ([1], [50], [51]). These are real but limited circularities: the experimental proposal (use measured R(dσ) to constrain kaon FFs once pion FFs are known) remains logically independent of the internal loop, and no parameters are fitted to the target ratios. Score 4 reflects partial, non-load-bearing circularity rather than a forced derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD factorization, existing PDF/FF parametrizations, and a set of kinematic cuts and reconstruction formulae chosen by the authors. No new dynamical entities are postulated; free parameters are isolation and cut values plus the average scale Q-bar extracted from the Monte Carlo itself.

free parameters (3)
  • smooth-cone isolation parameters ε_r, r_0 = ε_r=1.0, r_0=0.4
    Set by hand to 1.0 and 0.4 following Ref. [1]; control which events are accepted as isolated photons.
  • average hard scale Q-bar = 25.38 GeV
    Computed from the Monte Carlo histograms as the cross-section-weighted average of p_γ_T; used as the fixed scale at which FF ratios are evaluated.
  • x_REC cut window for Scenario 3 = 0.03 ≤ x_REC ≤ 0.5
    Hand-chosen interval 0.03–0.5 that maximises u-quark luminosity relative to other flavours; directly controls the quality of the approximation.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption QCD factorization theorem for inclusive photon-hadron production (Eq. 2)
    Assumed valid at the Tevatron kinematics so that the cross section factorises into PDFs × partonic hard scattering × FFs.
  • ad hoc to paper z_REC = p_h_T / p_γ_T is a sufficiently accurate proxy for the true partonic momentum fraction z in the selected kinematic region
    Motivated by LO kinematics and earlier studies; validated only by visual comparison of z_REAL and z_REC spectra inside the same Monte Carlo.
  • domain assumption NLO QCD + LO QED is adequate; higher-order corrections to the ratio are ≲1 %
    Cited from Catani et al. (2002); used to justify stopping at NLO for the ratio test.
  • domain assumption DSS2014 (pions) and DSS2017 (kaons) FFs together with NNPDF PDFs correctly describe the partonic luminosities and hadronization at the working scale
    Taken as external input; the entire numerical validation rests on these sets.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 18955 in / 2856 out tokens · 26853 ms · 2026-07-11T21:57:18.483831+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The precise determination of fragmentation functions (FFs) of hadrons relies on the accurate description of the differential cross sections obtained from both experimental high-energy hadron colliders and theoretical predictions at higher orders in quantum chromodynamics. Various phenomenological strategies have been employed to extract FFs. In this work, we analyze the use of kinematical cuts for reactions including pions and kaons in proton-antiproton collisions to isolate individual FF contributions. This study examines the feasibility of using a similar approach as in proton-proton colliders to analyze FF flavour separation~\cite{Ochoa-Oregon:2023ktx}. In particular, we study photon-hadron production at colliders, including NLO QCD and LO QED corrections to reconstruct the partonic momentum fractions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04059 by D. F. Renter\'ia-Estrada, M. A. P\'erez de Le\'on, R. J. Hern\'andez-Pinto, S. A. Ochoa-Oreg\'on.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Differential cross-section distribution of pions and kaons as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Differential cross-section distribution as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Differential cross-section distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Differential cross-section distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of cross-section ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The parton density functions (PDFs) were extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The figure shows a comparison of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Same as the bottom pannel of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.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

61 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. A. Ochoa-Oregon, D. F. Renter´ ıa-Estrada, R. J. Hern´ andez-Pinto, and G. F. R. Sborlini, Phys. Rev. D 107, 096002 (2023), 2303.04965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 1264 (1967)

    1967

  3. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), 1207.7214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), 1207.7235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.5, 1 (1989), hep-ph/0409313

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1989

  6. [6]

    Moreno et al., Phys

    G. Moreno et al., Phys. Rev. D43, 2815 (1991)

    1991

  7. [7]

    J. C. Webb et al. (NuSea) (2003), hep-ex/0302019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    R. S. Towell et al. (NuSea), Phys. Rev. D64, 052002 (2001), hep-ex/0103030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    T. A. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Lett. B692, 232 (2010), 0908.3914

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Dove et al

    J. Dove et al. (SeaQuest), Nature590, 561 (2021), [Er- ratum: Nature 604, E26 (2022)], 2103.04024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al. (New Muon), Nucl. Phys. B487, 3 (1997), hep-ex/9611022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  12. [12]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al. (New Muon), Nucl. Phys. B483, 3 (1997), hep-ph/9610231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  13. [13]

    L. W. Whitlow, E. M. Riordan, S. Dasu, S. Rock, and A. Bodek, Phys. Lett. B282, 475 (1992)

    1992

  14. [14]

    A. C. Benvenuti et al. (BCDMS), Phys. Lett. B223, 485 (1989)

    1989

  15. [15]

    Onengut et al

    G. Onengut et al. (CHORUS), Phys. Lett. B632, 65 (2006)

    2006

  16. [16]

    Goncharov et al

    M. Goncharov et al. (NuTeV), Phys. Rev. D64, 112006 (2001), hep-ex/0102049. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES), Phys. Rev. D87, 074029 (2013), 1212.5407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Adolph et al

    C. Adolph et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B764, 1 (2017), 1604.02695

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Adolph et al

    C. Adolph et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B767, 133 (2017), 1608.06760

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. D89, 012001 (2014), 1309.1800

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Agakishiev et al

    G. Agakishiev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 072302 (2012), 1110.0579

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. D80, 111108 (2009), 0911.2773

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B637, 161 (2006), nucl-ex/0601033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B717, 162 (2012), 1205.5724

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B736, 196 (2014), 1401.1250

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. D76, 051106 (2007), 0704.3599

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    Akers et al

    R. Akers et al. (OPAL), Z. Phys. C63, 181 (1994)

    1994

  28. [28]

    Braunschweig et al

    W. Braunschweig et al. (TASSO), Z. Phys. C42, 189 (1989)

    1989

  29. [29]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D88, 032011 (2013), 1306.2895

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Leitgab et al

    M. Leitgab et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 062002 (2013), 1301.6183

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Buskulic et al

    D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH), Z. Phys. C66, 355 (1995)

    1995

  32. [32]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Eur. Phys. J. C5, 585 (1998)

    1998

  33. [33]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (SLD), Phys. Rev. D59, 052001 (1999), hep-ex/9805029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  34. [34]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL), Eur. Phys. J. C16, 407 (2000), hep-ex/0001054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    Aihara et al

    H. Aihara et al. (TPC/Two Gamma), Phys. Lett. B184, 299 (1987)

    1987

  36. [36]

    Aihara et al

    H. Aihara et al. (TPC/Two Gamma), Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1263 (1988)

    1988

  37. [37]

    Hirai, S

    M. Hirai, S. Kumano, T. H. Nagai, and K. Sudoh, Phys. Rev. D75, 094009 (2007), hep-ph/0702250

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Albino, B

    S. Albino, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Nucl. Phys. B 734, 50 (2006), hep-ph/0510173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    Albino, B

    S. Albino, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Nucl. Phys. B 725, 181 (2005), hep-ph/0502188

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and B. Potter, Nucl. Phys. B 582, 514 (2000), hep-ph/0010289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  41. [41]

    Kretzer, Phys

    S. Kretzer, Phys. Rev. D62, 054001 (2000), hep- ph/0003177

    arXiv 2000

  42. [42]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Epele, R. J. Hern´ andez- Pinto, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D91, 014035 (2015), 1410.6027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    de Florian, M

    D. de Florian, M. Epele, R. J. Hernandez-Pinto, R. Sas- sot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D95, 094019 (2017), 1702.06353

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    Borsa, R

    I. Borsa, R. Sassot, D. de Florian, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 012002 (2022), 2202.05060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Abdul Khalek, V

    R. Abdul Khalek, V. Bertone, A. Khoudli, and E. R. Nocera, Phys. Lett. B834, 137456 (2022), 2204.10331

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Ritzmann and W

    M. Ritzmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. D90, 054029 (2014), 1407.3272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    Metz and A

    A. Metz and A. Vossen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.91, 136 (2016), 1607.02521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 428 (2022), 2109.02653

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Borsa, D

    I. Borsa, D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D105, L031502 (2022), 2110.14015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    de Florian and G

    D. de Florian and G. F. R. Sborlini, Phys. Rev. D83, 074022 (2011), 1011.0486

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    D. F. Renter´ ıa-Estrada, R. J. Hern´ andez-Pinto, G. F. R. Sborlini, and P. Zurita, SciPost Phys. Core5, 049 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

    Frixione, Phys

    S. Frixione, Phys. Lett. B429, 369 (1998), hep- ph/9801442

    arXiv 1998

  53. [53]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15, 438 (1972)

    1972

  54. [54]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977)

    1977

  55. [55]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP46, 641 (1977)

    1977

  56. [56]

    Kassabov, E

    Z. Kassabov, E. R. Nocera, and M. Wilson (2022), 2207.00690

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Bertone, S

    V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), SciPost Phys.5, 008 (2018), 1712.07053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    J. M. Campbell, J. Rojo, E. Slade, and C. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 470 (2018), 1802.03021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    A. V. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zan- derighi, JHEP12, 046 (2017), 1708.01256

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    D. F. Renter´ ıa-Estrada, R. J. Hern´ andez-Pinto, and G. F. R. Sborlini, Symmetry13, 942 (2021), 2104.14663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet, and E. Pilon, JHEP05, 028 (2002), hep-ph/0204023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002