Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Next-to-leading-order QCD and electroweak corrections to dark-matter annihilation in the complex singlet model shift the relic density enough to flip which parameter points the observational bound allows.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:14 UTC pith:4QHIENCK

load-bearing objection Genuine NLO QCD+EW relic-density calculation in the CxSM with public code; treat the high-mass LO/NLO flip points with caution because the perturbative expansion is not under control there. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19179 v1 pith:4QHIENCK submitted 2026-07-21 hep-ph

Full Next-To Leading-Order Electroweak and QCD Corrections to the Relic Density in the CxSM

Pavao Brica , Karim Elyaouti , Pedro Gabriel , Margarete M\"uhlleitner , Rui Santos This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords dark matterrelic densityNLO electroweak correctionsNLO QCD correctionscomplex singlet extension of the SMHiggs portal dark matterthermally averaged cross sectionrenormalization scheme uncertainty
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 asks whether the standard leading-order calculation of the dark-matter relic abundance is good enough in the complex singlet extension of the Standard Model, and argues that it is not. The authors compute the full next-to-leading-order QCD and electroweak corrections to the thermally averaged annihilation cross section and feed them through the Boltzmann equation. The corrections change the predicted relic density by tens of percent, in both directions, so some parameter points that leading-order scans would call compatible with the measured abundance are excluded once the corrections are included, and some previously excluded points become compatible. The paper also uses the spread between different renormalization schemes to estimate the error left by missing higher orders, identifying the renormalization of the singlet vacuum expectation value as the main control on whether the corrections stay small or blow up.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that NLO QCD and electroweak corrections to the thermally averaged annihilation cross section are quantitatively significant in the CxSM. The relative correction to the relic density spans roughly -25% to +125% for the bulk of the scanned points; QCD alone reaches about +65% where bb final states dominate, and electroweak corrections in Higgs-pair channels reach -75% to +166% when the singlet-VEV counterterm is large. The compatibility of individual points with Ωh² = 0.12 changes in both directions, and the residual scheme uncertainty ranges from percent level in well-converged schemes up to about 68% in the large-mass-gap region. The instability is traced to the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the NLO-corrected thermally averaged annihilation cross section, assembled from the one-loop virtual amplitude, real photon/gluon emission, and counterterms. The pivotal model-specific input is the renormalization of the singlet vacuum expectation value vS, fixed by requiring the NLO partial width of a visible Higgs into the DM pair to equal its LO width—either with on-shell kinematics or in a zero-external-momentum (ZEM) variant. The size of the vS counterterm, driven by the mass gap between the decaying Higgs and the DM pair, decides whether the corrections are moderate or spuriously large; the mixing angle is renormalized in gauge-independent tadpole-pinched sch

Load-bearing premise

The one-loop QCD plus electroweak expansion converges at every parameter point that survives the analysis, so the corrected relic densities are physical shifts rather than artifacts of the chosen renormalization scheme.

What would settle it

Run the public code released with this paper over the same scan sample and count how many parameter points change their compatibility with Ωh² = 0.12 when the NLO corrections are switched on. The paper's central claim predicts a nonzero flip set (the red/blue points of Fig. 6); if the flip set disappears, or if it depends strongly on the choice of vS renormalization scheme after consistent input conversion, the 'phenomenological impact' claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Relic-density-only classification of a CxSM point is not stable at LO: the NLO shift excludes some points that LO accepts and accepts some that LO excludes.
  • Below the WW threshold, QCD corrections dominate and raise the relic density by up to roughly 65% in the bb-dominated region, so LO scans in that mass range systematically underpredict the dark-matter abundance.
  • Above the WW threshold, electroweak corrections take over; in Higgs-pair annihilation channels and in the ZEMh1 scheme they can be as large as the LO result itself, while the better-converged ZEMh2/OS schemes keep most corrections between about -25% and +25%.
  • After consistently converting inputs, the renormalization-scheme uncertainty is at the percent level for the bulk of points, but can reach about 68% at high DM mass when the h1-based scheme is used.
  • The NLO corrections are implemented in a public code based on the earlier LO tool, making the flip points and uncertainty estimates reproducible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: in future CxSM scans, the scheme spread itself should be quoted as the theoretical error; at high DM mass the true uncertainty is at least as large as the ~68% ZEMh1 band, so LO-based exclusion contours in that region carry an unquantified systematic.
  • Inference: the mass-gap mechanism generalizes to any singlet-extended Higgs-portal model: renormalizing the singlet VEV through a decay with a large gap to the DM pair will generate spuriously large NLO shifts. A stable recipe is to renormalize through the heaviest accessible decay or use zero-momentum schemes only when the gap is small.
  • Inference: because the discarded negative-TAC points identify where the one-loop expansion breaks down, the fraction of such points in a scan is a practical diagnostic of perturbative reliability; automated scans should flag or reject them explicitly rather than silently dropping them.
  • Inference: a direct test of the paper's size-of-correction pattern would be to compute NLO direct-detection rates for the NLO-validated points; the authors note the LO direct-detection cross section is velocity-suppressed, so NLO terms could dominate the experimental bound.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first full NLO QCD and electroweak corrections to the thermally averaged DM annihilation cross section and relic density in the complex singlet extension of the SM (CxSM). The authors renormalize the singlet VEV and mixing angle in several schemes, handle IR divergences with Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction, and implement the calculation in the public code RelExt@NLO. Numerical results for a ScannerS-constrained parameter sample show QCD corrections of up to about 65% in the b-bbar dominated region, electroweak corrections that can be much larger in Higgs-pair channels, and a renormalization-scheme uncertainty that is small in the preferred ZEMh2 scheme but reaches tens of percent in the ZEMh1 scheme. The central phenomenological claim is that NLO corrections can change whether a parameter point is allowed by the relic density, in both directions (Fig. 6).

Significance. If the result is robust, this is a valuable step beyond LO-only relic-density scans in Higgs-portal DM models: it provides a concrete example where NLO effects flip the allowed/excluded status of parameter points, and it establishes a technical template for extending RelExt to other Z2-stabilized DM models. The manuscript has several genuine strengths: the implementation is publicly available; the QCD corrections are cross-checked against the independent h->bb-bar NLO result (Eqs. 8.10-8.12), matching the bbar-dominated points in Fig. 3; and the uncertainty estimate in Sec. 8.4 consistently converts input parameters between schemes via Eq. (8.14), which is a non-trivial and appropriate procedure. The relic density is an output, not a fitted observable, and the vS counterterm is fixed by physical decay/vertex conditions rather than by the target observable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 8.3, Fig. 6] The paper states that parameter points for which the NLO-corrected TAC becomes negative are 'discarded as unphysical', but it does not quantify how many points are discarded, in which mass or coupling regions, or whether these discarded points are included in the LO/NLO classification shown in Fig. 6. This is load-bearing because the central phenomenological claim is that NLO corrections flip the LO-allowed/LO-excluded status of points; if the flips concentrate in the region where the one-loop expansion is breaking down, the claim may be a selection artifact. Please provide the number and fraction of discarded points per scheme and per mA bin, and show Fig. 6 with and without these points, or otherwise demonstrate that the LO/NLO flips survive on the convergent subset.
  2. [Sec. 8.4, Fig. 7] The uncertainty estimate is asymmetric. The ZEMh1-vs-ZEMh2 scheme change is evaluated over the full sample and reaches about 68% at large mA and -25%...+17% below 450 GeV, whereas the OSh2 comparison is restricted to points with m_h2 > 2 m_A, which excludes exactly the high-mass-gap configurations where the ZEMh1 scheme is poorly convergent. The default ZEMh2 scheme is therefore not directly validated over the full sample. Since the paper claims percent-level remaining uncertainty for the bulk of the points, it needs a full-sample convergence diagnostic: for example, the distribution of the OSh2/ZEMh2 difference on the common support, the number of points with no OS cross-check, and a statement of how many surviving points have NLO corrections large enough to invalidate the one-loop expansion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3 / Eq. (8.5)] The relation kappa_Omega = 1/(1+kappa_sigma)-1 is derived from Omega ~ 1/sigma and is used to translate TAC corrections into relic-density corrections. Since the relic density is obtained from the Boltzmann equation with the temperature-integrated TAC of Eq. (3.5), this is only approximate. Please state this explicitly and, if used for quantitative interpretation, check its accuracy on a few benchmark points by comparing with the directly computed kappa_Omega.
  2. [Sec. 5 and references] Typos: 'infared' in the section heading; 'Kinoshita-Lee-Nauemberg' should be 'Nauenberg'; 'Passerino-Veltmann' should be 'Passarino-Veltman'.
  3. [Appendix A, Table 6] The table header repeats 'mh2' twice; the third column is presumably mA. Please correct the header and ensure the input-file description matches the example.
  4. [Sec. 8.3] Some sentences are grammatically incomplete, e.g., 'For the points, where these channels dominate the relic density, we have corrections...' and 'The electroweak corrections to the Higgs pair final states can be even larger.' These are cosmetic but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: relic density is an unfitted output; vS counterterms are fixed by decay/zero-momentum renormalization conditions, and QCD corrections are benchmarked externally.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the load-bearing sense. The relic density is the output of the Boltzmann/TAC calculation (Sec. 3); the parameter scan explicitly refrains from applying the relic-density constraint (Sec. 7: 'At this stage, we do not yet apply constraints on the DM relic density'), so no parameter is fitted to Omega h^2 = 0.12. The singlet-VEV counterterm is fixed by the on-shell condition Gamma_LO(hi->AA) = Gamma_NLO(hi->AA) (Eq. 4.44) or by the zero-momentum condition 0 = Re(A_NLO_hi->AA(p^2=0)) (Eq. 4.47). These are ordinary renormalization conditions on auxiliary vertices, not fits to the predicted relic density; the annihilation cross sections entering the TAC are integrated over s values different from the renormalization point, so the relation between counterterm and observable is not an identity. The QCD corrections are checked against independent SM results (Eqs. 8.10-8.12, refs. [47-49]). The paper does cite the authors' previous work for the ZEM and tadpole-pinched schemes ([16,17,22,31]), but it displays the defining equations and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or forbid alternatives; the scheme dependence is explicitly quantified in Sec. 8.4. The acknowledged limitation is perturbative convergence, not circularity: Sec. 8.3 discards points with negative NLO TACs ('We discarded these points as unphysical'), and Sec. 8.4 reports up to ~68% scheme variation in ZEMh1 at large mA, which the authors attribute to large delta_vS in mass-gap regions. These caveats affect the reliability of the LO/NLO flip points in Fig. 6, but they do not make the prediction equal to its input. Score 1 reflects the minor reliance on self-citations and the convergence caveats, not a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to the relic density; model inputs (vS, α, mh1, mh2, mA) are scanned and filtered by external constraints (Sec. 7). The load-bearing assumptions are freeze-out cosmology (Sec. 3), the CxSM scalar sector (Sec. 2), the process-dependent/ZEM renormalization of vS and tadpole-pinched renormalization of α (Sec. 4), Catani-Seymour subtraction (Sec. 5), and, most fragile, one-loop convergence over the scanned sample — stressed by the discarded negative-TAC points and the up-to-68% scheme spread in Fig. 7. The paper introduces no new particles or fields; the DM candidate A and the CxSM scalar sector pre-exist (refs [12,13]).

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out: the relic density is obtained from the Boltzmann equation for a single DM component (Sec. 3, Eqs. 3.1-3.4).
    The entire calculation presumes thermal production via freeze-out and the standard TAC formula Eq. (3.5) from refs [4,14]; a non-thermal or non-freeze-out DM history would invalidate the target observable.
  • domain assumption CxSM scalar sector with vA=0 and two Z2 symmetries, leaving A stable as the DM candidate (Sec. 2, Eqs. 2.2-2.8).
    Defines the model and the DM candidate; the mixed Higgses h1,h2 mediate annihilation, so the result is model-specific.
  • ad hoc to paper One-loop perturbative convergence of the NLO expansion over the scanned sample.
    Required for the NLO result to approximate the true relic density; strained by the negative-TAC points discarded in Sec. 8.3 and by scheme uncertainties up to ~68% in Fig. 7.
  • ad hoc to paper Process-dependent renormalization of vS via Γ_LO(hi→AA) = Γ_NLO(hi→AA) or the zero-momentum ZEM variant provides a valid counterterm (Eqs. 4.44-4.49).
    This scheme choice (from the authors' refs [16,17,31]) fixes δvS; its strong dependence on the decay channel and mass gap drives the main numerical spread.
  • standard math Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction renders the sum of virtual and real IR contributions finite in D=4 (Sec. 5, refs [34-36]).
    Standard IR-safety machinery relied on to evaluate σNLO numerically.
  • domain assumption The scanned sample defined by the constraints in Sec. 7 (boundedness, vacuum stability, unitarity < 8π, S/T/U at 95% CL, Higgs rates at 2σ) is representative of the valid CxSM parameter space.
    All numerical conclusions (correction sizes, exclusions) are relative to this filtered sample; the scan excludes e.g. mS < mh scenarios.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25024 in / 22153 out tokens · 220325 ms · 2026-08-01T13:14:20.827235+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we present the calculation of the next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD and electroweak corrections to the thermally averaged cross section of Dark Matter (DM) annihilation in the framework of the complex singlet extended Standard Model (CxSM) with one DM candidate. We derive the corresponding NLO QCD and electroweak corrected relic density and discuss the impact of the corrections as well as the remaining theoretical uncertainty due to missing higher-order corrections. This is estimated through a variation of the renormalization schemes for the singlet vacuum expectation value $v_S$ and the Higgs mixing angle $\alpha$. For the bulk of the scanned parameter points, the QCD and electroweak corrections are found to be of typical size with the remaining theoretical uncertainty ranging at the percent level. The larger corrections that are found, can be attributed to a large counterterm for $v_S$ emerging in the case of large mass gaps in the decay channel used for the renormalization. The corrections are of phenomenological impact. There are parameter points that are allowed at leading order (LO), but are excluded after including the NLO corrections to the relic density, and vice versa. Our corrections have been implemented in the new code RelExt@NLO based on the LO code RelExt, which has been made publicly available. This work marks a first step towards the calculation of the QCD and electroweak corrected relic densities in models with DM candidates stabilized by a discrete $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19179 by Karim Elyaouti, Margarete M\"uhlleitner, Pavao Brica, Pedro Gabriel, Rui Santos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of additional diagrams with tadpoles that result from the application of the ATS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Generic diagrams contributing at NLO to DM annihilation into a massive gauge boson pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relative QCD corrections to the relic density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative QCD plus EW corrections κΩ to the relic density as a function of the DM mass mA. The color code indicates the dominant annihilation channel, given by b ¯b (blue), W+W− (purple), h2h2 (red), h1h1 (orange), and h1h2 (green). Upper: The chosen renormalization scheme on the left (right) for δvs is the ZEMh1 scheme and for δα the OS tadpole-pinched scheme (p ∗ tadpole-pinched scheme). Lower: The chosen… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative QCD plus EW corrections κΩ to the relic density as a function of the DM mass mA. The input parameter vS is renormalized in the OSh2 scheme and α is renormalized in the OS tadpole-pinched scheme (left) and the p∗ tadpole-pinched scheme (right). The color code indicates the dominant annihilation channel, given by b ¯b (blue), W+W− (purple), and h1h1 (orange). values correspond to maximal corrections… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The QCD plus electroweak corrected relic density Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimated uncertainty δ ZEMh1 ren (δ OSh2 ren ) of the higher-order corrections to the relic density through the renormalization scheme change of vS from the default scheme ZEMh2 to ZEMh1 (left) and OSh2 (right) as a function of the DM mass. Note, that we used in the right plot only parameter points, which fulfill the condition mh2 > 2mA. mixing angle unchanged. We made sure to consistently change the inpu… 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

49 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aghanimet al., Astron

    Planck, N. Aghanimet al., Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), 1807.06209, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Arina, PoSTOOLS2020, 001 (2021), 2012.09462

    C. Arina, PoSTOOLS2020, 001 (2021), 2012.09462

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun.149, 103 (2002), hep-ph/0112278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun.176, 367 (2007), hep-ph/0607059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    J. Harz, B. Herrmann, M. Klasen, K. Kovaˇ r ´ ık, and L. P. Wiggering, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 342 (2024), 2312.17206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, G. Chalons, and H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D100, 095024 (2019), 1906.11269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, and H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D104, 075004 (2021), 2101.02167

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, and H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D104, 075005 (2021), 2101.02170

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, and H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D104, 075002 (2021), 2101.02165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, and H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D104, 075003 (2021), 2101.02166

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Capucha, K

    R. Capucha, K. Elyaouti, M. M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. Plotnikov, and R. Santos, Comput. Phys. Commun.320, 109968 (2026), 2503.13087

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Costa, M

    R. Costa, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, JHEP06, 034 (2016), 1512.05355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    F. Egle, M. M¨ uhlleitner, R. Santos, and J. Viana, Physical Review D106(2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Edsjo and P

    J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D56, 1879 (1997), hep-ph/9704361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    J. C. Rom˜ ao, Integration of three body phase space: The 3BodyXSections and 3BodyDecays packages, https://porthos.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/CTQFT/files/ThreeBodyPhaseSpace.pdf

  16. [16]

    F. Egle, M. M¨ uhlleitner, R. Santos, and J. Viana, Phys. Rev. D106, 095030 (2022), 2202.04035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    F. Egle, M. M¨ uhlleitner, R. Santos, and J. Viana, JHEP11, 116 (2023), 2306.04127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Fleischer and F

    J. Fleischer and F. Jegerlehner, Phys. Rev. D23, 2001 (1981)

    2001

  19. [19]

    Krause, D

    M. Krause, D. Lopez-Val, M. Muhlleitner, and R. Santos, JHEP12, 077 (2017), 1708.01578

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Denner, Fortsch

    A. Denner, Fortsch. Phys.41, 307 (1993), 0709.1075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  21. [21]

    Kanemura, Y

    S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D70, 115002 (2004), hep-ph/0408364

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  22. [22]

    Krause, R

    M. Krause, R. Lorenz, M. Muhlleitner, R. Santos, and H. Ziesche, JHEP09, 143 (2016), 1605.04853

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Binosi and J

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rept.479, 1 (2009), 0909.2536

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    J. M. Cornwall and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D40, 3474 (1989)

    1989

  25. [25]

    Papavassiliou, Phys

    J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D41, 3179 (1990)

    1990

  26. [26]

    Papavassiliou, Phys

    J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D50, 5958 (1994), hep-ph/9406258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  27. [27]

    Degrassi and A

    G. Degrassi and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D46, 3104 (1992)

    1992

  28. [28]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979)

    1979

  29. [29]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber, Phys. Rev. D74, 013004 (2006), hep-ph/0604011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  30. [30]

    Sirlin, Phys

    A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D22, 971 (1980)

    1980

  31. [31]

    Azevedo, P

    D. Azevedo, P. Gabriel, M. Muhlleitner, K. Sakurai, and R. Santos, JHEP10, 044 (2021), 2104.03184

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Kinoshita, J

    T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys.3, 650 (1962)

    1962

  33. [33]

    T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev.133, B1549 (1964)

    1964

  34. [34]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. Seymour, Nuclear Physics B485, 291–419 (1997)

    1997

  35. [35]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, Nuclear Physics B627, 189–265 (2002)

    2002

  36. [36]

    Sch¨ onherr, The European Physical Journal C78(2018)

    M. Sch¨ onherr, The European Physical Journal C78(2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and L. Hofer, Computer Physics Communications212, 220–238 (2017)

    2017

  38. [38]

    Hahn, Computer Physics Communications168, 78–95 (2005)

    T. Hahn, Computer Physics Communications168, 78–95 (2005). 25

    2005

  39. [39]

    Coimbra, M

    R. Coimbra, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2428 (2013), 1301.2599

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    M¨ uhlleitner, M

    M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos, and J. Wittbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 198 (2022), 2007.02985

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D16, 1519 (1977)

    1977

  42. [42]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D46, 381 (1992)

    1992

  43. [43]

    Bahlet al., Comput

    H. Bahlet al., Comput. Phys. Commun.291, 108803 (2023), 2210.09332

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Gross, O

    C. Gross, O. Lebedev, and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 191801 (2017), 1708.02253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Azevedoet al., JHEP01, 138 (2019), 1810.06105

    D. Azevedoet al., JHEP01, 138 (2019), 1810.06105

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Glauset al., JHEP12, 034 (2020), 2008.12985

    S. Glauset al., JHEP12, 034 (2020), 2008.12985

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    B. A. Kniehl and M. Spira, Nucl. Phys. B432, 39 (1994), hep-ph/9410319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  48. [48]

    Kwiatkowski and M

    A. Kwiatkowski and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B338, 66 (1994), hep-ph/9405308, [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 342, 455–455 (1995)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  49. [49]

    Spira, QCD corrections to Higgs boson decays, inRingberg Workshop on Perspectives for Electroweak Interactions in e+ e- Collisions, pp

    M. Spira, QCD corrections to Higgs boson decays, inRingberg Workshop on Perspectives for Electroweak Interactions in e+ e- Collisions, pp. 0203–218, 1995, hep-ph/9504339. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995