Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Analytic two-loop QCD amplitude narrows double-charmonium gap

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 authors present the first analytical two-loop NRQCD amplitude for e+e- to J/psi+eta_c as an expansion in m_c^2/s, with cross-section predictions consistent (within uncertainties) with B-factory data.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection First analytic NNLO amplitude for e+e- -> J/psi+eta_c, with strong internal checks, but the constant-term basis and the 'agreement with data' claim need scrutiny. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20777 v1 pith:C5ATLAPC submitted 2025-08-28 hep-ph hep-th

Analytical two-loop amplitudes of $e^{+} e^{-} \longrightarrow \boldsymbol{J} / \boldsymbol{\psi}+\boldsymbol{\eta}_c$ at $B$ factories

Xiang Chen , Xin Guan , Chuan-Qi He , Yan-Qing Ma , Jian Wang , Da-Jiang Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords two-loop amplitudesNRQCDdouble charmonium productionJ/ψ + η_casymptotic expansionleading logarithmsB factoriesanalytic reconstruction
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

This paper reports a fully analytic next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD amplitude for e+e− → J/ψ + η_c inside non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD), written as an expansion in r = m_c^2/s (charm mass squared over collision-energy squared). It reconstructs the coefficients from high-precision numerical values using a small set of classical polylogarithm constants, and it isolates the source of the dominant logarithms by splitting the loop integrals into soft, collinear, anti-collinear, and hard regions. The resulting cross section at B-factory energies is consistent with the Belle and BaBar measurements, addressing a discrepancy that has stood since the first measurements in 2002. Because the result is analytic, it also exposes the ln^3 r terms that dominate at NNLO and yields a ready-made prediction for Υ + η_b production.

Core claim

The central claim is that the complete two-loop amplitude for γ* → J/ψ + η_c, after subtracting the 1/ϵ poles fixed by NRQCD anomalous dimensions, has the form h(2)(r) = r^2[L_(2,4) ln^4 r + L_(2,3) ln^3 r + L_(2,2) ln^2 r + L_(2,1) ln r + L_(2,0)] + r^{5/2} L_(5/2,0) + O(r^3), all coefficients analytic. The method: solve differential equations in r numerically to hundreds of digits, then reconstruct coefficients by integer-relation detection over {Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), Li_m(2), m ≤ 4}. Region analysis traces the leading ln^2 r and ln^3 r terms to soft-quark loops with radiative jet functions; pure soft-gluon double logs cancel because the mesons are color neutral. At √s = 10.58 GeV the NNLO c

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless coefficient h(2)(r) of the two-loop amplitude, expanded in r = m_c^2/s with powers of ln r. The carrying mechanism is a pipeline: reduce 167 integral families to master integrals by integration-by-parts identities; evaluate the master integrals as functions of r through numerical differential equations with boundary conditions fixed by auxiliary mass flow; reconstruct the leading r-coefficients analytically with integer-relation detection over a polylogarithm-constant basis; then solve the differential equations again analytically to obtain the remaining coefficients. For the logarithm structure, the key physics mechanism is a region analysis in which

Load-bearing premise

The analytic form is only as complete as the reconstruction basis: the calculation assumes every finite coefficient can be written using one small family of special constants (polylogarithms at three fixed arguments) through weight four; if a coefficient needed a different constant, the analytic result would miss it.

What would settle it

Take a subleading r-coefficient that was not used in the initial reconstruction, evaluate it numerically to roughly a thousand digits, and test via integer-relation detection whether it lies in the claimed span of Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), and Li_m(2) for m ≤ 4; if no exact integer relation appears, the analytic basis is incomplete.

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

If this is right

  • The NNLO cross section for e+e− → J/ψ + η_c at 10.52–10.58 GeV is predicted in the 11–14 fb range, within the measured Belle and BaBar bands; Belle II at 10.52 GeV can test this directly.
  • The ln^3 r term dominates the NNLO amplitude at B-factory energies, so resummation of leading and next-to-leading logarithms to all orders becomes a concrete next step rather than an abstract one.
  • The analytic amplitude carries explicit heavy-quark mass dependence, giving an immediate prediction for Υ + η_b production (about 0.115 fb at 22.5 GeV) for future colliders.
  • At high energies the partial O(α_s^4) term exceeds the LO term, signaling that fixed-order perturbation theory there is unreliable and motivating resummation or alternative treatments.
  • The r-expansion converges with radius 1/16, and truncating at O(r^35) provides enough precision for phenomenology across the energy range considered.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the polylog basis used here is complete, the same numerical-differential-equation-plus-integer-relation pipeline should convert other exclusive quarkonium NNLO calculations from numerical to analytic, provided their master integrals satisfy similar first-order systems.
  • The cancellation of soft-gluon double logarithms and survival of soft-quark double logarithms is likely a general rule for color-singlet final states, so future resummation formalisms should concentrate on soft-fermion loops.
  • The appearance of r^{5/2} at two loops means the amplitude has a branch cut in the variable r that Taylor expansions miss; analogous half-integer powers should appear near threshold in other exclusive double-quarkonium processes.
  • A Belle II measurement at √s = 10.52 GeV with total uncertainty below about 1 fb would distinguish the µR = √s/2 and µR = √s scale choices and meaningfully constrain the NRQCD long-distance matrix element.
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 the first fully analytical two-loop (NNLO) QCD amplitudes for e+e− → γ* → J/ψ + ηc within NRQCD, expressed as an asymptotic expansion in r = m_c^2/s. The computation uses automated diagram generation, IBP reduction, differential equations with AMFlow boundary conditions, and PSLQ reconstruction to obtain analytic coefficients. The authors give explicit leading logarithmic terms and a non-integer power term r^{5/2}, analyze the origin of leading logarithms with the method of regions, and provide cross-section predictions for J/ψ+ηc and Υ+ηb at B-factory and future-collider energies, claiming agreement with B-factory measurements.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial step: an analytic NNLO result for a double-charmonium production process, with explicit large-logarithmic structure and a non-integer power correction, plus a nontrivial extension to bottomonium. The computation is internally well checked in several ways: exact cancellation of 1/ε poles, agreement with known NLO logarithms, 600-digit precision in the PSLQ input, convergence tests in r, and a region-based cross-check of leading logarithms for many diagrams. The main unresolved risk is the completeness of the PSLQ reconstruction basis for the constant coefficients, and the absence of a direct comparison with existing numerical NNLO calculations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II and §IV, Eqs. (14)–(19)] The 'fully analytical' claim rests on PSLQ reconstruction of finite terms using only the basis {Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), Li_m(2) | m ≤ 4}. No proof is given that this basis is closed for the integral family, and the constant coefficients L^(2)_{(2,0)} and L^(2)_{(5/2,0)} are not displayed, so the reconstruction cannot be checked by the reader. The checks listed (pole cancellation, NLO logarithms, Fig. 10 convergence, Sec. V region analysis) do not constrain these constants: pole cancellation fixes only divergences; NLO checks fix log terms; Fig. 10 tests truncation in r, not the constants; and Sec. V is explicitly incomplete. Please either prove basis completeness or provide an independent numerical/analytic validation of these constants, e.g., by comparison with the numerical NNLO results of Refs. [20,21].
  2. [§I/§IV/§VI] Refs. [20,21] computed the same NNLO cross sections numerically, but the paper never reports a direct numerical comparison. This is the most natural and decisive cross-check of the analytic coefficients. Without it, the claim that the asymptotic expansion reproduces the exact two-loop result is not fully established. Please include a table or plot comparing the present cross sections at the same inputs (e.g., √s = 10.58 GeV, μ_R = √s, m_c = 1.5 GeV) with those of Refs. [20,21].
  3. [§V] The region analysis is presented as a check of the leading logarithms, but the final paragraph states that 'a few diagrams that cannot be computed using the δ-regulators' are left to future work. This makes the statement 'We investigated 80 Feynman diagrams, finding agreement with the direct computation' ambiguous: were the uncomputed diagrams among the 80, and do they contribute at the leading-log level? Please clarify coverage and either complete the analysis or explicitly restrict the claim of having explained all leading logarithms.
  4. [Abstract and §VI.A, Table II] The abstract states that the predictions 'agree with the experimental results.' At √s = 10.58 GeV the central NNLO cross section is 11.85 fb, compared with Belle 25.6 ± 2.8 ± 3.4 fb and BaBar 17.6 ± 2.8 +1.5 −2.1 fb. Only the upper edge of the scale/mass uncertainty reaches the BaBar result. Please quantify the agreement with a combined uncertainty estimate, or soften the wording to 'consistent within large uncertainties.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Ref. [46]] Reference [46] is malformed: 'H. Ferguson and D. H. Bailey, cancer science (1992)' is not a valid citation. Please provide the correct PSLQ reference.
  2. [Fig. 3] The axis/legend labels 'ln0(r)', 'ln1(r)', etc. should be typeset as ln^0(r), ln^1(r), etc., to avoid confusion with 'ln evaluated at r=0'.
  3. [Figs. 7 and 8 captions] The phrase 'colliding energy' should be 'center-of-mass energy' in both captions.
  4. [§VI.A] The sentence 'The cross section at √s = 10.58 GeV changes from 13.87 fb to 11.85 fb when varying μ_R from √s/2 to √s' omits the 2√s endpoint used in Table II; please state the full scale-variation range for completeness.
  5. [§VI.B] Minor grammatical issue: 'the relative error of J/ψ + ηc are generally larger' should be 'the relative uncertainty of J/ψ + ηc is generally larger'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the two-loop amplitude is obtained from an independent differential-equation/AMFlow computation, not from the experimental cross section or from a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The two-loop amplitude h(2)(r) is built from Feynman diagrams, IBP reduction to master integrals, and numerical differential equations with boundary conditions at r=1/100 computed by the independent AMFlow/auxiliary-mass-flow method (Sec. II: "The boundary conditions at r = 1/100 are obtained using the auxiliary mass flow method ... implemented in AMFlow"). No parameter is fitted to the Belle/BaBar cross sections; the phenomenological predictions in Tab. II follow from standard inputs (mc, alpha_s, and NRQCD matrix elements from Refs. [14,67,68]) and the computed amplitude. The internal checks are genuine and independent: UV poles cancel against known anomalous dimensions (Eqs. (11)-(13)), NLO logarithmic coefficients are "found to be consistent with Refs. [15,22,23]", and the leading-logarithm region analysis in Sec. V is explicitly presented as a check, with "agreement with the direct computation" for 80 Feynman diagrams. The PSLQ reconstruction basis ({Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), Li_m(2)}, m<=4) is an assumption about the space of transcendental constants; if incomplete it would make the analytic coefficients wrong, but it does not define the result in terms of the target cross section or of a self-citation. Self-citations (Blade, AMFlow, CalcLoop, the delta-regulator method of Refs. [54,55]) are computational tools or cross-check methods, not unverified authorities used to force the central claim. The explicit limitation "there exist a few diagrams that cannot be computed using the delta-regulators" (Sec. V) is an admitted gap in the region-analysis explanation of leading logarithms, but it does not affect the direct two-loop calculation and does not introduce circularity. Overall, the paper's predictions are compared with experiments, not constructed from them, so no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central computation introduces no fitted parameters or new entities. Standard NRQCD and SCET-based inputs and computational techniques are used; the quark masses and NRQCD matrix elements are taken from prior literature.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization for double quarkonium production
    Used throughout Section II to express the amplitude as Eq. (5) with hard coefficients h(i)(r) and NRQCD matrix elements; relies on Ref. [13].
  • domain assumption Leptonic/hadronic factorization of the e+e- cross section
    Invoked in Section II citing Ref. [24]; allows writing sigma from the hadronic tensor.
  • standard math Asymptotic expansion structure I(r) = sum c_{k,n}(epsilon) ln^k(r) r^n for Feynman integrals
    Assumed in Section II, Eq. (8), following Refs. [40-45]; used for the differential-equation solution.
  • domain assumption Anomalous dimensions gamma_J/psi and gamma_eta_c as given in Eq. (12)
    Used for the pole-subtraction check and factorization matching in Section III; taken from Refs. [49-52].
  • domain assumption NRQCD matrix elements |R(0)|^2 taken from Refs. [14,67,68]
    Input to cross sections; Table I lists values for charm and bottom quarkonia.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical two-loop amplitudes of $e^{+} e^{-} \longrightarrow \boldsymbol{J} / \boldsymbol{\psi}+\boldsymbol{\eta}_c$ at $B$ factories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5ATLAPC

@misc{pith2026250820777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical two-loop amplitudes of $e^+ e^- \longrightarrow \boldsymbolJ / \boldsymbol\psi+\boldsymbol\eta_c$ at $B$ factories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5ATLAPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20777}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

In double charmonium production, a long-standing challenge is that the theoretical predictions are not consistent with the measurements at B factories. Within the NRQCD framework, the next-to-leading order (NLO) calculation has proved its power to cut down the discrepancy between theory and experiments. To further clarify this puzzle, we have performed the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) calculation. The amplitude is obtained as an analytical asymptotic expansion in the ratio of the squared charm-quark mass over the squared center-of-mass energy, $m_c^2/s$. We investigate the origin of the leading logarithms by performing a region analysis, revealing the intricate factorization structure in this process. We provide numerical predictions on the total cross sections of $J/\psi+\eta_c$ production, which agree with the experimental results. Extension of our computation to $\Upsilon+\eta_b$ production is also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20777 by Chuan-Qi He, Da-Jiang Zhang, Jian Wang, Xiang Chen, Xin Guan, Yan-Qing Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Selected tree-level and one-loop diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Selected two-loop diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The contribution of each logarithmic term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: One-loop diagrams containing double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Sample reduced diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Reduced diagrams contributing to double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The LO, NLO, NNLO total cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The LO, NLO, NNLO total cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Convergence behavior of the two-loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The relative contribution of each term to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] 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. Semi-analytical results for $e^+e^-\to J/\psi + X_{{\rm non\,}c\bar{c}}$ up to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s v^2)$ at B factories

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    NRQCD calculation of O(α_s), O(v²) and first-time O(α_s v²) corrections to e⁺e⁻ → J/ψ + X_non c c̄, with r = m_c/√s expansions to r⁴⁰, yielding cross section 0.530 pb consistent with Belle but angular parameter deviating >2σ.

  2. Semi-analytical two-loop QCD corrections to $e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\chi_{cJ}$ at B factories

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Semi-analytical NNLO QCD corrections to e+e- -> J/psi + chi_cJ are computed via asymptotic expansions, yielding large corrections that reduce scale dependence for some channels and a discrepancy with Belle data on the...

  3. Soft Contributions Stabilize NNLO QCD Corrections to Quarkonium Production and Decay

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Soft contributions stabilize NNLO QCD corrections for S-wave color-singlet quarkonium processes, yielding better perturbative convergence and experimental agreement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abe et al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys

    K. Abe et al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 142001 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Study of double charmonium production in e^+ e^- annihilation at \sqrt{s} ~ 10.6 GeV

    K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 70, 071102 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0407009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 72, 031101 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0506062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054007 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    The hard function represents the contribu- tion of all hard propagators with O(1) off-shellness

    The whole perturbative amplitude can be considered as a convolution of the hard function, the radiative jet function, and the soft function, which is interfaced with projectors. The hard function represents the contribu- tion of all hard propagators with O(1) off-shellness. It can be considered as the Wilson coefficients of the effec- tive operators, cons...

    work page

  6. [6]

    6(a) generalizes Fig

    Fig. 6(a) generalizes Fig. 5(d) to include the case with leading power projector Π (0) 3 but with subleading radiative jet function J (1) c¯c,q. Fig. 6(b) introduces a new type of radiative jet function, Jc¯c,qg , that emits both a soft quark and a soft physical gluon. It can be consid- ered as obtained by inserting in Jc¯c,q a subleading power interactio...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Isgur and C

    N. Isgur and C. H. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1080 (1984)

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    J. P. Ma and Z. G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 70, 074007 (2004)

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    A. E. Bondar and V. L. Chernyak, Phys. Lett. B 612, 215 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412335

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    Dong et al

    M. Dong et al. (CEPC Study Group), (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    J. H. Yin et al. (Belle), JHEP 08, 121 (2023), arXiv:2305.17947 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Altmannshofer et al

    W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. 11 Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 5853 (1997)], arXiv:hep-ph/9407339

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  14. [14]

    Dur´ an, L

    ´O. Dur´ an, L. Garc ´ ıa-Tabar´ es, L. A. Gonz´ alez, F. Toral, Y. Arimoto, T. Yamada, and A. Yamamoto, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 35, 4003605 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Abada et al.(FCC), Eur

    A. Abada et al.(FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST228, 261 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054007 (2003), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 099901 (2005)], arXiv:hep- ph/0211085

    work page arXiv 2003

  17. [17]

    Zhang, Y.-j

    Y.-J. Zhang, Y.-j. Gao, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 092001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [18]

    Gong and J.-X

    B. Gong and J.-X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 77, 054028 (2008), arXiv:0712.4220 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    H.-R. Dong, F. Feng, and Y. Jia, Phys. Rev. D 85, 114018 (2012)

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Z.-G. He, Y. Fan, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D 75, 074011 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  21. [21]

    G. T. Bodwin, J. Lee, and C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094018 (2008)

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Jia, J.-X

    Y. Jia, J.-X. Wang, and D. Yang, JHEP 10, 105 (2011), arXiv:1012.6007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  23. [23]

    F. Feng, Y. Jia, Z. Mo, W.-L. Sang, and J.-Y. Zhang, (2019), arXiv:1901.08447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Huang, B

    X.-D. Huang, B. Gong, and J.-X. Wang, JHEP 02, 049 (2023), arXiv:2212.03631 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Nogueira, J

    P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. 105, 279 (1993)

    work page 1993

  26. [26]

    G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074028 (2014), arXiv:1406.1926 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Sun, JHEP 09, 073 (2021), arXiv:2107.02047 [hep-ph]

    Z. Sun, JHEP 09, 073 (2021), arXiv:2107.02047 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  30. [30]

    https://e.gitee.com/multiloop-pku/repos/multiloop- pku/calcloop/sources

    work page

  31. [31]

    R. N. Lee, (2012), arXiv:1212.2685 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Peraro, JHEP 12, 030 (2016), arXiv:1608.01902 [hep- ph]

    T. Peraro, JHEP 12, 030 (2016), arXiv:1608.01902 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Peraro, JHEP 07, 031 (2019), arXiv:1905.08019 [hep- ph]

    T. Peraro, JHEP 07, 031 (2019), arXiv:1905.08019 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Laporta, Int

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    Tkachov, Physics Letters B 100, 65 (1981)

    F. Tkachov, Physics Letters B 100, 65 (1981)

    work page 1981

  36. [36]

    Chetyrkin and F

    K. Chetyrkin and F. Tkachov, Nuclear Physics B 192, 159 (1981)

    work page 1981

  37. [37]

    A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B254, 158 (1991)

    1991

  38. [38]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    Z.-F. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 222001 (2022), arXiv:2201.11637 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, (2022), arXiv:2201.11669 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    BOKASUN: a fast and precise numerical program to calculate the Master Integrals of the two-loop sunrise diagrams

    M. Caffo, H. Czyz, M. Gunia, and E. Remiddi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 427 (2009), arXiv:0807.1959 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, and C.-Y. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 779, 353 (2018), arXiv:1711.09572 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 105, L051503 (2022), arXiv:2107.01864 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Moriello, JHEP 01, 150 (2020), arXiv:1907.13234 [hep-ph]

    F. Moriello, JHEP 01, 150 (2020), arXiv:1907.13234 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Czakon, Phys

    M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B664, 307 (2008), arXiv:0803.1400 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  45. [45]

    R. N. Lee, JHEP 04, 108 (2015), arXiv:1411.0911 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Ferguson and D

    H. Ferguson and D. H. Bailey, cancer science (1992)

    work page 1992

  47. [47]

    Hidding, Comput

    M. Hidding, Comput. Phys. Commun. 269, 108125 (2021), arXiv:2006.05510 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Armadillo, R

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Czarnecki and K

    A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Phys. Lett. B 519, 212 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0109054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  50. [50]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and S. Moch, Nucl. Phys. B 798, 210 (2008), arXiv:0707.4139 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  51. [51]

    B¨ arnreuther, M

    P. B¨ arnreuther, M. Czakon, and P. Fiedler, JHEP 02, 078 (2014), arXiv:1312.6279 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    Czarnecki and K

    A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2531 (1998)

    work page 1998

  53. [53]

    B. A. Kniehl, A. Onishchenko, J. H. Piclum, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 638, 209 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604072

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [54]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. Signer, and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2535 (1998)

    work page 1998

  55. [55]

    J.-Y. Hou, J. Wang, and D.-J. Zhang, JHEP 06, 164 (2025), arXiv:2501.11824 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Z. L. Liu and M. Neubert, JHEP 04, 033 (2020), arXiv:1912.08818 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Wang, (2019), arXiv:1912.09920 [hep-ph]

    J. Wang, (2019), arXiv:1912.09920 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, S. Jaskiewicz, J. Strohm, R. Szafron, L. Vernazza, and J. Wang, JHEP 07, 144 (2022), arXiv:2205.04479 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Liu and A

    T. Liu and A. Penin, JHEP 11, 158 (2018), arXiv:1809.04950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Z. L. Liu, M. Neubert, M. Schnubel, and X. Wang, JHEP 06, 183 (2023), arXiv:2212.10447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    This contribution is propor- tional to the color charge of the external collinear particle and thus vanishes after summing over all diagrams, since the mesons are color neutral

    for the analyses of the massive form factor with the method of regions [62, 63]. This contribution is propor- tional to the color charge of the external collinear particle and thus vanishes after summing over all diagrams, since the mesons are color neutral. The other kind of region that contributes to the double logarithms involves the soft quark. The re...

    work page

  62. [62]

    G. Bell, P. B¨ oer, and T. Feldmann, JHEP09, 183 (2022), arXiv:2205.06021 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    G. Bell, P. B¨ oer, T. Feldmann, D. Horstmann, and V. Shtabovenko, (2024), arXiv:2412.14149 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    ter Hoeve, E

    J. ter Hoeve, E. Laenen, C. Marinissen, L. Vernazza, and G. Wang, JHEP 02, 024 (2024), arXiv:2311.16215 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 404, 101 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9703357

    work page arXiv 1997

  66. [66]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B 522, 321 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  67. [67]

    A. V. Manohar and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0605001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  68. [68]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, R. Szafron, and J. Wang, JHEP 03, 001 (2018), arXiv:1712.04416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, R. Szafron, and J. Wang, JHEP 11, 112 (2018), arXiv:1808.04742 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1726 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9503356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  71. [71]

    Brambilla, H

    N. Brambilla, H. S. Chung, A. Vairo, and X.-P. Wang, JHEP 03, 242 (2023), arXiv:2210.17345 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Li, X.-D

    C. Li, X.-D. Huang, and W.-L. Sang, (2025), arXiv:2506.16317 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    B¨ undgen, R

    L. B¨ undgen, R. V. Harlander, S. Y. Klein, and M. C. Schaaf, (2025), arXiv:2501.04651 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.