Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Phase-space sectors for ordered momentum mappings in local subtraction up to N$^3$LO

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simple decomposition of the phase space into sectors defined by quadratic inequalities on Mandelstam invariants lets any infrared singularity be subtracted with ordered momentum mappings, eliminating the need for partial fractioning.

desk verdict A practical phase-space sector method that removes the partial-fractioning bottleneck for ordered mappings, with strong numerical evidence but a missing analytic coverage proof and a shaky equivalence argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12537 v1 pith:EYB6C47T submitted 2025-07-16 hep-ph

Xuan Chen , Matteo Marcoli This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords infraredsubtractionantennaorderedmomentummappingsphase-spacesectorsN3LOQCDpartialfractioningsub-antennaelocal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

At next-to-next-to-leading order and beyond, the momentum mappings used in antenna-type infrared subtraction schemes assume a fixed ordering of the emitted partons, but subleading-colour matrix elements contain emissions that can become collinear in any order. Previous work handled these unordered configurations by partial-fractioning antenna functions into sub-antennae, a procedure that proliferates terms and becomes impractical at N$^3$LO. This paper proposes instead a decomposition of the phase space into sectors defined by simple quadratic inequalities on Mandelstam invariants, so that each sector contains only the infrared configurations compatible with one ordered mapping. The authors show that with this decomposition any matrix element's singularities can be subtracted using ordered mappings alone, without partial fractioning, and argue that the resulting integrated subtraction terms equal those of the sub-antenna approach. Because the sectors are mapping-based rather than antenna-specific, the method scales to three unresolved emissions and has already been used for the first fully differential N$^3$LO jet-production calculation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the ordered antenna mappings, $\{p_1^h,p_2,\dots,p_n,p_{n+1}^h\}\to\{P_1,P_2\}$, which absorb unresolved momenta into two hard ones while preserving momentum conservation and on-shellness, but which reconstruct the correct hard momenta only when collinear clusters occur with a fixed adjacency. To make these mappings applicable everywhere, the paper introduces phase-space sectors: regions cut out by inequalities among products of Mandelstam invariants, such as $s_{12}s_{34}\le s_{13}s_{24}$ at NNLO, and more elaborate min-selection plus product-comparison rules for the three N$^3$LO scenarios. Each sector selects one ordering of the mapping, and the sectors are disjoint and cover the full phase space. The analytical argument that carries the equivalence to sub-antennae is the factorization of the antenna phase space from the reduced phase space, which makes the integrated result independent of the mapping choice.

What would settle it

Scan the 12 sectors defined in Section 3.2.1 with phase-space points approaching each triple-unresolved configuration that the default $(1,2,3,4,5)$ antenna mapping is said to fail on, for example $S(2)\otimes C(1,4)\otimes C(3,5)$ or $C(1,3)\otimes C(2,4,5)$, and check whether the sector-selected mapping reproduces the expected hard momenta. A single point where the reconstructed $P_1,P_2$ differ from the exact soft or collinear limit would falsify the coverage claim; likewise, a cancellation test that degrades with depth for any listed configuration would show the sectors do not separate the limits they claim to separate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the obstruction to using ordered momentum mappings in the presence of multiple unordered emissions is a phase-space bookkeeping problem, not a property of the antenna functions themselves. By cutting the phase space along the surface $s_{12}s_{34}=s_{13}s_{24}$ for two unresolved emissions, and by generalized min-selection and product-comparison rules for three emissions, each sector can be assigned a definite ordering of the momenta; within that sector, the antenna mapping reconstructs the correct hard momenta in every infrared limit that can occur there. The full antenna function is evaluated unchanged in every sector, so soft and other shared divergences are never split into pieces. The paper proves the equivalence of this sector construction to the previous sub-antenna decomposition at the level of integrated subtraction terms, Eq.~(4.6): $S_1-S_2=0$, because the reduced phase space and the integral over it are independent of which ordered mapping is chosen. Numerical point-by-point tests at NNLO and N$^3$LO confirm that the sector-selected mappings cancel the real-emission singularities with the same depth as the sub-antenna implementation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sector inequalities (the min-selection and product-comparison rules in Section 3) genuinely separate phase-space regions whose only infrared configurations are compatible with the assigned momentum ordering; the triple-unresolved cases are validated numerically, but no general analytic proof of this coverage property is given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ordered momentum mappings suffice for local subtraction up to N$^3$LO: no partial fractioning of antenna functions is needed, even for fully unordered abelian-gluon emissions.
  • The same sector decomposition applies unchanged to one-loop double-unresolved antenna functions, so going from NNLO to N$^3$LO requires no new antenna-specific work for the mapping problem.
  • Because the antenna function is evaluated in full inside each sector, soft and other shared divergent terms are not split, removing a source of large intermediate cancellations.
  • The integrated result is identical to the sub-antenna approach, so existing NNLO antenna-subtraction results remain valid when the sector method is used.
  • The construction has been used in the first fully differential N$^3$LO calculation of jet production at $e^+e^-$ colliders.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper, the sector logic is generic: any subtraction method whose momentum map has ordering restrictions could adopt the same invariant-inequality separation without modifying its local counterterms.
  • For even higher orders, the algorithm can be iterated recursively rather than enumerated factorially: first locate the smallest invariant to pin one emission next to a hard radiator, then apply the lower-multiplicity product comparison to the remaining emissions.
  • The integrated equivalence $S_1-S_2=0$ leaves freedom to mix strategies: one could keep existing sub-antennae for some colour structures and use sectors only for the problematic unordered configurations, without changing the final answer.
  • A natural next step is an analytic proof of the sector coverage property for the triple-unresolved 12-sector algorithms, which the paper currently verifies only numerically.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a phase-space sector decomposition that assigns ordered antenna momentum mappings to antenna functions with multiple unordered emissions, thereby avoiding partial fractioning into sub-antennae. For NNLO and N3LO, the authors define sectors through inequalities among Mandelstam invariants: two sectors for two unordered emissions, and for three unresolved emissions three algorithmic families (three unordered emissions, one unordered plus two ordered emissions, and a gluon emitted between multiple dipoles). The central claim is that, with this decomposition, the singularities of any matrix element can be subtracted locally using ordered mappings. The paper presents a purported analytic proof of equivalence between the sector strategy and the sub-antenna strategy, followed by numerical validation: NNLO event-shape comparisons against an existing sub-antenna implementation, and point-by-point deep-infrared cancellation tests for the relevant double- and triple-real subtraction terms, including the antenna functions used in the N3LO jet-production calculation of [61].

Significance. If the sector-coverage property is correct, this is a valuable technical simplification for local subtraction schemes: it removes the need for antenna-specific partial fractioning, scales more gracefully with the number of emissions, and has already been used in a first differential N3LO calculation. The paper is explicit and algorithmic, the sector conditions are purely kinematic with no fitted parameters, and the numerical validation is extensive: agreement with the independent sub-antenna implementation at NNLO, deep-collinear cancellation tests at N3LO, and recovery of known results in [61] all support the practical usefulness of the method. The main weakness is that the advertised analytical proof does not actually establish the central coverage property; the 'any matrix element' claim therefore rests on finite numerical evidence. This is a genuine but, in my view, fixable gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.1 (and 3.2.2, 3.2.3)] The central coverage property is asserted rather than proved. The text says in Section 3.1 that the algorithm relies on the fact that the Mandelstam conditions only allow some invariants to vanish in each region, and postpones the proof to Section 4; however, Section 4 does not contain a proof that each of the 12 (or 12, 5) sectors excludes every infrared configuration on the fail list of the assigned ordered 5-to-2 mapping in Section 2.3.3. The numerical tests in Section 4.2.2 sample a finite set of limits and do not exhaustively enumerate all vanishing-invariant patterns compatible with the sector inequalities. Without a general argument, the abstract's claim that 'the singularities of any matrix element can be subtracted with ordered mappings' is not established; please supply an analytic case analysis or scope the claim to the antenna functions and limits explicitly tested.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.6)] The proof of equivalence between the sub-antenna and sector strategies is not sufficient as written. The step in Eq. (4.6) assumes that the reduced-phase-space integrals of F with P^(i) and P^(k) differ only by a relabelling of the two mapped hard momenta; in general, two different ordered antenna mappings are not related by a simple swap of P_a and P_b, and if the equality is intended to hold only after summation over the sub-antennae, that is not demonstrated. Moreover, Eq. (4.6) is an integrated equivalence; it does not show that the sector subtraction term cancels the real-emission singularities locally in phase space, which is precisely what the numerical t-variable tests check and what the paper's wording 'singularities ... can be subtracted' requires. The analytical validation should either be completed or explicitly presented as a heuristic consistency argument.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] The statement that the decomposition works for 'any matrix element' goes beyond what is established by the paper. The manuscript treats three specific N3LO scenarios (Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3) and validates a selected set of antenna functions (eA0_4, D0_4,c, F0_4,b, eA1_4, ~~A0_5, eA0_5, C0_5). Unless the missing proof is supplied, the claim should be scoped to the illustrated classes of unordered configurations and to the antenna functions used in [61]; as written, the generality claim is a correctness-risk concern rather than a demonstrated fact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures] Several figure panels have garbled or nonstandard axis labels (e.g., 'd /d1mT' instead of dσ/d(1-T)); please clean up the typography and use conventional event-shape notation.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'The configuration with two unordered gluons is equivalent to the first case, since there is no ordering for a single non-abelian gluon' is unclear and should be rephrased or expanded.
  3. [Section 4.2] The tRRR distribution plots would be easier to interpret if the precise phase-space limit defining each panel (which particles are soft and which are collinear) were stated explicitly in the captions.
  4. [Section 2.4] In the sentence 'See [48] for the specific conventions...', reference [48] is a journal article; the citation style should be consistent with the rest of the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the sector construction and numerical validation are self-contained, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a constructive algorithm: phase-space sectors defined by quadratic inequalities on Mandelstam invariants allow a fixed ordered antenna mapping to be used without partial fractioning. The sector definitions in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are purely kinematic, and the allowed/failure lists for the 4-to-2 and 5-to-2 mappings in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 are properties of the mapping formulas from the external references [46,47], not assumptions tuned to the paper's conclusion. The proof of equivalence in Section 4.1 does not assume the target result: it compares the sector strategy with the established sub-antenna strategy, uses phase-space factorisation, and concludes S1 - S2 = 0 from a relabelling of the integrated reduced phase space. The analytical argument is conditional on the mapping behaving correctly in each sector, which is asserted rather than proven for the 12-sector N3LO algorithms; this is a missing-proof or evidentiary limitation, not a circular reduction. The numerical validation in Section 4.2 is independent evidence: NNLO comparisons against the sub-antenna implementation and point-by-point local cancellation tests at N3LO. The only self-referential element is the closing remark that recovery of known results in [61] 'stands as a solid proof of correctness', where [61] is co-authored by the present authors. That self-citation is not load-bearing: the sector algorithm is not defined in terms of [61]'s results, and the local cancellation tests stand on their own. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are introduced; the sectors are defined by exact kinematic inequalities. The method relies on standard antenna factorization and the properties of the antenna mapping from prior literature, plus the unproven geometric assumption that the sector inequalities isolate the required infrared configurations.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Phase-space factorization dΦ_n = dΦ_{n-m+2} dΦ_{X_m} (Eq. 2.7)
    Standard antenna factorization used in the equivalence proof and in defining integrated antenna functions. Invoked in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The antenna mapping from [46,47] reconstructs hard momenta only for the listed ordering-compatible limits
    Section 2.3 lists allowed and failing infrared limits for the 3->2, 4->2, and 5->2 mappings; this is taken as given from prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper The Mandelstam-invariant sector conditions select unique orderings
    The central geometric assumption: in each sector only certain collinear limits can occur. Stated in Section 3.1 ('The algorithm relies on the fact that...') and not proven analytically.
  • domain assumption The full antenna function can be written as a sum of sub-antennae x_i with assigned orderings
    Used in the equivalence proof; relies on prior definitions of sub-antennae in [48,49,54].
  • domain assumption The reduced phase space integral is invariant under relabelling the mapped hard momenta
    Needed for the vanishing of S1-S2 in Eq. (4.6), stated without proof in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-space sectors for ordered momentum mappings in local subtraction up to N$^3$LO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYB6C47T

@misc{pith2026250712537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-space sectors for ordered momentum mappings in local subtraction up to N$^3$LO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYB6C47T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12537}
}
abstract

Ordered momentum mappings present optimal convergence in soft and collinear configurations and are particularly suitable for the numerical implementation of local subtraction schemes. However, ordered mappings cannot be directly applied in the presence of multiple unordered emissions, which typically appear beyond the leading-colour approximation. A possible solution consists in separating individual singularities at the level of local counterterms by means of partial fractioning, which can become cumbersome at higher orders and introduce large cancellations in intermediate steps of the calculations. We present a simple decomposition of the phase space into sectors to isolate classes of infrared configurations which can be addressed with a specific ordered momentum mapping. With such decomposition, the singularities of any matrix element can be subtracted with ordered mappings, without the need of partial fractioning. We illustrate the required phase-space sectors for up to three unordered emissions and discuss applications in the context of the antenna subtraction method. The mapping algorithm described here has been recently employed for the first differential N$^3$LO of jet production at electron-positron colliders.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [61]

    X. Chen, P. Jakubčík, M. Marcoli and G. Stagnitto, Jet production at electron-positron colliders at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, 2505.10618. – 33 –

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Catani and M.H

    S. Catani and M.H. Seymour, The Dipole formalism for the calculation of QCD jet cross-sections at next-to-leading order, Phys. Lett. B378 (1996) 287 [ hep-ph/9602277]

    arXiv 1996

  3. [2]

    Frixione, Z

    S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt and A. Signer, Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order, Nucl. Phys. B 467 (1996) 399 [ hep-ph/9512328]

    arXiv 1996

  4. [3]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E.W.N. Glover, Antenna subtraction at NNLO, JHEP 09 (2005) 056 [ hep-ph/0505111]

    arXiv 2005

  5. [4]

    Boughezal, K

    R. Boughezal, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, A subtraction scheme for NNLO computations, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 034025 [ 1111.7041]. – 29 –

    arXiv 2012

  6. [5]

    Currie, E.W.N

    J. Currie, E.W.N. Glover and S. Wells, Infrared Structure at NNLO Using Antenna Subtraction, JHEP 04 (2013) 066 [ 1301.4693]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, Z. Szor, Z. Trócsányi et al., Jet production in the CoLoRFulNNLO method: event shapes in electron-positron collisions, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 074019 [ 1606.03453]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [7]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. Grazzini, An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its application to Higgs boson production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.98 (2007) 222002 [hep-ph/0703012]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    Czakon, A novel subtraction scheme for double-real radiation at NNLO, Phys

    M. Czakon, A novel subtraction scheme for double-real radiation at NNLO, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010) 259 [ 1005.0274]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Czakon and D

    M. Czakon and D. Heymes, Four-dimensional formulation of the sector-improved residue subtraction scheme, Nucl. Phys. B 890 (2014) 152 [ 1408.2500]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gaunt, M

    J. Gaunt, M. Stahlhofen, F.J. Tackmann and J.R. Walsh, N-jettiness Subtractions for NNLO QCD Calculations, JHEP 09 (2015) 058 [ 1505.04794]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Cacciari, F.A

    M. Cacciari, F.A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, Fully Differential Vector-Boson-Fusion Higgs Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 082002 [ 1506.02660]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Caola, K

    F. Caola, K. Melnikov and R. Röntsch, Nested soft-collinear subtractions in NNLO QCD computations, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 248 [ 1702.01352]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Magnea, E

    L. Magnea, E. Maina, G. Pelliccioli, C. Signorile-Signorile, P. Torrielli and S. Uccirati, Local analytic sector subtraction at NNLO, JHEP 12 (2018) 107 [ 1806.09570]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Herzog, Geometric IR subtraction for final state real radiation, JHEP 08 (2018) 006 [1804.07949]

    F. Herzog, Geometric IR subtraction for final state real radiation, JHEP 08 (2018) 006 [1804.07949]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Torres Bobadilla et al., May the four be with you: Novel IR-subtraction methods to tackle NNLO calculations, Eur

    W.J. Torres Bobadilla et al., May the four be with you: Novel IR-subtraction methods to tackle NNLO calculations, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 250 [ 2012.02567]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Bertolotti, L

    G. Bertolotti, L. Magnea, G. Pelliccioli, A. Ratti, C. Signorile-Signorile, P. Torrielli et al., NNLO subtraction for any massless final state: a complete analytic expression, JHEP 07 (2023) 140 [ 2212.11190]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Gehrmann, E.W.N

    T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover and M. Marcoli, The colourful antenna subtraction method, JHEP 03 (2024) 114 [ 2310.19757]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    E. Fox, N. Glover and M. Marcoli, Generalised antenna functions for higher-order calculations, JHEP 12 (2025) 225 [ 2410.12904]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bonino, T

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, M. Marcoli, R. Schürmann and G. Stagnitto, Antenna subtraction for processes with identified particles at hadron colliders, JHEP 08 (2024) 073 [ 2406.09925]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Devoto, K

    F. Devoto, K. Melnikov, R. Röntsch, C. Signorile-Signorile and D.M. Tagliabue, A fresh look at the nested soft-collinear subtraction scheme: NNLO QCD corrections to N-gluon final states in qq annihilation, JHEP 02 (2024) 016 [ 2310.17598]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Van Thurenhout, V

    S. Van Thurenhout, V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, L. Fekésházy, F. Guadagni, P. Mukherjee et al., CoLoRFul for hadron collisions: Integrating the counterterms, 12, 2024 [ 2412.12750]

    2024

  15. [22]

    Devoto, K

    F. Devoto, K. Melnikov, R. Röntsch, C. Signorile-Signorile, D.M. Tagliabue and M. Tresoldi, Towards a general subtraction formula for NNLO QCD corrections to processes at hadron colliders: final states with quarks and gluons, 2503.15251. – 30 –

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Bertolotti, G

    G. Bertolotti, G. Limatola, P. Torrielli and S. Uccirati, Advances in Local Analytic Sector Subtraction: massive NLO and elements of NNLO automation, 2503.14629

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Chawdhry, M.L

    H.A. Chawdhry, M.L. Czakon, A. Mitov and R. Poncelet, NNLO QCD corrections to three-photon production at the LHC, JHEP 02 (2020) 057 [ 1911.00479]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Kallweit, V

    S. Kallweit, V. Sotnikov and M. Wiesemann, Triphoton production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD, Phys. Lett. B812 (2021) 136013 [ 2010.04681]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Chawdhry, M

    H.A. Chawdhry, M. Czakon, A. Mitov and R. Poncelet, NNLO QCD corrections to diphoton production with an additional jet at the LHC, JHEP 09 (2021) 093 [ 2105.06940]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov and R. Poncelet, Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Study of Three-Jet Production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 152001 [ 2106.05331]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover, A. Huss and M. Marcoli, Automation of antenna subtraction in colour space: gluonic processes, JHEP 10 (2022) 099 [ 2203.13531]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Hartanto, R

    H.B. Hartanto, R. Poncelet, A. Popescu and S. Zoia, Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections toW b¯b production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 074016 [ 2205.01687]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Alvarez, J

    M. Alvarez, J. Cantero, M. Czakon, J. Llorente, A. Mitov and R. Poncelet, NNLO QCD corrections to event shapes at the LHC, JHEP 03 (2023) 129 [ 2301.01086]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Badger, M

    S. Badger, M. Czakon, H.B. Hartanto, R. Moodie, T. Peraro, R. Poncelet et al., Isolated photon production in association with a jet pair through next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, JHEP 10 (2023) 071 [ 2304.06682]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli and C. Savoini, Higgs Boson Production in Association with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair in Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 111902 [ 2210.07846]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Buonocore, S

    L. Buonocore, S. Devoto, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, L. Rottoli and C. Savoini, Associated production of a W boson and massive bottom quarks at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 074032 [ 2212.04954]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Buonocore, S

    L. Buonocore, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli, L. Rottoli et al., Precise Predictions for the Associated Production of a W Boson with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 231901 [ 2306.16311]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Mazzitelli, V

    J. Mazzitelli, V. Sotnikov and M. Wiesemann, Next-to-next-to-leading order event generation for Z-boson production in association with a bottom-quark pair, 2404.08598

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Devoto, M

    S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli and C. Savoini, Precise predictions forttH production at the LHC: inclusive cross section and differential distributions, JHEP 03 (2025) 189 [ 2411.15340]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Buccioni, X

    F. Buccioni, X. Chen, W.-J. Feng, T. Gehrmann, A. Huss and M. Marcoli, Precise Predictions for Event Shapes in Diphoton Production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) 171901 [ 2501.14021]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Catani and M.H

    S. Catani and M.H. Seymour, A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 291 [ hep-ph/9605323]

    1997 arXiv

  32. [39]

    NNLOJET collaboration, NNLOJET: a parton-level event generator for jet cross sections at NNLO QCD accuracy, 2503.22804

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E.W.N. Glover, Infrared structure ofe+e− → 2 jets at NNLO, Nucl. Phys. B 691 (2004) 195 [ hep-ph/0403057]. – 31 –

    2004 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E.W.N. Glover, Gluon-gluon antenna functions from Higgs boson decay, Phys. Lett. B612 (2005) 49 [ hep-ph/0502110]

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Braun-White, N

    O. Braun-White, N. Glover and C.T. Preuss, A general algorithm to build real-radiation antenna functions for higher-order calculations, JHEP 06 (2023) 065 [ 2302.12787]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Braun-White, N

    O. Braun-White, N. Glover and C.T. Preuss, A general algorithm to build mixed real and virtual antenna functions for higher-order calculations, JHEP 11 (2023) 179 [ 2307.14999]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Fox and N

    E. Fox and N. Glover, Initial-final and initial-initial antenna functions for real radiation at next-to-leading order, JHEP 12 (2023) 171 [ 2308.10829]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kosower, Antenna factorization of gauge theory amplitudes, Phys

    D.A. Kosower, Antenna factorization of gauge theory amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 5410 [ hep-ph/9710213]

    1998 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kosower, Multiple singular emission in gauge theories, Phys

    D.A. Kosower, Multiple singular emission in gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 116003 [hep-ph/0212097]

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover and G. Heinrich, Infrared structure of e+ e- —> 3 jets at NNLO, JHEP 11 (2007) 058 [ 0710.0346]

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Pires and E.W.N

    J. Pires and E.W.N. Glover, Double real radiation corrections to gluon scattering at NNLO, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.205-206 (2010) 176 [ 1006.1849]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Jakubčík, M

    P. Jakubčík, M. Marcoli and G. Stagnitto, The parton-level structure ofe+e− → 2 jets at N3LO, JHEP 01 (2023) 168 [ 2211.08446]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    X. Chen, P. Jakubčík, M. Marcoli and G. Stagnitto, The parton-level structure of Higgs decays to hadrons at N3LO, JHEP 06 (2023) 185 [ 2304.11180]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    X. Chen, P. Jakubčík, M. Marcoli and G. Stagnitto, Radiation from a gluon-gluino colour-singlet dipole at N3LO, JHEP 12 (2023) 198 [ 2310.13062]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kosower, Antenna factorization in strongly ordered limits, Phys

    D.A. Kosower, Antenna factorization in strongly ordered limits, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 045016 [ hep-ph/0311272]

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Glover and J

    E.W.N. Glover and J. Pires, Antenna subtraction for gluon scattering at NNLO, JHEP 06 (2010) 096 [ 1003.2824]

    2010 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Daleo, T

    A. Daleo, T. Gehrmann and D. Maitre, Antenna subtraction with hadronic initial states, JHEP 04 (2007) 016 [ hep-ph/0612257]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Daleo, A

    A. Daleo, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and G. Luisoni, Antenna subtraction at NNLO with hadronic initial states: initial-final configurations, JHEP 01 (2010) 118 [0912.0374]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Boughezal, A

    R. Boughezal, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder and M. Ritzmann, Antenna subtraction at NNLO with hadronic initial states: double real radiation for initial-initial configurations with two quark flavours, JHEP 02 (2011) 098 [ 1011.6631]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gehrmann and P.F

    T. Gehrmann and P.F. Monni, Antenna subtraction at NNLO with hadronic initial states: real-virtual initial-initial configurations, JHEP 12 (2011) 049 [ 1107.4037]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gehrmann and G

    T. Gehrmann and G. Stagnitto, Antenna subtraction at NNLO with identified hadrons, JHEP 10 (2022) 136 [ 2208.02650]. – 32 –

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E.W.N. Glover, Quark-gluon antenna functions from neutralino decay, Phys. Lett. B612 (2005) 36 [ hep-ph/0501291]

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.