Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Power corrections to the production of a color-singlet final state in hadron collisions in the N-jettiness slicing scheme at NLO QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims to settle the subleading-power behaviour of the N-jettiness slicing method for color-singlet production in q qbar annihilation at NLO QCD, by writing the next-to-leading-power zero-jettiness cross section as a universal…

desk verdict General NLP zero-jettiness framework for colorless final states, anchored by an independent Drell-Yan check; the asserted pole cancellation and missing code are referee asks, not demonstrated flaws. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09327 v2 pith:NN3IPVCB submitted 2025-02-13 hep-ph

Prem Agarwal , Kirill Melnikov , Ivan Pedron , Philip Pfohl This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords N-jettinesszero-jettinessnext-to-leadingpowercorrectionsslicingschemecolor-singletproductionBerends-Gielecurrentssoft-collinearexpansionNLOQCD
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

This paper claims to settle the subleading-power behaviour of the N-jettiness slicing method for the production of an arbitrary colorless final state in q qbar annihilation at NLO QCD. The authors derive a master formula, Eq. (4.70), that writes the next-to-leading-power zero-jettiness cross section as a log-enhanced universal soft remnant plus two process-dependent collinear remnants built from Born data and generalized currents. If correct, the formula removes the need to re-derive power corrections process by process: the only process input is the Born amplitude and certain recursively computable Green's functions. The method is demonstrated on lepton-pair, two-photon and four-photon production, with the four-photon case serving as a numerical proof that high-multiplicity final states are tractable. This matters because accurate power corrections are what make slicing schemes numerically viable at small jettiness cuts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the master formula in Eq. (4.70), which separates the next-to-leading-power zero-jettiness correction into a soft remnant and two collinear remnants. The soft remnant $C_{{\rm NLP},s}$ is universal: it is an integral over the Born phase space of a scaling operator $\kappa_m + \sum_i p_i^\mu \partial/\partial p_i^\mu$ acting on the squared Born amplitude times the observable. The collinear remnants $C_{{\rm NLP},a}$ and $C_{{\rm NLP},b}$ are process-dependent, and their ingredients are the Born amplitude, its first and second derivatives, and the Green's functions $N_a$, $N_b$, $R^\mu_{\rm fin}$; the paper shows these can be obtained by recurrence relations patterned after Berends-Giele currents, which build multi-particle currents by successively attaching one photon emission to a quark line. The expansion itself is constructed with momentum mappings and Lorentz boosts that absorb the gluon momentum into the colorless final state, allowing a systematic expansion of both phase space and matrix element squared around the soft and collinear limits.

What would settle it

Compute the total $1/\epsilon$ coefficient of the real-emission NLP contribution from Eq. (4.70) for a concrete process such as $q\bar q\to\gamma\gamma$, including the NLP virtual and collinear-renormalization counterterms; if any pole remains, the master formula is incomplete. Alternatively, for $q\bar q\to 4\gamma$ with the transverse-momentum-product observable, evaluate the exact real-emission integral at small $\tau$ numerically and compare the fitted coefficients of $\tau^1$ and $\tau^1\ln\tau$ with the predictions of Table 2; a mismatch beyond the fit errors would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For $q(p_a)\bar q(p_b)\to X+g$, with $X$ an arbitrary colorless final state, the paper claims that the complete next-to-leading-power contribution to the zero-jettiness cross section is $$\frac{d\sigma_{\rm NLP}}{d\tau} = [\alpha_s] C_F \frac{Q}{s}\left\{2\left(\ln\frac{Q\tau}{s}+1\right)C_{{\rm NLP},s}+C_{{\rm NLP},a}+C_{{\rm NLP},b}\right\},$$ with $C_{{\rm NLP},s}$ a universal soft remnant built from the Born amplitude, and $C_{{\rm NLP},a(b)}$ collinear remnants built from the Born amplitude, its derivatives, and Green's functions $N_a$, $N_b$, $R^\mu_{\rm fin}$ and their derivatives. The central assertion is that all $1/\epsilon$ poles cancel among the soft and two collinear sectors, so that no separate next-to-leading-power virtual or collinear-renormalization counterterms are needed. If this is right, the formula is the complete NLP zero-jettiness correction for any colorless final state produced in $q\bar q$ annihilation at NLO QCD, with the process dependence isolated in quantities that can be computed recursively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at next-to-leading power all $1/\epsilon$ poles cancel between the soft and the two collinear contributions for any colorless final state, so that no additional NLP virtual or collinear-renormalization counterterms are needed; the paper states this cancellation is straightforward to check but does not display the general pole structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $q\bar q$-initiated colorless process at NLO QCD, the next-to-leading-power zero-jettiness correction is given by one formula, so no new derivation of the subleading expansion is needed per process.
  • The universal soft remnant $C_{{\rm NLP},s}$ carries the $\ln(Q\tau/s)$-enhanced term, while the collinear remnants $C_{{\rm NLP},a(b)}$ carry the process dependence.
  • Because the collinear ingredients are computable recursively, the method extends to high-multiplicity final states; the four-photon result demonstrates the machinery works beyond $2\to 2$ processes.
  • The generic formula reduces correctly to known Drell-Yan results, including both vector-boson production and previous subleading-power calculations, providing a cross-check of the master formula.
  • The remaining observable dependence and the concentration of computational cost in the collinear currents are the practical bottlenecks for Monte-Carlo implementation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pole-cancellation premise holds for all colorless $X$, the same master formula should also apply to channels with a gluon in the initial state after adapting the soft analysis; the paper argues the soft final-state quark there is subleading and the collinear treatment carries over.
  • The derivative structure of $C_{{\rm NLP},s}$ suggests that after convolution with parton distribution functions, the universal soft remnant will generate PDF-derivative and luminosity-derivative contributions, so the formula may be usable directly in a slicing code without a per-observable expansion.
  • A natural stress test is to take an observable with an isolation or fiducial cut that is singular in the soft or collinear limit; the smooth-observable restriction means the formula is expected to miss a singular cut-dependent piece, and measuring that piece would quantify the restriction's practical impact.
  • The reported four-photon cost of roughly $10^4$ CPU hours suggests that optimizing the recursive current evaluation is essential; one testable extension would be to reuse and vectorize the currents across multiple observables.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework for computing next-to-leading-power (NLP) corrections in the zero-jettiness variable for hadronic production of a generic colorless final state X in the channel q qbar -> X + g at NLO QCD. The main result is Eq. (4.70), which writes the NLP contribution as a universal soft remnant C_NLP,s plus two process-dependent collinear remnants C_NLP,a and C_NLP,b, expressed through Green's functions that can be evaluated by Berends-Giele type recursion relations (Sec. 5). The authors test the master formula on Drell-Yan, on q qbar -> gamma gamma, and on q qbar -> 4 gamma, with analytic checks for the two-process cases, a numerical comparison with an independent direct expansion for Drell-Yan, and a Monte-Carlo fit for four-photon production. The paper is long, technically detailed, and honestly states its scope limitations: only smooth observables are considered, only the q qbar channel is treated, and the numerical implementation is observable-dependent.

Significance. If the master formula (4.70) is correct, the paper represents a substantial step toward process-independent NLP corrections in N-jettiness slicing, going beyond the simple processes treated in most earlier work. The construction is parameter-free in the sense that no quantity is fitted to data in the derivation; the validation tables compare Monte-Carlo fits with the analytic formula, which is the honest direction. The paper also contains a nontrivial external anchor: the Drell-Yan master formula is said to reproduce Eq. (5.36) of Ref. [16] after a careful translation between different zero-jettiness definitions. The use of generalized currents for high-multiplicity final states is a useful technical contribution. However, the central completeness claim rests on an unproven cancellation of all NLP 1/epsilon poles, and the numerical checks performed at finite tau do not probe the delta(tau) sector where such poles would appear.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.70)] The central claim that Eq. (4.70) gives the complete NLP zero-jettiness correction requires that, after summing the soft contribution (3.30) and the collinear contributions assembled from Eqs. (4.28), (4.40), (4.46), (4.63), (4.66) and (4.69), all 1/epsilon poles in the coefficient of tau^0 cancel. This is load-bearing because Eq. (4.70) contains no NLP virtual term and no NLP collinear-renormalization counterterm; any residual pole would make the master formula incomplete. The manuscript states in Sec. 4.3 that it is 'straightforward to check' this cancellation, but it does not display the general pole structure or provide a proof. The checks in Sec. 6 are not generic: Drell-Yan has Rfin = 0 and N^(1) = 0, diphoton production has only one nontrivial Green's-function structure, and the four-photon comparison is performed at tau > 0, where a delta(tau) pole is invisible. I recommend that the authors either display the explicit cancellation of all NLP 1/epsilon poles for the general m-particle case or provide an independent check of the delta(tau) sector, e.g., a dedicated virtual-plus-counterterm computation for a process with all Green's functions active.
  2. [Sec. 6.3, Table 2] The four-photon validation compares the analytic master formula with a fit to fixed-tau Monte-Carlo results obtained with the same FORTRAN implementation of the generalized currents. This is a useful consistency check of the finite-tau part of the formula, but it cannot validate the pole-cancellation property on which Eq. (4.70) depends. The fit ansatz in Eq. (6.52) includes only tau>0 bins; any residual 1/epsilon pole in the NLP coefficient, which would localize at delta(tau) after the epsilon expansion, is outside the region that the fit constrains. Moreover, because the direct numerical evaluation and the analytic formula share the same implementation of the current recursion and the same phase-space generator, a common bug in the Green's functions would not be exposed. The agreement in Table 2 is therefore weaker evidence for completeness than the text suggests, and it does not remove the need for the explicit pole-cancellation check requested above.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6.32)] The displayed Drell-Yan result contains an unbalanced parenthesis and the first term '- 1 - x0/(1-x0)' is difficult to parse; please recheck the typography and the intended algebraic form.
  2. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 7] The restriction to observables with smooth dependence on kinematics is stated in the Introduction and the conclusions, but it would help to repeat it prominently in the abstract, since the phrase 'any colorless final state' could otherwise be read as covering observables with fiducial-cut singularities, which are explicitly excluded.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 4] The figures are informative, but the captions do not define the parameters displayed on the horizontal axes; for Fig. 1 the variable xi is defined only in the text, and for Fig. 4 the caption should state the values of s, Q, and s0 used in the numerical check.
  4. [Sec. 6.3, Table 2] The statistical uncertainties in Table 2 are considerably larger than those in Table 1; the text should state explicitly that the four-photon agreement holds only at the 10-20% level, which is consistent with the quoted fit errors, and it should discuss whether this precision suffices to test the non-logarithmic coefficient C_NLP,b.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the master formula is derived from first-principles expansions with Green's functions computed recursively, and it is checked against explicit analytic calculations and an independent literature result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The starting point is the real-emission cross section for q qbar -> X + g, and the soft contribution is obtained from the Low-Burnett-Kroll theorem plus a momentum mapping, not from the target formula. The collinear contributions are constructed by expanding the boosted matrix elements around the collinear limits; the required Green's functions Na, Nb and Rfin are then computed recursively with Berends-Giele-type currents rather than fitted to data. The master formula, Eq. (4.70), is therefore an output of the derivation, not an input. No parameter is tuned to reproduce the claimed result. The validation is also mostly in the honest direction: the Drell-Yan and two-photon cases are checked by independent direct expansions of the matrix element and phase space, and Appendix D reproduces Eq. (5.36) of Ref. [16], which is an external result by a different group, after carefully mapping the different zero-jettiness definitions. Table 1 compares fitted Monte Carlo coefficients with the analytic formula, which is a legitimate check. Table 2 in the four-photon case is only a self-consistency check between the numerical evaluation of the derived formula and a fit to the same implementation, but this is a validation weakness, not circularity, because the formula itself is not defined in terms of that fit. Section 4.3 asserts that all 1/epsilon poles cancel without displaying the full generic pole structure; however, for the massless final states considered in this paper the soft NLP pole vanishes by the dimensional-analysis identity in Eq. (4.72), and the displayed pairwise cancellations between Eqs. (4.28)/(4.46) and (4.63)/(4.69) support the claim. The possible residual-pole issue for generic massive final states is a correctness or completeness concern, not a circular-reasoning concern. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no fitted parameters; Q is a scheme scale and sigma_s, s0 are illustration choices. The framework assumes standard NLP tools: the LBK theorem and Ward identity for the subleading soft amplitude, Lorentz momentum mappings of Ref. [40] for phase-space expansion, and the smooth-observable restriction stated in Sec. 1. The most consequential assumption, the NLP cancellation of 1/epsilon poles between soft and collinear sectors without NLP virtual pieces, is asserted in Sec. 4.3 and demonstrated in the worked examples. No new particles or physical mediators are introduced; the Berends-Giele-type currents are computational constructs, not invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Q (zero-jettiness normalization scale) = Q = 100 GeV in Fig. 1; Q = 0.1 GeV in Sec. 6.1 check; Q = M in App. D
    Chosen by hand as part of the jettiness definition in Eq. (3.3); results depend on it through ln(Q tau/s), as required by the scheme. Not fitted to data.
  • Gaussian luminosity width sigma_s = sigma_s^2 = 2.47 m_V^2
    Choice for the vector-boson toy check in Sec. 2, Eq. (2.36); illustration only.
  • Threshold s0 and scale Q in the Drell-Yan numerical check = s0 = 0.1 GeV^2, Q = 0.1 GeV, s = 1 GeV^2
    Chosen for the fit validation in Sec. 6.1 with the observable in Eq. (6.31); not physics inputs.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Low-Burnett-Kroll theorem gives the O(k^0) terms of the soft amplitude from derivatives of the Born amplitude
    Invoked in Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.18)-(3.25), to write the subleading soft amplitude; taken from Refs. [31,32], not rederived.
  • standard math Ward identity fixes the structure-dependent soft radiation
    Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.20): the amplitude is required to vanish when the gluon polarization is replaced by its momentum, restoring the N_str term.
  • domain assumption Lorentz momentum mappings of Ref. [40] capture all soft and collinear region contributions at NLP
    Secs. 3.1-3.2, Eqs. (3.4) and (3.39): the gluon momentum is absorbed into the final state via boosts; assumed to produce the correct phase-space expansion in both regions.
  • domain assumption All 1/epsilon poles cancel between soft and collinear sectors at NLP, so no NLP virtual corrections are needed
    Sec. 4.3 before Eq. (4.70): asserted to be straightforward to check, demonstrated in the Drell-Yan and diphoton examples. If false, Eq. (4.70) would be incomplete.
  • domain assumption Observables are restricted to smooth functions of kinematics
    Sec. 1: fiducial-cut-sensitive observables, as in Refs. 36-38, are excluded from the framework, limiting its domain.
  • domain assumption The final state X consists of m massless particles
    Sec. 3, Eq. (3.1) and Eq. (4.72): the vanishing of the soft coefficient for massless amplitudes uses massless kinematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Power corrections to the production of a color-singlet final state in hadron collisions in the N-jettiness slicing scheme at NLO QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NN3IPVCB

@misc{pith2026250209327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Power corrections to the production of a color-singlet final state in hadron collisions in the N-jettiness slicing scheme at NLO QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NN3IPVCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09327}
}
abstract

We compute next-to-leading power corrections in the zero-jettiness variable for the production of colorless final states at hadron colliders at next-to-leading order in QCD. To assess if the process-independence of leading power contributions can be extended, we attempt to construct generic expansions of phase spaces and matrix elements squared through next-to-leading power in the zero-jettiness. We highlight challenges associated with the collinear limit, where universality no longer holds at the subleading power, making the result process-dependent. We show that quantities that need to be calculated in the collinear limit can be obtained using Berends-Giele currents, enabling computation of power corrections to high-multiplicity final states. As a concrete example, we apply our method to compute power corrections in the zero-jettiness for lepton pair as well as multi-photon production in $q \bar q$ collisions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Ebert, I

    M.A. Ebert, I. Moult, I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann, G. Vita and H.X. Zhu, Power Corrections for N-Jettiness Subtractions at O(αs), JHEP 12 (2018) 084 [ 1807.10764]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Brown and R.P

    L.M. Brown and R.P. Feynman, Radiative corrections to Compton scattering , Phys. Rev. 85 (1952) 231

    work page 1952

  3. [2]

    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]

    arXiv 1997

  4. [3]

    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

  5. [4]

    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

  6. [5]

    Stewart, F.J

    I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann and W.J. Waalewijn, N-Jettiness: An Inclusive Event Shape to Veto Jets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 092002 [ 1004.2489]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [6]

    Boughezal, C

    R. Boughezal, C. Focke, X. Liu and F. Petriello, W -boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 062002 [1504.02131]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    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]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Buonocore, M

    L. Buonocore, M. Grazzini, J. Haag, L. Rottoli and C. Savoini, Exploring slicing variables for jet processes, JHEP 12 (2023) 193 [ 2307.11570]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    R.-J. Fu, R. Rahn, D.Y. Shao, W.J. Waalewijn and B. Wu, qT -slicing with multiple jets , 2412.05358

  3. [10]

    Cieri, C

    L. Cieri, C. Oleari and M. Rocco, Higher-order power corrections in a transverse-momentum cut for colour-singlet production at NLO , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 852 [ 1906.09044]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Boughezal, X

    R. Boughezal, X. Liu and F. Petriello, Power Corrections in the N-jettiness Subtraction Scheme, JHEP 03 (2017) 160 [ 1612.02911]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Del Duca, E

    V. Del Duca, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, L. Vernazza and C.D. White, Universality of next-to-leading power threshold effects for colourless final states in hadronic collisions , JHEP 11 (2017) 057 [ 1706.04018]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Boughezal, A

    R. Boughezal, A. Isgr` o and F. Petriello, Next-to-leading-logarithmic power corrections for N -jettiness subtraction in color-singlet production , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 076006 [1802.00456]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Moult, L

    I. Moult, L. Rothen, I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann and H.X. Zhu, Subleading Power Corrections for N-Jettiness Subtractions , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 074023 [ 1612.00450]. – 70 –

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Moult, L

    I. Moult, L. Rothen, I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann and H.X. Zhu, N -jettiness subtractions for gg → H at subleading power , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 014013 [ 1710.03227]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Boughezal, A

    R. Boughezal, A. Isgr` o and F. Petriello, Next-to-leading power corrections to V + 1 jet production in N -jettiness subtraction, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 016005 [ 1907.12213]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    van Beekveld, W

    M. van Beekveld, W. Beenakker, E. Laenen and C.D. White, Next-to-leading power threshold effects for inclusive and exclusive processes with final state jets , JHEP 03 (2020) 106 [1905.08741]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Oleari and M

    C. Oleari and M. Rocco, Power corrections in a transverse-momentum cut for vector-boson production at NNLO: the qg-initiated real-virtual contribution, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 183 [2012.10538]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Vita, N3LO power corrections for 0-jettiness subtractions with fiducial cuts , JHEP 07 (2024) 241 [ 2401.03017]

    G. Vita, N3LO power corrections for 0-jettiness subtractions with fiducial cuts , JHEP 07 (2024) 241 [ 2401.03017]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pal and S

    S. Pal and S. Seth, On Higgs+jet production at next-to-leading power accuracy , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 114018 [ 2309.08343]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pal and S

    S. Pal and S. Seth, Soft quark effects on H+jet production at NLP accuracy , Phys. Lett. B 860 (2025) 139179 [ 2405.06444]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. Broggio, M. Garny, S. Jaskiewicz, R. Szafron, L. Vernazza et al., Leading-logarithmic threshold resummation of the Drell-Yan process at next-to-leading power , JHEP 03 (2019) 043 [ 1809.10631]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. Broggio, S. Jaskiewicz and L. Vernazza, Threshold factorization of the Drell-Yan process at next-to-leading power, JHEP 07 (2020) 078 [ 1912.01585]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bonocore, E

    D. Bonocore, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, S. Melville, L. Vernazza and C.D. White, A factorization approach to next-to-leading-power threshold logarithms , JHEP 06 (2015) 008 [1503.05156]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bonocore, E

    D. Bonocore, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, L. Vernazza and C.D. White, Non-abelian factorisation for next-to-leading-power threshold logarithms , JHEP 12 (2016) 121 [ 1610.06842]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Broggio, S

    A. Broggio, S. Jaskiewicz and L. Vernazza, Next-to-leading power two-loop soft functions for the Drell-Yan process at threshold , JHEP 10 (2021) 061 [ 2107.07353]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Broggio, S

    A. Broggio, S. Jaskiewicz and L. Vernazza, Threshold factorization of the Drell-Yan quark-gluon channel and two-loop soft function at next-to-leading power , JHEP 12 (2023) 028 [2306.06037]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ebert, I

    M.A. Ebert, I. Moult, I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann, G. Vita and H.X. Zhu, Subleading power rapidity divergences and power corrections for q T , JHEP 04 (2019) 123 [ 1812.08189]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Laenen, J

    E. Laenen, J. Sinninghe Damst´ e, L. Vernazza, W. Waalewijn and L. Zoppi, Towards all-order factorization of QED amplitudes at next-to-leading power , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 034022 [2008.01736]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Low, Bremsstrahlung of very low-energy quanta in elementary particle collisions , Phys

    F.E. Low, Bremsstrahlung of very low-energy quanta in elementary particle collisions , Phys. Rev. 110 (1958) 974

    1958

  24. [32]

    Burnett and N.M

    T.H. Burnett and N.M. Kroll, Extension of the low soft photon theorem , Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 (1968) 86. – 71 –

    1968

  25. [33]

    Del Duca, High-energy Bremsstrahlung Theorems for Soft Photons , Nucl

    V. Del Duca, High-energy Bremsstrahlung Theorems for Soft Photons , Nucl. Phys. B 345 (1990) 369

    1990

  26. [34]

    Engel, A

    T. Engel, A. Signer and Y. Ulrich, Universal structure of radiative QED amplitudes at one loop, JHEP 04 (2022) 097 [ 2112.07570]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Czakon, F

    M. Czakon, F. Eschment and T. Schellenberger, Subleading effects in soft-gluon emission at one-loop in massless QCD , JHEP 12 (2023) 126 [ 2307.02286]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ebert and F.J

    M.A. Ebert and F.J. Tackmann, Impact of isolation and fiducial cuts on q T and N-jettiness subtractions, JHEP 03 (2020) 158 [ 1911.08486]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Salam and E

    G.P. Salam and E. Slade, Cuts for two-body decays at colliders , JHEP 11 (2021) 220 [2106.08329]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ebert, J.K.L

    M.A. Ebert, J.K.L. Michel, I.W. Stewart and F.J. Tackmann, Drell-Yan qT resummation of fiducial power corrections at N 3LL, JHEP 04 (2021) 102 [ 2006.11382]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Berends and W.T

    F.A. Berends and W.T. Giele, Multiple Soft Gluon Radiation in Parton Processes , Nucl. Phys. B 313 (1989) 595

    1989

  32. [40]

    Del Duca, N

    V. Del Duca, N. Deutschmann and S. Lionetti, Momentum mappings for subtractions at higher orders in QCD , JHEP 12 (2019) 129 [ 1910.01024]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Hoeche, Comix, a new matrix element generator , JHEP 12 (2008) 039 [0808.3674]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kleiss, W.J

    R. Kleiss, W.J. Stirling and S.D. Ellis, A New Monte Carlo Treatment of Multiparticle Phase Space at High-energies, Comput. Phys. Commun. 40 (1986) 359

    1986

  35. [43]

    Pl¨ atzer,RAMBO on diet , 1308.2922

    S. Pl¨ atzer,RAMBO on diet , 1308.2922. – 72 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.