Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper constructs approximate N2LO and N3LO QCD corrections for tW production at the LHC, finds they raise the NLO cross section by more than 10%, and uses the improved predictions to extract |Vtb| = 0.99 ± 0.03(exp) ± 0.03(theo) withou

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

2026-08-03 17:02 UTC pith:OT47J57I

load-bearing objection New approximate NNLO for tW production with real new ingredients, but the 'dominance' claim and |Vtb| error are not yet supported. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2512.10711 v2 pith:OT47J57I submitted 2025-12-11 hep-ph hep-ex

Approximate N²LO and N³LO QCD Predictions for tW Production

Jia-Le Ding , Hai Tao Li , Jian Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex MSC 81V0581T18 PACS 12.38.Bx12.38.Cy13.85.Lg14.65.Ha
keywords tW productionapproximate N3LOthreshold resummationsoft anomalous dimensionCKM matrix element |Vtb|QCD correctionssingle top quarkLHC
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 aims to show that the dominant missing higher-order QCD corrections to associated tW production can be assembled from threshold factorization, using newly computed two-loop hard and soft functions together with known three-loop anomalous dimensions. These approximate corrections, labeled aN2LO and aN3LO, increase the NLO cross section by more than 10% and bring theory into better agreement with ATLAS and CMS measurements. The improved agreement lets the authors directly extract the CKM matrix element |Vtb| = 0.99 ± 0.03(exp) ± 0.03(theo) without assuming unitarity, at precision comparable to the current world average. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first prediction for this process beyond NLO that incorporates the complete two-loop hard and soft function information, and it sharpens a direct probe of the top-quark electroweak coupling.

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading-power threshold terms dominate the perturbative series for tW production to such an extent that approximate N2LO and N3LO predictions, defined as dσ(aN^nLO) = dσ(N^nLO_LP) + dσ(NLO) − dσ(NLO_LP), capture the bulk of the full fixed-order corrections. Using the two-loop hard function, the N2LO soft function, and the complete N3LO anomalous dimensions—including the three-loop tripole color correlation—the authors obtain cross sections that exceed NLO by 12% at aN2LO and by about 2% more at aN3LO. The aN3LO result lies almost inside the aN2LO scale-uncertainty band, indicating good perturbative convergence. Comparison with LHC data then yields |Vtb| = 0.99 ±

What carries the argument

The engine is the threshold factorization formula dσ/dQ²dΦ₂ = (1/s)∫(dz/z)L(τ/z,μ) (1/2Q²) H(μ,βt,y) S(z̄,μ,βt,y), which separates hard virtual effects from soft radiation. The paper feeds into this machinery three recent ingredients: the two-loop hard function, the N2LO soft function in Laplace space, and the three-loop soft anomalous dimension including the tripole color structure T1233; the scale-dependent N3LO logarithms follow from renormalization-group evolution. The defining approximation is dσ(aN^nLO) = dσ(N^nLO_LP) + dσ(NLO) − dσ(NLO_LP), which adds leading-power threshold terms to the exact NLO result while subtracting the NLO leading-power piece to avoid double counting.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on the premise that the leading-power threshold logarithms and their scale-dependent N3LO completion dominate all higher-order corrections, so that subleading-power terms and the unresolved t–tbar interference contribution at NNLO can be safely omitted beyond NLO.

What would settle it

A complete NNLO computation of tW production that resolves the double-real t–tbar interference would settle the question: if the full NNLO cross section differs from aN2LO by more than the quoted scale uncertainty, the leading-power-plus-NLO approximation is not reliable. Alternatively, a future LHC measurement with total uncertainty below about 3% would test the predicted 10% upward shift against the NLO central value.

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

If this is right

  • If the aN3LO prediction is correct, the NLO tW cross section is underestimated by more than 10%, so existing NLO-based background estimates in new-physics searches should be revised upward.
  • The extracted |Vtb| = 0.99 ± 0.03(exp) ± 0.03(theo) from a single process, without unitarity input, can be combined with other single-top channels to sharpen global CKM determinations.
  • The weak kinematic dependence of the N2LO/N3LO K-factors means a single universal K-factor can be applied to differential distributions for top pT and rapidity.
  • Improved agreement at all LHC energies (7, 8, 13, 13.6 TeV) suggests that the residual t–tbar interference and subleading-power terms are small enough not to spoil the approximation.
  • The five-percent contribution of the three-loop tripole correlation to the O(αs³) correction demonstrates that such color structures are numerically relevant and must be kept in soft-anomalous-dimension inputs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' own scale-variation plots show that the subleading-power NLO correction has strong, opposite scale dependence to the leading-power piece; if this pattern persists at NNLO, the actual NNLO scale uncertainty could be larger than the aN2LO band suggests, since the approximation effectively freezes subleading-power terms at NLO.
  • A direct testable extension would be to compare the aN3LO prediction against the upcoming full NNLO result once the t–tbar double-real interference problem is solved; if the difference exceeds the quoted scale band, the LP-dominance assumption would need revision.
  • Because the extraction uses only the total cross section, an analogous analysis of the top-quark pT distribution—where soft-gluon logarithms are less dominant—could serve as an independent check of whether the universal K-factor hides genuine shape differences.
  • The method transfers directly to other colored massive-final-state processes, such as single-top s- and t-channels, where identical hard/soft anomalous-dimension ingredients could produce comparable aN3LO predictions at little extra cost.

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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents approximate N2LO and N3LO QCD predictions for associated tW production at the LHC, based on threshold factorization into hard, soft, and PDF degrees of freedom. The authors use the published two-loop hard and soft functions and three-loop anomalous dimensions to construct the leading-power (LP) threshold terms at O(α_s^2) and O(α_s^3), and match these to the exact NLO result using the formula dσ(aN^nLO)=dσ(N^nLO_LP)+dσ(NLO)−dσ(NLO_LP). Numerical results are given for total cross sections at 7, 8, 13, 13.6, and 14 TeV, showing that aN2LO increases the NLO cross section by about 12% and aN3LO by a further 2%. The predictions are compared with ATLAS and CMS measurements and used to extract |Vtb|=0.99±0.03(expt)±0.03(theo) without assuming CKM unitarity. Kinematic distributions at 14 TeV are also presented.

Significance. If the LP-dominance assumption underlying the matching formula is reliable, the paper would provide a useful step toward precision tW predictions and a competitive direct determination of |Vtb|. The construction uses the most recent two-loop hard functions, the two-loop soft function, and the three-loop soft anomalous dimension including the tripole correlation, which is a genuine improvement over earlier threshold resummations. However, the central numerical claims and the quoted |Vtb| uncertainty rest on an unvalidated power-suppressed correction and on coefficients that are not displayed in the manuscript. The extraction of |Vtb| also lacks a documented statistical procedure. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the results can be fully assessed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (11) and Table I] The matching formula aN^nLO = N^nLO_LP + NLO − NLO_LP assumes that subleading-power (SP) contributions beyond NLO are negligible. The paper's own numbers indicate that the NLO SP term is not small: at 13 TeV, Table I gives NLO = 68.7 pb, aN2LO = 77.2 pb, and N2LOLP = 84.8 pb, which implies NLO_LP ≈ 76.3 pb and an NLO SP contribution of about −7.6 pb (−10% of NLO_LP). The reported aN2LO correction over NLO is +12%, so the uncomputed NNLO SP terms (including gq/gg channels and the ttbar interference) could shift the cross section by an amount comparable to the claimed higher-order effect. The text itself states that these terms 'do not have a general structure that can be predicted without a full calculation' (Sec. II after Eq. (9)). Thus the statement that LP terms 'dominate' is an assumption, not a demonstrated result. Please provide an explicit estimate of the SP uncertainty (e.g., from
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (9) and auxiliary file] The paper states that the subleading logarithmic coefficients C_{n,m} are 'too lengthy to be shown here and can be found in the auxiliary file.' However, the auxiliary file is not included in the submitted manuscript. Since the numerical cross sections and the |Vtb| extraction depend on those coefficients, the results are not reproducible or verifiable as submitted. Please include the auxiliary file with the submission or give the complete expressions in an appendix.
  3. [Sec. III, |Vtb| extraction] The extraction of |Vtb| from the comparison with ATLAS and CMS data is not documented. The text states only that 'From this comparison, we can derive' |Vtb| = 0.99 ± 0.03 (exp) ± 0.03 (theo), but does not specify the statistical procedure: the list of measurements used, the treatment of correlated experimental systematic uncertainties, the handling of multiple measurements at the same center-of-mass energy, or how the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties are propagated into the quoted ±0.03(theo). Without this information the headline quantitative result cannot be reproduced or assessed. Please provide a detailed description of the fit/combination method.
  4. [Sec. III, Table I and Fig. 2] The central renormalization and factorization scale μ0 used for the central predictions is not stated. The scale uncertainty is quoted as a nine-point variation around the central value, but the actual numbers depend on the choice of μ0. Fig. 2 suggests that the LP and full NLO curves cross near 3Q, and the text mentions this scale only indirectly. Please specify the central scale (e.g., μ0 = Q) and, if possible, show the scale dependence for aN2LO/aN3LO allowing μ_r ≠ μ_f, since the text distinguishes the two scales in the formalism.
  5. [Sec. II, C_{3,-1} and N3LO uncertainty] The δ(1−z) coefficient at N3LO, C_{3,-1}, is only partially known because the three-loop scale-independent hard and soft functions H_c^(3) and S_c^(3) are missing. The paper does not estimate the numerical impact of this missing piece on the aN3LO cross sections. Since the aN3LO predictions are quoted with scale uncertainties of a few percent, an estimate of the contribution of the partial δ(1−z) term to the total aN3LO correction would help quantify the actual precision of the N3LO claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Global] There are several typographical and formatting issues: the running head 'fortWProduction' should be 'for tW Production'; in Sec. I 'soft raditions' should be 'soft radiations'; and in Fig. 2 the axis label 'Log0[2]/Q) µ' appears corrupted (likely log10(μ/Q)). The panel labels in Fig. 2 ('2NLO LP', '3N2') are also garbled.
  2. [Sec. I and III] Please clarify which hard-function result is used in the numerical evaluation: Ref. [30] is described as 'leading color' and Ref. [31] as 'full result.' If the full color result is used, this should be stated explicitly; if the leading-color result is used, the missing subleading-color uncertainty should be discussed.
  3. [Sec. III] The statement that 'the NLO LP prediction is very close to the full NLO result' is used as a motivation for the LP approximation at higher orders. Please clarify that this NLO-level coincidence is not a validation of LP dominance at NNLO, where the SP structure is qualitatively different.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The notation 'T_i' for color charges is conventional, but it would help to specify that T_i^2 are the quadratic Casimir operators in the respective representations, especially for the massive top-quark leg.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the approximate corrections are assembled from independent perturbative inputs, and the |Vtb| extraction is a data/theory ratio rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the approximate N2LO/N3LO cross sections are built from factorization (Eq. (1)), the two-loop hard and soft functions obtained in Refs. [30,31,35], and anomalous dimensions from Refs. [36,42-46]. These are parameter-free perturbative inputs that do not assume the target cross section or the extracted |Vtb|. The defining approximation in Eq. (11), dσ(aN^nLO)=dσ(N^nLO_LP)+dσ(NLO)-dσ(NLO_LP), is a stated approximation about threshold dominance, not a fit to the data later compared. The |Vtb| extraction in Sec. III is explicitly a direct ratio of measured cross sections to the theoretical prediction, so it is not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. Self-citations occur, notably for the soft function and factorization formula, but those cited results are independent published perturbative calculations and are not used to assume the final cross-section values or CKM element. The LP-dominance assumption and the uncomputed ttbar-interference contribution are genuine theoretical-accuracy concerns, but they are limitations, not circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the only choices are unphysical factorization/renormalization scales and externally fitted PDFs/input parameters. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The main load-bearing assumption is that the threshold leading-power terms dominate the full NNLO/N3LO corrections.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Threshold factorization of the cross section into hard function, soft function, and PDFs, Eq. (1).
    Basis of the whole calculation; standard SCET threshold resummation result, cited as Ref. [24].
  • ad hoc to paper The leading-power terms in (1-z) dominate the full perturbative result, so aN^nLO = N^nLO_LP + NLO - NLO_LP is a good approximation.
    Introduced after Eq. (9); no full N2LO exists to validate this dominance.
  • domain assumption The two-loop hard function, N2LO soft function, and three-loop anomalous dimensions from Refs. [30,31,35,36,42-46] are correct.
    External perturbative results are used as inputs without re-derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption PDF4LHC21 parton distributions and PDG/LHAPDF inputs (m_t, M_W, alpha, alpha_s) are appropriate for the LHC predictions.
    Standard inputs; the paper states PDF uncertainties via the Hessian prescription.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11882 in / 11790 out tokens · 122693 ms · 2026-08-03T17:02:51.325865+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present high-precision predictions for associated $tW$ production at the LHC that incorporate the next-to-next-to-leading order hard and soft functions as well as the complete next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order scale-dependent terms derived from the corresponding anomalous dimensions. These higher-order corrections, which dominate the full perturbative results, increase the next-to-leading order cross section by more than 10\%. Based on the comparison with ATLAS and CMS measurements, we directly extract the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{tb}|=0.99\pm 0.03({\rm expt})\pm 0.03({\rm theor})$ without assuming unitarity, achieving a precision comparable with the current world average value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10711 by Hai Tao Li, Jia-Le Ding, Jian Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: LO Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Scale dependence of the inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison between measured cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the top-quark transverse momentum and rapidity distributions. The aN2LO and aN3LO correc￾tions are sizable across the full regions, and thus should be included in the precise predictions. Since their effects have only weak kinematic dependence, it is sufficient to apply a universal K-factor. IV. CONCLUSION We have calculated the approximate N2LO and N3LO QCD corrections for tW associated production a… 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 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Constraining dimension-6 SMEFT with higher-order predictions for $p p \to t W$

    hep-ph 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Higher-order QCD predictions for pp to tW enable three-parameter SMEFT fits that constrain effective new-physics scales to 0.5–2 TeV using LHC Run II and III data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B843, 638 (2011), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 851, 443–444 (2011)], arXiv:1008.3562 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Zhang and S

    C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D83, 034006 (2011), arXiv:1008.3869 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 142 (2012), arXiv:1205.5764 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP01, 064 (2016), arXiv:1510.03752 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP01, 064 (2016), arXiv:1510.03752 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), JHEP01, 063 (2018), arXiv:1612.07231 [hep-ex]

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), JHEP01, 063 (2018), arXiv:1612.07231 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 720 (2021), arXiv:2007.01554 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D110, 072010 (2024), arXiv:2407.15594 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 022003 (2013), arXiv:1209.3489 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 231802 (2014), arXiv:1401.2942 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP10, 117 (2018), arXiv:1805.07399 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP11, 111 (2021), arXiv:2109.01706 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP11, 111 (2021), arXiv:2109.01706 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP07, 046 (2023), arXiv:2208.00924 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP07, 046 (2023), arXiv:2208.00924 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP01, 107 (2025), arXiv:2409.06444 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP01, 107 (2025), arXiv:2409.06444 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    W. T. Giele, S. Keller, and E. Laenen, Phys. Lett. B 372, 141 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9511449

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    Zhu, Phys

    S. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B524, 283 (2002), [Erra- tum: Phys.Lett.B 537, 351–352 (2002)], arXiv:hep- ph/0109269

    arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    Cao, (2008), arXiv:0801.1539 [hep-ph]

    Q.-H. Cao, (2008), arXiv:0801.1539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  17. [17]

    J. M. Campbell and F. Tramontano, Nucl. Phys. B726, 109 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [18]

    Frixione, E

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, B. R. Webber, and C. D. White, JHEP07, 029 (2008), arXiv:0805.3067 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    E. Re, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1547 (2011), arXiv:1009.2450 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [20]

    Jeˇ zo, J

    T. Jeˇ zo, J. M. Lindert, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and S. Poz- zorini, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 691 (2016), arXiv:1607.04538 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Kidonakis, Phys

    N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D74, 114012 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0609287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    Kidonakis, Phys

    N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D82, 054018 (2010), arXiv:1005.4451 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Kidonakis, Phys

    N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D96, 034014 (2017), arXiv:1612.06426 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    C. S. Li, H. T. Li, D. Y. Shao, and J. Wang, JHEP06, 125 (2019), arXiv:1903.01646 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Kidonakis and N

    N. Kidonakis and N. Yamanaka, JHEP05, 278 (2021), arXiv:2102.11300 [hep-ph]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Chen and J

    L.-B. Chen and J. Wang, Chin. Phys. C45, 123106 (2021), arXiv:2106.12093 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Long, R.-Y

    M.-M. Long, R.-Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, Y. Jiang, L. Han, Z. Li, and S.-S. Wang, (2021), arXiv:2111.14172 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Wang and Y

    J. Wang and Y. Wang, JHEP02, 127 (2023), arXiv:2211.13713 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    L.-B. Chen, L. Dong, H. T. Li, Z. Li, J. Wang, and Y. Wang, JHEP08, 211 (2022), arXiv:2204.13500 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    L.-B. Chen, L. Dong, H. T. Li, Z. Li, J. Wang, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D106, 096029 (2022), arXiv:2208.08786 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    L.-B. Chen, L. Dong, H. T. Li, Z. Li, J. Wang, and Y. Wang, JHEP07, 089 (2023), arXiv:2212.07190 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    H. T. Li and J. Wang, JHEP02, 002 (2017), arXiv:1611.02749 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    H. T. Li and J. Wang, Phys. Lett. B784, 397 (2018), arXiv:1804.06358 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    L. Dong, H. T. Li, Z.-Y. Li, and J. Wang, JHEP01, 158 (2025), arXiv:2411.07455 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    J.-L. Ding, H. T. Li, and J. Wang, JHEP05, 143 (2025), arXiv:2502.18648 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Z. L. Liu and N. Schalch, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 232001 (2022), arXiv:2207.02864 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Kidonakis, Phys

    N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D75, 071501 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701080

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Kidonakis, Phys

    N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D99, 074024 (2019), arXiv:1901.09928 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, and G. Xu, JHEP07, 030 (2008), arXiv:0710.0680 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Phys. Lett. B378, 287 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9602277

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  41. [41]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B485, 291 (1997), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 510, 503–504 (1998)], arXiv:hep-ph/9605323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  42. [42]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B688, 101 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403192

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  43. [43]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, JHEP06, 081 (2009), [Erra- tum: JHEP 11, 024 (2013)], arXiv:0903.1126 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  44. [44]

    Br¨ user, Z

    R. Br¨ user, Z. L. Liu, and M. Stahlhofen, JHEP03, 071 (2020), arXiv:1911.04494 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B406, 225 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9210281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  46. [46]

    Ahrens, T

    V. Ahrens, T. Becher, M. Neubert, and L. L. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C62, 333 (2009), arXiv:0809.4283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    R. D. Ballet al.(PDF4LHC Working Group), J. Phys. G49, 080501 (2022), arXiv:2203.05506 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Dohse, (2018), arXiv:1802.00689 [cs.OH]

    M. Dohse, (2018), arXiv:1802.00689 [cs.OH]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    A. B. Goncharov, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1105.2076 (2011), arXiv:1105.2076 [math.AG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2076