Infrared Singularities of Scattering Amplitudes and N$^3$LL Resummation for $n$-Jet Processes

Matthias Neubert; Thomas Becher

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Infrared Singularities of Scattering Amplitudes and N$^3$LL Resummation for $n$-Jet Processes

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At four loops, new color structures in the anomalous-dimension matrix break naive Casimir scaling between quark and gluon cusp anomalous dimensions, while a generalized form of scaling survives.

desk verdict A careful, externally anchored derivation that naive Casimir scaling fails at four loops, under a 'most general' claim that is somewhat softer than advertised. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11379 v2 pith:P7HGVEID submitted 2019-08-29 hep-ph hep-th

Thomas Becher , Matthias Neubert This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-th

keywords infraredsingularitiesanomalousdimensionmatrixcuspCasimirscalingsymmetrizedcolorstructuresfour-looporderN3LLresummationnon-abeliangaugetheories

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

The paper derives the most general matrix controlling the infrared divergences of massless $n$-particle scattering amplitudes in non-abelian gauge theories, up to four-loop order. Its central claim is that previous four-loop forms were incomplete: color structures built from the symmetrized four-generator trace $d_R^{abcd}$ can appear multiplied by cusp logarithms $\ln[\mu^2/(-s_{ij})]$ without upsetting two-particle collinear factorization. The presence of these terms makes the quark and gluon cusp anomalous dimensions violate the naive ratio $\Gamma^q_{\rm cusp}/C_F = \Gamma^g_{\rm cusp}/C_A$, while a generalized Casimir scaling remains, with the same two coefficient functions $g_F$ and $g_A$ governing both particles through quartic Casimir invariants. This completes the four-loop cusp-logarithm input needed for next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic (N$^3$LL) resummation of $n$-jet cross sections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the master formula (42), built from symmetrized color structures: the dipole $T_i\cdot T_j$, the three- and four-index web tensors $T_{ijk}$ and $T_{ijkl}$, the symmetric four-index tensors $D^R_{ijkl}=d^R_{abcd}\,T^a_iT^b_jT^c_kT^d_l$, and the five-index tensor $T_{ijklm}$. The decisive mechanism is the set of two-particle collinear-limit constraints on the splitting amplitude: when two particles become collinear, the anomalous dimension of the splitting process must not depend on the color generators of the remaining particles. The paper shows that this requirement is equivalent to the limiting conditions (75), (76), (77), and (C.5) on the coefficient functions $F$, $G_R$, $H_1$, and $H_2$, and that these conditions, rather than forcing the new four-loop coefficients to zero, fix their collinear behavior and produce the unique $g_R$ combination multiplying the cusp logarithms in (42). Non-abelian exponentiation and the reduction of connected webs to symmetrized traces supply the allowed color basis.

What would settle it

Finding an explicit four-loop computation of the quark and gluon cusp anomalous dimensions at finite $N_c$ that gives $\Gamma^q_{\rm cusp}/C_F = \Gamma^g_{\rm cusp}/C_A$, or a valid four-loop soft anomalous dimension satisfying the two-particle collinear constraints that cannot be written in the form of Eq. (42), would refute the paper's central claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the most general soft anomalous-dimension matrix for massless $n$-particle amplitudes at four-loop order is the master formula (42), a sum over dipole terms, three-loop three- and four-particle correlations proportional to $f$ and $F$, and a four-loop sector containing the symmetric color structures $D^R_{ijkl}$ with cusp logarithms, plus four- and five-particle correlations $G_R$, $H_1$, $H_2$. Reanalyzing the two-particle collinear limit, they show that the coefficient functions need not vanish individually; it is enough that they satisfy the limiting conditions (75), (76), (77), and (C.5). This opens the door to the $d_R^{abcd}$ terms, which shift the quark and gluon cusp anomalous dimensions according to (67), $\Gamma^i_{\rm cusp}=C_{R_i}\gamma_{\rm cusp}+2\sum_R C_4(R_i,R)\,g_R$. Because the same functions $g_F$ and $g_A$ enter both, naive Casimir scaling fails while a generalized scaling principle, with weights fixed by quartic Casimir invariants, survives; the paper reports the four-loop values of $g_F$ and $g_A$ from existing form-factor calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness of the four-loop form rests on the assumption that two-particle collinear factorization is fully captured by the four limiting conditions imposed on the coefficient functions; the paper shows these conditions are sufficient but not that they are necessary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Equation (42) provides the complete four-loop cusp logarithms and the three-loop non-cusp terms, so N$^3$LL resummations for $n$-jet cross sections no longer wait on a full four-loop amplitude calculation.
The quark and gluon cusp anomalous dimensions deviate from naive Casimir scaling through quartic-Casimir terms, yet the same $g_F$ and $g_A$ control both; in the large-$N_c$ limit the simple ratio $C_A/C_F$ is restored.
For three-particle processes such as $e^+e^-\to 3$ jets and $pp\to H+\rm jet$, the four-loop anomalous dimension is fully determined once the quark and gluon form factors are known, giving non-trivial consistency checks for future amplitude computations.
The five-particle correlation functions $H_1$ and $H_2$ do not affect the splitting amplitude when the collinear conditions hold; the question of whether they contribute to general $n$-particle amplitudes remains open.

Reading between the lines

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

An independent four-loop computation for a process with $n\ge4$ colored particles at finite $N_c$ would test the master formula beyond the form-factor inputs from which $g_F$ and $g_A$ are currently extracted.
The restored large-$N_c$ Casimir scaling suggests that the breaking is purely a subleading-color effect; a numerical study of the $g_R$ terms in specific processes such as $e^+e^-\to 3$ jets or Higgs-plus-jet production would show whether the effect is visible in N$^3$LL cross sections.
If the five-particle terms $H_1$ and $H_2$ turn out to vanish, the four-loop anomalous dimension becomes fully fixed by form-factor data; if they do not, IR-divergence predictions for processes with five or more jets would depend on genuinely new functions that are still unknown.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — the thing to know: this paper gives a clean, simplified four-loop soft anomalous dimension for massless n-particle amplitudes, and its main physical punchline — that d_R^{abcd} color structures appear with cusp logarithms, so naive Casimir scaling fails at four loops — is almost certainly right. The nonzero coefficients are taken from independent four-loop form-factor calculations, not from this paper's own constraints, so the central claim is benchmarked externally. The authors also show that a generalized form of Casimir scaling survives, with the same functions g_F and g_A controlling both quark and gluon cusp dimensions.

What it does well: it clears up earlier notation, uses color identities to eliminate two structures from the previous four-loop expression, and re-derives the collinear-limit constraints carefully. The derivation in Section 6 is tedious but plausible. The n=3 result in Section 7 is a useful concrete application. The paper is honest about what remains unknown — G_R, H_1, H_2 — and the appendices lay out the color algebra explicitly.

The soft spot: the "most general" claim in Eq. (42) rests on collinear constraints shown to be sufficient, not necessary. The limits (75)-(77) and (C.5) remove dependence on spectator particles, but the authors do not prove those are the only solutions. Appendix C is the clearest sign: the function K is left arbitrary (only symmetric in k,l), and the authors themselves note it could contain divergent terms in omega. So there could in principle be additional four-loop structures, or alternative asymptotic behaviors, that also respect collinear factorization. This does not undermine the Casimir-scaling violation, which is independently supported, but it does mean the "most general form" sentence should be tempered to "most general under the stated sufficient conditions."

Verdict: solid work from the center of the field, worth a serious referee. The caveat is a wording issue more than a fatal flaw. I would send it out, with the referee asking the authors to soften the uniqueness claim and discuss the unresolved K more prominently.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper revisits the structure of the infrared anomalous-dimension matrix for massless n-particle scattering amplitudes in non-abelian gauge theories. After reviewing non-abelian exponentiation and the reduction of connected webs to symmetrized color structures, the authors propose Eq. (42) as the most general form of the anomalous-dimension matrix through four-loop order. New features at four loops are cusp-logarithm terms involving the symmetric tensors d_R^{abcd} with coefficients g_R(α_s), leading to a violation of naive Casimir scaling of the quark and gluon cusp anomalous dimensions while preserving a generalized form of Casimir scaling, Eqs. (67)-(68). The functions f and F are taken from known three-loop results, while g_F and g_A are fixed at four loops using independent quark and gluon form-factor calculations, Refs. [48-51]. Section 6 and Appendix C derive constraints from two-particle collinear factorization, namely the conditions (75)-(77) and (C.5). Section 7 applies the results to N3LL resummation for n-jet processes and to three-particle amplitudes. The paper also provides an explicit connection to earlier work in Appendix A and collects the relevant anomalous-dimension coefficients in Appendix B.

Significance. If the central result holds, Eq. (42) would be a major step: a compact, simplified four-loop anomalous-dimension matrix that goes beyond the dipole formula and supplies the four-loop cusp logarithms required for N3LL resummation. The paper's strongest and most robust conclusion is the violation of naive Casimir scaling, because it is benchmarked against independent four-loop form-factor calculations that fix g_F and g_A. The generalized Casimir-scaling statement is well defined and clearly presented. The paper also does a service by simplifying previous expressions and spelling out the color identities that eliminate redundant structures. The main weakness is that the 'most general' claim is not fully established: the collinear constraints are shown to be sufficient, but not necessary, and Appendix C explicitly leaves an unresolved degree of freedom. This does not undermine the practical N3LL results, which depend mainly on the cusp-log terms, but it does affect the advertised maximality of Eq. (42).

major comments (2)

[Section 6, Eq. (42)] The claim that Eq. (42) is the most general form of the four-loop anomalous dimension is not supported by the derivations in Section 6. Equations (75)-(77) are imposed as sufficient conditions for the cancellation of spectator-dependent terms in Γ_Sp, and the text itself uses conditional language: 'If we impose the condition' before Eq. (75) and 'we can require' in Appendix C. For example, a function of the form G_R(ω,0;α_s) = -g_R(α_s) ω/6 + h(ω) with h(ω) → 0 as ω → -∞ is not excluded by Eq. (76), yet it changes the spectator-dependent term 12 h(ω_ij) D^R_{12ij} in Eq. (72). Thus the paper proves that the form (42) satisfies the constraints, but not that every admissible anomalous dimension can be cast in this form. The 'most general' wording in the abstract and in Section 4 should either be backed by a uniqueness proof or qualified to state that (42) is the most general form satisfying the sufficient constraints imposed here.
[Appendix C, Eq. (C.5)] The treatment of the five-index T_{ijklm} terms leaves an explicit unresolved degree of freedom. The condition (C.5) contains an arbitrary function K(β_1,β_2,ω;α_s) that only needs to be symmetric under β_1 ↔ β_2, and the footnote to (C.5) explicitly concedes that K may contain terms divergent in powers of ω. Consequently, the vanishing of the T_{ijklm} contribution to Γ_Sp, and hence the final form (78), is conditional on a sufficient condition rather than a proven necessary one. This matters because H_1 and H_2 are among the unknown coefficient functions in the proposed master formula (42). A proof that the constraints (C.5) and (C.6) are necessary, or a clear statement that they are only sufficient, is needed before the maximality of (42) can be claimed.

minor comments (4)

[Footnote 2, Appendix C] The footnote contains a typo: 'In order words' should be 'In other words'.
[Equations (57)-(58) and (68)] The Note Added at the end states that the constant k_1 has since been determined analytically in Ref. [66], but the main text still quotes only the numerical value in Eqs. (57), (58), and (68). These equations should be updated for consistency.
[Section 5, Eq. (3)] The sentence before Eq. (3), 'the coeﬃcients Γ_cusp^i(α_s) is called', mixes singular and plural agreement and should be rephrased.
[Section 4, Eq. (42)] The notation in the g_R term of Eq. (42) uses sums over unordered tuples with distinct indices, and the second sum is over (i,j,k) with a repeated index in D^R_{ijkk}; a brief explanatory sentence before Eq. (42) would help readers distinguish the different summation conventions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation is present: the nonzero g_R coefficients are taken from independent four-loop form-factor calculations, while the generalized Casimir-scaling statement follows from the assumed color-tensor decomposition rather than being fitted to the target amplitudes.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense required here. The master formula (42) is an ansatz carried over from earlier work [11,21], but the paper does not use that ansatz to conjure the numerical content of its central claim: the four-loop coefficients g_F and g_A are obtained from independent quark and gluon form-factor computations [48-51], and the paper explicitly presents them as inputs ('Using these results, we find', Eq. (68)) rather than as predictions. The collinear-limit analysis of Section 6 shows that the g_R terms are consistent with factorization if the limits (75)-(77) and (C.5) hold; it does not fit g_R to the n-particle result. The generalized Casimir-scaling statement following Eq. (67) is a structural consequence of the color-tensor decomposition: the same d_R^{abcd} structures and hence the same g_R appear in both quark and gluon form factors once the master formula is adopted. This is a deduction from the assumed form, not a circular input-output loop. The only caveats are rigor gaps, not circularity: the paper states the conditions (75)-(77) and (C.5) are sufficient, and the footnote to (C.5) concedes K may contain divergent terms, so the 'most general' claim is not fully proven. Self-citations to [11,21] supply the starting classification and notation, but the load-bearing four-loop values are external and independently computed, so they do not make the argument circular.

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

No free parameters are fitted in this paper. The coefficient functions g_F and g_A are taken from independent four-loop form-factor calculations, and the unknown functions F, G_R, H1, H2 are left undetermined as general functions of conformal cross ratios. The derivation relies on standard SCET factorization, non-abelian exponentiation, collinear factorization, and group-theory identities, none of which are introduced ad hoc.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Soft-collinear factorization equates IR divergences of on-shell amplitudes with UV divergences of soft Wilson-line operators in SCET.
Used in the Introduction to justify studying the anomalous dimension via renormalization-group techniques, leading to Eq. (1).
domain assumption Non-abelian exponentiation restricts the soft anomalous dimension to color-connected webs shown in Figure 2.
Section 2 uses the replica trick and cites Ref. [15] for the formal proof that only color-connected structures contribute to the exponent.
domain assumption Collinear factorization of the anomalous dimension obeys Eq. (9) for two final-state collinear particles.
Section 6 uses this to constrain coefficient functions; the paper notes known violations in the space-like region and restricts to the final-state configuration.
domain assumption The known four-loop form-factor calculations from Refs. [48-51] correctly fix g_F and g_A.
Eq. (68) uses these external results to determine the coefficients of the new d_R structures.
standard math Standard SU(Nc) group-theory identities, including the Jacobi identity and trace identities in Eq. (27), are valid.
Section 3 uses these identities to reduce primary webs to symmetrized color structures.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infrared Singularities of Scattering Amplitudes and N$^3$LL Resummation for $n$-Jet Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7HGVEID

@misc{pith2026190811379,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infrared Singularities of Scattering Amplitudes and N$^3$LL Resummation for $n$-Jet Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7HGVEID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11379}
}

abstract

We revisit the multi-loop structure of the anomalous-dimension matrix governing the infrared divergences of massless $n$-particle scattering amplitudes in non-abelian gauge theories. In particular, we derive its most general form at four-loop order, significantly simplifying corresponding expressions given previously. By carefully reevaluating the constraints imposed by two-particle collinear limits, we find that at four-loop order color structures involving $d_R^{abcd}$, the symmetrized trace of four group generators, appear along with cusp logarithms $\ln[\mu^2/(-s_{ij})]$. As a consequence, naive Casimir scaling of the cusp anomalous dimensions associated with the quark and gluon form factors is violated, while a generalized form of Casimir scaling still holds. Our results provide an important ingredient for resummations of large logarithms in $n$-jet cross sections with next-to-next-to-next-to leading logarithmic (N$^3$LL) accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11379 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Representative three-loop diagrams contributing to the soft function S associated with a four-particle scattering amplitude. The light-like soft Wilson lines are represented by double lines and multiply the hard amplitude M indicated by the gray blob. The left diagram is fully connected and therefore also color connected. The middle diagram is connected but not fully connected. It has a color-connected part with the… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Color-connected webs appearing up to four-loop order in the soft anomalous dimension Γs. The webs represented by these graphs are the color structures that arise if the wavy lines are replaced by gluons in the corresponding (fully connected) tree-level Feynman graphs. multiple Wilson lines has been developed in [14, 15, 31–35]. It is based on an efficient method to evaluate the diagrammatic contributions to the expo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Two examples of gluon clusters connecting to a Wilson line. which become disconnected by cutting one or more Wilson lines, i.e. diagrams which are connected but not fully connected. For such diagrams the appropriate combinatorial factor for a contribution with M different replicas is N! M! (N − M)! = (−1)M−1 M N + O(N 2 ). (11) There are in general M! factorial possibilities to order the replicas in the diagram. For… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: They give rise to the primary color structures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

Spacelike-Collinear Scattering by the Method of Regions
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

The kinematic factorisation-violating part of the two-loop spacelike-collinear splitting amplitude comes entirely from a single hidden region with soft and Glauber loop momenta.
The Two-Loop Lipatov Vertex in QCD
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The two-loop Reggeon-gluon-Reggeon (Lipatov) vertex in QCD is determined in dimensional regularization through finite terms and expressed in single-valued polylogarithms.
Non-abelian soft radiation data for a celestial theory
hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Non-abelian soft-emission data imply that celestial OPE coefficients depend on gluon energy fractions, breaking holomorphic factorization and associativity, while single-soft logarithms can be reabsorbed into the runn...
Infrared singularities and the collinear limits of multi-leg scattering amplitudes
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using colour conservation and rescaling symmetry, the two-particle collinear constraints are shown to imply multi-particle collinear factorisation through four loops, and a new triple-collinear constraint is derived f...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[1]

Becher and M

T. Becher and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 162001 (2009) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 199905 (2013)] [arXiv:0901.0722 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2009
[2]

I. A. Korchemskaya and G. P. Korchemsky, Nucl. Phys. B 437, 127 (1995) [hep- ph/9409446]

work page arXiv 1995
[3]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001) [hep-ph/0011336]

arXiv 2001
[4]

C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002) [hep- ph/0109045]

work page arXiv 2002
[5]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewa rt, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014017 (2002) [hep-ph/0202088]

arXiv 2002
[6]

Beneke, A

M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phy s. B 643, 431 (2002) [hep-ph/0206152]

arXiv 2002
[7]

Catani and M

S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B 485, 291 (1997) [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 510, 503 (1998)] [hep-ph/9605323]

arXiv 1997
[8]

External Operators and Anomalous Dimensions in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory

T. Becher, R. J. Hill, B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 69, 034013 (2004) [hep-ph/0309227]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

Show all 73 references

[9]

I. A. Korchemskaya and G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Lett. B 287, 169 (1992)

1992
[10]

Gardi and L

E. Gardi and L. Magnea, JHEP 0903, 079 (2009) [arXiv:0901.1091 [hep-ph]]. 28

2009 arXiv
[11]

Becher and M

T. Becher and M. Neubert, JHEP 0906, 081 (2009) [Erratum: JHEP 1311, 024 (2013)] [arXiv:0903.1126 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[12]

J. G. M. Gatheral, Phys. Lett. 133B, 90 (1983)

1983
[13]

Frenkel and J

J. Frenkel and J. C. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 246, 231 (1984)

1984
[14]

Gardi, E

E. Gardi, E. Laenen, G. Stavenga and C. D. White, JHEP 1011, 155 (2010) [arXiv:1008.0098 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[15]

Gardi, J

E. Gardi, J. M. Smillie and C. D. White, JHEP 1306, 088 (2013) [arXiv:1304.7040 [hep- ph]]

2013 arXiv
[16]

S. M. Aybat, L. J. Dixon and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 072001 (2006) [hep- ph/0606254]

2006
[17]

S. M. Aybat, L. J. Dixon and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074004 (2006) [hep- ph/0607309]

2006
[18]

Becher and M

T. Becher and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 79, 125004 (2009) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 80, 109901 (2009)] [arXiv:0904.1021 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[19]

Ferroglia, M

A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Yang, Phys. R ev. Lett. 103, 201601 (2009) [arXiv:0907.4791 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[20]

Ferroglia, M

A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak and L. L. Yang, JHEP 0911, 062 (2009) [arXiv:0908.3676 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[21]

Ahrens, M

V. Ahrens, M. Neubert and L. Vernazza, JHEP 1209, 138 (2012) [arXiv:1208.4847 [hep- ph]]

2012 arXiv
[22]

Almelid, C

Ø. Almelid, C. Duhr and E. Gardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 172002 (2016) [arXiv:1507.00047 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[23]

F. A. Berends and W. T. Giele, Nucl. Phys. B 313, 595 (1989)

1989
[24]

M. L. Mangano and S. J. Parke, Phys. Rept. 200, 301 (1991) [hep-th/0509223]

1991 arXiv
[25]

Bern and G

Z. Bern and G. Chalmers, Nucl. Phys. B 447, 465 (1995) [hep-ph/9503236]

1995 arXiv
[26]

D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 552, 319 (1999) [hep-ph/9901201]

1999 arXiv
[27]

Catani, D

S. Catani, D. de Florian and G. Rodrigo, JHEP 1207, 026 (2012) [arXiv:1112.4405 [hep- ph]]

2012 arXiv
[28]

J. R. Forshaw, M. H. Seymour and A. Siodmok, JHEP 1211, 066 (2012) [arXiv:1206.6363 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[29]

Del Duca, C

V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, E. Gardi, L. Magnea and C. D. White, Phys . Rev. D 85, 071104 (2012) [arXiv:1108.5947 [hep-ph]]. 29

2012 arXiv
[30]

Del Duca, C

V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, E. Gardi, L. Magnea and C. D. White, JHEP 1112, 021 (2011) [arXiv:1109.3581 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[31]

Mitov, G

A. Mitov, G. Sterman and I. Sung, Phys. Rev. D 82, 096010 (2010) [arXiv:1008.0099 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[32]

Gardi and C

E. Gardi and C. D. White, JHEP 1103, 079 (2011) [arXiv:1102.0756 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[33]

Gardi, J

E. Gardi, J. M. Smillie and C. D. White, JHEP 1109, 114 (2011) [arXiv:1108.1357 [hep- ph]]

2011 arXiv
[34]

A. A. Vladimirov, Phys. Rev. D 90, 066007 (2014) [arXiv:1406.6253 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[35]

A. A. Vladimirov, JHEP 1506, 120 (2015) [arXiv:1501.03316 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[36]

Laenen, G

E. Laenen, G. Stavenga and C. D. White, JHEP 0903, 054 (2009) [arXiv:0811.2067 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[37]

Mezard, G

M. Mezard, G. Parisi, and M. Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory and Beyond: An Introduction to the Replica Method and Its Applications , World Scientiﬁc (1987) 476 pp

1987
[38]

A. I. Davydychev, P. Osland and O. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4087 (1996) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 59, 109901 (1999)] [hep-ph/9605348]

1996 arXiv
[39]

A. I. Davydychev, P. Osland and O. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D 58, 036007 (1998) [hep- ph/9801380]

1998
[40]

Ruijl, T

B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, JHEP 1706, 040 (2017) [arXiv:1703.08532 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[41]

van Ritbergen, A

T. van Ritbergen, A. N. Schellekens and J. A. M. Vermaseren, I nt. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 41 (1999) [hep-ph/9802376]

1999 arXiv
[42]

A. A. Vladimirov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 062001 (2017) [arXiv:1610.05791 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[43]

Vladimirov, JHEP 1804, 045 (2018) [arXiv:1707.07606 [hep-ph]]

A. Vladimirov, JHEP 1804, 045 (2018) [arXiv:1707.07606 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[44]

L. J. Dixon, E. Gardi and L. Magnea, JHEP 1002, 081 (2010) [arXiv:0910.3653 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[45]

J. M. Henn, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, JH EP 1605, 066 (2016) [arXiv:1604.03126 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[46]

J. Henn, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, M. Steinhauser and R. N. Lee, JHEP 1703, 139 (2017) [arXiv:1612.04389 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[47]

Grozin, JHEP 1806, 073 (2018) [Addendum: JHEP 1901, 134 (2019)] [arXiv:1805.05050 [hep-ph]]

A. Grozin, JHEP 1806, 073 (2018) [Addendum: JHEP 1901, 134 (2019)] [arXiv:1805.05050 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[48]

S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, JH EP 1710, 041 (2017) [arXiv:1707.08315 [hep-ph]]. 30

2017 arXiv
[49]

S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Ph ys. Lett. B 782, 627 (2018) [arXiv:1805.09638 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[50]

R. N. Lee, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, JHE P 1902, 172 (2019) [arXiv:1901.02898 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[51]

J. M. Henn, T. Peraro, M. Stahlhofen and P. Wasser, Phys. Re v. Lett. 122, 201602 (2019) [arXiv:1901.03693 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Davies, A

J. Davies, A. Vogt, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda and J. A. M. Vermaseren, N ucl. Phys. B 915, 335 (2017) [arXiv:1610.07477 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[53]

R. N. Lee, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, Phy s. Rev. D 96, 014008 (2017) [arXiv:1705.06862 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[54]

von Manteuﬀel and R

A. von Manteuﬀel and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094014 (2019) [arXiv:1902.08208 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[55]

Beneke and V

M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 454, 253 (1995) [hep-ph/9506452]

1995 arXiv
[56]

Br¨ user, A

R. Br¨ user, A. Grozin, J. M. Henn and M. Stahlhofen, JHEP 1905, 186 (2019) [arXiv:1902.05076 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[57]

F. C. S. Brown, Compt. Rend. Math. 338, 527 (2004)

2004
[58]

L. J. Dixon, C. Duhr and J. Pennington, JHEP 1210, 074 (2012) [arXiv:1207.0186 [hep- th]]

2012 arXiv
[59]

Armoni, JHEP 0611, 009 (2006) [hep-th/0608026]

A. Armoni, JHEP 0611, 009 (2006) [hep-th/0608026]

2006 arXiv
[60]

L. F. Alday and J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 0706, 064 (2007) [arXiv:0705.0303 [hep-th]]

2007 arXiv
[61]

L. F. Alday and J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 0711, 019 (2007) [arXiv:0708.0672 [hep-th]]

2007 arXiv
[62]

R. H. Boels, T. Huber and G. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 201601 (2017) [arXiv:1705.03444 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[63]

R. H. Boels, T. Huber and G. Yang, JHEP 1801, 153 (2018) [arXiv:1711.08449 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[64]

L. J. Dixon, JHEP 1801, 075 (2018) [arXiv:1712.07274 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[65]

Almelid, C

Ø. Almelid, C. Duhr, E. Gardi, A. McLeod and C. D. White, JHEP 1709, 073 (2017) [arXiv:1706.10162 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[66]

J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and B. Mistlberger, arXiv:1911.10 174 [hep-th]

1911
[67]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 688, 101 (2004) [hep- ph/0403192]

2004
[68]

S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, JHEP 0508, 049 (2005) [hep-ph/0507039]. 31

2005 arXiv
[69]

Becher, M

T. Becher, M. Neubert and B. D. Pecjak, JHEP 0701, 076 (2007) [hep-ph/0607228]

2007 arXiv
[70]

’t Hooft and M

G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 44, 189 (1972)

1972
[71]

Siegel, Phys

W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. 84B, 193 (1979)

1979
[72]

Bern and D

Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 379, 451 (1992)

1992
[73]

Broggio, C

A. Broggio, C. Gnendiger, A. Signer, D. St¨ ockinger and A. Visc onti, JHEP 1601, 078 (2016) [arXiv:1506.05301 [hep-ph]]. 32

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Becher and M

T. Becher and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 162001 (2009) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 199905 (2013)] [arXiv:0901.0722 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2009

[2] [2]

I. A. Korchemskaya and G. P. Korchemsky, Nucl. Phys. B 437, 127 (1995) [hep- ph/9409446]

work page arXiv 1995

[3] [3]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001) [hep-ph/0011336]

arXiv 2001

[4] [4]

C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002) [hep- ph/0109045]

work page arXiv 2002

[5] [5]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewa rt, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014017 (2002) [hep-ph/0202088]

arXiv 2002

[6] [6]

Beneke, A

M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phy s. B 643, 431 (2002) [hep-ph/0206152]

arXiv 2002

[7] [7]

Catani and M

S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B 485, 291 (1997) [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 510, 503 (1998)] [hep-ph/9605323]

arXiv 1997

[8] [8]

External Operators and Anomalous Dimensions in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory

T. Becher, R. J. Hill, B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 69, 034013 (2004) [hep-ph/0309227]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004