Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Three-loop jet function for boosted heavy quarks

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The three-loop inclusive jet function for boosted heavy quarks in bHQET is computed, completing the last missing fixed-order ingredient for N$^3$LL$'$ resummed thrust in boosted top-pair events.

desk verdict A well-executed three-loop computation of the bHQET jet function; the main soft spot is documentation of the non-planar master integral, not the physics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06881 v2 pith:PW75M4J7 submitted 2024-12-09 hep-ph hep-th

Alberto M. Clavero , Robin Brüser , Vicent Mateu , Maximilian Stahlhofen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords boostedheavy-quarkeffectivetheoryjetfunctionthree-loopQCDtopquarkmassthrustnon-AbelianexponentiationrenormalonN3LL'resummation
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 computes the inclusive jet function for boosted heavy quarks to three loops in the strong coupling, within boosted Heavy-Quark Effective Theory. This function controls collimated radiation inside an energetic heavy-quark jet in the regime where the jet invariant mass satisfies $M^2 - m^2 \ll m^2$, the situation relevant for boosted top-pair production. The central result is the three-loop non-logarithmic coefficient of the logarithm of the position-space jet function, Eq. (4.7), which numerically reads $50.054\, n_\ell^2 - 1899.8\, n_\ell + 12834$ for $N_c=3$. This completes the last missing fixed-order ingredient for N$^3$LL$'$ resummed self-normalized thrust distributions in the peak region of boosted top-pair events, and with it a more reliable calibration of the top quark mass parameter in parton-shower Monte Carlo generators.

What carries the argument

The central object is the logarithm of the position-space jet function, $\tilde b(x,\mu)=\log[m\tilde B(x,\mu)]$, whose non-Abelian exponentiation means only fully connected color factors appear, so the $C_F^3$ and $C_F^2 C_A$ terms vanish at three loops. The argument is carried by the analytic evaluation of the 20 three-loop master integrals, obtained from roughly 1100 Feynman diagrams via automated integral-family assignment, integration-by-parts reduction, and a combination of Feynman-parameter, Mellin-Barnes, integration-by-parts, and quasi-finite-integral techniques. These master integrals enter the renormalized result through the exponent $\tilde b_{30}$ of Eq. (4.7).

What would settle it

Recompute the 20 master integrals of Appendix F to the required order in epsilon with an independent numerical or analytic method; any discrepancy with the quoted expansions would disprove Eq. (4.7).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's main claim is that the three-loop coefficient $\tilde b_{30}$ of the logarithm of the position-space bHQET jet function is given by the analytic expression in Eq. (4.7), with numerical value $50.054\, n_\ell^2 - 1899.8\, n_\ell + 12834$ for $N_c=3$. The result passes several internal consistency checks: it satisfies non-Abelian exponentiation in $d$ dimensions, it reproduces the known cusp and non-cusp anomalous dimensions of the jet function through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$, and its $n_\ell^2$ piece agrees with the large-$\beta_0$ prediction from renormalon calculus. The exact three-loop value lies inside the uncertainty band of the earlier renormalon-based estimate. As by-products, the paper derives the relation between the pole mass and two renormalon-free short-distance jet-mass schemes at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$, and estimates the non-logarithmic four-loop coefficient of the jet function from renormalon dominance.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the correctness of the analytic epsilon expansions of the 20 three-loop master integrals; a mistake in any one of them would change Eq. (4.7).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The computation reproduces the three-loop non-cusp anomalous dimension of the bHQET jet function, providing its first direct derivation rather than an inference from RG consistency.
  • With the hard and soft functions already available, the missing jet function means N$^3$LL$'$ self-normalized 2-jettiness (thrust) distributions in the peak region of boosted top-pair events can now be constructed.
  • The pole-mass to jet-mass scheme relation at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ provides two practical short-distance mass schemes; the non-derivative jet-mass is well behaved already at one loop while the derivative jet-mass requires two loops before it approaches the MSR benchmark.
  • The four-loop non-logarithmic coefficient estimated from renormalon dominance gives a numerical target for future explicit four-loop calculations.
  • Once the four-loop cusp and non-cusp anomalous dimensions are known, the new jet function enables N$^4$LL resummation for these observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the master integrals hold, the same quasi-finite and Mellin-Barnes machinery can likely be extended to extract the four-loop non-cusp anomalous dimension of the bHQET jet function, which is currently the bottleneck for N$^4$LL.
  • The agreement between the exact three-loop result and the renormalon-dominance estimate strengthens the case that renormalon calculus can be used to estimate unknown higher-order coefficients of other factorization functions, not just the jet function.
  • The scheme comparison suggests that for Monte Carlo top-mass calibrations with limited perturbative order, the non-derivative jet-mass may be a more efficient renormalon-free mass definition than the derivative jet-mass.
  • The same jet function is a building block for hemisphere mass, heavy jet mass and C-parameter distributions; this calculation puts those observables within reach of N$^3$LL$'$ as well once their soft functions and matching coefficients are available at that order.
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 presents the first three-loop (O(alpha_s^3)) computation of the inclusive bHQET jet function for boosted heavy quarks. The calculation is performed by direct Feynman-diagram evaluation, with IBP reduction to 20 master integrals, followed by analytic evaluation using Mellin-Barnes, integration-by-parts, and quasi-finite/HyperInt methods. The main quantitative result is Eq. (4.7), the three-loop non-logarithmic coefficient b30 of the exponent of the position-space jet function, numerically b30 = 50.054 n_l^2 - 1899.8 n_l + 12834 for N_c=3. The authors verify the result against a number of independent constraints: gauge-parameter independence, non-Abelian exponentiation in d dimensions, reproduction of the known cusp and non-cusp anomalous dimensions, and agreement with the large-beta_0 prediction for the n_l^2 term. They also use the result to derive the three-loop pole-to-jet-mass scheme conversion, compare two short-distance jet-mass schemes with the MSR mass, and estimate the four-loop non-logarithmic coefficient using renormalon dominance. The paper is careful and detailed, but one load-bearing piece of information is not shown: the decomposition of the bare three-loop matrix element B_bare^3 into the master integrals, and the derivation of the non-planar master integral MI3L_t is only sketched.

Significance. If correct, this is an important result. The three-loop bHQET jet function is the last missing perturbative ingredient for N3LL'-accurate self-normalized thrust-type distributions in the peak region of boosted top production, and it also provides the first direct determination of the three-loop non-cusp anomalous dimension of this jet function through the renormalization-group consistency of the calculation. The paper benefits from unusually strong internal and external consistency checks: the gauge-parameter independence is checked, non-Abelian exponentiation is verified before epsilon-expansion, the anomalous dimensions are reproduced, the n_l^2 term agrees with the large-beta_0 prediction, and all master integrals are checked numerically with FIESTA/pySecDec. These checks make an outright error in Eq. (4.7) unlikely, but they do not remove the need for the transparency concerns raised below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.3 and footnote 15] The central new number, Eq. (4.7), is obtained by inserting the 20 three-loop master integrals of Appendix F into the linear combination B_bare^3, but the expression for B_bare^3 in terms of MIs is not given; footnote 15 states that it can be obtained from the authors upon request. Because an error in this combination would propagate directly into b30, this is a load-bearing transparency gap. I request that the full d-dimensional expression for B_bare^3 (or at least the epsilon-expanded coefficients needed for the renormalized result) be provided as an ancillary file or in an appendix, in a computer-readable form.
  2. [Appendix G.2 and Eq. (F.8u)] The non-planar master integral MI3L_t is the least cross-checked entry in the C_F C_A^2 part of b30, which is the largest and least independently verified piece of the numerical result. Eq. (F.8u) is presented as a closed all-orders 3F2 result, but Appendix G.2 only sketches the Mellin-Barnes procedure and does not show the contour choices, residue sums, or analytic continuation for this specific integral. Since the numerical checks in Appendix F are strong but not a proof, I ask the authors to provide a more complete derivation of MI3L_t, or an independent verification such as an evaluation through the quasi-finite/HyperInt method, so that this load-bearing ingredient can be audited.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix G.4] The quasi-finite integrals F.8n through F.8s are expanded only to O(epsilon) or O(epsilon^2), with the statement that this is one order higher than necessary. It would be helpful to state explicitly, once B_bare^3 is provided, which epsilon order is required from each master integral, so that readers can verify that the quoted truncations are sufficient.
  2. [Sec. 5] The four-loop estimate relies on the assumption that the u=1/2 renormalon dominates b40. The internal consistency tests in Table 2 and Fig. 3 are reassuring, but the text could state more explicitly that this is an assumption rather than a derivation, and that the resulting uncertainties are only as reliable as that assumption.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption and reference [58]] The caption uses "Revolver" while the reference and the main text use "REvolver"; please unify the spelling.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The abstract's claim that the result is "the last missing piece" for N3LL'-accurate self-normalized thrust distributions is carefully qualified in Sec. 1, which notes that unnormalized cross sections also require the N3LL' hard-matching coefficient. Consider adding a similar qualifier in the abstract itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three-loop jet-function coefficient is computed directly from Feynman diagrams and master integrals; prior and self-cited results are used as consistency checks, not as inputs that fix the new coefficient.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The new coefficient b30 in Eq. (4.7) is obtained by generating the three-loop diagrams, reducing the resulting scalar integrals via IBP to 20 master integrals, evaluating those master integrals analytically (Appendices F and G), and inserting them into the bare matrix element combination B_bare^3 (Sec. 3, Table 1). No parameter in Eq. (4.7) is fitted to the target quantity. Known ingredients such as the cusp and non-cusp anomalous dimensions, the beta function, and the two-loop jet function enter through renormalization and RG relations, but they are used as checks: the paper states 'Our calculation reproduces the known three-loop anomalous dimension coefficients gamma_B^2 and Gamma_c^2' and 'We also reproduce the C_F T_F^2 n_l^2 term of b30 obtained in Ref.[65]'. Thus the self-cited Ref.[65] is a benchmark that is independently reproduced, not a load-bearing input that forces Eq. (4.7). Similarly, non-Abelian exponentiation is verified 'already before epsilon expansion' rather than imposed to determine coefficients. The four-loop estimate in Sec. 5 is explicitly labeled 'based on renormalon dominance' and is a separate, clearly stated assumption; it does not feed back into Eq. (4.7). The unshown B_bare^3 decomposition (footnote 15) and the relatively sketched MB derivation of MI3L_t (App. G) are presentation and verification limitations, but they do not reduce the claimed result to its own inputs. An error in a master integral would change Eq. (4.7), but that is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central three-loop computation uses no data-fitting parameters. A dimensionless scale lambda is varied only in the renormalon-based four-loop estimate. The axioms are the standard EFT and multi-loop framework assumptions plus the renormalon-dominance assumption for that estimate. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda
    Dimensionless scale parameter in the renormalon-dominance estimate of the four-loop coefficient (Sec. 5). It is varied between 1/2 and 2 to assign uncertainty and does not enter the three-loop central result.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Dimensional regularization with d = 4 - 2 epsilon and the MS scheme regulate and renormalize the bHQET jet function.
    Used throughout Secs. 2.2 and 3; all bare results are expanded around epsilon = 0 and renormalized with Z_B.
  • standard math The non-Abelian exponentiation theorem holds for the Wilson-line correlator in Eq. (2.7).
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 to fix the color structure of b30 and used as a check in Sec. 4.3; the absence of C_F^3 and C_F^2 C_A terms follows from it.
  • domain assumption Leading-power bHQET factorization with zero-bin subtraction is valid, and zero-bin contributions vanish as scaleless integrals in dimensional regularization.
    Sec. 2.1, following Refs. [18,61]; this is the effective field theory premise defining the jet function.
  • standard math The known cusp and non-cusp anomalous dimensions listed in Appendix C are correct.
    Used in Eqs. (2.51) and (2.52) and as consistency checks; gamma_B_2 is derived from RG consistency of Eq. (1.1) in Refs. [50,67,102], not independently proven here.
  • domain assumption Light quark flavors are treated as massless and the number of active flavors in the jet function is n_l.
    Sec. 2.1; this is the standard bHQET setup and the paper leaves massive lighter quark contributions for future work.
  • ad hoc to paper In the four-loop estimate of Sec. 5, the u = 1/2 renormalon is assumed to dominate the non-logarithmic coefficient b40.
    This assumption is imported from Ref. [65] and is used only for an estimate, not for the three-loop central result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-loop jet function for boosted heavy quarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW75M4J7

@misc{pith2026241206881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-loop jet function for boosted heavy quarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW75M4J7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06881}
}
abstract

We compute the inclusive jet function for boosted heavy quarks to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$. The jet function is defined and calculated in the framework of boosted Heavy-Quark Effective Theory (bHQET). It describes the effect of radiation collimated in narrow jets arising from energetic heavy quarks on observables probing the jet invariant mass $M$ in the region where $M^2 - m^2 \ll m^2$, with $m$ the heavy quark mass. This kinematic situation is relevant e.g. in boosted top (pair) production at high-energy colliders. We have verified that our result satisfies non-Abelian exponentiation and checked that our calculation reproduces the known cusp and non-cusp anomalous dimensions of the jet function to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$. We also confirmed that the $n_\ell^2\alpha_s^3$ contribution, where $n_\ell$ is the number of massless quark flavors, agrees with the prediction from renormalon calculus. Our computation provides the last missing piece to obtain the N$^3$LL$^\prime$ resummed (self-normalized) thrust distribution used for the calibration of the top quark mass parameter in parton-shower Monte Carlo generators. Our result also contributes to the invariant mass distribution of reconstructed top quarks at N$^3$LL$^\prime$, which can be employed for a precise top mass determination at future lepton colliders. As a by-product, we obtain the relation between the pole and short-distance jet-mass schemes at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$. Finally, we estimate the non-logarithmic contribution to the four-loop jet function based on renormalon dominance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Precision $e^+e^-$ Hemisphere Masses in the Dijet Region with Power Corrections

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    N3LL' resummation for heavy jet and dihemisphere masses in the dijet region, with a new claim that heavy jet mass moments require an extra non-perturbative parameter at order 1/Q.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori et al.,Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP 08 (2012) 098, [1205.6497]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Buttazzo, G

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio et al., Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson, JHEP 12 (2013) 089, [1307.3536]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Branchina and E

    V. Branchina and E. Messina,Stability, Higgs Boson Mass and New Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 241801, [1307.5193]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    A. V. Bednyakov, B. A. Kniehl, A. F. Pikelner and O. L. Veretin,Stability of the Electroweak Vacuum: Gauge Independence and Advanced Precision, Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 201802, [1507.08833]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Andreassen, W

    A. Andreassen, W. Frost and M. D. Schwartz,Scale Invariant Instantons and the Complete Lifetime of the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 056006, [1707.08124]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Haller, A

    J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. Mönig, T. Peiffer and J. Stelzer,Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 675, [1803.01853]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Hayrapetyan et al.,Combination of Measurements of the Top Quark Mass from Data Collected by the ATLAS and CMS Experiments at√s = 7 and 8TeV, Phys

    ATLAS, CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al.,Combination of Measurements of the Top Quark Mass from Data Collected by the ATLAS and CMS Experiments at√s = 7 and 8TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 261902, [2402.08713]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Agashe et al.,Report of the Topical Group on Top quark physics and heavy flavor production for Snowmass 2021, 2209.11267

    K. Agashe et al.,Report of the Topical Group on Top quark physics and heavy flavor production for Snowmass 2021, 2209.11267

    arXiv 2021

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    A. H. Hoang,What is the Top Quark Mass?, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70 (2020) 225–255, [2004.12915]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi and I. W. Stewart,Infrared Renormalization Group Flow for Heavy Quark Masses, Phys. Rev. Lett.101 (2008) 151602, [0803.4214]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, C. Lepenik, V. Mateu, M. Preisser, I. Scimemi et al.,The MSR mass and the O (ΛQCD) renormalon sum rule, JHEP 04 (2018) 003, [1704.01580]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Butenschoen, B

    M. Butenschoen, B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, M. Preisser and I. W. Stewart,Top Quark Mass Calibration for Monte Carlo Event Generators, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 232001, [1608.01318]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dehnadi, A

    B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang, O. L. Jin and V. Mateu,Top quark mass calibration for Monte Carlo event generators — an update, JHEP 12 (2023) 065, [2309.00547]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aad et al.,Measurement of the top-quark mass int¯t + 1 jet events collected with the ATLAS detector inpp collisions at √s = 8TeV, JHEP 11 (2019) 150, [1905.02302]

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of the top-quark mass int¯t + 1 jet events collected with the ATLAS detector inpp collisions at √s = 8TeV, JHEP 11 (2019) 150, [1905.02302]. – 46 –

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Fernandez, J. Fuster, A. Irles, S.-O. Moch, P. Uwer et al.,A new observable to measure the top-quark mass at hadron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2438, [1303.6415]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. C. Smith and S. S. Willenbrock,Top quark pole mass, Phys. Rev. Lett.79 (1997) 3825–3828, [hep-ph/9612329]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fleming, A

    S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry and I. W. Stewart,Jets from massive unstable particles: Top-mass determination, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 074010, [hep-ph/0703207]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fleming, A

    S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry and I. W. Stewart,Top Jets in the Peak Region: Factorization Analysis with NLL Resummation, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 114003, [0711.2079]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gritschacher, A

    S. Gritschacher, A. Hoang, I. Jemos and P. Pietrulewicz,Two loop soft function for secondary massive quarks, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 014035, [1309.6251]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pietrulewicz, S

    P. Pietrulewicz, S. Gritschacher, A. H. Hoang, I. Jemos and V. Mateu,Variable Flavor Number Scheme for Final State Jets in Thrust, Phys.Rev. D90 (2014) 114001, [1405.4860]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. H. Hoang, C. Lepenik and M. Stahlhofen,Two-Loop Massive Quark Jet Functions in SCET, JHEP 08 (2019) 112, [1904.12839]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. Bris, V. Mateu and M. Preisser,Massive event-shape distributions at N2LL, JHEP 09 (2020) 132, [2006.06383]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bachu, A

    B. Bachu, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, A. Pathak and I. W. Stewart,Boosted top quarks in the peak region with N3LL resummation, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 014026, [2012.12304]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bris and V

    A. Bris and V. Mateu,Secondary massive quarks with the Mellin-Barnes expansion, JHEP 05 (2024) 146, [2402.09536]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Nason and C

    P. Nason and C. Oleari,Next-to-leading-order corrections to the production of heavy-flavour jets in e+e− collisions, Nucl. Phys. B521 (1998) 237–273, [hep-ph/9709360]

    1998 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bernreuther, A

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg and P. Uwer,Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to three jet cross-sections with massive quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett.79 (1997) 189–192, [hep-ph/9703305]

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Brandenburg and P

    A. Brandenburg and P. Uwer,Next-to-leading order QCD corrections and massive quarks in e+e− → 3 jets, Nucl. Phys. B515 (1998) 279–320, [hep-ph/9708350]

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Rodrigo, M

    G. Rodrigo, M. S. Bilenky and A. Santamaria,Quark-mass effects for jet production in e+e− collisions at the next-to-leading order: Results and applications, Nucl. Phys. B554 (1999) 257–297, [hep-ph/9905276]

    1999 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lepenik and V

    C. Lepenik and V. Mateu,NLO Massive Event-Shape Differential and Cumulative Distributions, JHEP 03 (2020) 024, [1912.08211]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise,Heavy quark physics, vol. 10. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke,Summing Sudakov logarithms inB → Xsγ in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D63 (2000) 014006, [hep-ph/0005275]

    2000 arXiv

  24. [32]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114020, [hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,Soft-Collinear Factorization in Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 054022, [hep-ph/0109045]. – 47 –

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart,Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 014017, [hep-ph/0202088]

    2002 arXiv

  27. [35]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart,Invariant operators in collinear effective theory, Phys. Lett. B516 (2001) 134–142, [hep-ph/0107001]

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and T. Feldmann,Soft collinear effective theory and heavy to light currents beyond leading power, Nucl. Phys. B 643 (2002) 431–476, [hep-ph/0206152]

    2002 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B. D. Pecjak, D. J. Scott, X. Wang and L. L. Yang,Resummed differential cross sections for top-quark pairs at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 202001, [1601.07020]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Matsuura and W

    T. Matsuura and W. L. van Neerven,Second Order Logarithmic Corrections to the Drell-Yan Cross-section, Z. Phys. C38 (1988) 623

    1988

  31. [39]

    Matsuura, S

    T. Matsuura, S. C. van der Marck and W. L. van Neerven,The Calculation of the Second Order Soft and Virtual Contributions to the Drell-Yan Cross-Section, Nucl. Phys. B319 (1989) 570

    1989

  32. [40]

    Gehrmann, T

    T. Gehrmann, T. Huber and D. Maitre,Two-loop quark and gluon form factors in dimensional regularisation, Phys. Lett. B622 (2005) 295–302, [hep-ph/0507061]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,The Quark form-factor at higher orders, JHEP 08 (2005) 049, [hep-ph/0507039]

    2005 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser,Quark and gluon form factors to three loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.102 (2009) 212002, [0902.3519]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. N. Lee, A. V. Smirnov and V. A. Smirnov,Analytic Results for Massless Three-Loop Form Factors, JHEP 04 (2010) 020, [1001.2887]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gehrmann, E

    T. Gehrmann, E. Glover, T. Huber, N. Ikizlerli and C. Studerus,Calculation of the quark and gluon form factors to three loops in QCD, JHEP 1006 (2010) 094, [1004.3653]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kelley, M

    R. Kelley, M. D. Schwartz, R. M. Schabinger and H. X. Zhu,The two-loop hemisphere soft function, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 045022, [1105.3676]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    P. F. Monni, T. Gehrmann and G. Luisoni,Two-Loop Soft Corrections and Resummation of the Thrust Distribution in the Dijet Region, JHEP 1108 (2011) 010, [1105.4560]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hornig, C

    A. Hornig, C. Lee, I. W. Stewart, J. R. Walsh and S. Zuberi,Non-global Structure of the O(α2 s) Dijet Soft Function, JHEP 1108 (2011) 054, [1105.4628]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Baranowski, M

    D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov, A. Pikelner and C.-Y. Wang,Zero-jettiness soft function to third order in perturbative QCD, 2409.11042

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. Fael, F. Lange, K. Schönwald and M. Steinhauser,Singlet and nonsinglet three-loop massive form factors, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 034029, [2207.00027]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A. H. Hoang, A. Pathak, P. Pietrulewicz and I. W. Stewart,Hard Matching for Boosted Tops at Two Loops, JHEP 12 (2015) 059, [1508.04137]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mitov and S

    A. Mitov and S. Moch,The Singular behavior of massive QCD amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2007) 001, [hep-ph/0612149]

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Becher and K

    T. Becher and K. Melnikov,Two-loop QED corrections to Bhabha scattering, JHEP 06 (2007) 084, [0704.3582]. – 48 –

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J.-Y. Chiu, A. Jain, D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein,A Formalism for the Systematic Treatment of Rapidity Logarithms in Quantum Field Theory, JHEP 1205 (2012) 084, [1202.0814]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart,Designing Gapped Soft Functions for Jet Production, Phys. Lett. B660 (2008) 483–493, [0709.3519]

    2008 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. Jain, I. Scimemi and I. W. Stewart,Two-loop Jet-Function and Jet-Mass for Top Quarks, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 094008, [0801.0743]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Marquard, A

    P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser,Quark Mass Relations to Four-Loop Order in Perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.114 (2015) 142002, [1502.01030]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Marquard, A

    P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, M. Steinhauser and D. Wellmann, MS-on-shell quark mass relation up to four loops in QCD and a general SU(N ) gauge group, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 074025, [1606.06754]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. H. Hoang, C. Lepenik and V. Mateu,REvolver: Automated running and matching of couplings and masses in QCD, Comput. Phys. Commun.270 (2022) 108145, [2102.01085]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. H. Hoang and S. Kluth,Hemisphere Soft Function atO(α2 s) for Dijet Production in e+e− Annihilation, 0806.3852

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gardi and L

    E. Gardi and L. Magnea,The C parameter distribution ine+e− annihilation, JHEP 0308 (2003) 030, [hep-ph/0306094]

    2003 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. V. Manohar and I. W. Stewart,The Zero-Bin and Mode Factorization in Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 074002, [hep-ph/0605001]

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. G. M. Gatheral,Exponentiation of eikonal cross-sections in nonabelian gauge theories, Phys. Lett. B133 (1983) 90

    1983

  55. [63]

    Frenkel and J

    J. Frenkel and J. C. Taylor,Nonabelian eikonal exponentiation, Nucl. Phys. B246 (1984) 231

    1984

  56. [64]

    Gardi, J

    E. Gardi, J. M. Smillie and C. D. White,The Non-Abelian Exponentiation theorem for multiple Wilson lines, JHEP 06 (2013) 088, [1304.7040]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    N. G. Gracia and V. Mateu,Toward massless and massive event shapes in the large-β0 limit, JHEP 07 (2021) 229, [2104.13942]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Mateu and P

    V. Mateu and P. G. Ortega,Bottom and Charm Mass determinations from global fits to Q ¯Q bound states at N3LO, JHEP 01 (2018) 122, [1711.05755]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Brüser, Z

    R. Brüser, Z. L. Liu and M. Stahlhofen,Three-loop soft function for heavy-to-light quark decays, JHEP 03 (2020) 071, [1911.04494]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Nogueira,Automatic Feynman Graph Generation, J

    P. Nogueira,Automatic Feynman Graph Generation, J. Comput. Phys.105 (1993) 279–289

    1993

  61. [69]

    Draggiotis, R

    P. Draggiotis, R. H. P. Kleiss and C. G. Papadopoulos,On the computation of multigluon amplitudes, Phys. Lett. B439 (1998) 157–164, [hep-ph/9807207]

    1998 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C. Duhr, S. Hoeche and F. Maltoni,Color-dressed recursive relations for multi-parton amplitudes, JHEP 08 (2006) 062, [hep-ph/0607057]

    2006 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Weinzierl,Tales of 1001 Gluons, Phys

    S. Weinzierl,Tales of 1001 Gluons, Phys. Rept. 676 (2017) 1–101, [1610.05318]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Brüser,Looping, unpublished

    R. Brüser,Looping, unpublished

  65. [73]

    Pak,The Toolbox of modern multi-loop calculations: novel analytic and semi-analytic techniques, J

    A. Pak,The Toolbox of modern multi-loop calculations: novel analytic and semi-analytic techniques, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.368 (2012) 012049, [1111.0868]. – 49 –

    2012 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ruijl, T

    B. Ruijl, T. Ueda and J. Vermaseren,FORM version 4.2, 1707.06453

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    van Ritbergen, A

    T. van Ritbergen, A. N. Schellekens and J. A. M. Vermaseren,Group theory factors for Feynman diagrams, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14 (1999) 41–96, [hep-ph/9802376]

    1999 arXiv

  68. [76]

    A. V. Smirnov and F. S. Chuharev,FIRE6: Feynman Integral REduction with Modular Arithmetic, Comput. Phys. Commun.247 (2020) 106877, [1901.07808]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    R. N. Lee,Presenting LiteRed: a tool for the Loop InTEgrals REDuction, 1212.2685

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    R. N. Lee,LiteRed 1.4: a powerful tool for reduction of multiloop integrals, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 523 (2014) 012059, [1310.1145]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Brüser, Z

    R. Brüser, Z. L. Liu and M. Stahlhofen,Three-Loop Quark Jet Function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 072003, [1804.09722]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    O. V. Tarasov,Connection between Feynman integrals having different values of the space-time dimension, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 6479–6490, [hep-th/9606018]

    1996 arXiv

  73. [81]

    O. V. Tarasov,Generalized recurrence relations for two loop propagator integrals with arbitrary masses, Nucl. Phys. B 502 (1997) 455–482, [hep-ph/9703319]

    1997 arXiv

  74. [82]

    R. N. Lee,Space-time dimensionality D as complex variable: Calculating loop integrals using dimensional recurrence relation and analytical properties with respect to D, Nucl. Phys. B 830 (2010) 474–492, [0911.0252]

    2010 arXiv

  75. [83]

    R. N. Lee,Calculating multiloop integrals using dimensional recurrence relation and D-analyticity, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.205-206 (2010) 135–140, [1007.2256]

    2010 arXiv

  76. [84]

    P. A. Baikov,Explicit solutions of the multiloop integral recurrence relations and its application, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A389 (1997) 347–349, [hep-ph/9611449]

    1997 arXiv

  77. [85]

    O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov,The Gell-Mann-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation, Phys. Lett. B93 (1980) 429–432

    1980

  78. [86]

    S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren,The three-loop QCDβ function and anomalous dimensions, Phys. Lett. B303 (1993) 334–336, [hep-ph/9302208]

    1993 arXiv

  79. [87]

    van Ritbergen, J

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin,The four-loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Lett. B400 (1997) 379–384, [hep-ph/9701390]

    1997 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Czakon,The four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous dimensions, Nucl

    M. Czakon,The four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B710 (2005) 485–498, [hep-ph/0411261]

    2005 arXiv

  81. [89]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. Kühn,Five-Loop Running of the QCD coupling constant, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 082002, [1606.08659]

    2017 arXiv

  82. [90]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, G. Falcioni, F. Herzog and J. A. M. Vermaseren,Five-loop renormalisation of QCD in covariant gauges, JHEP 10 (2017) 179, [1709.08541]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Luthe, A

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard and Y. Schroder,The five-loop Beta function for a general gauge group and anomalous dimensions beyond Feynman gauge, JHEP 10 (2017) 166, [1709.07718]

    2017 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,The five-loop beta function of Yang-Mills theory with fermions, JHEP 02 (2017) 090, [1701.01404]

    2017 arXiv

  85. [93]

    von Manteuffel, E

    A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer and R. M. Schabinger,Cusp and collinear anomalous dimensions in four-loop QCD from form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020) 162001, [2002.04617]. – 50 –

    2020 arXiv

  86. [94]

    J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and B. Mistlberger,The full four-loop cusp anomalous dimension in N = 4 super Yang-Mills and QCD, JHEP 04 (2020) 018, [1911.10174]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    J. M. Henn, T. Peraro, M. Stahlhofen and P. Wasser,Matter dependence of the four-loop cusp anomalous dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 201602, [1901.03693]

    2019 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Brüser, A

    R. Brüser, A. Grozin, J. M. Henn and M. Stahlhofen,Matter dependence of the four-loop QCD cusp anomalous dimension: from small angles to all angles, JHEP 05 (2019) 186, [1902.05076]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,On quartic colour factors in splitting functions and the gluon cusp anomalous dimension, Phys. Lett. B782 (2018) 627–632, [1805.09638]

    2018 arXiv

  90. [98]

    S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,Four-Loop Non-Singlet Splitting Functions in the Planar Limit and Beyond, JHEP 10 (2017) 041, [1707.08315]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Binosi, J

    D. Binosi, J. Collins, C. Kaufhold and L. Theussl,JaxoDraw: A Graphical user interface for drawing Feynman diagrams. Version 2.0 release notes, Comput. Phys. Commun.180 (2009) 1709–1715, [0811.4113]

    2009 arXiv

  92. [100]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Renormalization of the Wilson Loops Beyond the Leading Order, Nucl. Phys. B 283 (1987) 342–364

    1987

  93. [101]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,The three-loop splitting functions in QCD: The non-singlet case, Nucl. Phys. B688 (2004) 101–134, [hep-ph/0403192]

    2004 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. D. Schwartz,A Precise determination ofαs from LEP thrust data using effective field theory, JHEP 07 (2008) 034, [0803.0342]

    2008 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Huber and D

    T. Huber and D. Maitre,HypExp: A Mathematica package for expanding hypergeometric functions around integer-valued parameters, Comput. Phys. Commun.175 (2006) 122–144, [hep-ph/0507094]

    2006 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Huber and D

    T. Huber and D. Maitre,HypExp 2, Expanding Hypergeometric Functions about Half-Integer Parameters, Comput. Phys. Commun.178 (2008) 755–776, [0708.2443]

    2008 arXiv

  97. [105]

    A. V. Smirnov, N. D. Shapurov and L. I. Vysotsky,FIESTA5: Numerical high-performance Feynman integral evaluation, Comput. Phys. Commun.277 (2022) 108386, [2110.11660]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, V. Magerya, A. Olsson and J. Schlenk,Numerical scattering amplitudes with pySecDec, Comput. Phys. Commun.295 (2024) 108956, [2305.19768]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    A. G. Grozin,Calculating three loop diagrams in heavy quark effective theory with integration by parts recurrence relations, JHEP 03 (2000) 013, [hep-ph/0002266]

    2000 arXiv

  100. [108]

    A. G. Grozin,Renormalization of HQET at three loops, AIP Conf. Proc.602 (2001) 271–277, [hep-ph/0107248]

    2001 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Weinzierl,Feynman Integrals

    S. Weinzierl,Feynman Integrals. A Comprehensive Treatment for Students and Researchers. UNITEXT for Physics. Springer, 2022, 10.1007/978-3-030-99558-4

    2022 doi

  102. [110]

    Mellin,Om definita integraler, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae20 (1895) 1–39

    H. Mellin,Om definita integraler, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae20 (1895) 1–39

  103. [111]

    E. W. Barnes,VI. The theory of the double gamma function, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 196 (1901) 265–387. – 51 –

    1901

  104. [112]

    E. W. Barnes,The asymptotic expansion of integral functions defined by generalised hypergeometric series, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Societys2-5 (1907) 59–116, [https://londmathsoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1112/plms/s2-5.1.59]

    1907 doi

  105. [113]

    E. W. Barnes,A new development of the theory of the hypergeometric functions, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Societys2-6 (1908) 141–177, [https://londmathsoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1112/plms/s2-6.1.141]

    1908 doi

  106. [114]

    Dubovyk, J

    I. Dubovyk, J. Gluza and G. Somogyi,Mellin-Barnes Integrals: A Primer on Particle Physics Applications, Lect. Notes Phys.1008 (2022) pp., [2211.13733]

    2022 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Czakon,Automatized analytic continuation of Mellin-Barnes integrals, Comput

    M. Czakon,Automatized analytic continuation of Mellin-Barnes integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 175 (2006) 559–571, [hep-ph/0511200]

    2006 arXiv

  108. [116]

    A. V. Smirnov and V. A. Smirnov,On the Resolution of Singularities of Multiple Mellin-Barnes Integrals, Eur. Phys. J. C62 (2009) 445–449, [0901.0386]

    2009 arXiv

  109. [117]

    D. A. Kosower,barnesroutines.m, https://mbtools.hepforge.org/ (2007)

    2007

  110. [118]

    Heinrich,Sector Decomposition, Int

    G. Heinrich,Sector Decomposition, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23 (2008) 1457–1486, [0803.4177]

    2008 arXiv

  111. [119]

    von Manteuffel, E

    A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer and R. M. Schabinger,A quasi-finite basis for multi-loop Feynman integrals, JHEP 02 (2015) 120, [1411.7392]

    2015 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Z. L. Liu and M. Stahlhofen,Three-loop soft function for energetic electroweak boson production at hadron colliders, JHEP 02 (2021) 128, [2010.05861]

    2021 arXiv

  113. [121]

    von Manteuffel and C

    A. von Manteuffel and C. Studerus,Reduze 2 - Distributed Feynman Integral Reduction, 1201.4330

    arXiv

  114. [122]

    Panzer,Algorithms for the symbolic integration of hyperlogarithms with applications to Feynman integrals, Comput

    E. Panzer,Algorithms for the symbolic integration of hyperlogarithms with applications to Feynman integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.188 (2015) 148–166, [1403.3385]. – 52 –

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.