Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Thrust distribution in electron-positron annihilation at full NNNLL+NNLO (and beyond) in QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that resumming thrust in Laplace-conjugated space yields $\alpha_S(m_Z^2)=0.1181\pm 0.0018$, consistent with the world average.

desk verdict A genuinely new N-space resummation calculation for thrust with a plausible alpha_s extraction, but the unquantified hadronization-model uncertainty and lack of fit-detail documentation keep it from being the last word. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01570 v2 pith:Q7NISR4V submitted 2025-02-03 hep-ph

Ugo Giuseppe Aglietti , Giancarlo Ferrera , Wan-Li Ju , Jiahao Miao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords thrustdistributione+e−annihilationintohadronsQCDresummationN4LLaccuracyNNLOmatchingstrongcouplingαSLaplace-conjugatedspacehadronizationmodel
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 sets out to compute the thrust distribution in electron-positron annihilation at full $N^3$LL+NNLO perturbative accuracy, including the available $N^4$LL logarithmic terms, and to use it to extract the QCD coupling $\alpha_S(m_Z^2)$. Its central claim is that the resummation of the Sudakov logarithms must be done in Laplace-conjugated space: the common analytic expansion in the physical $\tau$ space around $\ln N = \ln(1/\tau)$ is not a consistent saddle-point expansion, and it pulls the extracted coupling down by about 0.006. With a two-parameter Gaussian hadronization model and a unitarity constraint that makes the integrated distribution reproduce the $N^3$LO total cross section, the fit to the Z-peak data gives $\alpha_S(m_Z^2)=0.1181\pm 0.0018$, fully consistent with the world average. This matters because $\alpha_S$ is the least precisely known Standard Model coupling, and a reliable value tightens predictions for high-energy collider processes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Sudakov form factor in Laplace-conjugated space, $\Sigma(\tau,\alpha_S)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_C \frac{dN}{N}\, e^{N\tau}\exp\big[F(\alpha_S,L)\big]$ with $L=\ln N$. The exponent $F$ contains the resummation functions $f_n(\lambda)$ with $\lambda=\beta_0\alpha_S L/\pi$, computed explicitly up to $n=5$ (i.e. through $N^4$LL), and the contour is taken with the Minimal Prescription, a contour choice that keeps the Landau pole outside the integration region while collecting the physical singularities. This form factor exponentiates all soft and collinear logarithms in the variable where the kinematical momentum-conservation constraints factorize; the inverse Laplace transform is then evaluated numerically to obtain the $\tau$-space spectrum. The remaining machinery fixes normalization and subleading terms: matching to the NNLO fixed-order result for the remainder function $D(\tau,\alpha_S)$, a unitarity replacement that forces the cumulant to equal 1 at $\tau_{\max}$ and thereby reproduce the $N^3$LO total cross section, and a two-parameter Gaussian shape function (shift $\delta_{NP}$, width $\sigma_{NP}$) for hadronization.

What would settle it

Refit the same thrust data at 91.2 GeV with a non-perturbative shape function that allows skewness or a power-law tail; if the extracted $\alpha_S$ moves by more than the quoted $\pm 0.0018$, the claimed accuracy and world-average consistency do not hold. Equivalently, compute the thrust distribution at lower centre-of-mass energies (for example 30 or 58 GeV) with the same resummation and Gaussian model and compare with data: a systematic energy dependence in the required hadronization parameters would show the model is absorbing missing perturbative higher orders.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the thrust distribution in $e^+e^-$ annihilation can be resummed to $N^4$LL logarithmic accuracy in full QCD, matched consistently to NNLO fixed order, and normalized by a unitarity constraint so that its integral reproduces the $N^3$LO total cross section. The logarithmically enhanced terms are resummed in Laplace-conjugated $N$ space, and the inverse Laplace transform is evaluated numerically rather than approximated analytically in $\tau$ space. The paper argues that the usual analytic expansion about $\ln N = \ln(1/\tau)$ is not a consistent saddle-point expansion, because the true saddle point differs from the free-theory value by $O(1)$ terms that are not suppressed at large $N$, and that this approximation is what has made some thrust-space determinations of $\alpha_S$ come out low. Including a two-parameter Gaussian hadronization model and fitting to the Z-peak data gives $\alpha_S(m_Z^2)=0.1181\pm 0.0018$, consistent with the world average, whereas the corresponding $\tau$-space fit gives $0.1120\pm 0.0019$.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction rests on the two-parameter Gaussian hadronization model (Eq. 19) being the right shape for all non-perturbative effects; the paper tries alternative skewed shapes only in passing and assigns no model uncertainty to $\alpha_S$, so if the true shape function is skewed or has power-law tails the fitted coupling could move by more than $\pm 0.0018$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thrust-based determinations of $\alpha_S$ at the $Z$ pole become consistent with the world average, removing a long-standing tension in event-shape extractions.
  • The residual perturbative uncertainty is dominated by the unknown $O(\alpha_S^4)$ hard and remainder functions, since the $N^4$LL corrections change the spectrum only at the permille level.
  • Future resummations of event-shape variables should be performed in the conjugate space, because the $\tau$-space analytic approximation reintroduces a bias of order 0.006 in $\alpha_S$.
  • The unitarity constraint makes the normalized cumulant exactly reproduce the $N^3$LO total cross section after integration, so the overall normalization is not a free source of uncertainty in the fit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Laplace-versus-$\tau$-space bias probably affects other global event-shape observables in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, such as the $C$-parameter or heavy-jet mass, so earlier $\alpha_S$ values from those observables may be systematically low by a comparable amount.
  • A sharper test of the hadronization model would use thrust data at lower centre-of-mass energies, where the non-perturbative shift is larger; the paper extracts $\alpha_S$ only from the $Z$ peak.
  • The explicit $N^4$LL resummation coefficient $f_5(\lambda)$ depends on universal soft and collinear anomalous dimensions, so the same Laplace-space machinery could be transplanted to hadron-collider-type event shapes or groomed observables with comparatively little new calculation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter presents a resummed calculation of the e+e- thrust distribution in the two-jet limit. The resummation is performed in Laplace (N) space, retaining terms up to N4LL in the exponent (with explicit functions f1...f5 in the appendix) and matched to fixed-order NNLO, so all terms through O(alpha_s^3) are included. A unitarity constraint is imposed through a tau_max-dependent replacement of ln(1/tau). Non-perturbative hadronization is modeled by a two-parameter Gaussian shape function, and a three-parameter fit (alpha_s, delta_NP, sigma_NP) to LEP/SLD data at Q=m_Z yields alpha_s(m_Z^2)=0.1181 +/- 0.0018. The paper also argues, via a saddle-point analysis, that the common physical-space analytic expansion around ln N = ln(1/tau) is not a consistent saddle-point expansion, and reports that this tau-space formalism gives a lower value, alpha_s=0.1120 +/- 0.0019. The central claim is that Laplace-space resummation is crucial for obtaining a value of alpha_s consistent with the world average.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a useful independent determination of alpha_s from thrust and a concrete demonstration that the choice between N-space and tau-space resummation matters numerically. The explicit resummation coefficients through N4LL in the appendix, the saddle-point argument in Eqs. (8)-(12), and the unitarity-based replacement in Eqs. (14)-(17) are valuable technical contributions and are internally coherent. The paper correctly presents alpha_s as a fitted parameter, not a prediction, so consistency with the world average is a consistency check rather than circular reasoning. However, the headline value of alpha_s is obtained through a two-parameter Gaussian hadronization model with no assigned model uncertainty, and the fit is described too briefly to assess the quoted uncertainty. These issues are load-bearing because the alpha_s extraction is the central quantitative claim; the methodological comparison between N-space and tau-space is more robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Non-perturbative model, Eqs. (19)-(20)] The extraction of alpha_s rests on the two-parameter Gaussian shape function f_NP in Eq. (19). The three parameters (alpha_s, delta_NP, sigma_NP) are fitted simultaneously to the LEP/SLD data, so any misspecification of the true non-perturbative shape can be absorbed into alpha_s. The footnote after Eq. (19) states that alternative functions with asymmetry or skewness only marginally improve the description, but it does not report how much alpha_s changes under those alternatives. Since the quoted uncertainty +/-0.0018 includes only experimental and perturbative errors, the model uncertainty is entirely absent. Please quantify the shift in alpha_s for the alternative ansatze that were tried, and either add a model-uncertainty contribution to Eq. (20) or justify with a data-driven or theoretical argument why the Gaussian form is sufficient.
  2. [Fit description, Eq. (20) and Fig. 2] The fit leading to Eq. (20) is not described in enough detail to assess the quoted uncertainty. The paper does not state the number of data points, the chi^2/dof, the treatment of bin-to-bin correlations within each experiment, the treatment of correlated systematic uncertainties among the LEP and SLD data sets, or how the renormalization-scale variation is propagated into the alpha_s error. These details are essential because the central claim is the uncertainty +/-0.0018. Please provide the full fit specification, ideally in an appendix or a companion file, including the covariance matrix treatment and the scale-variation procedure.
  3. [Unitarity constraint, Table 1 and Eq. (14)] The unitarity replacement in Eq. (14) uses tau_max values from Table 1, which the paper itself states should be interpreted as lower limits for n>=5 because stochastic optimization is not guaranteed to find the absolute maximum. Enforcing R_T(tau_max)=1 at a lower-limit value is not an exact unitarity constraint if the true kinematic maximum is larger. This is not purely formal: in the fit range 0<tau<0.15, the difference between ell and ell~ in Eq. (14) is not negligible at the upper end of the range, so the choice of tau_max can affect the spectrum and hence alpha_s. Please test the stability of the extracted alpha_s under a range of plausible tau_max values (for example, the n=14 value from Table 1 or tau_max=1/2) and report the resulting shift.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (18) and (19)] The argument order of f_NP is inconsistent: Eq. (18) writes f_NP(tau, tau_h) while Eq. (19) defines f_NP(tau_h, tau). Please choose one convention consistently.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The statement 'ln N = ln(1/tau)' in Eq. (8) refers to the saddle-point value in the free-theory limit; since N is complex in the inversion contour, please state explicitly that this is the alpha_s -> 0 saddle point, not an operator identity.
  3. [References] Reference [47] (Wicke) is incomplete, with only a thesis number and no arXiv identifier or journal reference; please provide the arXiv number or a stable URL.
  4. [Eqs. (34) and (37)] The N4LL ingredients A5 and B4 are given as numerical expressions. Please state explicitly that these are numerical/approximate inputs, their estimated precision, and the reference from which the numerical values are taken.
  5. [Abstract and text] The abstract uses 'full N3LL+NNLO' while also claiming N4LL accuracy; please clarify that 'full' means all perturbative terms through O(alpha_s^3) are included, with N4LL referring to the logarithmic accuracy of the resummed exponent only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: α_s is an explicitly fitted parameter and the Laplace-space versus τ-space comparison is supported by the paper's own saddle-point equations, not by self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The resummation functions f1–f5, the hard-virtual coefficients C_i, and the anomalous-dimension constants are quoted from independent fixed-order calculations (Refs. 5, 12, 57–74) and are displayed explicitly, so the N^4LL/N^3LL+NNLO content is portable and checkable. The argument that τ-space analytic resummation is not a consistent saddle-point expansion is made with the paper's own Eqs. (8)–(12): the true saddle-point equation contains O(1) terms from f1 and its derivative, whereas the free-theory saddle point N=1/τ omits them; no load-bearing weight is placed on a self-citation for this conclusion. The unitarity constraints (13)–(17) are imposed consistency conditions tied to the definition of the cumulant and to the known N3LO total cross section; they are inputs used to normalize the distribution, not outputs presented as predictions. The NP correction is an explicit two-parameter Gaussian ansatz (Eq. 19), and (α_s, δ_NP, σ_NP) are obtained by a three-parameter fit to LEP/SLD data, with the 'consistent with world average' statement serving as a post-fit agreement check rather than a prediction. Self-citations (Refs. 40, 42, 43, 75) appear only as supporting references for a known expansion method, Sudakov-shoulder effects, and singlet contributions; none is load-bearing. The unquantified model uncertainty from the Gaussian hadronization choice is a legitimate robustness concern but is not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or physical entities are introduced. The only additions are three fitted parameters, alpha_S and two hadronization shape parameters, plus modeling and regularization assumptions inherited from prior literature.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_S(mZ^2) = 0.1181 +/- 0.0018
    Fitted to LEP and SLD thrust data together with the hadronization parameters in the N3LL+NNLO analysis.
  • delta_NP (hadronization shift) = 0.0071 +/- 0.0007
    Gaussian shape-function shift fitted to the same thrust data.
  • sigma_NP (hadronization smearing) = 0.0060 +/- 0.0013
    Gaussian shape-function width fitted to the same thrust data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Factorization of the thrust cumulant into hard times Sudakov times remainder, Eq. (3)
    Inherited from Catani-Trentadue-Webber and not re-derived here; the entire resummation structure rests on this factorization.
  • domain assumption Minimal Prescription regularization of the Landau pole gives the correct asymptotic resummed series without power corrections
    Invoked for the contour in Eq. (6) following Ref. [39]; no independent check is given in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian shape function in Eq. (19) accurately represents non-perturbative hadronization
    A phenomenologically chosen ansatz with two free parameters; the paper notes that alternative ansatze were tried but assigns no model uncertainty to the extracted alpha_S.
  • domain assumption The NNLO fixed-order thrust results of Ref. [5] correctly determine the remainder function D
    Used to fix D and for the matching; the Letter does not independently reproduce or validate the NNLO Monte Carlo input.
  • ad hoc to paper Stochastic-optimization tau_max values in Table 1 are adequate bounds for the unitarity replacement
    Used in Eqs. (14) and (16); for n > 4 these are numerical lower limits, not proven exact values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thrust distribution in electron-positron annihilation at full NNNLL+NNLO (and beyond) in QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7NISR4V

@misc{pith2026250201570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thrust distribution in electron-positron annihilation at full NNNLL+NNLO (and beyond) in QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7NISR4V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01570}
}
abstract

We consider the thrust ($T$) distribution in electron-positron ($e^+e^-$) annihilation into hadrons and we perform the all-order resummation of the large logarithms of $1-T$ up to next-to-next-to-next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (N$^4$LL) accuracy in QCD. We consistently combine resummed predictions with the known fixed-order results up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO). All perturbative terms up to order $\alpha_S^3$ are included in our calculation which, thanks to a unitarity constraint, exactly reproduce after integration over the variable $T$ the next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^3$LO) result for the total cross section of $e^+e^-$ into hadrons. We resum the large logarithms in the Laplace-conjugated space and compare our results with those obtained with the analytic resummation formalism in the physical ($T$) space. We find that the differences in the spectra obtained with the two different formalisms are sizable. Non-perturbative corrections have been included through an analytic hadronization model depending on two free parameters. Finally, we present a comparison of our spectra with experimental data at the $Z$-boson mass ($m_Z$) energy, which enables us to extract the value of the QCD coupling $\alpha_S(m_Z^2)=0.1181 \pm 0.0018$ fully consistent with the world average.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The thrust distribution at Q = 91.1876 GeV at various perturbative orders in QCD. Results obtained through resummation in Laplace-conjugated space (solid bands) are compared with physical τ -space approximated results (dashed lines). where δNP represents a shift and σNP a smearing of the perturbative prediction † . We finally performed a three parameter (αS(m2 Z ), δNP , σNP ) fit in the small/intermediate τ region … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The thrust distribution at Q = 91.1876 GeV at N3LL+NNLO in QCD without (blue solid line) and with (red band) the inclusion of NP effects. 0.0083 ± 0.0010 and σNP = 0.0055 ± 0.0020) thus indicating that the approximations used to perform the resummation in τ space have to be properly included in order to obtain a reliable determination of αS(m2 Z ) within a τ -space resummation formalism. In this Letter, we have pres… view at source ↗

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

  1. Anomalous scaling of linear power corrections

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For thrust, C-parameter, and energy correlators, the 1/Q hadronization correction is multiplied by R(Q) = (alpha_s(Q)/alpha_s(mu_np))^{C_A S_1/beta_0} with S_1 = 8(1-ln2), an all-order exponential derived under the li...

  2. Heavy Jet Mass in Hadronic Higgs Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heavy jet mass in hadronic Higgs decays is predicted at N³LL′ (dijet) plus NNLL (Sudakov shoulder) plus NNLO, with new analytic trijet-region logarithms for H→gg and H→q̄q.

  3. A thrust to trust minimum thrust

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The exact minimum thrust for five particles in 3D is given by a closed algebraic expression, and improved estimates for up to 20 particles are obtained numerically.

  4. Saddle-point method for resummed form factors in QCD

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A saddle-point expansion around the true, interacting-theory saddle point gives an analytic inverse transform of the QCD resummed form factor that matches exact numerical inversion, unlike the standard Taylor expansio...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Farhi, Phys

    E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977), 1587-1588 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.1587

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.39.1587 1977

  2. [2]

    Second-order QCD corrections to the thrust distribution

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007), 132002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.132002 [arXiv:0707.1285 [hep- ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  3. [3]

    NNLO corrections to 3-jet observables in electron-positron annihilation

    S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008), 162001 doi:10.1103/ Phys- RevLett.101.162001 [arXiv:0807.3241 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich, JHEP 05 (2009), 106 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/106 [arXiv:0903.4658 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Weinzierl, JHEP 06 (2009), 041 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/06/041 [arXiv:0904.1077 [hep-ph]]

    S. Weinzierl, JHEP 06 (2009), 041 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/06/041 [arXiv:0904.1077 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014), 3331 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.07.024 [arXiv:1402.4140 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) no.15, 152004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.152004 [arXiv:1603.08927 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, Z. Sz˝ or, Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi and Z. Tulip´ ant, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.7, 074019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.074019 [arXiv:1606.03453 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Catani, G

    S. Catani, G. Turnock, B. R. Webber and L. Trentadue, Phys. Lett. B 263 (1991), 491-497 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90494-B

    1991 doi

  2. [10]

    Catani, L

    S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 407 (1993), 3-42 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90271-P

    1993 doi

  3. [11]

    M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 014026 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.014026 [arXiv:0709.2709 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP 07 (2008), 034 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2008/07/034 [arXiv:0803.0342 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dissertori, A

    G. Dissertori, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, G. Heinrich, G. Luisoni and H. Stenzel, JHEP 08 (2009), 036 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/036 [arXiv:0906.3436 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hornig, C

    A. Hornig, C. Lee and G. Ovanesyan, JHEP 05 (2009), 122 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2009/05/122 [arXiv:0901.3780 [hep-ph]]. 12

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Abbate, M

    R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 074021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.074021 [arXiv:1006.3080 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. F. Monni, T. Gehrmann and G. Luisoni, JHEP 08 (2011), 010 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2011)010 [arXiv:1105.4560 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Abbate, M

    R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 094002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094002 [arXiv:1204.5746 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    L. G. Almeida, S. D. Ellis, C. Lee, G. Sterman, I. Sung and J. R. Walsh, JHEP 04 (2014), 174 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)174 [arXiv:1401.4460 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Banfi, H

    A. Banfi, H. McAslan, P. F. Monni and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 05 (2015), 102 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)102 [arXiv:1412.2126 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Baron, S

    J. Baron, S. Marzani and V. Theeuwes, JHEP 08 (2018), 105 [erratum: JHEP 05 (2019), 056] doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)105 [arXiv:1803.04719 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. Q. Wang, S. J. Brodsky, X. G. Wu and L. Di Giustino, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.11, 114020 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.114020 [arXiv:1902.01984 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Marzani, D

    S. Marzani, D. Reichelt, S. Schumann, G. Soyez and V. Theeuwes, JHEP 11 (2019), 179 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)179 [arXiv:1906.10504 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. A. Benitez, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, I. W. Stewart and G. Vita, [arXiv:2412.15164 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 259 (1991), 144-150 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90149-K

    1991 doi

  17. [25]

    L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991), 560-563 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991), 2416] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.560

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 339 (1994), 148-150 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91147-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9408222 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 352 (1995), 451-455 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00548-Y [arXiv:hep-ph/9504219 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nason and M

    P. Nason and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B 454 (1995), 291-312 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(95)00461-Z [arXiv:hep-ph/9506317 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 404 (1997), 321-327 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00573-X [arXiv:hep-ph/9704298 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gardi and G

    E. Gardi and G. Grunberg, JHEP 11 (1999), 016 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/11/016 [arXiv:hep-ph/9908458 [hep-ph]]. 13

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gardi, JHEP 04 (2000), 030 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/04/030 [arXiv:hep- ph/0003179 [hep-ph]]

    E. Gardi, JHEP 04 (2000), 030 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/04/030 [arXiv:hep- ph/0003179 [hep-ph]]

    2000

  24. [32]

    Gardi and J

    E. Gardi and J. Rathsman, Nucl. Phys. B 609 (2001), 123-182 doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(01)00284-X [arXiv:hep-ph/0103217 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lee and G

    C. Lee and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 014022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.014022 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611061 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. A. Davison and B. R. Webber, Eur. Phys. J. C 59 (2009), 13-25 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0836-7 [arXiv:0809.3326 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Gehrmann, G

    T. Gehrmann, G. Luisoni and P. F. Monni, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) no.1, 2265 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2265-x [arXiv:1210.6945 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nason and G

    P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 06 (2023), 058 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)058 [arXiv:2301.03607 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Nason and G

    P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, [arXiv:2501.18173 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996), 273-310 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00399-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9604351 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aglietti and G

    U. Aglietti and G. Ricciardi, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 074003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.074003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0204125 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Catani and B

    S. Catani and B. R. Webber, JHEP 10 (1997), 005 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/10/005 [arXiv:hep-ph/9710333 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Aglietti, Nucl

    U. Aglietti, Nucl. Phys. B 610 (2001), 293-315 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00316-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104020 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Aglietti, G

    U. Aglietti, G. Ricciardi and G. Ferrera, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 034004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0507285 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bhattacharya, M

    A. Bhattacharya, M. D. Schwartz and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.7, 074011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.074011 [arXiv:2205.05702 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 555 (1999), 335-351 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00308-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9902341 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [SLD], Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995), 962-984 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.962 [arXiv:hep-ex/9501003 [hep-ex]]

    1995 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wicke, WUB-DIS-1999-05

    D. Wicke, WUB-DIS-1999-05. 14

    1999

  40. [48]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. [DELPHI], Eur. Phys. J. C 14 (2000), 557-584 doi:10.1007/s100520000354 [arXiv:hep-ex/0002026 [hep-ex]]

    2000 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Heister et al

    A. Heister et al. [ALEPH], Eur. Phys. J. C 35 (2004), 457-486 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004- 01891-4

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. [OPAL], Eur. Phys. J. C40 (2005), 287-316 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005- 02120-6 [arXiv:hep-ex/0503051 [hep-ex]]

    2005 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Achard et al

    P. Achard et al. [L3], Phys. Rept. 399 (2004), 71-174 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.07.002 [arXiv:hep-ex/0406049 [hep-ex]]

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, Phys. Lett. B 93 (1980), 429-432 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90358-5

    1980 doi

  45. [53]

    S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993), 334-336 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91441-O [arXiv:hep-ph/9302208 [hep-ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  46. [54]

    van Ritbergen, J

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 400 (1997), 379-384 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00370-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/9701390 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Czakon, Nucl

    M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. B 710 (2005), 485-498 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.01.012 [arXiv:hep-ph/0411261 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, JHEP 02 (2017), 090 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)090 [arXiv:1701.01404 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Br¨ user, Z

    R. Br¨ user, Z. L. Liu and M. Stahlhofen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.7, 072003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.072003 [arXiv:1804.09722 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kelley, M

    R. Kelley, M. D. Schwartz, R. M. Schabinger and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 045022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.045022 [arXiv:1105.3676 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    W. Chen, F. Feng, Y. Jia and X. Liu, JHEP 12 (2022), 094 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2022)094 [arXiv:2206.12323 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Baranowski, M

    D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov and C. Y. Wang, JHEP 02 (2022), 081 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)081 [arXiv:2111.13594 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Baranowski, M

    D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov and C. Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.1, 014004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.014004 [arXiv:2204.09459 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Moult, H

    I. Moult, H. X. Zhu and Y. J. Zhu, JHEP08 (2022), 280 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)280 [arXiv:2205.02249 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) no.16, 162001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.162001 [arXiv:2205.02242 [hep-ph]]. 15

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, JHEP 09 (2022), 155 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)155 [arXiv:2205.04493 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Baranowski, M

    D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov, A. Pikelner and C. Y. Wang, [arXiv:2412.14001 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Baranowski, M

    D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov, A. Pikelner and C. Y. Wang, [arXiv:2409.11042 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 688 (2004), 101-134 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.03.030 [arXiv:hep-ph/0403192 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and B. Mistlberger, JHEP 04 (2020), 018 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)018 [arXiv:1911.10174 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    von Manteuffel, E

    A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020) no.16, 162001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.162001 [arXiv:2002.04617 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Herzog, S

    F. Herzog, S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019), 436-443 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.060 [arXiv:1812.11818 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Stein- hauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009), 212002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.212002 [arXiv:0902.3519 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  64. [72]

    R. N. Lee, A. V. Smirnov and V. A. Smirnov, JHEP 04 (2010), 020 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2010)020 [arXiv:1001.2887 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Gehrmann, E

    T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, T. Huber, N. Ikizlerli and C. Studerus, JHEP 06 (2010), 094 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)094 [arXiv:1004.3653 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    R. N. Lee, A. von Manteuffel, R. M. Schabinger, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) no.21, 212002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.212002 [arXiv:2202.04660 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    W. L. Ju and M. Sch¨ onherr, JHEP 10 (2021), 088 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)088 [arXiv:2106.11260 [hep-ph]]. 16

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.