Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 8 cited by

Beyond Scale Variations: Perturbative Theory Uncertainties from Nuisance Parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the uncertainty from missing higher-order perturbative terms should be parameterized by genuine theory nuisance parameters (TNPs) — parameters with true but unknown values — rather than by varying unphysical…

desk verdict A serious, well-written methodology paper that turns missing higher-order QCD terms into genuine nuisance parameters; the main caveat is that the 68% confidence claim rests on an in-sample calibration, so treat it as a motivated prior rather than a fully validated coverage property. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18606 v2 pith:QFGW4ABS submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph hep-ex

Frank J. Tackmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords perturbativetheoryuncertaintymissinghigherordersnuisanceparametersscalevariationscorrelationsQCDresummationtransversemomentumspectrumstatisticalinterpretation
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 argues that the standard way of estimating perturbative theory uncertainties — varying unphysical renormalization scales — is fundamentally unable to provide meaningful uncertainties, because the varied object has no true value and cannot be interpreted as a parameter. The author proposes instead to treat the missing higher-order coefficients of a perturbative series as true theory nuisance parameters (TNPs): well-defined parameters whose true values are unknown, normalized to have natural size O(1), and constrained by theory or data. This makes the theory uncertainty a genuine parametric uncertainty, so it can be propagated, combined, and profiled in fits like any experimental systematic. The paper validates the normalization on a large sample of known QCD series, shows the resulting distribution is approximately Gaussian, and applies the method to the transverse-momentum spectrum of W and Z bosons, where it yields explicit bin-by-bin correlations and strong cancellation in ratios. If correct, this would replace the current ad hoc correlation models for scale variations with a systematically improvable, statistically meaningful treatment.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the theory nuisance parameter $\theta_n$, defined through $f_n(\theta_n)=N_n\,\theta_n$, where $N_n$ is a normalization factor chosen so that $|\hat\theta_n|\lesssim 1$ generically. For matrix-element constants the paper takes $N_n = 4^n C_n (n-1)!$ with leading color factor $C_n=C_r C_A^{n-1}$, and for anomalous dimensions $N_n = 4^{n+1} C_{n+1}$; these choices strip off conventional loop factors and factorial growth so the remaining unknown coefficients have natural size $O(1)$. This turns a missing term from an unknown number into a parameter with a true value, enabling error propagation, profiling in fits, and the sharing of 100% correlations between predictions that depend on the same ingredient. In the $q_T$ application, the renormalization-group equations predict the functional dependence on $q_T$, $Q$, and the process, so the remaining unknowns reduce to a small set of scalar anomalous dimensions and boundary conditions, which are exactly the TNPs.

What would settle it

Compute the genuinely next-order coefficient for a set of quantities outside the paper's calibration sample, normalize each with the paper's formulas, and compare the pull distribution to a standard Gaussian; if substantially more than 32% of the pulls have $|\hat\theta_n|>1$, or the distribution is strongly non-Gaussian, the 68% 'theory CL' interpretation would be invalid for the general population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the unknown higher-order series coefficients $f_n$ themselves — not the renormalization scale — are the true sources of perturbative theory uncertainty, and that they can be included in the prediction as theory nuisance parameters $\theta_n$ with normalization $f_n(\theta_n)=N_n\,\theta_n$. The parameterization is constructed so that $\theta_n$ has a true value $\hat\theta_n$, so the prediction $f(\alpha,\theta_n)$ is a genuine parametric function; constraining $\theta_n$ to $0\pm 1$ then yields a 68% theory-$\sigma$ uncertainty, and because different predictions share the same TNPs, their uncertainties are 100% correlated where they share the same perturbative ingredient. The paper provides a general parameterization guide for when the coefficient is a function of kinematic or internal variables, a statistical validation of the $0\pm1$ default constraint based on the empirical distribution of known QCD series (Gaussian with $\sigma\simeq0.9$–$1.0$), and a full application to $q_T$ resummation for $Z$ and $W$ production, where seven TNPs produce the correlations across the spectrum and between processes.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 68% confidence statement rests on the assumption that the true values of the still-unknown coefficients behave statistically like the known coefficients used to calibrate the normalization; if a new coefficient belongs to a different population, the stated confidence no longer holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Theory uncertainties become genuine nuisance parameters that can be profiled in fits, so data can reduce the theory error instead of merely inflating the total uncertainty.
  • Correlations between bins, processes, and energies are fixed by the sharing of perturbative ingredients; for W and Z production the common TNPs make the leading uncertainties cancel by roughly a factor of ten in the ratio.
  • Partial or approximate higher-order information can be incorporated as soon as it is known, shrinking the error without waiting for a complete formal next order.
  • The default $0\pm1$ theory constraint carries a quantitative statistical meaning (68% theory CL under a Gaussian), matching how experimental systematics are handled.
  • A systematic parameterization guide is provided, so the method can be extended to other observables and to subleading power corrections as they become relevant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorially, the same logic applies to any truncated expansion whose coefficients have a known natural size, not just QCD: the TNP construction could be carried over to electroweak higher-order corrections or SMEFT power counting, where the paper notes similar strategies already exist.
  • A concrete test of the Gaussian calibration would be to reserve a hold-out set of series not used in the calibration sample, then check the pull distribution of their next-order coefficients as they become known; a systematic overdispersion would falsify the $0\pm1$ unit-variance claim.
  • If TNPs are profiled in fits to precise data, the resulting post-fit values of $\theta_n$ provide a direct empirical estimate of missing higher-order coefficients; comparing these to the $0\pm1$ prior would test whether the prior is biased in practice.
  • The ratio cancellation seen in the W/Z example suggests that any observable that is a ratio of closely related processes will inherit dramatically smaller theory uncertainties; this could be exploited in global SM fits, but the correlation structure depends on correctly assigning shared TNPs, which the paper argues scales cannot do.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a method for estimating perturbative theory uncertainties by promoting missing higher-order series coefficients to 'theory nuisance parameters' (TNPs) with true but unknown values, instead of varying unphysical renormalization scales. The method is presented in two parts: a general framework (Secs. 2–4) for constructing TNP parameterizations that preserve correlations among related predictions, and a specific application to transverse-momentum (qT) resummation in Drell-Yan production (Sec. 6). The theory constraints on scalar TNPs are derived in Sec. 5 by normalizing known perturbative coefficients and studying the empirical distribution of these normalized coefficients across a collection of known series. The paper argues that the resulting uncertainties have a statistical interpretation (68% theory CL) and correct correlations, and it illustrates the approach with numerical results for Z, W, and their ratios, showing strong cancellation of uncertainties. The application has been used in a CMS W-mass measurement.

Significance. If the statistical interpretation of TNP uncertainties can be sustained, this is a significant methodological advance. The paper correctly identifies a key weakness of scale variations—their inability to provide meaningful correlations or a parametric statistical interpretation—and offers a principled alternative. The qT application is concrete and nontrivial: the correlations across qT, between processes, and between different scales are derived from the known RGE structure of the hard, soft, and beam functions, and the numerical demonstrations in Sec. 6.3 are carefully presented and reproducible in principle. The paper also transparently recognizes that the identity between the distribution of unknown coefficients and the empirical distribution of known coefficients is an assumption (Sec. 5.3.1). However, the load-bearing statistical claim—that the uncertainties have a well-defined 68% theory CL—rests on in-sample calibration: the normalization N_n^f in Eq. (5.4) was adjusted on the same sample used for validation, and the sample selection is acknowledged to be potentially unrepresentative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.3.1, Eq. (5.11)] The central statistical interpretation hinges on identifying the distribution of an unknown theta_n with the empirical distribution of known normalized coefficients, as in Eq. (5.11), which the paper explicitly states is an assumption. The subsequent validation in Figs. 1–3 is performed on the same sample that was used to determine the normalization N_n^f in Eq. (5.4): Sec. 5.3.3 reports that the factorial factor (n-1)! was discovered by adjusting the normalization to reduce the variance of the sample. Consequently, the fitted mean near zero and sigma near one are in-sample properties, and they do not by themselves establish that a new, not-yet-calculated coefficient will follow the same distribution. This is a load-bearing issue for the abstract's claim of a 'well-defined statistical interpretation' and the '68% theory CL' used throughout Sec. 6. An out-of-sample test (e.g., holding out one or more series from the calibration and testing the prediction on them, or a cross-validation across categories) or an explicit scoping of the claim as conditional on the population assumption should be provided.
  2. [Sec. 5.3.2, Appendix A] The sample of known perturbative series is acknowledged to be biased toward quantities that are 'naturally simpler to calculate' (Sec. 5.3.2). The paper asserts, based on experience, that this does not affect representativeness, but no quantitative evidence is offered. Since the entire empirical validation of the natural-size normalization and the Gaussian distribution rests on this sample, the representativeness claim needs support. For example, a stability study that removes subsets of closely related series (e.g., all form factors, or all nf-dependent quantities) and checks whether the fitted distribution parameters remain stable would quantify the sensitivity, or the paper could report the evolution of the fitted sigma and mean as new higher-order results have been added over time.
  3. [Sec. 6.2.3, Eq. (6.13)] The beam-function TNP parameterization in Eq. (6.13) introduces an ad hoc factor of 3/2 'to be conservative' without a derivation from the same statistical calibration that is used elsewhere in Sec. 5. This factor directly changes the size of the beam-function uncertainty, which is a dominant component in the qT application (especially in ratios, as shown in Figs. 7–8). If the intended meaning is that the uncertainty corresponds to a 68% theory CL, then this factor should be derived from the calibration procedure or its effect on the claimed coverage should be quantified; otherwise, the size of the resulting theory uncertainty is not statistically calibrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.5)] The notation N^{m+k}LO, where '1+1' does not equal '2', is introduced in the text but would benefit from a formal definition at first use in Section 2.2 or in a footnote, since it is central to the paper's language and appears throughout.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] The captions of Tables 2 and 3 clearly identify the bold entries as the true values of the normalized coefficients, but the rows could be made even more explicit by indicating that these bold values are the θ_n values used to build the distributions in Figs. 1–3.
  3. [Sec. 6.4] The discussion of subleading effects in Sec. 6.4 lists power corrections, quark masses, QED/EW effects, and nonperturbative corrections, but does not mention PDF uncertainties. Since the beam function involves PDFs and their evolution, a brief comment on how PDF uncertainties are separated from the TNP uncertainties of the beam function would be useful.
  4. [Sec. 5.3.1] The sentence 'the pull t_n is invariant under a linear transformation' is correct, but the distribution of t_n is also affected by the choice of the estimator u_n; the paper could state more precisely that Eq. (5.9) defines the structure of the estimator, not an empirical claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

In-sample calibration of the TNP natural-size distribution: the claimed 68% theory CL is the calibration, not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.2.1, Eq. (5.4); Sec. 5.3.2; Sec. 5.3.3]
    "We choose the normalization N f_n to parameterize f_n in terms of θ f_n as f_n(θ f_n) = N f_n θ f_n with N f_n = 4^n C_n (n − 1)! ... without the (n − 1)! in N f_n in eq. (5.4) we would find distributions of correspondingly larger variance for n ≥ 3, which is in fact how we became aware of this factor during the course of our investigations. ... We first observe that the standard deviation σ for all samples is consistent with unity, which provides a clear validation of our natural-size estimate in section 5.2."

    The unit-width property that is presented as validation of the theory constraint is built into the estimator. The factor (n−1)! in N_n was introduced precisely to shrink the sample variance of the known coefficients to O(1); the same coefficients then form the histograms in Figs. 1–3 and are used to conclude σ = 0.90 ± 0.07 / 1.00 ± 0.07 'consistent with unity'. Since no out-of-sample coefficient is used, the statement that an unseen θn has 68% probability of lying within ±1 is the calibration restated as a prediction, not an independent empirical check.

full rationale

The paper develops a sophisticated framework for parameterizing missing higher-order perturbative corrections as theory nuisance parameters, and much of that framework (the parameterization guide in Sec. 4, the qT resummation application in Sec. 6, and the explicit correlation structure) is self-contained and not circular. However, the central statistical message — that TNP uncertainties correspond to a meaningful 68% theory CL because the true θn are effectively drawn from a unit-variance Gaussian — rests on an in-sample calibration. The normalization N_n in Eq. (5.4) was chosen, including the empirically discovered (n−1)! factor, so that known coefficients have O(1) normalized values. The same known coefficients are then used both to set the scale and to 'validate' the unit-variance Gaussian distribution in Figs. 1–3. Consequently, the agreement of σ with unity is not an independent test; it is the calibration criterion. Eq. (5.11) makes the underlying identification an explicit assumption, which is honest, but the subsequent claim of strong empirical validation overstates what the in-sample histograms can show. No out-of-sample or otherwise independent check of the 68% coverage for genuinely new quantities is provided. Self-citations in the paper are not load-bearing for the derivation, so no additional circularity is counted. Overall, the circularity is partial: the framework's predictive content for correlations and parameterization is independent, but the claimed statistical calibration of the theory uncertainty is fitted in-sample and therefore not independently established.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The TNP framework's free parameters are the natural-size normalizations and the unit-width Gaussian constraint, all calibrated on a sample of known QCD series. The central statistical assumption (eq 5.11) is that an unknown coefficient is a random draw from the distribution estimated from that sample. The parameterization exactness (eq 4.1) and the qT factorization (eq 6.2) are domain assumptions. The TNPs themselves are invented accounting parameters with no external falsifiable handle.

free parameters (4)
  • Normalization N_n^f for matrix-element constants = 4^n C_n (n-1)!
    The factorial factor (n-1)! is tuned so that normalized coefficients theta_n have O(1) natural size; the paper states that without it the variance grew with n (Sec 5.3.3). This normalization directly sets the scale of the theory uncertainty (Delta u_n = 1).
  • Normalization N_n^gamma for anomalous dimensions = 4^{n+1} C_{n+1} (no factorial)
    Chosen to achieve |theta_n| less than or about 1; the absence of a factorial is based on the empirical behavior of anomalous dimensions (Sec 5.2.2, table 3). Calibrated on known series.
  • Theory constraint width Delta u_n (natural size) = 1
    The default theory constraint theta_n = 0 +/- 1, validated by fitting the sample distribution to a Gaussian with sigma consistent with 1. The width is effectively calibrated to the known-series sample; any shift would change all uncertainties.
  • Beam function TNP scaling factor = 3/2
    Eq (6.13) includes an ad hoc factor 3/2 'to be conservative and account for the fact that their true values are typically somewhat below their natural size.' This adjusts the beam-function TNP uncertainty.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The perturbative series is convergent and the uncertainty is dominated by the first missing term.
    Sec 2.2: 'our general assumption is that f is expanded in a suitable perturbative scheme that is free of (leading) renormalons, such that the factorial growth... does not yet affect the convergence.' Justifies including only f_{m+1} as the dominant source.
  • domain assumption The TNP parameterization can reproduce the true series coefficient: f_n(x, theta-hat_n) = f-hat_n(x) (eq 4.1).
    Sec 4.1 eq (4.1). For the generic basis expansion (strategy 3) this holds only in the complete basis; truncation introduces a bias acknowledged in Sec 4.4.
  • ad hoc to paper The unknown theta_n is a random draw from the population of known normalized coefficients of the same category (eq 5.11).
    Sec 5.3.1: 'Although this identification comes natural it is an assumption we make.' It is the basis for the 68 percent statistical interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper The same population distribution applies for all orders n (eq 5.12).
    Sec 5.3.2: 'we can take a step further and assume that the populations for different n can be described by a common distribution.'
  • domain assumption The sample of known series is representative of all QCD series of the same category.
    Sec 5.3.2: 'We might still worry that the sample distribution could be biased by the fact that the perturbative series that are known to high order are naturally simpler to calculate... we do not believe this to be a concern any longer.' Selection effects are acknowledged but not quantified.
  • domain assumption The reference scheme for the TNPs is chosen such that the coefficients are of natural size, and scheme-induced bias is covered by the uncertainty.
    Sec 3.4: the default theory constraint theta_n = 0 +/- 1 is scheme dependent; the paper argues the bias is covered if both schemes are equally good and the uncertainty is not underestimated.
  • domain assumption The leading-power qT spectrum factorizes into hard, beam, and soft functions as in eq (6.2).
    Sec 6.1, eq (6.2), based on SCET factorization from refs [42,44]; the paper relies on this to know the functional form of the qT dependence.
invented entities (2)
  • Theory nuisance parameters theta_n (TNPs)
    purpose: Unknown parameters representing the true values of missing higher-order perturbative coefficients; varied or profiled to propagate theory uncertainty
    Introduced in Sec 3.1. They have no falsifiable handle outside the paper; their true values are definitional, and their constraints are calibrated on known series.
  • Bag-of-balls population distribution pbar_F(theta) for theory nuisance parameters
    purpose: Statistical population model for the true values of normalized coefficients, used to justify the 68 percent Gaussian constraint
    Sec 5.3.1. The distribution is estimated from a sample of known series and assumed to apply to unknown ones. No out-of-sample falsification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Scale Variations: Perturbative Theory Uncertainties from Nuisance Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFGW4ABS

@misc{pith2026241118606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Scale Variations: Perturbative Theory Uncertainties from Nuisance Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFGW4ABS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18606}
}
abstract

We develop a new approach to estimate the uncertainty due to missing higher orders in perturbative predictions (the perturbative "theory uncertainty"), which overcomes many inherent limitations of the currently prevalent methods based on varying unphysical renormalization scales. In our approach, the true underlying sources of the theory uncertainty, namely the missing higher-order terms, are identified and parameterized in terms of mutually independent theory nuisance parameters (TNPs). The TNPs are true parameters of the calculation, i.e., they have a well-defined true value that is not or only imprecisely known. This approach affords the theory uncertainty all benefits of a truly parametric uncertainty: It provides correct correlations and allows for consistent error propagation and combination. Furthermore, the TNPs can be profiled in fits, allowing the data to reduce the theory uncertainties. On the theory side, it allows maximally exploiting all available higher-order information to reduce the theory uncertainty, such as partial higher-order results or any nontrivial knowledge of the higher-order or all-order structure. We first discuss the method in general as it can be applied across the board of perturbative calculations. As a concrete application, we then discuss the resummed transverse momentum ($q_T$) spectrum in Drell-Yan production, and how TNP-based uncertainties can correctly capture the correlations across the $q_T$ spectrum and between $Z$ and $W$ production. This application is the basis of the theory model enabling the recent precise measurement of the $W$-boson mass by the CMS experiment. In a forthcoming paper, we use it to study the theory uncertainties in extracting the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ from the $Z$ $q_T$ spectrum.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Multi-partonic interactions, iterated discontinuities and the virtuality expansion in deep inelastic scattering

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new multi-parton model for DIS computes NLO structure functions as iterated discontinuities of Feynman integrals and is equivalent to the parton model up to a scheme change.

  2. Drell-Yan Transverse-Momentum Spectra at N$^3$LL$'$ and Approximate N$^4$LL with SCETlib

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    State-of-the-art LHC predictions for W/Z transverse momentum spectra at N3LL' and approximate N4LL accuracy, with a rigorous reduction of nonperturbative TMD physics to one effective function per process.

  3. What are the consequences of independent factorization and renormalization scales?

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Independent factorization and renormalization scales are inconsistent with simultaneously preserving RG invariance, Ward identities, and PDF sum rules in generalized pole subtraction schemes.

  4. Simultaneous extraction of top quark mass, strong coupling, effective mixing angle, and proton PDFs using inclusive DIS and proton-proton collision data

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single xFitter global fit extracts PDFs, alpha_s(mZ), top pole mass, and sin^2 theta_eff simultaneously at NNLO, with NLO NRQCD threshold corrections, yielding m_t=172.59 GeV, alpha_s=0.1179, sin^2 theta_eff=0.23142.

  5. Impact of Z-boson transverse-momentum resummation on PDF determination

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    N3LL' resummation is required to reconcile the 13 TeV ATLAS Z-pT spectrum with global PDF fits, but lowering the pT cut below 30 GeV is not yet supported.

  6. Resumming transverse observables for NNLO+PS matching in GENEVA

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A GENEVA NNLO+PS generator for b bbar H and c cbar H is built with qT resummation at N3LL and the first NLL' resummation of a transverse-measure one-jettiness.

  7. On Determining $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ from Dijets in $e^+e^-$ Thrust

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An updated N3LL'+O(alpha_s^3) thrust analysis yields alpha_s(m_Z)=0.1136 +/- 0.0012 from a dijet-restricted global fit, stable under fit-range, gap-scheme, and hadronization-model variations.

  8. GGI Lectures on Large-Scale Structure Perturbation Theory (Effective Field Theory)

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    Pedagogical notes derive large-scale-structure EFT from symmetries, covering SPT failures, BAO IR resummation, counterterms, galaxy bias, redshift-space distortions, and Lagrangian PT.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    CMS collaboration, High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment at the LHC , 2412.13872

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Charles, S

    J. Charles, S. Descotes-Genon, V. Niess and L. Vale Silva, Modeling theoretical uncertainties in phenomenological analyses for particle physics , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 214 [1611.04768]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Cowan, Statistical Models with Uncertain Error Parameters , Eur

    G. Cowan, Statistical Models with Uncertain Error Parameters , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 133 [1809.05778]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Cacciari and N

    M. Cacciari and N. Houdeau, Meaningful characterisation of perturbative theoretical uncertainties, JHEP 09 (2011) 039 [ 1105.5152]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Bagnaschi, M

    E. Bagnaschi, M. Cacciari, A. Guffanti and L. Jenniches, An extensive survey of the estimation of uncertainties from missing higher orders in perturbative calculations , JHEP 02 (2015) 133 [ 1409.5036]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Bonvini, Probabilistic definition of the perturbative theoretical uncertainty from missing higher orders, Eur

    M. Bonvini, Probabilistic definition of the perturbative theoretical uncertainty from missing higher orders, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 989 [ 2006.16293]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    C. Duhr, A. Huss, A. Mazeliauskas and R. Szafron, An analysis of Bayesian estimates for missing higher orders in perturbative calculations , JHEP 09 (2021) 122 [ 2106.04585]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    David and G

    A. David and G. Passarino, How well can we guess theoretical uncertainties? , Phys. Lett. B 726 (2013) 266 [ 1307.1843]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 146 references
  1. [9]

    Ghosh, B

    A. Ghosh, B. Nachman, T. Plehn, L. Shire, T. M. P. Tait and D. Whiteson, Statistical patterns of theory uncertainties , SciPost Phys. Core 6 (2023) 045 [ 2210.15167]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics , Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554 [ 1007.1727]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    R. D. Cousins and L. Wasserman, PHYSTAT Informal Review: Marginalizing versus Profiling of Nuisance Parameters , 2404.17180

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    F. J. Tackmann, Theory Uncertainties from Nuisance Parameters , March 2019, Talk at SCET 2019 workshop

    2019

  5. [13]

    McGowan, T

    J. McGowan, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang and R. S. Thorne, Approximate N3LO parton distribution functions with theoretical uncertainties: MSHT20aN 3LO PDFs , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 185 [ 2207.04739]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dehnadi, I

    B. Dehnadi, I. Novikov and F. J. Tackmann, The photon energy spectrum in B → Xsγ at N3LL′, JHEP 07 (2023) 214 [ 2211.07663]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. Cal, M. A. Lim, D. J. Scott, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Jet veto resummation for STXS H+1-jet bins at aNNLL ′+NNLO, JHEP 03 (2025) 155 [ 2408.13301]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Cridge, G

    T. Cridge, G. Marinelli and F. J. Tackmann, Theory uncertainties in the extraction of αs from Drell-Yan at small transverse momentum, to appear , DESY-25-049 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    M. A. Lim and R. Poncelet, Robust estimates of theoretical uncertainties at fixed-order in perturbation theory, 2412.14910. – 69 –

  10. [18]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Higher-order corrections in threshold resummation, Nucl. Phys. B 726 (2005) 317 [ hep-ph/0506288]

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Becher and M

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

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abbate, M

    R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu and I. W. Stewart, Thrust at N 3LL with Power Corrections and a Precision Global Fit for αs(mZ), Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 074021 [1006.3080]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert and L. Rothen, Factorization and N 3LLp+NNLO predictions for the Higgs cross section with a jet veto , JHEP 10 (2013) 125 [ 1307.0025]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bonvini and S

    M. Bonvini and S. Marzani, Resummed Higgs cross section at N 3LL, JHEP 09 (2014) 007 [1405.3654]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. H. Hoang, D. W. Kolodrubetz, V. Mateu and I. W. Stewart, C-parameter distribution at N3LL’ including power corrections , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 094017 [ 1411.6633]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. J. Mohr, B. N. Taylor and D. B. Newell, CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2010 , Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 1527 [ 1203.5425]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sturm, F

    S. Sturm, F. K¨ ohler, J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Harman, G. Werth et al., High-precision measurement of the atomic mass of the electron , Nature 506 (2014) 467 [ 1406.5590]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Berthier and M

    L. Berthier and M. Trott, Consistent constraints on the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP 02 (2016) 069 [ 1508.05060]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Alte, M. K¨ onig and W. Shepherd, Consistent Searches for SMEFT Effects in Non-Resonant Dijet Events , JHEP 01 (2018) 094 [ 1711.07484]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Trott, Methodology for theory uncertainties in the standard model effective field theory , Phys

    M. Trott, Methodology for theory uncertainties in the standard model effective field theory , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 095023 [ 2106.13794]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ghosh and B

    A. Ghosh and B. Nachman, A cautionary tale of decorrelating theory uncertainties , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 46 [ 2109.08159]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Canonero, A

    E. Canonero, A. R. Brazzale and G. Cowan, Higher-order asymptotic corrections and their application to the Gamma Variance Model , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1100 [ 2304.10574]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    I. W. Stewart and F. J. Tackmann, Theory Uncertainties for Higgs and Other Searches Using Jet Bins , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 034011 [ 1107.2117]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, NLL+NNLO predictions for jet-veto efficiencies in Higgs-boson and Drell-Yan production , JHEP 06 (2012) 159 [ 1203.5773]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gangal and F

    S. Gangal and F. J. Tackmann, Next-to-leading-order uncertainties in Higgs+2 jets from gluon fusion , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 093008 [ 1302.5437]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Groupcollaboration, D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector , 1610.07922

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. R. Andersen et al., Les Houches 2017: Physics at TeV Colliders Standard Model Working Group Report, 1803.07977

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. M. Lindert et al., Precise predictions for V + jets dark matter backgrounds , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 829 [ 1705.04664]. – 70 –

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    L. A. Harland-Lang and R. S. Thorne, On the Consistent Use of Scale Variations in PDF Fits and Predictions , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 225 [ 1811.08434]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Parton Distributions with Theory Uncertainties: General Formalism and First Phenomenological Studies , Eur

    NNPDF collaboration, R. Abdul Khalek et al., Parton Distributions with Theory Uncertainties: General Formalism and First Phenomenological Studies , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 931 [ 1906.10698]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C. F. Berger, C. Marcantonini, I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Higgs Production with a Central Jet Veto at NNLL+NNLO , JHEP 04 (2011) 092 [ 1012.4480]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, J. R. Walsh and S. Zuberi, Jet pT resummation in Higgs production at NNLL ′+NNLO, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 054001 [ 1307.1808]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bizon, A

    W. Bizon, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, A. Huss, P. F. Monni et al., The transverse momentum spectrum of weak gauge bosons at N 3LL+NNLO, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 868 [ 1905.05171]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

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

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Billis, B

    G. Billis, B. Dehnadi, M. A. Ebert, J. K. L. Michel and F. J. Tackmann, Higgs pT Spectrum and Total Cross Section with Fiducial Cuts at Third Resummed and Fixed Order in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 072001 [ 2102.08039]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Billis, J

    G. Billis, J. K. L. Michel and F. J. Tackmann, Drell-Yan Transverse-Momentum Spectra at N3LL′ and Approximate N 4LL with SCETlib , JHEP 02 (2025) 170 [ 2411.16004]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L. N. Trefethen, Approximation Theory and Approximation Practice . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Ligeti, I

    Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart and F. J. Tackmann, Treating the b quark distribution function with reliable uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 114014 [ 0807.1926]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Billis, M

    G. Billis, M. A. Ebert, J. K. L. Michel and F. J. Tackmann, A toolbox for qT and 0-jettiness subtractions at N 3LO, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (2021) 214 [ 1909.00811]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    R. N. Lee, A. von Manteuffel, R. M. Schabinger, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, Quark and Gluon Form Factors in Four-Loop QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 212002 [ 2202.04660]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chakraborty, T

    A. Chakraborty, T. Huber, R. N. Lee, A. von Manteuffel, R. M. Schabinger, A. V. Smirnov et al., Hbb vertex at four loops and hard matching coefficients in SCET for various currents , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 074009 [ 2204.02422]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, The Gell-Mann-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation , Phys. Lett. B 93 (1980) 429

    1980

  43. [51]

    S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, The Three loop QCD Beta function and anomalous dimensions, Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993) 334 [ hep-ph/9302208]

    1993 arXiv

  44. [52]

    van Ritbergen, J

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, The Four loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Lett. B 400 (1997) 379 [ hep-ph/9701390]

    1997 arXiv

  45. [53]

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

    M. Czakon, The Four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous dimensions , Nucl. Phys. B 710 (2005) 485 [ hep-ph/0411261]

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, Five-Loop Running of the QCD coupling constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 082002 [ 1606.08659]. – 71 –

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    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

  48. [56]

    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

  49. [57]

    O. V. Tarasov, Anomalous dimensions of quark masses in the three-loop approximation , Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 17 (2020) 109 [ 1910.12231]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. A. Larin, The Renormalization of the axial anomaly in dimensional regularization , Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993) 113 [ hep-ph/9302240]

    1993 arXiv

  51. [59]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, Quark mass anomalous dimension to O(α4 s), Phys. Lett. B 404 (1997) 161 [hep-ph/9703278]

    1997 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen, The four loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass , Phys. Lett. B 405 (1997) 327 [hep-ph/9703284]

    1997 arXiv

  53. [61]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, Quark Mass and Field Anomalous Dimensions to O(α5 s), JHEP 10 (2014) 076 [ 1402.6611]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Luthe, A

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard and Y. Schr¨ oder, Five-loop quark mass and field anomalous dimensions for a general gauge group , JHEP 01 (2017) 081 [ 1612.05512]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, The Three loop splitting functions in QCD: The Nonsinglet case , Nucl. Phys. B 688 (2004) 101 [ hep-ph/0403192]

    2004 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. Vogt, S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermaseren, The Three-loop splitting functions in QCD: The Singlet case , Nucl. Phys. B 691 (2004) 129 [ hep-ph/0404111]

    2004 arXiv

  57. [65]

    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

  58. [66]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Herzog, S

    F. Herzog, S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Five-loop contributions to low-N non-singlet anomalous dimensions in QCD , Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 436 [ 1812.11818]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the Z/γ ∗ boson transverse momentum distribution in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 09 (2014) 145 [1406.3660]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the transverse momentum and ϕ∗ η distributions of Drell-Yan lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 291 [ 1512.02192]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of Drell-Yan lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 616 [ 1912.02844]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    ATLAS collaboration, A precise measurement of the Z-boson double-differential transverse momentum and rapidity distributions in the full phase space of the decay leptons with the ATLAS experiment at √s = 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 315 [ 2309.09318]. – 72 –

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    CMS collaboration, Measurement of the Rapidity and Transverse Momentum Distributions of Z Bosons in pp Collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 032002 [ 1110.4973]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    CMS collaboration, Measurement of the transverse momentum spectra of weak vector bosons produced in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV, JHEP 02 (2017) 096 [ 1606.05864]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    CMS collaboration, Measurements of differential Z boson production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 12 (2019) 061 [ 1909.04133]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of forward W and Z boson production in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV, JHEP 01 (2016) 155 [ 1511.08039]

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of forward W and Z boson production in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV, JHEP 01 (2016) 155 [ 1511.08039]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of the forward Z boson production cross-section in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 09 (2016) 136 [ 1607.06495]

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the forward Z boson production cross-section in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 09 (2016) 136 [ 1607.06495]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Aaltonen et al., High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector , Science 376 (2022) 170

    CDF collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector , Science 376 (2022) 170

    2022

  70. [78]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the W -boson mass in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 110 [ 1701.07240]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at √s = 7 TeV , 2403.15085

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of the W boson mass , JHEP 01 (2022) 036 [2109.01113]

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the W boson mass , JHEP 01 (2022) 036 [2109.01113]

    2022

  73. [81]

    Bacchetta, V

    MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)collaboration, A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Piacenza et al., Unpolarized transverse momentum distributions from a global fit of Drell-Yan and semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering...

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    V. Moos, I. Scimemi, A. Vladimirov and P. Zurita, Extraction of unpolarized transverse momentum distributions from the fit of Drell-Yan data at N 4LL, JHEP 05 (2024) 036 [2305.07473]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Bacchetta, V

    MAP collaboration, A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Delcarro et al., Flavor dependence of unpolarized quark transverse momentum distributions from a global fit , JHEP 08 (2024) 232 [ 2405.13833]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Camarda, G

    S. Camarda, G. Ferrera and M. Schott, Determination of the strong-coupling constant from the Z-boson transverse-momentum distribution , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 39 [2203.05394]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    ATLAS collaboration, A precise determination of the strong-coupling constant from the recoil of Z bosons with the ATLAS experiment at √s = 8 TeV, 2309.12986

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    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 05 (2012) 084 [ 1202.0814]

    2012 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Y. Li, D. Neill and H. X. Zhu, An exponential regulator for rapidity divergences , Nucl. Phys. B 960 (2020) 115193 [ 1604.00392]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, Transverse momentum dependent PDFs at N 3LO, JHEP 09 (2020) 146 [ 2006.05329]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Luo, T.-Z

    M.-x. Luo, T.-Z. Yang, H. X. Zhu and Y. J. Zhu, Unpolarized quark and gluon TMD PDFs and FFs at N 3LO, JHEP 06 (2021) 115 [ 2012.03256]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    M. A. Ebert, J. K. L. Michel, F. J. Tackmann et al., SCETlib: A C++ Package for Numerical Calculations in QCD and Soft-Collinear Effective Theory , DESY-17-099 (2018) . – 73 –

    2018

  83. [91]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, Decoupling relations to O(α3 s) and their connection to low-energy theorems, Nucl. Phys. B 510 (1998) 61 [ hep-ph/9708255]

    1998 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Schroder and M

    Y. Schroder and M. Steinhauser, Four-loop decoupling relations for the strong coupling , JHEP 01 (2006) 051 [ hep-ph/0512058]

    2006 arXiv

  85. [93]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and C. Sturm, QCD decoupling at four loops , Nucl. Phys. B 744 (2006) 121 [ hep-ph/0512060]

    2006 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Gerlach, F

    M. Gerlach, F. Herren and M. Steinhauser, Wilson coefficients for Higgs boson production and decoupling relations to O α4 s , JHEP 11 (2018) 141 [ 1809.06787]

    2018 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Liu and M

    T. Liu and M. Steinhauser, Decoupling of heavy quarks at four loops and effective Higgs-fermion coupling, Phys. Lett. B 746 (2015) 330 [ 1502.04719]

    2015 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, On Higgs decays to hadrons and the R-ratio at N 4LO, JHEP 08 (2017) 113 [ 1707.01044]

    2017 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Grigo, K

    J. Grigo, K. Melnikov and M. Steinhauser, Virtual corrections to Higgs boson pair production in the large top quark mass limit , Nucl. Phys. B 888 (2014) 17 [ 1408.2422]

    2014 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Spira, Effective Multi-Higgs Couplings to Gluons , JHEP 10 (2016) 026 [ 1607.05548]

    M. Spira, Effective Multi-Higgs Couplings to Gluons , JHEP 10 (2016) 026 [ 1607.05548]

    2016 arXiv

  91. [99]

    S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, The O(α3 s)-corrections to σtot(e+e− → hadrons) and Γ(τ − → ντ + hadrons) in QCD , Phys. Lett. B 259 (1991) 144

    1991

  92. [100]

    L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, Total hadronic cross-section in e+ e- annihilation at the four loop level of perturbative QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 560

    1991

  93. [101]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. Kuhn, Order α4 s QCD Corrections to Z and tau Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 012002 [ 0801.1821]

    2008 arXiv

  94. [102]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and J. Rittinger, Vector Correlator in Massless QCD at Order O(α4 s) and the QED beta-function at Five Loop , JHEP 07 (2012) 017 [1206.1284]

    2012 arXiv

  95. [103]

    P. A. Baikov and K. G. Chetyrkin, Top Quark Mediated Higgs Boson Decay into Hadrons to Order α5 s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 061803 [ hep-ph/0604194]

    2006 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Moch and A

    S. Moch and A. Vogt, On third-order timelike splitting functions and top-mediated Higgs decay into hadrons, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 290 [ 0709.3899]

    2008 arXiv

  97. [105]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, Correlator of the quark scalar currents and Γtot(H → hadrons) at O(α3 s) in pQCD , Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 309 [ hep-ph/9608318]

    1997 arXiv

  98. [106]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. Kuhn, Scalar correlator at O(α4 s), Higgs decay into b-quarks and bounds on the light quark masses , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 012003 [hep-ph/0511063]

    2006 arXiv

  99. [107]

    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

  100. [108]

    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

  101. [109]

    Gehrmann, E

    T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, T. Huber, N. Ikizlerli and C. Studerus, Calculation of the quark and gluon form factors to three loops in QCD , JHEP 06 (2010) 094 [ 1004.3653]

    2010 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Gehrmann and D

    T. Gehrmann and D. Kara, The Hb¯b form factor to three loops in QCD , JHEP 09 (2014) 174 [1407.8114]. – 74 –

    2014 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Br¨ user, Z

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

    2018 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Banerjee, P

    P. Banerjee, P. K. Dhani and V. Ravindran, Gluon jet function at three loops in QCD , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 094016 [ 1805.02637]

    2018 arXiv

  105. [113]

    M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, The Energy-Energy Correlation in the back-to-back limit at N 3LO and N 3LL’, JHEP 08 (2021) 022 [ 2012.07859]

    2021 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Li and H

    Y. Li and H. X. Zhu, Bootstrapping Rapidity Anomalous Dimensions for Transverse-Momentum Resummation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 022004 [ 1604.01404]

    2017 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Y. Li, A. von Manteuffel, R. M. Schabinger and H. X. Zhu, Soft-virtual corrections to Higgs production at N 3LO, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 036008 [ 1412.2771]

    2015 arXiv

  108. [116]

    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

  109. [117]

    Br¨ user, Z

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

    2020 arXiv

  110. [118]

    S. A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen and J. A. M. Vermaseren, The Next next-to-leading QCD approximation for nonsinglet moments of deep inelastic structure functions , Nucl. Phys. B 427 (1994) 41

    1994

  111. [119]

    P. A. Baikov and K. G. Chetyrkin, New four loop results in QCD , Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 160 (2006) 76

    2006

  112. [120]

    V. N. Velizhanin, Four loop anomalous dimension of the second moment of the non-singlet twist-2 operator in QCD , Nucl. Phys. B 860 (2012) 288 [ 1112.3954]

    2012 arXiv

  113. [121]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, Massless Propagators, R(s) and Multiloop QCD, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 261-262 (2015) 3 [ 1501.06739]

    2015 arXiv

  114. [122]

    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

  115. [123]

    Bl¨ umlein, P

    J. Bl¨ umlein, P. Marquard, C. Schneider and K. Sch¨ onwald,The three-loop unpolarized and polarized non-singlet anomalous dimensions from off shell operator matrix elements , Nucl. Phys. B 971 (2021) 115542 [ 2107.06267]

    2021 arXiv

  116. [124]

    V. N. Velizhanin, Four-loop anomalous dimension of the third and fourth moments of the nonsinglet twist-2 operator in QCD , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) 2050199 [ 1411.1331]

    2020 arXiv

  117. [125]

    S. A. Larin, P. Nogueira, T. van Ritbergen and J. A. M. Vermaseren, The Three loop QCD calculation of the moments of deep inelastic structure functions , Nucl. Phys. B 492 (1997) 338 [hep-ph/9605317]

    1997 arXiv

  118. [126]

    S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Low moments of the four-loop splitting functions in QCD , Phys. Lett. B 825 (2022) 136853 [ 2111.15561]

    2022 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Ablinger, A

    J. Ablinger, A. Behring, J. Bl¨ umlein, A. De Freitas, A. von Manteuffel and C. Schneider, The three-loop splitting functions P (2) qg and P (2,NF ) gg , Nucl. Phys. B 922 (2017) 1 [1705.01508]

    2017 arXiv

  120. [128]

    J. A. Gracey, Three loop MS tensor current anomalous dimension in QCD , Phys. Lett. B 488 (2000) 175 [ hep-ph/0007171]

    2000 arXiv

  121. [129]

    J. A. Gracey, Tensor current renormalization in the RI’ scheme at four loops , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 085008 [ 2208.14527]. – 75 –

    2022 arXiv

  122. [130]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and A. G. Grozin, Three loop anomalous dimension of the heavy light quark current in HQET , Nucl. Phys. B 666 (2003) 289 [ hep-ph/0303113]

    2003 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Grozin, Anomalous dimension of the heavy-light quark current in HQET up to four loops, JHEP 02 (2024) 198 [ 2311.09894]

    A. Grozin, Anomalous dimension of the heavy-light quark current in HQET up to four loops, JHEP 02 (2024) 198 [ 2311.09894]

    2024 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Das, S.-O

    G. Das, S.-O. Moch and A. Vogt, Soft corrections to inclusive deep-inelastic scattering at four loops and beyond , JHEP 03 (2020) 116 [ 1912.12920]

    2020 arXiv

  125. [133]

    G. Das, S. Moch and A. Vogt, Approximate four-loop QCD corrections to the Higgs-boson production cross section, Phys. Lett. B 807 (2020) 135546 [ 2004.00563]

    2020 arXiv

  126. [134]

    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

  127. [135]

    Agarwal, A

    B. Agarwal, A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer and R. M. Schabinger, Four-loop collinear anomalous dimensions in QCD and N=4 super Yang-Mills , Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136503 [2102.09725]

    2021 arXiv

  128. [136]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Three-loop results for quark and gluon form-factors, Phys. Lett. B 625 (2005) 245 [ hep-ph/0508055]

    2005 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Grozin, J

    A. Grozin, J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and P. Marquard, The three-loop cusp anomalous dimension in QCD and its supersymmetric extensions , JHEP 01 (2016) 140 [ 1510.07803]

    2016 arXiv

  130. [138]

    A. A. Vladimirov, Correspondence between Soft and Rapidity Anomalous Dimensions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 062001 [ 1610.05791]

    2017 arXiv

  131. [139]

    C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, Four-Loop Rapidity Anomalous Dimension and Event Shapes to Fourth Logarithmic Order , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 162001 [ 2205.02242]

    2022 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Moult, H

    I. Moult, H. X. Zhu and Y. J. Zhu, The four loop QCD rapidity anomalous dimension , JHEP 08 (2022) 280 [ 2205.02249]

    2022 arXiv

  133. [141]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Factorization at the LHC: From PDFs to Initial State Jets , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 094035 [ 0910.0467]

    2010 arXiv

  134. [142]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, The Quark Beam Function at NNLL , JHEP 09 (2010) 005 [ 1002.2213]

    2010 arXiv

  135. [143]

    G. F. Sterman, Summation of Large Corrections to Short Distance Hadronic Cross-Sections, Nucl. Phys. B 281 (1987) 310

    1987

  136. [144]

    Catani and L

    S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Resummation of the QCD Perturbative Series for Hard Processes, Nucl. Phys. B 327 (1989) 323

    1989

  137. [145]

    Lustermans, J

    G. Lustermans, J. K. L. Michel and F. J. Tackmann, Generalized Threshold Factorization with Full Collinear Dynamics , 1908.00985

    1908 arXiv

  138. [146]

    C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, Soft integrals and soft anomalous dimensions at N3LO and beyond , JHEP 09 (2022) 155 [ 2205.04493]. – 76 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.