Two-loop renormalisation of quark and gluon fields in the SMEFT in the on-shell scheme

Claude Duhr; Eleni Vryonidou; Giuseppe Ventura

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Two-loop renormalisation of quark and gluon fields in the SMEFT in the on-shell scheme

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-loop on-shell renormalisation constants for quarks and gluons in the SMEFT are computed; the four-quark contribution has no single-pole term, so it does not affect the two-loop running of the strong coupling.

desk verdict Genuinely new two-loop SMEFT on-shell results, with a solid core and one unshown BMHV evanescent-counterterm check that the referee should ask to see. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04500 v1 pith:QHKSFR3Z submitted 2025-08-06 hep-ph

Claude Duhr , Giuseppe Ventura , Eleni Vryonidou This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords SMEFTon-shellrenormalisationtwo-loopchromomagneticoperatortriple-gluonfour-quarkoperatorsstrongcouplingrunningBMHVscheme

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

This paper extends the two-loop renormalisation of the QCD sector of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory to the on-shell scheme, complementing an earlier MS-scheme computation. It derives two-loop on-shell renormalisation constants for the top-quark field and mass, for massless quark fields, and for the gluon field in the presence of the CP-conserving top chromomagnetic and triple-gluon operators, together with the two-loop relation between the pole and MS top masses. It then computes the two-loop contribution of third-generation four-quark operators to the gluon field renormalisation constant in the BMHV scheme, the algebraically consistent scheme for $\gamma_5$ in dimensional regularisation. The main physical claim is that this contribution has a double pole but no single pole, so the four-quark operators do not contribute to the two-loop running of the strong coupling $\alpha_s$; with earlier results, this completes the two-loop running of $\alpha_s$ in the QCD sector of the SMEFT when only the top quark is massive. An appendix defines an effective strong coupling whose running is the SM one, decoupling SMEFT effects from the running in practical applications.

What carries the argument

The computation uses dimensional regularisation in the BMHV scheme, where $\gamma_5$ is kept four-dimensional and the $d$-dimensional space is split into four- and $(d-4)$-dimensional parts, so that Fierz identities fail and evanescent operators must be tracked. For the top-quark self-energy the on-shell condition $p^2=m_t^2$ is imposed at the integrand level before expansion in $\epsilon$, which keeps only the hard region and reduces the two-loop integrals to three known master integrals. For the four-quark contribution to the gluon self-energy, the two-loop diagrams factor into products of one-loop tadpole and bubble integrals, and after the standard recursive subtraction procedure the rem

What would settle it

Recompute the two-loop gluon self-energy with four-quark insertions while explicitly including the one-loop counterterms of every evanescent operator in table 2 of appendix A in the quark self-energy and quark-gluon vertex subgraphs, and inspect the single-pole coefficient of the gluon field renormalisation constant. If any evanescent counterterm produces a physical-structure pole in the $d\to 4$ limit, eq. (4.10) and the no-running statement fail. Alternatively, compare the single-pole coefficient of the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2/\Lambda^2)$ contribution computed with the gauge-fermion vertex k

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a set of explicit two-loop renormalisation constants: eqs. (3.9)-(3.12) for the top-quark field and mass in the on-shell scheme with chromomagnetic and triple-gluon insertions; eq. (3.20) for massless quark fields; eqs. (3.25)-(3.26) for the gluon field; and eqs. (4.10) and (4.13) for the four-quark contribution to the gluon field renormalisation constant in the MS and on-shell schemes. The four-quark contribution is found to contain only a double pole, with the single pole absent, which the authors state means that the four-quark operators do not contribute to the two-loop running of the strong coupling. The paper also derives the two-loop rel

Load-bearing premise

The no-single-pole result for the four-quark contribution rests on the authors' check, reported in section 4.2, that one-loop insertions of the BMHV evanescent penguin operators listed in table 2 of appendix A contribute only to the evanescent sector and vanish in the $d\to 4$ limit at two loops; if any of those evanescent operators mixes back into physical structures at this order, the double-pole-only form of the gluon renormalisation constant and the conclusion about $\alp

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The on-shell two-loop quark, gluon, and top-mass renormalisation constants are the missing ingredients for two-loop SMEFT corrections to processes such as top-pair production, where the on-shell scheme is standard.
The pole-to-MS top mass relation now includes dimension-six contributions at two loops, allowing consistent scheme conversion of top mass inputs in SMEFT computations.
Four-quark operators do not enter the two-loop running of $\alpha_s$; together with the earlier MS results, the two-loop running of the strong coupling in the QCD sector of the SMEFT is completed when only the top quark is massive.
The counterterm extracted from the gluon self-energy cancels the two-loop effect of the one-loop mixing of four-quark operators into the chromomagnetic dipole operators, which the paper presents as a nontrivial consistency check.
The effective coupling defined in appendix B runs with the SM beta function, so SMEFT effects can be removed from the running used by automated generators or PDF analyses and re-inserted at the matrix-element level.

Reading between the lines

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

If the no-single-pole statement is specific to two loops, the evanescent-counterterm insertions discussed in section 4.2 are the natural place where single poles could first appear at three loops; the paper's own discussion flags the three-loop level as the next opening for such effects.
The on-shell four-quark result (4.13) carries finite contributions from purely left-handed and purely right-handed operators even without a single pole, so the on-shell normalisation of the gluon field retains scheme-dependent finite parts that could matter when matching on-shell SMEFT matrix elements to MS running.
For global fits that treat the bottom quark as massless in a five-flavour scheme, the paper's mass-mixing observation implies that a zero-eigenvalue condition should be imposed on the 2-by-2 top-bottom mass matrix; otherwise a radiative bottom mass is generated and the five-flavour description is inconsistent.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, read this one. It is a straightforward two-loop computation paper but the results are new: on-shell field and mass renormalization constants for top quark and gluon from O_tG and O_G, the pole-to-MS mass relation including those operators, and the BMHV two-loop gluon renormalization constant from third-generation four-quark operators. The main physical takeaway—the four-quark operators produce no 1/eps pole in Z_g and therefore do not contribute to the two-loop running of alpha_s—is stated clearly and is consistent with earlier arguments in refs [15,31,32]. That consistency is a real check, not decoration.

What earns credit: the computation passes several nontrivial tests. The on-shell results are gauge-parameter independent; the pole-to-MS relation is finite; the pure-QCD limits reproduce known results; the one-loop four-quark mass counterterms match ref [93]. The authors also flag their own caveats: the four-quark contribution to quark-field renormalization is deferred to a companion paper, and the five-flavor scheme requires a consistency condition on the mass matrix because a top mass can radiatively generate a bottom mass. That is honest.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. The no-single-pole conclusion depends on the statement in section 4.2 that one-loop insertions of the evanescent operators in appendix A table 2 'contribute only to the evanescent sector' and vanish in d->4 at two loops. The paper says 'we checked' and does not exhibit the check. This is a scheme-artifact argument, and if any table-2 operator mixed back into physical or redundant structures at order g_s^2 C/Lambda^2, eq (4.10) would change and the alpha_s conclusion would need qualification. I do not think that is likely—the agreement with refs [15,31,32] and the double-pole-only structure is strong circumstantial evidence—but the decisive step is currently a black box. A referee should ask for the counterterm-insertion calculation to be shown in an appendix or ancillary file.

One more thing: the decoupling scheme in appendix B is useful and clearly motivated, but it is secondary and not where the value is.

Who is this for: people doing two-loop SMEFT predictions for top production and for the strong coupling running in EFT fits. It is not a paper that changes the field's direction; it is an enabling technical result. That is fine. It deserves a serious referee, and I would accept shape with the evanescent check made explicit. I would cite it if I worked on SMEFT renormalization, and I would bring it to a reading group focused on BMHV practice.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes two-loop renormalisation constants in the QCD sector of the SMEFT. In the on-shell scheme it derives the top-quark mass and wave-function renormalisation constants induced by the chromomagnetic and triple-gluon operators (Eqs. (3.9)–(3.12)), the pole-to-MS mass relation (Eq. (3.18)), and the on-shell renormalisation constants of the massless quark and gluon fields (Eqs. (3.20), (3.25), (3.26)). It then computes the two-loop gluon-field renormalisation constant generated by the four-quark operators of Eq. (2.6) in both the MS and on-shell schemes (Eqs. (4.10), (4.13)), using the BMHV scheme for γ5. The main physical conclusion is that the four-quark contribution has no single 1/ε pole, so these operators do not contribute to the two-loop running of the strong coupling constant.

Significance. If correct, the paper supplies missing on-shell-scheme SMEFT ingredients for two-loop QCD corrections and completes the two-loop SMEFT running of αs in the five-flavour scheme with only the top quark massive. The paper contains several nontrivial checks: gauge-parameter independence of the on-shell fermion results, finiteness of the derived pole-to-MS relation, reproduction of known two-loop pure-QCD limits, and agreement of the one-loop four-quark mass counterterms with ref. [93]. The qualitative agreement with refs. [15,31,32] on the absence of four-quark contributions to αs running is a useful cross-check. The main caveat is that the decisive BMHV evanescent-counterterm check in §4.2 is not exhibited in the manuscript.

major comments (1)

[§4.2, Eqs. (4.6)–(4.11), and Appendix A, Table 2] The central new physical result—the absence of a 1/ε term in eq. (4.10) and the consequent Section 5 statement that four-quark operators do not contribute to the two-loop running of αs—rests on the assertion, reported as 'we checked', that one-loop insertions of the evanescent operators in Table 2 contribute only to the evanescent sector and vanish in the d→4 limit at two-loop level. No computation or projection is shown, and no ancillary file is cited. These operators are generated by the same one-loop off-shell penguin that produces the physical and redundant counterterms in Table 1, so their possible mixing back into physical structures at two loops is precisely the mechanism that could alter the 1/ε coefficient of eq. (4.10). The result may well be correct, and the agreement with refs. [15,31,32] is encouraging, but the decisive step is currently unverifiable from the manuscript. I r

minor comments (6)

[§3.2] The text refers to 'eq. (3.18)' when discussing the relation derived; the relation is introduced in eq. (3.16), while eq. (3.18) is the coefficient expansion. Please correct the cross-reference.
[§3.1, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12)] The superscripts k = -1, 0 in the notation δZ^{(...,k)} are used before the ε-expansion convention is stated. Add one sentence defining the expansion, e.g., δZ = Σ_k δZ^{(k)} ε^k.
[§3.3, Eq. (3.24)] The auxiliary light-like momentum is denoted q, which conflicts with the quark-field symbols used throughout. Use a neutral symbol such as r or n, and state explicitly that the on-shell limit is taken at the integrand level before IBP reduction.
[§4.2, paragraph after Eq. (4.10)] The sentence 'Such operators would only be relevant ... starting at three loops, while their contributions vanish in the d→4 limit at the two-loop level' is difficult to parse. Please clarify whether the vanishing in d→4 is the reason they are irrelevant at two loops.
[§4.2, Eq. (4.11)] The conversion from the gluon-field renormalisation constant to the strong-coupling counterterm is asserted via the background-field relation. Please spell out the relation explicitly (e.g., Z_{g_s} Z_A^{1/2}=1) and state the gauge in which Z_g in eq. (4.10) is defined.
[Appendix B] The effective-coupling construction is only sketched. Since the decoupling scheme is advocated for practical use, please state whether the matching between the effective coupling and the original Wilson coefficients is performed at a single scale or requires solving the SMEFT RGE.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the renormalisation constants are obtained from explicit two-loop computations on the declared SMEFT Lagrangian; the only notable self-citation is to the authors' independent MS-scheme paper [35], and the unshown 'we checked' evanescent-counterterm step in Sec. 4.2 is a completeness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from the explicit Lagrangian in eq. (2.1) with Wilson coefficients as free input parameters, and the central outputs (eqs. (3.9)-(3.12), (3.20), (3.25), (3.26), (4.10), (4.13)) are obtained by computing multi-loop self-energies and imposing standard on-shell or MS renormalisation conditions. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the result it is supposed to derive. The main use of the authors' own prior work is the pole-to-MS relation in Sec. 3.2, where the MS counterterms from ref. [35] are combined with the new on-shell computation; this is a legitimate, externally checkable input, not a self-citation that by itself forces the result. The no-single-pole statement for four-quark contributions to Z_g (eq. (4.10)) is a computed property of the two-loop diagrams, and the paper explicitly cross-checks it against refs. [15,31,32]. The only passage that could be questioned is the statement in Sec. 4.2: 'we checked that the insertions of such evanescent operators (listed in table 2 of appendix A) in relevant one-loop counterterm diagrams contribute only to the evanescent sector' -- the check is not shown in detail. This is an omitted technical verification and a legitimate target for scrutiny, but it is not circular: it concerns the bookkeeping of BMHV evanescent counterterms, not the equivalence of the output to an input. No step reduces by construction to a fit, a definition, or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The computation is a standard perturbative QFT exercise in dimensional regularization with a declared operator set. No parameters are fitted; Wilson coefficients and the scale Lambda are external inputs. The central results rest on the BMHV continuation of gamma5, the evanescent-operator bookkeeping of tables 1 and 2, the assumed operator basis of eq. (2.1), and known master integrals. None of these is introduced ad hoc to force the alpha_s conclusion, which is independently corroborated by refs. [15, 31, 32].

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Dimensional regularization in d=4-2*epsilon with the Breitenlohner-Maison-'t Hooft-Veltman (BMHV) scheme for gamma5
The four-quark results in section 4 rest on the BMHV treatment of gamma5 and the split of d-dimensional space into four- and -2*epsilon-dimensional parts (eq. (4.2) and (4.3)).
domain assumption Operator basis truncation: the Lagrangian of eq. (2.1), i.e. SM QCD plus O_G, O_tG, and the third-generation four-quark operators of eq. (2.6), is closed for the computed quantities
Other dimension-six operators are omitted under a flavor-symmetry/Minimal Flavour Violation argument, and the chromomagnetic operator is argued to be the only relevant dipole when only the top is massive (section 2 and ref. [35]).
domain assumption Four-quark evanescent operators do not contribute to the two-loop gluon self-energy, and one-loop gluon-fermion evanescent counterterm insertions vanish in the d->4 limit at two loops
Load-bearing for eq. (4.10); argued in section 4.2 on the basis that four-fermion operators first enter the gluon self-energy at two loops, with the fermion-gluon evanescent part 'checked' and summarized in appendix A, table 2.
standard math On-shell renormalization conditions define the scheme for massive and massless fields, with scaleless integrals vanishing in dimensional regularization
Sections 3.1 and 3.3: unit-residue conditions at p^2 = m_t^2 and p^2 = 0 for the top, massless quarks and gluons; scaleless integrals are set to zero.
standard math Known two-loop massive self-energy master integrals (refs. [54-56]) and known pure-QCD renormalization factors (refs. [57, 61, 84]) are correct
Used as input for the two-loop on-shell top quark results (section 3.1) and as checks for the reproduction of pure-QCD results.
domain assumption Mass scheme: all quarks massless except the top in section 3 (five-flavour scheme); both top and bottom massive in section 4
Stated at the start of section 3 and section 4; the four-quark computation requires the bottom to be massive to regulate chirality-flipping effects (section 2 and eq. (2.9)).

invented entities (3)

Evanescent operators with gamma-hat structures (table 2 of appendix A)
purpose: Counterterms for the one-loop renormalization of the off-shell gluon-fermion vertex in the BMHV scheme; their non-feedback into the two-loop gluon self-energy is load-bearing for eq. (4.10)
Scheme artifacts of the gamma5 continuation; they carry no observable content outside the regularization scheme and are introduced by the computation itself.
Redundant class II operators generated at one loop (table 1 of appendix A)
purpose: Absorb divergences of off-shell one-loop Green's functions; the paper argues they are needed for MS renormalization and vanish on shell
Operators that vanish by the equations of motion; standard bookkeeping structures in off-shell renormalization of EFTs.
Effective strong coupling alpha_s^eff in the decoupling scheme (appendix B)
purpose: Defined so that the strong coupling runs exactly as in the SM, decoupling dimension-six effects, for compatibility with tools that implement only SM running
A scheme redefinition whose existence is demonstrated by this paper's computation; it is not a new physical entity with independent falsifiable handles.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-loop renormalisation of quark and gluon fields in the SMEFT in the on-shell scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHKSFR3Z

@misc{pith2026250804500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-loop renormalisation of quark and gluon fields in the SMEFT in the on-shell scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHKSFR3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04500}
}

read the original abstract

We compute the contributions of CP-conserving dimension-six SMEFT operators to the two-loop renormalisation constants of quark and gluon fields in the on-shell scheme. Specifically, we consider the top-quark chromomagnetic operator and the triple gluon operator. We also compute the contribution of four-quark operators to the gluon renormalisation constant and discuss the implications for the running of the strong coupling constant.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

One-loop matching of the LEFT to the QCD gradient flow
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

All one-loop matching coefficients connecting the full baryon- and lepton-number-conserving low-energy effective field theory up to dimension six to the QCD gradient flow are computed.
Complete two-loop Yukawa-induced running of the Higgs-gluon coupling in SMEFT
hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For the first time, the two-loop Yukawa-induced renormalisation-group running of the Higgs-gluon coupling from D^2H^4 and D H^2 ψ^2 SMEFT operators is computed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[93]

Gauld, B

R. Gauld, B. D. Pecjak and D. J. Scott, �� ¯� �� ¯� �� t ��, �� (2016) 080 [�� ]

work page 2016
[10]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, �� , �� (2013) 087 [�� ]

2013
[11]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, �� , �� (2014) 035 [�� ]

2014
[12]

Alonso, E

R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, �� , �� (2014) 159 [�� ]

2014
[13]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez and E. Sawyer, �� , �� (2020) 051601 [�� ]

2020
[14]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez and E. Sawyer, �� , �� (2020) 211 [�� ]

2020
[15]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop and J. Pag` es, �� , �� (2023) 165 [�� ]

2023
[16]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop and J. Pag` es, �� , �� (2024) 131 [�� ]

work page 2024

Show all 86 references

[17]

Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A

J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. Palavri´ c and A. E. Thomsen,�� , �� (2024) 138557 [�� ]

2024
[18]

Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,�� , �� (2023) 031 [�� ]

2023
[19]

Aebischer, A

J. Aebischer, A. J. Buras and J. Kumar, �� ∆�� , �� (2022) 035003 [�� ]

2022
[20]

Aebischer, M

J. Aebischer, M. Pesut and Z. Polonsky, � �� , �� (2024) 750 [�� ]

2024
[21]

Di Noi, R

S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober and M. K. Mandal, �� , �� (2025) 220 [�� ]

2025
[22]

L. Born, J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, S. Kvedarait˙ e and A. E. Thomsen,�� , �� (2025) 121 [�� ]

2025
[23]

Naterop and P

L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, �� , �� (2025) 007 [�� ]

2025
[24]

de Vries, G

J. de Vries, G. Falcioni, F. Herzog and B. Ruijl, �� , �� (2020) 016010 [�� ]

2020
[25]

Q. Jin, K. Ren and G. Yang, �� , �� (2021) 180 [�� ]

2021
[26]

Aebischer, P

J. Aebischer, P. Morell, M. Pesut and J. Virto, �� , �� . – 24 –
[27]

Aebischer, L

J. Aebischer, L. C. Bresciani and N. Selimovic, �� , ��
[28]

B. Assi, A. Helset, J. Pag` es and C.-H. Shen, �� , ��
[29]

Zhang, �� , �� (2025) 106 [�� ]

D. Zhang, �� , �� (2025) 106 [�� ]

2025
[30]

Naterop and P

L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, �� , �� (2025) 237 [�� ]

2025
[31]

Naterop and P

L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, �� , ��
[32]

Di Noi and R

S. Di Noi and R. Gr¨ ober, �� , ��
[33]

Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A

J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. Moreno-S´ anchez and A. E. Thomsen,�� , ��
[34]

Henriksson, F

J. Henriksson, F. Herzog, S. R. Kousvos and J. Roosmale Nepveu, �� , ��
[35]

C. Duhr, A. Vasquez, G. Ventura and E. Vryonidou, �� , �� (2025) 160 [�� ]

2025
[36]

Czakon, A

M. Czakon, A. Mitov and S. Moch, �� , �� (2008) 210 [�� ]

2008
[37]

’t Hooft and M

G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, �� , �� (1972) 189

1972
[38]

Breitenlohner and D

P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, �� , �� (1977) 11

1977
[39]

Barducci et al., �� , ��

D. Barducci et al., �� , ��
[40]

C. Duhr, G. Ventura and E. Vryonidou �� (2025)

2025
[41]

E. C. Poggio and H. R. Quinn, �� , �� (1976) 578

1976
[42]

Sterman, �� , �� (1976) 2123

G. Sterman, �� , �� (1976) 2123

1976
[43]

Hahn, �� , �� (2001) 418 [�� ]

T. Hahn, �� , �� (2001) 418 [�� ]

2001
[44]

Shtabovenko, R

V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, �� , �� (2020) 107478 [�� ]

2020
[45]

Kuipers, T

J. Kuipers, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and J. Vollinga, �� , �� (2013) 1453 [�� ]

2013
[46]

Ruijl, T

B. Ruijl, T. Ueda and J. Vermaseren, �� , ��
[47]

F. V. Tkachov, � �� , �� (1981) 65. – 25 –

1981
[48]

K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, �� , �� (1981) 159

1981
[49]

Maierh¨ ofer, J

P. Maierh¨ ofer, J. Usovitsch and P. Uwer,�� , �� (2018) 99 [�� ]

2018
[50]

Klappert, F

J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer and J. Usovitsch, �� , �� (2021) 108024 [�� ]

2021
[51]

Beneke and V

M. Beneke and V. A. Smirnov, �� , �� (1998) 321 [�� ]

1998
[52]

V. A. Smirnov, �� , �� (2002) 1

2002
[53]

Jantzen, �� , �� (2011) 076 [�� ]

B. Jantzen, �� , �� (2011) 076 [�� ]

2011
[54]

Fleischer, F

J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner, O. V. Tarasov and O. L. Veretin, �� , �� (1999) 671 [�� ]

1999
[55]

Bonciani, P

R. Bonciani, P. Mastrolia and E. Remiddi, �� , �� (2003) 289 [�� ]

2003
[56]

Argeri, P

M. Argeri, P. Mastrolia and E. Remiddi, �� , �� (2002) 388 [�� ]

2002
[57]

Marquard, A

P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, �� , �� (2015) 142002 [�� ]

2015
[58]

Melnikov and T

K. Melnikov and T. van Ritbergen, �� , �� (2000) 515 [�� ]

2000
[59]

Buarque Franzosi and C

D. Buarque Franzosi and C. Zhang, �� , �� (2015) 114010 [�� ]

2015
[60]

Maltoni, E

F. Maltoni, E. Vryonidou and C. Zhang, �� , �� (2016) 123 [�� ]

2016
[61]

K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, �� , �� (2000) 617 [�� ]

2000
[62]

Czakon, A

M. Czakon, A. Mitov and S. Moch, �� , �� (2007) 147 [�� ]

2007
[63]

Kreimer, �� , �� (1990) 59

D. Kreimer, �� , �� (1990) 59

1990
[64]

J. G. Korner, D. Kreimer and K. Schilcher, � �� , �� (1992) 503

1992
[65]

Kreimer, �� , ��

D. Kreimer, �� , ��
[66]

Jegerlehner, �� , �� (2001) 673 [�� ]

F. Jegerlehner, �� , �� (2001) 673 [�� ]

2001
[67]

Fuentes-Martin, M

J. Fuentes-Martin, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,�� – 26 – �� , �� (2021) 281 [�� ]

2021
[68]

E. R. Speer, �� , �� (1974) 1

1974
[69]

Breitenlohner and D

P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, �� , �� (1977) 39

1977
[70]

Breitenlohner and D

P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, �� , �� (1977) 55

1977
[71]

Costa, J

G. Costa, J. Julve, T. Marinucci and M. Tonin, �� , �� (1977) 373

1977
[72]

Aoyama and M

S. Aoyama and M. Tonin, �� , �� (1981) 293

1981
[73]

J. C. Collins, �� , vol. 26 of �� . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, 10.1017/9781009401807

1984 doi
[74]

Naterop and P

L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, �� , �� (2024) 068 [�� ]

2024
[75]

C. P. Martin and D. Sanchez-Ruiz, �� , �� (2000) 387 [�� ]

2000
[76]

D. Sanchez-Ruiz, �� , �� (2003) 025009 [�� ]

2003
[77]

B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A

H. B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A. Ilakovac, M. Madjor-Bozinovi´ c and D. St¨ ockinger,�� , �� (2020) 024 [�� ]

2020
[78]

B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A

H. B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A. Ilakovac, P. K¨ uhler, M. Madjor-Bozinovi´ c and D. St¨ ockinger,�� ...

2021
[79]

H. B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto,�� , �� (2023) 202 [�� ]

2023
[80]

B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A

H. B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A. Ilakovac, P. K¨ uhler, M. Madjor-Bozinovi´ c, D. St¨ ockinger and M. Weißwange, �� , �� (2023) 622 [�� ]

2023
[81]

St¨ ockinger and M

D. St¨ ockinger and M. Weißwange,�� , �� (2024) 139 [�� ]. – 27 –

2024
[82]

Cornella, F

C. Cornella, F. Feruglio and L. Vecchi, �� , �� (2023) 244 [�� ]

2023
[83]

Olgoso Ruiz and L

P. Olgoso Ruiz and L. Vecchi, �� , �� (2024) 080 [�� ]

2024
[84]

K. G. Chetyrkin, G. Falcioni, F. Herzog and J. A. M. Vermaseren, �� , �� (2017) 179 [�� ]

2017
[85]

A. J. Buras and P. H. Weisz, �� , �� (1990) 66

1990
[86]

M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, �� , �� (1991) 239

1991
[87]

Herrlich and U

S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, �� , �� (1995) 39 [�� ]

1995
[88]

A. J. Buras, �� , in �� , pp. 281–539, 6, 1998, ��

1998
[89]

Zimmermann, �� , �� (1969) 208

W. Zimmermann, �� , �� (1969) 208

1969
[90]

N. N. Bogoliubov and O. S. Parasiuk, �� , �� (1957) 227

1957
[91]

Hepp, �� , �� (1966) 301

K. Hepp, �� , �� (1966) 301

1966
[92]

Bernreuther and W

W. Bernreuther and W. Wetzel, �� , �� (1982) 228

1982
[94]

F. J. Gilman and M. B. Wise, �� , �� (1979) 2392

1979
[95]

Georgi, ��

H. Georgi, �� . 1984. – 28 –

1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [93]

Gauld, B

R. Gauld, B. D. Pecjak and D. J. Scott, �� ¯� �� ¯� �� t ��, �� (2016) 080 [�� ]

work page 2016

[2] [10]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, �� , �� (2013) 087 [�� ]

2013

[3] [11]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, �� , �� (2014) 035 [�� ]

2014

[4] [12]

Alonso, E

R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, �� , �� (2014) 159 [�� ]

2014

[5] [13]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez and E. Sawyer, �� , �� (2020) 051601 [�� ]

2020

[6] [14]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez and E. Sawyer, �� , �� (2020) 211 [�� ]

2020

[7] [15]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop and J. Pag` es, �� , �� (2023) 165 [�� ]

2023

[8] [16]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop and J. Pag` es, �� , �� (2024) 131 [�� ]

work page 2024