Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Analytic reconstruction with massive particles: one-loop amplitudes for $0 \to \bar{q}qt\bar{t}H$

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The one-loop amplitude for $0 \to \bar{q} q t \bar{t} H$ can be written exactly in compact massive spinor-helicity form.

desk verdict First spin-spinor analytic reconstruction for one-loop amplitudes with external massive fermions; credible and useful, with a real but non-fatal caveat about the incomplete Gröbner basis. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19909 v2 pith:Y5Q7TYLU submitted 2025-04-28 hep-ph

John M. Campbell , Giuseppe De Laurentis , R. Keith Ellis This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords analyticreconstructionmassivespinor-helicityone-loopamplitudesttHproductionintegralcoefficientsp-adicsamplingfinite-fieldpartialfractions
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 shows that one-loop scattering amplitudes can be reconstructed analytically even when external particles are massive. It does this for $0 \to \bar{q} q t \bar{t} H$, a subprocess of Higgs production with a top-quark pair at the LHC, writing every integral coefficient in compact massive spinor-helicity form. The calculation embeds the massive five-point kinematics in a massless eight-point phase space for numerical probing, while building the ansatz directly in five-point kinematics to avoid over-parameterization. Partial-fraction decompositions and common numerator factors are identified through primary decompositions in limits where pairs of denominators vanish. The resulting expressions evaluate about twice as fast as automatic numerical code, and the method is aimed at two-loop amplitudes where numerical efficiency is more important.

What carries the argument

The central object is the massive spinor-helicity (spin-spinor) formalism combined with analytic reconstruction in redundant variables. Massive fermion momenta are written as pairs of massless spinors with $SU(2)$ little-group indices, and the five-point massive kinematics is embedded in a fully massless eight-point phase space so that points over finite fields and $p$-adic numbers can be generated; the monomial ansatz for numerators is nevertheless built directly from five-point invariants to keep it minimal. Reconstruction proceeds by iterated pole subtraction: univariate Thiele interpolation over finite fields fixes denominator factors, $p$-adic evaluations near codimension-two varieties reveal partial-fraction structure, and primary decompositions of denominator ideals determine when numerators factor. This yields compact forms for coefficients such as $c_{13\times 24}^{m0m}$ and organizes pole structures involving the Gram determinants $\Delta_{12|3|4|5}$ and $\Delta_{12|34|5}$.

What would settle it

Compute the reconstructed coefficients and the full renormalized amplitude at a previously unused random phase-space point over finite fields and p-adic numbers, and compare with an independent numerical evaluation from a second automatic generator; any discrepancy away from the construction branches would show the incomplete Gröbner basis left a missed redundancy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the one-loop amplitude for $0 \to \bar{q} q t \bar{t} H$ can be expressed exactly as compact analytic functions in the massive spinor-helicity (spin-spinor) formalism, with the $SU(2)$ little-group covariance of the top-quark spin states made explicit. Box, triangle, and bubble integral coefficients are reconstructed, and after subtracting the divergent box integrals the remaining triangle coefficients are proportional to the tree amplitude, so the infrared structure is fully controlled. Ultra-violet renormalization and the known pole structure are imposed explicitly, and the complete amplitude agrees with an automatic numerical evaluation at all tested phase-space points and spin choices.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes that the monomial ansatz, built without a complete Gröbner basis, already contains every numerator polynomial that can appear, with the leftover redundancies removed numerically rather than by proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The complete one-loop coefficient set for the $\bar{q}q t \bar{t}H$ channel is now available in compact analytic form; evaluating the supplied code reproduces the amplitude at any phase-space point and spin choice.
  • The analytic expressions are about twice as fast to evaluate as automatic one-loop generators for this process.
  • Because the reconstruction is built at five-point level while sampling in the embedded eight-point space, the same pipeline can be applied to the other colour structure and to $gg \to t \bar{t} H$, the remaining subprocess of $t\bar{t}H$ production.
  • After subtraction of infrared-divergent boxes, all subtracted triangle coefficients are proportional to the tree amplitude, which fixes the infrared behaviour of the one-loop amplitude in a compact form.
  • The method opens a route to two-loop amplitudes with massive external quarks, where ansatz size and evaluation speed are limiting factors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factor-of-two speedup is probably not the ceiling: the same authors' massless reconstructions achieved larger gains, so further primary decompositions and numerator-factor extractions could narrow the gap for massive processes.
  • The incomplete Gröbner basis is the fragile point; a useful robustness check would be to evaluate the final amplitude on a dense random sample distributed across the full phase space, including points where the numerical redundancy removal was not exercised.
  • The equal-mass constraint on the two heavy quarks was imposed to reduce redundancies; relaxing it should be feasible and would make the method apply to processes with distinct masses such as $t\bar{t}W$ or $t\bar{t}Z$ production.
  • The branch-dependent pole-order analysis used here is a general ansatz-reduction tool: it could be automated to shrink reconstruction problems in other multi-scale amplitudes without deriving every primary decomposition by hand.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytic reconstruction of the one-loop QCD amplitude for 0 to q qbar Q Qbar H, where Q denotes a massive quark, using the massive spinor-helicity (spin-spinor) formalism. The method embeds the five-point massive kinematics into an eight-point fully massless phase space while constructing the fitting ansatz directly in five-point massive variables, and combines this with iterative pole subtraction, primary decompositions of relevant ideals, and partial fraction identities. The authors provide analytic expressions for the integral coefficients, a full ultraviolet renormalization and infrared check, and a comparison with the automatic code OpenLoops. Machine-readable expressions and evaluation code are released in Fortran and Python packages, with finite-field and p-adic evaluations and GitHub Actions tests.

Significance. If correct, this is the first application of analytic reconstruction to amplitudes with massive external fermions in the spin-spinor formalism, extending a line of work that previously handled massive scalars and vectors. The paper is methodologically interesting for future two-loop applications, and the release of the code, the use of finite-field and p-adic phase-space points, and the independent OpenLoops comparison are notable strengths. The claimed numerical efficiency gain (about a factor of two over OpenLoops) is modest but credible. The main risk is the completeness of the monomial ansatz used in the reconstruction, which the paper itself acknowledges in Section 2.2; this is a load-bearing point for the claimed exactness of the analytic results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.18) and (2.20)-(2.23)] The manuscript asserts that the invariant bracket set X in Eq. (2.18) is sufficient and that the fitted ansatz is minimal, but it also states that a complete Grobner basis could not be obtained and that leftover redundancies are removed numerically. Numerical rank reduction on sampled points proves linear independence only on those points, not spanning on the full five-point massive variety. If a generically independent monomial is misclassified as redundant because the samples lie on a subvariety not covered by the primary decompositions, the reconstructed coefficient would agree with the true amplitude only on the sampled region. Since the exactness of the reconstruction is the central claim, this unproven spanning assumption needs to be either removed by a completeness argument or supported by substantially stronger validation.
  2. [Section 4 and Appendix B] The validation of the reconstructed expressions is described only as 'full agreement' with OpenLoops, without specifying the number of phase-space points, their distribution, or whether they cover the relevant branches and codimension-two limits; the GitHub Actions test evaluates the coefficients at a single physical and a single finite-field point. For a rational reconstruction in which the ansatz completeness is not proven, such a sparse check is not a systematic completeness test. The authors should either report the number and nature of the validation points (including p-adic points near all denominator poles) or soften the exactness claims to 'validated at the tested phase-space points'.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.20)] The display of Eq. (2.20) is difficult to parse because of the way the four ansatz combinations are laid out with 'delta' and 'times' symbols; a clearer presentation of the four cases would help the reader.
  2. [Appendix B title] The heading 'Massive Spinors inlips and ant ares' appears to be a typo for 'Massive Spinors in Lips and Antares'.
  3. [Section 2.3, text near Eq. (2.36)] The phrase 'we can make see that it originates' should be 'we can see that it originates'.
  4. [Section 4.1-4.3] Several of the printed coefficient expressions are long and difficult to verify by eye; since the authors already provide machine-readable forms, it would be helpful to state explicitly in each case which expressions are exactly reproduced in the ancillary files and which are only representative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic coefficients are reconstructed from independent numerical evaluations and validated externally with OpenLoops.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a set of compact analytic one-loop integral coefficients for 0 -> qbar q t tbar H. The inputs are numerical evaluations of the true amplitude obtained by standard unitarity cuts and Passarino-Veltman reduction, not by the ansatz or by the final expressions. Section 4 states: "All the integral coefficients have been computed using standard techniques, namely a combination of unitarity cuts (see [43] and references therein) and Passarino-Veltman reduction [44], then simplified using the methods of section 2." The finite-field and p-adic samples are points on the massive five-point variety, and the fitted ansatz parameters are determined from these independent evaluations. The final check is external: "Full agreement has been found when comparing with the automatic code Openloops [47]." The self-citations to refs. [6,18,23,25] supply reconstruction machinery and primary-decomposition tools, but the load-bearing physical content is not imported as an unverified premise; in the one case where a decomposition was previously conjectured, the paper reports it is now proven with Syngular. The acknowledged limitation in Sec. 2.2 — that a complete Grobner basis was not obtained and leftover redundancies are removed numerically — is a completeness/correctness risk for the ansatz, not circularity: an incomplete spanning set could in principle produce wrong coefficients off the sampled points, but the fitted values are still not identical to the output by construction, and the OpenLoops comparison provides an independent cross-check. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. Accordingly, the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical free parameters or new entities are introduced; the ansatz coefficients are fixed by reconstruction from the true amplitude and independently verified. The main load-bearing assumptions are the completeness of the denominator and monomial bases and the standard correctness of spinor-helicity and integral reduction techniques.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The set of irreducible denominator factors D in eq. (2.29) is complete for all integral coefficients.
    Reconstruction relies on these as the only poles; identified by interpolation and symmetry, but completeness is not proven.
  • domain assumption The massive spinor-helicity formalism of ref. [19] correctly represents external massive fermions with the stated SU(2) covariance.
    Standard framework adopted from prior literature; used throughout.
  • domain assumption The five-point massive phase space embeds into the massless eight-point phase space on the variety of eq. (2.16).
    Used to generate finite-field and p-adic sample points.
  • ad hoc to paper Despite the absence of a complete Grobner basis, the monomial ansatz in Sec. 2.2 spans the required space after numerical redundancy removal.
    Authors state they cannot fully remove redundancies analytically; correctness rests on numerical fitting and subsequent cross-checks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic reconstruction with massive particles: one-loop amplitudes for $0 \to \bar{q}qt\bar{t}H$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5Q7TYLU

@misc{pith2026250419909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic reconstruction with massive particles: one-loop amplitudes for $0 \to \barqqt\bartH$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5Q7TYLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19909}
}
abstract

We present an analytic reconstruction of one-loop amplitudes for the process $0 \to \bar{q}qt\bar{t}H$. Our calculation is a novel use of analytic reconstruction, retaining explicit covariance in the massive spin states through the massive spinor-helicity formalism. The analytic reconstruction relies on embedding the massive five-point kinematics in a fully massless eight-point phase space while still building a minimal ansatz directly in the five-point phase space. In order to obtain compact analytic expressions it is necessary to identify suitable partial fraction decompositions and extract common numerator factors, which we achieve through careful inspection of limits in which pairs of denominators vanish. We find that the resulting amplitudes are more numerically efficient than ones computed using automatic methods but that the gains are not as significant as in the massless case, at least at present. The method opens the door to applications at two-loop order, where numerical efficiency and improvements in the reconstruction methodology are more crucial, especially with regards to the number of free parameters in the ansatz.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. An analytic result for the $0 \to ggHHH$ amplitude

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The authors present the complete leading-order one-loop amplitude for gg to HHH in closed analytic form, with full top and bottom quark mass dependence, validated against two independent numerical programs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Peraro,Scattering amplitudes over finite fields and multivariate functional reconstruction, JHEP 12 (2016) 030 [1608.01902]

    T. Peraro,Scattering amplitudes over finite fields and multivariate functional reconstruction, JHEP 12 (2016) 030 [1608.01902]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    von Manteuffel and R.M

    A. von Manteuffel and R.M. Schabinger,A novel approach to integration by parts reduction, Phys. Lett. B744 (2015) 101 [1406.4513]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Abreu, F

    S. Abreu, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, M. Jaquier, B. Page and M. Zeng,Two-Loop Four-Gluon Amplitudes from Numerical Unitarity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 142001 [1703.05273]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Badger, C

    S. Badger, C. Brønnum-Hansen, H.B. Hartanto and T. Peraro,Analytic helicity amplitudes for two-loop five-gluon scattering: the single-minus case, JHEP 01 (2019) 186 [1811.11699]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Abreu, J

    S. Abreu, J. Dormans, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita and B. Page,Analytic Form of Planar Two-Loop Five-Gluon Scattering Amplitudes in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 082002 [1812.04586]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    De Laurentis and D

    G. De Laurentis and D. Maître,Extracting analytical one-loop amplitudes from numerical evaluations, JHEP 07 (2019) 123 [1904.04067]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Reina, S

    L. Reina, S. Dawson and D. Wackeroth,QCD corrections to associated t anti-t h production at the Tevatron, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 053017 [hep-ph/0109066]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Dawson, L.H

    S. Dawson, L.H. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth,Associated top quark Higgs boson production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 071503 [hep-ph/0211438]

    arXiv 2003

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, B. Plumper, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas,Higgs radiation off top quarks at the Tevatron and the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.87 (2001) 201805 [hep-ph/0107081]

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Beenakker, S

    W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, B. Plumper, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas,NLO QCD corrections to t anti-t H production in hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 653 (2003) 151 [hep-ph/0211352]

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Catani, I

    S. Catani, I. Fabre, M. Grazzini and S. Kallweit,t¯tH production at NNLO: the flavour off-diagonal channels, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 491 [2102.03256]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. Chen, C. Ma, G. Wang, L.L. Yang and X. Ye,Two-loop infrared singularities in the production of a Higgs boson associated with a top-quark pair, JHEP 04 (2022) 025 [2202.02913]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Febres Cordero, G

    F. Febres Cordero, G. Figueiredo, M. Kraus, B. Page and L. Reina,Two-Loop Master Integrals for Leading-Colorpp→t¯tH Amplitudes with a Light-Quark Loop, 2312.08131

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Buccioni, P.A

    F. Buccioni, P.A. Kreer, X. Liu and L. Tancredi,One loop QCD corrections to gg→ ttH at O ϵ2 , JHEP 03 (2024) 093 [2312.10015]. – 33 –

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli and C. Savoini,Higgs Boson Production in Association with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair in Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 111902 [2210.07846]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Devoto, M

    S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, J. Mazzitelli and C. Savoini,Precise predictions forttH production at the LHC: inclusive cross section and differential distributions, JHEP 03 (2025) 189 [2411.15340]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Balsach et al.,State-of-the-art cross sections for ttH: NNLO predictions matched with NNLL resummation and EW corrections, 3, 2025 [2503.15043]

    R. Balsach et al.,State-of-the-art cross sections for ttH: NNLO predictions matched with NNLL resummation and EW corrections, 3, 2025 [2503.15043]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    De Laurentis and B

    G. De Laurentis and B. Page,Ansätze for scattering amplitudes from p-adic numbers and algebraic geometry, JHEP 12 (2022) 140 [2203.04269]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins, JHEP 11 (2021) 070 [1709.04891]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ochirov,Helicity amplitudes for QCD with massive quarks, JHEP 04 (2018) 089 [1802.06730]

    A. Ochirov,Helicity amplitudes for QCD with massive quarks, JHEP 04 (2018) 089 [1802.06730]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Shadmi and Y

    Y. Shadmi and Y. Weiss,Effective Field Theory Amplitudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons, JHEP 02 (2019) 165 [1809.09644]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Budge, J.M

    L. Budge, J.M. Campbell, G. De Laurentis, R.K. Ellis and S. Seth,The one-loop amplitudes for Higgs + 4 partons with full mass effects, JHEP 05 (2020) 079 [2002.04018]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Campbell, G

    J.M. Campbell, G. De Laurentis and R.K. Ellis,Analytic amplitudes for a pair of Higgs bosons in association with three partons, JHEP 10 (2024) 230 [2408.12686]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    De Laurentis, H

    G. De Laurentis, H. Ita, B. Page and V. Sotnikov,Compact Two-Loop QCD Corrections for Vjj Production in Proton Collisions, 2503.10595

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Campbell, G

    J.M. Campbell, G. De Laurentis and R.K. Ellis,Vector boson pair production at one loop: analytic results for the processqqℓℓℓ′ℓ ′ g, JHEP 07 (2022) 096 [2203.17170]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Conde and A

    E. Conde and A. Marzolla,Lorentz Constraints on Massive Three-Point Amplitudes, JHEP 09 (2016) 041 [1601.08113]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Conde, E

    E. Conde, E. Joung and K. Mkrtchyan,Spinor-Helicity Three-Point Amplitudes from Local Cubic Interactions, JHEP 08 (2016) 040 [1605.07402]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Marzolla,The 4D on-shell 3-point amplitude in spinor-helicity formalism and BCFW recursion relations, PoS Modave2016 (2017) 002 [1705.09678]

    A. Marzolla,The 4D on-shell 3-point amplitude in spinor-helicity formalism and BCFW recursion relations, PoS Modave2016 (2017) 002 [1705.09678]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    G. De Laurentis,Lips: p-adic and singular phase space, in21th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research: AI meets Reality, 5, 2023 [2305.14075]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/syngular: v0.5.0, Apr., 2025

    G. De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/syngular: v0.5.0, Apr., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15270943

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Chawdhry,p-adic reconstruction of rational functions in multiloop amplitudes, Phys

    H.A. Chawdhry,p-adic reconstruction of rational functions in multiloop amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 056028 [2312.03672]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ellis and G

    R.K. Ellis and G. Zanderighi,Scalar one-loop integrals for QCD, JHEP 02 (2008) 002 [0712.1851]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    van Hameren,OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions, Comput

    A. van Hameren,OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2427 [1007.4716]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Carrazza, R.K

    S. Carrazza, R.K. Ellis and G. Zanderighi,QCDLoop: a comprehensive framework for one-loop scalar integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.209 (2016) 134 [1605.03181]. – 34 –

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Badger, J.M

    S. Badger, J.M. Campbell and R.K. Ellis,QCD Corrections to the Hadronic Production of a Heavy Quark Pair and a W-Boson Including Decay Correlations, JHEP 03 (2011) 027 [1011.6647]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier and Z. Trocsanyi,One loop singular behavior of QCD and SUSY QCD amplitudes with massive partons, Phys. Lett. B500 (2001) 149 [hep-ph/0011222]

    2001 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sterman and M.E

    G.F. Sterman and M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans,Multiloop amplitudes and resummation, Phys. Lett. B 552 (2003) 48 [hep-ph/0210130]

    2003 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert,On the Structure of Infrared Singularities of Gauge-Theory Amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2009) 081 [0903.1126]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert,Infrared singularities of QCD amplitudes with massive partons, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 125004 [0904.1021]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ferroglia, M

    A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak and L.L. Yang,Two-loop divergences of massive scattering amplitudes in non-abelian gauge theories, JHEP 11 (2009) 062 [0908.3676]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ferroglia, M

    A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak and L.L. Yang,Two-loop divergences of scattering amplitudes with massive partons, Phys. Rev. Lett.103 (2009) 201601 [0907.4791]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Broggio, A

    A. Broggio, A. Ferroglia, B.D. Pecjak, A. Signer and L.L. Yang,Associated production of a top pair and a Higgs boson beyond NLO, JHEP 03 (2016) 124 [1510.01914]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ellis, Z

    R.K. Ellis, Z. Kunszt, K. Melnikov and G. Zanderighi,One-loop calculations in quantum field theory: from Feynman diagrams to unitarity cuts, Phys. Rept. 518 (2012) 141 [1105.4319]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Passarino and M.J.G

    G. Passarino and M.J.G. Veltman,One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 151

    1979

  37. [45]

    De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/antares: v0.7.0, Apr., 2025

    G. De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/antares: v0.7.0, Apr., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15275896

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/antares-results: v0.0.3; see also gdelaurentis.github.io/antares-results, Apr., 2025

    G. De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/antares-results: v0.0.3; see also gdelaurentis.github.io/antares-results, Apr., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15276726

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    Buccioni, J.-N

    F. Buccioni, J.-N. Lang, J.M. Lindert, P. Maierhöfer, S. Pozzorini, H. Zhang et al., OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 866 [1907.13071]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Campbell, S

    J.M. Campbell, S. Höche and C.T. Preuss,Accelerating LHC phenomenology with analytic one-loop amplitudes: A C++ interface to MCFM, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 1117 [2107.04472]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kleiss and W.J

    R. Kleiss and W.J. Stirling,Spinor Techniques for Calculating p anti-p→W±/Z0 + Jets, Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 235

    1985

  42. [50]

    De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/lips: v0.5.0, Apr., 2025

    G. De Laurentis,github.com/GDeLaurentis/lips: v0.5.0, Apr., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15275258

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    Singular 4-4-0 — A computer algebra system for polynomial computations

    W. Decker, G.-M. Greuel, G. Pfister and H. Schönemann, “Singular 4-4-0 — A computer algebra system for polynomial computations.”http://www.singular.uni-kl.de, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    De Laurentis,github.com/DeLaurentis/pyadic: v0.2.4, Apr., 2025

    G. De Laurentis,github.com/DeLaurentis/pyadic: v0.2.4, Apr., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15270564

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    Melrose,Reduction of Feynman diagrams, Nuovo Cim

    D.B. Melrose,Reduction of Feynman diagrams, Nuovo Cim. 40 (1965) 181

    1965

  46. [54]

    van Neerven and J.A.M

    W.L. van Neerven and J.A.M. Vermaseren,Large loop integrals, Phys. Lett. B137 (1984) 241

    1984

  47. [55]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and D.A. Kosower,Dimensionally regulated pentagon integrals, Nucl. Phys. B 412 (1994) 751 [hep-ph/9306240]. – 35 –

    1994 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.