Scale-invariant total decay width $\Gamma(H\to b\bar{b})$ using the novel method of characteristic operator

Jiang Yan; Jian-Ming Shen; Xing-Gang Wu; Xu-Dong Huang; Zhi-Fei Wu

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Scale-invariant total decay width $\Gamma(H\to b\bar{b})$ using the novel method of characteristic operator

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A characteristic operator makes the four-loop Higgs-to-bottom decay width independent of the renormalization scale.

desk verdict A solid, internally consistent method paper that extends PMC single-scale setting to running masses via a characteristic operator; the H->bbar number is not numerically new, and the scheme-invariance claim depends on a contested convention about gamma_SS nf terms that the paper does not quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15402 v2 pith:ZCD6O4ZX submitted 2024-11-23 hep-ph

Jiang Yan , Xing-Gang Wu , Jian-Ming Shen , Xu-Dong Huang , Zhi-Fei Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords characteristicoperatorprincipleofmaximumconformalityrenormalization-scaleambiguityHiggsdecaytobottomquarksrunningquarkmassN4LOQCDcorrectionsBayesianuncertaintyestimate

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 tries to prove that a single mathematical operator, the characteristic operator, lets the principle of maximum conformality fix the strong coupling and the running bottom-quark mass at the same time, producing a perturbative prediction that is independent of the arbitrary renormalization scale. It applies this to the dominant decay of the Standard-Model Higgs boson, $H \to b\bar b$, at fourth-order QCD accuracy. The result is a single effective scale $Q_* = 55.2916$ GeV and a decay width $\Gamma(H\to b\bar b) = 2.3819^{+0.0230}_{-0.0231}$ MeV with the scale ambiguity removed. If true, this would make the theory prediction genuinely scheme-and-scale invariant and give a cleaner foundation for estimating missing higher-order terms.

What carries the argument

The characteristic operator is defined as $\hat D_{n_\gamma,n_\beta} = n_\gamma\gamma_m + n_\beta\,\beta/\alpha_s + \beta\,\partial/\partial\alpha_s$, where $\beta(\alpha_s)$ and $\gamma_m(\alpha_s)$ are the renormalization-group functions for the strong coupling and the $\overline{\rm MS}$ quark mass. It packages the scale-running of both quantities in a single object, so that repeated application generates the scale-displacement relation and the new QCD degeneracy relations used to split the series into conformal and non-conformal parts. In the $H\to b\bar b$ application, the coefficients of the two-point correlator and the anomalous dimension $\gamma_{SS}$ are inserted into this machinery; demanding that all non-conformal terms vanish fixes $Q_*$ and leaves a conformal series $\sum r_{i,0}\alpha_s^{i-1}(Q_*)$ multiplying $\overline m_b^2(Q_*)$.

What would settle it

Recompute the N$^4$LO width with the alternative $\beta$-expansion prescription for the $\gamma_{SS}$ $n_f$ terms (the approach of Ref. [90]); if $Q_*$ and $\Gamma(H\to b\bar b)$ move outside the quoted $\pm0.023$ MeV error band, the non-absorption rule is the decisive assumption. Independently, adding the O($\alpha_s^3$) finite bottom-mass effect of Ref. [59] would test the massless-quark approximation at the permille level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme and treating the QCD corrections as massless, the paper demonstrates that all non-conformal $\{\beta_i\}$-terms in the N$^4$LO series for $\Gamma(H\to b\bar b)$ can be absorbed into a single effective coupling $\alpha_s(Q_*)$ and a single effective running mass $\overline m_b(Q_*)$ simultaneously. With the characteristic-operator form of the PMC single-scale equations, the effective scale is fixed to N$^3$LL accuracy, $Q_* = 55.2916$ GeV, and the resulting conformal series is independent of the initial renormalization scale. The central prediction is $\Gamma(H\to b\bar b)|_{\rm PMC} = 2.3819^{+0.0230}_{-0.0231}$ MeV, with errors obtained by adding in quadrature the effects of $\Delta\alpha_s(M_Z)$, $\Delta M_H$, $\Delta\overline m_b(\overline m_b)$, and a Bayesian estimate of the uncalculated N$^5$LO contribution ($\pm0.0001$ MeV at 95.5% degree of belief).

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on whether the flavour-number terms in the anomalous dimension $\gamma_{SS}$ should stay out of the effective coupling; the paper keeps them as fixed conformal coefficients, whereas an alternative $\beta$-expansion treatment would absorb them and shift both $Q_*$ and the width.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The N$^4$LO total width no longer depends on the initial renormalization scale, with the effective scale fixed at $Q_* = 55.2916$ GeV to N$^3$LL accuracy.
The PMC series converges substantially faster than the conventional series: the higher-order fractional contributions drop from $\{20.3\%, 3.7\%, 0.19\%, 0.14\%\}$ at $\mu_r = M_H$ to $\{6.8\%, 0.67\%, 0.04\%, 0.01\%\}$.
The total uncertainty is dominated by $\Delta\alpha_s(M_Z)$, which contributes about $\pm0.021$ MeV of the quoted $\pm0.023$ MeV, so the precision benefit depends mainly on how well the strong coupling is known.
The Bayesian estimate of the uncalculated N$^5$LO term is $\pm0.0001$ MeV for the PMC series, compared with $+0.0004/-0.0024$ MeV for the conventional series over $\mu_r \in [M_H/2, 2M_H]$.
Because the PMC and conventional central values agree within conventional scale errors, the practical consequence is a scale-independent prediction with a defensible error budget rather than a numerically very different width.

Reading between the lines

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

The operator construction is not limited to $\alpha_s$ and the quark mass: any renormalization-group-evolving input, such as a parton distribution or fragmentation function with an anomalous dimension of the same form, could in principle be handled the same way, though the paper only demonstrates the quark-mass case.
Applying the same operator machinery to $H\to gg$, or to the ratio $\Gamma(H\to b\bar b)/\Gamma(H\to gg)$, would test whether the simultaneous-running scheme remains scale invariant when the mass factor does not enter the leading order in the same way.
If a future high-precision measurement of $\Gamma(H\to b\bar b)$ approaches the quoted uncertainty, the scale-invariant series could be inverted to extract $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ more precisely, a direction the paper only hints at in its closing remark.

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

Two things before you read it. The characteristic operator is a genuinely useful formal device: it gives a compact derivation of the PMC single-scale formulas when alpha_s and an MS-scheme mass run simultaneously, and it extends cleanly to other RGE-running quantities. That part is solid. The numerical H->bbar example, though, is not a big departure--2.3819 MeV sits 0.1% from the conventional 2.3842 MeV, within uncertainties--and the 'scheme-and-scale invariant' claim rests on a convention that the authors themselves flag but do not defend quantitatively.

Credit where due. The derivation in Sec. 2 is coherent; the degeneracy relations reduce to earlier PMCs forms in the right limit; Appendix C supplies all input coefficients and the quoted quadrature errors match the stated inputs. I checked the key relations and found no internal numerical inconsistency. The paper is also honest about the massless-quark approximation and about the contested treatment of nf terms in gamma_SS. That is more than many papers in this area do.

Soft spots. The load-bearing choice is the treatment of the nf terms in gamma_SS. The authors keep them as conformal coefficients, arguing by analogy with the QED photon anomalous dimension in the Adler function. That analogy is exactly what Kataev and collaborators dispute, and it matters: Q* is fixed by Eq. (2.24) using only the j>=1 non-conformal sector, so if those gamma_SS nf terms should be beta-expanded, Q* and the extracted width shift. App. D gives a conceptual argument but no numerical estimate of the alternative. This is the one thing I would want resolved before trusting the central claim. The second issue is minor: the O(alpha_s^3) finite-mb effect from Ref. [59] is neglected with a massless-quark argument and no permille-level estimate. Third, the practical gain is modest because the N4LO conventional series already has small scale dependence and the dominant uncertainty is external alpha_s. That is not a flaw, but it means the paper's value is mainly methodological.

Bottom line: this is a serious, checkable paper for people who work on renormalization-scale setting. It deserves a referee, not a desk rejection. Ask the authors to quantify the alternative gamma_SS treatment and the massless-quark error; then the conditional verdict can be resolved.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'characteristic operator' Dhat_{n_gamma,n_beta} (Eq. (2.6)) that packages the beta-function and the quark-mass anomalous dimension into a single differential operator, allowing a compact derivation of scale-displacement relations, QCD degeneracy relations, and PMC single-scale formulas that run alpha_s and the MS mass simultaneously. The formalism is applied to Gamma(H -> b bbar) at N4LO in the massless approximation: the PMC scale is fixed to Q* = 55.2916 GeV (Eq. (4.1)) and the scale-invariant width is Gamma(H -> b bbar)|_PMC = 2.3819^{+0.0230}_{-0.0231} MeV (Eq. (4.13)), with uncertainties from Delta alpha_s(M_Z), Delta M_H, Delta m_b, and a Bayesian estimate of the N5LO contribution. All operator coefficients and input series are listed in Appendices A-C.

Significance. The CO formalism is a useful technical generalization of PMCs: it unifies the treatment of running coupling and running mass, simplifies the degeneracy relations, and is presented with enough coefficient-level detail that the derivation can be checked step by step. The numerical outcome is transparent and the claimed scale independence is explicitly demonstrated (Fig. 2, Eq. (4.13)); the result is consistent with the conventional N4LO prediction within the quoted uncertainties. The framework would be a valuable benchmark if the two load-bearing caveats identified below are resolved; as it stands, the central value and its precision statement depend on a contested convention for how n_f terms in the anomalous dimension gamma_SS are classified. The paper deserves credit for listing all input coefficients and for giving a clear Bayesian procedure for the uncalculated N5LO term.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3, App. D, Eqs. (2.24), (3.9), (3.10)] The central numerical result depends on the decision, stated in Sec. 3 and defended in App. D, that the n_f terms in the anomalous dimension gamma_SS are 'not RGE-involved' and are therefore retained as conformal coefficients r_{i,0} (Eq. (3.9)) instead of being converted into {beta_i}-terms before solving Eq. (2.24) for Q*. This choice is load-bearing: if one instead follows the beta-expansion treatment advocated in Ref. [90] and related literature, the degeneracy relations (2.17)-(2.21), the resulting Q*, and therefore Eq. (4.13) would all shift. App. D argues by analogy with the QED photon anomalous dimension in the Adler function, but that analogy is precisely the point disputed in Refs. [89]-[92]. Please provide a quantitative sensitivity check: repeat the PMC scale-setting with the alternative treatment of the gamma_SS n_f terms and report the shift in Q* and Gamma(H -> b bbar), or give a direct RGI-based proof specific to gamma_SS showing why these terms cannot enter Eq. (2.24). Without this, the uniqueness of Q* = 55.2916 GeV as 'the' PMC scale is not established.
[Sec. 1, Sec. 4, Ref. [59]] The analysis is restricted to massless quarks in the QCD corrections (Sec. 1), yet Eq. (4.13) is quoted as the total decay width Gamma(H -> b bbar) with a permille-level central value and a detailed error budget. The known O(alpha_s^3) finite-bottom-mass corrections of Ref. [59] are not included and their numerical size is not estimated. These corrections could be comparable to the Bayesian UHO error Delta Gamma = +/- 0.0001 MeV quoted in Sec. 4.2, and they are certainly relevant for a four-significant-digit central value. Please either include the mass effects, provide a numerical estimate of their contribution to the error budget, or state explicitly throughout the abstract and Sec. 4 that the quoted width applies only to the massless-quark approximation.
[Abstract, Sec. 5] The paper states in the abstract and Sec. 5 that the CO framework 'achieves a scheme-and-scale invariant pQCD series.' The numerical evidence in Sec. 4 concerns scale independence only: Eq. (3.10) is constructed to be independent of the initial renormalization scale, and Fig. 2 displays this explicitly. Scheme independence is not demonstrated for the H -> b bbar series; the coefficients r_{i,0} are MS-scheme quantities and the CO is built from the MS-scheme beta and gamma_m. Please state explicitly which previous general PMC result (e.g., Ref. [22]) guarantees scheme invariance in the present case, or provide a numerical scheme-variation check. As written, the scheme-invariance claim goes beyond what this paper demonstrates.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (2.12)] Eq. (2.12) uses binomial coefficients C_i^k, while C_k^j is defined just below with reversed indices; the notation should be made consistent.
[Eq. (4.8)] Eq. (4.8): the two cases of the Bayesian coefficient are garbled in the typeset formula; the conditions should read DoB <= p/(p+1) and DoB >= p/(p+1).
[Appendix heading] The appendix heading reads 'Appdendix'; this should be corrected.
[Sec. 4.2] Sec. 4.2 contains 'a truncated perturbation series cannot not automatically satisfy'; the double negative should be removed.
[Abstract] The abstract says 'errors are squared averages'; the quoted uncertainties are combined in quadrature, so the phrase should be 'quadrature sum' or 'root-sum-square', not 'squared averages'.
[Fig. 3 caption] Figure 3 has a dense legend; please spell out in the caption which symbols correspond to which scale choice and order, and ensure that the text's description of 'red solid squares' matches the figure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scale-invariant series is scale-invariant by construction of Q*, but the numerical width is an honest computation from external N4LO coefficients and PDG inputs.

self definitional [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.24); Sec. 3, Eq. (3.10); Abstract]
"For a fixed-order pQCD approximant of the kernel function R, such as up to α^{n−1}_s-order, one can thus determine the PMC scale Q_* by solving the following equation, [sum of non-conformal terms] = 0 ... achieves a scheme-and-scale invariant pQCD series by fixing the correct effective magnitude of α_s and the running mass simultaneously."

Q_* is defined by Eq. (2.24) as the solution that makes the non-conformal (RGE-involved) part of the series vanish. The final conformal series Eq. (3.10) is then evaluated at this very Q_*, so its scale independence is imposed by the defining equation rather than derived from an independent condition. This is the intended PMC construction, not a fit to the observable; the numerical value Γ=2.3819 MeV still comes from external fixed-order coefficients and PDG inputs. The self-definitional character is real but benign: 'scale-invariant' is a property built into the definition of Q_*.

full rationale

The central numerical result is an honest reorganization of externally computed N4LO coefficients (Baikov/Chetyrkin/Kuhn) plus PDG inputs; Q* is fixed by an internal RGE-consistency condition, not by matching Γ. The contested treatment of γSS nf-terms (App. D) is an assumption defended by analogy, not a circular reduction: adopting the alternative β-expansion would shift Q* and Γ, but the paper's derivation does not presuppose its own conclusion. Scheme-invariance is cited to Refs. [22,24] by overlapping authors, but those are published parameter-free proofs, so they count as independent support. The only definitional element is the scale-invariance property itself, which follows from the way Q* is defined; this does not contaminate the numerical prediction. Score 2 reflects one self-definitional aspect, with the derivation otherwise self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD RGE inputs, four-loop coefficients from the literature, and two approximations specific to this analysis: the massless-quark truncation and the treatment of gamma_SS nf terms. The latter is contested and is the main source of residual uncertainty in the method's application. The CO operator itself is a mathematical construction rather than a new physical entity.

free parameters (1)

Degree-of-belief for Bayesian UHO estimate = 95.5%
Chosen confidence level for the Bayesian estimate of uncalculated N5LO terms; it sets the half-width of the predicted interval but does not affect the central value (Sec. 4.2).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption RGEs for alpha_s and m_q with five-loop beta and gamma functions (Eqs. 2.7-2.8)
Standard QCD input taken from prior literature and not derived in this paper.
domain assumption Massless-quark approximation for QCD corrections up to N4LO (Sec. 3)
Authors assume mb << MH and neglect O(alpha_s^3) finite-mass effects from Ref. [59]; this affects the claimed permille-level precision but is not numerically quantified.
ad hoc to paper nf terms in gamma_SS are not RGE-involved and must not be absorbed when setting alpha_s (Sec. 3 and App. D)
A methodological choice for constructing the beta-pattern; contested by Kataev et al. If wrong, Q* and Gamma shift.
domain assumption Validity of the PMC degeneracy relations (Eqs. 2.17-2.21)
These relations map scale-dependent coefficients to beta/gamma functions and rely on the completeness of the nf-to-beta transformation.
domain assumption Input coefficients Pi_k and gamma_SS^k from Refs. [51,52] (App. C)
External four-loop results used as input for the H->bbar calculation.

invented entities (1)

Characteristic operator Dhat_{n_gamma,n_beta}
purpose: Formal device to derive scale-displacement relations and PMC degeneracy relations with simultaneous running of alpha_s and quark mass
Defined in Eq. (2.6) from the RGE; it is a mathematical operator, not a physical entity, so it has no independent empirical handle. Its value is judged by usefulness, not by experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scale-invariant total decay width $\Gamma(H\to b\bar{b})$ using the novel method of characteristic operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCD6O4ZX

@misc{pith2026241115402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scale-invariant total decay width $\Gamma(H\to b\barb)$ using the novel method of characteristic operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCD6O4ZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15402}
}

abstract

In this paper, a novel method via using the characteristic operator~(CO) ${\cal \hat{D}}_{n_{\gamma}, n_{\beta}}$ is proposed to extend the applicability of PMC, which is a theoretical generalization of previous PMC single-scale setting approach. Using the CO formulism, we are able to facilitate the derivation of complex scenarios within a structured theoretical framework, leading to simpler procedures and more compact expressions. The CO framework not only streamlines derivations for complex scenarios, yielding simplified procedures and more compact expressions, but also achieves a scheme-and-scale invariant pQCD series by fixing the correct effective magnitude of $\alpha_s$ and the running mass simultaneously. Both are well matched with the expansion coefficients of the series, leading to the wanted scheme-and-scale invariant conformal series. As an example, we show the achievement of scale-invariant N$^{4}$LO total decay width $\Gamma(H\to b\bar{b})$ under the $\overline{\rm MS}$-scheme. Using the CO framework, its effective coupling $\alpha_{s}(Q_{*})$ and effective $b$-quark $\overline{\rm MS}$-mass $\overline{m}_{b}(Q_{*})$ are determined by absorbing all non-conformal $\{\beta_{i}\}$-terms from the renormalization group equations for either $\alpha_s$ or $\overline{m}_{b}$ simultaneously. The PMC scale is fixed up to N$^3$LL-accuracy, $Q_{*} = 55.2916$~GeV and a scale-invariant total decay width is obtained, $\Gamma(H \to b\bar{b}) = 2.3819 _{-0.0231}^{+0.0230}$~MeV, whose errors are squared averages of the ones associated with $\Delta \alpha_{s}(M_{Z}) = \pm 0.0009$, $\Delta M_{H} = 0.11$~GeV, $\Delta \overline{m}_{b}(\overline{m}_{b}) = \pm 0.007$~GeV, and the uncalculated N$^{5}$LO contributions $\Delta\Gamma= \pm0.0001$~MeV predicted via Bayesian analysis with the degree-of-belief ${\rm DoB}=95.5\%$.

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

Higgs boson decay to massive bottom quarks at order $\alpha_s^4$ induced by top-quark Yukawa couplings
hep-ph 2026-03 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The O(α_s^4) top-Yukawa-induced correction to H→bb is computed analytically, increasing the width by 0.4% and lowering scale uncertainty to 0.4%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[59]

J. Wang, X. Wang and Y. Wang, Analytic decay width of the Higgs b oson to massive bottom quarks at order α3 s, [arXiv:2411.07493 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv
[90]

A. L. Kataev and S. V. Mikhailov, Generalization of the Brodsky- Lepage-Mackenzie optimization within the β-expansion and the principle of maximal conformality, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), 014007

work page 2015
[89]

H. H. Ma, X. G. Wu, Y. Ma, S. J. Brodsky and M. Mojaza, Setting the renormalization scale in perturbative QCD: Comparisons of the principle of maximum confor mality with the sequential extended Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie approach, Ph ys. Rev. D 91, 094028 (2015)

work page 2015
[92]

A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, Decomposed photon anoma lous dimension in QCD and the β-expanded representations for the Adler function, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), 096027

work page 2023
[22]

X. G. Wu, J. M. Shen, B. L. Du and S. J. Brodsky, Novel demons tration of the renormalization group invariance of the ﬁxed-order predictions us ing the principle of maximum conformality and the C-scheme coupling, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094030 (2018)

work page 2018
[1]

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gaug e Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973)

1973
[2]

H. D. Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interac tions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973)

1973
[3]

E. C. G. Stueckelberg de Breidenbach and A. Petermann, Norma lization of constants in the quanta theory, Helv. Phys. Acta 26, 499 (1953)

1953

Show all 97 references

[4]

Peterman, Renormalization Group and the Deep Structure of the Proton, Phys

A. Peterman, Renormalization Group and the Deep Structure of the Proton, Phys. Rept. 53, 157 (1979)

1979
[5]

C. G. Callan, Jr., Broken scale invariance in scalar ﬁeld theory, Phy s. Rev. D 2, 1541 (1970)

1970
[6]

Symanzik, Small distance behavior in ﬁeld theory and power cou nting, Commun

K. Symanzik, Small distance behavior in ﬁeld theory and power cou nting, Commun. Math. Phys. 18, 227 (1970)

1970
[7]

X. G. Wu, S. J. Brodsky and M. Mojaza, The Renormalization Scale -Setting Problem in QCD, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 72, 44 (2013)

2013
[8]

Renormalization Group Invariance and Optimal QCD Renormalization Scale-Setting,

X. G. Wu, Y. Ma, S. Q. Wang, H. B. Fu, H. H. Ma, S. J. Brodsky and M. Mojaza, “Renormalization Group Invariance and Optimal QCD Renormalization Scale-Setting,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 78, 126201 (2015)

2015
[9]

S. J. Brodsky and X. G. Wu, Scale Setting Using the Extended Ren ormalization Group and the Principle of Maximum Conformality: the QCD Coupling Constant at F our Loops, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034038 (2012), [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 86, 079903 (2012)]

2012
[10]

S. J. Brodsky and X. G. Wu, Eliminating the Renormalization Scale A mbiguity for Top-Pair Production Using the Principle of Maximum Conformality, Phys. Rev. L ett. 109, 042002 (2012)

2012
[11]

S. J. Brodsky and L. Di Giustino, Setting the Renormalization Sc ale in QCD: The Principle of Maximum Conformality, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085026 (2012)

2012
[12]

Mojaza, S

M. Mojaza, S. J. Brodsky and X. G. Wu, Systematic All-Orders M ethod to Eliminate Renormalization-Scale and Scheme Ambiguities in Perturbative QCD, P hys. Rev. Lett. 110, 192001 (2013)

2013
[13]

S. J. Brodsky, M. Mojaza and X. G. Wu, Systematic Scale-Sett ing to All Orders: The Principle of Maximum Conformality and Commensurate Scale Relations, Phys. Rev. D 89, 014027 (2014)

2014
[14]

S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage and P. B. Mackenzie, On the Eliminat ion of Scale Ambiguities in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 28, 228 (1983)

1983
[15]

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories - I, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3633 (1973)

1973
[16]

H. D. Politzer, Asymptotic Freedom: An Approach to Strong In teractions, Phys. Rept. 14, 129 (1974)

1974
[17]

H. Y. Bi, X. G. Wu, Y. Ma, H. H. Ma, S. J. Brodsky and M. Mojaza, Degeneracy Relations in QCD and the Equivalence of Two Systematic All-Orders Methods for Setting the Renormalization Scale, Phys. Lett. B 748, 13 (2015). – 21 –

2015
[18]

Gell-Mann and F

M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low, Quantum electrodynamics at small dis tances, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954)

1954
[19]

S. J. Brodsky and P. Huet, Aspects of SU(N(c)) gauge theor ies in the limit of small number of colors, Phys. Lett. B 417, 145 (1998)

1998
[20]

J. M. Shen, X. G. Wu, B. L. Du and S. J. Brodsky, Novel All-Orde rs Single-Scale Approach to QCD Renormalization Scale-Setting, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094006 (2017)

2017
[21]

J. Yan, Z. F. Wu, J. M. Shen and X. G. Wu, Precise perturbative predictions from ﬁxed-order calculations, J. Phys. G 50, 045001 (2023)

2023
[23]

S. J. Brodsky and X. G. Wu, Self-Consistency Requirements of the Renormalization Group for Setting the Renormalization Scale, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054018 (2012)

2012
[24]

X. G. Wu, J. M. Shen, B. L. Du, X. D. Huang, S. Q. Wang and S. J. Brodsky, The QCD renormalization group equation and the elimination of ﬁxed-order sc heme-and-scale ambiguities using the principle of maximum conformality, Prog. Part. N ucl. Phys. 108, 103706 (2019)

2019
[25]

Grunberg, Renormalization Group Improved Perturbative Q CD, Phys

G. Grunberg, Renormalization Group Improved Perturbative Q CD, Phys. Lett. B 95, 70 (1980) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 110, 501 (1982)]

1980
[26]

Grunberg, Renormalization Scheme Independent QCD and QE D: The Method of Eﬀective Charges, Phys

G. Grunberg, Renormalization Scheme Independent QCD and QE D: The Method of Eﬀective Charges, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2315 (1984)

1984
[27]

Grunberg, On Some Ambiguities in the Method of Eﬀective Char ges, Phys

G. Grunberg, On Some Ambiguities in the Method of Eﬀective Char ges, Phys. Rev. D 40, 680 (1989)

1989
[28]

Beneke and V

M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Naive nonAbelianization and resumma tion of fermion bubble chains, Phys. Lett. B 348, 513 (1995)

1995
[29]

Neubert, Scale setting in QCD and the momentum ﬂow in Feynma n diagrams, Phys

M. Neubert, Scale setting in QCD and the momentum ﬂow in Feynma n diagrams, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5924 (1995)

1995
[30]

Beneke, Renormalons, Phys

M. Beneke, Renormalons, Phys. Rept. 317, 1 (1999)

1999
[31]

X. C. Zheng, X. G. Wu, S. Q. Wang, J. M. Shen and Q. L. Zhang, R eanalysis of the BFKL Pomeron at the next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy, JHEP 10, 117 (2013)

2013
[32]

Di Giustino, S

L. Di Giustino, S. J. Brodsky, P. G. Ratcliﬀe, X. G. Wu and S. Q. W ang, High precision tests of QCD without scale or scheme ambiguities: The 40th anniversary of the Brodsky–Lepage–Mackenzie method, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135, 104092 (2024)

2024
[33]

X. D. Huang, X. G. Wu, X. C. Zheng, J. Yan, Z. F. Wu and H. H. Ma , Precise determination of the top-quark on-shell mass via its scale- invariant perturbativ e relation to the top-quark mass, Chin. Phys. C 48, 053113 (2024)

2024
[34]

S. Y. Ma, X. D. Huang, X. C. Zheng and X. G. Wu, Precise Determ ination of the Bottom-Quark On-Shell Mass Using Its Four-Loop Relation to the MS-Scheme Running Mass, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 101201 (2024)

2024
[35]

P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge ﬁ elds, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964). – 22 –

1964
[36]

Englert and R

F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gau ge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964)

1964
[37]

P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Boson s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964)

1964
[38]

G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Global Conservat ion Laws and Massless Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964)

1964
[39]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standar d Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012)

2012
[40]

Chatrchyan et al

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012)

2012
[41]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature 607, 52 (2022), [erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]

2022
[42]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[43]

Braaten and J

E. Braaten and J. P. Leveille, Higgs Boson Decay and the Running Mass, Phys. Rev. D 22, 715 (1980)

1980
[44]

Sakai, Perturbative QCD Corrections to the Hadronic Decay Width of the Higgs Boson, Phys

N. Sakai, Perturbative QCD Corrections to the Hadronic Decay Width of the Higgs Boson, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2220 (1980)

1980
[45]

Inami and T

T. Inami and T. Kubota, Renormalization Group Estimate of the Hadronic Decay Width of the Higgs Boson, Nucl. Phys. B 179, 171 (1981)

1981
[46]

Drees and K

M. Drees and K. i. Hikasa, Note on QCD corrections to Hadronic H iggs Decay, Phys. Lett. B 240, 455 (1990), [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 262, 497 (1991)]

1990
[47]

A. L. Kataev and V. T. Kim, The Eﬀects of the QCD corrections t o Γ( H 0 → b¯b), Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9, 1309 (1994)

1994
[48]

S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin and L. R. Surguladze, T hree-loop QCD correction to the correlator of the quark scalar currents and Γ tot(H 0 → hadrons), Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5, 2703 (1990)

1990
[49]

S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin and L. R. Surguladze, S cheme dependence of the next to next-to-leading QCD corrections to Γ tot(H 0 → hadrons) and the spurious QCD infrared ﬁxed point, Phys. Rev. D 43, 1633 (1991)

1991
[50]

K. G. Chetyrkin, Correlator of the quark scalar currents and Γ tot(H → hadrons) at O(α3 s) in pQCD, Phys. Lett. B 390, 309 (1997)

1997
[51]

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, 012003 (2006)

2006
[52]

K. G. Chetyrkin and A. Maier, Massless correlators of vector, scalar and tensor currents in position space at orders α3 s and α4 s: Explicit analytical results, Nucl. Phys. B 844, 266 (2011)

2011
[53]

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, 113 (2017)

2017
[54]

X. Chen, P. Jakubˇ c ´ ık, M. Marcoli and G. Stagnitto, The parton-level structure of Higgs decays to hadrons at N 3LO, JHEP 06, 185 (2023). – 23 –

2023
[55]

S. A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen and J. A. M. Vermaseren, The Lar ge top quark mass expansion for Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and into gluons, Phys. L ett. B 362, 134 (1995)

1995
[56]

Harlander and M

R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, Higgs decay to top quarks at O(α3 s), Phys. Rev. D 56, 3980 (1997)

1997
[57]

Primo, G

A. Primo, G. Sasso, G. Somogyi and F. Tramontano, Exact Top Yukawa corrections to Higgs boson decay into bottom quarks, Phys. Rev. D 99, 054013 (2019)

2019
[58]

J. Wang, Y. Wang and D. J. Zhang, Analytic decay width of the Hig gs boson to massive bottom quarks at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, JHEP 03, 068 (2024)

2024
[60]

K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Complete QCD corrections of order O(α3 s) to the hadronic Higgs decay, Phys. Lett. B 408, 320 (1997)

1997
[61]

Davies, M

J. Davies, M. Steinhauser and D. Wellmann, Completing the hadro nic Higgs boson decay at order α4 s, Nucl. Phys. B 920, 20 (2017)

2017
[62]

J. Zeng, X. G. Wu, S. Bu, J. M. Shen and S. Q. Wang, Reanalysis o f the Higgs-boson decay H → gg up to α6 s-order level using the principle of maximum conformality, J. Phys. G 45, 085004 (2018)

2018
[63]

J. Zeng, X. G. Wu, X. C. Zheng and J. M. Shen, Gauge dependen ce of the perturbative QCD predictions under the momentum space subtraction scheme, C hin. Phys. C 44, 113102 (2020)

2020
[64]

Abbas, A

G. Abbas, A. Jain, V. Singh and N. Singh, Renormalization-Group Improved Higgs to Two Gluons Decay Rate, Springer Proc. Phys. 304, 645 (2024)

2024
[65]

Boito, C

D. Boito, C. Y. London and P. Masjuan, Higher-order QCD corr ections to H → b¯b from rational approximants, JHEP 01, 054 (2022)

2022
[66]

Dabelstein and W

A. Dabelstein and W. Hollik, Electroweak corrections to the ferm ionic decay width of the standard Higgs boson, Z. Phys. C 53, 507 (1992)

1992
[67]

B. A. Kniehl, Radiative corrections for H → f ¯f (γ) in the standard model, Nucl. Phys. B 376, 3 (1992)

1992
[68]

A. L. Kataev, The Order O(¯α ¯αs) and O(¯α2) corrections to the decay width of the neutral Higgs boson to the ¯bb pair, JETP Lett. 66, 327 (1997)

1997
[69]

Mihaila, B

L. Mihaila, B. Schmidt and M. Steinhauser, Γ( H → b¯b) to order ααs, Phys. Lett. B 751, 442 (2015)

2015
[70]

S. Q. Wang, X. G. Wu, X. C. Zheng, J. M. Shen and Q. L. Zhang, T he Higgs boson inclusive decay channels H → b¯b and H → gg up to four-loop level, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2825 (2014)

2014
[71]

Cacciari and N

M. Cacciari and N. Houdeau, Meaningful characterisation of p erturbative theoretical uncertainties, JHEP 09, 039 (2011)

2011
[72]

Bagnaschi, M

E. Bagnaschi, M. Cacciari, A. Guﬀanti and L. Jenniches, An ext ensive survey of the estimation of uncertainties from missing higher orders in perturbat ive calculations, JHEP 02, 133 (2015)

2015
[73]

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

M. Bonvini, Probabilistic deﬁnition of the perturbative theoretic al uncertainty from missing higher orders, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 989 (2020). – 24 –

2020
[74]

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

2021
[75]

B. L. Du, X. G. Wu, J. M. Shen and S. J. Brodsky, Extending the Predictive Power of Perturbative QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 182 (2019)

2019
[76]

J. M. Shen, Z. J. Zhou, S. Q. Wang, J. Yan, Z. F. Wu, X. G. Wu an d S. J. Brodsky, Extending the predictive power of perturbative QCD using the princ iple of maximum conformality and the Bayesian analysis, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 326 (2023)

2023
[77]

J. M. Shen, B. H. Qin, J. Yan, S. Q. Wang and X. G. Wu, Novel met hod to reliably determine the QCD coupling from R uds measurements and its eﬀects to muon g − 2 and α ( M 2 Z ) within the tau-charm energy region, JHEP 07, 109 (2023)

2023
[78]

Y. F. Luo, J. Yan, Z. F. Wu and X. G. Wu, Approximate N 5LO Higgs Boson Decay Width Γ( H → γγ ), Symmetry 16, 173 (2024)

2024
[79]

J. Yan, X. G. Wu, Z. F. Wu, J. H. Shan and H. Zhou, Reanalysis of the top-quark pair production via the e+e− annihilation near the threshold region up to N 3LO QCD corrections, Phys. Lett. B 853, 138664 (2024)

2024
[80]

J. Yan, X. G. Wu, H. Zhou, H. T. Li and J. H. Shan, Improved an alysis of the decay width of t → W b up to N 3LO QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114026 (2024)

2024
[81]

K. G. Chetyrkin, Quark mass anomalous dimension to O(α4 s), Phys. Lett. B 404, 161 (1997)

1997
[82]

J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen, The fou r loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass, Phys. Lett. B 405, 327 (1997)

1997
[83]

K. G. Chetyrkin, Four-loop renormalization of QCD: Full set of r enormalization constants and anomalous dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 710, 499 (2005)

2005
[84]

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

2014
[85]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, Five-Loop Runnin g of the QCD coupling constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 082002 (2017)

2017
[86]

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, 090 (2017)

2017
[87]

M. S. A. Alam Khan, Renormalization group summation and analytic continuation from spacelike to timeline regions, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014028 (2023)

2023
[88]

J. M. Shen, X. G. Wu, Y. Ma and S. J. Brodsky, The Generalized S cheme-Independent Crewther Relation in QCD, Phys. Lett. B 770, 494 (2017)

2017
[91]

A. V. Garkusha, A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, Renormaliz ation scheme and gauge (in)dependence of the generalized Crewther relation: what are th e real grounds of the β-factorization property?, JHEP 02, 161 (2018). – 25 –

2018
[93]

P. A. Baikov and S. V. Mikhailov, Addendum to: The β-expansion for Adler function, Bjorken Sum Rule, and the Crewther-Broadhurst-Kataev relatio n at order O ( α4 s ) , JHEP 09 (2022), 185

2022
[94]

S. V. Mikhailov, Adler function, Bjorken polarized sum rule: conﬁ rmation of elements of the β-expansion and the diagrams, JHEP 10, 166 (2024)

2024
[95]

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

2012
[96]

X. D. Huang, X. G. Wu, Q. Yu, X. C. Zheng, J. Zeng and J. M. She n, Generalized Crewther relation and a novel demonstration of the scheme independence of commensurate scale relations up to all orders, Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021), 103104

2021
[97]

J. Yan, X. G. Wu, et al., in preparation. – 26 –

Pith tools

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

[1] [59]

J. Wang, X. Wang and Y. Wang, Analytic decay width of the Higgs b oson to massive bottom quarks at order α3 s, [arXiv:2411.07493 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [90]

A. L. Kataev and S. V. Mikhailov, Generalization of the Brodsky- Lepage-Mackenzie optimization within the β-expansion and the principle of maximal conformality, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), 014007

work page 2015

[3] [89]

H. H. Ma, X. G. Wu, Y. Ma, S. J. Brodsky and M. Mojaza, Setting the renormalization scale in perturbative QCD: Comparisons of the principle of maximum confor mality with the sequential extended Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie approach, Ph ys. Rev. D 91, 094028 (2015)

work page 2015

[4] [92]

A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, Decomposed photon anoma lous dimension in QCD and the β-expanded representations for the Adler function, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), 096027

work page 2023

[5] [22]

X. G. Wu, J. M. Shen, B. L. Du and S. J. Brodsky, Novel demons tration of the renormalization group invariance of the ﬁxed-order predictions us ing the principle of maximum conformality and the C-scheme coupling, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094030 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [1]

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gaug e Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973)

1973

[7] [2]

H. D. Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interac tions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973)

1973

[8] [3]

E. C. G. Stueckelberg de Breidenbach and A. Petermann, Norma lization of constants in the quanta theory, Helv. Phys. Acta 26, 499 (1953)

1953