Inclusive D^{*+-} Production in p p-bar Collisions with Massive Charm Quarks

B.A. Kniehl; G. Kramer; H. Spiesberger; I. Schienbein

REVIEW

Inclusive D^{*+-} Production in p p-bar Collisions with Massive Charm Quarks

B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, H. Spiesberger

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 21 Oct 2004 · 30 references

Pith's verdict: The scheme construction is solid and worth citing; the abstract's 'reasonable agreement' with CDF is the one claim that does not survive contact with Fig. 8.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0410289 (version 1)

Pith IDS4FKNCCV, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationB.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, H. Spiesberger, I. Schienbein. "Inclusive D^{*+-} Production in p p-bar Collisions with Massive Charm Quarks." arXiv:hep-ph/0410289 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/S4FKNCCV

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The thing worth your time here is the matching, not the Tevatron comparison. Kniehl, Kramer, Schienbein and Spiesberger take the m→0 limit of the massive NLO calculation and show it differs from the genuine MS-bar massless result by finite terms, then write those terms down in full across four appendices and build a GM-VFN scheme that merges with ZM-VFN as pT grows. That is a real, reusable piece of work, and it is the hadroproduction analogue of what the same group already did for γγ and γp. If you work on heavy-flavour matching, this is a citation, not a curiosity. The appendices are complete enough to reimplement, and the closure test against the Aversa et al. FORTRAN program (Sec. III D, Figs. 1a, 2c, 3b, 3c) is a genuine external benchmark rather than a self-check. The Abelian and C_F C_A pieces are also independently reproduced by convolving the LO cross section with the d_cc splitting function of Eq. (26), which is the physics check that matters; the C_A^2 and C_A(C_A−2C_F) pieces are only covered numerically by the Aversa comparison, which is a consistency check by construction. Worth knowing, not disqualifying. Two soft spots. First, the abstract's 'reasonable, though not perfect' agreement (abstract:s5) is doing more work than the body supports. Sec. IV says plainly that the default scale undershoots and that even the extreme corner μ_R = m_T/2, μ_F = 2m_T still undershoots by 20–34%, and Fig. 8 shows the whole band below the CDF points. The body is honest; the abstract is not. Second, the g and light-quark fragmentation contributions, roughly 30% of the total, are imported from the ZM-VFN analysis with no mass dependence and no estimate of the neglect. The stress-test calls this subdominant and I agree — it is O(m²/p_T²) on a 30% piece, a few percent at pT = 5 GeV, well inside the scale band. Minor. Note also that the massive matrix elements come from Bojak's private code, cross-checked against Refs. [5,6] but not published; the massive half of the comparison is not independently inspectable. The authors say so. For readers: this is for people building or using GM-VFN schemes, not for someone who wants a number to compare to CDF. Send it out.

Referee report

Significance

The scheme-construction result is a genuine and reusable technical contribution: the explicit subtraction coefficients in Appendices A-D, the demonstration that the Abelian and C_F C_A pieces are reproduced by convolving the LO cross section with the perturbative fragmentation function d_cc of Eq. (26), and the numerical closure against the independent Aversa et al. FORTRAN implementation (Sec. III D) together make the construction reproducible and checkable. The comparison with CDF is a falsifiable prediction and is presented with an explicit scale-variation band (Fig. 8), which is the right way to expose the phenomenological status. The paper is honest about the scale dependence and about the eventual need for PDFs and FFs with heavy-quark mass effects built in.

Major objections (3)

[Abstract (s5), Sec. IV last paragraph, Sec. V, Fig. 8] The abstract's closing claim of 'reasonable, though not perfect, agreement' is not supported by Fig. 8. The figure shows the entire scale-variation band lying below the CDF points, and Sec. IV states that even the extreme corner mu_R = m_T/2, mu_F = 2m_T still undershoots the data by 20% to 34%. A prediction that is systematically low across the whole quoted tolerance band should be described as such, quantitatively, in the abstract and in the conclusions; 'reasonable agreement' suggests the data are covered, which they are not. Please state the size of the undershoot at the default scale and at the extreme corner in the abstract, and rephrase the conclusion so that the reader is not left with the impression that the scale band brackets the measurement.
[Sec. IV, first paragraph] The gluon and light-(anti-)quark fragmentation contributions are imported verbatim from the ZM-VFN analysis with no charm-mass dependence, on the grounds that the analogous mass dependence in the FFN scheme appears only beyond NLO. The authors acknowledge this ('for the time being'), but they do not estimate the size of the neglected effect, even though they state that these contributions amount to slightly more than 30% of the total and are almost pT-independent. Because this 30% is comparable to the discrepancy with CDF discussed in the previous comment, a quantitative estimate of the possible mass effect (for instance by applying an m^2/p_T^2 suppression factor to the g -> D*± piece, or by varying the gluon FF within its fit uncertainty) is needed before the reader can judge whether the undershoot could plausibly be affected. At minimum, please state an upper bound on the neglected term.
[Sec. III A and Sec. III D] The numerical closure test of Sec. III D is partly definitional: Delta c_i is defined as the difference between the m -> 0 limit of Ref. [7] and the ZM-VFN result of Ref. [20], so subtracting it recovers the ZM-VFN curve once the algebra is coded correctly. That validates the implementation, not the physics of the subtraction. The genuine physics check is the d_cc convolution of Eq. (26), which the text demonstrates for the C_F^2 and C_F C_A pieces but not for the C_A^2 and C_A(C_A - 2C_F) non-Abelian pieces. Those are validated only indirectly, through the collapse of Eqs. (21)-(23) to a universal form proportional to the LO cross section. Please state explicitly in Sec. III A which colour structures are checked by the d_cc convolution and which rely on the structural form of Eqs. (21)-(23) plus the closure test, so that the reader can see the scope of the validation.

Minor objections (8)

[Eq. (12)] The decomposition runs c1, c2, c3, c5, c6, ... with no c4, and no c4 appears in the appendices either. Please state explicitly that c4 vanishes (or explain where it has been absorbed), so that the notation does not read as an omission.
[Abstract (s1) and Sec. IV] The abstract advertises the cross section 'as a function of the transverse momentum and the rapidity', but all results shown are for the rapidity-integrated range |y| <= 1. Either show at least one rapidity distribution or restrict the abstract's wording to the pT spectrum.
[Fig. 1c and Sec. III D] The GM-VFN gg-channel ratio is negative for pT < 30 GeV (Fig. 1c), and the sum of the gg, q qbar and gq channels remains negative until pT ~ 65 GeV (Fig. 4). This is a known feature of such schemes at low pT, but it deserves an explicit sentence in Sec. III D or Sec. V identifying it as a limitation of the scheme's applicability at low pT, rather than leaving it to be read off the figures.
[Sec. III D] The statement that the subtracted massless result is 'in perfect agreement' with the FORTRAN program of Refs. [3,21] should be quantified (for example, 'to better than 1% over 5 < pT < 100 GeV'), since 'perfect' is not a numerical statement.
[Sec. III C] The passage correcting the earlier result of Ref. [17] (Delta c11 = 0 for gamma + q -> c cbar q, rather than the non-zero value previously reported) is buried in the middle of Sec. III C. Since it revises a published result, it should be flagged prominently, ideally with an explicit note that an erratum to Ref. [17] is warranted.
[Sec. III D, scale choice] The choice mu'_F = 2 m_T is introduced 'to prevent the value of mu'_F from falling below the starting scale 2m for the mu'_F evolution of the FF'. Please justify why 2 m_T rather than m_T is used as the default, and state how much the final spectrum changes if the lower bound is enforced differently.
[Sec. III D, PDF choice] The calculation uses CTEQ6M PDFs, which are nf = 5 ZM-VFN sets, while the hard process includes only nf = 3 incoming partons plus the charm PDF. The threshold matching between the nf = 3 and nf = 5 descriptions is therefore not exact. This is acknowledged in the Introduction, but a sentence in Sec. III D quantifying the residual mismatch (or arguing that it is beyond the accuracy of the present calculation) would help.
[Fig. 6 caption] The parenthetical '(negative!)' in the Fig. 6 caption is informal for a journal figure caption and should be replaced by a neutral phrasing such as 'the negative contributions with gluons and light (anti-)quarks in the initial state'.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper shows that taking the charm-quark mass to zero in a massive next-to-leading-order calculation does not reproduce the standard massless MS-bar result unless finite subtraction terms are added.

The reading

The paper asks whether a calculation that keeps the charm quark massive can be made to agree, at high transverse momentum, with the standard calculation that treats charm as massless from the start. The authors take the massless limit of an existing massive NLO calculation and find that it leaves finite terms not present in the conventional MS-bar massless result. They identify those terms, subtract them, and obtain a massive scheme that converges to the massless one as $p_T$ grows. They then use this scheme, plus charm and anticharm initial states and fragmentation, to predict inclusive $D^{*+-}$ production at the Tevatron and compare with CDF data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the decomposition of the $m o 0$ cross section into plus-distributions and logarithms with coefficients $c_i$, split into MS-bar pieces and finite subtraction terms $Delta c_i$. The $Delta c_i$ are fixed by matching the massive fixed-flavor-number result to the zero-mass variable-flavor-number result, and include a perturbative $c o c$ fragmentation function $d_{cc}$ that generates the Abelian and $C_F C_A$ pieces. Rescaling terms with $ln(mu^2/m^2)$ then move the calculation to $mu_R=mu_F=mu'_F=2m_T$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the limits $m o 0$ and $arepsilon o 0$ do not commute: regularizing collinear singularities with a finite charm mass produces different finite pieces from dimensional regularization with $m=0$. The authors derive the complete massless limit of the massive NLO cross sections for the $gg$, $qar{q}$, and $gq$ channels, isolate the finite difference terms $Delta c_i$, and show that subtracting them turns the massive calculation into a general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme whose result approaches the zero-mass variable-flavor-number MS-bar result as $p_T$ increases. They verify the subtracted massless result against an independent implementation of the zero-mass calculation. The final CDF comparison is reasonable but undershoots the data by 20 to 34 percent for the scale choices that best fit.

Load-bearing premise

For the final Tevatron comparison, the load-bearing premise is that the gluon and light-quark fragmentation contributions, which the paper imports unchanged from the massless analysis even though they are slightly more than 30 percent of the total, carry no charm-mass dependence that matters at the quoted accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same finite subtraction can be applied to double-resolved photon-photon and resolved photon-proton cross sections, where the same $gg$ and $gq$ subprocesses appear.
The scheme gives a consistent way to use massless MS-bar parton distributions and fragmentation functions while retaining $m^2/p_T^2$ corrections at intermediate transverse momentum.
At high $p_T$ the massive and massless predictions should converge, so any persistent difference signals either residual mass terms or missing higher orders.
The CDF undershoot can be addressed by adjusting scales or the gluon-to-$D^*$ fragmentation function, which the authors flag for future work.

Reading between the lines

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

Because gluon fragmentation is over 30 percent of the total and nearly $p_T$-independent, a modest retuning of that fragmentation function could close the normalization gap without changing the shape; this is my inference, not the paper's claim.
The scheme-matching structure is process-independent, so the same finite subtraction pattern should transfer to $B$-meson production and to other heavy-flavored hadrons.
If future parton distributions and fragmentation functions include heavy-quark mass effects, the finite subtraction terms would need to be rederived to match the new scheme; otherwise the convergence test is only against the old MS-bar baseline.
The residual scale dependence at low $p_T$ suggests that the cleanest test of the scheme relation is at larger $p_T$, where the massive and massless results are close.

Original abstract

We calculate the next-to-leading order cross section for the inclusive production of D^{*+-} mesons in p p-bar collisions as a function of the transverse momentum and the rapidity in two approaches using massive or massless charm quarks. For the inclusive cross section, we derive the massless limit from the massive theory. We find that this limit differs from the genuine massless version with MS-bar factorization by finite corrections. By adjusting subtraction terms, we establish a massive theory with MS-bar subtraction which approaches the massless theory with increasing transverse momentum. With these results and including the contributions due to the charm and anti-charm content of the proton and anti-proton, we calculate the inclusive D^{*+-} cross section in p p-bar collisions using realistic evolved non-perturbative fragmentation functions and compare with recent data from the CDF Collaboration at the Fermilab Tevatron at center-of-mass energy root(S) = 1.96 TeV. We find reasonable, though not perfect, agreement with the measured cross sections.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,982 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.92 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.17 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.12 · compares with prior results 0.91 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We calculate the next-to-leading order cross section for the inclusive production of D^{*+-} mesons in p p-bar collisions as a function of the transverse momentum and the rapidity in two approaches using massive or massless charm quarks. For the inclusive cross section, we derive the massless limit from the massive theory. We find that this limit differs from the genuine massless version with MS-bar factorization by finite corrections. By adjusting subtraction terms, we establish a massive theory with MS-bar subtraction which approaches the massless theory with increasing transverse momentum. With these results and including the contributions due to the charm and anti-charm content of the proton and anti-proton, we calculate the inclusive D^{*+-} cross section in p p-bar collisions using realistic evolved non-perturbative fragmentation functions and compare with recent data from the CDF Collaboration at the Fermilab Tevatron at center-of-mass energy root(S) = 1.96 TeV. We find reasonable, though not perfect, agreement with the measured cross sections.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We calculate the next-to-leading order cross section for the inclusive production of D^{*+-} mesons in p p-bar collisions as a function of the transverse momentum and the rapidity in two approaches using massive or massless charm quarks.	contribution 0.92	0.96	0.07	asserted 0.99
s1	For the inclusive cross section, we derive the massless limit from the massive theory.	method 0.73	0.96	0.05	asserted 1.00
s2	We find that this limit differs from the genuine massless version with MS-bar factorization by finite corrections.	result 1.00	0.95	0.14	asserted 1.00
s3	By adjusting subtraction terms, we establish a massive theory with MS-bar subtraction which approaches the massless theory with increasing transverse momentum.	method 0.70	0.96	0.14	asserted 1.00
s4	With these results and including the contributions due to the charm and anti-charm content of the proton and anti-proton, we calculate the inclusive D^{*+-} cross section in p p-bar collisions using realistic evolved non-perturbative fragmentation functions and compare with recent data from the CDF Collaboration at the Fermilab Tevatron at center-of-mass energy root(S) = 1.96 TeV.	method 0.71	0.95	0.18	asserted 0.99
s5	We find reasonable, though not perfect, agreement with the measured cross sections.	result 0.95	0.95	0.61	asserted 0.98

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.97 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.84.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Partial cross sections for

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: Partial cross sections normalized to the result for a

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7: Ratios of the subtracted massive and massless differen

Showing 4 of the paper's 8 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0410289 by the authors.

References

Works cited (30)

[7]

I. Bojak and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D 67, 034010 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[20]

F. Aversa, P. Chiappetta, M. Greco, and J.Ph. Guillet, P hys. Lett. B 210, 225 (1988); 211, 465 (1988); Nucl. Phys. B327, 105 (1989)

View on Pith 1988
[1]

CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 241804 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[2]

M. Cacciari and M. Greco, Nucl. Phys. B421, 530 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[3]

J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D 58, 014014 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[4]

P. Nason, S. Dawson, and R.K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303, 607 (1988); B327, 49 (1988); B335, 260(E) (1990)

View on Pith 1988
[5]

W. Beenakker, H. Kuijf, W.L. van Neerven, and J. Smith, Ph ys. Rev. D 40, 54 (1989). 46

View on Pith 1989
[6]

W. Beenakker, W.L. van Neerven, R. Meng, G.A. Schuler, an d J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B351, 507 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[8]

M.A.G. Aivazis, J.C. Collins, F.I. Olness, and W.-K. Tun g, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3102 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[9]

F.I. Olness, R.J. Scalise, and W.-K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014506 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[10]

M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, JHEP 9805, 007 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[11]

M. Cacciari and P. Nason, JHEP 0309, 006 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[12]

W.K. Tung, S. Kretzer, and C. Schmidt, J. Phys. G 28, 983 (2002); and references cited therein

View on Pith 2002
[13]

V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz. 15, 781 (1972) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972)]; G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977); Yu.L. Dokshitser, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 73, 1216 (1977) [Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977)]

View on Pith 1972
[14]

J.C. Collins, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094002 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[15]

S. Kretzer, H.L. Lai, F.I. Olness, and W.K. Tung, Phys. R ev. D 69, 114005 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[16]

G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C 22, 289 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[17]

G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 495 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[18]

G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger, Report No. DESY 04-196, MZ -TH/03-18, and hep-ph/0311062

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, in preparation

View on Pith
[21]

B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, Z. Phys. C 62, 53 (1994); J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Z. Phys. C 76, 677 (1997); B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and M. Spira, Z. Phys. C 76, 689 (1997)

View on Pith 1994
[22]

I. Bojak and M. Stratmann, Phys. Lett. B 433, 411 (1998); Nucl. Phys. B540, 345 (1999); B569, 694(E) (2000); I. Bojak, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dortm und, 2000, Report No. DO-TH 200/09 and hep-ph/0005120

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[23]

B. Mele and P. Nason, Nucl. Phys. B361, 626 (1991); J.P. Ma, Nucl. Phys. B506, 329 (1997); S. Kretzer and I. Schienbein, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094035 (1998); 59, 054004 (1999); K. Melnikov and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034027 (2004); A. Mitov, Report No. UH-511-1059-2004 and hep-ph/0410205

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1991
[24]

M. Kr¨ amer, F.I. Olness, and D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 62, 096007 (2000). 47

View on Pith 2000
[25]

Z. Merebashvili, A.P. Contogouris, and G. Grispos, Phy s. Rev. D 62, 114509 (2000); 69, 019901(E) (2004)

View on Pith 2000
[26]

L.E. Gordon, Phys. Rev. D 50, 6753 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[27]

P. Aurenche, A. Douiri, R. Baier, M. Fontannaz, and D. Sc hiﬀ, Phys. Lett. 135B, 164 (1984); P. Aurenche, R. Baier, A. Douiri, M. Fontannaz, and D. Schiﬀ, N ucl. Phys. B286, 553 (1987)

View on Pith 1984
[28]

CTEQ Collaboration, J. Pumplin et al. , JHEP 0207, 012 (2002); CTEQ Collaboration, D. Stump et al. , JHEP 0310, 046 (2003)

View on Pith 2002
[29]

B. Kamal, Z. Merebashvili, and A.P. Contogouris, Phys. Rev. D 51, 4808 (1995); 55, 3229(E) (1997)

View on Pith 1995
[30]

It should be noted that there is no such contribution in t he massless limit of the calculation of Ref. [5], i.e. cql1 = ∆ cql1 = 0. On the other hand, we found non-zero coeﬃcients cql1 and ∆cql1 in the massless limit of Ref. [7] listed in Appendix A 4, which are numerically irrelevant, however. 48

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 31 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 151 citations worldwide. Full citation record

Measurement of prompt D$^{0}$, $\Lambda_{c}^{+}$, and $\Sigma_{c}^{0,++}$(2455) production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV
hep-ex 2021-06 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The Σc(2455)/D0 cross-section ratio in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions is about ten times the value inferred from electron-positron data, and the Λc feed-down fraction from Σc decays is 0.38, showing baryon enhancemen...
A Determination of the Charm Content of the Proton
hep-ph 2016-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Fitting the charm parton distribution directly to global data, rather than generating it perturbatively, largely removes its dependence on the charm quark mass and hints at an intrinsic charm component carrying under ...
nCTEQ26 nuclear parton distribution functions
hep-ph 2026-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

nCTEQ26 is a new set of nuclear parton distribution functions determined from a global fit to over 3500 data points across deep-inelastic scattering, Drell-Yan, and collider processes, with an improved parametrization...
Differential cross-section measurements of $D^{\pm}$ and $D_{s}^{\pm}$ meson production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

ATLAS reports the first differential D_s± meson cross-section measurement and extends D±/D_s± data to pT = 100 GeV at 13 TeV, finding consistency with NLO QCD within uncertainties.
Bottom-quark production at hadron colliders: fully differential predictions in NNLO QCD
hep-ph 2020-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors compute bottom-quark pair production at hadron colliders to next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD with full kinematic dependence, finding 25 to 35 percent corrections and substantially reduced scale uncertainties.

Show 26 more citing papers

Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-Flavor Production at the LHC
hep-ph 2017-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Heavy-flavor production data from proton-lead collisions at the LHC indicate gluon shadowing in lead at momentum fractions down to about 7e-6, with a claimed significance above 7 sigma at a fixed factorization scale.
Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13\,\mathrm{TeV}$
hep-ex 2015-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

First measurements at 13 TeV of prompt D0, D+, Ds+ and D*+ production cross-sections in the forward region, with integrated values of 2072, 834, 353 and 784 microbarns over 1 < pT < 8 GeV/c.
A Large Hadron Electron Collider at CERN: Report on the Physics and Design Concepts for Machine and Detector
physics.acc-ph 2012-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A design study arguing that adding a 60 GeV electron beam to the LHC would enable precision deep-inelastic scattering over a kinematic range roughly twenty times larger than HERA's, at about a hundred times HERA's int...
Impact of Open Heavy-Flavour Production on nCTEQ Nuclear PDFs
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Replacing the effective Crystal-Ball model by a full perturbative QCD (SACOT) calculation for open heavy-flavor production leaves the fitted nuclear PDFs unchanged within uncertainties.
Inclusive charm and bottom quark pair production cross sections at hadron colliders at next-to-next-to-leading-order accuracy
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

NNLO QCD calculations using the MaunaKea code enhance c cbar and b bbar production cross sections by up to a factor of two over NLO predictions, reduce scale uncertainties, and match experimental data from 10 GeV to 1...
Charm-quark fragmentation fractions and production cross section at midrapidity in pp collisions at the LHC
nucl-ex 2021-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Charm fragmentation fractions measured in pp collisions at 5.02 TeV differ from e+e- and ep values, with the Lambda_c+ fraction enhanced by a factor 3.3 at 5 sigma, and the total ccbar cross section per unit rapidity ...
Measurement of beauty and charm production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV via non-prompt and prompt D mesons
nucl-ex 2021-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ALICE extracts prompt and beauty-decay D-meson cross sections in 5.02 TeV proton-proton collisions, giving d sigma(b bbar)/dy = 34.5 (+4.7/-2.9) microbarn at midrapidity and a beauty-to-strange fragmentation ratio of 0.127.
Measurement of prompt D$^0$, D$^+$, D$^{*+}$, and D$^+_s$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2019-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Charmed-meson yields in proton-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV, scaled per nucleon pair, agree with proton-proton yields within uncertainties from 0 to 36 GeV/c, leaving little room for hot-medium effects in this small co...
A QCD analysis of LHCb D-meson data in p+Pb collisions
hep-ph 2019-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

LHCb D0 production in p+Pb agrees with NLO general-mass QCD and, once reweighted into EPPS16 and nCTEQ15, cuts the small-x nuclear gluon uncertainty by up to a factor of three while leaving the central shadowing nearl...
Revisiting the D-meson hadroproduction in general-mass variable flavour number scheme
hep-ph 2018-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Retaining heavy-quark transverse mass in every partonic channel of a general-mass variable flavour number scheme removes the low-transverse-momentum divergence and gives D0-meson spectra that match LHCb and ALICE data...
Nuclear modification factor of D$^0$ mesons in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} =$ 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2017-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

D0 meson yields in the 10% most central lead-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV are suppressed by a factor of 5 to 6 at 6 to 10 GeV of transverse momentum, easing to about 1.3 at 60 to 100 GeV.
Prompt neutrinos from atmospheric charm in the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme
hep-ph 2017-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A next-to-leading-order GM-VFNS calculation of atmospheric charm reproduces LHCb D-meson data and yields prompt-neutrino fluxes whose PDF uncertainty band, driven by CT14nlo sets 53-56, is already in tension with IceC...
Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5\,$TeV
hep-ex 2016-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Prompt D0, D+, Ds+ and D*+ production cross-sections in pp collisions at 5 TeV are measured in the forward region, with integrated values between 170 and 1004 microbarns.
D-meson production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV and in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV
nucl-ex 2016-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

D-meson yields per nucleon in proton-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV agree with proton-proton collisions within uncertainties from transverse momentum 0 to 24 GeV/c.
Prompt charm production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV
hep-ex 2013-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

LHCb measures prompt D0, D+, D*+, D_s+ and Lambda_c+ cross-sections in pp collisions at 7 TeV over 0 < pT < 8 GeV/c and 2.0 < y < 4.5, combining them into a total charm cross-section of 1419 +/- 12 (stat) +/- 116 (sys...
Charmed-Meson Fragmentation Functions with Finite-Mass Corrections
hep-ph 2007-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Fitting D-meson fragmentation functions in a finite-mass variable-flavor-number scheme shows hadron-mass phase-space effects are appreciable at Belle and CLEO energies, while charm-quark mass effects in the partonic m...
Open charm production and $\Lambda_{c}^{+}/D^{0}$ ratio in pp and Au+Au collisions at the RHIC
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In an AMPT simulation with a hybrid coalescence+fragmentation scheme, the enhanced Lambda_c+/D0 ratio in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV is reproduced only when coalescence is included, implicating coalescence as the domi...
Measurement of ${\rm D^0}$, ${\rm D^+}$, ${\rm D^{*+}}$ and ${{\rm D^+}_s}$ production in pp collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{\textit s}}~=~5.02~TeV}$ with ALICE
nucl-ex 2019-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

ALICE reports the transverse-momentum-differential cross sections of prompt D0, D+, D*+ and Ds+ mesons at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at 5.02 TeV, covering 0 to 36 GeV/c in pT with total systematic uncertainties of ...
Measurement of D-meson production at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s}=7}$ TeV
hep-ex 2017-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Prompt D0, D+, D*+ and Ds+ production cross sections in pp collisions at 7 TeV are measured at mid-rapidity over 0 < pT < 36 GeV/c, with total uncertainties roughly halved relative to the earlier ALICE results.
Measurement of $D^{*\pm}$, $D^\pm$ and $D_s^\pm$ meson production cross sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-12 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

ATLAS reports visible and differential cross sections for D*±, D± and Ds± production in 7 TeV pp collisions, plus a total charm cross section of 8.6 mb and fragmentation ratios gamma_s/d = 0.26 and P_v^d = 0.56.
Inclusive Charmed-Meson Production at the CERN LHC
hep-ph 2012-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order GM-VFNS calculations describe measured LHC charmed-meson cross sections within scale uncertainties, and forward-rapidity D-meson spectra are shown to be sensitive enough to separate intrinsic-cha...
Collinear Subtractions in Hadroproduction of Heavy Quarks
hep-ph 2005-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Mass factorization reproduces, with one disclosed exception, the collinear subtraction terms previously obtained from the zero-mass limit of massive heavy-quark hadroproduction, confirming the internal consistency of ...
Towards triggerless four-dimensional detectors for High Energy Physics collider experiments
physics.ins-det 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

Reviews precision timing integration in LHC upgrades and discusses a possible shift to triggerless detectors enabled by timing and networking, with reflections on physics benefits.
A review of the intrinsic heavy quark content of the nucleon
hep-ph 2015-04 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The paper reviews evidence and models for intrinsic heavy quarks in the nucleon and concludes that a high-luminosity LHC fixed-target experiment is the most promising route to discovery.
Heavy-flavor production and medium properties in high-energy nuclear collisions - What next?
nucl-th 2016-12 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

The heavy-flavor community's 2016 consensus roadmap names B-meson suppression near 10 GeV, open charm and bottom cross sections to 10 percent accuracy, and quarkonium feed-down measurements as the priorities for the n...
Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton-proton to heavy-ion collisions
nucl-ex 2015-06 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

The review concludes that open charm and beauty production is well described by perturbative QCD across collision systems, while quarkonium production and polarisation remain unexplained by any single model.

How later papers used it

64 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 46 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 6 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 10 of the 97 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

2 papers by the same authors are listed below: 2 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 2 of 7 papers with this label · 2 by the same authors

By the same authors

Used the GM-VFNS as it was introduced in this paper.

Prompt neutrinos from atmospheric charm in the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme (2017) (same authors) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the GM-VFNS as it was introduced in this paper to compute the charm production cross sections needed to determine the prompt-neutrino fluxes.

Atmospheric Charm, QCD and Neutrino Astronomy (2018) (same authors) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

58 arXiv papers cite this in 89 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 53 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 7 papers

For the direct part, our calculation is based on Refs. [ref] , for the resolved part we use the results of Refs. [ref] .

Inclusive photoproduction of D*+- mesons at next-to-leading order in the General-Mass Variable-Flavor-Number Scheme · Introduction · 0.93
In this work, we will use the GM-VFNS as it was introduced in Ref. [ref] .

Prompt neutrinos from atmospheric charm in the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme · General-Mass Variable-Flavor-Number Scheme: details of our NLO implementation and comparison with LHCb experimental data · 0.99
In this work, we will use the GM-VFNS as it was introduced in Ref. [ref] to compute the charm production cross sections needed to determine the prompt-neutrino fluxes.

Atmospheric Charm, QCD and Neutrino Astronomy · GM-VFNS · 1.00

Compares with it 5 papers

The -differential invariant production cross section of electrons from heavy-flavor hadron decays at mid-rapidity in collisions at = 2.76 TeV is shown in comparison to pQCD calculations from FONLL [ref] , GM-VFNS [ref] , and $k_T$-factorization [ref] in Fig. [ref].

Measurement of electrons from semileptonic heavy-flavor hadron decays in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 2.76$ TeV · Results · 1.00
The measured cross-sections are compared with the general-mass variable-flavour-number scheme (GM-VFNS) [ref] and the fixed-order next-to-leading-logarithm (FONLL) [ref] predictions.

Differential cross-section measurements of $D^{\pm}$ and $D_{s}^{\pm}$ meson production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector · Data sample, event simulation and theoretical predictions · 1.00
The GM-VFNS predictions of Ref. [ref] , which are evaluated with FFs determined in the ZM-VFNS [ref] , describe these data within their errors, but are still somewhat on the low side.

Open charm production at high energies and the quark Reggeization hypothesis · $D$-meson production at the Tevatron · 0.84

Cites it as background 22 papers

On the other hand, the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme (GM-VFNS) [ref] provides a theoretical framework which combines the FFNS and the ZM-VFNS.

Inclusive B-meson production at small p_T in the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme · Introduction · 0.88
The theoretical background and explicit analytic results of the GM-VFNS approach have been discussed in detail previously in Ref. [ref] and the references cited therein.

Inclusive Charmed-Meson Production at the CERN LHC · Setup and Input · 0.93
Calculations for LHC energies implementing the collinear factorisation approach, like the General-Mass Variable-Flavour-Number Scheme (GM-VFNS) [ref] and Fixed Order plus Next-to-Leading Logarithms (FONLL) [ref] , provide a Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) accuracy with all-order resummation of next-to-leading logarithms.

Measurement of beauty-quark production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV via non-prompt D mesons · Introduction · 0.88

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [7]

I. Bojak and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D 67, 034010 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[2] [20]

F. Aversa, P. Chiappetta, M. Greco, and J.Ph. Guillet, P hys. Lett. B 210, 225 (1988); 211, 465 (1988); Nucl. Phys. B327, 105 (1989)

View on Pith 1988

[3] [1]

CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 241804 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[4] [2]

M. Cacciari and M. Greco, Nucl. Phys. B421, 530 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[5] [3]

J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D 58, 014014 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[6] [4]

P. Nason, S. Dawson, and R.K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303, 607 (1988); B327, 49 (1988); B335, 260(E) (1990)

View on Pith 1988

[7] [5]

W. Beenakker, H. Kuijf, W.L. van Neerven, and J. Smith, Ph ys. Rev. D 40, 54 (1989). 46

View on Pith 1989

[8] [6]

W. Beenakker, W.L. van Neerven, R. Meng, G.A. Schuler, an d J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B351, 507 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[9] [8]

M.A.G. Aivazis, J.C. Collins, F.I. Olness, and W.-K. Tun g, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3102 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[10] [9]

F.I. Olness, R.J. Scalise, and W.-K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014506 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[11] [10]

M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, JHEP 9805, 007 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[12] [11]

M. Cacciari and P. Nason, JHEP 0309, 006 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[13] [12]

W.K. Tung, S. Kretzer, and C. Schmidt, J. Phys. G 28, 983 (2002); and references cited therein

View on Pith 2002

[14] [13]

V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz. 15, 781 (1972) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972)]; G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977); Yu.L. Dokshitser, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 73, 1216 (1977) [Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977)]

View on Pith 1972

[15] [14]

J.C. Collins, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094002 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[16] [15]

S. Kretzer, H.L. Lai, F.I. Olness, and W.K. Tung, Phys. R ev. D 69, 114005 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[17] [16]

G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C 22, 289 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[18] [17]

G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 495 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[19] [18]

G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger, Report No. DESY 04-196, MZ -TH/03-18, and hep-ph/0311062

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [19]

B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, in preparation

View on Pith

[21] [21]

B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, Z. Phys. C 62, 53 (1994); J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Z. Phys. C 76, 677 (1997); B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and M. Spira, Z. Phys. C 76, 689 (1997)

View on Pith 1994

[22] [22]

I. Bojak and M. Stratmann, Phys. Lett. B 433, 411 (1998); Nucl. Phys. B540, 345 (1999); B569, 694(E) (2000); I. Bojak, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dortm und, 2000, Report No. DO-TH 200/09 and hep-ph/0005120

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[23] [23]

B. Mele and P. Nason, Nucl. Phys. B361, 626 (1991); J.P. Ma, Nucl. Phys. B506, 329 (1997); S. Kretzer and I. Schienbein, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094035 (1998); 59, 054004 (1999); K. Melnikov and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034027 (2004); A. Mitov, Report No. UH-511-1059-2004 and hep-ph/0410205

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1991

[24] [24]

M. Kr¨ amer, F.I. Olness, and D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 62, 096007 (2000). 47

View on Pith 2000

[25] [25]

Z. Merebashvili, A.P. Contogouris, and G. Grispos, Phy s. Rev. D 62, 114509 (2000); 69, 019901(E) (2004)

View on Pith 2000

[26] [26]

L.E. Gordon, Phys. Rev. D 50, 6753 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[27] [27]

P. Aurenche, A. Douiri, R. Baier, M. Fontannaz, and D. Sc hiﬀ, Phys. Lett. 135B, 164 (1984); P. Aurenche, R. Baier, A. Douiri, M. Fontannaz, and D. Schiﬀ, N ucl. Phys. B286, 553 (1987)

View on Pith 1984

[28] [28]

CTEQ Collaboration, J. Pumplin et al. , JHEP 0207, 012 (2002); CTEQ Collaboration, D. Stump et al. , JHEP 0310, 046 (2003)

View on Pith 2002

[29] [29]

B. Kamal, Z. Merebashvili, and A.P. Contogouris, Phys. Rev. D 51, 4808 (1995); 55, 3229(E) (1997)

View on Pith 1995

[30] [30]

It should be noted that there is no such contribution in t he massless limit of the calculation of Ref. [5], i.e. cql1 = ∆ cql1 = 0. On the other hand, we found non-zero coeﬃcients cql1 and ∆cql1 in the massless limit of Ref. [7] listed in Appendix A 4, which are numerically irrelevant, however. 48

View on Pith