Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/0508127 v2 · submitted 11 Aug 2005 · 52 references

Two-Loop Photonic Corrections to Massive Bhabha Scattering

A.A. Penin

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“We describe the details of the evaluation of the two-loop radiative photonic corrections to Bhabha scattering. The role of the corrections in the high-precision luminosity determination at present and future electron-positron colliders is discussed.”

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up. A solid companion paper to Penin's PRL: the matching machinery and the full analytic formula are genuinely new here, and the one unproved step is bounded by explicit two-loop verification. This line is wrong

2 major objections · 10 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 52 references say.

The paper says, at Sect. 3.1, after Eq. (17)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 2 · major

The claim that the single-logarithmic coefficients C^(n) in the exponent of the form factor are mass-independent across the three Sudakov regimes (a)-(c) is described as 'a new observation', and the derivation is explicitly omitted: 'We refrain from giving the details of the derivation since it is not directly related to the subject of the present paper.'

more of objection 1

This claim is what licenses the structure of Eqs. (18)-(19) and hence the three-loop prediction Eq. (24). The two-loop result Eq. (46) is not affected, because C^(2) is explicitly verified in Eqs. (20)-(22). Please either supply at least a sketch of the argument (the text says it 'to a large extent repeats the proof of the nonrenormalization of the double logarithmic contribution', so a short indication of where the mass dependence cancels would suffice) or soften the 'completely predict' language in the sentence preceding Eq. (24).

The paper says, at Sect. 4.1, Eq. (38)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 2 · major

The constant (nonlogarithmic) terms in I^(1) and H^(2) are the matching constants that feed directly into Eq. (46), and they are the most error-prone part of the calculation. The paper's checks (the small-angle limit of Eqs. 40-41 and the Bonciani-Ferroglia cross-check mentioned in the acknowledgments) are valuable but do not constitute a direct numerical verification of Eq.

more of objection 2

(38) at a generic angle. Please state explicitly what 'a large part of the result' means in the Bonciani-Ferroglia cross-check, and, if possible, add a numerical comparison of Eq. (38) against a direct evaluation of the massive two-loop amplitude at a fixed kinematic point such as theta = 90 degrees.

10 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 10

The abstract states only that the paper 'describes the details of the evaluation' and does not name the main result (Eq. 46) or the method. One sentence stating that the complete nonlogarithmic photonic two-loop correction is obtained by infrared matching to the massless result would make the abstract more informative.

The paper says, at Eq. (2)

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 10

The typesetting of the Born cross section appears garbled in the present text; please check that the factor (1 - x + x^2)^2/(2x^2) (or whatever the correct normalization is) is displayed correctly.

show 8 more

The paper says, at Sect. 4.1

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 10

The word 'concequence' should read 'consequence'.

The paper says, at References

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 10

Ref. [20] reads 'Fhys. Atom. Nucl.' and should read 'Phys. Atom. Nucl.'; please also check the journal-name abbreviations in Refs. [9] and [11].

The paper says, at Figs. 1 and 2

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 10

The captions for panels (a) and (b) are identical in the present text; please make sure the figure captions distinguish the small-angle and large-angle panels clearly, and state the value of sqrt(s) and the cut on ln(epsilon_cut/epsilon) in each panel.

The paper says, at Eq. (46)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 10

Given the length and complexity of Eq. (46), consider providing the expression in a machine-readable ancillary file (for example a Mathematica notebook) to facilitate independent checks and implementation in Monte Carlo generators.

The paper says, at Sect. 4.2

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 10

The statement that the part of the second-order correction already included in a given Monte Carlo 'should be subtracted from the result of the paper' would benefit from a concrete prescription or at least a reference to how this subtraction is done in practice for BHLUMI and for the large-angle generators.

The paper says, at Eq. (41)

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 10

The text says the small-angle limit 'agrees with the asymptotic small angle expression given in [21]'; please state explicitly which equation of [21] is being compared, so the reader can verify the agreement.

The paper says, at Notation

Pith says: minor objection 9 of 10

The symbol delta^(2)_0 is used both for the nonlogarithmic term of the general expansion (Eq. 9) and for its small-angle limit (Eq. 41); a distinguishing notation would avoid confusion.

The paper says, at Eq. (38)

Pith says: minor objection 10 of 10

The pi^4 and ln^2(2) coefficients in the constant term of H^(2) are the most delicate part of the matching; please double-check them against the explicit form-factor results of Eqs. (20)-(22).

What would settle it

Recompute the constant term in the matching operator H^(2) (Eq. 38) as 2(N_b - N_a), using the explicit nonlogarithmic constants of Eqs. (21) and (20) and carefully tracking the pi^4 and ln^2(2) coefficients. If the result does not reproduce 177/64 + 11pi^2/24 - 3zeta(3)/4 - 7pi^4/120 - pi^2 ln(2), the matching procedure has an error that propagates into Eq. (46). As a secondary check, independently recompute Eq. (46) at x = 1/2 from the massless result [8] plus the matching and compare.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic agrees 5 min 5 s · 17,650 tokens read, 16,564 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 27 s · 18,631 tokens read, 1,527 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 2 major objections, 10 minor 4 min 6 s · 17,920 tokens read, 13,550 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

This is the details paper behind Penin's PRL [23] on the nonlogarithmic two-loop photonic correction to Bhabha scattering, and it does earn its place. The matching operators in Eq. (38), the auxiliary-amplitude construction in Eq. (31), and the full analytic expression in Eq. (46) are not in the letter. If you want the formula rather than the number, this is where it lives. The abstract's framing (abstract:s0) is accurate: it is a details paper, not a new headline result, and it does not pretend otherwise. The luminosity motivation (abstract:s1) is context, not a claim of discovery, and it is handled soberly in Sect. 5 rather than oversold. The method itself is clean. Infrared subtractions let him reduce the massive calculation to a massless one plus a matching term, and the small-angle limit reproducing Arbuzov et al. [21] (Eqs. 40-41) is a real independent check, not a consistency tautology. Bonciani and Ferroglia cross-checked a large part of the result, which is stated plainly in the acknowledgments. The structural observation that the single-log coefficients in the form-factor exponent are mass-independent is the interesting idea in the paper. The soft spot is Sect. 3.1: he calls this 'a new observation' and then writes 'We refrain from giving the details of the derivation.' That step licenses Eq. (18), which licenses Eq. (31) and the identification of H'^(2) in Eq. (36). It is bounded, though: Eqs. (20)-(22) verify C^(2) explicitly in all three Sudakov regimes, so the two-loop result does not actually hang on the unproved general statement. A referee should still ask for a sketch, since the paper advertises the claim. The other thing I would want checked is the constant term in Eq. (38) - the pi4 and ln2(2) pieces - against the massless limit; my copy is garbled there and I could not do it myself. Finally, he is honest that Eq. (46) is not plug-in: it must be combined with Monte Carlo hard bremsstrahlung, and part of the second-order correction may already sit inside existing generators through exponentiation and would need subtracting. That is a usability hurdle, not a defect, but it means the practical payoff is smaller than the formula's length suggests. Numerically the nonlogarithmic piece clears 0.5 per mille only at theta below about 18 degrees and above about 166 degrees. This is for the precision-QED and luminosity-Monte-Carlo crowd, BHLUMI and BabaYaga maintainers especially. Send it out.

The strongest objection

The load-bearing step is the claim in Sect. 3.1 (after Eq. 17) that the single-log coefficients C^(n) in the form-factor exponent are mass-independent across the three Sudakov regimes (a)-(c). The author calls this 'a new observation' and explicitly declines to prove it: 'We refrain from giving the details of the derivation.' This claim is what licenses writing f^(2) = (1/2)(f^(1))^2 + C^(2) ln Q^2 + O(ln^0) (Eq. 18), which in turn underpins the auxiliary amplitude Eq. (31) and the identification of H'^(2) = 2f^(2) - (f^(1))^2 as the correct matching operator in Eq. (36). If C^(2) were not universal, the matching constant in Eq. (38) would be wrong and Eq. (46) would be affected. The mitigation is real: Eqs. (20)-(22) explicitly verify that C^(2) = 3/32 - pi^2/8 + (3/2)zeta(3) is common to all three regimes, and the finiteness of delta A^(2) follows from the standard evolution equations (15) and (27). So the gap concerns the general claim, not the two-loop result. The residual risk is that the constant term in Eq. (38) -- which I could not fully verify because the OCR garbles the pi^4 and ln^2(2) coefficients -- might be wrong if the scheme-dependent pieces are mishandled.

The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies the most load-bearing gap: the asserted, unproved mass-independence of C^(n). The author is candid about this ('We refrain from giving the details of the derivation'), and the paper's own two-loop results Eqs. (20)-(22) verify the premise for the case at hand. The construction is also internally consistent: expanding A = F^2 A-tilde with A-tilde^(2) = (1/2)(A-tilde^(1))^2 + O(ln^0) (Eq. 29, a consequence of the standard evolution equation Eq. 27) shows that A^(2) - (1/2)(A^(1))^2 - 2f^(2) + (f^(1))^2 is finite, which is exactly the auxiliary amplitude Eq. (31). So the finiteness of delta A^(2) does not require the general universality claim; it requires only the standard evolution equations. The universality is used to justify the form of the matching and to predict higher orders, not to establish the two-loop result. The paper's independent checks are genuine: the small-angle limit Eq. (41) reproduces [21], and Bonciani-Ferroglia cross-checked a large part of the result. The paper is also candid about usability (Monte Carlo subtraction, validity range x >> m_e^2/s, missing fermionic contribution). The main residual risk is the matching constant in Eq. (38), which I could not verify due to OCR garbling. Overall, the concern is real but bounded and does not change the ACCEPT verdict.

The referee's report

If correct, the result completes the two-loop virtual QED corrections to Bhabha scattering when combined with the fermion-loop results of [12,13], which is directly relevant to luminosity determination at LEP, GigaZ/ILC, and the low-energy e+e- colliders. The derivation is parameter-free and rests on standard infrared theorems rather than on ad hoc modeling. Two independent checks are described: the small-angle limit reproduces the published result of [21], and Bonciani and Ferroglia cross-checked a large part of the result. The three-loop prediction Eq. (24) is a falsifiable prediction. The paper is a careful, well-organized account of a technically demanding calculation.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

Bhabha scattering — electron-positron scattering into electron-positron — is the standard candle used to measure luminosity at electron-positron colliders, so any uncomputed piece of its cross section becomes an uncomputed piece of every measurement made at those machines. The first-order QED corrections have long been known; the second-order ones are the obstacle, and the hardest part of them is the two-loop virtual correction, which must be computed with a nonzero electron mass to match how the Monte Carlo event generators actually regulate the infrared. Penin's aim is to deliver that correction analytically, keeping the leading and next-to-leading terms in the small ratio $m_e^2/s$ and going all the way down to the term with no logarithm at all, for arbitrary scattering angle. The strategy is not to grind out every massive two-loop diagram but to split the amplitude into an auxiliary piece that carries all the infrared singularity structure and a remainder that is finite when the electron and photon masses are taken to zero, so that the remainder can be borrowed from the known massless two-loop result. If the construction holds, the photonic half of the two-loop virtual QED correction is finished, and combining it with the already-known fermion-loop corrections gives a complete two-loop virtual kernel for the luminosity monitors.

What carries the argument. The method of infrared subtractions. Rather than subtracting divergences diagram by diagram, the author builds an auxiliary amplitude from objects whose infrared behaviour is already known in closed form — the one-loop chiral amplitudes squared and the two-loop vector form factor — and argues, from exponentiation of infrared logarithms, factorization of collinear logarithms into external legs, and nonrenormalization of the photonic infrared exponents, that the residual difference is finite and regularization-scheme independent. That residual is then computed in the massless theory with dimensional regularization and translated back through Catani's $I^{(1)}$, $H^{(2)}$ operators, whose mass-regularized forms are given in Eq. (38). The load-bearing structural statement is Eq. (18), $f^{(2)} = tfrac12 (f^{(1)})^2 + C^{(2)} ln(Q^2) + O(ln^0 Q^2)$, with a coefficient $C^{(2)} = tfrac{3}{32} - tfrac{pi^2}{8} + tfrac32 zeta(3)$ claimed to be the same in all three Sudakov regimes.

Core claim. The paper establishes an explicit analytic expression, Eq. (46), for the nonlogarithmic pure-photonic two-loop contribution to the normalized Bhabha cross section, together with the logarithmically enhanced pieces of Eqs. (9)–(10), all in the leading order of the small-electron-mass expansion $m_e^2/s$ and valid for arbitrary scattering angle. The derivation proceeds by infrared matching: an auxiliary amplitude $bar{A}^{(2)}_i = tfrac12 (A^{(1)}_i)^2 + 2[f^{(2)} - tfrac12 (f^{(1)})^2]$ is assembled from the one-loop chiral amplitudes and the two-loop vector form factor, chosen so that it reproduces the same infrared singularities as the full amplitude while being simple enough to evaluate in the small-mass limit. The difference $delta A^{(2)}_i = A^{(2)}_i - bar{A}^{(2)}_i$ then has a finite limit as $m_e, lambda to 0$ and is independent of the regularization scheme, so it can be extracted from the existing dimensionally regularized massless two-loop matrix elements of Bern, Dixon and Ghinculov by inverting Catani's infrared subtraction formula. The matching is carried out explicitly: the operators $I^{(1)}$ and $H^{(2)}$ are rewritten as logarithmic functions of the electron and photon masses in Eq. (38), which reproduces the known logarithmic corrections and supplies the finite matching term. As a check, the virtual correction in the small-angle limit $x to 0$ collapses to $6 (f^{(1)}_b)^2 + 4 f^{(2)}_b$, in agreement with the earlier small-angle result of Arbuzov and collaborators, and the corresponding nonlogarithmic cross-section term reduces to Eq. (41) with the constant $C = -0.744199ldots$.

The premise it rests on. The whole construction rests on the claim, stated in Sect. 3.1 and not derived there, that for pure photonic corrections the single-logarithmic coefficients in the exponent of the form factor are independent of the electron mass and therefore identical in all three Sudakov regimes; if that failed, the auxiliary amplitude would not capture the full singularity structure and the matching would leave a residual logarithm.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

Combined with the known closed-fermion-loop corrections, the result completes the two-loop virtual QED kernel for Bhabha scattering in the small-electron-mass limit, leaving only the hard bremsstrahlung to the Monte Carlo generators.

The nonlogarithmic term exceeds 0.5 per mille for scattering angles below about $18^circ$ and above about $166^circ$, which is the range relevant to luminosity monitoring at low-energy electron-positron machines.

In the small-angle limit the correction reproduces the earlier dedicated small-angle calculation, so the two independent routes agree where they overlap.

Because the same universality argument fixes the single-logarithmic coefficients at three loops, the paper predicts the three-loop logarithmic corrections in the massive case from the known massless three-loop form factor, with $C^{(3)} = -tfrac{29}{2} - 3pi^2 - 68zeta(3) + tfrac{16}{3} pi^2 zeta(3) + 240 zeta(5)$.

The subtraction machinery is generic to Abelian gauge theories with a mass gap, so the same auxiliary-amplitude construction should transfer to other massive QED processes where a massless two-loop result already exists — moeller scattering and wide-angle Compton being the obvious next targets.

The paper notes that many Monte Carlo generators already exponentiate part of the second-order virtual and soft corrections internally; a practical consequence is that the Eq. (46) result cannot be added blindly to generator output but must first be checked against whatever the generator's exponentiation already includes.

The claim that the single-log coefficients are mass-independent is asserted rather than derived here; if a future explicit three-loop massive form factor calculation showed a mass-dependent piece, the auxiliary amplitude would need an extra term and the matching constant in Eq. (46) would shift.

The numerical tables are given only in per-mille units of the differential cross section; whether the correction actually matters for a given experiment depends on the angular acceptance and photon-energy cut, which the paper deliberately leaves to the generator implementation.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

We describe the details of the evaluation of the two-loop radiative photonic corrections to Bhabha scattering. The role of the corrections in the high-precision luminosity determination at present and future electron-positron colliders is discussed.

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. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.63

“The role of the corrections in the high-precision luminosity determination at present and future electron-positron colliders is discussed.”

How the main claim is stated: unclear 0.59

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.08 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We describe the details of the evaluation of the two-loop radiative photonic corrections to Bhabha scattering. contribution 0.93 0.94 0.12 asserted 0.95
The role of the corrections in the high-precision luminosity determination at present and future electron-positron colliders is discussed. interpretation 0.78 0.33 0.16 unclear 0.59

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.99 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.88

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v2

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

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,243 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (2)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. (a) Logarithmically enhanced (dashed line) and nonlogarithmic (solid line) second order corrections to the differential cross section of the small angle Bhabha scattering as functions of the scattering angle for √ s = 100 GeV and ln(εcut/ε) = 0, in permill. (b) The same as (a) but for the large angle Bhabha scattering and √ s = 1 GeV. where C = 27 2 + 17 8 π 2 − 9ζ(3) − 8 45 π 4 − 2π 2 ln(2) = −0.744199 . . . . (42) Note that our result is not valid for very small scattering angles corresponding to x <∼m2 e /s and for almost backward scattering corresponding to 1 − x
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. (a) Photonic (solid line) and fermionic (dashed line) second order corrections to the differential cross section of the small angle Bhabha scattering as functions of the scattering angle for √ s = 100 GeV and ln(εcut/ε) = ln(ε e+e− cut /ε) = 0, in permill. (b) The same as (a) but for the large angle Bhabha scattering and √ s = 1 GeV. corrections enhanced in the high energy limit by a power of the large logarithm ln(M2/s), where M stands for W or Z boson mass, have been computed in [37,50,51,52]. They dominate the electroweak corrections for the energies √ s >∼500 GeV characteristi

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (52)
  1. [23] A.A. Penin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010408 (2005) on Pith
  2. [21] A.B. Arbuzov, V.S. Fadin, E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov, N.P. Merenk ov, and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B485, 457 (1997) on Pith
  3. [8] Z. Bern, L. Dixon, and A. Ghinculov, Phys. Rev. D 63, 053007 (2001) on Pith
  4. [1] S. Jadach et al. in G. Altarelli, T. Sj¨ ostrand and F. Zwirner (eds.), Physics at LEP2 , CERN-96-01, hep-ph/9602393 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [2] G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 21N9, 1 (1998) on Pith
  6. [3] N. Toomi, J. Fujimoto, S. Kawabata, Y. Kurihara, and T. Watana be, Phys. Lett. B 429, 162 (1998) on Pith
  7. [4] R.D. Heuer, D. Miller, F.Richard, and P.M. Zerwas, (eds.), TESLA Technical de- sign report. Pt. 3: Physics at an e+e− linear collider , Report No. DESY-01-011C and hep-ph/0106315 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [5] C. M. Carloni Calame, C. Lunardini, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Nucl. Phys. B584, 459 (2000) on Pith
  9. [6] F.A. Berends and R. Kleiss, Nucl. Phys. B 228, 573 (1983) on Pith
  10. [7] M. Caffo, R. Gatto, and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B 252, 378 (1985) on Pith
  11. [9] S. Jadach, W. Placzek, E. Richter-W¸ as, B.F.L. Ward, Z. W¸ as, Comput. Phys. Commun. 102, 229 (1997) on Pith
  12. [10] S. Jadach, W. Placzek, and B.F.L. Ward, Phys. Lett. B 390, 298 (1997) on Pith
  13. [11] A.B. Arbuzov, G.V. Fedotovich, F.V. Ignatov, E.A. Kuraev, A.L. Sibidanov, Report No. BUDKER-INP-2004-70, and hep-ph/0504233 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [12] R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, P. Mastrolia, and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys . B701, 121 (2004). 18 on Pith
  15. [13] R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, P. Mastrolia, E. Remiddi, and J.J. van de r Bij, Nucl. Phys. B716, 280 (2005) on Pith
  16. [14] V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 524, 129 (2002); Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 135, 252 (2004) on Pith
  17. [15] G. Heinrich and V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 598, 55 (2004) on Pith
  18. [16] M. Czakon, J. Gluza, and T. Riemann, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 135, 83 (2004); Phys. Rev. D 71, 073009 (2005) on Pith
  19. [17] R. Bonciani and A. Ferroglia, Phys. Rev. D 72, 056004 (2005) on Pith
  20. [18] A.B. Arbuzov, E.A. Kuraev, and B.G. Shaikhatdenov, Mod. Phys . Lett. A 13, 2305 (1998) on Pith
show 32 more
  1. [19] E.W. Glover, J.B. Tausk, and J.J. van der Bij, Phys. Lett. B 516, 33 (2001) on Pith
  2. [20] V.S. Fadin, E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov, N.P. Merenkov, and L. Tre ntadue, Fhys. Atom. Nucl. 56, 1537 (1993) [Yad. Fiz. 56 145 (1993)] on Pith
  3. [22] S. Jadach, M. Melles, B.F.L. Ward, and S.A. Yost, Phys. Lett. B 450, 262 (1999) on Pith
  4. [24] T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. 3, 650, (1962) on Pith
  5. [25] T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. B 133, 1549 (1964) on Pith
  6. [26] M. Beneke and V.A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B522, 321 (1998) on Pith
  7. [27] V.A. Smirnov, Applied Asymptotic Expansions in Momenta and Masses (Springer- Verlag, Heidelberg, 2001) on Pith
  8. [28] G. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1436 (1977) on Pith
  9. [29] B. Feucht, J.H. K¨ uhn, A.A. Penin, and V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 101802 (2004) on Pith
  10. [30] V.V. Sudakov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 30, 87 (1956) on Pith
  11. [31] D.R. Yennie, S.C. Frautschi, and H. Suura, Ann. Phys. 13, 379 (1961) on Pith
  12. [32] R. Jackiw, Ann. Phys. 48, 292 (1968); 51, 575(1969) on Pith
  13. [33] A.H. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2037 (1979). 19 on Pith
  14. [34] J.C. Collins, Phys. Rev. D 22, 1478 (1980) on Pith
  15. [35] A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 24, 3281 (1981); 28, 860 (1983) on Pith
  16. [36] J. Frenkel and J.C. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B116, 185 (1976) on Pith
  17. [37] B. Jantzen, J.H. K¨ uhn, A.A. Penin, and V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev . D 72, 051301(R) (2005) on Pith
  18. [38] G. Kramer and B. Lampe, Z. Phys. C 34, 497 (1987); 42, 504(E) (1989) on Pith
  19. [39] T. Matsuura, S.C. van der Marck, and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. P hys. B319, 570 (1989) on Pith
  20. [40] G.J.H. Burgers, Phys. Lett. B 164, 167 (1985) on Pith
  21. [41] R. Barbieri, J.A. Mignaco, and E. Remiddi, Nuovo Cim. A 11, 824 (1972) on Pith
  22. [42] P. Mastrolia and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B664, 341 (2003) on Pith
  23. [43] S. Moch, J.A.M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt. Report No. DESY-05 -106, and hep-ph/0507039 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  24. [44] G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B281, 310 (1987) on Pith
  25. [45] B.A. Kniehl, A.A. Penin, Y. Schroder, V.A. Smirnov, and M. Steinha user, Phys. Lett. B 607, 96 (2005) on Pith
  26. [46] S. Catani, Phys. Lett. B 427, 161 (1998) on Pith
  27. [47] M. B¨ ohm, A. Denner, and W. Hollik, Nucl. Phys. B304, 687 (1988) on Pith
  28. [48] F. Jegerlehner, J. Phys. G 29, 101 (2003) on Pith
  29. [49] A.B. Arbuzov, E.A. Kuraev, N.P. Merenkov, and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B474, 271 (1996); Phys. Atom. Nucl. 60, 591 (1997) [Yad. Fiz. 60 673 (1997)] on Pith
  30. [50] V.S. Fadin, L.N. Lipatov, A.D. Martin and M. Melles, Phys. Rev. D 61, 094002 (2000) on Pith
  31. [51] J.H. K¨ uhn, A.A. Penin, and V.A. Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 97 (2000); Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 89, 94 (2000) on Pith
  32. [52] J.H. K¨ uhn, S. Moch, A.A. Penin, and V.A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B616, 286 (2001); B648, 455(E) (2002). 20 on Pith
Cited by 25 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. Towards NNLO QCD predictions for off-shell top-quark pair production and decays hep-ph · Jul 2025
  2. Precise predictions for $t \bar t H$ production at the LHC: inclusive cross section and differential distributions hep-ph · Nov 2024
  3. Two-loop amplitude for $t\bar{t}W$ production at hadron colliders in the leading colour approximation hep-ph · Aug 2026
  4. Two-loop Feynman integrals for leading colour $t\bar{t}W$ production at hadron colliders hep-ph · Apr 2025
  5. On the extraction of $\alpha_\textit{em}(m_Z^2)$ at Tera-$Z$ hep-ph · Jan 2025
  6. The structure of quark mass corrections in the $gg \rightarrow HH$ amplitude at high-energy hep-ph · Dec 2024
  7. QED corrections to $e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-(\gamma)$ with amplitude-level resummation hep-ph · Nov 2026
  8. Random Reshuffling-Based Distributed Nash Equilibrium Seeking math.OC · Apr 2026
  9. Next-to-next-to-leading order event generation for $t\bar{t}H$ production with approximate two-loop amplitude hep-ph · Mar 2026
  10. Precise predictions for the associated production of a $W$ boson with a top-antitop quark pair at the LHC hep-ph · Jun 2023
  11. Associated production of a $W$ boson and massive bottom quarks at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD hep-ph · Dec 2022
  12. Bhabha scattering at NNLO with next-to-soft stabilisation hep-ph · Jun 2021
  13. QED at NNLO with McMule hep-ph · Jul 2020
  14. A subtraction scheme for massive QED hep-ph · Sep 2019
  15. Initial conditions for electron and photon structure and fragmentation functions hep-ph · Sep 2019
  16. Small-mass effects in heavy-to-light form factors hep-ph · Nov 2018
  17. Infrared singularities of QCD amplitudes with massive partons hep-ph · Apr 2009
  18. Matching perturbative and Parton Shower corrections to Bhabha process at flavour factories hep-ph · Jul 2006
  19. Towards a Fully Automated Differential $\text{NNLO}_\text{EW}$ Generator for Lepton Colliders hep-ph · Dec 2025
  20. The QCD form factor of heavy quarks at NNLO hep-ph · May 2009
  21. Electron-to-Muon Forward Annihilation at High Energy hep-ph · Oct 2026
  22. Quest for precision in hadronic cross sections at low energy: Monte Carlo tools vs. experimental data hep-ph · Dec 2009
  23. Theory for muon-electron scattering @ 10ppm: A report of the MUonE theory initiative hep-ph · Apr 2020
  24. Standard Model Theory for the FCC-ee Tera-Z stage hep-ph · Sep 2018
  25. Higgs Boson Pair Production via Gluon Fusion: Higher-Order Corrections and Theoretical Uncertainties hep-ph · Sep 2026
How the literature uses it

40 arXiv papers cite this in 54 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 · 32 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper
  • Building upon this result it was later possible to determine the leading mass effects based on the universal factorising structure of collinear divergences [ref] .

    M{\o}ller scattering at NNLO · Photonic corrections · 0.81

Uses its method or tool 11 papers
Cites it as background 8 papers
  • It is well-known that in the high-energy limit, perturbative scattering amplitudes and form factors in gauge theories admit certain factorization properties at the leading power of $m/E$ [ref] , where $m$ denotes the typical mass scale of internal and external particles, and $E$ denotes the typical energy scale of the hard scattering.

    On the high-energy behavior of massive QCD amplitudes · Introduction · 0.94

  • Theorists are working currently in several laboratories to improve the accuracy of higher-order electroweak corrections to the Bhabha cross-section [ref] .

    Luminosity Measurement at the International Linear Collider · Bhabha Scattering as the Gauge Process · 0.89

  • Initially this was done for QED in the context of Bhabha scattering [ref] .

    Small-mass effects in heavy-to-light form factors · Introduction · 0.83

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment