Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 10 cited by

Renormalization-group equations of the LEFT at two loops: dimension-five effects

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the complete two-loop renormalization-group equations for the dimension-five sector of the low-energy effective field theory, in a chirally symmetric 't Hooft–Veltman scheme.

desk verdict First complete two-loop dim-5 LEFT RGEs, with an honest but real caveat about the evanescent sector; deserves a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13251 v2 pith:3TLOEXFR submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Luca Naterop , Peter Stoffer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords LEFTtwo-loopRGEsdimension-fiveoperators'tHooft-Veltmanschemedipoleanomalousdimensionsevanescentinfraredrearrangement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper derives the complete two-loop renormalization-group equations (RGEs) for the dimension-five sector of the low-energy effective field theory (LEFT), including the mixing of dipole operators into fermion masses, gauge couplings, and the QED and QCD theta terms. The calculation is done in a chirally symmetric 't Hooft–Veltman scheme with finite counterterms that remove evanescent and chiral-symmetry-breaking effects, and it also supplies results in a scheme coinciding with naive dimensional regularization for the CP-even sector. The RGEs are written in a generic, non-diagonal flavor basis, so they are ready for matching and resummation in flavor-space applications. The paper also develops two technical methods that avoid constructing gauge-variant nuisance operators when renormalizing off shell, which matters for extending the approach to dimension six.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the operator basis and scheme of Ref. [71]: physical, on-shell-redundant, and evanescent LEFT operators at dimensions four and five, renormalized in the 't Hooft–Veltman scheme with finite counterterms that compensate evanescent insertions and restore chiral symmetry in the spurion sense. Two methods extract the counterterms without explicit gauge-variant class-IIb operators: the local R-operation, which automatically subtracts sub-divergences diagram by diagram, and an infrared-rearrangement variant that splits ultraviolet from infrared singularities via tadpole decomposition and disentanglement identities, keeping one-loop counterterm diagrams and two-loop diagrams on the same footing. The dimension-five dipole operators, defined over four-dimensional Lorentz indices, are the physical objects whose two-loop mixing into masses, gauge couplings, and theta parameters is the main result.

What would settle it

Run the two-loop calculation with the evanescent operators' one-loop coefficients retained in two-loop diagrams, evaluating term (A) of Eq. (4.7) explicitly; if the resulting RGEs differ from Eqs. (B.5)–(B.17), the 'complete' claim fails. Equivalently, change the evanescent basis by a one-loop finite shift and check whether the physical RGEs remain unchanged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Eqs. (B.5)–(B.17) of Appendix B give the correct two-loop anomalous dimensions of the LEFT at dimension five in the authors' scheme: the running of fermion mass matrices, electric and strong gauge couplings, theta parameters, and the dipole Wilson coefficients. A key element is that the two-loop RGEs are free of chiral-symmetry-breaking spurion terms, because finite one-loop counterterms restore chiral symmetry in the sense of the spurion analysis. The dipole operators are shown to mix into masses, couplings, and theta terms at two loops, and, for example, the QED charge RGE in this scheme is compact and spurion-symmetric. The two independent computational implementations, one based on the local R-operation and one on a new infrared-rearrangement variant with dimensional regularization of infrared singularities, agree with each other and with existing partial results.

Load-bearing premise

The two-loop results rest on the unchecked assumption of footnote 6: evanescent-operator coefficients are generated only at one loop, so their insertions into two-loop diagrams can be neglected without leaving a scheme artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Appendix B becomes the reference set of two-loop RGEs for the dimension-five LEFT, giving next-to-leading-logarithmic running of dipole operators, fermion masses, gauge couplings, and the QED and QCD theta terms in one scheme.
  • Because the results are expressed in generic non-diagonal flavor-space mass matrices, they apply directly to flavor-changing and CP-violating low-energy observables after a basis transformation.
  • The consistency of the two extraction methods with existing partial results means that the dimension-five sector is now on the same footing as the one-loop LEFT RGEs, allowing next-to-leading-log matching and running.
  • For CP-even dipole coefficients in one-flavor QED and QCD, the paper supplies explicit two-loop counterterms and RGEs, including the observation that the redundant operator mixes only into itself.
  • The reported holomorphy of the QED complexified coupling and its violation for QCD are scheme-dependent statements that can be shifted by finite renormalizations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Combined with one-loop matching at the electroweak and hadronic scales, these RGEs should enable fully scheme-consistent next-to-leading-log predictions for low-energy CP-violating observables such as electric dipole moments.
  • The new infrared-rearrangement variant appears well suited to the dimension-six LEFT, where avoiding gauge-variant counterterms would reduce a much larger computation.
  • A strong check would be to compute the same two-loop RGEs in pure MS plus explicit finite matching, and verify that a physical next-to-leading-log resummed observable is scheme independent; any residual dependence would trace back to the un-checked evanescent cancellation.
  • The noted holomorphy violation in the QCD complexified coupling is scheme dependent, so a finite renormalization restoring holomorphy, if found, would imply a corresponding shift in the Appendix B results.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a two-loop calculation of the anomalous dimensions of the dimension-five sector of the low-energy effective field theory (LEFT) in a chiral-symmetry-preserving 't Hooft-Veltman scheme. The authors discuss two methods for handling infrared rearrangement and for avoiding explicit construction of gauge-variant nuisance operators in background-field calculations, verify these methods on toy QED and QCD models, and then provide the full two-loop RGEs for fermion masses, gauge couplings, theta parameters, and dipole operators in Appendix B. The central claim is that this constitutes the complete set of LEFT two-loop RGEs up to dimension five in the scheme defined in Ref. [71].

Significance. If correct, Appendix B is the first complete set of two-loop LEFT RGEs at dimension five, which is a necessary ingredient for next-to-leading-logarithmic running of dipole operators and theta parameters. The paper has substantial strengths: two independent implementations of the R-operation (FORM and Symbolica), agreement between two different IR-rearrangement methods, gauge-parameter independence of the physical RGEs, and reproduction of known results in the QED/QCD limits and of the Misiak-Munz dipole RGE. These cross-checks make the central calculation credible. However, the completeness claim rests on an explicitly unverified cancellation of evanescent-operator dependence, which needs to be addressed before the results can be used as a fully specified reference.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.7), footnote 6] The completeness claim is load-bearing but conditional on an unchecked assumption. In footnote 6 the authors state that the cancellation of evanescent-coefficient dependence in the two-loop RGEs, called term (A) in Eq. (4.7), "was not checked," and that instead a loop-counting assumption is imposed so that all K_i dependence in two-loop terms is dropped. If a residual K_i contribution survived at two loops, Eqs. (B.5)-(B.17) would contain a scheme artifact and would not be the RGEs of a fully specified scheme. The finite counterterms of Ref. [71] remove evanescent effects at one loop, but no computation or proof is given that they suffice at two loops. The two independent implementations and the gauge-parameter independence checks do not exercise this sector, since both implementations omit K_i insertions at two loops by construction. The authors should either verify the cancellation explicitly, or state the loop-counting assumption as part of the definition of the scheme and qualify the "complete" claim accordingly. The computational cost mentioned in footnote 6 is not, by itself, a justification for the unverified step.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The caption refers to a "dummy field δζ" used in the calculation of the θ terms; a short explanation of why a scalar dummy field is sufficient for the θ-term Green functions would help the reader understand the diagram count.
  2. [Appendix B] The appendix lists only the two-loop contributions to the RGEs. Since the one-loop contributions and the scheme conventions come from Ref. [71], the paper should state more explicitly which equations of Ref. [71] define the one-loop counterterms and the flavor-space basis needed to use Eqs. (B.5)-(B.17) in a complete NLL analysis.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1] The term "sublety" appears to be a typo for "subtlety" in the sentence discussing cancellations of loop momenta before application of the dummy-mass operation.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.10)] The discussion of holomorphy for τ_QCD is terse. The authors note that the violation is scheme-dependent and might be removed by a finite renormalization; a sentence clarifying whether this expected renormalization is part of the current scheme or would define a different scheme would prevent misreading of Eq. (B.11).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-loop LEFT RGEs are a direct diagrammatic calculation with independent cross-checks; the unchecked evanescent cancellation is a stated limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central results in App. B are obtained from an explicit two-loop diagrammatic calculation: 1491 Feynman diagrams are evaluated with two independent implementations of the R-operation, and the RGEs follow from the standard two-loop relation in Eq. (4.7). There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no output defined in terms of an input, and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' prior work to force the chosen scheme. The scheme is inherited from the authors' Ref. [71], but that paper supplies the operator basis and one-loop finite counterterms; it does not contain the two-loop RGEs, so the central claim retains independent content. The paper explicitly flags in Sec. 4.2, footnote 6, that the cancellation (A) of evanescent-operator dependence in two-loop terms 'was not checked' and that a loop-counting assumption is used to neglect K_i dependence in two-loop terms. This is an unverified assumption or limitation, not a circular step: the K_i are not fitted from the two-loop RGEs, and the reported anomalous dimensions are not used to define the scheme. The calculation is further supported by external benchmarks: the two-loop QCD dipole RGE agrees with Misiak-Munz [101], the pure QED/QCD mass anomalous dimensions reduce to known results in the Hermitian-mass MS/NDR limits, the RGEs are gauge-parameter independent, the two IR-rearrangement methods agree, and the MS limits reproduce known QED/QCD anomalous dimensions. These checks exercise the parts of the calculation that were actually computed and do not depend on the unchecked evanescent cancellation, since the implementations omit K_i insertions at two loops. The paper therefore shows no circularity in its derivation chain; the honest verdict is a non-finding, with the caveat about evanescent dependence recorded as a completeness risk rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The computation introduces no fitted physics parameters. The auxiliary dummy mass and the chiral-rotation angles are regulators or basis conventions that cancel or are absorbed into the basis definition. The load-bearing axioms are: the HV scheme consistency (a literature theorem), the completeness of the dimension-five basis including the evanescent sector (from the authors' Ref. [71]), the explicit assumption that evanescent coefficients are one-loop generated (flagged as unchecked in footnote 6), the field-redefinition argument that class-II operators can be omitted in the physical sector (verified in toy models), and the standard LEFT power counting. No new physical entities are postulated; the dummy mass and the dummy field delta-zeta are computational devices with no physical content.

free parameters (2)
  • Auxiliary dummy mass m (IR regulator) = arbitrary; cancels in final counterterms
    Introduced by hand in Sec. 3.2 to regulate IR singularities of Taylor-expanded two-loop integrands. The authors show the m-dependent deformation drops out of the physical UV counterterms and cross-check against the m-free method of Sec. 3.3. Not a parameter of the LEFT.
  • Gauge-parameter-dependent chiral rotation angles = proportional to (xi_gamma - 1) and (xi_g - 1); chosen convention
    A two-loop chiral field redefinition chosen so the mass-matrix RGEs are gauge-parameter independent (Sec. 4.3). The authors state App. B.1 'should be understood as the definition of the field basis'. A basis convention, not a fit to data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The HV (BMHV) scheme for gamma5 is algebraically consistent to all loop orders, with chiral symmetry restored by finite counterterms.
    Invoked in Secs. 1 and 4.1 as the reason for choosing the HV scheme; the consistency theorem is established in the cited literature, Refs. [79-81].
  • domain assumption The dimension-five operator basis of Ref. [71] is complete, including the evanescent operators required by the scheme.
    Adopted in Sec. 4.1 (Tables 1 and 2). The sufficiency of the evanescent sector at two loops is exactly what the unchecked cancellation (A) in Eq. (4.7) would certify.
  • ad hoc to paper Evanescent operator coefficients are one-loop generated, so all K_i dependence can be neglected in two-loop terms.
    Footnote 6, Sec. 4.2: 'we assign a loop counting to evanescent operators and assume their coefficients to be one-loop generated' because checking cancellation (A) requires expensive evanescent insertions into two-loop diagrams.
  • domain assumption Class-II (redundant and gauge-variant) operators can be omitted from the off-shell 1PI renormalization of the physical sector without contaminating physical counterterms.
    Sec. 3.3.2 justifies this through field redefinitions and the polynomial-mapping property of the Taylor-expanded IR rearrangement, and verifies it in the QED and QCD toy models of Sec. 2. Structural assumption of the method.
  • domain assumption The LEFT power counting: at dimension five only single insertions of dim-5 operators contribute, with masses and gauge couplings running as in QCD+QED.
    Standard LEFT framework (Refs. [27, 71]), stated in Secs. 4.1 and 4.2; this defines which diagrams and counterterm insertions are retained.
invented entities (2)
  • Auxiliary dummy mass m with the associated Delta-L_m counterterm deformation
    purpose: IR regulator for separating UV from IR singularities in Taylor-expanded two-loop integrals (Sec. 3.2)
    Computational device only: the authors show the m-dependent counterterms drop out of the physical UV counterterms and cross-check against the m-free method of Sec. 3.3. No physical content claimed.
  • Dummy field delta-zeta (listed in Table 3)
    purpose: Auxiliary bookkeeping field for extracting the RGEs of the QED and QCD theta-parameters via the method of Ref. [117]
    Technical device; the physical outputs are the theta-parameter RGEs in Eqs. (B.10) and (B.11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Renormalization-group equations of the LEFT at two loops: dimension-five effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TLOEXFR

@misc{pith2026241213251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Renormalization-group equations of the LEFT at two loops: dimension-five effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TLOEXFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13251}
}
abstract

We present the first part of a systematic calculation of the two-loop anomalous dimensions in the low-energy effective field theory (LEFT): the effects at dimension five in the power counting. Our calculation is performed in a basis with generic mass matrices, we employ the algebraically consistent 't Hooft-Veltman scheme for $\gamma_5$, and we correct for evanescent as well as chiral-symmetry-breaking effects by including the appropriate finite counterterms. We also provide results for the $CP$-even sector in a scheme that coincides with naive dimensional regularization. We discuss two methods to avoid the explicit construction of gauge-variant operators, which in principle are needed for the cancellation of sub-divergences, even in the background-field method. The two methods are consistent with each other and with existing partial results. Our work is a further step towards a complete EFT framework for physics beyond the Standard Model at next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The two-loop diagrams for the gluon propagator in dimension-five LEFT. Diagrams obtained from those by exchange of external legs or reflection of a fermion loop are not displayed. There exist also diagrams with different fermions in loops, and diagrams with internal photons, totaling to 83 diagrams (see Tab. 3). Some diagrams vanish trivially, e.g., due to the EFT power counting. We use QGRAF [114] for diagram gener… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. One-loop matching of the LEFT to the QCD gradient flow

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    All one-loop matching coefficients connecting the full baryon- and lepton-number-conserving low-energy effective field theory up to dimension six to the QCD gradient flow are computed.

  2. On the Renormalization Group in EFTs: On-Shell Bases, Ambiguities, and Divergences

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Two-loop RG divergences in on-shell EFT bases are spurious: they vanish when non-minimal source terms are included, leaving only unphysical flavor-rotation flow.

  3. Four-Loop Renormalisation of Chiral Gauge Theories with Non-Anticommuting $\gamma_5$ in the BMHV Scheme

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First 4-loop BMHV renormalization of an Abelian chiral gauge theory, with explicit finite symmetry-restoring counterterms and an application to the SM fermionic sector.

  4. Electroweak precision observables at NLL order in the SMEFT

    hep-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    SMEFT electroweak precision predictions can be upgraded to NLL accuracy using two-loop renormalization-group evolution plus one-loop matching, yielding complete 210-coefficient expressions and stronger indirect new-ph...

  5. Inclusive Charmless Non-Leptonic B Decays at NLO within and beyond the Standard Model

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Complete NLO QCD corrections to charmless inclusive non-leptonic B-decay widths are computed for the full BSM operator set, yielding 26 constrained directions in Wilson coefficient space.

  6. Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two-loop SMEFT corrections from third-generation four-quark operators to gg to h and h to gamma gamma are computed with full mass dependence, including new two-loop anomalous dimensions.

  7. Renormalization-group equations of the LEFT at two loops: dimension-six baryon-number-violating operators

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The two-loop anomalous dimensions for all dimension-six baryon-number-violating LEFT operators are derived in the 't Hooft-Veltman and naive dimensional regularization schemes.

  8. Renormalizing Two-Fermion Operators in the SMEFT via Supergeometry

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A covariant one-loop divergence formula for mixed boson-fermion graphs is derived and applied to dimension-eight two-fermion RGEs in the SMEFT.

  9. Constraints on lepton-flavor mixing with third-generation new physics

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The U(2)_ℓ-breaking spurion δ is constrained to |δ| < 0.051 (95% CL) by R_K(*) and B_s→μμ data, with derived upper limits for LFV τ and B decays.

  10. Baryon Number Violation: From Nuclear Matrix Elements to BSM Physics

    hep-ph 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A workshop report that maps the current experimental and theoretical landscape for baryon number violation, from proton decay and neutron-antineutron oscillation searches to the EFT, lattice QCD, and astrophysical con...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [71]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, JHEP02, 068 (2024), [arXiv:2310.13051 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Buchm¨ uller and D

    W. Buchm¨ uller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  3. [2]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzy´ nski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010), [arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2010

  4. [3]

    Feruglio, Int

    F. Feruglio, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8, 4937 (1993), [arXiv:hep-ph/9301281]

    arXiv 1993

  5. [4]

    Grinstein and M

    B. Grinstein and M. Trott, Phys. Rev. D76, 073002 (2007), [arXiv:0704.1505 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  6. [5]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin, and J. Yepes, Phys. Lett. B722, 330 (2013), [arXiv:1212.3305 [hep-ph]], [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B726, 926 (2013)]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a, and C. Krause, Nucl. Phys. B880, 552 (2014), [arXiv:1307.5017 [hep-ph]], [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B913, 475–478 (2016)]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a, and C. Krause, Phys. Lett. B731, 80 (2014), [arXiv:1312.5624 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 124 references
  1. [8]

    B. M. Gavela, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and L. Merlo, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 485 (2016), [arXiv:1601.07551 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. Pich, I. Rosell, J. Santos, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP04, 012 (2017), [arXiv:1609.06659 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Karmakar, A

    S. Karmakar, A. Dighe, and R. S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D111, 055002 (2025), [arXiv:2404.10061 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, M. Golz, and G. Hiller, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 164 (2022), [arXiv:2007.05001 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, M. Golz, and G. Hiller, JHEP12, 061 (2021), [arXiv:2109.01675 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP03, 016 (2018), [arXiv:1709.04486 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Dekens and P

    W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, JHEP10, 197 (2019), [arXiv:1908.05295 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Lehman, Phys

    L. Lehman, Phys. Rev. D90, 125023 (2014), [arXiv:1410.4193 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, JHEP11, 043 (2016), [arXiv:1607.07309 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    C. W. Murphy, JHEP10, 174 (2020), [arXiv:2005.00059 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D104, 015026 (2021), [arXiv:2005.00008 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, JHEP11, 152 (2020), [arXiv:2007.08125 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    R. V. Harlander, T. Kempkens, and M. C. Schaaf, Phys. Rev. D108, 055020 (2023), [arXiv:2305.06832 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Liao, X.-D

    Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, and Q.-Y. Wang, JHEP08, 162 (2020), [arXiv:2005.08013 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    C. W. Murphy, JHEP04, 101 (2021), [arXiv:2012.13291 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, JHEP06, 138 (2021), [arXiv:2012.09188 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP10, 087 (2013), [arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [25]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP01, 035 (2014), [arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP04, 159 (2014), [arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [27]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP01, 084 (2018), [arXiv:1711.05270 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [28]

    A. J. Buras and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B333, 66 (1990)

    1990

  22. [29]

    A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, M. E. Lautenbacher, and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B370, 69 (1992), [Addendum: Nucl. Phys. B375, 501 (1992)]. – 27 –

    1992

  23. [30]

    A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, M. E. Lautenbacher, and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B400, 37 (1993), [arXiv:hep-ph/9211304]

    1993 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, and L. Reina, Nucl. Phys. B415, 403 (1994), [arXiv:hep-ph/9304257]

    1994 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B421, 41 (1994), [arXiv:hep-ph/9311357]

    1994 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 1125 (1996), [arXiv:hep-ph/9512380]

    1996 arXiv

  27. [34]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Munz, Nucl. Phys. B520, 279 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ph/9711280]

    1998 arXiv

  28. [35]

    A. J. Buras, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B586, 397 (2000), [arXiv:hep-ph/0005183]

    2000 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Bobeth, P

    C. Bobeth, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, JHEP04, 071 (2004), [arXiv:hep-ph/0312090]

    2004 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Gorbahn and U

    M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B713, 291 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0411071]

    2005 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Huber, E

    T. Huber, E. Lunghi, M. Misiak, and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B740, 105 (2006), [arXiv:hep-ph/0512066]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Gorbahn, U

    M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch, and M. Misiak, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 102004 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0504194]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Czakon, U

    M. Czakon, U. Haisch, and M. Misiak, JHEP03, 008 (2007), [arXiv:hep-ph/0612329]

    2007 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Aebischer, M

    J. Aebischer, M. Fael, C. Greub, and J. Virto, JHEP09, 158 (2017), [arXiv:1704.06639 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Panico, A

    G. Panico, A. Pomarol, and M. Riembau, JHEP04, 090 (2019), [arXiv:1810.09413 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Morell and J

    P. Morell and J. Virto, JHEP04, 105 (2024), [arXiv:2402.00249 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Aebischer, P

    J. Aebischer, P. Morell, M. Pesut, and J. Virto, arXiv:2501.08384 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [45]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, JHEP03, 179 (2019), [arXiv:1901.10302 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Chala and A

    M. Chala and A. Titov, Phys. Rev. D104, 035002 (2021), [arXiv:2104.08248 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Chala, G

    M. Chala, G. Guedes, M. Ramos, and J. Santiago, SciPost Phys.11, 065 (2021), [arXiv:2106.05291 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Accettulli Huber and S

    M. Accettulli Huber and S. De Angelis, JHEP11, 221 (2021), [arXiv:2108.03669 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Das Bakshi, M

    S. Das Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona, and G. Guedes, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 973 (2022), [arXiv:2205.03301 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Helset, E

    A. Helset, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, JHEP02, 063 (2023), [arXiv:2212.03253 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Das Bakshi and A

    S. Das Bakshi and A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona, JHEP06, 123 (2023), [arXiv:2301.07151 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Zhang, JHEP10, 148 (2023), [arXiv:2306.03008 [hep-ph]]

    D. Zhang, JHEP10, 148 (2023), [arXiv:2306.03008 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Chala and X

    M. Chala and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D109, 065015 (2024), [arXiv:2309.16611 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Zhang, JHEP02, 133 (2024), [arXiv:2310.11055 [hep-ph]]

    D. Zhang, JHEP02, 133 (2024), [arXiv:2310.11055 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Boughezal, Y

    R. Boughezal, Y. Huang, and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D110, 116015 (2024), [arXiv:2408.15378 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    S. D. Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona, Z. Ren, and F. Vilches, arXiv:2409.15408 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  50. [57]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rept.793, 1 (2019), [arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 015006 (2024), [arXiv:2303.16922 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Carmona, A

    A. Carmona, A. Lazopoulos, P. Olgoso, and J. Santiago, SciPost Phys.12, 198 (2022), [arXiv:2112.10787 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen, and F. Wilsch, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 662 (2023), [arXiv:2212.04510 [hep-ph]]. – 28 –

    2023 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. Palavri´ c, and A. E. Thomsen, Phys. Lett. B851, 138557 (2024), [arXiv:2311.13630 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Allwicheret al., Eur

    L. Allwicheret al., Eur. Phys. J. C84, 170 (2024), [arXiv:2307.08745 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [63]

    A. E. Thomsen, JHEP12, 185 (2024), [arXiv:2404.11640 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [64]

    de Vries, G

    J. de Vries, G. Falcioni, F. Herzog, and B. Ruijl, Phys. Rev. D102, 016010 (2020), [arXiv:1907.04923 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, and E. Sawyer, JHEP10, 211 (2020), [arXiv:2005.12917 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Aebischer, A

    J. Aebischer, A. J. Buras, and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D106, 035003 (2022), [arXiv:2203.11224 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen, and F. Wilsch, JHEP02, 031 (2023), [arXiv:2211.09144 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Aebischer, M

    J. Aebischer, M. Pesut, and Z. Polonsky, JHEP01, 060 (2024), [arXiv:2306.16449 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [69]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop, and J. Pag` es, JHEP12, 165 (2023), [arXiv:2308.06315 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [70]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop, and J. Pag` es, JHEP02, 131 (2024), [arXiv:2310.19883 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Aebischer, M

    J. Aebischer, M. Pesut, and Z. Polonsky, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 750 (2024), [arXiv:2401.16904 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. V. Manohar, J. Pag` es, and J. Roosmale Nepveu, JHEP05, 018 (2024), [arXiv:2402.08715 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober, and M. K. Mandal, JHEP12, 220 (2025), [arXiv:2408.03252 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  67. [75]

    L. Born, J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, S. Kvedarait˙ e, and A. E. Thomsen, JHEP05, 121 (2025), [arXiv:2410.07320 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober, G. Heinrich, J. Lang, and M. Vitti, Phys. Rev. D109, 095024 (2024), [arXiv:2310.18221 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. Moreno-S´ anchez, A. Palavri´ c, and A. E. Thomsen, arXiv:2412.12270 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B44, 189 (1972)

    1972

  71. [79]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, Commun. Math. Phys.52, 39 (1977)

    1977

  72. [80]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, Commun. Math. Phys.52, 55 (1977)

    1977

  73. [81]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, Commun. Math. Phys.52, 11 (1977)

    1977

  74. [82]

    Jegerlehner, Eur

    F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C18, 673 (2001), [arXiv:hep-th/0005255]

    2001 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kreimer, Phys

    D. Kreimer, Phys. Lett. B237, 59 (1990)

    1990

  76. [84]

    J. G. K¨ orner, D. Kreimer, and K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. C54, 503 (1992)

    1992

  77. [85]

    Schubert, Nucl

    C. Schubert, Nucl. Phys. B323, 478 (1989)

    1989

  78. [86]

    Ferrari, A

    R. Ferrari, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, and J. C. Raynal, Phys. Rev. D52, 3036 (1995)

    1995

  79. [87]

    Cornella, F

    C. Cornella, F. Feruglio, and L. Vecchi, JHEP02, 244 (2023), [arXiv:2205.10381 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A

    H. B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A. Ilakovac, M. Mador-Boˇ zinovi´ c, and D. St¨ ockinger, JHEP08, 024 (2020), [arXiv:2004.14398 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A

    H. B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A. Ilakovac, P. K¨ uhler, M. Mador-Boˇ zinovi´ c, and D. St¨ ockinger, JHEP11, 159 (2021), [arXiv:2109.11042 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A

    H. B´ elusca-Ma ¨ ıto, A. Ilakovac, P. K¨ uhler, M. Mador-Boˇ zinovi´ c, D. St¨ ockinger, and M. Weißwange, Symmetry15, 622 (2023), [arXiv:2303.09120 [hep-ph]]. – 29 –

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    St¨ ockinger and M

    D. St¨ ockinger and M. Weißwange, JHEP02, 139 (2024), [arXiv:2312.11291 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Olgoso Ruiz and L

    P. Olgoso Ruiz and L. Vecchi, JHEP12, 080 (2024), [arXiv:2406.17013 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    P. L. Ebert, P. K¨ uhler, D. St¨ ockinger, and M. Weißwange, JHEP01, 114 (2025), [arXiv:2411.02543 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185, 189 (1981)

    1981

  87. [95]

    L. F. Abbott, M. T. Grisaru, and R. K. Schaefer, Nucl. Phys. B229, 372 (1983)

    1983

  88. [96]

    J. A. Dixon and J. C. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B78, 552 (1974)

    1974

  89. [97]

    Kluberg-Stern and J

    H. Kluberg-Stern and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D12, 3159 (1975)

    1975

  90. [98]

    S. D. Joglekar and B. W. Lee, Annals Phys.97, 160 (1976)

    1976

  91. [99]

    W. S. Deans and J. A. Dixon, Phys. Rev. D18, 1113 (1978)

    1978

  92. [100]

    Falcioni and F

    G. Falcioni and F. Herzog, JHEP05, 177 (2022), [arXiv:2203.11181 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Misiak and M

    M. Misiak and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Lett. B344, 308 (1995), [arXiv:hep-ph/9409454]

    1995 arXiv

  94. [102]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. M¨ unz, Nucl. Phys. B518, 473 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ph/9711266]

    1998 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Gambino, M

    P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B673, 238 (2003), [arXiv:hep-ph/0306079]

    2003 arXiv

  96. [104]

    J.-N. Lang, S. Pozzorini, H. Zhang, and M. F. Zoller, JHEP10, 016 (2020), [arXiv:2007.03713 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  97. [105]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B114, 340 (1982)

    1982

  98. [106]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B144, 419 (1984)

    1984

  99. [107]

    V. A. Smirnov and K. G. Chetyrkin, Theor. Math. Phys.63, 462 (1985)

    1985

  100. [108]

    Herzog and B

    F. Herzog and B. Ruijl, JHEP05, 037 (2017), [arXiv:1703.03776 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  101. [109]

    A. V. Manohar, Les Houches Lect. Notes108, 47 (2020), [arXiv:1804.05863 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  102. [110]

    J. C. Criado and M. P´ erez-Victoria, JHEP03, 038 (2019), [arXiv:1811.09413 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Cirigliano, E

    V. Cirigliano, E. Mereghetti, and P. Stoffer, JHEP09, 094 (2020), [arXiv:2004.03576 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  104. [112]

    J. C. Collins,Renormalization, vol. 26 ofCambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 7, 2023

    2023

  105. [113]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, arXiv:2505.03871 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  106. [114]

    Nogueira, J

    P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys.105, 279 (1993)

    1993

  107. [115]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, arXiv:math-ph/0010025

    arXiv

  108. [116]

    Ruijl, T

    B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, and J. Vermaseren, arXiv:1707.06453 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  109. [117]

    Georgi, T

    H. Georgi, T. Tomaras, and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. D23, 469 (1981)

    1981

  110. [118]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B739, 95 (2014), [arXiv:1409.0868 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, in preparation

  112. [120]

    Abelet al., Phys

    C. Abelet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), [arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Mereghetti, C

    E. Mereghetti, C. J. Monahan, M. D. Rizik, A. Shindler, and P. Stoffer, JHEP04, 050 (2022), [arXiv:2111.11449 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  114. [122]

    B¨ uhler and P

    J. B¨ uhler and P. Stoffer, JHEP08, 194 (2023), [arXiv:2304.00985 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  115. [123]

    `O. L. Crosas, C. J. Monahan, M. D. Rizik, A. Shindler, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B847, 138301 (2023), [arXiv:2308.16221 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  116. [124]

    `O. L. Crosas and P. Stoffer, in preparation. – 30 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.