Higher-order perturbative coefficients in QCD from series acceleration by conformal mappings

Irinel Caprini

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Higher-order perturbative coefficients in QCD from series acceleration by conformal mappings

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the previously unknown six-, seven-, and eight-loop coefficients of the Adler function in the MS scheme are $c_{5,1}=287\pm40$, $c_{6,1}=2948\pm208$, and $c_{7,1}=(1.89\pm0.75)\times10^{4}$, obtained by reexpanding…

desk verdict A careful, honest application of conformal-mapping acceleration that yields plausible new estimates for c6,1 and c7,1, but the quoted error bars are just the spread of four variants, not a conservative uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06632 v2 pith:XKWYITO6 submitted 2019-08-19 hep-ph

Irinel Caprini This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords AdlerfunctionBoreltransformconformalmappingrenormalonsperturbativeQCDtauhadronicdecayshigher-ordercoefficientsseriesacceleration

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to extract previously unknown higher-order perturbative coefficients of the QCD Adler function from the first four known terms alone, using the function's assumed analytic structure in the Borel plane. It rewrites the Borel transform as a series in a conformal variable that maps the doubly cut Borel plane onto the unit disk, so the new expansion converges in a much larger domain and, when reexpanded in powers of the strong coupling, fixes definite values for the next coefficients. The final averaged predictions are $c_{5,1}=287\pm40$, $c_{6,1}=2948\pm208$, and $c_{7,1}=(1.89\pm0.75)\times10^{4}$. A sympathetic reader would care because these coefficients are a major source of uncertainty in extracting $\alpha_s$ from hadronic $\tau$ decays, and an exact six-loop calculation is not expected soon. The paper's confidence comes from testing the procedure on two renormalon models, where the predicted coefficients converge to the exact model values at high orders, and from agreement with a completely independent Pad\'e determination.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Borel transform $B_D(u)=\sum b_n u^n$ of the Adler function, whose coefficients $b_n=c_{n+1,1}/(\beta_0^n n!)$ encode the large-order growth of the perturbative series. The machinery is the optimal conformal mapping $\tilde w(u)$ of Eq. (25), which sends the plane cut along $u\le -1$ and $u\ge 2$ onto the unit $w$-disk, together with the prefactor $(1+w)^{2\gamma_1}(1-w)^{2\gamma_2}$ built from the known branch-point exponents $\gamma_1=1.21$ and $\gamma_2=2.58$. Expanding $B_D$ in powers of $w$ after softening these first singularities yields a rapidly convergent series whose reexpansion in $u$ generates the unknown higher coefficients. For the contour integral, the paper uses weight $\omega_9(s)=(1-s/m_\tau^2)^3(m_\tau^2/s)$, selected because its Borel transform has the same singularity structure as $B_D(u)$, avoiding the model-dependent zeros present for the $\tau$ hadronic width.

What would settle it

Compute the exact six-loop coefficient $c_{5,1}$ of the Adler function in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme by a direct Feynman-diagram calculation and check whether it falls in the interval $287\pm40$; a value outside this range would falsify the predictive claim. A softer test, available before such a calculation, is to modify the assumed Borel analyticity, for example by adding a singularity at $u=1.5$, and verify whether the predicted coefficients move outside the quoted errors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Borel transform of the Adler function, assumed to be singular only on the two renormalon cuts $u\ge 2$ and $u\le -1$, can be represented by a truncated expansion in the optimal conformal variable $\tilde w(u)=(\sqrt{1+u}-\sqrt{1-u/2})/(\sqrt{1+u}+\sqrt{1-u/2})$, multiplied by prefactors $(1+w)^{2\gamma_1}(1-w)^{2\gamma_2}$ that soften the known branch points. Fixing the four free coefficients of this expansion by the known $c_{1,1},\dots,c_{4,1}$ and reexpanding in powers of $u$ produces $c_{5,1}=255.73$, $c_{6,1}=2920.2$, $c_{7,1}=13357.1$ from the Adler function alone; a similar treatment of a specially chosen contour integral of the Adler function gives $c_{5,1}=327.0$, $c_{6,1}=2840.6$, $c_{7,1}=26475$. Averaging the four unbiased estimates, the paper quotes $c_{5,1}=287\pm40$, $c_{6,1}=2948\pm208$, and $c_{7,1}=(1.89\pm0.75)\times10^{4}$, with the error covering the spread of the individual predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Adler function's Borel transform has no singularities in the complex $u$ plane except the two cuts $u\ge 2$ and $u\le -1$; if another singularity exists, or if the branch-point exponents $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are not those used here, the reexpanded coefficients change and the predictions shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the predicted coefficients are correct, the unknown higher-order terms cease to dominate the theory error in the extraction of $\alpha_s$ from hadronic $\tau$ decays, sharpening the strong-coupling determination.
The values for $c_{5,1}$, $c_{6,1}$, and $c_{7,1}$ determine the next coefficients $d_5$, $d_6$, $d_7$ of the fixed-order expansion of $R_\tau$, giving a concrete target for future phenomenological analyses.
The agreement with the Pad\'e-based determination of Ref. [8] suggests that both methods are capturing the same information from the perturbative series, making the quoted intervals a reliable benchmark for exact calculations.
The successful recovery of high-order coefficients in two renormalon models indicates that the conformal-mapping expansion, not any fitted parametrization, is the source of the predictive power, so the method can be transferred to other observables with known Borel analyticity.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same procedure could be applied to other five-loop correlators, such as scalar or tensor current correlators, whose Borel-plane cuts are similarly known; the resulting six-loop predictions would be testable as soon as exact calculations appear.
Editorial inference: the weight-selection criterion used here, rejecting any contour integral whose one-loop factor $F_\omega(u)$ vanishes at $u=-1$, $u=2$, or inside $(-1,2)$, can be used to design additional integrals whose Borel transforms mirror $B_D(u)$; averaging over more such weights would shrink the quoted error band if the predictions cluster.
Editorial inference: if a future exact calculation finds $c_{5,1}$ outside $287\pm40$, the failure would localize to the assumed Borel analyticity, most likely an additional singularity or an inexact branch-point exponent, rather than to the algebraic machinery of reexpansion.
Editorial inference: the error in Eq. (69) is the spread of four estimates, not a statistical uncertainty; a cautious reading treats the central values as indicative and the interval as an uncertainty range, not as a probability statement.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a solid, honest application of an existing conformal-mapping acceleration technique to predict the unknown higher-order coefficients of the Adler function. The genuinely new content is the systematic study, especially the criterion for selecting a contour integral whose Borel transform has the same leading singularities as the Adler function itself, and the new estimates for c6,1 and c7,1. The author is transparent about limitations: non-statistical errors, the C scheme being useless, and tau-width predictions being qualitative. The final averages are plausible and agree with an independent Padé determination, which is a real point in their favor.

The main soft spot is the size of the quoted uncertainties. The error bars in Eq. (69) are the spread over four variants of the method, all of which share the same uncontrolled truncation at four input coefficients. The model tests in the paper do not directly test the exact procedure used for the final prediction, where a single truncated numerator is reexpanded to produce all three coefficients at once. They test a related but different exercise: predicting the next coefficient from the first N-1. Those tests show that low-order predictions can be poor, e.g. c4 predicted as 17.85 against the exact 49.076, and in the alternative model the prediction for c7 from first six coefficients misses by more than the quoted uncertainty. That is a legitimate reason to treat the central values as estimates, not as rigorous predictions.

One correction to the stress-test note: its specific counterexample misreads Table II. Row N=4 in Table II predicts c4, not c7; the value 18171.5 appears in row N=7, which uses six inputs, not four. So that particular claim does not land. The broader worry about truncation bias and overconfident error bars still stands, but it should be stated accurately.

Who is this for? Anyone working on alpha_s extraction from tau decays or on higher-order QCD perturbation theory. The c5,1 value was already in Caprini and Fischer 2009, so the most useful new outputs are c6,1 and c7,1. The method is worth knowing about, and the result is worth citing, but the quoted uncertainties should be understood as a range over variants rather than a true error band.

Recommendation: yes, send to peer review. A serious referee can ask for either a direct test of the global predictive procedure on the renormalon models or a reframing of the error bars as a method spread. The paper is careful, coherent, and useful as is, with revision likely to improve the presentation of uncertainty.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for estimating the unknown higher-order perturbative coefficients of the QCD Adler function by exploiting the analytic structure of its Borel transform. The author assumes that the Borel transform has only two cuts, u ≥ 2 and u ≤ −1, with known leading branch-point exponents, and uses conformal mappings that send these cuts to the boundary of the unit disk. Expanding the Borel transform in powers of the conformal variable, truncating at the order fixed by the four known coefficients c1,1 ... c4,1, and then reexpanding in powers of u yields definite values for c5,1, c6,1 and c7,1. The same procedure is applied to a suitably chosen contour integral of the Adler function, selected so that the one-loop relation does not introduce zeros of the Borel transform at the leading singularities. Averaging the predictions from the Adler function and this contour integral gives Eq. (69): c5,1 = 287 ± 40, c6,1 = 2948 ± 208, c7,1 = (1.89 ± 0.75) × 10^4. The method is tested on two renormalon-based models of the Adler function, for which the exact higher-order coefficients are known.

Significance. If the central predictions in Eq. (69) are reliable, the paper would provide useful, previously unknown estimates for the six-, seven- and eight-loop coefficients of the Adler function, which are relevant for the extraction of αs from hadronic τ decays. The method is clearly described and the model studies are a valuable feature: the use of two different renormalon models with known exact coefficients provides a concrete check of the convergence properties of the conformal-mapping expansions. The paper is also careful in identifying which inputs are exactly known and which properties are assumed. The main limitation is that the reliability of the quoted uncertainties is not established by the validation tests, as discussed below.

major comments (2)

[§IV, Tables I–II; §IX, Eq. (69)] The validation presented in Tables I and II does not test the actual extrapolation used for the central result. For each row N, the table predicts c_N from the first N−1 exact coefficients, so the c_6 and c_7 rows use the exact c_5 (and c_6) as inputs, whereas Eq. (69) extracts c_5, c_6 and c_7 simultaneously from the first four coefficients only. The only direct test of the actual protocol is the N=5 row, which is indeed good. Because both renormalon models share the first four Adler coefficients with Eq. (6), applying the same N=4 truncation to them yields the values of Eq. (37), namely c_5=255.7, c_6=2920 and c_7=13357. The model exact values are c_6=3275 (Ref. [7]) and 2655 (Ref. [13]), and c_7=18758 and 7902, respectively. The c_6 discrepancies, 355 and 265, exceed the quoted ±208 in Eq. (69), and the final averaged c_7 deviates from the Ref. [13] model value by about 1.1×10^4, larger than the ±0.75×10^4 error. The quoted uncertainties therefore reflect the spread of four variants that share the same N=4 truncation bias, not the method's truncation error; an additional unproven assumption of small truncation error at N=4 is load-bearing for Eq. (69).
[§II, after Eq. (9); §IV, Tables I–II] The analyticity input, namely a doubly cut Borel plane with known leading branch-point exponents, is not sufficient to control the N=4 truncation error. The alternative model of Ref. [13] satisfies this input, with additional singularities at u=4 and u=5 lying on the assumed u≥2 cut, yet the method's errors at the actual truncation order are substantial, as quantified in the previous comment. Because the true strengths and positions of subleading IR renormalons of the Adler function are unknown, the optimality of the conformal mapping alone does not guarantee the accuracy of the low-order predictions. The paper should either provide a criterion for estimating the truncation error from the known coefficients, or quantify the sensitivity of Eq. (69) to subleading singularities.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Introduction] The word 'eigth-loop' appears twice and should be 'eight-loop'.
[Eq. (38)] The denominator in Eq. (38) reads '1−v/˜(2)', which should presumably be '1−v/\tilde v(2)'.
[Table III] The text refers to 'at i=5' and 'for i≤6', but the table has no index column; the numbering of the weights should be made explicit in the caption or in a column.
[§IX, Eq. (69)] Since the error is defined as the spread of four values rather than a standard deviation, the abstract and conclusions should state explicitly that these are coverage ranges and not statistical uncertainties; the current wording invites a statistical reading.
[§VI and §VIII] The caveat that the one-loop relation (47) is only approximate is clearly stated for the τ-width analysis in §VI; the same caveat should be repeated where the contour-integral results (65) and (67) enter the final average, since those predictions also rely on one-loop-derived properties of the Borel transform of the contour integral.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the predicted higher-order coefficients are not among the inputs and the derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper uses the known coefficients c1,1...c4,1 from Eq. (6), the beta-function coefficients (4), and the assumed Borel-plane cut structure stated after Eq. (9). The unknown coefficients c5,1, c6,1 and c7,1 enter neither the matching procedure that fixes the truncations (35), (38), (42) and (63) nor the subsequent reexpansion. They are read off only after the w- or v-series is reexpanded in powers of u, via Eq. (8); this is a genuine extrapolation rather than a fitted input renamed as prediction. The C-scheme section likewise treats c5,1 as the unknown to be solved for from Eq. (44), and the paper rejects that scheme because no stable C range exists. The contour-integral check for c4,1 uses only lower orders and is compared against the known value rather than imposing it. Self-citations occur for the conformal-mapping method (Refs. [9] and [12]-[16]), but the optimal-mapping statement is also supported by classical external references [30,32], and the method is tested on two renormalon models in Tables I and II. No load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation or to the target coefficients. The main limitation, namely that only the first four terms of the conformal expansion are used and that the double-cut assumption is an input, is explicitly acknowledged but is a correctness/uncertainty concern, not circularity. The claimed uncertainty is stated to be the spread of the four method variants, not a statistical error from fitting the target coefficients.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to the target coefficients in the central derivation. The first four Adler coefficients are known perturbative inputs, and the renormalon exponents come from prior theory. The validation models in Appendix A have parameters fitted to known low-order coefficients, but those model parameters are not inputs to the final predictions. The main burden is carried by the assumed Borel-plane analytic structure and by the unproven reliability of truncating the mapped series at order three.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Borel transform BD(u) has no singularities other than the cuts u>=2 and u<=-1.
Stated in Sec. II after Eq. (9): 'Apart from the two cuts along the lines u>=2 and u<=-1, it is assumed that no other singularities are present in the complex u plane.' This is load-bearing because the optimal conformal mapping and the reexpansion procedure rely on this exact analytic structure.
domain assumption The leading branch points at u=-1 and u=2 have exponents gamma1=1.21 and gamma2=2.58.
These exponents are taken from Ref. [7,18,19,21] and are used in the prefactors of the representations (29) and (34). If they are incorrect, the reexpanded coefficients change.
domain assumption The Adler function Dhat(s) is analytic in the s plane cut along s>=4m_pi^2.
Standard QCD analyticity, used implicitly when expressing tau hadronic width and the contour integral I as weighted integrals of Dhat(s) over a circle.
ad hoc to paper A truncated conformal-mapping series, when reexpanded in powers of u, yields accurate approximations to the true higher Taylor coefficients.
No theorem in the paper establishes this for the actual QCD Adler function. It is validated only on two renormalon models in Tables I and II, and the paper's own low-order results show large deviations, for example c4,1 predicted as 17.85 versus 49.076.
standard math The optimal conformal mapping expansion has the best asymptotic convergence rate among expansions based on conformal mappings of the holomorphy domain.
This is a theorem attributed to Refs. [13,16] and used to justify choosing the mapping (25) over other mappings.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-order perturbative coefficients in QCD from series acceleration by conformal mappings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKWYITO6

@misc{pith2026190806632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-order perturbative coefficients in QCD from series acceleration by conformal mappings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKWYITO6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06632}
}

abstract

The present calculations in perturbative QCD reach the order $\alpha_s^4$ for several correlators calculated to five loops, and the huge computational difficulties make unlikely the full six-loop calculation in the near future. This situation has practical consequences, in particular the treatment of the higher orders of the perturbation series for the current-current correlator of light quarks is one of the main sources of errors in the extraction of the strong coupling from hadronic $\tau$ decays. Several approximate estimates of the next coefficients of the corresponding Adler function have been proposed, using various arguments. In the present paper we exploit the analytic structure of the Adler function in the Borel plane, which allows the definition of an improved perturbative expansion in powers of a conformal variable which maps the cut Borel plane onto the unit disk. The new expansions converge in a larger domain of the Borel plane and, when reexpanded in powers of the strong coupling, yield definite values for the higher perturbative coefficients. We apply the method to the Adler function in the $\bar{\rm MS}$ scheme and to a suitable weighted integral of this function in the complex $s$ plane, chosen such as to avoid model-dependent assumptions on analyticity. Our results $c_{5,1}=287 \pm 40$, $c_{6,1}=2948 \pm 208$ and $c_{7,1}=(1.89 \pm 0.75)\times 10^4$, for the six, seven and eigth-loop coefficients, respectively, agree with a recent determination from Pad\'e approximants applied to the perturbative expansion of the hadronic $\tau$ decay rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06632 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Left: Borel plane of the Adler function. The circle indicates the convergence domain of the series (7). Middle: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** shows a quite drastic variation with C of the perturbative coefficient c5,1, which actually must be independent of C. As discussed in the previous studies [26, 29], a reasonable range of C appears to be situated close to the origin. By restricting for instance C to the range from −0.05 to 0.05, we obtain c5,1 ∈ (269, 401), with c5,1 = 283 for C = 0, values which are consistent with the determinations in Sec. IV. Ho… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[7]

Once the parameters are ﬁxed, all the perturbative co- eﬃcients cn,1 for n > 5 are determined and exhibit a factorial increase at high orders

as dUV 1 =− 1.56× 10−2, dIR 2 = 3.16, dIR 3 =−13.5, dPO 0 = 0.781, dPO 1 = 7.66× 10−3, (A4) by the requirement to reproduce the perturbative coeﬃ- cientscn,1 in MS scheme for n≤ 4, given in (6), and the estimate c5,1 = 283. Once the parameters are ﬁxed, all the perturbative co- eﬃcients cn,1 for n > 5 are determined and exhibit a factorial increase at hig...

work page 1985
[13]

Caprini and J

I. Caprini and J. Fischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 35 (2009) arXiv:0906.5211 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009
[1]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 012002 (2008), arXiv:0801.1821 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008
[2]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 082002 (2017), arXiv:1606.08659 [hep- ph]

arXiv 2017
[3]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. D 67, 074026 (2003), hep-ph/0212299

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[4]

A. L. Kataev and V. V. Starshenko, Nucl. Phys. Proc. 14 Suppl. 39, 312 (1995), hep-ph/9408395

work page Pith review arXiv 1995
[5]

A. L. Kataev and V. V. Starshenko, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 10, 235 (1995), hep-ph/9502348

arXiv 1995
[6]

Grunberg, Phys

G. Grunberg, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2315 (1984)

work page 1984

Show all 41 references

[8]

Beneke and M

M. Beneke and M. Jamin, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2008) 044, arXiv:0806.3156 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[9]

Boito, P

D. Boito, P. Masjuan, and F. Oliani, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 075, arXiv:1807.01567 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[10]

Caprini and J

I. Caprini and J. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 60, 054014 (1999), hep-ph/9811367

1999 arXiv
[11]

Caprini and J

I. Caprini and J. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 62, 054007 (2000), hep-ph/0002016

2000 arXiv
[12]

Caprini and J

I. Caprini and J. Fischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 127 (2002), hep-ph/0110344

2002 arXiv
[14]

Caprini and J

I. Caprini and J. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054019 (2011), arXiv:1106.5336 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[15]

Abbas, B

G. Abbas, B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, and J. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 87, 014008 (2013), arXiv:1211.4316 [hep- ph]

2013 arXiv
[16]

Abbas, B

G. Abbas, B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, and J. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 88, 034026 (2013), arXiv:1307.6323 [hep- ph]

2013 arXiv
[17]

Caprini, Functional Analysis and Optimization Meth- ods in Hadron Physics, (Springer Briefs in Physics, 2019)

I. Caprini, Functional Analysis and Optimization Meth- ods in Hadron Physics, (Springer Briefs in Physics, 2019)

2019
[18]

’t Hooft, in Proceedings of the 15th International School on Subnuclear Physics, Erice, Sicily, 1977 , edited by A

G. ’t Hooft, in Proceedings of the 15th International School on Subnuclear Physics, Erice, Sicily, 1977 , edited by A. Zichichi (Plenum Press, New York, 1979), p. 943

1977
[19]

Mueller, Nucl

A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B250, 327 (1985)

1985
[20]

Mueller, in QCD - Twenty years later, Aachen 1992 , edited by P

A.H. Mueller, in QCD - Twenty years later, Aachen 1992 , edited by P. Zerwas and H. A. Kastrup (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1992)

1992
[21]

Beneke, Phys

M. Beneke, Phys. Rep. 317, 1 (1999), hep-ph/9807443

1999 arXiv
[22]

Beneke, V.M

M. Beneke, V.M. Braun and N. Kivel, Phys. Lett. B 404, 315 (1997), hep-ph/9703389

1997 arXiv
[23]

Narison and A

S. Narison and A. Pich. Phys. Lett. B 211, 183 (1988)

1988
[24]

Braaten, Phys

E. Braaten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1606 (1988)

1988
[25]

Braaten, S

E. Braaten, S. Narison, and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. B373, 581 (1992)

1992
[26]

Diberder and A

F.L. Diberder and A. Pich, Phys. Lett. B286, 147 (1992)

1992
[27]

Boito, M

D. Boito, M. Jamin, and R. Miravitllas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 152001 (2016), arXiv:1606.06175 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Boito, M

D. Boito, M. Jamin and R. Miravitllas, EPJ Web Conf. 137, 05007 (2017), arXiv:1612.01792 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[29]

Boito, M

D. Boito, M. Jamin, and R. Miravitllas, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 287-288, 77 (2017), arXiv:1612.05558 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Caprini, Phys

I. Caprini, Phys. Rev. D 98, 056016 (2018), arXiv:1806.10325 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[31]

Ciulli and J

S. Ciulli and J. Fischer, Nucl. Phys. 24, 465 (1961)

1961
[32]

W. R. Frazer, Phys. Rev. 123, 2180 (1961)

1961
[33]

Ciulli, S

I. Ciulli, S. Ciulli and J. Fischer, Nuovo Cimento 23, 1129 (1962)

1962
[34]

Seznec and J

R. Seznec and J. Zinn-Justin, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 20, 1398 (1979)

1979
[35]

Zinn-Justin and U

J. Zinn-Justin and U. D. Jentschura, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 51, 072106 (2010), arXiv:1006.4748 [math-ph]

2010 arXiv
[36]

Altarelli, P

G. Altarelli, P. Nason, and G. Ridolﬁ, Z. Phys. C 68, 257 (1995), hep-ph/9501240

1995 arXiv
[37]

Soper and L.R

D.E. Soper and L.R. Surguladze, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4566 (1996), hep-ph/9511258

1996 arXiv
[38]

Pich, Proc

A. Pich, Proc. Part. Nucl. Phys. 75, 41 (2014), arXiv:1310.7922 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[39]

Descotes-Genon and B

S. Descotes-Genon and B. Malaescu, arXiv:1002.2968 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[40]

L. S. Brown, L. G. Yaﬀe, and C. X. Zhai, Phys. Rev. D 46, 4712 (1992), hep-ph/9205213

1992 arXiv
[41]

Beneke, D

M. Beneke, D. Boito, and M. Jamin, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2013) 125, arXiv:1210.8038 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Once the parameters are ﬁxed, all the perturbative co- eﬃcients cn,1 for n > 5 are determined and exhibit a factorial increase at high orders

as dUV 1 =− 1.56× 10−2, dIR 2 = 3.16, dIR 3 =−13.5, dPO 0 = 0.781, dPO 1 = 7.66× 10−3, (A4) by the requirement to reproduce the perturbative coeﬃ- cientscn,1 in MS scheme for n≤ 4, given in (6), and the estimate c5,1 = 283. Once the parameters are ﬁxed, all the perturbative co- eﬃcients cn,1 for n > 5 are determined and exhibit a factorial increase at hig...

work page 1985

[2] [13]

Caprini and J

I. Caprini and J. Fischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 35 (2009) arXiv:0906.5211 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009

[3] [1]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 012002 (2008), arXiv:0801.1821 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008

[4] [2]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 082002 (2017), arXiv:1606.08659 [hep- ph]

arXiv 2017

[5] [3]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. D 67, 074026 (2003), hep-ph/0212299

work page Pith review arXiv 2003

[6] [4]

A. L. Kataev and V. V. Starshenko, Nucl. Phys. Proc. 14 Suppl. 39, 312 (1995), hep-ph/9408395

work page Pith review arXiv 1995

[7] [5]

A. L. Kataev and V. V. Starshenko, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 10, 235 (1995), hep-ph/9502348

arXiv 1995

[8] [6]

Grunberg, Phys

G. Grunberg, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2315 (1984)

work page 1984