Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Soft and virtual corrections to semi-inclusive DIS up to four loops in QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single all-order exponent generates the soft and next-to-soft threshold towers of the SIDIS quark coefficient functions, and expanding it to four loops yields complete soft-virtual and partial next-to-soft predictions.

desk verdict Genuinely new SIDIS threshold towers, clearly flagged as partly conjectural; the abstract overstates completeness, but the core exponent and coefficient lists deserve serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.24078 v1 pith:R75HRU63 submitted 2025-06-30 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Saurav Goyal , Sven-Olaf Moch , Vaibhav Pathak , Narayan Rana , V. Ravindran This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exhep-th PACS 12.38.-t12.38.Bx13.60.Hb13.88.+e
keywords thresholdresummationsemi-inclusivedeepinelasticscatteringsoft-virtualcorrectionsnext-to-softfour-loopQCDcoefficientfunctionsanomalousdimensionsMellinspace
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

Semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering (SIDIS) is a key process for extracting parton distributions and fragmentation functions, but its perturbative series develops large logarithms near the kinematical threshold where both scaling variables tend to one. This paper constructs a threshold-resummation exponent that, to all orders, generates the soft-plus-virtual (SV) and leading next-to-soft (NSV) contributions to the diagonal quark coefficient functions. Expanding the exponent reproduces the known NNLO results and predicts the complete SV towers at N3LO and N4LO, with the single exception of the N4LO double-delta term, plus the partial NSV towers listed for both orders. The predicted four-loop corrections turn out to be numerically small and to reduce scale dependence, which the paper reads as evidence of perturbative stability at EIC kinematics. A separate physical-evolution-kernel argument independently reproduces the highest predicted logarithms at third and fourth order.

What carries the argument

The central object is the infrared-finite exponent $\Psi^q_d$ of eq. (58), obtained by combining the quark form factor, the soft function, and the diagonal space- and time-like Altarelli--Parisi kernels inside the mass-factorization formula. Writing the coefficient function as an ordered exponential of this exponent converts the messy convolution structure of threshold logarithms into iterated integrals whose singular pieces cancel order by order. The same exponent, taken in double Mellin space with variables $(N_1,N_2)$, becomes the generator of resummed $\ln N_1$, $\ln N_2$, and $1/N_i$ towers used for the numerical LL/NLL/NNLL predictions.

What would settle it

Compute the SIDIS soft function directly at three loops to order $\varepsilon^0$ and compare the resulting constant $G^{q,(1)}_{d,3}$ with the Drell-Yan value used here; if they differ, the N3LO $\delta(1-x')\delta(1-z')$ coefficient and the N4LO terms that inherit it, such as $D^1_{x'}D^0_{z'}$ and $D^0_{x'}D^1_{z'}$ in eq. (65), would have to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its core the paper claims that the threshold-enhanced part of the SIDIS diagonal quark coefficient functions has the all-order exponential form $C^{SV+NSV}_{J,qq} = C\exp(\Psi^q_d)|_{\varepsilon=0}$, where the exponent $\Psi^q_d$ is built from universal cusp, virtual, and eikonal anomalous dimensions, the quark form factor, diagonal splitting functions, and a small set of process-dependent constants. The iteration structure of the exponent fixes which towers of plus distributions $[\ln^j(1-\xi)/(1-\xi)]_+$ and logarithms $\ln^j(1-\xi)$ can be predicted from lower-order information. Expanding the exponential reproduces NLO and NNLO and yields the complete third- and fourth-order soft-virtual towers of eqs. (64) and (65), with the sole exception of the $\delta(1-x')\delta(1-z')$ coefficient at N4LO, whose determination would require unknown four-loop input. The next-to-soft towers in eqs. (66)--(69) are predicted only partially: the highest-logarithm terms follow from the exponent, while the lower-logarithm coefficients need explicit three- and four-loop soft-function information that is not yet available.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three-loop soft constant $G^{q,(1)}_{d,3}$ is the same for SIDIS as it is for the Drell-Yan rapidity distribution, a conjecture the paper imports rather than proves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The expanded exponent provides approximate N3LO and N4LO diagonal-quark coefficient functions for SIDIS that include all known soft-virtual distributions, with the N4LO double-delta term excepted, plus the specified next-to-soft towers.
  • In double Mellin space the exponent yields LL, NLL, and NNLL resummation, so the paper supplies resummed SIDIS structure functions matched to fixed order through NNLO.
  • The numerical analysis shows the four-loop SV+NSV corrections are small at EIC kinematics, and matching to the resummed result shrinks seven-point scale-variation bands at large $x$ and $z$.
  • The physical-evolution-kernel argument independently reproduces the highest SV and NSV logarithms at third and fourth order, tying the result to the scheme invariance of structure functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SIDIS--Drell-Yan constant transfer is right, the same soft constants may govern other two-threshold observables; a direct three-loop SIDIS soft-function computation would turn the conjecture into a testable universality statement.
  • The method stops short of the off-diagonal quark-gluon channels, which contribute at NSV and beyond-NSV level; extending the exponent construction there would be needed before full N3LO and N4LO SIDIS coefficient functions are available.
  • Because the four-loop corrections are small and scale-stable, approximate N3LO/N4LO inputs built from these towers could be enough for EIC phenomenology, but the missing N4LO double-delta coefficient still controls the exact-threshold normalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an all-order threshold-resummation formalism for the diagonal quark semi-inclusive DIS (SIDIS) coefficient functions. The central result is the exponentiated expression in Eqs. (57)-(58), built from the quark form factor, space- and time-like Altarelli-Parisi kernels, and a soft function. Process-dependent constants are fixed using the known NLO and NNLO SIDIS coefficient functions, with one three-loop soft-function constant imported from the Drell-Yan rapidity distribution under an explicit conjecture. Expanding the exponent gives complete N3LO soft-virtual (SV) coefficients, N4LO SV coefficients except for the δ(1-x')δ(1-z') term, and partial next-to-soft (NSV) towers at N3LO and N4LO, presented in Eqs. (64)-(69). An independent physical-evolution-kernel analysis in Sec. V reproduces the leading SV and NSV towers. The final section presents EIC phenomenology for F1 and g1 with LO/NLO/NNLO matched to LL/NLL/NNLL resummation.

Significance. If the SIDIS-DY soft-function conjecture holds at three loops, this is a substantial technical advance: it provides the first complete N3LO SV coefficient functions for SIDIS and N4LO SV towers (all but the δδ constant), together with a systematic treatment of NSV logarithms using four-loop universal anomalous dimensions. The closed-form exponent, the explicit analytical results, and the independent physical-evolution-kernel cross-check of the leading towers are genuine strengths. The most fragile part of the new content is the N3LO δδ coefficient and the N4LO coefficients derived from it, which rest on an unverified cross-process identification; the towers fixed purely by universal anomalous dimensions are considerably more robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II (after Eq. (42)); Eqs. (64)-(65); Sec. V] The N3LO δ(1-x')δ(1-z') coefficient in Eq. (64) and, through the iteration structure of the exponent, the N4LO δ_{x'}D^1_{z'}, δ_{z'}D^1_{x'}, and D^0_{x'}D^0_{z'} coefficients in Eq. (65) are fixed by G^{q,(1)}_{d,3}, which is imported from the Drell-Yan rapidity distribution under an explicit conjecture. The physical-evolution-kernel cross-check in Sec. V constrains only the highest-logarithm towers (35 logarithms at N3LO and 47 at N4LO) and does not test the δδ term or these derived coefficients. The authors should either provide independent evidence for the three-loop SIDIS-DY equality or clearly separate conjecture-dependent coefficients from those fixed by universal anomalous dimensions in the abstract, the results section, and the conclusions.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The abstract claims 'complete soft and collinear contributions to the SIDIS coefficient functions at four-loop order' and a 'numerical analysis of the new four-loop corrections,' but the body explicitly states that the N4LO δ(1-x')δ(1-z') coefficient cannot be predicted and that the NSV results are only partial. In addition, the phenomenological section uses fixed-order matching only up to NNLO+NNLL and does not include the N4LO coefficient functions from Eqs. (65) and (69). Please qualify the abstract and either add an N3LO/N4LO numerical study or remove the claim that the four-loop corrections have been numerically analyzed.
  3. [Sec. III (NSV) and App. H] The N3LO and N4LO NSV predictions rely on the relation φ^{(3)}_{q,z',3} = -φ^{(3)}_{q,x',3} = -16/9 β_0 C_F^2, quoted from Ref. [83] without derivation and used in the exponent ilde h^q_{d,2,2} in App. H. Because the PEK cross-check for NSV terms covers only the highest-logarithm classes, a failure of this relation would change a subset of the printed coefficients in Eqs. (68)-(69). Please state explicitly which NSV coefficients depend on this input and either derive the relation or mark those coefficients as contingent on Ref. [83].
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'focuss', 'categrory', 'togetjer', 'tcarried', 'corrobrated', 'distiguish', and 'quadradic'; the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Eq. (58)] The overline notation x' = (1-x') and z' = (1-z') conflicts with the use of x', z' as partonic variables and with the notation δ(x'), δ(z') in the same equation; please use a distinct symbol such as \bar x, \bar z consistently throughout.
  3. [Tables I and II] The columns headed 'Given Ψ^{(n)}' are not self-explanatory; please add a sentence explaining that each row lists the towers that can be predicted from the corresponding order of the exponent Ψ^{q,(n)}_d.
  4. [Eq. (70)] The symbol N is used both for the Mellin variables (N1, N2) and for the projection operator that retains SV and NSV terms; the sentence defining this symbol should be expanded to avoid confusion.
  5. [App. I] The convolution identities in App. I are extremely lengthy; providing them as an ancillary computer-readable file would make the results substantially easier to verify and reuse.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the resummed exponent is built from lower-order process constants and universal anomalous dimensions; the Drell-Yan conjecture is a declared assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Eqs. (57)-(58) is not circular. The exponent Ψ^q_d is assembled from universal anomalous dimensions (A_q, B_q, f_q, splitting functions, and the QCD β function) together with process-dependent constants (G^{q,(j)}_{d,i}, φ^{(k)}_{q,ξ,i}, g^q_{d,0}) that are extracted at NLO and NNLO from the independently computed SIDIS coefficient functions of refs. [7-12]. Reproducing the NNLO coefficient functions from the exponent is a consistency check, not a predictive claim. The N3LO and N4LO threshold towers are RG-constrained iterations of these lower-order inputs with higher-loop universal anomalous dimensions; they are not equal to the inputs by construction. The one notable caveat is the N3LO soft-function constant G^{q,(1)}_{d,3}, which is imported from the Drell-Yan rapidity distribution under an explicitly stated conjecture: 'Assuming that this conjecture holds true beyond NNLO, we have used G^{q,(1)}_{d,3} of the rapidity distribution for the DY process also for SIDIS at N3LO' (Sec. II, after Eq. (42)). This makes the N3LO δ(1-x')δ(1-z') coefficient and the two N4LO coefficients in Eq. (65) conditional on that external assumption, and the physical-evolution-kernel cross-check in Sec. V relies on a conjectured single-logarithmic structure following ref. [46]. These are correctness and robustness limitations, not circular reductions: the paper is transparent about both assumptions, and the central prediction retains independent content from the four-loop anomalous dimensions computed elsewhere.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework pulls universal four-loop anomalous dimensions (cusp, virtual, eikonal) from the literature and process-specific constants from the NLO and NNLO SIDIS coefficient functions. These are inputs, not derived here, and the higher-order predictions inherit any error in them. The invented-entity count is zero: the soft function and its factorization are standard objects, not new postulates. The DY-imported constant is the most fragile input.

free parameters (6)
  • G^{q,(1)}_{d,1} = -C_F zeta_2
    Process-dependent soft-function constant fixed by the NLO SIDIS coefficient function (eq. 42); enters all higher soft-virtual towers.
  • G^{q,(j)}_{d,2} for j=1,2,3 = Explicit rational and zeta values in eq. (42)
    Fixed by matching to the NLO and NNLO coefficient functions and their epsilon expansions (Sec. II after eq. 42).
  • phi^{(k)}_{q,x',i} and phi^{(k)}_{q,z',i} for i=1,2 = Values in eqs. (55) and (56)
    Next-to-soft matching coefficients determined by comparison with the NNLO coefficient functions; the paper notes they differ from the DY rapidity values.
  • g^q_{d,0,1} and g^q_{d,0,2} = Expressions in eq. (H1)
    Process-dependent normalization constants in the exponent, fixed by the NLO and NNLO coefficient functions.
  • G^{q,(1)}_{d,3} (soft function) = Imported from DY rapidity distribution
    Not derived for SIDIS; taken from the DY process under the explicit conjecture stated after eq. (42).
  • phi^{(3)}_{q,z',3} = -16/9 beta_0 C_F^2
    Quoted from ref. [83] and used to enable N3LO and N4LO next-to-soft predictions of certain D^i L^j towers.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Collinear factorization of SIDIS structure functions into PDFs, fragmentation functions, and coefficient functions (eq. 7).
    Standard QCD factorization for SIDIS; the backbone of the whole analysis (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Threshold factorization of the bare diagonal quark coefficient function into quark form factor, AP kernels, and soft function (eq. 20), with no-real-radiation boundary condition S_q = delta(1-x')delta(1-z').
    Assumed all-order structure in dimensional regularization; the boundary condition fixes the soft function at Q^2 = 0 (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption The leading pole in epsilon at order a_s^i is i+1 for soft-virtual and i for next-to-soft terms, and the uniform-transcendentality pattern persists to all orders.
    Extrapolated from one- and two-loop data in the Sec. II bullet list; if the pattern breaks, the tower structure fails.
  • ad hoc to paper The highest power of ln(1-xi) in G^{q,(j)}_{d,xi,i} is i+j-1 at all orders (eq. 49).
    Explicitly extrapolated: the text states the observed pattern is expected to persist and is extrapolated to all orders (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption The SIDIS-DY threshold conjecture: G^{q,(1)}_{d,3} for SIDIS equals that of DY rapidity distributions beyond NNLO.
    Flagged in the text after eq. (42); load-bearing for the N3LO delta-delta soft-virtual coefficient and for derived N4LO terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-logarithmic enhancement of the physical evolution kernels K_{J,l}: maximum log power l+1 for SV and l for NSV at every order (Sec. V).
    Conjectured by analogy with ref. [46] and used to cross-check the N3LO and N4LO predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soft and virtual corrections to semi-inclusive DIS up to four loops in QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R75HRU63

@misc{pith2026250624078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soft and virtual corrections to semi-inclusive DIS up to four loops in QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R75HRU63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.24078}
}
abstract

We apply the threshold resummation formalism for semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering (SIDIS) to derive the soft and virtual corrections for the SIDIS cross section up to four loops in QCD. Using the recently computed next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections for the SIDIS cross section together with known results for the form factor and splitting functions in QCD up to four loops, we derive the complete soft and collinear contributions to the SIDIS coefficient functions at four-loop order. We also include systematically the next-to-leading power corrections, which are suppressed near threshold. The numerical analysis of the new four-loop corrections shows a small effect on the cross section underpinning the very good perturbative stability of the SIDIS process at that order in perturbation theory, including the reduced dependence on the renormalization and factorization scales $\mu_R$ and $\mu_F$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.24078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Seven-point scale variation of the structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Seven-point scale variation of structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Seven-point scale variation of the structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Seven-point scale variation of structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contributions from various perturbative orders to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plots of the structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Various perturbative contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [83]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini, and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B 634, 504 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0511302

    arXiv 2006

  2. [1]

    E. C. Aschenauer, I. Borsa, R. Sassot, and C. Van Hulse, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094004 (2019), arXiv:1902.10663 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [2]

    Altarelli, R

    G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, and S.-Y. Pi, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 301 (1979)

    1979

  4. [3]

    Nason and B

    P. Nason and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 421, 473 (1994), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 480, 755 (1996)]

    1994

  5. [4]

    Furmanski and R

    W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Z. Phys. C 11, 293 (1982)

    1982

  6. [5]

    Graudenz, Nucl

    D. Graudenz, Nucl. Phys. B 432, 351 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9406274

    arXiv 1994

  7. [6]

    de Florian and Y

    D. de Florian and Y. Rotstein Habarnau, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2356 (2013), arXiv:1210.7203 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    Goyal, S.-O

    S. Goyal, S.-O. Moch, V. Pathak, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251902 (2024), arXiv:2312.17711 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 96 references
  1. [8]

    Bonino, T

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, and G. Stagnitto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251901 (2024), arXiv:2401.16281 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Goyal, R

    S. Goyal, R. N. Lee, S.-O. Moch, V. Pathak, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211905 (2024), arXiv:2404.09959 [hep-ph]

    2024

  3. [10]

    Bonino, T

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, M. L¨ ochner, K. Sch¨ onwald, and G. Stagnitto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211904 (2024), arXiv:2404.08597 [hep-ph]

    2024

  4. [11]

    Goyal, R

    S. Goyal, R. N. Lee, S.-O. Moch, V. Pathak, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. D 111, 094007 (2025), arXiv:2412.19309 [hep-ph]

    2025

  5. [12]

    Bonino, T

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, M. L¨ ochner, K. Sch¨ onwald, and G. Stagnitto, (2025), arXiv:2506.19926 [hep-ph]

    2025

  6. [13]

    Daleo and R

    A. Daleo and R. Sassot, Nucl. Phys. B 673, 357 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0309073

    2003 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Daleo, C

    A. Daleo, C. A. Garcia Canal, and R. Sassot, Nucl. Phys. B 662, 334 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303199

    2003 arXiv

  8. [15]

    D. P. Anderle, F. Ringer, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034014 (2013), arXiv:1212.2099 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Anderle, D

    D. Anderle, D. de Florian, and Y. Rotstein Habarnau, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034027 (2017), arXiv:1612.01293 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Abele, D

    M. Abele, D. de Florian, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094046 (2021), arXiv:2109.00847 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Abele, D

    M. Abele, D. de Florian, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014015 (2022), arXiv:2203.07928 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Cacciari and S

    M. Cacciari and S. Catani, Nucl. Phys. B 617, 253 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107138

    2001 arXiv

  13. [20]

    D. P. Anderle, F. Ringer, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094021 (2013), arXiv:1304.1373 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    G. F. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 74, 114002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606211

    2006 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Westmark and J

    D. Westmark and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056024 (2017), arXiv:1701.06716 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Banerjee, G

    P. Banerjee, G. Das, P. K. Dhani, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. D 98, 054018 (2018), arXiv:1805.01186 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Ravindran, J

    V. Ravindran, J. Smith, and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 767, 100 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0608308

    2007 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Ahmed, M

    T. Ahmed, M. K. Mandal, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 212003 (2014), arXiv:1404.6504 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [26]

    G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 281, 310 (1987)

    1987

  20. [27]

    Catani and L

    S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B 327, 323 53 (1989)

    1989

  21. [28]

    Moch and A

    S. Moch and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B 631, 48 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508265

    2005 arXiv

  22. [29]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 726, 317 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506288

    2005 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Ravindran, Nucl

    V. Ravindran, Nucl. Phys. B 746, 58 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0512249

    2006

  24. [31]

    Ravindran, Nucl

    V. Ravindran, Nucl. Phys. B 752, 173 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0603041

    2006

  25. [32]

    de Florian and J

    D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, JHEP 12, 088 (2012), arXiv:1209.0673 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Bonvini, Resummation of soft and hard gluon radia- tion in perturbative QCD, Ph.D

    M. Bonvini, Resummation of soft and hard gluon radia- tion in perturbative QCD, Ph.D. thesis, Genoa U. (2012), arXiv:1212.0480 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Ahmed, N

    T. Ahmed, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, JHEP 10, 139 (2014), arXiv:1408.0787 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    M. C. Kumar, M. K. Mandal, and V. Ravindran, JHEP 03, 037 (2015), arXiv:1412.3357 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Ahmed, M

    T. Ahmed, M. Mahakhud, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 112002 (2014), arXiv:1404.0366 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Catani, L

    S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 888, 75 (2014), arXiv:1405.4827 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Laenen, L

    E. Laenen, L. Magnea, and G. Stavenga, Phys. Lett. B 669, 173 (2008), arXiv:0807.4412 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Laenen, L

    E. Laenen, L. Magnea, G. Stavenga, and C. D. White, JHEP 01, 141 (2011), arXiv:1010.1860 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Bonocore, E

    D. Bonocore, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, L. Vernazza, and C. D. White, Phys. Lett. B 742, 375 (2015), arXiv:1410.6406 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Bonocore, E

    D. Bonocore, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, S. Melville, L. Ver- nazza, and C. D. White, JHEP 06, 008 (2015), arXiv:1503.05156 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bonocore, E

    D. Bonocore, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, L. Vernazza, and C. D. White, JHEP 12, 121 (2016), arXiv:1610.06842 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Del Duca, E

    V. Del Duca, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, L. Vernazza, and C. D. White, JHEP 11, 057 (2017), arXiv:1706.04018 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Bahjat-Abbas, D

    N. Bahjat-Abbas, D. Bonocore, J. Sinninghe Damst´ e, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, L. Vernazza, and C. D. White, JHEP 11, 002 (2019), arXiv:1905.13710 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    G. Soar, S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 832, 152 (2010), arXiv:0912.0369 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [46]

    CF 6 − 8γE # − L0 1L0 2 N1

    (also see refs. [47, 62]). By conjecturing that this behavior holds true at every order in as, constraints on the structure of the corresponding leading ln(1−z) terms in the kernel could be derived and predictions for power suppressed contributions, including NSV logarithms at...

    1936

  40. [47]

    Moch and A

    S. Moch and A. Vogt, JHEP 11, 099 (2009), arXiv:0909.2124 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [48]

    de Florian, J

    D. de Florian, J. Mazzitelli, S. Moch, and A. Vogt, JHEP 10, 176 (2014), arXiv:1408.6277 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. Broggio, M. Garny, S. Jaskiewicz, R. Szafron, L. Vernazza, and J. Wang, JHEP 03, 043 (2019), arXiv:1809.10631 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, S. Jaskiewicz, R. Szafron, L. Vernazza, and J. Wang, JHEP 01, 094 (2020), arXiv:1910.12685 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. Broggio, S. Jaskiewicz, and L. Vernazza, JHEP 07, 078 (2020), arXiv:1912.01585 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Ravindran and J

    V. Ravindran and J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114004 (2007), arXiv:0708.1689 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Banerjee, G

    P. Banerjee, G. Das, P. K. Dhani, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054024 (2018), arXiv:1708.05706 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Sen, Phys

    A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 24, 3281 (1981)

    1981

  48. [55]

    J. C. Collins, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 573 (1989), arXiv:hep-ph/0312336

    1989 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Magnea and G

    L. Magnea and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 42, 4222 (1990)

    1990

  50. [57]

    Magnea, Nucl

    L. Magnea, Nucl. Phys. B 593, 269 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0006255

    2001

  51. [58]

    G. F. Sterman and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Lett. B 552, 48 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210130

    2003 arXiv

  52. [59]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, JHEP 08, 049 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0507039

    2005 arXiv

  53. [60]

    J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky, and B. Mistlberger, JHEP 04, 018 (2020), arXiv:1911.10174 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [61]

    von Manteuffel, E

    A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer, and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 162001 (2020), arXiv:2002.04617 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Das, S.-O

    G. Das, S.-O. Moch, and A. Vogt, JHEP 03, 116 (2020), arXiv:1912.12920 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [63]

    G. Das, S. Moch, and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135546 (2020), arXiv:2004.00563 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Agarwal, A

    B. Agarwal, A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer, and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136503 (2021), arXiv:2102.09725 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [65]

    R. N. Lee, A. von Manteuffel, R. M. Schabinger, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074008 (2021), arXiv:2105.11504 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [66]

    S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138468 (2024), arXiv:2310.05744 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [67]

    B. A. Kniehl, S. Moch, V. N. Velizhanin, and A. Vogt, (2025), arXiv:2505.09381 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [68]

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

    2017 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, JHEP 02, 090 (2017), arXiv:1701.01404 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Luthe, A

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and Y. Schr¨ oder, JHEP 10, 166 (2017), arXiv:1709.07718 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [71]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, G. Falcioni, F. Herzog, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, JHEP 10, 179 (2017), [Addendum: JHEP 12, 006 (2017)], arXiv:1709.08541 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [72]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 688, 101 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403192

    2004 arXiv

  66. [73]

    A. Vogt, S. Moch, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. B 691, 129 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404111

    2004 arXiv

  67. [74]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 889, 351 (2014), arXiv:1409.5131 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [75]

    A. A. Almasy, S. Moch, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 854, 133 (2012), arXiv:1107.2263 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Chen, T.-Z

    H. Chen, T.-Z. Yang, H. X. Zhu, and Y. J. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 45, 043101 (2021), arXiv:2006.10534 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Ahmed, M

    T. Ahmed, M. K. Mandal, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, JHEP 02, 131 (2015), arXiv:1411.5301 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [78]

    A. A H, P. Mukherjee, V. Ravindran, A. Sankar, and S. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 103, L111502 (2021), arXiv:2010.00079 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Ahmed, A

    T. Ahmed, A. A H, P. Mukherjee, V. Ravindran, and A. Sankar, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 943 (2021), arXiv:2010.02980 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  73. [80]

    A. A H, P. Mukherjee, V. Ravindran, A. Sankar, and S. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 106, 034005 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 019901 (2023)], arXiv:2112.14094 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Ravindran, A

    V. Ravindran, A. Sankar, and S. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014012 (2023), arXiv:2205.11560 [hep-ph]. 54

    2023 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Ravindran, A

    V. Ravindran, A. Sankar, and S. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 110, 016019 (2024), arXiv:2309.14833 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Das and A

    G. Das and A. Sankar, (2024), arXiv:2409.01553 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Catani, Z

    S. Catani, Z. Phys. C 75, 665 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9609263

    1997

  78. [86]

    Bl¨ umlein, V

    J. Bl¨ umlein, V. Ravindran, and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B 586, 349 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004172

    2000 arXiv

  79. [87]

    W. L. van Neerven and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 603, 42 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103123

    2001 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Grunberg and V

    G. Grunberg and V. Ravindran, JHEP 10, 055 (2009), arXiv:0902.2702 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Grunberg, (2009), arXiv:0910.3894 [hep-ph]

    G. Grunberg, (2009), arXiv:0910.3894 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Grunberg, Phys

    G. Grunberg, Phys. Lett. B 687, 405 (2010), arXiv:0911.4471 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, F. Herzog, and B. Mistlberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 212001 (2015), arXiv:1503.06056 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  84. [92]

    C. Duhr, F. Dulat, and B. Mistlberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 172001 (2020), arXiv:2001.07717 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Bl¨ umlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014011 (2017), arXiv:1701.05838 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Bertone, S

    V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland, E. R. Nocera, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 516 (2017), arXiv:1706.07049 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B 478, 273 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9604351

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.