Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

First NNLO QCD predictions for identified hadron production inside exclusive 2-jet and 3-jet final states in e+e− annihilation are presented, and they agree well with ALEPH data when the fragmentation scale is set by the jet resolution.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:50 UTC pith:7UNB6WNN

load-bearing objection Real first NNLO results for hadron-in-jet in e+e- exclusive 2/3-jet final states; credible and useful, but send a referee after the 3-jet subtraction validation and the ALEPH fit-overlap caveat. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.12344 v2 pith:7UNB6WNN submitted 2026-02-12 hep-ph

Precise QCD Predictions for Hadron-in-jet Production in e^+e^- Collisions

Leonardo Bonino , Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder , Thomas Gehrmann , Alexander Huss , Francesco Merlotti , Giovanni Stagnitto This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Bx13.66.Fg
keywords hadron-in-jet productione+e- annihilationNNLO QCDantenna subtractionfragmentation functionsgluon fragmentationjet resolution scaleALEPH data
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper presents the first next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD calculation for identified hadron production inside exclusive 2-jet and 3-jet events in e+e− annihilation. By extending the antenna subtraction method to identified-hadron final states, the authors obtain fully differential predictions that can be directly compared with LEP data. They show that choosing the fragmentation scale proportional to the square root of the jet resolution parameter, rather than the center-of-mass energy, drastically improves perturbative convergence and data agreement. The results also reveal that hadrons in sub-leading-energy jets are particularly sensitive to the gluon-to-hadron fragmentation function, a quantity that remains poorly constrained.

Core claim

The central claim is that identified hadron production in e+e− → 2 jets and e+e− → 3 jets can be computed to NNLO accuracy in perturbative QCD using an extension of the antenna subtraction method. The authors validate their implementation by reproducing inclusive semi-inclusive annihilation (SIA) coefficient functions in Mellin space, and then compare predictions with ALEPH data for π0 and η production. They find that using a fragmentation scale μa = √(y_cut s), which reflects the intrinsic jet-resolution scale, yields stable and accurate predictions, and that the 3-jet sub-leading jet distributions are highly sensitive to the gluon fragmentation function, with gluon-initiated production gro

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the antenna subtraction method extended to handle identified-hadron final states. In this method, infrared divergences from real radiation are subtracted using antenna functions that encode radiation patterns between hard partons. For identified hadrons, the collinear singularity associated with the fragmenting parton is treated by structural analogy—via crossing symmetry—with initial-state collinear singularities in deep-inelastic scattering jet production. This extension allows the subtraction terms to cancel all infrared and collinear divergences at NNLO, enabling fully differential predictions for jet-exclusive observables.

Load-bearing premise

The correctness of the result rests on the assumption that the antenna subtraction terms constructed for identified-hadron final states—built by analogy with deep-inelastic scattering and validated only against inclusive SIA coefficient functions—have no uncancelled finite remainder in jet-exclusive phase space.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to integrate the obtained jet-exclusive NNLO cross section over the full final-state phase space and compare it with the known inclusive SIA NNLO coefficient functions; any mismatch would indicate a missing finite remainder in the subtraction terms.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Identified-hadron observables in e+e− jets can now be computed at the same perturbative order as inclusive jet and event-shape observables, removing a major limitation for precision QCD studies at future e+e− colliders.
  • Data–theory comparisons no longer need ad hoc corrections to full geometrical acceptance, because the calculation is fully differential and can incorporate fiducial cuts directly.
  • The demonstrated sensitivity of sub-leading jet distributions to gluon fragmentation suggests that existing LEP data can significantly improve determinations of the gluon-to-hadron fragmentation function when included in global fits.
  • The choice of fragmentation scale tied to the jet resolution is shown to be phenomenologically important, providing a clear prescription for future hadron-in-jet calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step is to include the ALEPH hadron-in-jet data in global fits of fragmentation functions; the improved gluon constraints could sharpen predictions for hadron production at the LHC and at future colliders.
  • The method can likely be extended to other identified-hadron final states at NNLO, such as hadrons in jets at hadron colliders with different production channels, thereby broadening the scope beyond the currently demonstrated e+e− case.
  • The strong scale-dependence of the fragmentation-scale choice makes jet-resolution-dependent measurements across different y_cut values a clean, testable discriminator of the advocated scale-setting prescription.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first NNLO QCD predictions for identified hadron (π0 and η) production inside jets in e+e− → 2-jet and e+e− → 3-jet events. The calculation is performed in the NNLOjet framework using antenna subtraction extended to identified hadrons, and is compared to ALEPH data. The authors study the dependence on the fragmentation scale, examine several recent FF sets, and quantify the gluon-initiated contribution in 3-jet events. The central claim is that these are the first NNLO results for hadron-in-jet observables in exclusive e+e− jets, enabling precision phenomenology with full event kinematics.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant technical milestone: it extends NNLO antenna subtraction to identified-hadron observables in exclusive 2- and 3-jet final states, going beyond the inclusive SIA cross sections previously available. The implementation within a general parton-level event generator means the same framework can be applied to a range of infrared-safe observables, which is valuable for LEP reanalyses and future e+e− colliders. The explicit comparison with ALEPH data, the scrutiny of fragmentation-scale choices, and the breakdown of gluon-initiated contributions to 3-jet fractions are useful phenomenological outputs. The computation is parameter-free in the perturbative coefficients, and the 2-jet validation against SIA coefficient functions is a sensible check. However, the paper would be substantially strengthened by an independent validation of the 3-jet subtraction and by a non-circular FF comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methodology and 2-jet validation] The only numerical validation reported is the 2-jet case against inclusive SIA coefficient functions in Mellin space ([50], around Eq. (3)). This check does not validate the local cancellation of infrared singularities over the jet-exclusive phase space used in the phenomenology (Durham y_cut = 0.01), nor does it exercise the 3-jet configuration at all. The crossing-symmetry argument relating identified-hadron final states to DIS jet production is plausible, but an uncancelled finite remainder specific to jet-exclusive or 3-jet phase space would invalidate all NNLO predictions. Since this is the first NNLO calculation for these observables, the authors should provide additional evidence: for example, a comparison with an independent subtraction scheme for a 3-jet observable, or a demonstration of local cancellation via small-phase-space remainder scans.
  2. [3-jet Results, Fig. 5] The claim that the NPC23_PI0_nlo FF set 'shows the best agreement with the data' is weakened by the statement (same paragraph) that this set 'includes this specific dataset in its fit.' The agreement is therefore partly an in-sample check, not an out-of-sample prediction. The conclusion that the improvement 'confirms the relevance of the ALEPH data in constraining the gluon FF' is circular as presented. To make the phenomenological argument non-circular, the authors should either use a FF set that excludes the ALEPH hadron-in-jet data, or perform a leave-one-out style analysis that quantifies the predictive power of these observables.
  3. [2-jet Results and 3-jet Results] The data–theory comparisons are only qualitative. No chi-squared or similar goodness-of-fit measure is provided, and the text states 'Accounting for FF uncertainties does not change the conclusions' without showing the relevant bands or propagation. Given the abstract promises to 'demonstrate the implications ... for precision phenomenology', the paper should include a quantitative assessment (chi²/ndof for the different FF sets and scale choices, and ideally FF uncertainty bands). Without these, statements such as 'BDSSV FFs provide a better quantitative description of the data' (2-jet Results) are not supported by the evidence shown.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Phenomenological Setup] The acceptance correction factors recomputed with JETSET 7.4 are used to revert the ALEPH data to fiducial level, but no systematic uncertainty from this model-dependence is quoted. Given that the corrections are close to unity, the effect is likely small, but a comment on this uncertainty would improve the analysis.
  2. [Table I] The gluon-initiated fraction R_g→π0_LJ is negative at NNLO (-0.50%). This is presumably due to local negative differential cross sections at higher orders, but it would be helpful to state this explicitly so the reader does not misinterpret a negative fraction.
  3. [General] The text contains a few typographical and grammatical issues (e.g., 'the clean environment of e+e− annihilation' uses a hyphen instead of a minus sign; 'whilst comparing predictions' is slightly awkward). The notation '√ycuts' is not defined before first use; consider writing √(y_cut s) explicitly at the first occurrence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central NNLO calculation is not circular; one phenomenological comparison uses an FF set fitted to the same ALEPH data, giving a mild self-referential element.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [3-jet Results, Fig. 5 discussion]
    "In particular the NPC23_PI0_nlo set, which includes this specific dataset in its fit, shows the best agreement with the data. The improvement in the description of SLJ and SSLJ data confirms the relevance of the ALEPH data in constraining the gluon FF."

    The NPC23_PI0_nlo fragmentation-function set was fitted using the very ALEPH hadron-in-jet data that the figure compares against. Its best agreement with those data is therefore expected by construction and is not an independent test of the new NNLO predictions. The statement that the ALEPH data constrain the gluon FF is partly a restatement of the fit input. This does not affect the NNLO coefficient functions themselves, which are computed without fitting to this dataset.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the first NNLO QCD computation for hadron-in-jet production in e+e- -> 2 and 3 jets. The short-distance cross sections in Eq. (3) are obtained as a parameter-free perturbative expansion; no ALEPH data enter the NNLO coefficients. The 2-jet implementation is checked against an independent Mellin-space implementation [50] of inclusive SIA coefficient functions, which is a genuine external benchmark. The 3-jet case relies on the identified-hadron antenna-subtraction formalism [44-46] and on DIS subtraction terms [49] via crossing symmetry. This is a technical assumption with a validation gap, but it is not circularity: the paper does not define a target observable in terms of the subtracted inputs, and the missing 3-jet local cancellation check is a correctness concern, not a reduction of the prediction to its input. The one genuinely self-referential step is the use of NPC23_PI0_nlo, whose fit includes the ALEPH data being compared, to demonstrate 'best agreement' and infer gluon-fragmentation constraints. The paper explicitly discloses this inclusion, so the step is not deceptive, but it is not an independent prediction. Overall, the central derivative result is self-contained; only a peripheral phenomenological conclusion is partly tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The hard, new content is the fixed-order calculation. The paper borrows fragmentation functions (fitted externally), a parton shower (JETSET), and the antenna framework. No new particles or conserved quantities are introduced. The main unstated inputs are the external FF sets and the hand-selected fragmentation scale.

free parameters (2)
  • Fragmentation scale mu_a = sqrt(y_cut)s (central); alternatives sqrt(s), E_j(H) also studied
    The qualitative success of the predictions depends on choosing this scale; it is not fitted but selected from prior SCET arguments and confirmed by better agreement/convergence.
  • External parton-to-hadron fragmentation functions D_p^H = BDSS21FF_NLO_PI0, BDSSV22FF_NNLO_PI0, NPC23_PI0_nlo, NPC23_PI0_nnlo, ALMSS25_ETA_nlo, NPC23_Eta_nlo
    All physical predictions are convolutions of the new hard coefficients with these externally fitted functions. Agreement with ALEPH data depends on which set is used; one set may have included the same ALEPH data in its fit.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Collinear factorization for identified hadron-in-jet production, Eq. (2): dsigma_H = sum_p int dz D_p^H(z) dsigma_hat_p(z).
    Factorization theorem for fragmentation in e+e-; unproved in the paper but standard.
  • domain assumption Antenna subtraction method cancels all IR singularities at NNLO for identified-hadron final states.
    Relies on [42-46]; no independent proof or alternative-method cross-check in this letter.
  • domain assumption Crossing symmetry maps DIS jet subtraction terms onto identified-hadron production subtraction terms.
    Used to build the e+e- subtraction terms (Methodology); a wrong mapping would corrupt the NNLO result.
  • domain assumption JETSET 7.4 reproduces the detector/acceptance correction accurately enough (factors 0.93-1.02).
    The ALEPH data are reverted from 4pi to fiducial acceptance with this MC; all data-theory comparisons inherit its model uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The appropriate fragmentation scale is of order sqrt(y_cut)s rather than sqrt(s).
    Adopted from [1-3,54,55] and confirmed by improved convergence; the 'perturbative stability' claim is specific to this choice.
  • standard math alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118 and mu_r=sqrt(s) are fixed external inputs.
    Standard inputs; not fitted here, no PDF/alpha_s variation included in the uncertainty bands.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9197 in / 19992 out tokens · 173770 ms · 2026-08-02T23:50:56.749582+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The production of identified hadrons inside jets in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation allows for detailed studies of parton-to-hadron fragmentation functions in a clean environment. We compute hadron-in-jets production cross sections for $e^+e^- \to 2\,\mathrm{jets}$ and $e^+e^- \to 3\,\mathrm{jets}$ to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in perturbative QCD. By comparing with data from the ALEPH experiment, we demonstrate the implications of the newly computed theory predictions for precision phenomenology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12344 by Alexander Huss, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Francesco Merlotti, Giovanni Stagnitto, Leonardo Bonino, Thomas Gehrmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Data–theory comparison for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Data–theory comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Data–theory comparison for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Data–theory comparison for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Data–theory comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. PineAPPLv1: fast and flexible theory predictions for present and future colliders

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    PineAPPLv1 provides interpolation tables supporting multiple convolutions with polarised and unpolarised PDFs and FFs for fast collider observable predictions.

  2. Precision QCD with the Electron-Ion Collider

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 1.0

    A workshop summary report outlines discussion topics in perturbative QCD, nuclear structure, and related techniques for the upcoming Electron-Ion Collider.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 47 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Procura and I

    M. Procura and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D81, 074009 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 83, 039902 (2011)], arXiv:0911.4980 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    A. Jain, M. Procura, and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP05, 035 (2011), arXiv:1101.4953 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Kaufmann, A

    T. Kaufmann, A. Mukherjee, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D92, 054015 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 079901 (2020)], arXiv:1506.01415 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Altarelli, R

    G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, and S.-Y. Pi, Nucl. Phys. B160, 301 (1979)

    1979

  5. [5]

    P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. B386, 422 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9604436

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B487, 233 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9609377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Mitov, S

    A. Mitov, S. Moch, and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B638, 61 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    C.-Q. He, H. Xing, T.-Z. Yang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 101901 (2025), arXiv:2503.20441 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Binnewies, B

    J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Z. Phys. C 65, 471 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9407347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  10. [10]

    Binnewies, B

    J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D52, 4947 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9503464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  11. [11]

    B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and B. Potter, Nucl. Phys. B 582, 514 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0010289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  12. [12]

    Bourhis, M

    L. Bourhis, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet, and M. Werlen, Eur. Phys. J. C19, 89 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0009101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  13. [13]

    Kretzer, Phys

    S. Kretzer, Phys. Rev. D62, 054001 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0003177

    arXiv 2000

  14. [14]

    Kretzer, E

    S. Kretzer, E. Leader, and E. Christova, Eur. Phys. J. C22, 269 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0108055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D76, 074033 (2007), arXiv:0707.1506 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Epele, R. J. Hern´ andez- Pinto, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D91, 014035 (2015), arXiv:1410.6027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    de Florian, M

    D. de Florian, M. Epele, R. J. Hernandez-Pinto, R. Sas- sot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D95, 094019 (2017), arXiv:1702.06353 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Borsa, D

    I. Borsa, D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D105, L031502 (2022), arXiv:2110.14015 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Hirai, S

    M. Hirai, S. Kumano, T. H. Nagai, and K. Sudoh, Phys. Rev. D75, 094009 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702250

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Albino, B

    S. Albino, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Nucl. Phys. B 803, 42 (2008), arXiv:0803.2768 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Bertone, N

    V. Bertone, N. P. Hartland, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 651 (2018), [Er- ratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 155 (2024)], arXiv:1807.03310 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    R. A. Khalek, V. Bertone, and E. R. Nocera (MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)), Phys. Rev. D104, 034007 (2021), arXiv:2105.08725 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Moffat, W

    E. Moffat, W. Melnitchouk, T. C. Rogers, and N. Sato (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. D104, 016015 (2021), arXiv:2101.04664 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Shen, H. Xing, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D110, 114019 (2024), arXiv:2407.04422 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Shen, H. Xing, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 261903 (2024), arXiv:2401.02781 [hep- 6 ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    J. Gao, C. Liu, M. Li, X. Shen, H. Xing, Y. Zhao, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D112, 054045 (2025), arXiv:2503.21311 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Bertone, S

    V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland, E. R. Nocera, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 516 (2017), arXiv:1706.07049 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    D. P. Anderle, F. Ringer, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D92, 114017 (2015), arXiv:1510.05845 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Abdolmaleki, M

    H. Abdolmaleki, M. Soleymaninia, H. Khanpour, S. Amoroso, F. Giuli, A. Glazov, A. Luszczak, F. Ol- ness, and O. Zenaiev (xfitter Developers’ Team), Phys. Rev. D104, 056019 (2021), arXiv:2105.11306 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Borsa, R

    I. Borsa, R. Sassot, D. de Florian, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 012002 (2022), arXiv:2202.05060 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    J. Gao, X. Shen, H. Xing, Y. Zhao, and B. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 041902 (2025), arXiv:2502.17837 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    de Florian, M

    D. de Florian, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D57, 5811 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  33. [33]

    Bonino, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Aversa, P

    F. Aversa, P. Chiappetta, M. Greco, and J. P. Guillet, Nucl. Phys. B327, 105 (1989)

    1989

  36. [36]

    J¨ ager, A

    B. J¨ ager, A. Schafer, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D67, 054005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    Czakon, T

    M. Czakon, T. Generet, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 17 (2025), arXiv:2503.11489 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Generet, R

    T. Generet, R. Poncelet, and M. Muˇ skinja, JHEP02, 023 (2026), arXiv:2510.24525 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Benediktet al.(FCC), Eur

    M. Benediktet al.(FCC), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1468 (2025), arXiv:2505.00272 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Zhou and J

    B. Zhou and J. Gao, JHEP02, 003 (2025), arXiv:2407.10059 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    d’Enterria, P

    D. d’Enterria, P. F. Monni, P. Skands, and A. Verbytskyi (2025) arXiv:2503.23855 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and E. W. N. Glover, JHEP09, 056 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    Currie, E

    J. Currie, E. Glover, and S. Wells, JHEP04, 066 (2013), arXiv:1301.4693 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Gehrmann and R

    T. Gehrmann and R. Sch¨ urmann, JHEP04, 031 (2022), arXiv:2201.06982 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Gehrmann and G

    T. Gehrmann and G. Stagnitto, JHEP10, 136 (2022), arXiv:2208.02650 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Bonino, T

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, M. Marcoli, R. Sch¨ urmann, and G. Stagnitto, JHEP08, 073 (2024), arXiv:2406.09925 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Caletti, A

    S. Caletti, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, A. Huss, A. R. Garcia, and G. Stagnitto, JHEP10, 027 (2024), arXiv:2405.17540 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Husset al.(NNLOJET), (2025), arXiv:2503.22804 [hep-ph]

    A. Husset al.(NNLOJET), (2025), arXiv:2503.22804 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Currie, T

    J. Currie, T. Gehrmann, A. Huss, and J. Niehues, JHEP07, 018 (2017), [Erratum: JHEP 12, 042 (2020)], arXiv:1703.05977 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Bonino, M

    L. Bonino, M. Cacciari, and G. Stagnitto, JHEP06, 040 (2024), arXiv:2312.12519 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Barateet al.(ALEPH), Eur

    R. Barateet al.(ALEPH), Eur. Phys. J. C16, 613 (2000)

    2000

  52. [52]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B269, 432 (1991)

    1991

  53. [53]

    Sjostrand, Comput

    T. Sjostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun.82, 74 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9508391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  54. [54]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, S. I. Troian, and A. H. Mueller, Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 373 (1988)

    1988

  55. [55]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, A. H. Mueller, and S. I. Troian,Basics of perturbative QCD(Editions Frontieres, 1991)

    1991

  56. [56]

    C. A. Aidala, D. A. Loomis, R. T. Martinez, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, (2025), arXiv:2507.04887 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Chenet al.(Electron-Positron Alliance), JHEP06, 008 (2022), arXiv:2111.09914 [hep-ex]

    Y. Chenet al.(Electron-Positron Alliance), JHEP06, 008 (2022), arXiv:2111.09914 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Badeaet al.(Electron-Positron Alliance), (2025), arXiv:2510.22038 [hep-ex]

    A. Badeaet al.(Electron-Positron Alliance), (2025), arXiv:2510.22038 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025