arxiv: 2604.27314 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Planar master integrals for two-loop NLO electroweak light-fermion contributions to g g rightarrow Z H

Shu-Xiang Li , Ren-You Zhang , Xiao-Feng Wang , Pan-Feng Li , Xiang-Jie Wei , Yi Wang , Yi Jiang , Qing-hai Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords master integralstwo-loop calculationsdifferential equationselectroweak correctionsgg to ZHGoncharov polylogarithmsplanar topologiesHiggs production

0 comments

The pith

Analytic expressions for the four planar master integrals in two-loop light-fermion electroweak corrections to gg to ZH production are obtained via canonical differential equations.

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

The paper computes analytic forms for the master integrals arising in the planar topologies that contribute to the two-loop next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections from light fermions to gluon-gluon fusion into a Z boson and Higgs boson. It applies the canonical differential-equations method, constructing bases through the Magnus expansion, and handles alphabets that contain algebraic letters with nontrivial square roots. A systematic framework organizes these radicals into subsystems, allowing most master integrals to be written in terms of Goncharov polylogarithms through order epsilon to the fourth power, while a small number require one-fold integral representations. The work supplies explicit analytic results that can be used directly in cross-section evaluations for this Higgs production channel.

Core claim

Using the canonical differential-equations method with bases obtained from the Magnus expansion, the master integrals associated with the four planar topologies are computed analytically. The symbol alphabets involve algebraic letters containing nontrivial radicals; these are identified and grouped into subsystems that permit representation as Goncharov polylogarithms up to O(epsilon^4) for the majority of cases, with only a few integrals at O(epsilon^3) and O(epsilon^4) expressed as one-fold integrals over Goncharov polylogarithms because nested square roots prevent full rationalization.

What carries the argument

Canonical differential equations whose bases are constructed by the Magnus expansion, together with a systematic framework that identifies radical structures in the symbol letters and organizes them into subsystems for Goncharov polylogarithm or one-fold integral representation.

If this is right

The analytic master integrals supply the building blocks needed to assemble the full two-loop electroweak light-fermion correction to the gg to ZH cross section.
The same canonical differential-equation approach and radical-organization framework can be applied to the remaining four non-planar topologies.
The Goncharov polylogarithm and one-fold integral expressions provide high-precision analytic results that serve as benchmarks for numerical integrators.
The epsilon expansions up to order four furnish the finite parts and higher-order terms required for renormalization and infrared subtraction in the complete amplitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The explicit analytic forms reduce the computational cost of evaluating the gg to ZH process at next-to-leading order electroweak accuracy in collider phenomenology codes.
The method for handling nested square roots in symbol alphabets may extend to master integrals appearing in other two-loop processes with similar kinematic structures, such as associated Higgs production with other bosons.
Once the non-planar topologies are treated analogously, the complete set of eight topologies would enable a fully analytic two-loop light-fermion contribution, allowing direct comparison with existing numerical results.

Load-bearing premise

The nontrivial radicals appearing in the symbol letters can be systematically identified and grouped into subsystems that allow complete representation in Goncharov polylogarithms or one-fold integrals without omitting contributions.

What would settle it

Independent numerical evaluation of the master integrals at a chosen kinematic point using sector decomposition or Monte Carlo integration, then direct comparison to the analytic expressions at the same point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27314 by Pan-Feng Li, Qing-hai Wang, Ren-You Zhang, Shu-Xiang Li, Xiang-Jie Wei, Xiao-Feng Wang, Yi Jiang, Yi Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Four Feynman-diagram topologies contributing to the NLO EW virtual corrections to view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Pre-canonical basis for the view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. An example of a tropical tree rooted at view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig.2, but for view at source ↗

read the original abstract

For the two-loop next-to-leading-order electroweak (NLO EW) corrections to $gg \rightarrow ZH$, the light-fermion contributions can be classified into eight distinct topologies. Using the canonical differential-equations method, we perform an analytic computation of the master integrals (MIs) associated with the four planar topologies. Canonical bases are constructed using the Magnus-expansion method, and the resulting alphabets consist of algebraic symbol letters involving nontrivial radicals. We develop a systematic framework for identifying the radical structures of the canonical MIs, enabling their organization into suitable subsystems and, whenever possible, their representation in terms of Goncharov polylogarithms (GPLs) up to $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^4)$. Only a few MIs at $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^3)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^4)$ are instead represented as one-fold integrals over GPLs, due to the presence of nested square roots that obstruct the simultaneous rationalization of all radicals.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

They deliver analytic forms for the planar master integrals in this specific two-loop EW correction, with a workable framework for organizing the radical alphabets.

read the letter

This paper computes analytic expressions for the planar master integrals in the light-fermion contributions to the two-loop NLO electroweak correction for gg to ZH. The useful part is the framework for identifying radical structures in the canonical master integrals and organizing them into subsystems that can be expressed with Goncharov polylogarithms up to order epsilon four or as one-fold integrals over polylogarithms. They use the Magnus expansion to obtain the canonical bases and then develop a strategy for the algebraic symbol letters that contain nontrivial radicals. This allows full polylog representations for most cases, with the integral form reserved for the terms where nested square roots prevent complete rationalization. The authors note this obstruction explicitly. The approach relies on standard techniques from the differential equations method, and the outlined steps do not show internal contradictions or gaps in logic. It builds directly on previous applications to two-loop topologies without introducing unverified assumptions. The soft spot is the restricted scope to planar topologies only. This leaves the non-planar contributions unaddressed, so the full light-fermion NLO result is not yet complete. The paper focuses on the integrals themselves and does not include the full amplitude or numerical validations in the sections described. This work targets specialists in perturbative calculations for collider processes and in multi-loop integral reduction methods. Readers who need these specific integrals or who study techniques for handling algebraic letters will benefit from the details provided. It is worth sending for peer review. The technical content is self-contained and the method for radicals could apply more broadly, even though the phenomenological payoff is modest at this stage.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to have performed an analytic computation of the master integrals associated with the four planar topologies for the two-loop NLO electroweak light-fermion contributions to gg → ZH. Canonical bases are constructed using the Magnus-expansion method, yielding alphabets with algebraic symbol letters involving nontrivial radicals. A systematic framework organizes these radicals into subsystems, allowing representation in Goncharov polylogarithms up to O(ε^4) for most cases, while a few MIs at O(ε^3) and O(ε^4) are expressed as one-fold integrals over GPLs when nested square roots obstruct full rationalization.

Significance. If correct, the results supply the analytic planar master integrals required to advance the NLO EW light-fermion corrections to gg → ZH, a process of direct phenomenological interest for Higgs studies. The explicit development of a framework for identifying and subsystem-organizing algebraic letters with radicals constitutes a methodological contribution that can be reused in other two-loop calculations involving similar alphabets. The transparent handling of cases requiring one-fold integrals rather than claiming full polylogarithmic form is a positive feature.

major comments (1)

The description of the analytic computation (abstract and method outline) does not include explicit expressions for any of the master integrals, the full set of differential equations, or numerical cross-checks against independent evaluations (e.g., sector decomposition or known limits at special kinematic points). This absence is load-bearing for substantiating the central claim that the MIs have been computed analytically to the stated orders.

minor comments (2)

The abstract would benefit from stating the total number of master integrals obtained and briefly identifying the four planar topologies (e.g., by their propagator structures or diagram labels).
When presenting the one-fold integral representations, it would be helpful to indicate explicitly which MIs require this form and at which orders, perhaps in a summary table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the significance of our work and for the detailed feedback. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our analytic results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The description of the analytic computation (abstract and method outline) does not include explicit expressions for any of the master integrals, the full set of differential equations, or numerical cross-checks against independent evaluations (e.g., sector decomposition or known limits at special kinematic points). This absence is load-bearing for substantiating the central claim that the MIs have been computed analytically to the stated orders.

Authors: We agree that the current abstract and method outline emphasize the overall framework and the handling of algebraic letters rather than displaying concrete results. While the full set of differential equations and all master-integral expressions are too voluminous for the main text, we will revise the manuscript to include: (i) explicit Goncharov-polylogarithm expressions for a representative subset of master integrals from each planar topology (at least one per topology up to the required order in ε), (ii) the canonical differential equations for the simplest topology as an illustrative example, and (iii) numerical cross-checks at special kinematic points (threshold, high-energy limit, and a few generic phase-space points) against independent sector-decomposition evaluations. These additions will directly substantiate the analytic computation without compromising readability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an analytic computation of four planar master integrals for gg→ZH via the canonical differential-equations method. Canonical bases are obtained by Magnus expansion, alphabets are constructed with algebraic letters containing radicals, and a systematic framework organizes the radicals into subsystems expressible as Goncharov polylogarithms up to O(ε^4) or one-fold integrals over GPLs where nested square roots obstruct full rationalization. This procedure is self-contained: it applies standard, externally validated techniques (DE method, Magnus expansion, symbol calculus) without fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the result to its own inputs. The authors explicitly acknowledge the obstruction for certain higher-order terms and adopt the one-fold integral representation without claiming a fully polylogarithmic form, so no reduction by construction occurs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard mathematical assumptions in the multi-loop integral literature rather than new fitted parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The differential equations satisfied by the master integrals admit a canonical form that can be constructed via the Magnus expansion.
Invoked when constructing the canonical bases for the four planar topologies.
domain assumption The algebraic symbol letters containing nontrivial radicals can be organized into subsystems permitting representation in Goncharov polylogarithms or one-fold integrals.
Central to the systematic framework described for handling the radical structures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1384 out tokens · 49250 ms · 2026-05-07T09:53:35.564745+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

Family F1: D1 = l2 1 D2 = (l1 + p1)2 D3 = (l1 − p3 − p4)2 D4 = (l1 − p4)2 D5 = (l2 − p4)2 − m2 W D6 = l2 2 − m2 W (5) D7 = (l1 − l2)2 D8 = (l1 − l2 − p3)2 D9 = (l2 + p1)2 two topologies ⊂ F 1: S1 ≡ S F1(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0) , S1N ≡ S F1(1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0) (6)
[2]

Family F2: D1 = l2 1 D2 = (l1 + p1)2 D3 = (l1 − p2 − p4)2 5 D4 = (l1 − p4)2 D5 = (l2 − p4)2 − m2 W D6 = l2 2 − m2 W (7) D7 = (l1 − l2)2 D8 = (l1 − l2 + p1)2 D9 = (l2 + p2)2 two topologies ⊂ F 2: S2 ≡ S F2(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0) , S2N ≡ S F2(0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0) (8) Here, S1 and S2 correspond to the planar topologies shown in Fig.1, which are eva...
[3]

Aaboud et al

M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 786, 59 (2018), arXiv:1808.08238 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2018
[4]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 121801 (2018), arXiv:1808.08242 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2018
[5]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D 104, 052004 (2021), arXiv:2104.12152 [hep-ex]. 37

work page arXiv 2021
[6]

K. Rao, S. D. Rindani, P. Sarmah, and B. Singh, Phys. Lett. B 840, 137847 (2023), arXiv:2304.11573 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[7]

Baglio, C

J. Baglio, C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger, and R. Szafron, JHEP 12, 066 (2022), arXiv:2209.06138 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[8]

Brein, A

O. Brein, A. Djouadi, and R. Harlander, Phys. Lett. B 579, 149 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0307206

work page arXiv 2004
[9]

Brein, R

O. Brein, R. Harlander, M. Wiesemann, and T. Zirke, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1868 (2012), arXiv:1111.0761 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[10]

Brein, R

O. Brein, R. V. Harlander, and T. J. Zirke, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 998 (2013), arXiv:1210.5347 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[11]

Ciccolini, S

M. Ciccolini, S. Dittmaier, and M. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D 68, 073003 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0306234

work page arXiv 2003
[12]

Denner, S

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. Muck, JHEP 03, 075 (2012), arXiv:1112.5142 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[13]

Denner, S

A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. M¨ uck, Comput. Phys. Commun.195, 161 (2015), arXiv:1412.5390 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[14]

Granata, J

F. Granata, J. M. Lindert, C. Oleari, and S. Pozzorini, JHEP 09, 012 (2017), arXiv:1706.03522 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[15]

P. Obul, S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, A. Tursun, and N. Yalkun, Chin. Phys. C 42, 093105 (2018), arXiv:1801.06851 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[16]

Ferrera, M

G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 152003 (2011), arXiv:1107.1164 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[17]

Ferrera, M

G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano, Phys. Lett. B 740, 51 (2014), arXiv:1407.4747 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[18]

Astill, W

W. Astill, W. Bizon, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 06, 154 (2016), arXiv:1603.01620 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2016
[19]

Astill, W

W. Astill, W. Bizo´ n, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 11, 157 (2018), arXiv:1804.08141 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[20]

Ahmed, A

T. Ahmed, A. A H, L. Chen, P. K. Dhani, P. Mukherjee, and V. Ravindran, JHEP 01, 030 (2020), arXiv:1910.06347 [hep-ph]. 38

work page arXiv 2020
[21]

Ahmed, W

T. Ahmed, W. Bernreuther, L. Chen, and M. Czakon, JHEP 07, 159 (2020), arXiv:2004.13753 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[22]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS, CMS), JHEP 08, 045 (2016), arXiv:1606.02266 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2016
[23]

R. V. Harlander, S. Liebler, and T. Zirke, JHEP 02, 023 (2014), arXiv:1307.8122 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[24]

Englert, M

C. Englert, M. McCullough, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D 89, 013013 (2014), arXiv:1310.4828 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[25]

D. A. Dicus and C. Kao, Phys. Rev. D 38, 1008 (1988)

1988
[26]

B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2253 (1990)

1990
[27]

Altenkamp, S

L. Altenkamp, S. Dittmaier, R. V. Harlander, H. Rzehak, and T. J. Zirke, JHEP 02, 078 (2013), arXiv:1211.5015 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[28]

Hasselhuhn, T

A. Hasselhuhn, T. Luthe, and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 01, 073 (2017), arXiv:1611.05881 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[29]

Alasfar, G

L. Alasfar, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, R. Gr¨ ober, and M. Vitti, JHEP 05, 168 (2021), arXiv:2103.06225 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[30]

Davies, G

J. Davies, G. Mishima, and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 03, 034 (2021), arXiv:2011.12314 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[31]

L. Chen, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Klappert, and J. Schlenk, JHEP 03, 125 (2021), arXiv:2011.12325 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[32]

G. Wang, X. Xu, Y. Xu, and L. L. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137087 (2022), arXiv:2107.08206 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[33]

L. Chen, J. Davies, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Mishima, J. Schlenk, and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 08, 056 (2022), arXiv:2204.05225 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[34]

Degrassi, R

G. Degrassi, R. Gr¨ ober, M. Vitti, and X. Zhao, JHEP 08, 009 (2022), arXiv:2205.02769 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[35]

Bellafronte, G

L. Bellafronte, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, R. Gr¨ ober, and M. Vitti, JHEP 07, 069 (2022), arXiv:2202.12157 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[36]

Electroweak loop corrections to gg → gH at the LHC,

H.-Y. Bi, Y.-Q. Ma, and D.-M. Mu, “Electroweak loop corrections to gg → gH at the LHC,” (2025), arXiv:2508.02588 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

Tkachov, Phys

F. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B 100, 65 (1981)

1981
[38]

Chetyrkin and F

K. Chetyrkin and F. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B 192, 159 (1981)

1981
[39]

Smirnov and A

A. Smirnov and A. Petukhov, Lett. Math. Phys. 97, 37 (2011), arXiv:1004.4199 [hep-th]. 39

work page arXiv 2011
[40]

Maierh¨ ofer, J

P. Maierh¨ ofer, J. Usovitsch, and P. Uwer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 230, 99 (2018), arXiv:1705.05610 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[41]

Klappert, F

J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer, and J. Usovitsch, Comput. Phys. Commun.266, 108024 (2021), arXiv:2008.06494 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[42]

Laporta,High-precision calculation of multiloop Feynman integrals by difference equations,Int

S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15, 5087 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0102033

work page arXiv 2000
[43]

Presenting LiteRed: a tool for the Loop InTEgrals REDuction

R. N. Lee, “Presenting LiteRed: a tool for the Loop InTEgrals REDuction,” (2012), arXiv:1212.2685 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[44]

R. N. Lee, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 523, 012059 (2014), arXiv:1310.1145 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[45]

Chen, Bull

K.-T. Chen, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 83, 831 (1977)

1977
[46]

J. M. Henn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 251601 (2013), arXiv:1304.1806 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2013
[47]

Magnus, Commun

W. Magnus, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954)

1954
[48]

Blanes, F

S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, Phys. Rept. 470, 151 (2009), arXiv:0810.5488 [math-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[49]

Argeri, S

M. Argeri, S. Di Vita, P. Mastrolia, E. Mirabella, J. Schlenk, U. Schubert, and L. Tancredi, JHEP 03, 082 (2014), arXiv:1401.2979 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[50]

J. Henn, B. Mistlberger, V. A. Smirnov, and P. Wasser, JHEP 04, 167 (2020), arXiv:2002.09492 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[51]

Mastrolia and S

P. Mastrolia and S. Mizera, JHEP 02, 139 (2019), arXiv:1810.03818 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2019
[52]

J. Chen, X. Jiang, X. Xu, and L. L. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 814, 136085 (2021), arXiv:2008.03045 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2021
[53]

J. M. Henn, J. Phys. A 48, 153001 (2015), arXiv:1412.2296 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[54]

Matijaˇ si´ c,Singularity structure of Feynman integrals with applications to six-particle scat- tering processes, Ph.D

A. Matijaˇ si´ c,Singularity structure of Feynman integrals with applications to six-particle scat- tering processes, Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2024)

2024
[55]

V. A. Smirnov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 10, 1485 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9412063

work page arXiv 1995
[56]

Beneke and V

M. Beneke and V. A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B 522, 321 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711391

work page arXiv 1998
[57]

Ferguson, D

H. Ferguson, D. Bailey, and S. Arno, Math. Comp. 68, 351 (1999)

1999
[58]

Pak and A

A. Pak and A. Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1626 (2011), arXiv:1011.4863 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[59]

Jantzen, JHEP 12, 076 (2011), arXiv:1111.2589 [hep-ph]

B. Jantzen, JHEP 12, 076 (2011), arXiv:1111.2589 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[60]

Jantzen, A

B. Jantzen, A. V. Smirnov, and V. A. Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2139 (2012), arXiv:1206.0546 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[61]

Panzer, Comput

E. Panzer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 188, 148 (2015), arXiv:1403.3385 [hep-th]. 40

work page arXiv 2015
[62]

Liu and Y.-Q

X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283, 108565 (2023), arXiv:2201.11669 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[63]

Vollinga and S

J. Vollinga and S. Weinzierl, Comput. Phys. Commun.167, 177 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0410259

work page arXiv 2005
[64]

munuxi/Multiple-Polylogarithm,

Z. Li, “munuxi/Multiple-Polylogarithm,” (2025). 41

2025