Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 42 references

NNLO soft functions for heavy-quark pair production at hadron colliders

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper generalises the SoftSERVE numerical framework to heavy-quark final states and computes the first NNLO 0-jettiness soft function for hadronic top-quark pair production as grids in top-quark velocity and scattering angle.

desk verdict First NNLO 0-jettiness soft function for top pairs, with a solid framework and one tripole-cancellation claim that deserves a closer look. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09621 v1 pith:YP7GAYHZ submitted 2026-08-10 hep-ph

Guido Bell , Alessandro Broggio , Sebastian Edelmann , Matthew A. Lim , Rudi Rahn This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords NNLOsoftfunctionsheavy-quarkpairproduction0-jettinesstop-quarkSERVEnon-AbelianexponentiationtripolecolourcorrelationsSCET
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

Soft functions are the low-energy pieces of QCD factorisation theorems, and until now their NNLO automated computation has been largely confined to processes with only massless partons. This paper extends the SoftSERVE numerical framework to final-state heavy quarks in back-to-back kinematics and applies it to hadronic top-quark pair production, producing the first NNLO 0-jettiness soft function for that process as grids over the top-quark velocity and scattering angle. The paper verifies that the poles of the bare soft function match renormalisation-group predictions, and it derives the threshold behaviour of the tripole colour correlations analytically. These results are the missing ingredient for NNLL′ resummation of 0-jettiness in top-pair production and for NNLO jettiness-slicing calculations at the LHC.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a set of dipole-frame phase-space master formulae. For each of the three dipole types -- massless-massless, massive-massive, and mixed massless-massive -- the paper chooses or boosts to a frame in which both emitting directions sit on the z-axis and parametrises the soft momenta by light-cone components and a single transverse angular variable; for the quark-antiquark channel the mixed and massive kernels are the massless kernel times velocity-dependent prefactors, while the observable-dependent measurement function absorbs the remaining angular dependence. The tripole machinery is the colour-sum identity that reduces the six independent tripoles to one structure, together with a Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff-based renormalisation that turns the bare poles into finite coefficients. Non-Abelian exponentiation supplies the key simplification: quadrupole correlations and some tripoles are not computed directly but follow from exponentiating the NLO soft function.

What would settle it

Evaluate the $O(\epsilon^2)$ contribution to the imaginary part $I_{34}(\epsilon)$ of the massive one-loop soft current and insert it into the tripole sum (2.30); if the result is not independent of that term, the NNLO tripole coefficient $c_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(2)}$ in (3.17) differs from the reported value. A cheaper check is to recompute the bare tripole poles with an independent implementation that keeps the one-loop current without truncating at $O(\epsilon)$ and compare the finite part against the published grids.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper claims that the SoftSERVE numerical approach to NNLO soft functions, previously limited to massless partons, carries over to final-state heavy quarks in back-to-back kinematics, provided each emitting dipole is treated in a coordinate frame aligned with its two directions. In that frame the squared matrix elements reduce to compact kernels and all non-trivial angular dependence is pushed into the measurement function, so the phase-space integrals stay manageable. Working in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory and assuming non-Abelian exponentiation, the authors compute the renormalised 0-jettiness soft function for hadronic top-quark pair production at NNLO for the first time, delivering the independent dipole and tripole colour coefficients as two-dimensional grids in the top-quark velocity and scattering angle. They further show that the tripole colour sum, which cannot be renormalised dipole by dipole, has only a logarithmic divergence as the top-quark velocity tends to zero because the Coulomb-like $1/\beta_t$ singularities cancel in the sum.

Load-bearing premise

The whole NNLO tripole result depends on the claim, made in Section 2.4.1 without an explicit formula, that the uncomputed $O(\epsilon^2)$ piece of the imaginary part of the one-loop massive soft current becomes independent of the tripole's kinematics in the soft-collinear limit and therefore cancels in the tripole sum; if that cancellation fails, the finite tripole coefficient changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 0-jettiness soft function for hadronic top-pair production is now available at NNLO, so NNLL′ resummation and NNLO slicing for this process have the missing ingredient.
  • The framework applies to any Soft-Collinear Effective Theory I observable that obeys non-Abelian exponentiation, not just 0-jettiness, so other event-shape soft functions with heavy quarks become accessible.
  • Because colour structures were kept generic rather than tied to a specific colour basis, a subset of the dipole results also serve top-pair production at lepton colliders and single-top production.
  • The analytic small-velocity expansion of the tripole sum lets users interpolate reliably between the grid points and the threshold endpoint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The asserted cancellation of the $O(\epsilon^2)$ imaginary part of the massive one-loop current in the tripole sum, if correct, suggests a general economy: the same cancellation might remove uncalculated current high-order terms for other heavy-quark dipole configurations, worth checking explicitly.
  • The numerical grids could be turned into a fast parametrisation by matching the derived small-$\beta_t$ logarithms, which would make the soft function easy to embed in Monte Carlo event generation.
  • A direct offshoot test would be to evaluate $I_{34}(\epsilon)$ to $O(\epsilon^2)$ numerically and compare the full tripole sum with and without that term; agreement would confirm the paper's completeness argument beyond the pole-cancellation checks.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the SoftSERVE framework to compute NNLO soft functions for processes with final-state heavy quarks in back-to-back kinematics, focusing on the 0-jettiness soft function for hadronic top-quark pair production. The authors introduce phase-space parameterisations in tailored frame choices for massive and mixed massless-massive dipoles, provide master formulae for the NLO and NNLO (real-virtual, double-real gluon, and double-real quark-antiquark) contributions, and implement the calculation in two independent codes (SoftSERVE and pySecDec). They describe the renormalisation in the combined SCET+HQET framework, verify numerically that the bare poles match RG predictions, and present numerical grids for the dipole and tripole coefficients, including analytic threshold expansions for the tripole sum.

Significance. If correct, the paper is a significant methodological and phenomenological contribution: it generalises a public automated tool to heavy-quark final states, supplies the first NNLO 0-jettiness soft function for top-quark pair production, and provides an essential ingredient for NNLL' resummation and jettiness-slicing applications. The paper is careful in cross-checking the calculation: two independent numerical implementations agree, the pole structure is verified against RG predictions, and analytic threshold behaviour is given for the tripole sum. The main weakness is the not fully demonstrated cancellation of the O(epsilon^2) imaginary part of the one-loop massive soft current, which affects the finite tripole coefficient.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.4.1 (Eqs. (2.28)-(2.30))] The cancellation of the O(epsilon^2) piece of Im I_34(epsilon) is asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper states that this piece is not provided in [34,35] and argues that it cancels in the tripole sum (2.30) because it becomes independent of the tripole kinematics in the soft-collinear limit. No explicit formula for this coefficient or a proof of the cancellation is given. Since this piece multiplies the 1/epsilon^2 and 1/epsilon phase-space poles, it contributes directly to the finite tripole coefficient c_tri^(2) in Eq. (3.17) and to the reported threshold result (4.6), e.g. the terms 16 pi cos(theta) ln(beta_t)/epsilon and 8 pi cos(theta) (2 ln^2(beta_t) - 4 ln^2 2 + pi^2). The RG pole check in Fig. 3 does not constrain this contribution because it only verifies the pole structure, which is insensitive to the O(epsilon^2) term. Please provide a derivation of the O(epsilon^2) coefficient of I_34, or a rigorous argument for its cancellation, and quantify any residual contribution to c_tri^(2).
  2. [Section 4 (Eqs. (4.5)-(4.6))] The threshold expansions for the bare tripole sum and for c_tri^(2) are presented as analytic results, but no derivation is shown. The text says the leading behaviour was 'carefully extracted analytically', yet the reader cannot verify the coefficients of ln^2(beta_t) and ln(beta_t), or the constant pi^2. Given that these expansions are used to control the endpoint region of the grids and are highlighted in the abstract, please include a derivation sketch (or a reference) and state any assumptions about the order of limits (epsilon -> 0 vs beta_t -> 0).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4.2 (after Eq. (2.31))] The phrase 'the non-Abelian exponentiation contribution. i.e.' contains a typo (period instead of comma).
  2. [Section 4] The numerical grids are provided as ancillary files; please ensure the file format and normalisation conventions are documented, and that the files are actually submitted with the arXiv posting.
  3. [Section 2.3 (Eq. (2.21))] The notation f_B(y_k,t_k) in the integrand is the result of a remapping from the original f_B(y_k^{-1},t_k); a brief explanatory sentence would avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 3.1 (Eq. (3.13))] The index ranges in the tripole sums, written as k!=l,J and K!=I,j, are not standard; please clarify that k,l run over massless legs and I,J over massive legs, and specify the summation domains.
  5. [Section 4 (Fig. 3 left)] The dotted line is described as a small-beta_t approximation for the 1/epsilon coefficient; please state explicitly whether it includes only the ln(beta_t) term or also the constant term, to aid interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new NNLO soft-function coefficients are computed directly by phase-space integration, not extracted from the earlier SoftSERVE papers; the unproved O(epsilon^2) tripole cancellation is a correctness risk, not a circular input.

full rationale

The paper's central new results, the NNLO dipole and tripole coefficients for the 0-jettiness soft function in top-pair production, are obtained by direct numerical integration of master formulas whose kernels come from QCD matrix elements and from independent one-loop and double-real results ([34,35] and [36,37]). The SoftSERVE self-citations [10-13] supply the phase-space parameterisation and integration strategy, but they do not contain the massive dipole/tripole numbers reported here; the paper explicitly states that these NNLO results are new and provides grids in ancillary files. The renormalisation section solves an RGE using anomalous dimensions obtained from consistency relations, and the pole cancellation shown in Figs. 1 and 3 is a genuine check: the bare poles are computed diagrammatically and compared with analytic RG predictions, with no parameters tuned to force agreement. The massless dipole coefficients are taken from independent literature [41,42], not from the present calculation. One limitation should be flagged explicitly because it is load-bearing for the tripole result: Section 2.4.1 states, 'This piece has not been provided in the literature. Closer inspection reveals, however, that this contribution cancels in the sum over all tripoles and therefore results derived on the basis of the one-loop current in [34, 35] are complete at NNLO.' This is an unproved analytic assertion about the O(epsilon^2) imaginary part of I34, and it affects the finite tripole coefficient c_tri^(2) in Eq. (4.6). That is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity: the cancellation is not equivalent to the result being derived, and the paper does not define the tripole coefficient in terms of the cancelled quantity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained for the new coefficients, and the self-citations are background method rather than load-bearing circular inputs; the score reflects only the minor reliance on prior work by the same group together with the unresolved but non-circular tripole-cancellation assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not require fitted parameters: beta_t and theta are kinematic variables, and the observable parameter n is fixed by the 0-jettiness definition. The renormalisation and matrix-element inputs come from published literature. No new particles or physical entities are introduced. The main nonstandard input is the asserted cancellation of the missing O(epsilon squared) term in the one-loop massive current.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SCET factorisation for 0-jettiness in hadronic top-pair production, including the soft-function definition with Wilson lines (2.1)-(2.3), holds.
    Taken from Alioli-Broggio-Lim [31], whose NLO result and colour basis are the starting point of the paper (Section 1).
  • domain assumption Non-Abelian exponentiation applies to the considered SCET_I observables, so NNLO quadrupole correlations are fully obtained from the square of the NLO soft function.
    Stated as a restriction in Sections 1 and 2.4.2; it avoids direct evaluation of quadrupole contributions.
  • ad hoc to paper The O(epsilon squared) coefficient of the imaginary part I34(epsilon) of the one-loop massive soft current cancels in the tripole colour sum.
    In Section 2.4.1 the authors note this term is missing from [34,35] and argue, without an explicit derivation, that it becomes kinematics-independent in the soft-collinear limit and drops out of the sum in (2.30).
  • domain assumption The two-loop anomalous dimensions and renormalisation-group structure for heavy-quark scattering, including the function g(beta), are correct and complete.
    Used in Section 3 to predict the pole structure; taken from Ferroglia-Neubert-Pecjak-Yang [40] and Becher-Neubert [39].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NNLO soft functions for heavy-quark pair production at hadron colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YP7GAYHZ

@misc{pith2026260809621,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NNLO soft functions for heavy-quark pair production at hadron colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YP7GAYHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09621}
}
abstract

We generalise the SoftSERVE framework for the automated computation of soft functions involving final-state heavy quarks in back-to-back kinematics up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in the strong-coupling expansion. Our algorithm employs suitable phase-space parameterisations for both massive and mixed massless-massive contributions, allowing for an efficient numerical evaluation. Focusing on SCET$_\mathrm{I}$ observables that satisfy non-Abelian exponentiation, we present explicit results for the 0-jettiness soft function in hadronic top-quark pair production in the form of two-dimensional grids. We describe the renormalisation procedure in detail and discuss the singular behaviour of the tripole colour correlations in the threshold limit.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The two-loop soft function for heavy quark pair production at future linear colliders

    A. von Manteuffel, R.M. Schabinger and H.X. Zhu,The two-loop soft function for heavy quark pair production at future linear colliders,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 045034 [1408.5134]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    G. Wang, X. Xu, L.L. Yang and H.X. Zhu,The next-to-next-to-leading order soft function for top quark pair production,JHEP06(2018) 013 [1804.05218]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Ding, H.T

    J.-L. Ding, H.T. Li and J. Wang,Next-to-next-to-leading order threshold soft function for tW production,JHEP05(2025) 143 [2502.18648]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Angeles-Martinez, M

    R. Angeles-Martinez, M. Czakon and S. Sapeta,NNLO soft function for top quark pair production at small transverse momentum,JHEP10(2018) 201 [1809.01459]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini and J. Mazzitelli,Soft-parton contributions to heavy-quark production at low transverse momentum,JHEP04(2023) 144 [2301.11786]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Devoto and J

    S. Devoto and J. Mazzitelli,Soft contributions to heavy quark production in arbitrary kinematics,JHEP06(2026) 275 [2509.17509]

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Next-to-next-to-leading order $N$-jettiness soft function for $tW$ production

    H.T. Li and J. Wang,Next-to-next-to-leading orderN-jettiness soft function fortW production,Phys. Lett. B784(2018) 397 [1804.06358]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    The two-loop fully differential soft function for $Q\bar{Q}V$ production at lepton colliders

    Z.L. Liu and P.F. Monni,The two-loop fully differential soft function forQ QVproduction at lepton colliders,JHEP03(2025) 096 [2411.13466]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Liu and P.F

    Z.L. Liu and P.F. Monni,Analytical Soft Functions for Heavy-Quark Final States at Hadron Colliders,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 231902 [2511.23280]

    2026

  2. [10]

    G. Bell, R. Rahn and J. Talbert,Two-loop anomalous dimensions of generic dijet soft functions,Nucl. Phys. B936(2018) 520 [1805.12414]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G. Bell, R. Rahn and J. Talbert,Generic dijet soft functions at two-loop order: correlated emissions,JHEP07(2019) 101 [1812.08690]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    G. Bell, R. Rahn and J. Talbert,Generic dijet soft functions at two-loop order: uncorrelated emissions,JHEP09(2020) 015 [2004.08396]. – 33 –

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. Bell, B. Dehnadi, T. Mohrmann and R. Rahn,The NNLO soft function for N-jettiness in hadronic collisions,JHEP07(2024) 077 [2312.11626]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    G. Bell, K. Brune, G. Das and M. Wald,The NNLO quark beam function for jet-veto resummation,JHEP01(2023) 083 [2207.05578]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    G. Bell, K. Brune, G. Das, D.Y. Shao and M. Wald,The NNLO gluon beam function for jet-veto resummation,JHEP07(2024) 014 [2403.15247]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    G. Bell, K. Brune, G. Das and M. Wald,NNLO beam functions for angularity distributions, JHEP03(2025) 088 [2409.13348]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. Bell, K. Brune, G. Das and M. Wald,Automation of Beam and Jet functions at NNLO, SciPost Phys. Proc.7(2022) 021 [2110.04804]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Brune,Automation of jet function calculations in Soft-Collinear Effective theory, Ph.D

    K.M. Brune,Automation of jet function calculations in Soft-Collinear Effective theory, Ph.D. thesis, University of Siegen, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.25819/ubsi/10228

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Alioli, C.W

    S. Alioli, C.W. Bauer, C. Berggren, F.J. Tackmann and J.R. Walsh,Drell-Yan production at NNLL’+NNLO matched to parton showers,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 094020 [1508.01475]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Alioli, G

    S. Alioli, G. Billis, A. Broggio and G. Stagnitto,NNLO predictions with nonlocal subtractions and fiducial power corrections in GENEV A,JHEP01(2026) 065 [2504.11357]

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alioli, A

    S. Alioli, A. Broggio, S. Kallweit, M.A. Lim and L. Rottoli,Higgsstrahlung at NNLL’+NNLO matched to parton showers in GENEV A,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 096016 [1909.02026]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alioli, A

    S. Alioli, A. Broggio, A. Gavardi, S. Kallweit, M.A. Lim, R. Nagar et al.,Precise predictions for photon pair production matched to parton showers in GENEV A,JHEP04(2021) 041 [2010.10498]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Alioli, A

    S. Alioli, A. Broggio, A. Gavardi, S. Kallweit, M.A. Lim, R. Nagar et al., Next-to-next-to-leading order event generation forZboson pair production matched to parton shower,Phys. Lett. B818(2021) 136380 [2103.01214]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alioli, C.W

    S. Alioli, C.W. Bauer, A. Broggio, A. Gavardi, S. Kallweit, M.A. Lim et al.,Matching NNLO predictions to parton showers using N3LL color-singlet transverse momentum resummation in geneva,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 094020 [2102.08390]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Alioli, G

    S. Alioli, G. Billis, A. Broggio, A. Gavardi, S. Kallweit, M.A. Lim et al.,Double Higgs production at NNLO interfaced to parton showers in GENEV A,JHEP06(2023) 205 [2212.10489]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Alioli, G

    S. Alioli, G. Billis, A. Broggio, A. Gavardi, S. Kallweit, M.A. Lim et al.,Refining the GENEV A method for Higgs boson production via gluon fusion,JHEP05(2023) 128 [2301.11875]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alioli, G

    S. Alioli, G. Marinelli and D. Napoletano,NNLO+PS double Higgs boson production with top-quark mass corrections in GENEV A,JHEP09(2025) 206 [2507.08558]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Alioli, G

    S. Alioli, G. Bell, G. Billis, A. Broggio, B. Dehnadi, M.A. Lim et al.,N3LL resummation of one-jettiness for Z-boson plus jet production at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 094009 [2312.06496]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Banfi, J.R

    A. Banfi, J.R. Forshaw and J. Holguin,One-Jettiness Distribution Contains Super-Super-Leading Logarithms,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 221901 [2511.11799]

    2026

  22. [30]

    Becher, P

    T. Becher, P. Hager, M. Neubert and D. Schwienbacher,Factorization Beyond Coherence, 2603.12383. – 34 –

  23. [31]

    Alioli, A

    S. Alioli, A. Broggio and M.A. Lim,Zero-jettiness resummation for top-quark pair production at the LHC,JHEP01(2022) 066 [2111.03632]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Catani and M.H

    S. Catani and M.H. Seymour,A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,Nucl. Phys. B485(1997) 291 [hep-ph/9605323]

    1997 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Becher, A

    T. Becher, A. Broggio and A. Ferroglia,Introduction to Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, vol. 896, Springer (2015), 10.1007/978-3-319-14848-9, [1410.1892]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Czakon and A

    M.L. Czakon and A. Mitov,A simplified expression for the one-loop soft-gluon current with massive fermions,1804.02069

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bierenbaum, M

    I. Bierenbaum, M. Czakon and A. Mitov,The singular behavior of one-loop massive QCD amplitudes with one external soft gluon,Nucl. Phys. B856(2012) 228 [1107.4384]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. Grazzini,Infrared factorization of tree level QCD amplitudes at the next-to-next-to-leading order and beyond,Nucl. Phys. B570(2000) 287 [hep-ph/9908523]

    2000 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Czakon,Double-real radiation in hadronic top quark pair production as a proof of a certain concept,Nucl

    M. Czakon,Double-real radiation in hadronic top quark pair production as a proof of a certain concept,Nucl. Phys. B849(2011) 250 [1101.0642]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Borowka, G

    S. Borowka, G. Heinrich, S. Jahn, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al.,pySecDec: A toolbox for the numerical evaluation of multi-scale integrals,Comput. Phys. Commun.222 (2018) 313 [1703.09692]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert,Infrared singularities of QCD amplitudes with massive partons, Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 125004 [0904.1021]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ferroglia, M

    A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak and L.L. Yang,Two-loop divergences of massive scattering amplitudes in non-abelian gauge theories,JHEP11(2009) 062 [0908.3676]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kelley, M.D

    R. Kelley, M.D. Schwartz, R.M. Schabinger and H.X. Zhu,The two-loop hemisphere soft function,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 045022 [1105.3676]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Monni, T

    P.F. Monni, T. Gehrmann and G. Luisoni,Two-Loop Soft Corrections and Resummation of the Thrust Distribution in the Dijet Region,JHEP08(2011) 010 [1105.4560]. – 35 –

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

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