Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Analytical two-loop amplitudes of $e^{+} e^{-} \longrightarrow \boldsymbol{J} / \boldsymbol{\psi}+\boldsymbol{\eta}_c$ at $B$ factories

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Analytic two-loop QCD amplitude narrows double-charmonium gap

desk verdict First analytic NNLO amplitude for e+e- -> J/psi+eta_c, with strong internal checks, but the constant-term basis and the 'agreement with data' claim need scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20777 v1 pith:C5ATLAPC submitted 2025-08-28 hep-ph hep-th

Xiang Chen , Xin Guan , Chuan-Qi He , Yan-Qing Ma , Jian Wang , Da-Jiang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords two-loopamplitudesNRQCDdoublecharmoniumproductionJ/ψ+η_casymptoticexpansionleadinglogarithmsBfactoriesanalyticreconstruction
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

This paper reports a fully analytic next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD amplitude for e+e− → J/ψ + η_c inside non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD), written as an expansion in r = m_c^2/s (charm mass squared over collision-energy squared). It reconstructs the coefficients from high-precision numerical values using a small set of classical polylogarithm constants, and it isolates the source of the dominant logarithms by splitting the loop integrals into soft, collinear, anti-collinear, and hard regions. The resulting cross section at B-factory energies is consistent with the Belle and BaBar measurements, addressing a discrepancy that has stood since the first measurements in 2002. Because the result is analytic, it also exposes the ln^3 r terms that dominate at NNLO and yields a ready-made prediction for Υ + η_b production.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless coefficient h(2)(r) of the two-loop amplitude, expanded in r = m_c^2/s with powers of ln r. The carrying mechanism is a pipeline: reduce 167 integral families to master integrals by integration-by-parts identities; evaluate the master integrals as functions of r through numerical differential equations with boundary conditions fixed by auxiliary mass flow; reconstruct the leading r-coefficients analytically with integer-relation detection over a polylogarithm-constant basis; then solve the differential equations again analytically to obtain the remaining coefficients. For the logarithm structure, the key physics mechanism is a region analysis in which

What would settle it

Take a subleading r-coefficient that was not used in the initial reconstruction, evaluate it numerically to roughly a thousand digits, and test via integer-relation detection whether it lies in the claimed span of Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), and Li_m(2) for m ≤ 4; if no exact integer relation appears, the analytic basis is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the complete two-loop amplitude for γ* → J/ψ + η_c, after subtracting the 1/ϵ poles fixed by NRQCD anomalous dimensions, has the form h(2)(r) = r^2[L_(2,4) ln^4 r + L_(2,3) ln^3 r + L_(2,2) ln^2 r + L_(2,1) ln r + L_(2,0)] + r^{5/2} L_(5/2,0) + O(r^3), all coefficients analytic. The method: solve differential equations in r numerically to hundreds of digits, then reconstruct coefficients by integer-relation detection over {Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), Li_m(2), m ≤ 4}. Region analysis traces the leading ln^2 r and ln^3 r terms to soft-quark loops with radiative jet functions; pure soft-gluon double logs cancel because the mesons are color neutral. At √s = 10.58 GeV the NNLO c

Load-bearing premise

The analytic form is only as complete as the reconstruction basis: the calculation assumes every finite coefficient can be written using one small family of special constants (polylogarithms at three fixed arguments) through weight four; if a coefficient needed a different constant, the analytic result would miss it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The NNLO cross section for e+e− → J/ψ + η_c at 10.52–10.58 GeV is predicted in the 11–14 fb range, within the measured Belle and BaBar bands; Belle II at 10.52 GeV can test this directly.
  • The ln^3 r term dominates the NNLO amplitude at B-factory energies, so resummation of leading and next-to-leading logarithms to all orders becomes a concrete next step rather than an abstract one.
  • The analytic amplitude carries explicit heavy-quark mass dependence, giving an immediate prediction for Υ + η_b production (about 0.115 fb at 22.5 GeV) for future colliders.
  • At high energies the partial O(α_s^4) term exceeds the LO term, signaling that fixed-order perturbation theory there is unreliable and motivating resummation or alternative treatments.
  • The r-expansion converges with radius 1/16, and truncating at O(r^35) provides enough precision for phenomenology across the energy range considered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the polylog basis used here is complete, the same numerical-differential-equation-plus-integer-relation pipeline should convert other exclusive quarkonium NNLO calculations from numerical to analytic, provided their master integrals satisfy similar first-order systems.
  • The cancellation of soft-gluon double logarithms and survival of soft-quark double logarithms is likely a general rule for color-singlet final states, so future resummation formalisms should concentrate on soft-fermion loops.
  • The appearance of r^{5/2} at two loops means the amplitude has a branch cut in the variable r that Taylor expansions miss; analogous half-integer powers should appear near threshold in other exclusive double-quarkonium processes.
  • A Belle II measurement at √s = 10.52 GeV with total uncertainty below about 1 fb would distinguish the µR = √s/2 and µR = √s scale choices and meaningfully constrain the NRQCD long-distance matrix element.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first fully analytical two-loop (NNLO) QCD amplitudes for e+e− → γ* → J/ψ + ηc within NRQCD, expressed as an asymptotic expansion in r = m_c^2/s. The computation uses automated diagram generation, IBP reduction, differential equations with AMFlow boundary conditions, and PSLQ reconstruction to obtain analytic coefficients. The authors give explicit leading logarithmic terms and a non-integer power term r^{5/2}, analyze the origin of leading logarithms with the method of regions, and provide cross-section predictions for J/ψ+ηc and Υ+ηb at B-factory and future-collider energies, claiming agreement with B-factory measurements.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial step: an analytic NNLO result for a double-charmonium production process, with explicit large-logarithmic structure and a non-integer power correction, plus a nontrivial extension to bottomonium. The computation is internally well checked in several ways: exact cancellation of 1/ε poles, agreement with known NLO logarithms, 600-digit precision in the PSLQ input, convergence tests in r, and a region-based cross-check of leading logarithms for many diagrams. The main unresolved risk is the completeness of the PSLQ reconstruction basis for the constant coefficients, and the absence of a direct comparison with existing numerical NNLO calculations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II and §IV, Eqs. (14)–(19)] The 'fully analytical' claim rests on PSLQ reconstruction of finite terms using only the basis {Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), Li_m(2) | m ≤ 4}. No proof is given that this basis is closed for the integral family, and the constant coefficients L^(2)_{(2,0)} and L^(2)_{(5/2,0)} are not displayed, so the reconstruction cannot be checked by the reader. The checks listed (pole cancellation, NLO logarithms, Fig. 10 convergence, Sec. V region analysis) do not constrain these constants: pole cancellation fixes only divergences; NLO checks fix log terms; Fig. 10 tests truncation in r, not the constants; and Sec. V is explicitly incomplete. Please either prove basis completeness or provide an independent numerical/analytic validation of these constants, e.g., by comparison with the numerical NNLO results of Refs. [20,21].
  2. [§I/§IV/§VI] Refs. [20,21] computed the same NNLO cross sections numerically, but the paper never reports a direct numerical comparison. This is the most natural and decisive cross-check of the analytic coefficients. Without it, the claim that the asymptotic expansion reproduces the exact two-loop result is not fully established. Please include a table or plot comparing the present cross sections at the same inputs (e.g., √s = 10.58 GeV, μ_R = √s, m_c = 1.5 GeV) with those of Refs. [20,21].
  3. [§V] The region analysis is presented as a check of the leading logarithms, but the final paragraph states that 'a few diagrams that cannot be computed using the δ-regulators' are left to future work. This makes the statement 'We investigated 80 Feynman diagrams, finding agreement with the direct computation' ambiguous: were the uncomputed diagrams among the 80, and do they contribute at the leading-log level? Please clarify coverage and either complete the analysis or explicitly restrict the claim of having explained all leading logarithms.
  4. [Abstract and §VI.A, Table II] The abstract states that the predictions 'agree with the experimental results.' At √s = 10.58 GeV the central NNLO cross section is 11.85 fb, compared with Belle 25.6 ± 2.8 ± 3.4 fb and BaBar 17.6 ± 2.8 +1.5 −2.1 fb. Only the upper edge of the scale/mass uncertainty reaches the BaBar result. Please quantify the agreement with a combined uncertainty estimate, or soften the wording to 'consistent within large uncertainties.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Ref. [46]] Reference [46] is malformed: 'H. Ferguson and D. H. Bailey, cancer science (1992)' is not a valid citation. Please provide the correct PSLQ reference.
  2. [Fig. 3] The axis/legend labels 'ln0(r)', 'ln1(r)', etc. should be typeset as ln^0(r), ln^1(r), etc., to avoid confusion with 'ln evaluated at r=0'.
  3. [Figs. 7 and 8 captions] The phrase 'colliding energy' should be 'center-of-mass energy' in both captions.
  4. [§VI.A] The sentence 'The cross section at √s = 10.58 GeV changes from 13.87 fb to 11.85 fb when varying μ_R from √s/2 to √s' omits the 2√s endpoint used in Table II; please state the full scale-variation range for completeness.
  5. [§VI.B] Minor grammatical issue: 'the relative error of J/ψ + ηc are generally larger' should be 'the relative uncertainty of J/ψ + ηc is generally larger'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-loop amplitude is obtained from an independent differential-equation/AMFlow computation, not from the experimental cross section or from a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The two-loop amplitude h(2)(r) is built from Feynman diagrams, IBP reduction to master integrals, and numerical differential equations with boundary conditions at r=1/100 computed by the independent AMFlow/auxiliary-mass-flow method (Sec. II: "The boundary conditions at r = 1/100 are obtained using the auxiliary mass flow method ... implemented in AMFlow"). No parameter is fitted to the Belle/BaBar cross sections; the phenomenological predictions in Tab. II follow from standard inputs (mc, alpha_s, and NRQCD matrix elements from Refs. [14,67,68]) and the computed amplitude. The internal checks are genuine and independent: UV poles cancel against known anomalous dimensions (Eqs. (11)-(13)), NLO logarithmic coefficients are "found to be consistent with Refs. [15,22,23]", and the leading-logarithm region analysis in Sec. V is explicitly presented as a check, with "agreement with the direct computation" for 80 Feynman diagrams. The PSLQ reconstruction basis ({Li_m(-2), Li_m(-1), Li_m(2)}, m<=4) is an assumption about the space of transcendental constants; if incomplete it would make the analytic coefficients wrong, but it does not define the result in terms of the target cross section or of a self-citation. Self-citations (Blade, AMFlow, CalcLoop, the delta-regulator method of Refs. [54,55]) are computational tools or cross-check methods, not unverified authorities used to force the central claim. The explicit limitation "there exist a few diagrams that cannot be computed using the delta-regulators" (Sec. V) is an admitted gap in the region-analysis explanation of leading logarithms, but it does not affect the direct two-loop calculation and does not introduce circularity. Overall, the paper's predictions are compared with experiments, not constructed from them, so no circular step is present.

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

The central computation introduces no fitted parameters or new entities. Standard NRQCD and SCET-based inputs and computational techniques are used; the quark masses and NRQCD matrix elements are taken from prior literature.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization for double quarkonium production
    Used throughout Section II to express the amplitude as Eq. (5) with hard coefficients h(i)(r) and NRQCD matrix elements; relies on Ref. [13].
  • domain assumption Leptonic/hadronic factorization of the e+e- cross section
    Invoked in Section II citing Ref. [24]; allows writing sigma from the hadronic tensor.
  • standard math Asymptotic expansion structure I(r) = sum c_{k,n}(epsilon) ln^k(r) r^n for Feynman integrals
    Assumed in Section II, Eq. (8), following Refs. [40-45]; used for the differential-equation solution.
  • domain assumption Anomalous dimensions gamma_J/psi and gamma_eta_c as given in Eq. (12)
    Used for the pole-subtraction check and factorization matching in Section III; taken from Refs. [49-52].
  • domain assumption NRQCD matrix elements |R(0)|^2 taken from Refs. [14,67,68]
    Input to cross sections; Table I lists values for charm and bottom quarkonia.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical two-loop amplitudes of $e^{+} e^{-} \longrightarrow \boldsymbol{J} / \boldsymbol{\psi}+\boldsymbol{\eta}_c$ at $B$ factories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5ATLAPC

@misc{pith2026250820777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical two-loop amplitudes of $e^+ e^- \longrightarrow \boldsymbolJ / \boldsymbol\psi+\boldsymbol\eta_c$ at $B$ factories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5ATLAPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20777}
}
abstract

In double charmonium production, a long-standing challenge is that the theoretical predictions are not consistent with the measurements at B factories. Within the NRQCD framework, the next-to-leading order (NLO) calculation has proved its power to cut down the discrepancy between theory and experiments. To further clarify this puzzle, we have performed the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) calculation. The amplitude is obtained as an analytical asymptotic expansion in the ratio of the squared charm-quark mass over the squared center-of-mass energy, $m_c^2/s$. We investigate the origin of the leading logarithms by performing a region analysis, revealing the intricate factorization structure in this process. We provide numerical predictions on the total cross sections of $J/\psi+\eta_c$ production, which agree with the experimental results. Extension of our computation to $\Upsilon+\eta_b$ production is also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20777 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Selected tree-level and one-loop diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Selected two-loop diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The contribution of each logarithmic term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: One-loop diagrams containing double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Sample reduced diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Reduced diagrams contributing to double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The LO, NLO, NNLO total cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The LO, NLO, NNLO total cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Convergence behavior of the two-loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The relative contribution of each term to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [69]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, R. Szafron, and J. Wang, JHEP 11, 112 (2018), arXiv:1808.04742 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Abe et al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys

    K. Abe et al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 142001 (2002)

    work page 2002

  3. [2]

    Study of double charmonium production in e^+ e^- annihilation at \sqrt{s} ~ 10.6 GeV

    K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 70, 071102 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0407009

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  4. [3]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 72, 031101 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0506062

    arXiv 2005

  5. [4]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054007 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [5]

    The hard function represents the contribu- tion of all hard propagators with O(1) off-shellness

    The whole perturbative amplitude can be considered as a convolution of the hard function, the radiative jet function, and the soft function, which is interfaced with projectors. The hard function represents the contribu- tion of all hard propagators with O(1) off-shellness. It can be considered as the Wilson coefficients of the effec- tive operators, cons...

    work page

  7. [6]

    6(a) generalizes Fig

    Fig. 6(a) generalizes Fig. 5(d) to include the case with leading power projector Π (0) 3 but with subleading radiative jet function J (1) c¯c,q. Fig. 6(b) introduces a new type of radiative jet function, Jc¯c,qg , that emits both a soft quark and a soft physical gluon. It can be consid- ered as obtained by inserting in Jc¯c,q a subleading power interactio...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Isgur and C

    N. Isgur and C. H. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1080 (1984)

    work page 1984

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    J. P. Ma and Z. G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 70, 074007 (2004)

    2004

  2. [9]

    A. E. Bondar and V. L. Chernyak, Phys. Lett. B 612, 215 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412335

    2005 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Dong et al

    M. Dong et al. (CEPC Study Group), (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. H. Yin et al. (Belle), JHEP 08, 121 (2023), arXiv:2305.17947 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Altmannshofer et al

    W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    2019

  6. [13]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. 11 Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 5853 (1997)], arXiv:hep-ph/9407339

    1995 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Dur´ an, L

    ´O. Dur´ an, L. Garc ´ ıa-Tabar´ es, L. A. Gonz´ alez, F. Toral, Y. Arimoto, T. Yamada, and A. Yamamoto, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 35, 4003605 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    Abada et al.(FCC), Eur

    A. Abada et al.(FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054007 (2003), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 099901 (2005)], arXiv:hep- ph/0211085

    2003

  10. [17]

    Zhang, Y.-j

    Y.-J. Zhang, Y.-j. Gao, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 092001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506076

    2006 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gong and J.-X

    B. Gong and J.-X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 77, 054028 (2008), arXiv:0712.4220 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [19]

    H.-R. Dong, F. Feng, and Y. Jia, Phys. Rev. D 85, 114018 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    Z.-G. He, Y. Fan, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D 75, 074011 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702239

    2007 arXiv

  14. [21]

    G. T. Bodwin, J. Lee, and C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094018 (2008)

    2008

  15. [22]

    Jia, J.-X

    Y. Jia, J.-X. Wang, and D. Yang, JHEP 10, 105 (2011), arXiv:1012.6007 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [23]

    F. Feng, Y. Jia, Z. Mo, W.-L. Sang, and J.-Y. Zhang, (2019), arXiv:1901.08447 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Huang, B

    X.-D. Huang, B. Gong, and J.-X. Wang, JHEP 02, 049 (2023), arXiv:2212.03631 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Nogueira, J

    P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. 105, 279 (1993)

    1993

  19. [26]

    G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074028 (2014), arXiv:1406.1926 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Sun, JHEP 09, 073 (2021), arXiv:2107.02047 [hep-ph]

    Z. Sun, JHEP 09, 073 (2021), arXiv:2107.02047 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    X. Guan, X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, and W.-H. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 310, 109538 (2025), arXiv:2405.14621 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260

    2001 arXiv

  23. [30]

    https://e.gitee.com/multiloop-pku/repos/multiloop- pku/calcloop/sources

  24. [31]

    R. N. Lee, (2012), arXiv:1212.2685 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Peraro, JHEP 12, 030 (2016), arXiv:1608.01902 [hep- ph]

    T. Peraro, JHEP 12, 030 (2016), arXiv:1608.01902 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Peraro, JHEP 07, 031 (2019), arXiv:1905.08019 [hep- ph]

    T. Peraro, JHEP 07, 031 (2019), arXiv:1905.08019 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Laporta, Int

    S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 5087 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0102033 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Tkachov, Physics Letters B 100, 65 (1981)

    F. Tkachov, Physics Letters B 100, 65 (1981)

    1981

  29. [36]

    Chetyrkin and F

    K. Chetyrkin and F. Tkachov, Nuclear Physics B 192, 159 (1981)

    1981

  30. [37]

    A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B254, 158 (1991)

    1991

  31. [38]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    Z.-F. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 222001 (2022), arXiv:2201.11637 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, (2022), arXiv:2201.11669 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Caffo, H

    M. Caffo, H. Czyz, M. Gunia, and E. Remiddi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 427 (2009), arXiv:0807.1959 [hep- ph]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, and C.-Y. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 779, 353 (2018), arXiv:1711.09572 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 105, L051503 (2022), arXiv:2107.01864 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Moriello, JHEP 01, 150 (2020), arXiv:1907.13234 [hep-ph]

    F. Moriello, JHEP 01, 150 (2020), arXiv:1907.13234 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Czakon, Phys

    M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B664, 307 (2008), arXiv:0803.1400 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [45]

    R. N. Lee, JHEP 04, 108 (2015), arXiv:1411.0911 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Ferguson and D

    H. Ferguson and D. H. Bailey, cancer science (1992)

    1992

  40. [47]

    Hidding, Comput

    M. Hidding, Comput. Phys. Commun. 269, 108125 (2021), arXiv:2006.05510 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Armadillo, R

    T. Armadillo, R. Bonciani, S. Devoto, N. Rana, and A. Vicini, Comput. Phys. Commun. 282, 108545 (2023), arXiv:2205.03345 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Czarnecki and K

    A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Phys. Lett. B 519, 212 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0109054

    2001 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and S. Moch, Nucl. Phys. B 798, 210 (2008), arXiv:0707.4139 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [51]

    B¨ arnreuther, M

    P. B¨ arnreuther, M. Czakon, and P. Fiedler, JHEP 02, 078 (2014), arXiv:1312.6279 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Czarnecki and K

    A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2531 (1998)

    1998

  46. [53]

    B. A. Kniehl, A. Onishchenko, J. H. Piclum, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 638, 209 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604072

    2006 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. Signer, and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2535 (1998)

    1998

  48. [55]

    J.-Y. Hou, J. Wang, and D.-J. Zhang, JHEP 06, 164 (2025), arXiv:2501.11824 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Z. L. Liu and M. Neubert, JHEP 04, 033 (2020), arXiv:1912.08818 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Wang, (2019), arXiv:1912.09920 [hep-ph]

    J. Wang, (2019), arXiv:1912.09920 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, S. Jaskiewicz, J. Strohm, R. Szafron, L. Vernazza, and J. Wang, JHEP 07, 144 (2022), arXiv:2205.04479 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Liu and A

    T. Liu and A. Penin, JHEP 11, 158 (2018), arXiv:1809.04950 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Z. L. Liu, M. Neubert, M. Schnubel, and X. Wang, JHEP 06, 183 (2023), arXiv:2212.10447 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [61]

    This contribution is propor- tional to the color charge of the external collinear particle and thus vanishes after summing over all diagrams, since the mesons are color neutral

    for the analyses of the massive form factor with the method of regions [62, 63]. This contribution is propor- tional to the color charge of the external collinear particle and thus vanishes after summing over all diagrams, since the mesons are color neutral. The other kind of ...

  55. [62]

    G. Bell, P. B¨ oer, and T. Feldmann, JHEP09, 183 (2022), arXiv:2205.06021 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [63]

    G. Bell, P. B¨ oer, T. Feldmann, D. Horstmann, and V. Shtabovenko, (2024), arXiv:2412.14149 [hep-ph]

    2024

  57. [64]

    ter Hoeve, E

    J. ter Hoeve, E. Laenen, C. Marinissen, L. Vernazza, and G. Wang, JHEP 02, 024 (2024), arXiv:2311.16215 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 404, 101 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9703357

    1997

  59. [66]

    Beneke and V

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

    1998 arXiv

  60. [67]

    A. V. Manohar and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0605001

    2007 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, R. Szafron, and J. Wang, JHEP 03, 001 (2018), arXiv:1712.04416 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1726 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9503356

    1995 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Brambilla, H

    N. Brambilla, H. S. Chung, A. Vairo, and X.-P. Wang, JHEP 03, 242 (2023), arXiv:2210.17345 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Li, X.-D

    C. Li, X.-D. Huang, and W.-L. Sang, (2025), arXiv:2506.16317 [hep-ph]

    2025

  65. [73]

    B¨ undgen, R

    L. B¨ undgen, R. V. Harlander, S. Y. Klein, and M. C. Schaaf, (2025), arXiv:2501.04651 [hep-ph]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.