Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On the extraction of $\alpha_\textit{em}(m_Z^2)$ at Tera-$Z$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Comparing forward electrons with muons and positrons at the Z pole can measure the electromagnetic coupling to 0.6e-5 precision.

desk verdict Clear, new ratio observables for a direct alpha_em(mZ^2) extraction at Tera-Z, with an honest statistical projection; the uncalculated higher-order theory uncertainty is the true gatekeeper. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05508 v1 pith:QQI7WX5K submitted 2025-01-09 hep-ph hep-ex

Marc Riembau This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords alpha_em(m_Z^2)electromagneticcouplingforwardBhabhascatteringTera-ZFCC-eehadronicvacuumpolarizationtopquarkmasssin^2theta_eff_W
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

The current uncertainty on $\alpha_{\rm em}(m_Z^2)$ is a bottleneck for the precision electroweak program at Tera-Z because it is dominated by hadronic vacuum polarization inputs. This paper proposes to bypass that input and measure $\alpha_{\rm em}(m_Z^2)$ directly from Z-pole data: compare forward electron production with muon and positron production, since the forward photon pole enhances electrons while muons and positrons stay Z-dominated. With 125/ab at $\sqrt{s}=m_Z$, the combined statistical sensitivity reaches $0.6\times 10^{-5}$ on $\alpha_{\rm em}$, about five times better than the previous off-peak forward-backward asymmetry method. The paper shows the leading parametric uncertainties---the hadronic running between the t-channel scale and $m_Z^2$, the top-mass-induced shift, and the Z width---can be kept at or below that level, provided the top mass is known to the projected ~17 MeV from the $t\bar{t}$ threshold run.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the forward ratio observable $R_{e^-/\ell}(\theta)$, the number of electrons divided by the number of muons or positrons produced at a fixed scattering angle. In forward Bhabha scattering the t-channel photon pole grows as $1/(1-c_\theta)^2$ while the s-channel Z pole is enhanced by $m_Z^2/\Gamma_Z^2$, and the two contributions become comparable near $c_\theta \approx 0.8$; at leading order the ratio is set by the combination $\mathcal{Z}$, so it isolates $\alpha_{\rm em}$ and $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}^W$ with the luminosity normalization cancelling. The width sensitivity is carried by $\delta R_{e^-/\ell}/R_{e^-/\ell} \sim \delta\Gamma_Z/\Gamma_Z$, and the running uncertainty is propagated through $\alpha(m_Z^2) \simeq \alpha(t) - \alpha(\Delta\alpha(t)-\Delta\alpha(m_Z^2))$.

What would settle it

Complete a full NNLO electroweak calculation of the forward $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ and $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ rate ratio; if the residual theory uncertainty on $\alpha_{\rm em}(m_Z^2)$ exceeds $10^{-5}$ at Tera-Z energies, the projected reach is not realizable. A forward-detector measurement of the electron-to-muon efficiency ratio with an angular slope above roughly $10^{-5}$ per 0.05 bin would falsify the $R_{e^-/\mu^-}$ channel directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working at tree level for the rates, the paper claims that the ratios $R_{e^-/\mu^-}(\theta)$ and $R_{e^-/e^+}(\theta)$, binned in $c_\theta$ from 0 to 0.99, give a statistical sensitivity on $\alpha_{\rm em}(m_Z^2)$ below $10^{-5}$, with a combined relative reach of $0.6\times 10^{-5}$. The physics is that at forward angles $c_\theta \gtrsim 0.8$, electron production in $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ has comparable contributions from the real photon t-channel pole and the imaginary Z s-channel pole, while muon and positron production is essentially pure Z exchange; the ratio is therefore independent of luminosity and measures the combination $\mathcal{Z} = \sqrt{2}G_F m_Z^2/(\pi\alpha)(g_V^2+g_A^2)$, which fixes $\alpha_{\rm em}$ once $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}^W$ is known from Z-pole asymmetries. The paper also argues that the hadronic part of the running between the t-channel scale and $m_Z^2$ contributes below $10^{-5}$, the top-mass effect through $\Delta\rho$ is controlled if $m_t$ is known at the ~17 MeV level, and the Z-width sensitivity is comparable to the line-shape scan, making the method competitive and complementary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the uncalculated higher-order electroweak and QED corrections to forward Bhabha scattering can be computed or shown to cancel in the ratios so that the residual theory uncertainty stays below about $10^{-5}$, and that the angular dependence of electron and muon detection efficiencies can be controlled well enough for the $R_{e^-/\mu^-}$ channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 125/ab at the Z pole, the combination of $R_{e^-/\mu^-}$, $R_{e^-/e^+}$, and $A^{\mu\mu}_{FB}$ reaches $0.6\times 10^{-5}$ statistical uncertainty on $\alpha_{\rm em}(m_Z^2)$, roughly a fivefold improvement over the off-peak method.
  • A direct Z-pole extraction provides a cross-check of hadronic vacuum polarization results, since it does not rely on low-energy $e^+e^-\to$ hadrons data as input.
  • The ratios break the flat direction in the $\alpha_{\rm em}$-$\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}^W$ plane, giving sensitivity to the oblique parameter $b_S$ and new physics scales up to about 40 TeV if the top mass is measured to 17 MeV.
  • The on-peak ratios also probe the Z width at a level comparable to the expected line-shape scan, so the width measurement from the ratios and from the scan can be combined.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The angular binning of $R_{e^-/\ell}$ samples the t-channel running at different momentum transfers, so a fit over bins could in principle constrain $\alpha$ at intermediate scales rather than only at $m_Z^2$; this is not pursued in the paper.
  • If the angular dependence of electron and muon efficiencies cannot be controlled, the paper's own caveat suggests $R_{e^-/\mu^-}$ may be unfeasible, and an unbinned template fit for the efficiencies would be the natural remedy; whether that works is an open question.
  • The projected reach assumes tree-level rates, so a dedicated higher-order electroweak calculation for the ratios is the likely next bottleneck; if corrections do not cancel in the ratios, theory rather than statistics will set the limit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new method to extract the electromagnetic coupling α_em(m_Z^2) directly from Z-pole data at the FCC-ee Tera-Z run. The method compares forward-angle differential rates of e^-, μ^- and e^+ production, forming the ratios R_{e^-/μ^-}(θ) and R_{e^-/e^+}(θ). At angles θ ≲ 30°, electron production receives a large t-channel photon contribution, while muon and positron production are dominated by Z exchange, so the ratios are sensitive to the overall Z coupling and hence to α_em and sin^2θ_W. Using tree-level cross sections and 125/ab at √s = m_Z, the paper quotes a combined projected relative statistical sensitivity on α_em of 0.6×10^-5. It also assesses parametric uncertainties from the hadronic running of α_em, the Z width, and the top quark mass, and it interprets the resulting sensitivity in terms of the b_S parameter. The paper is explicit that a full assessment of higher-order QED/electroweak corrections and their cancellation in the ratios is left to future work.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity were accompanied by a demonstrated control of theory uncertainties, this would be a valuable new observable for the FCC-ee precision program, improving on the off-peak A_{FB}^{μμ} method by roughly a factor of five. The statistical treatment is transparent and uses standard cross-section formulas, and the paper correctly identifies and studies several important parametric effects: the t-channel running of α_em, the top-mass dependence of the Z coupling, and the Z-width sensitivity. The figures clearly separate the constraints from the different observables and show the role of the top mass in the interpretation. The main weakness is that the paper establishes a statistical projection, not a complete extraction: the residual higher-order theory uncertainty in the ratio observables is not quantified, and the paper itself acknowledges that the R_{e^-/μ^-} observable may be rendered unfeasible by electron/muon efficiency systematics. These are load-bearing issues for the central numerical claim.

major comments (3)
  1. The central claim of a combined relative sensitivity of 0.6×10^-5 on α_em is derived from tree-level rates. The only higher-order check is the statement that full NLO corrections computed with ReneSANCe give 'negligible changes in the statistical reach,' but no numerical result or uncertainty estimate is shown. Even if NLO corrections do not change the expected event counts significantly, this does not bound the theory error of the Standard Model prediction for R_{e^-/μ^-} and R_{e^-/e^+} at the 10^-5 level. Forward Bhabha scattering has large QED corrections, including collinear logarithms and electron-mass logarithms log(m_Z^2/m_e^2) that are not identical for electron and muon final states; unknown NNLO constant terms could plausibly exceed the quoted statistical sensitivity. Because the manuscript explicitly leaves the higher-order study and the assessment of cancellations in the ratios to future work, the quoted number is a statistical-only projection and does not yet establish an extraction of α_em(m_Z^2) at that precision. Please either provide a complete higher-order calculation for the ratios or a quantitative estimate, such as a scale-variation or EFT-based error bound, showing that the residual theory uncertainty is below 0.6×10^-5.
  2. The paper states that for R_{e^-/μ^-} it is not realistic to assume the same angular dependence for electron and muon efficiencies, and that this 'might potentially receive large systematic uncertainties and make the α(m_Z^2) extraction from R_{e^-/μ^-} unfeasible.' This is a load-bearing caveat because the combined sensitivity quoted in the abstract and Conclusions uses both R_{e^-/μ^-} and R_{e^-/e^+}. The manuscript does not give the projected sensitivity that would remain if only R_{e^-/e^+} is combined with A_{FB}^{μμ}, nor does it quantify the maximum tolerable efficiency-ratio slope. Please add such an estimate, or otherwise demonstrate that the efficiency systematics can be controlled with an unbinned or functional-form analysis.
  3. The uncertainty band in the lower panel of Fig. 2 is defined by varying m_c, m_b, α_s(m_Z) and the renormalization scale, with the upper boundary using all variations and the lower boundary using only scale variation. This is not a statistically defined uncertainty, yet it is used to conclude that the impact of the running uncertainty is at the 10^-5 level in the most forward bin, which is comparable to the quoted combined sensitivity. Please clarify how this band is converted to a 1σ or conservative uncertainty, whether the correlation between the perturbative-QCD parameters is accounted for, and whether the scale choice μ = √s × 2^{±1} is meant to be an envelope or a range of typical variations.
minor comments (4)
  1. There is an inconsistency in the angular conversion: the text says c_θ = 0.99 corresponds to θ ≃ 140 mrad and later says it corresponds to θ ≃ 8° or 120 mrad; 8° is 140 mrad, while 120 mrad corresponds to c_θ ≃ 0.993. Please correct the numerical conversion.
  2. The term 'Tera-Z' is used in the title and abstract but is not defined on first use; please spell out that it refers to the 10^12 Z-boson sample at FCC-ee.
  3. The sentence 'We checked that the full NLO corrections ... give a correction to the rates, dominated by the large QED logs, with negligible changes in the statistical reach' would be much more useful with an actual number, such as the relative shift in the per-bin statistical error or in the final combined sensitivity.
  4. The lower panel of Fig. 2 uses dark and light gray that may be hard to distinguish in print; consider using different line styles or hatching.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper presents a statistical projection for alpha_em(mZ^2) from Z-pole ratio observables, with independent external inputs for hadronic vacuum polarization and standard electroweak parameters.

full rationale

The paper does not fit alpha_em(mZ^2) to data and then present that fit as a prediction. Instead, it defines differential ratios R_{e-/mu-}(theta) and R_{e-/e+}(theta), evaluates their tree-level statistical sensitivity at Tera-Z luminosity, and interprets the resulting contours as constraints on the unknown parameters alpha_em and sin^2 theta_eff. The central numerical claim, a combined relative sensitivity of 0.6e-5, is a Fisher-style projection obtained by varying alpha_em around an assumed central value, not by using alpha_em as an input to determine the same alpha_em. The hadronic running correction Delta alpha(t, mZ^2) is computed from external R(s) data and perturbative QCD; those inputs are independent of the proposed extraction and are used only to assess how well the t-channel running can be subtracted. The top-mass dependence is propagated from external FCC-ee or LHC projections, and the Z-width dependence is treated as a parametric effect to be constrained by the line-shape scan. These are standard input-error propagations, not circular reductions. The paper explicitly defers the calculation of higher-order electroweak and QED corrections and the demonstration that residual theoretical uncertainties fall below the statistical sensitivity; that is a recognized limitation of the proposal, not a case of the derivation being equivalent to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the comparison with the off-peak A_mumu_FB method of Ref. [14] is a benchmark, and the cited NLO implementation (ReneSANCe) is external, publicly available code used only to check that NLO corrections do not change the statistical reach. Consequently, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here: predictions are not obtained by assuming the value of alpha_em(mZ^2) that the observables are supposed to measure.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity estimate has no fitted free parameters; it is a projection based on SM tree-level cross sections, external inputs (GF, mZ, top mass, R(s), alpha_s), and detector assumptions. The S parameter is an existing oblique parameter from the literature, used only for the new physics reinterpretation. The main cost of the claim is the assumption that theory and detector systematics can be controlled at the 1e-5 level.

free parameters (2)
  • Forward angular coverage c_theta_max = 0.99
    Assumed detector coverage to about 8 degrees (140 mrad); the quoted sensitivity degrades to 1.5e-5 if coverage only reaches c_theta=0.85. This is a design assumption, not fitted to data.
  • Angular bin width = 0.05 in c_theta
    Uniform bins chosen for the statistical projection; the exact quoted sensitivity may depend mildly on this binning choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Tree-level SM Bhabha differential cross sections describe the forward rates with sufficient accuracy; NLO corrections do not change the statistical reach.
    Used in the section on statistical power; NLO corrections are stated to have been checked with ReneSANCe but the check is not shown, and higher-order work is deferred.
  • standard math The t-channel running coupling is related to the Z-pole coupling by Eq. (1), with the hadronic vacuum polarization difference computed from R(s) data and perturbative QCD.
    This is standard QED running with external inputs from Refs. [8,63,64]; the uncertainty is estimated from data and pQCD.
  • domain assumption Detector performance assumptions: particle misidentification below 1e-5, double charge misidentification negligible if charge identification is better than 0.2%, and beam energy spread monitorable at the per-mille level.
    Stated in the Systematic uncertainties section; these assumptions are needed for the systematics to sit below the statistical sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Poisson statistics apply to bin counts, with no bin-to-bin correlations, and the absolute luminosity normalization cancels in the ratios.
    Used to derive the statistical uncertainty formula delta R = R sqrt(N_e^- + N_lepton) in each bin.
  • domain assumption The top quark mass enters through the rho parameter, and the top mass uncertainty is taken from external measurements in the scenarios considered.
    Used in the parametric uncertainty section with delta mt = 330 MeV (HL-LHC) and 17 MeV (FCC-ee top threshold).
  • domain assumption For the new physics interpretation, the oblique parameter S is the only relevant beyond-SM effect; other lepton-flavor or four-fermion effects are neglected.
    Stated in the sensitivity to the S parameter section; this is an illustrative assumption for the reach projection, not central to the alpha extraction itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the extraction of $\alpha_\textit{em}(m_Z^2)$ at Tera-$Z$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQI7WX5K

@misc{pith2026250105508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the extraction of $\alpha_\textitem(m_Z^2)$ at Tera-$Z$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQI7WX5K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05508}
}
abstract

The current projected sensitivity on the electromagnetic coupling $\alpha_\textit{em}(m_Z^2)$ represents a bottleneck for the precision electroweak program at FCC-ee. We propose a novel methodology to extract this coupling directly from $Z$-pole data. By comparing the differential distribution of electrons, muons and positrons in the forward region, the approach achieves a projected statistical sensitivity below the $10^{-5}$ level, representing a significant improvement over other methods. We assess the impact of leading parametric uncertainties including that of the top quark mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: One and two sigma expected statistical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Top: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Second, we assume that the theoretical calcu￾lation is improved and use this would-be prediction, with the leading shift proportional to ∆ρ canceling in the s-channel Z-boson exchange at √ s = mZ. We further assume in this plot that sin2 θ eff W is fixed to some value. A finite precision on the mixing angle has no qualitative effect on this plot since it is in￾dependently measured from A µµ F B at the Z pole run, wh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: One sigma expected statistical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The running of the electroweak gauge couplings from first principles

    hep-lat 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Lattice QCD plus pQCD matching yields Δα_had^(5)(M_Z²)=0.027821(34)lat(35)pQCD at 0.17% precision and a up-to-7σ tension with e+e- data near 1 GeV².

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Aoyama, T

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7 (2019), 10.3390/atoms7010028

    doi:10.3390/atoms7010028 2019

  3. [3]

    Steinhauser, Phys

    M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 429, 158 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803313

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Sturm, Nucl

    C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. B 874, 698 (2013), arXiv:1305.0581 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Erler and R

    J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hern´ andez, JHEP 03, 196 (2018), arXiv:1712.09146 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Jegerlehner, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs 3, 9 (2020)

    F. Jegerlehner, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs 3, 9 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Blondel, J

    A. Blondel, J. Gluza, S. Jadach, P. Janot, and T. Riemann, eds., Theory for the FCC-ee: Report on the 11th FCC-ee Workshop Theory and Experiments, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, Vol. 3/2020 (CERN, Geneva, 2019) arXiv:1905.05078 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 241 (2020), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 80, 410 (2020)], arXiv:1908.00921 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014029 (2020), arXiv:1911.00367 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. C` e, A. G´ erardin, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Miura, K. Ottnad, A. Risch, T. San Jos´ e, J. Wilhelm, and H. Wittig, JHEP 08, 220 (2022), arXiv:2203.08676 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Davier, Z

    M. Davier, Z. Fodor, A. Gerardin, L. Lellouch, B. Malaescu, F. M. Stokes, K. K. Szabo, B. C. Toth, L. Varnhorst, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 076019 (2024), arXiv:2308.04221 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Erler, R

    J. Erler, R. Ferro-Hernandez, and S. Ku- berski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 171801 (2024), arXiv:2406.16691 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Janot, JHEP 02, 053 (2016), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 164 (2017)], arXiv:1512.05544 [hep-ph]

    P. Janot, JHEP 02, 053 (2016), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 164 (2017)], arXiv:1512.05544 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Beenakker, F

    W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends, and S. C. van der Marck, Nucl. Phys. B 349, 323 (1991)

    1991

  8. [16]

    Beenakker and G

    W. Beenakker and G. Passarino, Physics Letters B 425, 199 (1998)

    1998

  9. [17]

    Placzek, S

    W. Placzek, S. Jadach, M. Melles, B. F. L. Ward, and S. A. Yost, in 4th International Symposium on Radiative Corrections: Applications of Quantum Field Theory to Phenomenology(1999) pp. 325–333, arXiv:hep-ph/9903381

    1999 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Montagna, O

    G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Phys. Lett. B 460, 425 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9904387

    1999 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jadach, W

    S. Jadach, W. P laczek, and B. Ward, Physics Letters B 353, 349 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    C. M. Carloni Calame, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Acta Phys. Polon. B 46, 2227 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Jadach, W

    S. Jadach, W. P laczek, M. Skrzypek, B. F. L. Ward, and S. A. Yost, Phys. Lett. B 790, 314 (2019), arXiv:1812.01004 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dam, Eur

    M. Dam, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 81 (2022), arXiv:2107.12837 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Consoli, Nuclear Physics B 160, 208 (1979)

    M. Consoli, Nuclear Physics B 160, 208 (1979)

    1979

  16. [24]

    Caffo and E

    M. Caffo and E. Remiddi, (1989), 10.5170/CERN- 1989-008-V-1.171

    1989 doi

  17. [25]

    Altarelli, R

    G. Altarelli, R. Kleiss, and C. Verzegnassi, eds., Z PHYSICS AT LEP-1. PROCEEDINGS, WORK- SHOP, GENEV A, SWITZERLAND, SEPTEMBER 4-5, 1989. VOL. 1: STANDARD PHYSICS, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    Barchetta, P

    N. Barchetta, P. Collins, and P. Riedler, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 231 (2022), arXiv:2112.13019 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Berends and R

    F. Berends and R. Kleiss, Nuclear Physics B 228, 537 (1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    Caffo, R

    M. Caffo, R. Gatto, and E. Remiddi, Nuclear Physics B 252, 378 (1985)

    1985

  21. [29]

    Tobimatsu and Y

    K. Tobimatsu and Y. Shimizu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 74, 567 (1985), [Erratum: Prog.Theor.Phys. 76, 334 (1986)]

    1985

  22. [30]

    Tobimatsu and Y

    K. Tobimatsu and Y. Shimizu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 75, 905 (1986)

    1986

  23. [31]

    B¨ ohm, A

    M. B¨ ohm, A. Denner, and W. Hollik, Nuclear Physics B 304, 687 (1988)

    1988

  24. [32]

    J. H. Kuhn, S. Moch, A. A. Penin, and V. A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B 616, 286 (2001), [Erra- tum: Nucl.Phys.B 648, 455–456 (2003)], arXiv:hep- ph/0106298

    2001

  25. [33]

    Feucht, J

    B. Feucht, J. H. Kuhn, A. A. Penin, and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 101802 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404082

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jantzen, J

    B. Jantzen, J. H. Kuhn, A. A. Penin, and V. A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B 731, 188 (2005), [Erra- tum: Nucl.Phys.B 752, 327–328 (2006)], arXiv:hep- ph/0509157

    2005

  27. [35]

    A. A. Penin and G. Ryan, JHEP 11, 081 (2011), arXiv:1112.2171 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and A. Ghinculov, Phys. Rev. D 63, 053007 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0010075. 9

    2001 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. A. Penin, Nucl. Phys. B 734, 185 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0508127

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mitov and S

    A. Mitov and S. Moch, JHEP 05, 001 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612149

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Becher and K

    T. Becher and K. Melnikov, JHEP 06, 084 (2007), arXiv:0704.3582 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Actis, M

    S. Actis, M. Czakon, J. Gluza, and T. Riemann, Nucl. Phys. B 786, 26 (2007), arXiv:0704.2400 [hep- ph]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bonciani, A

    R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, P. Mastrolia, E. Remiddi, and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B 701, 121 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0405275

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Czakon, J

    M. Czakon, J. Gluza, and T. Riemann, Nucl. Phys. B 751, 1 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604101

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Actis, P

    S. Actis, P. Mastrolia, and G. Ossola, Phys. Lett. B 682, 419 (2010), arXiv:0909.1750 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. M. Henn and V. A. Smirnov, JHEP11, 041 (2013), arXiv:1307.4083 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. Duhr, V. A. Smirnov, and L. Tancredi, JHEP 09, 120 (2021), arXiv:2108.03828 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Delto, C

    M. Delto, C. Duhr, L. Tancredi, and Y. J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 231904 (2024), arXiv:2311.06385 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Actis, M

    S. Actis, M. Czakon, J. Gluza, and T. Rie- mann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 131602 (2008), arXiv:0711.3847 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. H. Kuhn and S. Uccirati, Nucl. Phys. B 806, 300 (2009), arXiv:0807.1284 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Sadykov and V

    R. Sadykov and V. Yermolchyk, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107445 (2020), arXiv:2001.10755 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bondarenko, Y

    S. Bondarenko, Y. Dydyshka, L. Kalinovskaya, R. Sadykov, and V. Yermolchyk, Comput. Phys. Commun. 285, 108646 (2023), arXiv:2207.04332 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Banerjee et al., Eur

    P. Banerjee et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 591 (2020), arXiv:2004.13663 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Banerjee, T

    P. Banerjee, T. Engel, A. Signer, and Y. Ulrich, SciPost Phys. 9, 027 (2020), arXiv:2007.01654 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Banerjee, T

    P. Banerjee, T. Engel, N. Schalch, A. Signer, and Y. Ulrich, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136547 (2021), arXiv:2106.07469 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Broggio et al

    A. Broggio et al. , JHEP 01, 112 (2023), arXiv:2212.06481 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Janot, C

    P. Janot, C. Grojean, F. Zimmermann, and M. Benedikt, Integrated Luminosities and Sequence of Events for the FCC Feasibility Study Report (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Buskulic et al

    D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 360, 481 (1995)

    1995

  49. [57]

    Barate et al

    R. Barate et al. (ALEPH), Eur. Phys. J. C 14, 1 (2000)

    2000

  50. [58]

    Blondel et al

    A. Blondel et al. , (2019), arXiv:1909.12245 [physics.acc-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    D. M. Webber et al.(MuLan), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 041803 (2011), arXiv:1010.0991 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon, Vol

    F. Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon, Vol. 274 (Springer, Cham, 2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL), Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 1 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0505072

    2006 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Achard et al

    P. Achard et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B 623, 26 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0507078

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 827 (2017), arXiv:1706.09436 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    R. V. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153, 244 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212294

    2003 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. L. Workman and Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Einhorn, D

    M. Einhorn, D. Jones, and M. Veltman, Nuclear Physics B 191, 146 (1981)

    1981

  59. [67]

    Chanowitz, M

    M. Chanowitz, M. Furman, and I. Hinchliffe, Physics Letters B 78, 285 (1978)

    1978

  60. [68]

    Consoli, W

    M. Consoli, W. Hollik, and F. Jegerlehner, Phys. Lett. B 227, 167 (1989)

    1989

  61. [69]

    Altarelli and R

    G. Altarelli and R. Barbieri, Phys. Lett. B 253, 161 (1991)

    1991

  62. [70]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 46, 381 (1992)

    1992

  63. [71]

    Barbieri, A

    R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and A. Stru- mia, Nucl. Phys. B 703, 127 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0405040

    2004

  64. [72]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (ATLAS, CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 261902 (2024), arXiv:2402.08713 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    The Top Mass in Hadronic Collisions,

    P. Nason, “The Top Mass in Hadronic Collisions,” in From My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, edited by A. Levy, S. Forte, and G. Ridolfi (2019) pp. 123–151, arXiv:1712.02796 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Azzi et al., CERN Yellow Rep

    P. Azzi et al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7, 1 (2019), arXiv:1902.04070 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    A. H. Hoang, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 225 (2020), arXiv:2004.12915 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Dehnadi, A

    B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang, O. L. Jin, and V. Mateu, JHEP 12, 065 (2023), arXiv:2309.00547 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 963 (2023), arXiv:2302.01967 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 06, 019 (2023), arXiv:2209.00583 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    (2016), arXiv:1608.01881 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 07, 077 (2023), arXiv:2207.02270 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Dubovyk, A

    I. Dubovyk, A. Freitas, J. Gluza, T. Riemann, and J. Usovitsch, Phys. Lett. B 783, 86 (2018), arXiv:1804.10236 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    de Florian et al.(LHC Higgs Cross Section Work- ing Group), 2/2017 (2016), 10.23731/CYRM-2017- 002, arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    D. de Florian et al.(LHC Higgs Cross Section Work- ing Group), 2/2017 (2016), 10.23731/CYRM-2017- 002, arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    de Blas, M

    J. de Blas, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, S. Mishima, M. Pierini, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, PoS ICHEP2016, 690 (2017), arXiv:1611.05354 [hep- 10 ph]. [84] J. de Blas, Y. Du, C. Grojean, J. Gu, V. Miralles, M. E. Peskin, J. Tian, M. Vos, and E. Vryonidou, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) ...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.