Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Strongly Coupled Soft Functions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At every rapidity gap, the strongly coupled cusp anomalous dimension is the smaller of two saddle-point actions; the two families swap dominance at a finite gap, and the two-cusp soft function follows as a power law.

desk verdict First all-rapidity strong-coupling cusp anomalous dimension from holography, with an unresolved branch-cut contribution as the load-bearing soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10083 v1 pith:YMOHHPAI submitted 2026-08-10 hep-ph

Bruno Scheihing-Hitschfeld , Zhiquan Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 11.25.Tq12.38.-t
keywords cuspanomalousdimensionAdS/CFTcorrespondenceWilsonloopsNambu-GotoactionTMDsoftfunctionCollins-Soperkernelheavy-quarkfragmentationN=4superYang-Mills
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

Using the AdS/CFT correspondence, this paper establishes how the cusp anomalous dimension — the universal growth rate controlling ultraviolet divergences where two Wilson lines meet at an angle — behaves at strong coupling in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills for every rapidity separation $\Delta\eta$. The central claim is that for a timelike cusp this quantity is everywhere the minimum of the actions of two families of extremal string surfaces, which exchange dominance at a finite $\Delta\eta$; the same machinery is then applied to the vacuum expectation value of two cusped Wilson lines separated in the transverse direction, the configuration underlying heavy-quark transverse-momentum-dependent fragmentation and the TMD soft function. If the calculation is right, that matrix element is a pure power law in the transverse separation with exponent set by the real part of the cusp anomalous dimension, and its lightlike limit supplies the strong-coupling value of the Collins-Soper kernel.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the Nambu-Goto action for a string in AdS$_5\times S^5$, written in scale-invariant coordinates ($a$, $u=z/a$) so that each worldsheet profile reduces to two ordinary functions $\eta(u)$, $\theta(u)$. The rapidity gap $\Delta\eta$ and the internal angle $\Delta\theta$ are not imposed by boundary conditions directly but by Lagrange multipliers $C_\eta, C_\theta$ inserted into the action; after the string fields are integrated out, the Wilson loop expectation value becomes a finite two-dimensional integral over these multipliers, and the multipliers themselves become conserved momentum fluxes along the worldsheet, a quantity tied to momentum transfer in the field theory. The saddle points of the multiplier integral are complex for $\Delta\eta$ above a critical value and fall into two families distinguished by the turning point of the surface, $u_{\max}=u_+(C_\eta,C_\theta)$ in the bulk versus $u_{\max}=1$ on the null line; the steepest-descent analysis of which family dominates, and where the dominance switches, is the technical core of the one-cusp calculation. For the two-cusp configuration a third multiplier $C_\perp$ enforces the transverse separation and equals the string momentum flux $\Pi_a$; its conjugate variable $q$ fixes the transverse profile mode $x_\perp = (q/\sqrt{\lambda})a^2\tilde{c}_2 f_2(u)$, with $f_2$ the unique flux-carrying mode and $\sqrt{\lambda}/q$ serving as the IR regulator that turns the one-cusp logarithm into $\ln(\Lambda b_\perp)$.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the integral in eq. (3.29) directly, following appendix B, at values of $\Delta\eta$ other than 1.5 and 2 — for instance 3, 4, and 6 — and at an intermediate internal angle such as $\Delta\theta = 8\pi/9$, then compare both the growth rate and the phase of the result with the least-action prediction of eq. (3.49); a mismatch would show that the branch-cut segments of the deformed contour contribute and that the saddle-point formula is incomplete. A separate check: compute $-\mathrm{Re}\,\Gamma_{\mathrm{cusp}}$ from the power-law exponent of $\chi_1(b_\perp)$ by an independent strong-coupling method, such as a lattice construction or an integrability-based proposal, and see whether it equals the minimum of the two saddle actions across the crossover region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a single timelike cusp in strongly coupled $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills, the paper claims that the cusp anomalous dimension is, for every rapidity gap $\Delta\eta$ and internal angle $\Delta\theta$, given by the saddle-point evaluation of a two-dimensional integral over Lagrange multipliers: $$\Gamma_{\mathrm{cusp}}^{(s)}[\$\Delta$\eta,\$\Delta$\$\theta$] = \frac{i\sqrt{\$\lambda$}}{\pi}\left(\int_{L(u_{\max}^{(s)})} \frac{du}{$u^{2}$}\left[\sqrt{\frac{1-$u^{2}$}{1-(1+C_\$theta^{2}$)$u^{2}$ - C_\$eta^{2}$ $u^{4}$}} - 1\right] - \frac{1}{u_{\max}^{(s)}}\right),$$ with $s = +$ for surfaces whose turning point sits in the bulk and $s = 1$ for surfaces that reach the null line $u = z/a = 1$, the latter having no Euclidean counterpart. The value realized in the Wilson loop is the one with the smallest real part, and both families exchange dominance at a finite rapidity gap; at small $\Delta\eta$ the $u_+$ family reproduces the known small-angle behavior tied to the heavy quark-antiquark potential, while at large $\Delta\eta$ both families recover the established result $\Gamma_{\mathrm{cusp}} \sim \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{4\pi}\Delta\eta$ with imaginary part tending to $-\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{4}$, matching the lightlike computations of refs. [34, 40]. For the two-cusp vacuum matrix element, the paper obtains $\chi_1(b_\perp;\Delta\eta,\Delta\theta) = (b_\perp^2\Lambda^2)^{-\mathrm{Re}\,\Gamma_{\mathrm{cusp}}[\Delta\eta,\Delta\theta]}$ together with the large-rapidity transverse profile $x_\perp(a,u) = \frac{q}{\sqrt{\lambda}}a^2\tilde{c}_2 f_2(u)$, and in the lightlike limit a Collins-Soper kernel $-2\ln(\Lambda b_\perp)\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{4\pi}$ that matches the expected factorization equations (1.5)-(1.7).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the cusp anomalous dimension is set entirely by the saddle points of the integral over the constraint-enforcing multipliers: the extra segments of the deformed integration contour that run along the branch cut in the complex plane must contribute nothing at any rapidity gap or angle, a fact the paper verifies numerically at only two values of the rapidity gap and states it cannot yet prove in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The timelike cusp anomalous dimension is now fixed at strong coupling across the entire range of rapidity separation: the $u_+$ saddle gives the small-angle $\sim -V/\phi'$ behavior tied to the heavy quark-antiquark potential, both families reproduce the linear lightlike growth $\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{4\pi}\Delta\eta$, and the crossover between them is controlled by the $u=1$ family.
  • The heavy-quark fragmentation matrix element $\chi_1(b_\perp)$ is a pure power law, $\chi_1(b_\perp;\Delta\eta,\Delta\theta) = (b_\perp^2\Lambda^2)^{-\mathrm{Re}\,\Gamma_{\mathrm{cusp}}[\Delta\eta,\Delta\theta]}$, at leading order in the strong-coupling expansion, with the complex part cancelling between the amplitude and its conjugate as expected.
  • In the lightlike limit the Collins-Soper kernel takes the value $-2\ln(\Lambda b_\perp)\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{4\pi}$, and because the limit is insensitive to whether one or both lines are lightlike, the same value applies to the lightlike-lightlike TMD soft function.
  • The $u=1$ family — complex saddle surfaces with no Euclidean counterpart — is the one that dominates at large rapidity separation, so Euclidean constructions of cusped Wilson loops necessarily miss the dominant contribution in the lightlike regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exchange of dominance between the two saddle families resembles a first-order transition in $\Delta\eta$; if that structure is physical, the derivative of $\mathrm{Re}\,\Gamma_{\mathrm{cusp}}$ with respect to $\Delta\eta$ should change sharply at the exchange point, a feature that an independent computation (for example a lattice or integrability-based one) of the same Wilson loop could test.
  • The paper offers the linearized profile $x_\perp(a,u) = \frac{q}{\sqrt{\lambda}}a^2\tilde{c}_2 f_2(u)$ as an initial condition for integrating the full nonlinear string equations outward from the cusp; actually performing that integration would verify the midpoint matching between the two cusps and show where the one-cusp approximation of eq. (4.31) first fails.
  • The Lagrange-multiplier and conserved-flux machinery should transfer to non-conformal holographic backgrounds; there the power law would acquire an extra $b_\perp$ dependence set by the new scale, plausibly turning $\chi_1(b_\perp)$ into a holographic diagnostic of flux-tube breaking that could be compared with heavy-hadron energy-energy correlator measurements.
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 studies cusped Wilson loops in N=4 super Yang-Mills theory at strong coupling through AdS/CFT, motivated by the heavy-quark TMD fragmentation matrix element chi_1(b_perp). The one-cusp calculation is reduced, after a Lagrange-multiplier reformulation, to a finite-dimensional integral over the multipliers (eq. 3.29). The authors identify two families of saddle points, u_max = u_+ and u_max = 1, derive the saddle-point conditions (eqs. 3.32-3.33 and 3.39-3.40), and extract the cusp anomalous dimension as the coefficient of ln(Lambda L) in the regularized effective action (eq. 3.49). They find that the two families exchange dominance as a function of Delta eta, reproduce the known large-rapidity slope sqrt(lambda)/(4 pi), recover the small-angle bremsstrahlung behavior, and satisfy the zig-zag symmetry at Delta theta = pi. For the two-cusp configuration, the authors introduce a conserved transverse momentum flux conjugate to b_perp, compute the transverse profile of the extremal surface in the large-rapidity limit, and obtain chi_1(b_perp; Delta eta, Delta theta) proportional to (b_perp^2 Lambda^2)^{-Re Gamma_cusp} (eqs. 4.33-4.34). They also extract the Collins-Soper kernel at large rapidity, eq. (4.36).

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a nonperturbative strong-coupling prediction for a TMD-type soft function and the first full-Delta-eta formula for the Minkowski-signature cusp anomalous dimension at strong coupling. The manuscript has real strengths: the Lagrange-multiplier formulation is explicit and the saddle-point equations are given in closed form; the predictions are parameter-free in the sense that the multipliers are fixed by solving the saddle-point conditions rather than fitted; known limits (large Delta eta, small angle, zig-zag symmetry) are reproduced; and the two-cusp computation is organized around a conserved momentum flux, giving a physical interpretation of the transverse separation. The main risk is the unresolved treatment of branch-cut contributions in the steepest-descent evaluation of the Lagrange-multiplier integral, which the authors themselves flag in appendix A.3 and footnote 10. A secondary but concrete issue concerns scheme dependence in the Fourier transform that leads to eqs. (4.34) and (4.36).

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A.3, footnote 10, eq. (3.29)] The steepest-descent evaluation of the integral in eq. (3.29) requires deforming the integration contours in the complex C_eta, C_theta planes. Because the effective actions have branch cuts along the imaginary axes, a valid deformation must include the magenta dot-dashed segments in figure 16. The authors state in appendix A.3 and footnote 10 that they have not found a systematic argument showing that these segments do not contribute to the large-sqrt(lambda) behavior. The numerical checks in appendix B cover only Delta eta = 1.5 and 2, only Delta theta = 0, and only the u_max = 1 term (eq. B.2); the u_max = u_+ integral is explicitly left unexamined. Since Gamma_cusp in eq. (3.49) is read off from the saddle-point action alone, any extra contribution from these segments would change the coefficient of ln(Lambda L) and hence propagate into the two-cusp predictions (4.33)-(4.34). This is the weakest link in the chain from eq. (3.29) to the paper's main quantitative claims, and it needs either a rigorous argument or substantially expanded numerical verification, including the u_+ family and nonzero Delta theta.
  2. [Section 4.3, eqs. (4.33)-(4.36)] The step from eq. (4.32) to eq. (4.33) fixes the b_perp dependence up to a Lambda-independent prefactor that may depend on Delta eta. The Fourier transform from eq. (4.33) to eq. (4.34) is then evaluated in the saddle-point approximation; for large Re Gamma_cusp the saddle point produces an additional prefactor of order exp[2 Re Gamma_cusp ln(2 Re Gamma_cusp) - 2 Re Gamma_cusp], whose logarithm is O(sqrt(lambda) ln lambda), not O(lambda^0). The text says that O(lambda^0) terms in the exponent are neglected, but this prefactor is parametrically larger. If eq. (4.34) is intended as a scheme choice for the b-space soft function, that should be stated explicitly; if eq. (4.36) is meant to be the full rapidity derivative d ln chi_1 / d Delta eta, the b-independent term 2 Re Gamma_cusp' ln(2 Re Gamma_cusp) should be included or shown to be removable by a stated scheme. As written, eq. (4.36) is therefore either incomplete or implicitly scheme-dependent in a way that the manuscript does not explain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, eq. (B.2)] The direct numerical verification is presented only for the u_max = 1 term for Delta eta = 1.5 and 2 with Delta theta = 0. The text should state explicitly that the u_max = u_+ integral and the Delta theta = pi case remain unchecked numerically, so the reader does not overestimate the empirical support for the branch-cut assumption.
  2. [Figures 12, 17, 18] Several figures, in particular figures 12, 17, and 18, lack axis labels and legends in the displayed material; adding them would make the numerical comparisons easier to verify.
  3. [Section 3.4, text near eq. (3.28)] There is a typo 'comapring' that should read 'comparing'. Also, the notation for the turning point alternates between u_max and u_max; the paper should use a single symbol consistently.
  4. [Section 3.6, bullet list] The bullet list contains the fragment 'in int is a convex function' which appears to be a typo for 'it is a convex function'. This should be corrected.
  5. [Section 4.3, eq. (4.35)] The derivation of the saddle-point value of q treats q as a scalar in the exponent; since q is a two-dimensional transverse vector, the stationary condition should be written for the vector q and the direction of b_perp. The result is unaffected, but the notation should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the strong-coupling saddle-point calculation is self-contained and benchmarked against independent literature limits.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The cusp anomalous dimension is obtained from the AdS/CFT saddle-point evaluation of the Nambu-Goto action: the boundary data (Delta eta, Delta theta) are enforced by Lagrange multipliers introduced in eq. (3.16), the saddle-point conditions (3.30)-(3.31) determine C_eta and C_theta as functions of (Delta eta, Delta theta), and Gamma_cusp is read off as the coefficient of ln(Lambda L) in eq. (3.49). Nothing is fitted to the quantity being predicted. The extension to the two-cusp matrix element chi_1 uses the same one-cusp Gamma_cusp as the coefficient of the UV logarithm, with b_perp entering as the IR scale through the x_perp fluctuation solution of section 4.2; this is a matching/consistency argument, not a redefinition of the input. The large-rapidity and small-angle limits are compared with independent published results (e.g., refs. [34,35,40,65]), and the Collins-Soper kernel check in eq. (4.36) is a derived consistency relation rather than an input. Self-citations to refs. [1,2] define the field-theoretic object chi_1, and ref. [51] is credited with motivating the Lagrange-multiplier technique, but the technique is re-derived from the path integral in section 3.3, so these citations are not load-bearing. The admitted branch-cut contribution gap in appendix A.3 and footnote 10 is a real correctness/rigor limitation that could affect eq. (3.49), but it is not a circularity: it concerns whether the saddle-point approximation omits additional non-saddle contributions, not whether the claimed result is equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All dimensionful scales are regulators (Lambda, L) or physical inputs (b_perp, Delta eta, Delta theta). No numbers are fitted to data; the apparent integration constants C_eta, C_theta are fixed by the boundary conditions through saddle point equations. The main assumptions are the standard holographic dictionary and analytic-continuation choices, plus the heuristic two-cusp ansatz. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence: Wilson loop expectation value equals classical string path integral (eqs 1.14-1.16)
    Invoked throughout to replace N=4 SYM at strong coupling with Nambu-Goto dynamics in AdS_5 x S^5; this is the standard holographic dictionary.
  • domain assumption Large N_c and large lambda limit, saddle point approximation to the string path integral (section 1.2)
    The calculation is leading-order in the strong-coupling expansion; O(lambda^0) prefactors are neglected and stated.
  • domain assumption Schwinger-Keldysh/Skenderis-van Rees prescription for non-time-ordered operators, with matching conditions at the bulk hypersurface (section 2.2)
    Needed to represent chi_1, which is a product of amplitude and conjugate amplitude, as a doubled path integral.
  • domain assumption i-epsilon prescription selecting the branch of the Nambu-Goto square root for time-ordered and anti-time-ordered branches (section 2.2, eq 3.6)
    Fixes the sign of the imaginary part of the action and the positivity of the real part; standard real-time prescription.
  • domain assumption Transverse gauge links at infinity do not contribute to the anomalous dimension (section 2.3)
    Argued from vanishing of the vector potential in covariant gauges and from gauge invariance; used to close the Wilson loop without affecting the result.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'natural guess' for chi_1, eq (4.1), is assumed and then confirmed by the momentum-flux analysis
    The two-cusp result is obtained starting from the power-law ansatz; the subsequent linearized calculation verifies that b_perp acts as the IR regulator and that no additional UV divergence appears.
  • ad hoc to paper Identification of the IR cutoff at a ~ sqrt(lambda)/q for the two-cusp geometry (eq 4.28, section 4.2)
    Needed to convert the exponent ln(Lambda sqrt(lambda)/q) into the final chi_1(q) scaling; justified by the validity of the linearized transverse expansion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strongly Coupled Soft Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMOHHPAI

@misc{pith2026260810083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strongly Coupled Soft Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMOHHPAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10083}
}
abstract

The renormalization of operators built out of Wilson lines that meet at an angle (cusp) involve what is known as the cusp anomalous dimension, a universal object appearing in many processes in QCD due to the divergences from gluonic interactions. In this paper, we consider the vacuum expectation value of a pair of cusped Wilson lines separated in the transverse direction. This configuration can be related to a simple observable in heavy quark transverse momentum-dependent (TMD) fragmentation as well as the TMD soft function. We compute the expectation values of Wilson loops in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory at strong coupling via the AdS/CFT correspondence, an approach complementary to perturbative calculations of the cusp anomalous dimension. We first present a thorough analysis, directly in Minkowski signature, of the Nambu-Goto action and its saddle points for a Wilson line configuration with a single cusp. We find that there are two different classes of saddle points whose contributions dominate different regions of parameter space. We calculate the cusp anomalous dimension $\Gamma_{\rm cusp}[\Delta\eta, \Delta\theta]$ for the whole range of $\Delta\eta$ from this setup, focusing on the cases $\Delta \theta = 0$ and $\Delta \theta = \pi$, and compare it with previous results in literature. We then use the techniques we developed to compute the expectation value of the two-cusp Wilson loop with transverse separation, and determine the profile of the transverse coordinate on the extremal surface in the large rapidity limit. We discuss the possible generalizations of our setup and results to soft functions in other gauge theories with a holographic dual.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    von Kuk, J

    R. von Kuk, J. K. L. Michel and Z. Sun,Transverse momentum distributions of heavy hadrons and polarized heavy quarks,JHEP09(2023) 205 [2305.15461]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    von Kuk, J

    R. von Kuk, J. K. L. Michel and Z. Sun,Transverse momentum-dependent heavy-quark fragmentation at next-to-leading order,JHEP07(2024) 129 [2404.08622]. – 58 –

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Boussarie et al.,TMD Handbook,2304.03302

    R. Boussarie et al.,TMD Handbook,2304.03302

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    A. V. Belitsky, X. Ji and F. Yuan,Final state interactions and gauge invariant parton distributions,Nucl. Phys. B656(2003) 165 [hep-ph/0208038]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    J. C. Collins,What exactly is a parton density?,Acta Phys. Polon. B34(2003) 3103 [hep-ph/0304122]

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Collins,Rapidity divergences and valid definitions of parton densities,PoSLC2008 (2008) 028 [0808.2665]

    J. Collins,Rapidity divergences and valid definitions of parton densities,PoSLC2008 (2008) 028 [0808.2665]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Collins,New definition of TMD parton densities,Int

    J. Collins,New definition of TMD parton densities,Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser.4(2011) 85 [1107.4123]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    J.-y. Chiu, A. Jain, D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein,The Rapidity Renormalization Group,Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 151601 [1104.0881]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke,Summing Sudakov logarithms inB→X sγin effective field theory.,Phys. Rev. D63(2000) 014006 [hep-ph/0005275]

    2000 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 114020 [hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart,Invariant operators in collinear effective theory,Phys. Lett. B516(2001) 134 [hep-ph/0107001]

    2001 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 054022 [hep-ph/0109045]

    2002 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Vladimirov,Structure of rapidity divergences in multi-parton scattering soft factors,JHEP 04(2018) 045 [1707.07606]

    A. Vladimirov,Structure of rapidity divergences in multi-parton scattering soft factors,JHEP 04(2018) 045 [1707.07606]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu and Y.-S. Liu,TMD soft function from large-momentum effective theory,Nucl. Phys. B955(2020) 115054 [1910.11415]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. H. Hoang, A. Pathak, P. Pietrulewicz and I. W. Stewart,Hard Matching for Boosted Tops at Two Loops,JHEP12(2015) 059 [1508.04137]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. F. Falk, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise,Heavy Meson Form-factors From QCD, Nucl. Phys. B343(1990) 1

    1990

  9. [17]

    L. F. Alday and J. M. Maldacena,Comments on operators with large spin,JHEP11(2007) 019 [0708.0672]

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn and H. X. Zhu,From DGLAP to Sudakov: Precision Predictions for Energy-Energy Correlators,2512.11950

  11. [19]

    A. M. Polyakov,Gauge Fields as Rings of Glue,Nucl. Phys. B164(1980) 171

    1980

  12. [20]

    Grozin, J

    A. Grozin, J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and P. Marquard,Three Loop Cusp Anomalous Dimension in QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 062006 [1409.0023]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Grozin, J

    A. Grozin, J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and P. Marquard,The three-loop cusp anomalous dimension in QCD and its supersymmetric extensions,JHEP01(2016) 140 [1510.07803]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Infrared factorization, Wilson lines and the heavy quark limit,Phys. Lett. B279(1992) 359 [hep-ph/9203222]

    1992 arXiv

  15. [23]

    V. S. Dotsenko and S. N. Vergeles,Renormalizability of Phase Factors in the Nonabelian Gauge Theory,Nucl. Phys. B169(1980) 527. – 59 –

    1980

  16. [24]

    R. A. Brandt, F. Neri and M.-a. Sato,Renormalization of Loop Functions for All Loops, Phys. Rev. D24(1981) 879

    1981

  17. [25]

    Dorn,Renormalization of Path Ordered Phase Factors and Related Hadron Operators in Gauge Field Theories,Fortsch

    H. Dorn,Renormalization of Path Ordered Phase Factors and Related Hadron Operators in Gauge Field Theories,Fortsch. Phys.34(1986) 11

    1986

  18. [26]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Renormalization of the Wilson Loops Beyond the Leading Order,Nucl. Phys. B283(1987) 342

    1987

  19. [27]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. Marchesini,Structure function for large x and renormalization of Wilson loop,Nucl. Phys. B406(1993) 225 [hep-ph/9210281]

    1993 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,The Three loop splitting functions in QCD: The Nonsinglet case,Nucl. Phys. B688(2004) 101 [hep-ph/0403192]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,On quartic colour factors in splitting functions and the gluon cusp anomalous dimension,Phys. Lett. B782(2018) 627 [1805.09638]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and B. Mistlberger,The full four-loop cusp anomalous dimension inN= 4super Yang-Mills and QCD,JHEP04(2020) 018 [1911.10174]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. V. Manohar,Deep inelastic scattering as x —>1 using soft collinear effective theory, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 114019 [hep-ph/0309176]

    2003 arXiv

  24. [32]

    C. W. Bauer and A. V. Manohar,Shape function effects in B —>X(s) gamma and B —> X(u) l anti-nu decays,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 034024 [hep-ph/0312109]

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Drukker, D

    N. Drukker, D. J. Gross and H. Ooguri,Wilson loops and minimal surfaces,Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 125006 [hep-th/9904191]

    1999 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kruczenski,A Note on twist two operators in N=4 SYM and Wilson loops in Minkowski signature,JHEP12(2002) 024 [hep-th/0210115]

    M. Kruczenski,A Note on twist two operators in N=4 SYM and Wilson loops in Minkowski signature,JHEP12(2002) 024 [hep-th/0210115]

    2002 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Drukker and V

    N. Drukker and V. Forini,Generalized quark-antiquark potential at weak and strong coupling, JHEP06(2011) 131 [1105.5144]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. M. Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231 [hep-th/9711200]

    1998 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Witten,Anti-de Sitter space and holography,Adv

    E. Witten,Anti-de Sitter space and holography,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253 [hep-th/9802150]

    1998 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. M. Maldacena,Wilson loops in large N field theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 4859 [hep-th/9803002]

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rey and J.-T

    S.-J. Rey and J.-T. Yee,Macroscopic strings as heavy quarks in large N gauge theory and anti-de Sitter supergravity,Eur. Phys. J. C22(2001) 379 [hep-th/9803001]

    2001 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Makeenko,Light cone Wilson loops and the string / gauge correspondence,JHEP01 (2003) 007 [hep-th/0210256]

    Y. Makeenko,Light cone Wilson loops and the string / gauge correspondence,JHEP01 (2003) 007 [hep-th/0210256]

    2003 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Correa, J

    D. Correa, J. Henn, J. Maldacena and A. Sever,An exact formula for the radiation of a moving quark in N=4 super Yang Mills,JHEP06(2012) 048 [1202.4455]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Polchinski and J

    J. Polchinski and J. Sully,Wilson Loop Renormalization Group Flows,JHEP10(2011) 059 [1104.5077]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L. F. Alday and J. Maldacena,Comments on gluon scattering amplitudes via AdS/CFT, JHEP11(2007) 068 [0710.1060]. – 60 –

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. P. Herzog, A. Karch, P. Kovtun, C. Kozcaz and L. G. Yaffe,Energy loss of a heavy quark moving through N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills plasma,JHEP07(2006) 013 [hep-th/0605158]

    2006 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. S. Gubser,Drag force in AdS/CFT,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 126005 [hep-th/0605182]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Casalderrey-Solana and D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana and D. Teaney,Heavy quark diffusion in strongly coupled N=4 Yang-Mills,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 085012 [hep-ph/0605199]

    2006 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. Liu, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann,Calculating the jet quenching parameter from AdS/CFT,Phys. Rev. Lett.97(2006) 182301 [hep-ph/0605178]

    2006 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. S. Gubser,Momentum fluctuations of heavy quarks in the gauge-string duality,Nucl. Phys. B790(2008) 175 [hep-th/0612143]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Casalderrey-Solana and D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana and D. Teaney,Transverse Momentum Broadening of a Fast Quark in a N=4 Yang Mills Plasma,JHEP04(2007) 039 [hep-th/0701123]

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D’Eramo, H

    F. D’Eramo, H. Liu and K. Rajagopal,Transverse Momentum Broadening and the Jet Quenching Parameter, Redux,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 065015 [1006.1367]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Rajagopal, B

    K. Rajagopal, B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld and U. A. Wiedemann,Dynamics of heavy quarks in strongly coupledN= 4 SYM plasma,JHEP07(2025) 013 [2501.06289]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Rajagopal, B

    K. Rajagopal, B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld and U. A. Wiedemann,Stochastic Dynamics of Heavy Quarks in Strongly Coupled Plasma,2606.02693

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    S.-J. Rey, S. Theisen and J.-T. Yee,Wilson-Polyakov loop at finite temperature in large N gauge theory and anti-de Sitter supergravity,Nucl. Phys. B527(1998) 171 [hep-th/9803135]

    1998 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Brandhuber, N

    A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz,Wilson loops in the large N limit at finite temperature,Phys. Lett. B434(1998) 36 [hep-th/9803137]

    1998 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. Liu, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann,Wilson loops in heavy ion collisions and their calculation in AdS/CFT,JHEP03(2007) 066 [hep-ph/0612168]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    H. Liu, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann,An AdS/CFT Calculation of Screening in a Hot Wind,Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007) 182301 [hep-ph/0607062]

    2007 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chernicoff, J

    M. Chernicoff, J. A. Garcia and A. Guijosa,The Energy of a Moving Quark-Antiquark Pair in an N=4 SYM Plasma,JHEP09(2006) 068 [hep-th/0607089]

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Q. J. Ejaz, T. Faulkner, H. Liu, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann,A Limiting velocity for quarkonium propagation in a strongly coupled plasma via AdS/CFT,JHEP04(2008) 089 [0712.0590]

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mateos, R

    D. Mateos, R. C. Myers and R. M. Thomson,Thermodynamics of the brane,JHEP05 (2007) 067 [hep-th/0701132]

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Faulkner and H

    T. Faulkner and H. Liu,Meson widths from string worldsheet instantons,Phys. Lett. B673 (2009) 161 [0807.0063]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. Nijs, B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld and X. Yao,Chromoelectric field correlator for quarkonium transport in the strongly coupledN= 4 Yang-Mills plasma from AdS/CFT,JHEP06(2023) 007 [2304.03298]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    G. Nijs, B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld and X. Yao,Generalized gluon distribution for quarkonium dynamics in strongly coupled N=4 Yang-Mills theory,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 094043 [2310.09325]. – 61 –

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Casalderrey-Solana, H

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, H. Liu, D. Mateos, K. Rajagopal and U. Achim Wiedemann, Gauge/String Duality, Hot QCD and Heavy Ion Collisions. Cambridge University Press, 2014, 10.1017/9781009403504, [1101.0618]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Giataganas,Stochastic Motion of Heavy Quarks in Holography: A Theory-Independent Treatment,PoSCORFU2017(2018) 032 [1805.09011]

    D. Giataganas,Stochastic Motion of Heavy Quarks in Holography: A Theory-Independent Treatment,PoSCORFU2017(2018) 032 [1805.09011]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Makeenko,Topics in Cusped/Lightcone Wilson Loops,Acta Phys

    Y. Makeenko,Topics in Cusped/Lightcone Wilson Loops,Acta Phys. Polon. B39(2008) 3047 [0810.2183]

    2008 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Skenderis and B

    K. Skenderis and B. C. van Rees,Real-time gauge/gravity duality: Prescription, Renormalization and Examples,JHEP05(2009) 085 [0812.2909]

    2009 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Skenderis and B

    K. Skenderis and B. C. van Rees,Real-time gauge/gravity duality,Phys. Rev. Lett.101 (2008) 081601 [0805.0150]

    2008 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Glorioso, M

    P. Glorioso, M. Crossley and H. Liu,A prescription for holographic Schwinger-Keldysh contour in non-equilibrium systems,1812.08785

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    C. Jana, R. Loganayagam and M. Rangamani,Open quantum systems and Schwinger-Keldysh holograms,JHEP07(2020) 242 [2004.02888]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Drukker, D

    N. Drukker, D. J. Gross and A. A. Tseytlin,Green-Schwarz string in AdS(5) x S**5: Semiclassical partition function,JHEP04(2000) 021 [hep-th/0001204]

    2000 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. M. Polyakov,String theory and quark confinement,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.68(1998) 1 [hep-th/9711002]

    1998 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. S. Schwinger,Brownian motion of a quantum oscillator,J. Math. Phys.2(1961) 407

    1961

  65. [73]

    L. V. Keldysh,Diagram Technique for Nonequilibrium Processes,Sov. Phys. JETP20 (1965) 1018

    1965

  66. [74]

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets,Minkowski space correlators in AdS / CFT correspondence: Recipe and applications,JHEP09(2002) 042 [hep-th/0205051]

    2002 arXiv

  67. [75]

    C. P. Herzog and D. T. Son,Schwinger-Keldysh propagators from AdS/CFT correspondence, JHEP03(2003) 046 [hep-th/0212072]

    2003 arXiv

  68. [76]

    F. M. Haehl and M. Rangamani,Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Schwinger-Keldysh Formalism, 10, 2024,2410.10602

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    S. J. Brodsky, P. Hoyer, N. Marchal, S. Peigne and F. Sannino,Structure functions are not parton probabilities,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 114025 [hep-ph/0104291]

    2002 arXiv

  70. [78]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang and I. Schmidt,Final state interactions and single spin asymmetries in semiinclusive deep inelastic scattering,Phys. Lett. B530(2002) 99 [hep-ph/0201296]

    2002 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ji and F

    X.-d. Ji and F. Yuan,Parton distributions in light cone gauge: Where are the final state interactions?,Phys. Lett. B543(2002) 66 [hep-ph/0206057]

    2002 arXiv

  72. [80]

    M. A. Ebert, I. W. Stewart and Y. Zhao,Towards Quasi-Transverse Momentum Dependent PDFs Computable on the Lattice,JHEP09(2019) 037 [1901.03685]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Idilbi and I

    A. Idilbi and I. Scimemi,Singular and Regular Gauges in Soft Collinear Effective Theory: The Introduction of the New Wilson Line T,Phys. Lett. B695(2011) 463 [1009.2776]

    2011 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Garcia-Echevarria, A

    M. Garcia-Echevarria, A. Idilbi and I. Scimemi,SCET, Light-Cone Gauge and the T-Wilson Lines,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 011502 [1104.0686]. – 62 –

    2011 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Scheihing-Hitschfeld and X

    B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld and X. Yao,Gauge Invariance of Non-Abelian Field Strength Correlators: The Axial Gauge Puzzle,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 052302 [2205.04477]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Loop Space Formalism and Renormalization Group for the Infrared Asymptotics of QCD,Phys. Lett. B171(1986) 459

    1986

  77. [85]

    S. V. Ivanov, G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Infrared Asymptotics of Perturbative QCD: Contour Gauges,Yad. Fiz.44(1986) 230

    1986

  78. [86]

    G. P. Korchemsky,Sudakov Form-factor in QCD,Phys. Lett. B220(1989) 629

    1989

  79. [87]

    Zarembo,Supersymmetric Wilson loops,Nucl

    K. Zarembo,Supersymmetric Wilson loops,Nucl. Phys. B643(2002) 157 [hep-th/0205160]

    2002 arXiv

  80. [88]

    I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart,An Effective Field Theory for Forward Scattering and Factorization Violation,JHEP08(2016) 025 [1601.04695]

    2016 arXiv

  81. [89]

    T. T. Jouttenus, I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn,The Soft Function for Exclusive N-Jet Production at Hadron Colliders,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 114030 [1102.4344]

    2011 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Banerjee, R

    U. Banerjee, R. Gr¨ unhofer, M. K¨ onig, Y. Li, M. Neubert and J. Scholze,Super-leading logarithms in top-quark pair production at hadron colliders,JHEP02(2026) 092 [2510.24848]

    2026

  83. [91]

    Collins,Foundations of Perturbative QCD, vol

    J. Collins,Foundations of Perturbative QCD, vol. 32. Cambridge University Press, 2011, 10.1017/9781009401845. – 63 –

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.