Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 59 references

The O(α_s^4) corrections to the Higgs decay into bottom quarks induced by top-quark Yukawa couplings increase the decay width by 0.4% over the previous N3LO result and cut the scale uncertainty from 0.7% to 0.4%.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:52 UTC pith:SCFX76JF

load-bearing objection Solid partial-N4LO result for H→bb; new three-loop integrals and a clear 0.4% effect, but the full N4LO still waits on the C1C2 channel.

arxiv 2603.18576 v2 pith:SCFX76JF submitted 2026-03-19 hep-ph hep-ex

Higgs boson decay to massive bottom quarks at order α_s⁴ induced by top-quark Yukawa couplings

Jian Wang , Xing Wang , Yefan Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords Higgs decaybottom quarktop-quark Yukawaalpha_s^4QCD correctionseffective field theorymaster integralsdecay width
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Higgs decay to bottom quarks is the dominant Standard-Model Higgs decay and the cleanest handle on the bottom-quark Yukawa coupling, so its theory prediction must match the few-per-mil precision planned at future lepton colliders. The authors compute the previously missing O(α_s^4) correction to this width that comes from two insertions of the gluonic effective operator (the C1C1 channel), retaining the full bottom-quark mass dependence. They find that this correction increases the decay width by 0.4% relative to the N3LO result – larger than the 0.21% experimental precision expected at a Higgs factory – and reduces the renormalization-scale uncertainty from 0.7% to 0.4%. The paper argues that the full C1C2 channel remains, but the C1C1 contribution alone improves the prediction to Γ = 2.421^{+0.008}_{-0.010}(scale) ±0.005(α_s) MeV in the MS scheme.

Core claim

The central claim is that at fourth order in the strong coupling, the top-Yukawa-induced C1C1 channel contributes a +0.4% correction to Γ(H→bb) over the N3LO prediction, and that including it reduces the scale uncertainty to 0.4%. The calculation is analytic: the decay width is decomposed via effective operators, the forward-scattering amplitude is expanded in master integrals, and the three new integrals M36–M38 are solved, two of them expressed as one-fold integrals of complete elliptic integrals (and two-fold for the four-bottom final state). Using the asymptotic expansion in z=m_H^2/m_b^2, the paper obtains a closed expression for the correction and evaluates it numerically, giving the M

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the effective Lagrangian H/v (C1 O1 + C2 O2) with O1 = G_{a,μν}^2 and O2 = m_b \bar b b, where the Wilson coefficients C1, C2 carry the decoupled top-quark effects. The width is split as C2C2 + C1C2 + C1C1, and the C1C1 piece is computed through the optical theorem. The key new objects are the master integrals M36–M38: M36 forms a canonical basis of multiple polylogarithms, while M37 and M38 satisfy first-order differential equations whose solutions are one-fold integrals of complete elliptic integrals (and two-fold for the b\bar b b\bar b cut). The asymptotic expansion in z = m_H^2/m_b^2, truncated at O(z^{-1}), exposes double logarithms such as log^2(z) and log^4(z) t

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results assume that the expansion in m_H^2/m_b^2 truncated at O(z^{-1}) is accurate to better than 0.1%; if the omitted higher-power terms are actually larger, the claimed 0.4% correction could shift significantly.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the exact integral representations for the master integrals M37 and M38 at z ≈ (m_H/m_b)^2 ≈ 900, evaluating the one-fold and two-fold integrals with complete elliptic functions, and compare these values to the O(z^{-1}) asymptotic expressions used in the paper; any discrepancy above roughly 0.1% would mean the central correction is not reliable.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The 0.4% correction exceeds the 0.21% experimental precision projected at a future lepton collider, so it must be included when extracting the bottom-quark Yukawa coupling from a width measurement.
  • The renormalization-scale uncertainty of the partial N4LO width drops from 0.7% to 0.4%, making the prediction competitive with the planned measurement accuracy.
  • A measured width with 0.21% uncertainty would determine the bottom-quark mass to about 0.36% precision when combined with this prediction.
  • The sizeable logarithms in z reveal a slowly convergent series for the top-induced part, implying that a full N4LO result (including the missing C1C2 channel) is needed to reach sub-percent theoretical accuracy.
  • The analytic structure of the correction, including the elliptic master integrals, provides a benchmark for developing all-order resummation at subleading power.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing C1C2 channel at O(α_s^4) turns out to be comparable in size to the C1C1 one, the complete N4LO correction could be close to a full percent, strengthening the case for resumming the subleading-power logarithms before comparing to Higgs-factory data.
  • The success of solving the elliptic top-sector master integrals via ϵ-factorised differential equations suggests the same approach could be applied to other multiscale QCD processes where elliptic and polylogarithmic sectors mix.
  • The paper's reliance on the O(z^{-1}) asymptotic expansion could be checked by comparing it with the exact numerical evaluation of the one-fold/two-fold integrals, offering a direct test of the 0.4% claim without waiting for a full next-order calculation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents the O(alpha_s^4) correction to the H -> b bbar decay width in the C1C1 channel, i.e., the contribution from squared amplitudes with two insertions of the top-quark-Yukawa-induced H G G effective operator, retaining the full bottom-quark mass dependence. The calculation uses the optical theorem, automated amplitude generation and reduction (FeynArts/FeynCalc/Kira), and a master-integral analysis based on differential equations. Of the 38 master integrals, 35 are taken from previous work; the three new integrals M36-M38 are solved analytically, with one elliptic sector expressed through one- and two-fold integrals of complete elliptic integrals. Numerical results are obtained from the asymptotic expansion in z = m_H^2/m_b^2 truncated at O(z^{-1}). The authors find that the new O(alpha_s^4) C1C1 term increases the N3LO width by about 0.4% and reduces the renormalization-scale uncertainty to about 0.4%, giving Gamma_{H->bb}^{MS} = 2.421 (+0.008/-0.010) +/- 0.005 MeV. The calculation is explicitly partial: the C1C2 channel at O(alpha_s^4) is not computed, and the notation 'N4LO(part)' is used in the tables and figures.

Significance. If correct, the result is a valuable step toward precision predictions for the dominant Higgs decay at future lepton colliders, and it provides a nontrivial application of modern multiloop technology involving elliptic sectors. The calculation is based on standard, well-tested tools and has several concrete strengths: no parameter is fitted to the target observable (the inputs are PDG values; master-integral boundary conditions are fixed by high-precision AMFlow evaluation of the same integrals and PSLQ), a cross-check against an epsilon-factorised differential-equation approach is reported, and the partial nature of the result is honestly labelled. The main limitations are that the final numerical prediction relies on asymptotic expansions whose stated accuracy is not demonstrated in the manuscript, and the independent epsilon-factorised check is deferred to a forthcoming paper; these reduce confidence but do not, in my assessment, undermine the central claim.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1] The footnote star in the O(alpha_s^4) row is ambiguous. If it is intended to mark the absent C1C2 entry, the star should be placed in the empty C1C2 cell. If it is intended to mark the C2C2 entry, it contradicts Section 2 and Eq. (8), where Delta^{C2C2}_{4,bbar} is quoted as known and is used in Eq. (32). Please clarify the typesetting.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (32)] Eq. (32) is labelled 'N4LO QCD' even though the computation is partial and the text, Table 1, and Figures 2-3 use 'N4LO(part)'. Because the missing C1C2 O(alpha_s^4) term could in principle be comparable to the computed C1C1 term, the equation label should be changed or an explicit caveat added, e.g., 'N4LO(partial, C1C1 only)'.
  3. [After Eq. (27)] The sentence 'these asymptotic results are accurate enough for phenomenological studies since the omitted higher-power terms introduce a correction of less than 0.1%' is an assertion. Since the numerical results in Table 1 and Eq. (32) are based on the truncated O(z^{-1}) expansions, please provide a numerical comparison of the full integral representations (23)-(24) with the asymptotic forms at z ~ 897, or give a quantitative bound. I do not regard this as blocking: even a conservative O(z^{-2}) term enhanced by log^6(z) changes the total width by well below 0.02%, far smaller than the quoted 0.4% correction. But the stated 0.1% accuracy should be substantiated in the text.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (29)-(30)] The phrase 'ratio of the leading logarithms' is terse and could be misread as the ratio of the full Delta functions. It is correct only if 'leading logarithm' means the coefficient of the highest power of log z at each power in z: at z^0, Delta2's highest log is the log^3 z term from the C_A^2 C_F color structure, giving Eq. (29), and at z^{-1}, the log^4 z / z term divided by Delta1's 12/z constant gives Eq. (30). Please define this terminology explicitly so the reader can verify the quoted ratios without reconstructing the expansions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's central quantity is Delta^{C1C1}_{2,bb}, obtained by IBP reduction of three-loop self-energy diagrams and analytic solution of differential equations for the master integrals M36-M38. The boundary conditions are fixed by PSLQ reconstruction from high-precision AMFlow numerical values of the same integrals, not from the decay width. Lower-sector master integrals are taken from the authors' previous published analytic calculations [14,31,48] and from the independent literature [49]; these are inputs, not the target result. The Wilson coefficients C1, C2 and the lower-order C2C2/C1C2 contributions come from published sources. No parameter is fitted to Gamma(H->bb); the numerical inputs are PDG values. The asymptotic z→∞ expansion is used with a stated <0.1% truncation estimate, which is an accuracy assumption, not a circular dependence on the claimed result. The only self-citations are to previous results for lower sectors and to a forthcoming cross-check [58]; none injects the N4LO C1C1 correction into the derivation, and the AMFlow boundary conditions provide independent numerical support. Thus no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this work; inputs are PDG values (eq. 31). The central result depends on the effective-operator framework, previously computed lower-sector integrals (partly self-cited), and an asymptotic truncation. No new particles or entities are introduced.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The effective Lagrangian (1) with operators O1=(G^a_{μν})^2 and O2=m_b^0 \bar b^0 b^0 and Wilson coefficients C1, C2 from [36-40] fully captures top-Yukawa-induced H→bb after decoupling the top quark.
    Introduced in §2, eqs. (1)-(5). Assumes heavy-top decoupling and neglects 1/m_t^2 power corrections, citing [13] for a 0.1% effect at O(α_s^2).
  • standard math The optical theorem (eq. 11) with the b bbar cut selects the desired decay width.
    Used throughout §3. This is a textbook QFT identity; the projection onto at least one b bbar pair is defined in eq. (12).
  • domain assumption The master integrals M1-M35 are known analytically from [14,31,48] and are taken as input.
    Stated in §3. [31] is the authors' own N3LO paper; [14] and [48] are also from the same group. These are published, so not circular, but they are self-cited.
  • ad hoc to paper The asymptotic expansion in z=m_H^2/m_b^2, retained to O(z^{-1}), is valid to better than 0.1% for the physical value z≈897.
    Stated after eq. (27). The estimate uses the smallness of z^{-1}; uncalculated logarithmic corrections to the power-suppressed terms are not explicitly bounded.
  • domain assumption Scale variation by a factor of two around μ=m_H estimates the theoretical uncertainty.
    Standard QCD practice; used to quote the 0.4% scale uncertainty and the error bars in eq. (32).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13165 in / 16940 out tokens · 153677 ms · 2026-08-02T17:52:56.861627+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Higgs boson decay to massive bottom quarks has the largest branching ratio. The decay is mainly induced by the bottom-quark Yukawa coupling with the decay rate calculated up to $O(\alpha_s^4)$ assuming the massless final-state bottom quark. The top-quark Yukawa coupling induced contribution starts at $O(\alpha_s^2)$, and exhibits logarithmic and power enhancements, making the perturbative expansion converge slowly, which is a feature not present in the hadronic Higgs boson decay. We present a calculation of such contributions at $O(\alpha_s^4)$ to the decay into massive bottom quarks in which the squared amplitudes contain two top-quark Yukawa couplings and the final state must include at least a bottom quark pair. We find that they increase the decay width, relative to the result up to $O(\alpha_s^3)$, by $0.4\%$, larger than the experimental precision at future lepton colliders, and reduce the scale dependence significantly down to $0.4\%$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.18576 by Jian Wang, Xing Wang, Yefan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sample three-loop Feynman diagrams contributing to ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: figure 1. The notation Im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The decay width of H → b ¯b in the MS scheme at different perturbative orders. The error bar denotes the scale uncertainty. The scale uncertainty of the decay width is estimated by varying the renormalization scale around its default value mH by a factor of two. As shown in figure 2, the scale uncertainty is significantly improved, reducing from 0.7% at NNNLO to 0.4% after including the O(α 4 s ) correctio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The decay width of H → b ¯b as a function of the bottom quark mass mb (mH) that varies from 2.584 GeV to 2.984 GeV. uncertainty of 0.21% [4], the bottom quark mass can be derived with a precision around 0.36%, where the theoretical uncertainties are taken into account. 5 Conclusion The decay width of the Higgs boson to bottom quarks is a fundamental quantity that will be precisely measured at future collid… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Topological diagrams of the master integrals. The thick black and red lines stand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    Y. Zhu, H. Cui and M. Ruan,The Higgs→b b,cc, gg measurement at CEPC,JHEP11 (2022) 100, [2203.01469]. [3]CEPC Physics Study Groupcollaboration, H. Cheng et al.,The Physics potential of the CEPC. Prepared for the US Snowmass Community Planning Exercise (Snowmass 2021), inSnowmass 2021, 5, 2022,2205.08553

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [4]

    Altmann et al.,ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, vol

    J. Altmann et al.,ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, vol. 5/2025 ofCERN Yellow Reports: Monographs. 6, 2025, 10.23731/CYRM-2025-005

    doi:10.23731/cyrm-2025-005 2025

  3. [5]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. P. Leveille,Higgs Boson Decay and the Running Mass,Phys. Rev. D 22(1980) 715. 11

    1980

  4. [6]

    Sakai,Perturbative QCD Corrections to the Hadronic Decay Width of the Higgs Boson, Phys

    N. Sakai,Perturbative QCD Corrections to the Hadronic Decay Width of the Higgs Boson, Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2220

    1980

  5. [7]

    Janot,First Order QED and QCD Radiative Corrections to Higgs Decay Into Massive Fermions,Phys

    P. Janot,First Order QED and QCD Radiative Corrections to Higgs Decay Into Massive Fermions,Phys. Lett. B223(1989) 110–118

    1989

  6. [8]

    Drees and K.-i

    M. Drees and K.-i. Hikasa,NOTE ON QCD CORRECTIONS TO HADRONIC HIGGS DECAY,Phys. Lett. B240(1990) 455

    1990

  7. [9]

    Dabelstein and W

    A. Dabelstein and W. Hollik,Electroweak corrections to the fermionic decay width of the standard Higgs boson,Z. Phys. C53(1992) 507–516

    1992

  8. [10]

    B. A. Kniehl,Radiative corrections forH→f anti-f (γ) in the standard model,Nucl. Phys. B376(1992) 3–28

    1992

  9. [11]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and A. Kwiatkowski,Second order QCD corrections to scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs decays into massive bottom quarks,Nucl. Phys. B461(1996) 3–18, [hep-ph/9505358]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  10. [12]

    Harlander and M

    R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser,Higgs decay to top quarks at O (alpha-s**2),Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 3980–3990, [hep-ph/9704436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  11. [13]

    Primo, G

    A. Primo, G. Sasso, G. Somogyi and F. Tramontano,Exact Top Yukawa corrections to Higgs boson decay into bottom quarks,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 054013, [1812.07811]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [14]

    J. Wang, Y. Wang and D.-J. Zhang,Analytic decay width of the Higgs boson to massive bottom quarks at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD,JHEP03(2024) 068, [2310.20514]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [15]

    Bernreuther, L

    W. Bernreuther, L. Chen and Z.-G. Si,Differential decay rates of CP-even and CP-odd Higgs bosons to top and bottom quarks at NNLO QCD,JHEP07(2018) 159, [1805.06658]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [16]

    Behring and W

    A. Behring and W. Bizo´ n,Higgs decay into massive b-quarks at NNLO QCD in the nested soft-collinear subtraction scheme,JHEP01(2020) 189, [1911.11524]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [17]

    Somogyi and F

    G. Somogyi and F. Tramontano,Fully exclusive heavy quark-antiquark pair production from a colourless initial state at NNLO in QCD,JHEP11(2020) 142, [2007.15015]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [18]

    S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin and L. R. Surguladze,Corrected Three Loop QCD Correction to the Correlator of the Quark Scalar Currents andγ(Tot) (H 0 → Hadrons),Mod. Phys. Lett. A5(1990) 2703–2712

    1990

  17. [19]

    K. G. Chetyrkin,Correlator of the quark scalar currents and Gamma(tot) (H —> hadrons) at O (alpha-s**3) in pQCD,Phys. Lett. B390(1997) 309–317, [hep-ph/9608318]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  18. [20]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. Kuhn,Scalar correlator at O(alpha(s)**4), Higgs decay into b-quarks and bounds on the light quark masses,Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 012003, [hep-ph/0511063]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [21]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,On Higgs decays to hadrons and the R-ratio at N 4LO,JHEP08(2017) 113, [1707.01044]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [22]

    Anastasiou, F

    C. Anastasiou, F. Herzog and A. Lazopoulos,The fully differential decay rate of a Higgs boson to bottom-quarks at NNLO in QCD,JHEP03(2012) 035, [1110.2368]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [23]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, G. Somogyi, F. Tramontano and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi,Higgs boson decay into b-quarks at NNLO accuracy,JHEP04(2015) 036, [1501.07226]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [24]

    Mondini, M

    R. Mondini, M. Schiavi and C. Williams,N 3LO predictions for the decay of the Higgs boson to bottom quarks,JHEP06(2019) 079, [1904.08960]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [25]

    X. Chen, P. Jakubˇ c ´ ık, M. Marcoli and G. Stagnitto,The parton-level structure of Higgs decays to hadrons at N 3LO,JHEP06(2023) 185, [2304.11180]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [26]

    Yan, X.-G

    J. Yan, X.-G. Wu, J.-M. Shen, X.-D. Huang and Z.-F. Wu,Scale-invariant total decay widthΓ(H→b b) using the novel method of characteristic operator,JHEP04(2025) 184, [2411.15402]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [27]

    E. Fox, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, M. Marcoli and C. T. Preuss, Jet Rates in Higgs Boson Decay at Third Order in QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 251905, [2502.17333]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [28]

    A. L. Kataev,The Order O (alpha alpha-s) and O (alpha**2) corrections to the decay width of the neutral Higgs boson to the anti-b b pair,JETP Lett.66(1997) 327–330, [hep-ph/9708292]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  27. [29]

    Mihaila, B

    L. Mihaila, B. Schmidt and M. Steinhauser, Γ(H→b ¯b)to orderαα s,Phys. Lett. B751 (2015) 442–447, [1509.02294]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [30]

    Mondini, U

    R. Mondini, U. Schubert and C. Williams,Top-induced contributions toH→b ¯band H→c¯catO(α 3 s),JHEP12(2020) 058, [2006.03563]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [31]

    J. Wang, X. Wang and Y. Wang,Analytic decay width of the Higgs boson to massive bottom quarks at orderα 3 s,JHEP03(2025) 163, [2411.07493]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [32]

    Wang and Y

    J. Wang and Y. Wang,Analytic result of Higgs boson decay to gluons with full quark mass dependence,Phys. Lett. B869(2025) 139865, [2503.22169]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [33]

    Kluberg-Stern and J

    H. Kluberg-Stern and J. B. Zuber,Ward Identities and Some Clues to the Renormalization of Gauge Invariant Operators,Phys. Rev. D12(1975) 467–481

    1975

  32. [34]

    N. K. Nielsen,Gauge Invariance and Broken Conformal Symmetry,Nucl. Phys. B97 (1975) 527–540

    1975

  33. [35]

    N. K. Nielsen,The Energy Momentum Tensor in a Nonabelian Quark Gluon Theory, Nucl. Phys. B120(1977) 212–220

    1977

  34. [36]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser,Three loop O (alpha-s**2 G(F) M(t)**2) corrections to hadronic Higgs decays,Nucl. Phys. B490(1997) 19–39, [hep-ph/9701277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  35. [37]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser,Decoupling relations to O (alpha-s**3) and their connection to low-energy theorems,Nucl. Phys. B510(1998) 61–87, [hep-ph/9708255]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  36. [38]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and C. Sturm,QCD decoupling at four loops,Nucl. Phys. B 744(2006) 121–135, [hep-ph/0512060]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [39]

    Liu and M

    T. Liu and M. Steinhauser,Decoupling of heavy quarks at four loops and effective Higgs-fermion coupling,Phys. Lett. B746(2015) 330–334, [1502.04719]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [40]

    Davies, M

    J. Davies, M. Steinhauser and D. Wellmann,Completing the hadronic Higgs boson decay at orderα 4 s,Nucl. Phys. B920(2017) 20–31, [1703.02988]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [41]

    Hahn,Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,Comput

    T. Hahn,Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,Comput. Phys. Commun.140(2001) 418–431, [hep-ph/0012260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  40. [42]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [43]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements,Comput. Phys. Commun.256(2020) 107478, [2001.04407]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [44]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?,Comput. Phys. Commun.306(2025) 109357, [2312.14089]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [45]

    F. V. Tkachov,A Theorem on Analytical Calculability of Four Loop Renormalization Group Functions,Phys. Lett. B100(1981) 65–68

    1981

  44. [46]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov,Integration by Parts: The Algorithm to Calculate beta Functions in 4 Loops,Nucl. Phys. B192(1981) 159–204

    1981

  45. [47]

    Klappert, F

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer and J. Usovitsch,Integral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods,Comput. Phys. Commun.266(2021) 108024, [2008.06494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [48]

    L.-B. Chen, J. Wang and Y. Wang,Analytic NNLO QCD corrections to top quark pair production in electron-positron collisions,JHEP09(2024) 014, [2405.18912]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [49]

    R. N. Lee and A. I. Onishchenko,ϵ-regular basis for non-polylogarithmic multiloop integrals and total cross section of the processe +e− →2(Q ¯Q),JHEP12(2019) 084, [1909.07710]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [50]

    A. V. Kotikov,Differential equation method: The Calculation of N point Feynman diagrams,Phys. Lett. B267(1991) 123–127

    1991

  49. [51]

    J. M. Henn,Multiloop integrals in dimensional regularization made simple,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 251601, [1304.1806]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [52]

    A. B. Goncharov,Multiple polylogarithms, cyclotomy and modular complexes,Math. Res. Lett.5(1998) 497–516, [1105.2076]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  51. [53]

    Ferguson, D

    H. Ferguson, D. Beiley and S. Arno,Analysis of PSLQ, an integer relation finding algorithm,Math. Comp.68(1999) 351

    1999

  52. [54]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma and C.-Y. Wang,A Systematic and Efficient Method to Compute Multi-loop Master Integrals,Phys. Lett. B779(2018) 353–357, [1711.09572]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [55]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, W. Tao and P. Zhang,Calculation of Feynman loop integration and phase-space integration via auxiliary mass flow,Chin. Phys. C45(2021) 013115, [2009.07987]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [56]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma,AMFlow: A Mathematica package for Feynman integrals computation via auxiliary mass flow,Comput. Phys. Commun.283(2023) 108565, [2201.11669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [57]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    Z.-F. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma,Determining Feynman Integrals with Only Input from Linear Algebra,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 222001, [2201.11637]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [58]

    J. Wang, X. Wang and Y. Wang. To appear. [59]ε-collaborationcollaboration, I. Bree et al.,The geometric bookkeeping guide to Feynman integral reduction andε-factorised differential equations,2506.09124. 14

    arXiv

  57. [60]

    Bree et al.,New algorithms for Feynman integral reduction andε-factorised differential equations,2511.15381

    I. Bree et al.,New algorithms for Feynman integral reduction andε-factorised differential equations,2511.15381. [61]Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. [62]ATLAS, CMScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass inppCollisions at √s= 7and 8 TeV with the ATLA...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [63]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser,RunDec: A Mathematica package for running and decoupling of the strong coupling and quark masses,Comput. Phys. Commun. 133(2000) 43–65, [hep-ph/0004189]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  59. [64]

    Herren and M

    F. Herren and M. Steinhauser,Version 3 of RunDec and CRunDec,Comput. Phys. Commun.224(2018) 333–345, [1703.03751]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018