OUTP-22-14P,MSUHEP-22-039

Three-loop helicity amplitudes for photon+jet production

Piotr Bargiela,1, ∗ Amlan Chakraborty,2, † and Giulio Gambuti1, ‡

1
Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford,
Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, U.K.
2
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo 14260, USA
We present three-loop helicity amplitudes for the production of a single photon in association
with one jet in Quantum Chromodynamics, a final state which provides a standard candle of the
Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider. We employ a recently-proposed variation of the so-
called tensor projection method in the ’t Hooft-Veltman scheme (tHV) which avoids the computation
of contributions due to unphysical (−2)-dimensional polarisations of the external states. We obtain
compact analytic results expressed in terms of harmonic polylogarithms.
arXiv:2212.14069v1 [hep-ph] 28 Dec 2022

I. INTRODUCTION In this work we tackle the last three-loop four-point

Scattering amplitudes are one of the central quantities
in Quantum Field Theory. In addition to the intrinsic
beauty of their mathematical structure, they provide a
bridge between theory and experiment. High-precision
amplitudes in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) are es-
sential to compute accurate theoretical predictions that,
together with increasingly precise measurements from
colliders, allows for a scrutiny of the structure of the
Standard Model, and for constraining New Physics mod-
els.
It is well known that the number of external particles
and of internal loops greatly influences the complexity
of amplitude calculations. Up until a few years ago, the
state of the art for massless four-particle scattering was
the three-loop four-gluon amplitude in N = 4 Super-
Yang-Mills [1], where calculations are simplified by the
high amount of symmetry in the theory. The same am-
plitude was also computed in the planar limit of pure
Yang-Mills in Ref. [2]. In QCD similar three-loop calcu-
lations proved until recently to be too computationally
prohibitive to be performed due to the lack of symmetry.
The first analytic results for a QCD three-loop four-
point amplitude were obtained for the colour singlet pro-
cess q q̄ → γγ in Ref. [3]. Building on this, the more com-
putationally involved colour singlet production gg → γγ
was computed in Ref. [4]. Finally, all amplitudes in-
volving four coloured partons, i.e. gg → gg, q q̄ → q q̄,
q q̄ → gg and all possible crossings of external states,
were obtained in Refs. [5–7]. In these processes, starting
a three loops, there start appearing new contributions to
the structure of infrared (IR) divergences. These are as-
sociated with the exchange of colour charge between all
four external legs through the emission and absorption
of soft gluons. This is referred to as quadrupole radia-
tion and it increases the complexity of the corresponding
amplitudes.
∗ Electronic address: piotr.bargiela@physics.ox.ac.uk
† Electronic address: amlancha@buffalo.edu
‡ Electronic address: giulio.gambuti@physics.ox.ac.uk
massless amplitudes in QCD involving partonic initial
states: gg → gγ and q q̄ → gγ.
Phenomenologically, this amplitude is relevant for the
pp → γ + j process, i.e. direct photon production with a
reconstructed jet. It is one of the standard candles of the
Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
Theoretical QCD predictions for this process exist at
the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) [8]. Provid-
ing even higher order corrections would lead to a more
precise comparison with the LHC data, which is impor-
tant for current and especially future LHC runs [8]. The
three-loop amplitudes in quark-pair and quark+gluon
initiated channels contribute to the N3LO cross section.
The three-loop gluon-pair initiated amplitude starts con-
tributing only at N4LO, however it is enhanced by the
Parton Distribution Function (PDF) of the gluon, which
may at least partially compensate for the strong coupling
suppression.
For photon+jet production at hadron colliders, we con-
sider the two independent partonic channels
g(p1 ) + g(p2 ) → g(−p3 ) + γ(−p4 ) ,
(1)
q(p1 ) + q̄(p2 ) → g(−p3 ) + γ(−p4 ) .
The remaining qg → qγ and q̄g → q̄γ channels can be
obtained via crossing of q q̄ → gγ. We treat all four-
momenta as incoming and massless
p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 = 0 , p2i = 0. (2)
The kinematic Mandelstam invariants of the process,
s = (p1 + p2 )2 , t = (p1 + p3 )2 , u = (p2 + p3 )2 , (3)
are related by momentum conservation s + t + u = 0.
Since the overall mass dimension of the amplitude is
fixed, the non-trivial kinematic dependence can be ex-
pressed in terms of a single dimensionless ratio
t
x=− . (4)
s
 2

1
On the physical Riemann sheet, we have external helicity states and to work with a set of tensors
Ti whose number coincides with that of the independent
s > 0,t < 0,u < 0, sij → sij + iδ , (5) helicity configurations.
In the gg → gγ channel, nt = 8 and with the cyclic gauge
where sij = 2pi · pj . i · pi+1 = 0 and p5 ≡ p1 we find
This paper is organised as follows: in Section II we de- T1 = p1 ·2 p1 ·3 p2 ·4 p3 ·1 ,
scribe the colour and Lorentz space decomposition of the
amplitudes. The definition of the helicity amplitudes is T2 = 3 ·4 p1 ·2 p3 ·1 , T3 = 2 ·4 p1 ·3 p3 ·1 ,
given in Section III where we also fix our notation within T4 = 2 ·3 p2 ·4 p3 ·1 , T5 = 1 ·4 p1 ·2 p1 ·3 ,
the spinor helicity formalism and describe the workflow T6 = 1 ·3 p1 ·2 p2 ·4 , T7 = 1 ·2 p1 ·3 p2 ·4 ,
used for this computation. Section IV describes renor- T8 = 1 ·2 3 ·4 + 1 ·4 2 ·3 + 1 ·3 2 ·4 . (10)
malisation and IR subtraction of the helicity amplitudes.
Finally, we give more details on the results in Section V In the q q̄ → gγ channel, nt = 4 and with the gauge choice
and provide concluding remarks in Section VI. 3 · p2 = 4 · p1 = 0 we get

T1 3 u(p1 ) 4 ·p2 ,
= ū(p2 )/
II. COLOUR AND TENSOR STRUCTURES
T2 3 u(p1 ) 4 ·p1 ,
= ū(p2 )/
For both processes in Eq. (1) we can collect an overall T3 p3 u(p1 ) 3 ·p1 4 ·p2 ,
= ū(p2 )/
colour factor C in front of the amplitude: T4 p3 u(p1 ) 3 ·4 .
= ū(p2 )/ (11)

A = C A, (6) The form factors Fi can be extracted from P A with ap-

propriate projectors, defined such that pol Pj Ti = δji ,
where see e.g. Refs. [9, 10] for the full discussion.

Tr(T a1T a2T a3) − (2 ←→ 3), for gg → gγ,
C= (7)
T a3 , for q q̄ → gγ. III. HELICITY AMPLITUDES
i1 i2

Above in (an ) refers to a SU (Nc ) index in the fundamen- In order to obtain the helicity amplitudes A~λ , it is
tal(adjoint) representation and T a are the fundamental enough to evaluate the tensors Ti for fixed-helicity con-
generators of SU (Nc ), normalised such that Tr(T a T b ) = figurations ~λ. This is equivalent to a simple change of
1 a1 a2
2δ . The colour stripped amplitude A depends on the basis, and the helicity amplitude for the helicity config-
number of active quark flavours nf , the electric coupling uration ~λ = {λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , λ4 } can be written as a linear
of the different quark flavours Qf and the fermionic loop combination of form factors Fi
factor
nt
nf X
(V )
nf =
X
Qf . (8) A~λ = Ti,~λ Fi = S~λ H~λ . (12)
i=1
f =1

After extracting all colour structures, A can be further The overall spinor factors S~λ can be extracted from A~λ
decomposed onto a basis of nt independent Lorentz ten- using the spinor-helicity formalism, see e.g. Ref. [11] for a
sor structures pedagogical introduction. In this notation, fixed-helicity
external quarks are defined as
nt
X
A= Ti Fi . (9) 1 + γ5 1 − γ5
i=1
|pi = [p| = u(p) , |p] = hp| = u(p) , (13)
2 2
We work in the tHV regularisation scheme, where in- with [p| = u(p) 1−γ 5
and hp| = u(p) 1+γ 5
treating particles
ternal states are in d dimensions but the external mo- 2 2
and anti-particles on the same footing, while polarisation
menta and polarisations are kept in 4 dimensions. In vectors take the following form
this scheme, we follow a recent proposal [9, 10] that al-
lows one us to remove the irrelevant (−2)-dimensional hpj |γ µ |qj ] hqj |γ µ |pj ]
µj,+ (pj ) = √ , µj,− (pj ) = √ , (14)
2[pj qj ] 2hqj pj i

1
Technically, Eq. (5) is imprecise since the condition s + t + u = 0
has to be always satisfied. This makes analytic continuation
for massless 2 → 2 scattering delicate, see e.g. Ref. [6] for a
discussion in the context of three-loop amplitudes.
where qi is the massless reference vector corresponding
to the i-th external gluon and is chosen consistently with
the gauge conditions used to determine the tensor bases
of Eqs. (10) and (11). For the gg → gγ channel we have
 3

qi = pi+1 , where we identify p5 ≡ p1 and we choose the

spinor factors to be

h12ih34i [12][14]h24i
S++++ = , S−+++ = ,
[12][34] [34][23][24] (a)
[21][24]h14i [32][34]h24i
S+−++ = , S++−+ = ,
[34][13][14] [14][21][24]
[42][43]h23i [12]h34i
S+++− = , S−−++ = ,
[13][21][23] h12i[34]
[13]h24i [23]h14i (b)
S−+−+ = , S+−−+ = , (15)
h13i[24] h23i[14]
Figure 1: Sample three-loop diagrams for (a) the process q q̄ →
while for the q q̄ → gγ channel we have q3 = p2 , q4 = p1 gγ and (b) the process gg → gγ.
and define the spinor factors as

2[34]2 2h24i[13]
S−+−− = , S−+−+ = , graphs in the gg → gγ channel, and 5534 graphs in the
h13i[23] h23i[24] q q̄ → gγ channel. Then, we perform colour and Dirac al-
2h23i[41] 2h34i2 gebra using Form [17]. There are O(106 ) scalar Feynman
S−++− = , S−+++ = . (16) integrals contributing to the form factors of each of the
h24i[32] h31i[23]
scattering process described in Eq. (1). Since the inte-
The spinor-free helicity amplitude H~λ can be expanded grals at hand are not all linearly independent, we can find
as a QCD perturbative series relations between them. Preliminarily, we exploited loop-
momentum shift-invariance to reduce the complexity by a
3 
√ p X αs,b ` (`) factor of about 20. This is then followed by the most com-
H~λ = 4πα 4παs,b H~ , (17) plicated step, which involves Integration-By-Parts (IBP)
4π λ
`=0 identities [18] to relate the remaining integrals to a min-
where√we have factored out an overall electric coupling imal independent basis set of Master Integrals (MIs). In
e = 4πα as well as a bare strong coupling gs,b = order to perform the IBP reduction, we have used the La-
p (`) porta algorithm [19] implemented in Reduze 2 [20, 21],
4παs,b . H~ corresponds to the bare `-loop amplitude. as well as in Finred [22], which exploits syzygy-based
λ
Note that since the gg → gγ channel is loop-induced, the techniques [23–28] and finite-field arithmetic [22, 29–31].
first term in its perturbative expansion vanishes. Con- In this manner, we are left with 486 independent MIs.
versely, the q q̄ → gγ channel contributes non-trivially They have been computed analytically as a series in the
at all four orders. The main objective of this paper is to dimensional regulator  = (4 − d)/2 in terms of Har-
(3)
compute the three-loop term H~ . As a byproduct of our monic Polylogarithms (HPLs) [32] in Ref. [33] and later
λ
work, we have also recomputed all lower-loop amplitudes. in Ref. [4]. The evaluation of MIs is based on the dif-
We checked all one-loop helicity amplitudes numerically ferential equation approach applied to a canonical basis
against OpenLoops [12, 13]. At the two-loop level, to the of master integrals [34]. Substituting expressions for MIs
best of our knowledge, the only available analytic results leads to the final formula for the bare three-loop ampli-
are for the process q q̄ → gγ and are given in Ref. [14] tude, expanded to O(0 ) with HPLs up to transcendental
in the form of a colour- and polarisation-summed inter- weight 6.
ference with the tree-level, with which we found perfect
agreement2 .
We generate Feynman diagrams corresponding to each IV. UV RENORMALISATION AND IR
channel with Qgraf [16]. At three loops, there are 7356 REGULARISATION

The divergences appearing in the amplitudes treated in

2
The results presented in Ref. [14] are computed in the Conven-
tional Dimensional Regularisation (CDR) scheme and with a IR
subtraction scheme which differs from the one adopted in this pa-
per. While the difference in dimensional regularisation scheme is
immaterial at the level of the O(0 ) part of the finite remainder
provided by the authors of Ref. [14], the difference in IR subtrac-
tion scheme is not. In order to bridge the gap, we performed a
second subtraction of the IR poles of our two loop renormalised
amplitudes using the definition of the finite part in Ref. [15], and
combined all helicity amplitudes to obtain the same quantity
computed in Ref. [14].
this paper are both of ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR)
origin. When working in dimensional regularisation they
are represented by poles in the dimensional regulator .
By defining the MS renormalised strong coupling αs (µ)
through the equation
ᾱs,b µ2 2
0 S = ᾱs (µ)µ Z [ᾱs (µ)] , (18)
one can obtain UV-finite amplitudes. Above, we have
defined for convenience ᾱs,b = αs,b /(4π) and ᾱs (µ) =
 4

αs (µ)/(4π). The quantity µ is the renormalisation scale Note that, since the amplitudes considered here feature
introduced in dimensional regularisation and Z[ᾱs ] reads a single colour structure, Γ acts by simple scalar multi-
 2  plication. For q q̄ → gγ it reads
β0 2 β0 β1
Z[ᾱs ] = 1 − ᾱs + ᾱs −
µ2
  
 2 2 q q̄→gγ 1 1
Γdip = ln + (25)
−s−iδ
 3
2 Nc

3 β0 7 β 0 β1 β2
− ᾱs − + + O(ᾱs4 ) . (19)   2 
µ2
 
3 6 2 3 µ
−Nc ln + ln γ K + 2γ q + γ g ,
−t−iδ −u−iδ
The explicit form of the β-function coefficients βi can be
found in ancillary files. The perturbative contributions while for gg → gγ we get
to the UV-renormalised helicity amplitudes H~λ, ren are
obtained by expanding Eq. (17) in ᾱs (µ). µ2
  
Nc
The poles in  appearing in the renormalised ampli- Γgg→gγ
dip = − ln + (26)
2 −s−iδ
tudes are of IR nature and their structure was described  2 
µ2
 
µ
at two loops in [15] and generalised to different pro- + ln + ln γ K + 3γ g .
cesses [35–37] and to three loops in Refs. [38–43]. They −t−iδ −u−iδ
assume a universal form across all massless gauge theo-
ries. Up to the three loop-order, one can write [38, 39] The quadrupole contribution ∆4 in Eq. (22) accounts
instead for the exchange of colour charge among (up to)
H~λ, ren = ZIR H~λ, fin , (20) four external legs and it appears for the first time at three
P∞ (n)
loops, ∆4 = n=3 ᾱsn ∆4 . Because the amplitudes con-
where H~λ, fin are finite remainders and ZIR is in general sidered in this paper feature only three coloured external
a colour operator that acts on the colour structure of the states, ∆4 assumes a simpler form compared to the full
amplitudes. It can be written in terms of the so-called result given in Ref. [43]. In addition to this, the pertur-
soft anomalous dimension Γ as bative series for gg → gγ starts at one loop and therefore
Z ∞ 0
dµ
 it receives no quadrupole correction at three loops.
0
ZIR = P exp Γ({p}, µ ) , (21) For q q̄ → gγ, the relevant contribution reads
µ µ0
(3),q q̄→gγ
where the path ordering operator P reorganises colour ∆4 = −24Nc (ζ5 + 2ζ2 ζ3 ) . (27)
operators in increasing values of µ0 from left to right
and is immaterial up to three loops since to this order We verified that the IR singularities of our three-loop
[Γ(µ), Γ(µ0 )] = 0. The soft anomalous dimension can be amplitudes match perfectly those generated by Eqs. (20)-
written as (27), which provides a highly non-trivial check of our
results.
Γ = Γdip + ∆4 . (22)
The dipole term Γdip is due to the pairwise exchange of
V. RESULTS
colour charge between external legs and reads
4 The expressions we obtained for the finite remain-
µ2
X   X
Γdip = Tai Taj γ K ln + γi , der H~λ, fin are relatively compact, but still too long to
−sij − iδ i=1
1≤i<j≤4 be included in this manuscript. They are provided in
(23) computer-readable format in the ancillary files accompa-
nying the arXiv submission of this manuscript.
where sij = 2pi · pj , γ K is the cusp anomalous dimension
We also provide the explicit results for the channel
[44–50] and γ i=q,g are the quark and gluon anomalous
qg → qγ which can be generated by crossing the q q̄ → gγ
dimensions [51–54]. In Eq. (23) we have also introduced
amplitude. The only other relevant channel for pp → jγ
the standard colour insertion operators Tai , which only
is q̄g → q̄γ and it can be obtained by charge conju-
act on the i-th external colour index. Their action on the
gation of qg → qγ, which leaves the helicity-stripped
colour factors of our amplitudes is defined as follows:
amplitudes unchanged. When crossing the amplitudes,
(Tai )bi ci = −if a bi ci for a gluon, one has to permute Mandelstam invariants. In doing so,
it is important not to cross more then one branch cut
(Tai )ii ji = +Tiai ji for a (initial)final state (anti-)quark,
per transformation. This can be guaranteed by an ap-
(Tai )ii ji = −Tjai ii for a (final)initial state (anti-)quark, propriate composition of multiple transformations. All
Tai =0 for a photon. (24) needed manipulations of HPLs can be performed with
with PolyLogTools [55] and the procedure is described in
Performing the colour algebra with the definitions in more detail in Ref. [6]. It is also worth pointing out that
Eq. (24) we find the explicit value of the dipole anoma- when applying a crossing or a charge/parity transfor-
lous dimensions in the two channels under consideration. mation to the amplitudes associated to the processes in
 5

0.10 where the process dependence has been left implicit. We

αs q q_ → gγ (1) α2s q q_ → gγ (2) α3s q q_ → gγ (3) point out that the quantities plotted in Figure 2 nicely
0.08 show convergence of the perturbative series. However
it should be kept in mind that they only represent the
0.06
virtual contributions to the cross-section and depend on
the IR subtraction scheme. In addition we observe the
0.04
same alternating behaviour of the different perturbative
orders when approaching the limits x → 0 and x → 1
that is also present in the q q̄ → gg and gg → gg channels
0.02
[7].
VI. CONCLUSIONS
0.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

In this paper we have completed the computation of

Figure 2: Perturbative expansion of the colour, helicity and the last three-loop four-point massless QCD scattering
flavour summed finite remainder of the amplitude squared for amplitudes with partons in the initial state. To do
the process q q̄ → gγ as a function of x = −t/s. For simplicity
(V ) so, we employed a refined version of the tensor projec-
we set αs = 0.118, µ2 = s, Nc = 3, nf = 5 and nf = 1/3. tion method which considerably reduces the amount
of calculations required. At one and two loops, we
have checked the consistency of our result against the
Eq. (1), one has to take care of applying the correspond- available literature and found perfect agreement. At
ing transformations to the spinor weights in Eqs. (15) three loops, our amplitudes have the correct UV and IR
and (16). structure, including the quadrupole contribution that
Finally, in order to showcase the fast and stable numer- appears at this perturbative order for the first time. The
ical evaluation of our amplitudes, in Figure 2 we provide corrections provided in this paper start contributing to
a sample plot for the q q̄ → gγ channel, where we numer- the differential cross section at N3LO and in the future
ically evaluated the squared amplitude normalised to the they will hopefully allow to achieve better precision
tree-level. To define the quantities plotted in the figure on the prediction of photon+jet observables at hadron
more precisely, we first introduce the notation colliders.
0 (`)∗ (`0 )
X
hA(`) |A(` ) i ≡ C † C |s~λ |2 H~ H~ (28)
λ,fin λ,fin
f,~
λ,col
Acknowledgements We are grateful to A. von Man-
teuffel for providing the IBP relations through his private
for the interference between two amplitudes summed over
code Finred. We also thank F. Caola and L. Tancredi for
all internal quark flavours, all helicity configurations and
insightful discussions and comments on this manuscript.
all colours of the external states. With this, we can write
AC is grateful to the Department of Physics and As-
2 RehA(0) |A(1) i tronomy, Michigan State University for the hospitality
V (1) = , for the time during which the initial part of the cal-
hA(0) |A(0) i
culation was performed. The research of PB was sup-
hA(1) |A(1) i 2 RehA(0) |A(2) i ported by the ERC Starting Grant 804394 HipQCD. AC
V (2) = + ,
hA(0) |A(0) i hA(0) |A(0) i was supported by the National Science Foundation by
2 RehA(1) |A(2) i 2 RehA(0) |A(3) i grants PHY-1652066 and NSF-PHY-2014021. GG was
V (3) = + , (29) supported by the Royal Society grant URF/R1/191125.
hA(0) |A(0) i hA(0) |A(0) i

[1] J. M. Henn and B. Mistlberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117,
171601 (2016), arXiv:1608.00850 [hep-th] .
[2] Q. Jin and H. Luo, (2019), arXiv:1910.05889 [hep-ph] .
[3] F. Caola, K. Melnikov, D. Napoletano, and L. Tancredi,
Phys. Rev. D 103, 054013 (2021), arXiv:2011.04701 [hep-
ph] .
[4] P. Bargiela, F. Caola, A. von Manteuffel, and L. Tan-
credi, (2021), arXiv:2111.13595 [hep-ph] .
[5] F. Caola, A. Chakraborty, G. Gambuti, A. von Man-
teuffel, and L. Tancredi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 212001
(2022), arXiv:2112.11097 [hep-ph] .
[6] F. Caola, A. Chakraborty, G. Gambuti, A. von Man-
teuffel, and L. Tancredi, JHEP 10, 206 (2021),
arXiv:2108.00055 [hep-ph] .
[7] F. Caola, A. Chakraborty, G. Gambuti, A. von Manteuf-
fel, and L. Tancredi, (2022), arXiv:2207.03503 [hep-ph]
.
[8] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 118, 222001 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 124,
259901 (2020)], arXiv:1612.04333 [hep-ph] .
[9] T. Peraro and L. Tancredi, JHEP 07, 114 (2019),
arXiv:1906.03298 [hep-ph] .

[10] T. Peraro and L. Tancredi, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054042
(2021), arXiv:2012.00820 [hep-ph] .
[11] L. J. Dixon, (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9601359 [hep-ph] .
[12] F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 108, 111601 (2012), arXiv:1111.5206
[hep-ph] .
[13] F. Buccioni, J.-N. Lang, J. M. Lindert, P. Maierhöfer,
S. Pozzorini, H. Zhang, and M. F. Zoller, Eur. Phys. J.
C 79, 866 (2019), arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph] .
[14] C. Anastasiou, E. W. N. Glover, and M. Tejeda-
Yeomans, Nucl.Phys. B629, 255 (2002), arXiv:hep-
ph/0201274 [hep-ph] .
[15] S. Catani, Phys.Lett. B427, 161 (1998), arXiv:hep-
ph/9802439 [hep-ph] .
[16] P. Nogueira, J.Comput.Phys. 105, 279 (1993).
[17] J. Vermaseren, (2000), arXiv:math-ph/0010025 [math-
ph] .
[18] K. Chetyrkin and F. Tkachov, Nucl.Phys. B192, 159
(1981).
[19] S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15, 5087 (2000),
arXiv:hep-ph/0102033 .
[20] C. Studerus, Comput.Phys.Commun. 181, 1293 (2010),
arXiv:0912.2546 [physics.comp-ph] .
[21] A. von Manteuffel and C. Studerus, (2012),
arXiv:1201.4330 [hep-ph] .
[22] A. von Manteuffel and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Lett.
B744, 101 (2015), arXiv:1406.4513 [hep-ph] .
[23] J. Gluza, K. Kajda, and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D
83, 045012 (2011), arXiv:1009.0472 [hep-th] .
[24] H. Ita, Phys. Rev. D94, 116015 (2016), arXiv:1510.05626
[hep-th] .
[25] K. J. Larsen and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D93, 041701
(2016), arXiv:1511.01071 [hep-th] .
[26] J. Böhm, A. Georgoudis, K. J. Larsen, M. Schulze,
and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 98, 025023 (2018),
arXiv:1712.09737 [hep-th] .
[27] R. M. Schabinger, JHEP 01, 077 (2012), arXiv:1111.4220
[hep-ph] .
[28] B. Agarwal, S. P. Jones, and A. von Manteuffel, JHEP
05, 256 (2021), arXiv:2011.15113 [hep-ph] .
[29] A. von Manteuffel and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Rev.
D95, 034030 (2017), arXiv:1611.00795 [hep-ph] .
[30] T. Peraro, JHEP 12, 030 (2016), arXiv:1608.01902 [hep-
ph] .
[31] T. Peraro, (2019), arXiv:1905.08019 [hep-ph] .
[32] E. Remiddi and J. Vermaseren, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A15,
725 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9905237 [hep-ph] .
[33] J. Henn, B. Mistlberger, V. A. Smirnov, and P. Wasser,
JHEP 04, 167 (2020), arXiv:2002.09492 [hep-ph] .
[34] J. M. Henn, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 251601 (2013),
6
arXiv:1304.1806 [hep-th] .
[35] G. F. Sterman and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Lett.
B 552, 48 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210130 .
[36] S. Mert Aybat, L. J. Dixon, and G. F. Sterman, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 97, 072001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606254 .
[37] S. Mert Aybat, L. J. Dixon, and G. F. Sterman, Phys.
Rev. D 74, 074004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607309 .
[38] T. Becher and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 162001
(2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 199905 (2013)],
arXiv:0901.0722 [hep-ph] .
[39] T. Becher and M. Neubert, JHEP 06, 081 (2009), [Er-
ratum: JHEP 11, 024 (2013)], arXiv:0903.1126 [hep-ph]
.
[40] L. J. Dixon, Phys. Rev. D 79, 091501 (2009),
arXiv:0901.3414 [hep-ph] .
[41] E. Gardi and L. Magnea, JHEP 0903, 079 (2009),
arXiv:0901.1091 [hep-ph] .
[42] E. Gardi and L. Magnea, Nuovo Cim. C 32N5-6, 137
(2009), arXiv:0908.3273 [hep-ph] .
[43] O. Almelid, C. Duhr, and E. Gardi, Phys. Rev. Lett.
117, 172002 (2016), arXiv:1507.00047 [hep-ph] .
[44] G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Nucl. Phys. B
283, 342 (1987).
[45] S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys.
B 688, 101 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403192 .
[46] A. Vogt, S. Moch, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys.
B 691, 129 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404111 .
[47] A. Grozin, J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky, and
P. Marquard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 062006 (2015),
arXiv:1409.0023 [hep-ph] .
[48] J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky, and B. Mistlberger,
JHEP 04, 018 (2020), arXiv:1911.10174 [hep-th] .
[49] T. Huber, A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer, R. M. Sch-
abinger, and G. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135543 (2020),
arXiv:1912.13459 [hep-th] .
[50] A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer, and R. M. Schabinger,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 162001 (2020), arXiv:2002.04617
[hep-ph] .
[51] V. Ravindran, J. Smith, and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl.
Phys. B 704, 332 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0408315 .
[52] S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, JHEP 08,
049 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0507039 .
[53] S. Moch, J. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B
625, 245 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508055 .
[54] B. Agarwal, A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer, and
R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136503 (2021),
arXiv:2102.09725 [hep-ph] .
[55] C. Duhr and F. Dulat, JHEP 08, 135 (2019),
arXiv:1904.07279 [hep-th] .