1 Intro

To understand properly what’s behind all the Ac , Bc , Cab , Hc which appear in Hab→cc̄ (I
purposefully wrote this in the “more logical” version which follows left-to-right evolution,
in contrast with formulas (60)-(70) of ref. [1]), some premises are useful.
Let’s begin with what is in my opinion the simplest full version of the qT resummation
formula:
Z 1 Z ∞
F b
dσ = dx1 dx2 dz1 dz2 J0 (qT b)fa (x1 , b20 /b2 )fb (x2 , b20 /b2 )
0 0 2 (1)
F 2 2 F 2 2 F 2 2 F, LO
Cca (z1 , αs (b0 /b ))Cc̄b (z2 , αs (b0 /b ))Sc (b0 /b , µR ) dσ̂cc̄ .
The physical meaning of this formula is nicely illustrated in fig. 1. Here a momentum
fraction x1 is taken at the PDF fa in the upper leg, then another z1 in the partonic
subprocess a → c at the upper C blob. Similarly, fractions x2 and z2 are taken in the
lower leg: in the end the momenta that enter the hard process H are x1 z1 p1 and x2 z2 p2 ,
where p1,2 are the momenta of the initial hadrons. Soft partons can be emitted anywhere
(except, for technical reasons, inside H itself) and contribute to the Sudakov factor Sc .
Before going on notice that eq. (1) describes in principle a completely generic hadronic
process, fully differential in the variables of the final state F (that’s why I wrote dσ and

Figure 1: Pictorial version of eq. (1).

1
not just σ), in the limit in which qT  µR , where the renormalization scale µR is taken
to be whatever the characteristic scale of the hard process H is, typically the invariant
mass M 2 of F .
An important note on flavour: all flavour indices in eq. (1) and in the formulas that
will follow may in principle assume 13 different values (from antitop to top plus gluon;
photons and other particles could in principle be included). However, we are neglecting
mass effects in the formalism: only quarks which can be considered effectively massless
are included in the sum. This also means that they respect exact flavour symmetry, so
that no coefficient may depend on the specific flavour of a quark. This means that in the
coefficients, the subscripts can effectively only take 3 different value: c = q, q̄ or g. There
F
is a slight complication only in the doubly-indexed objects Cab : in this case, we must also
F
distinguish diagonal and antidiagonal flavours, leading to the notation Cqq 0 , Cq̄ q̄ 0 , Cq q̄ 0 and

Cq̄q0 , which means two (anti)quarks which are not of the same flavour. Furthermore, QCD
has C symmetry, which means that coefficients are invariant under barring of all indices:
this means that Aq = Aq̄ and BqF = Bq̄F to all orders, and that we only have to consider
F F F F F
7 different Cab : the diagonal Cgg and Cqq , plus the non-diagonal Cqg , Cgq , CqFq̄ , Cqq F
0 and
F
Cqq̄0 , the remaining combinations being related to the previous ones by symmetry.
Now, notice that eq. (1) is not the equation we actually use in the code: what we use
is the slightly modified version:
Z 1 Z ∞
F b
dσ = dx1 dx2 dz1 dz2 J0 (qT b)fa (x1 , b20 /b2 )fb (x2 , b20 /b2 )
0 0 2 (2)
2 2 2 2 2 2 F F, LO
Cca (z1 , αs (b0 /b ))Cc̄b (z2 , αs (b0 /b ))Sc (b0 /b , µR ) Hc (αs (µR ))dσ̂cc̄ ,

or, if written in Mellin space, thanks to the Mellin convolution property:

Z ∞ Z
b 1
F
dσ = J0 (qT b) 2
e−N1 log x1 −N2 log x2 fa, N1 (b20 /b2 )fb ,N2 (b20 /b2 )
0 2 (2πi) C N 1 CN 2 (3)
F, LO
Cca, N1 (αs (b20 /b2 ))Cc̄b, N2 (αs (b20 /b2 ))Sc (b20 /b2 , µR ) HcF (αs (µR ))dσ̂cc̄ ,

where CN is a Mellin contour and the extra factors are part of the Mellin inversion formula:
you can see them also in the code in inv mellin.cc. And really, eq. (3) is still strongly
implicit, with respect to what we actually put into the code: more on this in sec. 4.
Now, leaving aside the Mellin space technicality, I can anticipate the difference between
eqs. (1) and (2) are what the so-called “resummation scheme” is all about. The difference
is slight, but important: in eq. (1), no HcF factor is present. As a side effect, you have
that both the Sudakov and the C-factors are process-dependent, as highlighted by the F
superscript on both of them. In eq. (2) they are by contrast universal, as you know.
The process-dependence of BaF and Cab F
was, a bit surprisingly, only pointed out by
Catani and collaborators around 2000, much later than when eq. (1) was first proposed.
A posteriori, it seems quite obvious: if they were not dependent on the process, the

2
only information on F would come from the leading order partonic cross-section, which
“clearly” is not enough. Notice a subtlety, however: higher-order cross section at fixed
order, that is with the standard factorization formula, come from two sources, real correc-
tions where extra QCD radiation (quarks or gluons, manifesting as jets experimentally) is
present, ot purely virtual ones, where you simply have loops. Now, transverse momentum
resummation is only relevant when a nonzero, but small, qT is present. For this to be true

• there must be extra radiation present;

• the extra radiation must have small qT (in each individual component, actually).

Since purely virtual corrections don’t have any extra radiation and have exactly qT = 0,
one could hope they didn’t contribute to the resummed cross-section. This is not what
happens, unfortunately. What happens is really the converse in a way: it’s real, or mixed
real/virtual, contributions which don’t appear in eq. (2), except in the form of universal
C and S factors. This is because soft/collinear extra radiation is governed by universal
kernels, either Altarelli-Parisi or soft currents, whenever its qT is small: to have genuine
process-dependent real corrections you would need to have big qT , and this does not give
rise to big logs and can’t contribute to the resummation.
F, LO
In the end, you can see the combination HcF (αs (µR ))dσ̂cc̄ as a modified partonic
cross-section, with respect to the “standard” one used in fixed order (conventional fac-
torization), with the modification being necessary due to a different treatment of extra
radiation in the two cases (indeed, this is explicitly done in ref. [2], see eqs. (13) and (14)
therein).

2 The resummation scheme

Ok, after all this descriptive talk and introduction, let me come to the first main topic,
which is the definition of the resummation scheme and how to pass from one scheme to
another. The main point is in how you go from eq. (1) to eq. (2). This requires the
identification (eqs. (20) and (21) in ref. [2]):

∂ log Ha (αs )
BaF (αs ) = Ba (αs ) − β(αs ) ,
∂ log αs (4)
F
p F
p
Cab (z, αs ) =Cab (z, αs ) Ha (αs ), Cāb (z, αs ) = Cāb (z, αs ) Ha (αs ) ,

(the last equation is really trivial, I think, when one accounts for C symmetry) where
remember that the Sudakov is defined as (ref. [1], eq. (31))
( Z 2 )
µ2  2
µ
Sa (µ1 , µ2 ) = exp − d log q 2 Aa (αs (q 2 )) log 22 + Ba (αs (q 2 )) , (5)
2
µ1 q

3
with µ1,2 arbitrary scales. Here I did it again, sorry: I exchanged the order of the scales
in Sa . . . , putting the lower bound of the integral on the left, rather than on the right. It’s
just more logical. . . That, and I’m really hoping to confuse you! Eq. (4) makes it clear that,
if one just chooses Ha = 1, Ba = BaF and Cab = Cab F
: the process-independent coefficients
become equal to the process-dependent ones in one particular reference process.
Now, more details on the scheme. First of all, it is obvious that eq. (4) does not define
Ha uniquely. In fact, after doing the replacements

HaF (αs ) → HaF (αs )h−1 (αs )

p
Cab (z, αs ) → Cab (z, αs ) h(αs ) (6)
∂ log h(αs )
Ba (αs ) → Ba (αs ) − β(αs )
∂ log αs

for an arbitrary function h(αs ), eq. (4) is still statisfied. This is eq. (36) of ref. [1]. But
really, we can do a bit more, AND be more specific:

HaF (αs ) → HaF (αs )h−1

a (αs )
p
Cab (z, αs ) → Cab (z, αs ) ha (αs ) (7)
∂ log ha (αs )
Ba (αs ) → Ba (αs ) − β(αs )
∂ log αs
that is, we can choose two different arbitrary functions of αs , one for gg-initiated process
(cc̄ = gg) which rescales HgF , and the other for q q̄-initiated processes (cc̄ = q q̄) which
rescales HqF (this version of the equation can be found in ref. [3], eqs. (22)-(24)). That’s
the best we can do: ha obviously can’t depend on z (or N , in Mellin space), nor can it
have more than one index. Also, notice that the translation of eqs. (6) and (7) to Mellin
space is completely straightforward.
Eq. (7) can be seen as a sort of “gauge transformation” on the “fields” Ha , Cab and Ba
which let us put them in a convenient form, while keeping eq. (4) satisfied. Notice that
eq. (4) really is the fundamental one from this point of view: the quantities on its left-
F
hand side, Ba and Cab directly go in the cross-section definition and don’t know anything
about the “resummaption scheme”, so they MUST be invariant (in eq. (4) we are thus
trading process-dependent, but scheme-independent quantities for process-independent,
scheme-dependent ones).
Now, notice that what we actually need are in practical calculations and in the code
are not eqs. (4) or (6), (7) themselves, but rather some equivalent relation valid for the

4
order-by-order expansions of the coefficients. Remember that
α (1)  α 2 (2)
Ba = B + Ba + . . .
kπ a kπ
α (1)  α 2
(2)
Cab, N = δab + Cab, N + Cab, N + . . .
kπ kπ (8)
α F (1)  α 2 F (2)
HaF = 1 + H + Ha + . . .
kπ a kπ
α  α 2
β = − β0 − β1 − . . .
kπ kπ
with the arbitrary numeric constant k typically chosen to be = 1, = 2 or = 4 depending
on the source (and notice how the convention for the expansion of the β function is
different, probably for historical reasons). The best way to get the resummation scheme
transformation, in my point of view, is to expand eq. (4) to the fixed order required. Up
to order 2 (that is NNLL), it reads
α (1)  α 2 (2)
BaF (αs ) Ba + β0 HaF (1) + . . .


' Ba +
kπ  kπ 
F α (1) 1 F (1)
Cab, N (αs ) ' δab + Cab, N + δab Ha + (9)
kπ 2
 α 2  1 (1) 1 1

(2) F (1) F (1) 2 F (2)
Cab, N + Cab, N Ha − δab (Ha ) + δab Ha + ...
kπ 2 8 2
(n) F (n)
so that, if I denote by δBa , δCab, N and δHa the variation of the coefficients when
going to another resummation scheme, I get

δBa(1) = 0 (Ba(1) is scheme-invariant, confirmed in ref. [1])

δBa(2) = −β0 δHaF (1)
(1) 1 (10)
δCab, N = − δab δHaF (1)
2  
(2) 1 (1) F (1) F (2) F (1) F (1) 3 F (1) 2
δCab, N = − Cab, N δHa + δab δHa − δHa Ha − (δHa )
2 4

Important note: I never actually saw eqs. (9) or (10) written precisely this way any-
where: I derived them myself, even though rather similar expressions – only a bit more
involved, my opinion – can be found in ref. [2] (eqs. (28)-(30)). So they need some cross-
check!
Anyway, assuming they are correct, it seems to me that eq. (10) is the more trans-
parent way in which one can possibly write the resummation scheme transformations: all
F (n)
variations are written in terms of the δHa , which are free parameters, and of quantities
(2)
in the “old” scheme. Also, all transformations except for the diagonal Cab, N one are very

5
simple (the δab vanishes for non-diagonal terms). An interesting consequence of eq. (10)
(1)
is that the non-diagonal Cab, N are scheme-invariant.
Now, the next important question is: what is the physical meaning of HaF ? This is
explained in detail in ref. [3], sec. 4, but it is actually easy enough to explain. The starting
point is a specially regularized matrix element M̃cc̄→F of the partonic process cc̄ → F ,
expanded in powers of αs :
2 !
2 2

α s (µ R ) (1) α s (µ R ) (2)
M̃cc̄→F = (αs (µ2R )µ2
R)
pcF
MLOcc̄→F + M̃cc̄→F + M̃cc̄→F + . . . .
kπ kπ
(11)
(n)
M̃cc̄→F is obtained in three steps:

1. Sum, as usual, all Feynman diagrams (times −i) contributing to the cc̄ → F process
up to the desired order in αs (no extra radiation: only purely virtual contributions
are considered), removing any αs power (which are extracted to make eq. (11) more
explicit). Regularize them via some incarnation of dimensional regularization; at
this step, they will generically include poles in 1/.

2. Renormalize UV divergences via αs renormalization in some definite scheme, such

as MS.

3. At this point, the result will still have poles due to IR divergences. Regulate those
via a special subtraction operator. This is defined explicitly in [3], sec. 4 and I’m not
rewriting it here. However, the operator is universal, and the result final result for
(n)
M̃cc̄→F is guaranteed to be finite.
(0)
The MLO cc̄→F ≡ M̃cc̄→F has the tilde removed in eq. (11) because it is finite on its own,
and does not actually require any renormalization or IR subtraction: it is really just the
sum of Feynman diagrams. The pcF exponent is just the LO αs exponent for the process
(same as in [1]). The finite part of the subtraction operator may depend on the specifics
of the regularization/renormalization scheme, which has to be specified beforehand. As
before, k is just arbitrary, and the µ2R factor in front is also conventional. Given all of
this, we have that
(n)
|M̃cc̄→F |2
P
F (n)
Hc ≡P , (12)
|MLOcc̄→F |
2

where the sum is over all quantum numbers (colour, P flavour, helicity, . . . ) of the cc̄ and
F states. Again, the choice of dividing everything by |MLO 2
cc̄→F | is purely conventional:
F F, LO
in fact, remember that Hc actually multiplies dσ̂cc̄ in eq. (2), which is itself propor-
LO 2
P
tional to |Mcc̄→F | , so that this factor ultimately simplifies in the formula. Eqs. (11)
F, LO
and (12) give a precise meaning to the statement that HcF (αs (µR ))dσ̂cc̄ is a modified
partonic cross-section. In particular, this modifies cross-section encodes all purely virtual

6
corrections, up to the desired order, of the partonic process cc̄ → F . This also means that
in the original formulation of the resummation (1), the Sa and Cab don’t just encode the
effects of soft and collinear radiation – they have some “hard” effects mixed in as well, and
that’s why they depend on F . By passing to the “process-independent” formulation (2)
that we use in the code, you are trying to explicitly factor out hard effects and consider
them separately, which makes perfect logical sense. Of course, the dependence of HcF on
the resummation scheme translates, at the M̃ level, on a scheme dependence of the IR
subtraction operator (the one I didn’t rewrite; in ref [3] it is given in the hard scheme).
As a final note for this section, note that relations (9) and (10) are independent of the
k constant used in the expansion (8), as long as the same k is used for all coefficients,
since they only compare coefficient combinations of the same order. The numerical value
of the coefficients themselves is not, of course.

3 A collection of expressions for the coefficients

This is just that: a collection of the various coefficients, together with references to the
sources they come from. All coefficients are written with respect to an expansion
in powers of αs /(kπ), leaving k-dependence explicit.
First of all, constants – no ref. for these:
TR : tr(ta tb ) = TR δab (typically chosen to be = 1/2) (13)
CA ≡ Cg = Nc SU(Nc ) adjoint representation Casimir (14)
N2 − 1
CF ≡ Cq ≡ Cq̄ = TR c SU(Nc ) fundamental representation Casimir (15)
Nc
Nf Number of active (considered as massless) flavours (16)
ζn Value of Riemann Zeta function on point n (17)
β function coefficients (res. scheme independent) – ref. [1] eq. (28) and ref. [4] eq. (B5):
k
β0 = (11CA − 4TR Nf ) (18)
12
k2
β1 = (17CA2 − 10CA TR Nf − 6CF TR Nf ) (19)
24 
k 3 2857 3 1415 2 205
β2 = CA − CA TR Nf − CA CF TR Nf
64 54 27 9
 (20)
2 158 2 2 44 2 2
+2CF TR Nf + CA TR Nf + CF TR Nf
27 9
Now the actual resummation coefficients, Ac , Bc , Cab . Note that they never depend
on the precise flavour of quark which is involved (neglecting, as we are, mass effects): the
flavour index can be equal to c = g, q or q̄.

7
 (n) (1,2)
Ac coefficients (res. scheme independent) – ref. [1] eq. (47) for Ac and ref. [4]
(3)
eqs. (51), (74) and (B3) (see also the comment under eq. (74)) for Ac :

A(1)
c = k Cc (21)
k2 67 π 2
  
(2) 10
A c = Cc − CA − TR Nf (22)
2 18 6 9
3
  
(3) k 2 245 134 2 11 4 22
A g = CA C − π + π + ζ3
16 A 6 27 45 3
     (23)
418 40 2 56 55 16 2 2
+CA TR Nf − + π − ζ3 + CF TR Nf − + 16ζ3 + TR Nf
27 27 3 3 27
2
   
(3) CF (3) k 808 224
A(3)
q = Aq̄ = Ag + 2β0 CF CA − 28ζ3 − TR Nf (24)
CA 16 27 27
(n)
Bc coefficients, hard scheme – ref. [1] eq. (49) for B (1) , ref. [3] eq. (34)-(36) for
B (2) :
k
Bg(1) = − (11CA − 4TR Nf ) (res. scheme independent by eq. (10)) (25)
6
(1) 3
Bq(1) = Bq̄ = −k CF (res. scheme independent by eq. (10)) (26)
2 !
(1)
γ c
Bc(2) = k + πβ0 Cc ζ2 , with (27)
16
  
(1) (1) 2 17 88
γq = γq̄ = k CF (−3 + 24ζ2 − 48ζ3 ) + CA CF − − ζ2 + 24ζ3
3 3
 
2 16
+ CF TR Nf + ζ2 (28)
3 3
   
(1) 2 64 16
γg = k CA − − 24ζ3 + CA TR Nf + 4CF TR Nf
3 3
(1)
The γc are the δ(1−z) (or N -independent in Mellin space) coefficients of the quark/gluon
splitting functions (or anomalous dimensions).
(n)
Now, Cab coefficients, in hard scheme. These are the first ones to depend on N , how-
ever remember their shift when varying the scheme (10) is N -independent: the coefficients
can only be shifted by a constant term.
(1)
Cab : the explicit expressions for the 1st order Cab coefficients can be taken from ref. [3],

8
eqs. (29)-(32):
(1) k
Cqq (z) = CF (1 − z) (29)
2
(1) k
Cgq (z) = CF z (res. scheme independent by eq. (10)) (30)
2
(1) k
Cqg (z) = z(1 − z) (res. scheme independent by eq. (10)) (31)
2
(1) (1) (1) (1)
Cgg (z) = Cqq̄ (z) = Cqq0 (z) = Cqq̄0 (z) = 0 . (32)
Notice that 3 out of 5 of the non-diagonal Cab are vanishing at first order. This has
an interesting implication for the corresponding second order terms: by inspection of
(2) (2) (2)
eq. (10), we see that these 2nd order coefficients (namely Cqq̄ , Cqq0 , Cqq̄0 ) must also be
scheme independent. All in all this means that – apart from the 4 “independent variables”
(i) (2) (i) (i) (2) (2)
Hc – up to NNLL only 8 coefficients in total: Bc , Cgg , Cqq , Cgq and Cqg (here i = 1, 2
and c = q, g only) are actually resummation scheme dependent.
(2)
Cab : the 2nd order coefficients are all very long, and I’m not copying them here: I
will just give the refs, trying to be as precise as possible. The references and part of the
definitions are taken again from [3], eqs. (37)-(40) and nearby text.
k2 CF2  2
 
(2) DY (2) 
Cqq (z) = Hqq̄←qq̄ (z)|no δ(1−z) − (2π − 18)(1 − z) − (1 + z) log z ,
2 4 (33)
DY (2)
with Hqq̄←qq̄ (z) defined in eq. (23) of [5];
  
(2) 2 DY (2) CF 1 2 2
Cqg (z) = k Hqq̄←qg (z) − z log z + (1 − z ) + (π − 8)z(1 − z) ,
4 2 (34)
DY (2)
with Hqq̄←qg (z) defined in eq. (32) of [5];
(2) DY (2) DY (2)
Cqq̄ (z) = k 2 Hqq̄←qq (z), with Hqq̄←qq (z)|no δ(1−z) defined in eq. (24) of [5]; (35)
(2) DY (2) DY (2)
Cqq0 (z) = k 2 Hqq̄←qq̄0 (z), with Hqq̄←qq̄0 (z)|no δ(1−z) defined in eq. (25) of [5]; (36)
(2) (2)
Cqq̄0 (z) = Cqq0 (z), by eqs. (24), (26) and (35) of [5]; (37)
k2
  
(2) H(2) 2 1+z 1−z
Cgg (z) = Hgg←gg (z)|no δ(1−z) + CA log z + 2 ,
2 z z (38)
H(2)
with Hgg←gg (z)
defined in eq. (24) of [6];
5 + π2 2
  
(2) 2 H(2) 2 3z CA CF
Cgq (z) = k Hgg←gq (z) + CF − (1 + z) log z + 2(1 − z) − z ,
4 z 4 (39)
H(2)
with Hgg←gq (z) defined in eq. (23) of [6].
(2)
Beware: the Hcc̄←ab above are not exactly the same as those defined in eq. (70) of [1].
That’s probably connected to the confusing nomenclature inside Hres. Don’t try to con-
nect the coefficients above with ref. [1] or our code (or even 2gres LAST), take them

9
simply as names for the stuff which is on the right-hand side of the cited equations. I’ll
try to clarify the connection later on.
All Cab coefficients given here are defined in z-space. I have no idea for now where to get
the Mellin space expressions (well, of course we can get them from our code and/or Hres,
but that’s not quite what I’d want. . . ), short of recalculating them (which perhaps we
should do?). This is trivial at 1st order, probably still trivial but tedious at 2nd . The main
point is that Mellin transform is linear, so you transform the various contributions piece
by piece. You look up the pieces on some Mellin transform table (I have a couple), and
all resulting N -space “building blocks” should be trivial, standard functions or functions
defined in Bluemlein’s code.
A really important thing which is connected to the schemes is that, as you recall, most
process are either q q̄-initiated (as DY), that is, they have c = q in (3) or gg-initiated (as
Higgs), that is, c = g. Now remember from eq. (70) in [1] that ALL the C coefficients
which appear in H have the first index set to c or c̄. These means that in q q̄, DY-like
processes only 5 of the 7 coefficient may appear: Cqq̄ , Cqq , Cqq0 , Cqg and Cqq̄0 . In gg, H-like
processes, only Cgg and Cgq contribute. Since up to NNLL Cqq0 = Cqq̄0 , we should have
(2)
4 different Cab coefficients to set in our code (in the pre-Hres version) and this is in fact
the case. Of course they DON’T have the same names as here. . . They are called (check
it yourself) c2qg, c2NSqq, c2Sqqb, c2NSqqb. c2qg is ok, for the others “S” stands for
(2) (2) (2)
coulour Singlet and NS for colour Non-Singlet. The three coefficients Cqq̄ , Cqq and Cqq0
are recovered from c2NSqq, c2Sqqb, c2NSqqb, I am not completely just sure how right
now, so I’m skipping this for the moment.
(n)
Finally, Hc coefficients, hard scheme. Of course these are all explicitly res. scheme
dependent – that’s what resummation scheme is all about, after all. They are also process
dependent, for the first time, as you know. I’ll list them for DY, Higgs and diphoton.
The main ref. here is again [3]: eqs. (82-83) for DY and eqs. (85), (87) (in large mQ limit,

10
see [3]) for Higgs:
π2
 
HqDY (1)= k CF −4 (40)
2
π4
  
DY (2) 2 59 1535 215 2
Hq = k CF CA ζ3 − + π −
18 192 216 240
 
1 511 67 2 17 4
+ CF2 −15ζ3 + − π + π (41)
4 16 12 45

1 2
+ CF TR Nf (192ζ3 + 1143 − 152π )
864
π 2 5CA − 3CF
 
H(1)
Hg = k CA + (42)
2 2
  
H(2) 2 2 3187 7 157 2 13 4 55
Hg = k CA + LQ + π + π − ζ3 (43)
288 8 72 144 18
 
145 11 3 9 5 1
+ CA CF − − LQ − π 2 + CF2 − CA − CF (44)
24 8 4 4 96 12
   
287 5 2 4 41 1
−CA TR Nf + π + ζ3 + CF TR Nf − + LQ + ζ3 , (45)
144 36 9 24 2
where LQ = log(m2H /m2Q ), For Higgs at NLO, also the contribution for finite quark mass is
known (see for instance [7], eqs. (21)-(30), defined in terms of harmonic polylogarithms),
not sure about 2nd order (it was still unknown as of [3], maybe now someone has got it).
DY (1,2) H(1,2)
Furthermore, obviously, Hg = Hq = 0. For DY, this is really 0: there is now
way of colliding two gluons and obtaining a single Z or W , at any order, at least if I
remember right. For Higgs, it is a more practical sort of problem: the channel q q̄ → H
is not zero, just hard to detect. Anyway, it will be formally suppressed w.r.t. to gg not
by powers of αs , but by Yukawa couplings, unless you admit tops in the initial state (the
effective ggH vertex is proportional to αs ytop ), but even if you do their PDFs would be
ridiculously small at LHC.
For diphoton, again from ref. [3] eqs. (88-91):

CF 2 1 h
Hqγγ(1)
=k π −7+ ((1 − v)2 + 1) log2 (1 − v)
2 (1 − v)2 + v 2
i (46)
2 2
+ v(v + 2) log(1 − v) + (v + 1) log v + (1 − v)(3 − v) log v

k2 0×2 1×1 45
Hqγγ(2) = [Finite,q γγ(1)
q̄γγ;s + Finite,q q̄γγ;s ] + 3ζ2 CF Hq − CF2
4ALO 4
    (47)
607 1181 187 105 41 97 17
+ CF C A + ζ2 − ζ3 − ζ4 + CF TR Nf − − ζ2 + ζ3 ,
324 144 144 32 162 72 72

11
where v = −u/s (partonic variables), ALO is just proportional to the LO matrix element
u/t + t/u (and to KinFac in our code),

1 − 2v + 2v 2
 
u t
ALO = −8Nc + = 8Nc , (48)
t u v(1 − v)
0×2 1×1
and Finite,q q̄γγ;s , Finite,q q̄γγ;s are defined in [8], eqs. (4.6) and (5.3) plus appendices A and B
(we also have them, for once with the same names, in the code). Since in γγ we also have
γ
the gg channel starting with the box contribution, Hgg 6= 0. It is, however, suppressed by
αs w.r.t. the q q̄ contribution, so it only matters from N3 LL on.
2

As a “final project” for this section, let’s look explicitly at the DY and Higgs schemes,
γγ(1,2)
and make a comparison between formulas (46), (47) for hard scheme Hq and the ones
in the code.
First of all, DY and H are, unlike the hard scheme, partial schemes: since DY does not
involve gg contributions, it can only set Hq , so Hg , Cgq and Cgg remain unspecified, and
similarly the Higgs scheme (in the approximation typically used for Higgs calculation)
leaves Hq and the various Cqa unspecified. To have a complete scheme, valid for arbitrary
(colorless, of course) processes, one must use both (or combine one of the two with some
other prescription).
At a practical level, the DY and Higgs scheme simply prescribe:

HqDY,DY (n) = 0 ∀n > 0, (DY scheme) (49)

HgH,H(n) = 0 ∀n > 0, (Higgs scheme) , (50)

where now I indicated explicitly the scheme dependence, with the simple (though heavy)
notation HcF,scheme . Now let’s use eq. (10) to determine the shifts w.r.t. the hard scheme
(2) (1) (2)
of the 8 coefficients which carry scheme dependence to NNLL. Of these, Bg Cgg , Cgq
(2) H(1,2)
and Cgg are determined by the “Higgs” part of the scheme and depend on δHg , and
(2) (1) (2) (2)
similarly Bq Cqq , Cqg and Cqq are determined by the “DY” part. Obviously, due to
eq. (49),

δHqDY (n) = −HqDY,hard(n) ⇒ −eqs. (40)-(41) (51)

δHgH(n) = −HgH,hard(n) ⇒ −eqs. (42)-(43) . (52)

12
More concretely
BqDY (2) = Bqhard(2) + β0 HqDY,hard(1) (53)
BgH(2) = Bghard(2) + β0 HgH,hard(1) (54)
DY (1) hard(1) 1
Cqq, N = Cqq, N + HqDY,hard(1) (55)
2
H(1) 1
Cgg, N = HgH,hard(1) (56)
2   
DY (2) hard(2) 1 hard(1) DY,hard(1) DY,hard(2) 1 DY,hard(1) 2
Cqq, N = Cqq, N + C Hq + Hq − (Hq ) (57)
2 qq, N 4
 
H(2) hard(2) 1 H,hard(2) 1 H,hard(1) 2
Cgg, N = Cgg, N + Hg − (Hg ) (58)
2 4
DY (2) hard(2) 1 (1)
Cqg, N = Cqg, N + Cqg, N HqDY,hard(1) (59)
2
H(2) hard(2) 1 (1)
Cgq, N = Cgq, N + Cgq, N HgH,hard(1) . (60)
2
hard(1) (1) (1)
(Cgg, N = 0, Cqg, N and Cgq, N are scheme independent) I’m not expanding these equation
explicitly (I’m preparing Mathematica notebooks where I’ll do some of these calculations).
γγ(1)
Now, if we want δHq , we just have to use eq. (10) twice, using the fact that the
Cab are process independent:
DY (1) 1 1
δCqq = HqDY,hard(1) = − δHqγγ(1) ⇒ Hqγγ,DY (1) = Hqγγ,hard(1) − HqDY,hard(1)
2 2 (61)
C F
⇒ Hqγγ,DY (1) = k (1 + log terms)
2
where by “log terms” I mean all terms which are proportional (by v-dependent coefficients)
to one of the logarithms in eq. (46): log v, log2 v, log(1−v), log2 (1−v), which are untouched
by the scheme transformation (since it doesn’t depend on v). The second order variation
requires that we solve the equation
 
hard(1) γγ(1) γγ(2) γγ(1) γγ,hard(1) 3 γγ(1) 2
Cqq, N δHq + δHq − δHq Hq − (δHq )
4
  (62)
hard(1) DY,hard(1) DY,hard(2) 1 DY,hard(1) 2
= − Cqq, N Hq − Hq − (Hq )
4
γγ(1) DY,hard(1)
which simplifies greatly remembering that δHq = −Hq :
δHqγγ(2) = −Hqγγ,hard(1) HqDY,hard(1) + (Hqγγ,hard(1) )2 − HqDY,hard(2) , (63)
which is exactly what we have in the code (well, after accounting for the various k and k 2
factors that we have due to using different normalizations; we should definetely remove

13
those, I mean, always use the same normalization for the 1st definition of each coefficient,
F (2)
probably using k = 1). A relation similar to (63) holds for the Hc coefficients in DY
or H scheme for generic final state F.

3.1 Phase-space dependence of the coefficients

BASIC IDEA: H F (AND B F and C F ) IN PRINCIPLE DEPEND ON THE PHASE
SPACE OF THE FINAL STATE – HIGGS AND DY BEING EXCEPTION SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE PS IS TOO SMALL (JUST 1 PARTICLE). THERE’S OBVIOUSLY
NO WAY TO AVOID THE PS DEPENDENCE COMPLETELY, BUT ONE CAN USE
THE RES SCHEME TO MAKE AT LEAST B AND C PS-INDEPENDENT, AND ONE
SHOULD! ALSO NOTICE THAT NO TERM IN THE FORMULA IS BOTH N- AND
PS- DEPENDENT, WHICH IS INTERESTING.

3.2 Spin and azimuthal correlations in the gg channel: the G

coefficients
Up to now I avoided this subject. . . The ugly truth is that eq. (3) does not really hold
for gg-initiated processes. It requires a slight generalization, which is not in the original
formalism because nobody realized the original version was wrong (incomplete, actually)
for years (a testimony to how confusing the subject is)! The generalized formula requires
(n) (n)
the introduction of two more sets of coefficients, Ggg (z) and Ggq (z), which you can see
in Hres. They are similar to the Cga coefficients in that they arise from collinear splittings
of the original partons into the gluons which go in the hard collision, but they are due to
spin/azimuthal correlations which are not there in the q q̄ case. You can find all details in
ref. [9], which deals specifically with this extension. I’ll add a mini-review here as soon
as I find the time.

4 How to get the actual, full formula used in the

code!
DID NOT GET AROUND TO WRITE THIS YET. . . BASIC POINTS:
• H receives contributions from the Cab , from Ha and from A PIECE of the two PDF
evolution matrices.
• There is also a N -dependent exponential part, which is not a contribution to H and
is never explicitly named in the papers, but is also included in hardfns.cc (I don’t
mean the Sudakovs or aexp, aexpb, which are N -independent). This also comes
from the Cab , when you take into account the αs evolution inside them (the C that
appear in the exponential contribution are the same that appear in H).

14
References
[1] G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 737 (2006) 73
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.12.022 [hep-ph/0508068].

[2] S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 596 (2001) 299
doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00617-9 [hep-ph/0008184].

[3] S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 881
(2014) 414 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.02.011 [arXiv:1311.1654 [hep-ph]].

[4] T. Becher and M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1665 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-

011-1665-7 [arXiv:1007.4005 [hep-ph]].

[5] S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera and M. Grazzini, Eur. Phys. J. C 72

(2012) 2195 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2195-7 [arXiv:1209.0158 [hep-ph]].

[6] S. Catani and M. Grazzini, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2013 Erratum: [Eur. Phys.
J. C 72 (2012) 2132] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2013-2, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-
2132-9 [arXiv:1106.4652 [hep-ph]].

[7] U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, JHEP 0701 (2007) 021
doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/021 [hep-ph/0611266].

[8] C. Anastasiou, E. W. N. Glover and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Nucl. Phys. B 629

(2002) 255 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00140-2 [hep-ph/0201274].

[9] S. Catani and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 845 (2011) 297

doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.12.007 [arXiv:1011.3918 [hep-ph]].

15