Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section in pp Collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

CMS Collaboration

REVIEW

Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section in pp Collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

CMS Collaboration

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 1 Jun 2011 · 28 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, carefully budgeted benchmark measurement whose headline agreement claim is real but soft exactly where it is novel — at the highest pT, where the theory band is 40% wide.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1106.0208 (version 1)

Pith IDJ6T7B5YM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationCMS Collaboration. "Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section in pp Collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV." arXiv:1106.0208 (2011). https://pith.science/paper/J6T7B5YM

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is the CMS 7 TeV inclusive jet paper from 2011: 34 pb^-1, anti-kT R=0.5 on particle flow, six rapidity bins out to |y|=3, pT from 18 to 1100 GeV. The thing worth knowing is that the measurement itself is the contribution, and it is done properly. The calibration chain is genuinely data-driven — photon+jet for the absolute response, dijet for the rapidity dependence, minimum-bias and lower-threshold triggers for efficiency — and the systematic budget is laid out line by line: 3-4% jet scale, 4% luminosity, resolution known to 10-30% depending on rapidity. That is a real piece of work, and the reach to 1.1 TeV was new at the time. It is a reference measurement, and it reads like one should: no overclaiming, ratio plots shown so you can see for yourself where things sit. The authors even say plainly that the predictions sit systematically above the data. Good faith throughout. Now the soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test is right that the agreement claim has little bite at high pT: the PDF4LHC envelope is quoted as up to 40% and asymmetric near the kinematic limit, so agreement there is close to automatic. The genuinely constraining region is 50-500 GeV, where the envelope is ~10% and the offset is systematic — and that offset is never quantified. No number, no pT dependence, no comparison against the 4% fully correlated luminosity shift that would produce exactly a uniform pull. That is a fair criticism, but it is a claim-strength issue, not an error; the cross section stands regardless. Second, the non-perturbative correction reaches 30% at low pT with a 100% assigned uncertainty, and the half-difference-of-two-generators rule is asserted, not derived. That caps how much the low-pT agreement means. Third, the unfolding uses a fitted power-law ansatz and the model error on that fit is not propagated — small in the central region, less so forward. Minor: no public data tables, which was normal then but still limits reuse. Who should read it: anyone doing collider QCD or PDF fits who wants the 7 TeV jet baseline, and anyone building a jet analysis who wants a clean template for a systematic budget. It deserves referees, and it got them. Nothing here would have justified a desk reject.

Referee report

Significance

This is a benchmark standard-model measurement and a substantial extension of the accessible kinematic range: the spectrum is measured to 1.1 TeV, well beyond the previous Tevatron reach of roughly 650 GeV, and in six rapidity bins. The strengths are real and should be named. The jet calibration is anchored to independent data control samples rather than to simulation alone, the systematic budget is broken down explicitly (photon energy scale 1.0%, relative response 2.6%, pile-up 0.2%, high-pT extrapolation 4%, luminosity 4%), and the theory comparison is made against three PDF sets with a prescribed envelope rather than a single tune. The result is a falsifiable, publicly documented cross section that constrains parton distributions and the strong coupling in a previously unprobed regime, and it is the kind of measurement against which later searches and higher-order calculations will be checked.

Major objections (2)

[Results and discussion, Fig. 2] The manuscript states that 'the predictions are seen to be consistent with the data across a wide range of jet pT and rapidities, although the predictions are systematically above the data,' but the offset is reported only qualitatively. No magnitude, pT dependence, or rapidity dependence is given, and the text does not compare the offset with the 4% fully correlated luminosity normalization uncertainty, which would produce exactly such a uniform shift. Because the headline claim is agreement within uncertainties, the size and structure of the residual offset is the one piece of information that determines how constraining the comparison actually is. I ask the authors to quantify it, for example by quoting the average data-to-theory ratio (or its range) per rapidity bin over the region where the PDF4LHC envelope is narrow, and to state explicitly whether a 4% downward shift of the data, or an upward shift of the prediction, would remove the offset. This is a claim-strength issue rather than an error in the measurement, but it is load-bearing for how the agreement statement should be read.
[NLO predictions and non-perturbative corrections] The non-perturbative correction is defined as the average of PYTHIA 6.422 and HERWIG++ 2.4.2, with an assigned uncertainty of half their difference, and the text notes that at low pT the correction 'can be as large as 30%, with a relative uncertainty of 100%.' The half-difference prescription is asserted without derivation or reference, and the two generators are parton-shower models with comparable underlying-event treatments, so they may err in the same direction. At low pT this is the dominant theoretical uncertainty and the agreement claim there rests on it. I ask the authors to justify the envelope (or cite where it is justified) and, if feasible, to indicate what a third model or a data-driven estimate would imply for the size of the correction and its uncertainty. If no such cross-check is possible, the limitation should be stated explicitly in the text rather than left implicit in the quoted 100% relative uncertainty.

Minor objections (6)

[Fig. 1] The vertical axis label reads 'dy (pb/GeV)'; it should be the double-differential quantity d²σ/(dpT dy) in pb/GeV. Please also confirm that the scaling factors in the legend are unambiguous and that the six rapidity-bin labels are legible at print size.
[Binning and tables] The pT bin boundaries are shown only graphically and are not tabulated. For a cross-section measurement intended as a benchmark, the bin edges (and, ideally, a table of the systematic uncertainties broken down by pT and rapidity) would materially improve reproducibility and usability. If the journal's format precludes a table, please state where the numerical values will be made available.
[Resolution unfolding] The text reports resolution corrections of 5 to 10% in the central bin but 'about 10% to 50%' in the most-forward bin. Please state explicitly what fraction of the total uncertainty in the forward bins is attributable to the unfolding, and whether those bins are statistics-limited or unfolding-limited, so that the reader can judge the weight of the forward points in the theory comparison.
[Jet identification] The inefficiency of the jet identification criteria is 'estimated from simulation to be negligible.' Since these criteria (minimum particle multiplicity, neutral-energy fraction, electromagnetic-plus-hadronic requirement outside the tracker) are applied to data, a brief statement of the data cross-check, or an explicit acknowledgment that none was performed, would strengthen the systematic discussion.
[Pile-up] The pile-up correction is described as ranging from nearly zero to an average of about three additional collisions, with a residual uncertainty of 0.2%. Please clarify how that residual uncertainty was assessed, given that the pile-up conditions varied substantially across the data-taking period.
[Fig. 2] The three PDF central predictions (CT10, MSTW2008NLO, NNPDF2.0) are overlaid with dashed, dash-dotted, and dotted lines that are difficult to distinguish at print size. Consider offsetting the points or adding a separate panel so that the spread among the central predictions is visible.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

CMS measures the jet cross section out to 1.1 TeV at 7 TeV, and next-to-leading-order QCD describes it within the quoted uncertainties.

The reading

The paper asks a simple but demanding question: at the LHC's 7 TeV collision energy, does the rate at which jets are produced as a function of transverse momentum match what next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD predicts? Using 34 pb$^{-1}$ of data recorded by CMS, the collaboration reconstructs jets with the anti-$k_T$ algorithm ($R=0.5$) on particle-flow objects, corrects the spectra for detector response and resolution, and publishes the differential cross section $d^2sigma/(dp_T dy)$ in six rapidity bins covering $|y| < 3$ and $18 < p_T < 1100$ GeV. The reach is the point: the spectrum falls over ten orders of magnitude and extends to jet momenta never previously measured, so it probes QCD and the proton's parton distributions in a regime no earlier collider could touch. The comparison with NLO QCD, corrected for non-perturbative hadronization and multiple-parton effects and evaluated with the PDF4LHC parton-distribution envelope, lands within the combined experimental and theoretical bands across the whole range, though the prediction sits systematically a little above the data. If the result holds, it is a validation of the standard-model description of hard scattering at the smallest distance scales yet accessed, and a constraint on the gluon and quark distributions at large momentum fraction.

What carries the argument

Three pieces carry the argument. First, the measurement itself: jets clustered with the infrared- and collinear-safe anti-$k_T$ algorithm with distance parameter $R = 0.5$ on particle-flow candidates, with the jet momentum response brought close to unity by small simulation-derived corrections plus residual corrections from dijet balance (up to 8%) and from photon-plus-jet events (about 1%), and with pile-up subtracted using jet areas. Second, the unfolding: bin-to-bin resolution migrations are corrected by fitting a physics-motivated ansatz $f(p_T) = N_0 [p_T]^{-alpha}[1 - 2p_T cosh(y_min)/sqrt{s}]^{beta} exp(-gamma/p_T)$ to the data after smearing it with the measured $p_T$ resolution, then dividing the fitted function by its smeared version. Third, the theory side: the NLO prediction is multiplied by a non-perturbative correction defined as the average of PYTHIA 6.422 and HERWIG++ 2.4.2, with an uncertainty of half their difference, and parton-distribution uncertainties are assigned by the PDF4LHC envelope over CT10, MSTW2008NLO and NNPDF2.0, with an additional term from varying $alpha_s(m_Z)$ by $pm 0.002$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The collaboration reports the fully corrected inclusive jet cross section in proton-proton collisions at $sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV, differential in jet $p_T$ and rapidity, for $18 < p_T < 1100$ GeV and six bins up to $|y| = 3.0$, based on an integrated luminosity of 34 pb$^{-1}$. The measured spectra fall by roughly ten orders of magnitude across the $p_T$ range and reach higher jet momenta than any previous measurement. Comparing the data with NLO pQCD predictions from NLOJET++ interfaced through FASTNLO, with non-perturbative corrections from PYTHIA and HERWIG++ applied multiplicatively and parton-distribution uncertainties combined following the PDF4LHC prescription, the ratio of data to theory stays inside the combined experimental and theoretical uncertainty bands in every rapidity bin. The authors note that the central prediction lies systematically above the data, and that parton-distribution uncertainties, large and asymmetric at high $p_T$, dominate the theoretical band. Their conclusion is that NLO pQCD is generally in agreement with the measurement over this newly opened kinematic range.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed agreement at low jet momentum depends on the non-perturbative correction — taken as the average of two event generators with an uncertainty of half their difference, reaching 30% with a 100% relative uncertainty at low $p_T$ — actually bracketing the true hadronization and underlying-event effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The measured spectrum supplies a benchmark that any future calculation or event generator must reproduce over $18 < p_T < 1100$ GeV and $|y| < 3$, at a collision energy where no such constraint previously existed.
Because the high-$p_T$ tail is sensitive to parton distributions at large momentum fraction, the data can be folded into global fits to tighten the gluon and quark densities in that region.
The agreement, taken at face value, leaves little room in this channel for new physics that would distort the jet $p_T$ spectrum below about 1.1 TeV at 7 TeV.
The systematic drift of the central NLO prediction above the data gives a concrete target for improved calculations, whether through higher-order terms, refined scale choices, or updated parton distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

The 7 TeV data at 34 pb$^{-1}$ are statistically limited in the highest $p_T$ bins, so the most informative future test is the same measurement with the full 2010-2012 luminosity, which would turn the present consistency check into a percent-level constraint on the high-$p_T$ tail.
The systematic excess of theory over data, if it survives higher statistics and improved jet energy calibration, would point toward a small tension in the parton distributions at large momentum fraction rather than toward new physics, and is worth tracking as the PDF4LHC envelope is updated.
Because the non-perturbative correction is largest exactly where the experimental uncertainties are smallest, the low-$p_T$ end of this measurement is effectively a test of hadronization models as much as of QCD; independent constraints on the underlying event from other observables would sharpen it.

Original abstract

The inclusive jet cross section is measured in pp collisions with a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV at the LHC using the CMS experiment. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 34 inverse picobarns. The measurement is made for jet transverse momenta in the range 18-1100 GeV and for absolute values of rapidity less than 3. The measured cross section extends to the highest values of jet pT ever observed and, within the experimental and theoretical uncertainties, is generally in agreement with next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD predictions.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,617 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.11 · states limitation 0.35 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.71 · compares with prior results 0.62 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The inclusive jet cross section is measured in pp collisions with a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV at the LHC using the CMS experiment. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 34 inverse picobarns. The measurement is made for jet transverse momenta in the range 18-1100 GeV and for absolute values of rapidity less than 3. The measured cross section extends to the highest values of jet pT ever observed and, within the experimental and theoretical uncertainties, is generally in agreement with next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD predictions.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	The inclusive jet cross section is measured in pp collisions with a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV at the LHC using the CMS experiment.	contribution 0.93	0.92	0.05	asserted 1.00
s1	The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 34 inverse picobarns.	method 1.00	0.78	0.02	asserted 1.00
s2	The measurement is made for jet transverse momenta in the range 18-1100 GeV and for absolute values of rapidity less than 3.	method 0.87	0.92	0.03	asserted 1.00
s3	The measured cross section extends to the highest values of jet pT ever observed and, within the experimental and theoretical uncertainties, is generally in agreement with next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD predictions.	result 0.82	0.94	0.87	asserted 0.72

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.98.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Fully-corrected inclusive jet differential cross sections as a function of

**Figure 2.** Ratios of the fully-corrected measured jet

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1106.0208 by the authors.

References

Works cited (28)

[1]

UA2 Collaboration, “Observation of Very Large Transverse Momentum Jets at the CERN ¯pp Collider”, Phys. Lett. B 118 (1982) 203. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90629-3

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90629-3 1982
[2]

UA1 Collaboration, “Hadronic Jet Production at the CERN Proton-Antiproton Collider”, Phys. Lett. B 132 (1983) 214. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90254-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90254-x 1983
[3]

CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section at the Fermilab Tevatron p ¯p Collider Using a Cone-Based Jet Algorithm”, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 052006, arXiv:0807.2204. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.052006

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[4]

D0 Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section in p ¯p Collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 062001, arXiv:0802.2400. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.062001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[5]

CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section using the kT algorithm in pp Collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV with the CDF II Detector”, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 092006, arXiv:hep-ex/0701051. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.092006

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[6]

ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of Inclusive Jet and Dijet Cross Sections in Proton-proton Collisions at 7 TeV Centre-of-mass Energy with the ATLAS Detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1512, arXiv:1009.5908. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1512-2

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[7]

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 03 (2008) S08004. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008
[8]

M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The Anti-kT Jet Clustering Algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[9]

M. Cacciari and G. P . Salam, “Dispelling the N3 myth for the kT jet-ﬁnder”, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210v2. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[10]

CMS Collaboration, “Commissioning of the Particle-Flow Reconstruction in Minimum-Bias and Jet Events from pp Collisions at 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-10-002(2010)

View on Pith 2010
[11]

CMS Collaboration, “Jet Energy Resolution in CMS at √s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-014 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[12]

CMS Collaboration, “Determination of the Jet Energy Scale in CMS with pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-010 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[13]

S. Agostinelli et al., “Geant 4 – A Simulation Toolkit”, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003
[14]

M. Cacciari and G. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, arXiv:0707.1378. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[15]

CMS Collaboration, “Jets in 0.9 and 2.36 TeV pp Collisions”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-001 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[16]

CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section in p ¯p Collisions at√s = 1.8 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 032001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.032001. 8

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.032001 2001
[17]

CMS Collaboration, “Electromagnetic calorimeter calibration with 7 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-003 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[18]

CMS Collaboration, “Absolute luminosity normalization”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2011-002 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[19]

Z. Nagy, “Three-jet Cross Sections in Hadron Hadron Collisions at Next-to-leading Order”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 122003, arXiv:hep-ph/0110315. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.122003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[20]

Z. Nagy, “Next-to-leading Order Calculation of Three-jet Observables in Hadron-hadron Collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 094002, arXiv:hep-ph/0307268. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.094002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[21]

T. Kluge, K. Rabbertz, and M. Wobisch, “Fast pQCD Calculations for PDF Fits”, in 14th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS 2006), 20-24 Apr 2006 , p. 483. Tsukuba, Japan, 2006. arXiv:hep-ph/0609285

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[22]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”, JHEP 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[23]

M. Bahr et al., “Herwig++ Physics and Manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639, arXiv:0803.0883. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[24]

A. Banﬁ, G. P . Salam, and G. Zanderighi, “Phenomenology of Event Shapes at Hadron Colliders”, JHEP 06 (2010) 038, arXiv:1001.4082. doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)038

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[25]

S. Alekhin et al., “The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Report”, (2011). arXiv:1101.0536

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[26]

H.-L. Lai et al., “New Parton Distributions for Collider Physics”, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024, arXiv:1007.2241. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[27]

A. D. Martin et al., “Parton Distributions for the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 189, arXiv:0901.0002. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1072-5

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[28]

R. D. Ball et al., “A First Unbiased Global NLO Determination of Parton Distribution and their Uncertainties”, Nucl. Phys. B 838 (2010) 136, arXiv:1002.4407. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.05.008. 9 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia S. Chatrchyan, V . Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

Forward citations

Cited by 21 Pith papers

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

Measurement and QCD analysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV
hep-ex 2021-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS jet cross sections at 13 TeV, fitted together with HERA deep-inelastic data, tighten the proton gluon distribution and give alpha_S(m_Z) = 0.1166 +/- 0.0017, with a simultaneous effective-field-theory bound of Lam...
Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV
physics.ins-det 2017-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS presents improved bottom- and charm-jet identification algorithms for 13 TeV LHC data, reaching 68% b-jet efficiency at 1% light-flavour misidentification, together with data-driven efficiency scale factors.
Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2016-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS achieves a jet energy scale uncertainty of 0.32% for 165-330 GeV central jets at 8 TeV, with a complete correlated uncertainty model and a measured jet energy resolution of 15-20% at 30 GeV falling to 5% at 1 TeV.
Jet substructure using semi-inclusive jet functions within SCET
hep-ph 2016-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The semi-inclusive fragmenting jet function obeys timelike DGLAP evolution, enabling resummation of jet-radius logarithms and NLO+NLL_R predictions that match LHC jet fragmentation data.
Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements
hep-ex 2015-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

New CMS-tuned parameter sets for PYTHIA 8, PYTHIA 6 and HERWIG++ reproduce underlying-event data from 0.9 to 7 TeV and extrapolate consistently to 13 TeV, but no single tune describes both soft underlying-event and ha...

Show 16 more citing papers

Parton distributions for the LHC Run II
hep-ph 2014-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

NNPDF3.0 delivers a global PDF fit whose fitting machinery is validated by closure tests, recovering the known input PDF with 69.9% one-sigma and 94.8% two-sigma coverage against expected 68% and 95%.
NNLO QCD corrections to jet production at hadron colliders from gluon scattering
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The sub-leading colour contribution to gluon-channel dijet production at NNLO adds roughly 10% to the correction, rising from 8% at low jet pT to 15% at high pT, and antenna subtraction handles it without new ingredients.
Measurement of the inclusive jet cross section in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV and comparison to the inclusive jet cross section at sqrt(s)=7 TeV using the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2013-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

ATLAS measures the inclusive jet cross-section at 2.76 TeV, forms its ratio to the 7 TeV measurement with correlated systematics cancelled, and uses both datasets jointly to constrain the proton's parton distributions.
Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment
hep-ex 2012-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS's b-jet taggers reach 85% efficiency at 10% light-parton misidentification and 70% at 1.5%, with data-to-simulation scale factors measured to 2 to 8% precision.
Parton distributions with LHC data
hep-ph 2012-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

NNPDF2.3 is the first global parton distribution fit to include LHC W, Z and inclusive jet data with full systematic covariance, and it finds those data consistent with the older fixed-target and HERA sets while modes...
Measurement of inclusive jet and dijet cross-sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2017-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS publishes double-differential inclusive jet and dijet cross-sections at 13 TeV, spanning jet pT from 100 GeV to 3.5 TeV and dijet mass from 300 GeV to 9 TeV, finding agreement with NLO QCD within uncertainties a...
Measurement of the inclusive jet cross-section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV using 4.5 fb$^{-1}$ of data with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2014-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The double-differential inclusive jet cross-section at 7 TeV is measured over 100 GeV to 2 TeV and |y| < 3, and most next-to-leading-order QCD predictions with modern parton distributions describe it, while ABM11 fail...
Parton distribution functions and benchmark cross sections at NNLO
hep-ph 2012-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD fit to world deep-inelastic and Drell-Yan data yields a new parton distribution set (ABM11) and alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1134 +/- 0.0011, notably below the world average.
Measurement of inclusive jet and dijet production in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2011-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS reports inclusive jet and dijet cross sections at 7 TeV over |y| < 4.4, from 20 GeV to 1.5 TeV in jet momentum and 70 GeV to 5 TeV in dijet mass, agreeing with NLO QCD within uncertainties that are largest in th...
One-Point energy correlator inside jets
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A TMD factorization and NNLL resummation is derived for a one-point energy correlator inside jets, and the normalized observable mainly depends on the jet scale, with sensitivity to gluon TMDFFs.
Measurement and QCD analysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross-sections in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV and ratios to 2.76 and 7 TeV
hep-ex 2016-09 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The CMS inclusive jet cross section at 8 TeV gives alpha_S(M_Z) = 0.1164 (+0.0060/-0.0043) and tightens gluon PDF constraints at large x when combined with HERA deep-inelastic data.
Measurement of the double-differential inclusive jet cross section in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV
hep-ex 2016-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

CMS reports the first double-differential inclusive jet cross section at 13 TeV, finding NLO QCD describes R=0.7 jets but overestimates R=0.4 jets by 5-10%.
Study of double parton scattering using W + 2-jet events in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2013-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In 7 TeV proton-proton collisions, CMS finds that 5.5% of W-plus-two-jet events arise from double parton scattering, giving an effective cross section of 20.7 mb.
Measurement of the inclusive differential jet cross section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2013-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The first inclusive jet cross section at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at 2.76 TeV agrees with next-to-leading-order QCD once hadronization is included, and supplies the reference for heavy-ion jet quenching.
Parton distribution function dependence of benchmark Standard Model total cross sections at the 7 TeV LHC
hep-ph 2011-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Comparing W, Z, Higgs and top cross sections across all public PDF sets at 7 TeV shows the three global fits agree within their uncertainties once the strong coupling value is held fixed, while fits to restricted data...
Theory-Data Comparisons for Jet Measurements in Hadron-Induced Processes
hep-ph 2011-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Across jet data from STAR, H1, ZEUS, CDF, D0, ATLAS and CMS, next-to-leading-order QCD with modern PDFs agrees with the measurements at the level of the quoted experimental uncertainties, with a few datasets sitting s...

How later papers used it

70 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 48 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 16 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 23 of the 105 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

2 later papers by other authors are listed below: 1 used its data or values and 1 compared its own results with it. 3 more papers by the same authors are listed: 3 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 3 of 6 papers with this label · 3 by the same authors

By the same authors

Defined its primary vertex selection criteria as described in this paper.

Search for contact interactions using the inclusive jet pT spectrum in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV (2013) (same authors) · 0.84 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the ratio of both distributions for the final correction as done in this paper.

Measurement of the inclusive production cross sections for forward jets and for dijet events with one forward and one central jet in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV (2012) (same authors) · 0.92 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Exploited techniques developed for this paper's measurement of the differential jet production cross section at CMS.

Search for jet extinction in the inclusive jet-pt spectrum from proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV (2014) (same authors) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its data or values 1 of 11 papers with this label

Took its bin size in pT according to this paper.

Production of massless charm jets in pp collisions at next-to-leading order of QCD (2014) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Compares with it 1 of 11 papers with this label

Compared its own calculation with this paper's CMS data.

Double-parton scattering contribution to production of jet pairs with large rapidity separation at the LHC (2014) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

63 arXiv papers cite this in 97 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 52 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 5 papers

Jets are reconstructed using a particle-flow algorithm [ref] , which uses the information from all CMS sub-detectors to reconstruct different types of particles produced in the event.

Inclusive b-jet production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV · Event selection · 0.98
The correction factors have also been cross-checked by inverting the response matrix obtained from the MC information, albeit with limited statistics, through the application of different unfolding algorithms [ref] . * (ii) The measured jet $$ spectrum is fitted to some parameterised function $f()$ [ref] , the result of which can be smeared using the known (Gaussian) jet resolutions [ref] .

Measurement of the inclusive production cross sections for forward jets and for dijet events with one forward and one central jet in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Jet energy corrections · 0.98
This search exploits techniques developed for the measurement of the differential jet production cross section as a function of at the CMS [ref] experiment to search for a modification of the jet-spectrum consistent with extinction phenomena, in which there are fewer high-jets than expected from the SM.

Search for jet extinction in the inclusive jet-pt spectrum from proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Introduction · 0.99

Uses its data or values 11 papers

* CMS Collaboration (2011) $L_int=34$pb$^-1$ [ref] Measurement of $d^2σ/dp_T dy$ for $18<p_T<1100$GeV in six rapidity regions $|y|<3.0$ using the anti-$k_T$ jet algorithm with $R=0.5$ in the $E$-scheme.

Theory-Data Comparisons for Jet Measurements in Hadron-Induced Processes · Data Sets · 0.97
From the 2010 $36 pb^-1$ data set inclusive jet and dijet production have been measured by CMS [ref] and ATLAS [ref] , however only ATLAS give the full experimental covariance matrix.

Parton distribution functions with QED corrections · Experimental data · 1.00
* 540, 546, and 630at the collider by the UA1 [ref] and UA2 experiments [ref] , * 546, 630, 1.8, and 1.96at the collider by the CDF [ref] and D0 experiments [ref] , * 300and 320at the collider by the H1 [ref] and ZEUS experiments [ref] , * 200in collisions at by the STAR experiment [ref] , * and of 2.76, 7, 8, and 13in collisions at the by the ALICE [ref] , ATLAS [ref] , and CMS experiments [ref] .

Determination of the strong coupling constant from inclusive jet cross section data from multiple experiments · Experimental data · 0.93

Compares with it 10 papers

The measurements are compared to the prediction divided by the FastNLO prediction of the inclusive jet cross section [ref] .

Inclusive b-jet production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV · Jet analysis · 0.84
=5000 In Fig. [ref] predictions using , , and , and CUETHppS1 are compared to inclusive jet cross section at $√(s)=7$ [ref] in several rapidity ranges.

Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements · Comparisons with inclusive jet production · 0.95
In Fig. [ref] we compare our calculation with the CMS data [ref] .

Double-parton scattering contribution to production of jet pairs with large rapidity separation at the LHC · Numerical Results · 0.97

Cites it as background 13 papers

QCD phenomenology and in particular jet physics are playing a central role in the physics programme of the first period of the LHC running [ref] .

The dijet cross section with a jet veto · Introduction · 0.96
Measurements were also carried out recently at the CERN LHC at higher energies ($√(s)$ = 2.76, 7 and 8 TeV) in proton-proton (pp) collisions [ref] .

Charged jet cross sections and properties in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV · Introduction · 0.97
The subject of this paper concerns two different, common uses of shower Monte Carlo generators: one in which they are combined with hard scattering matrix elements via a matching scheme, e.g. at the next-to-leading order (NLO) [ref] in perturbative QCD; another in which they are used to obtain corrections to perturbative calculations due to hadronization, showering and multiple parton interactions (see e.g. [ref] ), with such correction factors then being applied to determine realistic predictions, which can be compared with experimental data.

Longitudinal momentum shifts, showering and nonperturbative corrections in matched NLO-shower event generators · Introduction · 0.91

What it cites · 7 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 13 papers

The next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD theoretical predictions are derived using 2.0.1 [ref] within the framework of fastNLO 1.4 [ref] .

Next-to-leading order calculation of three-jet observables in hadron-hadron collision · Introduction · 1.00
The next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD theoretical predictions are derived using 2.0.1 [ref] within the framework of fastNLO 1.4 [ref] .

Three-jet cross sections in hadron-hadron collisions at next-to-leading order · Introduction · 1.00
The next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD theoretical predictions are derived using 2.0.1 [ref] within the framework of fastNLO 1.4 [ref] .

fastNLO: Fast pQCD Calculations for PDF Fits · Introduction · 1.00

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

UA2 Collaboration, “Observation of Very Large Transverse Momentum Jets at the CERN ¯pp Collider”, Phys. Lett. B 118 (1982) 203. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90629-3

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90629-3 1982

[2] [2]

UA1 Collaboration, “Hadronic Jet Production at the CERN Proton-Antiproton Collider”, Phys. Lett. B 132 (1983) 214. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90254-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90254-x 1983

[3] [3]

CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section at the Fermilab Tevatron p ¯p Collider Using a Cone-Based Jet Algorithm”, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 052006, arXiv:0807.2204. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.052006

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[4] [4]

D0 Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section in p ¯p Collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 062001, arXiv:0802.2400. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.062001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[5] [5]

CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section using the kT algorithm in pp Collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV with the CDF II Detector”, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 092006, arXiv:hep-ex/0701051. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.092006

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[6] [6]

ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of Inclusive Jet and Dijet Cross Sections in Proton-proton Collisions at 7 TeV Centre-of-mass Energy with the ATLAS Detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1512, arXiv:1009.5908. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1512-2

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[7] [7]

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 03 (2008) S08004. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

[8] [8]

M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The Anti-kT Jet Clustering Algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[9] [9]

M. Cacciari and G. P . Salam, “Dispelling the N3 myth for the kT jet-ﬁnder”, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210v2. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[10] [10]

CMS Collaboration, “Commissioning of the Particle-Flow Reconstruction in Minimum-Bias and Jet Events from pp Collisions at 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-10-002(2010)

View on Pith 2010

[11] [11]

CMS Collaboration, “Jet Energy Resolution in CMS at √s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-014 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[12] [12]

CMS Collaboration, “Determination of the Jet Energy Scale in CMS with pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-010 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[13] [13]

S. Agostinelli et al., “Geant 4 – A Simulation Toolkit”, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

[14] [14]

M. Cacciari and G. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, arXiv:0707.1378. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[15] [15]

CMS Collaboration, “Jets in 0.9 and 2.36 TeV pp Collisions”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-001 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[16] [16]

CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the Inclusive Jet Cross Section in p ¯p Collisions at√s = 1.8 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 032001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.032001. 8

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.032001 2001

[17] [17]

CMS Collaboration, “Electromagnetic calorimeter calibration with 7 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-003 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[18] [18]

CMS Collaboration, “Absolute luminosity normalization”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2011-002 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[19] [19]

Z. Nagy, “Three-jet Cross Sections in Hadron Hadron Collisions at Next-to-leading Order”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 122003, arXiv:hep-ph/0110315. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.122003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[20] [20]

Z. Nagy, “Next-to-leading Order Calculation of Three-jet Observables in Hadron-hadron Collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 094002, arXiv:hep-ph/0307268. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.094002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[21] [21]

T. Kluge, K. Rabbertz, and M. Wobisch, “Fast pQCD Calculations for PDF Fits”, in 14th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS 2006), 20-24 Apr 2006 , p. 483. Tsukuba, Japan, 2006. arXiv:hep-ph/0609285

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[22] [22]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”, JHEP 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[23] [23]

M. Bahr et al., “Herwig++ Physics and Manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639, arXiv:0803.0883. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[24] [24]

A. Banﬁ, G. P . Salam, and G. Zanderighi, “Phenomenology of Event Shapes at Hadron Colliders”, JHEP 06 (2010) 038, arXiv:1001.4082. doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)038

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[25] [25]

S. Alekhin et al., “The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Report”, (2011). arXiv:1101.0536

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[26] [26]

H.-L. Lai et al., “New Parton Distributions for Collider Physics”, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024, arXiv:1007.2241. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[27] [27]

A. D. Martin et al., “Parton Distributions for the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 189, arXiv:0901.0002. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1072-5

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[28] [28]

R. D. Ball et al., “A First Unbiased Global NLO Determination of Parton Distribution and their Uncertainties”, Nucl. Phys. B 838 (2010) 136, arXiv:1002.4407. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.05.008. 9 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia S. Chatrchyan, V . Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010