What can we learn from the Parton Branching method in QCD?

S. Taheri Monfared

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 21 references

What can we learn from the Parton Branching method in QCD?

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Sudakov form factor of Parton Branching matches the Collins-Soper-Sterman result exactly, for both perturbative and non-perturbative parts, and the accuracy reaches NNLL once the A_a^(3) coefficient is included.

desk verdict A readable proceedings review of the PB method, but the headline claims—NNLL accuracy, exact PB-CSS correspondence, and a parameter-free Pdf2Isr shower—are asserted on citations rather than demonstrated here. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14037 v1 pith:T6PC4COR submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph

S. Taheri Monfared This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords PartonBranchingmethodTMDdistributionsSudakovformfactorCollins-Soper-StermanformalismsoftgluonemissionsintrinsictransversemomentumDrell-YanspectraMonteCarloeventgenerators

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review argues that the Parton Branching (PB) method, a Monte Carlo framework for evolving parton densities with transverse momentum, has reached a point where its resummation content can be stated precisely. The paper's central claim is that the PB Sudakov form factor coincides exactly with the Collins-Soper-Sterman (CSS) Sudakov form factor, both in its perturbative and non-perturbative parts, once soft emissions are regulated through the $z_M$ parameter and the third-order coefficient $A_a^{(3)}$ is incorporated via the physical soft gluon coupling. A second claim is that a new backward-evolution algorithm, Pdf2Isr, produces an initial-state shower that is in principle free of adjustable parameters and exactly reproduces collinear parton densities at LO and NLO. The review also explains the energy dependence of the intrinsic transverse momentum width observed in event generators as an artefact of mishandled soft emissions. A reader would care because these results tie a practical Monte Carlo tool to the established CSS resummation formalism and open the way to parameter-free showering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PB Sudakov form factor, split by the dynamical scale $z_{\rm dyn}=1-q_0/\mu'$, where $q_0$ is the minimal resolved emitted transverse momentum and $z_M$ sets the upper limit of the soft-gluon $z$-integral. This split separates the form factor into a perturbative piece $\Delta^{(P)}$ and a non-perturbative piece $\Delta^{(NP)}$, and it is what makes the dictionary to CSS visible and what lets the physical soft gluon coupling bring in $A_a^{(3)}$ for NNLL accuracy. The second mechanism is the treatment of unresolved soft emissions through $z_M$, which controls the non-perturbative Sudakov form factor and hence the extracted intrinsic-$k_T$. The third is the Pdf2Isr backward-evolution procedure, which derives each backward splitting from the forward evolution equation so the two directions agree exactly.

What would settle it

Vary $q_0$ over a wide range, from much smaller than 0.01 GeV to several GeV, in a fixed NNLL PB model and extract the Collins-Soper kernel at each value; if the extracted kernel changes substantially or ceases to match the CSS kernel, the claimed exact correspondence is model-dependent rather than universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery presented here is that the PB Sudakov form factor, written as a product of a perturbative exponential and a non-perturbative exponential by splitting the soft-gluon integral at $z_{\rm dyn}=1-q_0/\mu'$, is the same object as the CSS Sudakov form factor in different notation. The perturbative factor reproduces the CSS perturbative exponent, and the non-perturbative factor corresponds to the non-perturbative part of the Collins-Soper kernel. Adding the $A_a^{(3)}$ coefficient through the physical soft gluon coupling raises the PB accuracy to NNLL. The paper further claims that the intrinsic-$k_T$ width's $\sqrt{s}$ dependence seen in event generators disappears once soft emissions are treated through a small $q_0$ (large $z_M$), and that this dependence is an artifact of letting the width compensate for missing no-emission probability. Finally, the Pdf2Isr method constructs the backward evolution from the forward evolution equation itself, making the shower and the collinear parton densities mutually consistent at LO and NLO.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of an exact PB-CSS correspondence rests on treating $q_0$ (equivalently $z_M=1-q_0/\mu'$) as a physical resolution scale for soft emissions, so the split between perturbative and non-perturbative Sudakov pieces is not merely a numerical choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

PB-based TMD distributions inherit the all-order resummation structure of CSS, so Drell-Yan transverse momentum spectra can be generated in a Monte Carlo at NNLL accuracy without a separate analytic matching.
The non-perturbative part of the Collins-Soper kernel becomes extractable from PB models, giving a concrete target for comparing non-perturbative Sudakov physics across models.
The intrinsic-$k_T$ width extracted from data is stable with collision energy once soft emissions are treated through a small $q_0$, reconciling the conflicting energy dependences reported by different event generators.
The Pdf2Isr method yields initial-state showers with no adjustable parameters that reproduce the input collinear PDFs exactly, enabling consistent LO and NLO parton-shower matching.
Including photon and heavy electroweak bosons in the PB evolution supplies TMD densities for Z and W bosons alongside QCD partons, extending the framework to unified QCD-EW showering.

Reading between the lines

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

If the exact PB-CSS correspondence holds, PB TMDs can serve as a Monte Carlo implementation of CSS resummation, so any observable that CSS resumms can in principle be generated with a shower and matching to fixed order, a step the paper does not spell out.
The $z_M/q_0$ resolution-scale picture suggests a physical interpretation of the non-perturbative Sudakov as the unresolved soft-gluon cloud of the incoming hadron; connecting this to confinement models is an extension beyond the paper.
The Pdf2Isr consistency principle, applied to TMD densities instead of collinear PDFs, would give a parameter-free TMD shower; the paper only demonstrates collinear consistency.
A testable extension: compare the CS kernel extracted from PB with the CS kernel extracted from lattice QCD or from global TMD fits at the same impact parameter; agreement would corroborate the universality of the non-perturbative kernel, while disagreement would bound the modeling assumptions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

This is a proceedings write-up from the Parton Branching collaboration, so manage expectations: it's a review, not a new result. The one genuinely new item is a short summary of Pdf2Isr (Ref. 22, unpublished), which is too sparse to evaluate.

What the paper does well is organise recent PB developments into a readable summary: heavy-boson TMDs, the zM/q0 treatment of soft emissions, and the intrinsic-kT studies. The comparison of PYTHIA and CASCADE3 on the sqrt(s) dependence of the intrinsic-kT width is a nice piece of phenomenology, and the paper is honest that the extracted CS kernels depend on the choice of radiation model and zM. That honesty is a real strength.

The soft spots are in the load-bearing claims. Section 3 asserts an 'exact' PB-CSS correspondence and NNLL accuracy for the PB Sudakov by including A_a^(3) via the physical soft gluon coupling. The stress-test note is right: in standard CSS, NNLL needs B_a^(2) as well as A_a^(3), and this text gives no derivation or statement of how the physical coupling fixes B. Eq. (3) is introduced with an approximate sign and later called exact. Maybe the full derivation is in Ref. 12, but this paper doesn't show it. Since that is the central advertised upgrade, it is a genuine gap for anyone reading only this review. Also, the paper leans heavily on the author's own previous work; that is normal for a review, but it means the 'parameter-free' Pdf2Isr claim is uncheckable here—it's a promise, not a result.

That said, the underlying program is credible: the PB TMDs have been compared with independent data (CMS, CDF, PHENIX, E605), and the explicit dependence on q0 is discussed rather than hidden.

For a specialist in TMD phenomenology or MC event generators, this is a useful orientation to the PB method. For a general hep-ph reader, it is less essential. I would not cite it as a primary source, though I might bring it to a reading group that follows TMD evolution. As a proceedings article, it is borderline for formal peer review, but the claims are too strong to ignore and a referee could usefully push for the derivation or a caveat. I would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject, if the venue offers that.

Best.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is a conference proceedings review of recent developments in the Parton Branching (PB) method for TMD parton distributions and their implementation in Monte Carlo generators. It summarizes work on extending the evolution equations to photon and heavy electroweak boson radiation (Section 2), claims an exact correspondence between PB and Collins-Soper-Sterman (CSS) Sudakov form factors and an increase of the PB accuracy to NNLL (Section 3), discusses the role of soft emissions and the parameters zM and q0 in determining intrinsic-kT (Section 4), and describes a proposed Pdf2Isr method for constructing initial-state showers consistent with collinear PDFs (Section 5). The paper is based almost entirely on the author's prior publications, with several figures reproduced from those works.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the PB framework would provide TMDs that match CSS at NNLL accuracy and an initial-state shower that is parameter-free and consistent with collinear PDFs at LO and NLO. This would be a valuable practical unification of TMD factorization and parton-shower Monte Carlo methods. The paper is a compact, readable summary of a substantial research program, and the comparison of PB-extracted Collins-Soper kernels with lattice and phenomenological determinations is a useful synthesis. However, the most important claims are asserted on the authority of previous papers rather than demonstrated here, so the reader cannot verify them from this manuscript alone. The strength of the paper is its overview; the weakness is that the load-bearing technical content is outsourced to references, several of which are unpublished or in preparation.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eq. (3)] The claim that the PB Sudakov form factor reaches NNLL accuracy and has an exact correspondence with the CSS Sudakov form factor is not supported by the material presented in this paper. In the standard CSS framework (Ref. 15), NNLL accuracy requires the coefficient B_a^(2) in addition to A_a^(3); the paper only states that A_a^(3) is included 'via the physical soft gluon coupling' and gives no derivation of how this determines the B coefficient. The equation shown, Eq. (3), contains an approximate sign in Eq. (2) and then is later described as exact, which is confusing. I request that the derivation or a precise statement of the relation between the PB and CSS coefficients be provided or that the claim be explicitly labelled as a result from Ref. 12 rather than a self-contained demonstration.
[Section 3, Fig. 2] Figure 2 shows that the extracted Collins-Soper kernels depend strongly on the model parameters zM and q0, with different PB models giving 'significantly different shapes' of the CS kernel. This dependence is in tension with the assertion of an 'exact correspondence' between PB and CSS Sudakov factors, since an exact relation should not require model-dependent choices to reproduce a universal kernel. The paper should explain whether the extracted kernel is supposed to be universal or whether the differences reflect genuine non-universal non-perturbative contributions. Without such an explanation, the claim of exactness appears to be an artefact of parameter choices rather than a structural identity.
[Section 5] The Pdf2Isr method is introduced only by reference to Ref. 22, which is listed as 'to be published soon'. The claim that it produces a parton shower that is 'free of adjustable parameters and fully consistent with collinear parton densities at both LO and NLO' is a central advertised result, but no equation, algorithm, or validation is given here. For a review paper, it is acceptable to cite published work, but citing an unpublished manuscript for the main technical advance leaves the reader unable to judge the claim. I recommend that either the relevant details be summarized or the claim be clearly marked as work in progress with appropriate caveats.
[Section 4] The paper's argument that the intrinsic-kT width has only a mild sqrt(s) dependence relies on the choice q0 < 0.01 GeV in the 'original PB set', while varying q0 to 1 or 2 GeV produces a strong dependence. The parameter q0 is described as 'the minimal resolved emitted transverse momentum' but no physical principle is given that fixes its value to be below 0.01 GeV. Since the entire discussion of the energy dependence of intrinsic-kT hinges on this choice, the paper should provide a more substantial justification for why this value is not merely a numerical regulator but has dynamical significance.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract/Introduction] There are typos in the opening paragraph: 'developements' should be 'developments' and 'lessens' should be 'lessons'.
[Section 3] The notation for the Sudakov form factor is inconsistent: Eq. (2) uses Delta_a(mu^2, mu0^2) while Eq. (1) uses Delta_S_a(zM, mu^2). Please clarify the relationship between these definitions.
[Section 4, caption of Fig. 3] The caption 'The width parameter qs of the intrinsic-kT distribution as a function of sqrt(s)' uses 'qs' while the text refers to 'sigma' or 'width sigma' in the same section; please unify the notation.
[References] Ref. 1 and Ref. 9 appear to refer to the same arXiv posting (2405.20185), but are listed as separate entries with different titles; please merge or correct. Ref. 22 is given as 'to be published soon' without a preprint number, which makes it difficult to verify the cited results.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

NNLL and Pdf2Isr headline claims rest on the author's own prior work; lower-level PB results are cross-checked against external data.

self citation load bearing [Section 3, paragraph following Eq. (3)]
"This separation allowed to illustrate an exact correspondence between the PB and Collins-Soper-Sterman (CSS) Sudakov form factors (available in different notation), 14, 15 for both perturbative and non-perturbative components. The accuracy of the PB Sudakov form factor was increased up to NNLL by including A(3) a coefficient via the physical soft gluon coupling."

The section begins: 'In this section, I summarized the results obtained in Ref. 12, 13.' Ref. 12 is co-authored by the present author, so the central NNLL/exact-correspondence claim is imported from the author's own prior work rather than derived in this paper. Eq. (3) merely splits the PB Sudakov into two exponentials at zdyn = 1 - q0/mu'; it contains no B_a^(2) term, which the cited CSS formalism (Ref. 15) requires at NNLL. Thus the 'prediction' of NNLL accuracy is not justified by the equations shown and rests on a self-citation that is not verified in this text.
self citation load bearing [Section 5, paragraph introducing Pdf2Isr]
"In that work, we introduced a method for constructing an initial-state parton shower model in which the backward evolution is fully consistent with the forward evolution of the collinear parton density. ... The Pdf2Isr method produces an initial-state parton shower that, in principle, is free of adjustable parameters and fully consistent with collinear parton densities at both LO and NLO."

The 'fully consistent' claim is already present in the definition of the construction, and the only cited support is Ref. 22, an unpublished paper (H. Jung, L. Lonnblad, M. Mendizabal Morentin, S. Taheri Monfared) that includes the present author. No algorithm, proof, or benchmark is given in this text to make 'free of adjustable parameters' an independent result, so the headline property is asserted via a self-citation rather than demonstrated.

full rationale

The paper is a proceedings review that summarizes a chain of the author's own papers, so self-citation is expected. The central NNLL/exact-correspondence claim and the Pdf2Isr claim are not derived from equations in this text and are justified by Refs. 12 and 22, both with overlapping authorship; this is load-bearing self-citation. However, the paper also contains genuine external anchors: the CS-kernel extractions are compared with LPC22, MAP22, SV19 and other literature values (Fig. 2), and the intrinsic-kT studies are checked against CMS, CDF, PHENIX and E605 data (Figs. 3-4). Those comparisons give the PB results independent empirical content. No in-text equation reduces a fitted parameter to a prediction by construction, and the model-parameter scans in Section 4 are honest sensitivity studies rather than renamed fits. On balance the central claims are not shown to be equivalent to their inputs, but two headline claims reduce to the author's own prior work, warranting a moderate score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims of this review rest on several modeling assumptions and on free parameters (zM, q0, intrinsic-kT width, alpha_s scale) that were fitted or chosen in the underlying PB papers. No new physical entities are introduced. The paper itself is a summary, so the ledger reflects the assumptions needed to justify the summarized results.

free parameters (4)

zM = 1 - 1e-5 (default); also zM = 1 - q0/mu' variants
Upper limit of the z-integral in the PB evolution equation (Eq. 1). Controls the soft-emission region and separates perturbative and non-perturbative Sudakov parts in Eq. (3). Chosen by hand in the models; not predicted from theory.
q0 = <0.01 GeV (default); varied to 1 and 2 GeV
Minimal resolved emitted transverse momentum defining zdyn = 1 - q0/mu' in Eq. (3). Treated as a free parameter; Section 4 shows changing q0 changes the extracted intrinsic-kT width.
Intrinsic-kT Gaussian width sigma (qs) = Approximately 0.5 to 2 GeV depending on sqrt(s) and tune (Figs. 3-4)
Width of the non-perturbative Gaussian factor e^{-kT^2/sigma^2} multiplied by the starting-scale PDF; fitted to Drell-Yan pT(ll) spectra in Ref. 17.
Scale of alpha_s in physical soft gluon coupling = Not specified in this review; five NNLL models differ in this scale
Five NNLL models in Fig. 2 differ in the scale entering alpha_s and zM; the resulting CS kernel shapes depend on these choices.

assumptions (4)

standard math DGLAP evolution equations and collinear factorization provide the starting point for the PB evolution equations.
Assumed throughout, e.g., Eq. (1) in Section 2.
domain assumption The plus-prescription in DGLAP can be replaced by a Sudakov form factor with a zM cutoff, approaching standard DGLAP as zM -> 1.
Section 2 states this reformulation, citing Refs. 10 and 11.
domain assumption Angular ordering motivates the dynamical scale zdyn = 1 - q0/mu', separating perturbative from non-perturbative emissions.
Used in Section 3, Eq. (3) to split the Sudakov form factor into perturbative and non-perturbative pieces; the physical status of q0 as a cutoff rather than a fitted parameter is assumed.
domain assumption Non-perturbative intrinsic transverse momentum is Gaussian with a single width parameter sigma.
Used in Section 4 as the model for intrinsic-kT; the review acknowledges this is a simplification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What can we learn from the Parton Branching method in QCD?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6PC4COR

@misc{pith2026241214037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What can we learn from the Parton Branching method in QCD?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6PC4COR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14037}
}

abstract

This work reviews recent developments in the Parton Branching (PB) method, focusing on its application to Transverse Momentum Dependent (TMD) parton distributions and the implementation of TMD evolution equations in Monte Carlo generators. Key advancements include the inclusion of photon and heavy electroweak boson radiation in the evolution equations and their impact on collinear and TMD distributions. A detailed comparison of PB and Collins-Soper-Sterman formalisms highlights improvements in the accuracy of PB Sudakov form factors. The role of soft gluons, intrinsic transverse momentum, and the $z_M$ parameter in modelling non-perturbative effects is emphasized, with implications for inclusive distributions and Drell-Yan transverse momentum spectra. This review also addresses challenges in achieving consistency between forward and backward evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14037 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The collinear and TMD vector boson densities at µ = 100 GeV as a function of x and kT respectively (Plots taken from Ref. 1 ). tions, using momentum sumrule. ∆a(µ 2 , µ2 0 ) ≈ exp − Z µ 2 µ2 0 dµ ′2 µ′2 Z zM 0 ka(αs) 1 1 − z dz − da(αs) ! . (2) Then they can be split into two parts by introducing an intermediate dynamical scale, zdyn = 1 − q0/µ′ , motivated by angular ordering defition ∆a (µ 2 , µ2 0 ) = exp − Z µ… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** CS kernels obtained from different PB models and several example extractions from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The width parameter qs of the intrinsic-kT distribution as a function of √ s (Plot taken from Ref.18). CASCADE3 study In Ref.18, we varied q0 in our TMDs to produce predictions for different q0 values. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Dependence of the intrinsic-kT width, σ, on the ISR cut-off parameter, pT0Ref (Plot taken from Ref.19). 5. PYTHIA modification In this section, we present a summary of the results from Ref. 22. In that work, we introduced a method for constructing an initial-state part…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[2]

The CCFM uPDF evolution uPDFevolv

F. Hautmann, H. Jung and S. T. Monfared, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014), 3082 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3082-1 [arXiv:1407.5935 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[3]

Alekhin, O

S. Alekhin, O. Behnke, P. Belov, S. Borroni, M. Botje, D. Britzger, S. Camarda, A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, K. Daum and C. Diaconu, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no.7, 304 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3480-z [arXiv:1410.4412 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2015
[4]

Abdolmaleki et al

H. Abdolmaleki et al. [xFitter], [arXiv:2206.12465 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[5]

Baranov et al

S. Baranov et al. [CASCADE], Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.5, 425 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09203-8 [arXiv:2101.10221 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Jung et al

H. Jung et al. [CASCADE], Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010), 1237-1249 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1507-z [arXiv:1008.0152 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2010
[7]

Bermudez Martinez, P

A. Bermudez Martinez, P. Connor, H. Jung, A. Lelek, R. ˇZlebˇ c ´ ık, F. Hautmann and V. Radescu, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.7, 074008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074008 [arXiv:1804.11152 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2019
[8]

Bermudez Martinez, P

A. Bermudez Martinez, P. Connor, D. Dominguez Damiani, L. I. Estevez Banos, F. Hautmann, H. Jung, J. Lidrych, M. Schmitz, S. Taheri Monfared and Q. Wang, et al. Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.7, 074027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.074027 [arXiv:1906.00919 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2019
[9]

The Parton Branching evolution package uPDFevolv2

H. Jung, K. M. Figueroa and S. Taheri Monfared, et al, “Determination and validation of Photon and Heavy Boson Densities,” [arXiv:2405.20185 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 21 references

[10]

Hautmann, H

F. Hautmann, H. Jung, A. Lelek, V. Radescu and R. Zlebcik, Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017), 446-451 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.07.005 [arXiv:1704.01757 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[11]

Hautmann, H

F. Hautmann, H. Jung, A. Lelek, V. Radescu and R. Zlebcik, JHEP 01 (2018), 070 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)070 [arXiv:1708.03279 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[12]

A. B. Martinez, F. Hautmann, L. Keersmaekers, A. Lelek, M. Mendizabal Morentin, S. T. Monfared and A. M. van Kampen, PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024), 270 doi:10.22323/1.449.0270

2024 doi
[13]

Lelek, [arXiv:2412.09108 [hep-ph]]

A. Lelek, [arXiv:2412.09108 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[14]

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 250 (1985), 199-224 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90479-1

1985 doi
[15]

Collins, Camb

J. Collins, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 32 (2011), 1-624 Cam- bridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1-009-40184-5, 978-1-009-40183-8, 978-1-009- 40182-1 doi:10.1017/9781009401845

2011 doi
[16]

Mendizabal, F

M. Mendizabal, F. Guzman, H. Jung and S. Taheri Monfared, [arXiv:2309.11802 [hep- ph]]

arXiv
[17]

Bubanja, A

I. Bubanja, A. Bermudez Martinez, L. Favart, F. Guzman, F. Hautmann, H. Jung, A. Lelek, M. Mendizabal, K. M. Figueroa and L. Moureaux, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.2, 154 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12507-0 [arXiv:2312.08655 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Bubanja, H

I. Bubanja, H. Jung, A. Lelek, N. Raicevic and S. Taheri Monfared, [arXiv:2404.04088 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[19]

Bubanja, H

I. Bubanja, H. Jung, N. Raicevic and S. Taheri Monfared, [arXiv:2412.05221 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[20]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.7, 628 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11631-7 [arXiv:2205.04897 [hep-ex]]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Hayrapetyan et al

A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], [arXiv:2409.17770 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[22]

A parton shower consistent with parton densities at LO and NLO: PDF2ISR

H. Jung, L. L¨ onnblad, M. Mendizabal Morentin S. Taheri Monfared, “A parton shower consistent with parton densities at LO and NLO: PDF2ISR”, to be published soon

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

The CCFM uPDF evolution uPDFevolv

F. Hautmann, H. Jung and S. T. Monfared, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014), 3082 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3082-1 [arXiv:1407.5935 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[2] [3]

Alekhin, O

S. Alekhin, O. Behnke, P. Belov, S. Borroni, M. Botje, D. Britzger, S. Camarda, A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, K. Daum and C. Diaconu, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no.7, 304 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3480-z [arXiv:1410.4412 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2015

[3] [4]

Abdolmaleki et al

H. Abdolmaleki et al. [xFitter], [arXiv:2206.12465 [hep-ph]]

arXiv

[4] [5]

Baranov et al

S. Baranov et al. [CASCADE], Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.5, 425 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09203-8 [arXiv:2101.10221 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021

[5] [6]

Jung et al

H. Jung et al. [CASCADE], Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010), 1237-1249 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1507-z [arXiv:1008.0152 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2010

[6] [7]

Bermudez Martinez, P

A. Bermudez Martinez, P. Connor, H. Jung, A. Lelek, R. ˇZlebˇ c ´ ık, F. Hautmann and V. Radescu, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.7, 074008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074008 [arXiv:1804.11152 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2019

[7] [8]

Bermudez Martinez, P

A. Bermudez Martinez, P. Connor, D. Dominguez Damiani, L. I. Estevez Banos, F. Hautmann, H. Jung, J. Lidrych, M. Schmitz, S. Taheri Monfared and Q. Wang, et al. Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.7, 074027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.074027 [arXiv:1906.00919 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2019

[8] [9]

The Parton Branching evolution package uPDFevolv2

H. Jung, K. M. Figueroa and S. Taheri Monfared, et al, “Determination and validation of Photon and Heavy Boson Densities,” [arXiv:2405.20185 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv