Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Exploring small-angle emissions in charm quark jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that the small-angle suppression in the splitting-angle distribution of charm-tagged jets selected by late-kT grooming is consistent with the QCD dead-cone effect, while the analogous suppression in soft-drop-selected…

desk verdict A solid first measurement of late-kT grooming on charm-tagged jets at 100 GeV, with a sound correction chain; the dead-cone vs. gluon-splitting interpretation is honestly hedged but rests on Monte Carlo assumptions that the data do not directly test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13469 v2 pith:4LN2MW5N submitted 2025-07-17 nucl-ex hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification nucl-exhep-ex
keywords charmquarkjetsjetsubstructuredeadconeeffectgluonsplittingtolate-kTgroomingsoftdropLundplaneproton-protoncollisionsat5.02TeV
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

Using 301 pb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV, the authors measure how the radiation inside high-momentum jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$ 100–120 GeV) is distributed in opening angle, comparing jets that contain a promptly produced $D^0$ meson (charm-tagged) with inclusive jets. Two grooming algorithms select different emissions: late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ picks the last hard-collinear splitting in the Cambridge–Aachen tree, while a modified soft-drop picks the first splitting passing a momentum-fraction and $k_{\mathrm{T}}$ cut. In both cases the charm-tagged jets show a shift toward larger splitting angles relative to inclusive jets. The late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ suppression at small angles matches what the charm quark mass (the 'dead cone') would cause, whereas the soft-drop suppression appears instead to be induced by gluon splitting into charm quark-antiquark pairs at large angles. This is the first application of late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ grooming to experimental data, and the corrected distributions provide a new constraint for parton-shower models of charm jets at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ grooming algorithm applied to the Cambridge–Aachen declustering tree, together with the Lund jet plane representation of each splitting in terms of its angle $\theta$ and relative transverse momentum $k_{\mathrm{T}}$. Late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ selects the last splitting in the tree with $k_{\mathrm{T}} > 1$ GeV, isolating hard, collinear emissions where the dead-cone suppression ($\theta < m_Q/E_Q$, with $m_Q$ the heavy quark mass and $E_Q$ its energy) is strongest; the modified soft-drop algorithm selects the first splitting satisfying $z > z_{\mathrm{cut}}\theta^{\beta}$ and $k_{\mathrm{T}} > 1$ GeV, accessing larger angles where gluon splitting to $c\bar{c}$ pairs dominates. Comparing the two selections in data for $D^0$ jets versus inclusive jets is what separates the mass effect from the $g\to c\bar{c}$ contamination.

What would settle it

A measurement of the late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ splitting-angle distribution in bottom-quark jets, where the dead-cone angle $\theta_d = m_Q/E_Q$ is about three times larger than for charm, that fails to show a correspondingly larger shift relative to inclusive jets would falsify the dead-cone interpretation; alternatively, a parton-level calculation that reproduces the measured late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ suppression without any quark-mass term would also falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the angular structure of charm quark jets, isolated by requiring a prompt $D^0$ meson, carries a measurable imprint of the charm quark mass, and that this imprint is observable at jet transverse momenta around 100–120 GeV even though the jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ is far above the charm mass. Using iterative Cambridge–Aachen declustering, the late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ grooming algorithm selects the last splitting with $k_{\mathrm{T}} > 1$ GeV, which lies in the hard, collinear region of the Lund jet plane where the dead-cone effect (suppression of gluon emission at angles below $m_Q/E_Q$) is most visible. The measured $D^0$-jet splitting-angle distribution, normalized to inclusive jets, is shifted toward larger angles compared with an inclusive-jet baseline, and the shift is consistent with the dead-cone effect when compared with light-jet simulations that have no such cone. For soft-drop groomed splittings, which sit at larger angles, the same observed shift is instead consistent with being driven by gluon splitting into charm quark-antiquark pairs, which contributes at large angles. Thus, the paper argues that a single measurement, using two grooming algorithms, separates two physically distinct mechanisms that both produce small-angle suppression in charm-tagged jets.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of the late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ suppression as the dead cone and the soft-drop suppression as gluon splitting relies on the Monte Carlo generators correctly modeling the rate and angular distribution of gluon splitting into $c\bar{c}$ pairs and the light-jet baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ grooming is applied to experimental data for the first time, providing a new observable that isolates hard, collinear jet emissions.
  • The particle-level corrected splitting-angle distributions for $D^0$ jets and inclusive jets provide new constraints for tuning parton-shower Monte Carlo generators for charm jets at $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 100$ GeV.
  • The comparison shows that the soft-drop splitting-angle distribution alone would not be a clean dead-cone observable, because its small-angle suppression is dominated by $g\to c\bar{c}$ contamination rather than the charm mass.
  • The measurement extends charm jet substructure studies to higher jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ than previous measurements, where perturbative QCD interpretations are more direct, and serves as a reference for future heavy-ion measurements of medium-induced radiation in the dead-cone region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's interpretation implies a quantitative test: measuring the same late-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution in bottom-quark jets should show a larger angular shift, since the dead-cone angle scales with quark mass; a null result would challenge the mass interpretation.
  • The soft-drop attribution to gluon splitting suggests that tagging events with a second charm hadron in the jet could isolate the $g\to c\bar{c}$ component; the paper predicts such events would show no small-angle suppression relative to inclusive jets.
  • The model dependence of the $g\to c\bar{c}$ rate could be probed by varying the charm production scheme in the generators or by comparison with next-to-leading-order calculations, so the paper's quantitative split between the two mechanisms is best viewed as a first estimate.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a CMS measurement of groomed splitting-angle distributions for inclusive jets and jets containing a prompt D0 meson in pp collisions at 5.02 TeV with 301 pb^-1 of 2017 data. Jets with 100 < pT < 120 GeV and |eta| < 1.6, reconstructed with anti-kT R=0.2, are reclustered with the Cambridge-Aachen algorithm, and one splitting per jet is selected using two grooming algorithms: the new late-kT algorithm (last kT>1 GeV splitting) and a modified soft-drop algorithm (first z>0.1, beta=0, kT>1 GeV splitting). The D0-inclusive ratio of normalized splitting-angle distributions is unfolded to particle level using a detailed correction chain (purity, D'Agostini unfolding with early stopping, efficiency, D0 selection corrections, nonprompt-D0 subtraction) and compared to PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG7 CH3 predictions, including variants with gluon splitting to charm switched off. The central findings are that D0 jets exhibit a shift to larger splitting angles relative to inclusive jets, and that the small-angle suppression seen with late-kT grooming is attributed to the charm-quark dead-cone effect, while the similar suppression seen with soft-drop grooming is attributed mainly to g->cc production at large angles. The measurement is the first application of the late-kT grooming algorithm to experimental data and the first charm-jet substructure measurement at jet pT above 100 GeV.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides a new, high-pT reference measurement of charm-quark jet substructure that can discriminate among parton-shower models and serve as a baseline for heavy-ion studies. The paper's strengths are its detailed and internally consistent correction strategy: the use of an independent generator for closure tests (HERWIG7 corrected with PYTHIA8 response, Section 5), the sideband checks for D0-related kinematic biases (Section 4, Fig. 2), the nonprompt-D0 template subtraction validated with two DCA-based methods (Section 4), and a comprehensive systematic uncertainty evaluation with full correlation handling in the ratio (Section 6, Table 1). The comparison of the data with two generators, with and without g->cc, gives the measurement a clear interpretation framework. The main weakness is that the interpretation of the SD suppression as induced by g->cc rests on the generators' rate and angular distribution of gluon splitting to charm, which are not validated by the data themselves; this limits the strength of the physical conclusion, although the authors hedge with 'appears to be induced'.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, Fig. 7] The central attribution that the soft-drop small-angle suppression is induced by g->cc at large angles is derived by comparing the data with PYTHIA8 and HERWIG7 curves with and without gluon splitting to charm switched off. Because all prompt D0 mesons, including those from g->cc, are treated as signal, and because the g->cc origin is not tagged in data, this comparison validates only whether the generators' with/without-g->cc curves bracket the data, not whether the generators correctly model the rate or angular distribution of g->cc in the relevant kinematic region. A generator mis-modeling of the g->cc rate or of the momentum sharing of the charm pair (which is further filtered by the requirement that the D0 lie in the harder subjet, Section 4) would make the assignment of the SD suppression to g->cc, rather than to a mass effect with different normalization, incorrect. I recommend that the authors either temper the abstract and summary to present this as a model-dependent interpretation, or add a data-driven cross-check that is sensitive to the g->cc fraction, for example by studying the D0 momentum fraction or the distribution of the charmed pair's relative angle in the selected splittings.
  2. [Section 7, Figs. 6, 7 and Table 1] The paper states that there is a 'shift' of the D0-jet angular distribution relative to inclusive jets and a 'suppression of emissions at small angles', but it does not report a quantitative significance for these statements. Given that the D0-jet statistical uncertainties per bin range from about 6.5% to 20% (Table 1), and that the ratio points in Fig. 7 carry sizable statistical and systematic uncertainties, the existence of the suppression and the separation of the with/without-g->cc curves should be quantified, e.g., with a chi-square or p-value for the compatibility of the data ratio with unity, with the no-dead-cone baseline, and with the no-g->cc prediction. Without such a significance estimate, the headline claim of an observed suppression is not substantiated beyond a visual impression.
  3. [Section 5, 'Corrections to the particle level'] The unfolding regularization is set by stopping D'Agostini iterations at a plateau of the p-value of the forward-folded distribution (it is stated that for inclusive jets the optimal number is 14, while for D0 jets it is 3). A large number of iterations, here 14, can overfit the detector-level data and inject fluctuations into the unfolded distribution, despite the closure test shown in the section. The paper does not report how the result changes when the number of iterations is varied by +/-2 or when alternative regularization criteria are used beyond the HERWIG-based regularization bias. I suggest adding a brief demonstration that the unfolded central values and the ratio are stable under moderate changes in the iteration count, since the current regularization-bias uncertainty is derived only from one alternative stopping point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 2] The right panel of Fig. 2 is described in the text as showing a comparison of the ln(1/theta_l) distributions, but the text around the figure refers to the sideband check only qualitatively; for clarity, please state in the caption or text that the ratio is normalized to the number of jets satisfying the grooming criteria, as done for the main results.
  2. [Section 3, 'Event reconstruction'] The text states that the D0 pT threshold of 4 GeV is 'used to suppress the large combinatorial background in D0 reconstruction in the heavy ion environment' and 'does not introduce a bias' because the jet pT is much larger; it would be helpful to mention the typical D0 pT distribution for the selected jets, e.g., the median D0 pT, to make this assertion more transparent.
  3. [Section 7, first paragraph] The statement that 'HERWIG7 CH3 describes the data better than PYTHIA8 CP5' for inclusive jets is based on visual comparison in Fig. 5; adding a chi-square or Kolmogorov-Smirnov value for each generator would make this comparison quantitative and reproducible.
  4. [References] Reference [16] (CMS bottom-quark jet substructure) is listed as '2025. arXiv:2511.10666. Submitted to J. High Energy Phys.'; please update the reference with the final journal and DOI if it has appeared by the time of publication, or mark it as 'to appear' consistently with the handling of other submitted papers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the measurement is self-contained, and the physics interpretation is a model comparison rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental measurement, not a derivation. The corrected D0-jet and inclusive-jet splitting-angle distributions are obtained from data through standard unfolding in which a PYTHIA8-based response matrix is used; this is not circular because the observable is defined from the Cambridge-Aachen tree and the grooming criteria (Section 4), not from MC output. The response model is validated with an independent HERWIG7 closure test: detector-level HERWIG7 events corrected with the PYTHIA8 response agree with particle-level HERWIG7 (Section 5). The abstract's attribution of the small-angle suppression—dead-cone effect for late-kT and g->cc for soft drop—comes from comparing corrected data with PYTHIA8 and HERWIG7 predictions with and without gluon splitting to charm (Section 7, Figures 7 and 8). No parameter of this interpretation is fitted to the data, and the claims are explicitly hedged as 'consistent with' and 'appears to be induced'. The late-kT algorithm is adopted from Ref. [4], whose authors include one member of the CMS Collaboration, but the algorithm is defined in the text and its hadronization insensitivity is quantified in this paper, so this is not a load-bearing self-citation. Model dependence in the g->cc interpretation is a validation concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new fundamental entities and fits no free parameters to the result. The analysis constants, such as grooming thresholds, the D0 pT cutoff, and the jet radius, are fixed choices from prior work or operational needs. The main epistemic burden is carried by Monte Carlo modeling assumptions: PYTHIA8 and HERWIG7 describe charm fragmentation, g->cc, and hadronization well enough to unfold the data and to separate dead-cone from gluon-splitting effects. The paper provides sideband and closure tests for some assumptions, but not independent data-driven validation for the g->cc fraction.

free parameters (5)
  • SD grooming parameters z_cut and beta = z_cut=0.1, beta=0
    Chosen to match theoretical calculations and prior soft-drop usage; not fitted to the measured distributions.
  • kT threshold for late-kT and modified SD = 1 GeV
    Set to suppress hadronization effects per Ref. [4]; not fitted to data.
  • D0 pT threshold = 4 GeV
    Chosen for consistency with the heavy-ion baseline and to reduce combinatorial background; MC studies indicate no bias.
  • Jet radius R = 0.2
    Chosen as a small-R configuration for future heavy-ion reference; not fitted.
  • Number of D'Agostini unfolding iterations = 3 (D0 jets), 14 (inclusive jets)
    Selected by a chi2 plateau criterion in Section 5; a regularization parameter, not a physics constant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG7 CH3 provide a sufficiently accurate description of charm fragmentation, g->cc, and hadronization for unfolding and interpretation.
    Used throughout Sections 4-7; the physical separation of dead-cone and gluon-splitting contributions in Figs. 7-8 depends on this.
  • domain assumption Replacing D0 daughter tracks by the reconstructed D0 candidate before CA reclustering does not bias the splitting-angle distributions.
    Tested only with sideband D0 candidates in Fig. 2, right; Section 4.
  • domain assumption The D0 pT > 4 GeV selection does not bias jet substructure at pT around 100 GeV.
    Based on MC simulation studies; Section 3.
  • standard math The dead-cone angle theta_d = m_Q/E_Q and the Lund-plane decomposition of hadronization, g->cc, and dead-cone regions are valid.
    Standard QCD results from Refs. [2,3], used to interpret the late-kT and SD results; Section 1.
  • domain assumption Unfolding corrections derived from PYTHIA8 are unbiased for data, with HERWIG7 closure used as validation.
    Section 5 describes the HERWIG closure test; the regularization prior is MC-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring small-angle emissions in charm quark jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LN2MW5N

@misc{pith2026250713469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring small-angle emissions in charm quark jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts$ = 5.02 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LN2MW5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13469}
}
abstract

A measurement of the angular structure of inclusive jets and those containing a prompt D$^0$ meson in proton-proton collisions at the LHC at a center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV is presented. The data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 301 pb$^{-1}$ were collected by the CMS experiment in 2017. Two jet grooming algorithms, late-$k_\mathrm{T}$ and soft drop, are used to study the intrajet radiation pattern using iterative Cambridge$-$Aachen declustering. The splitting-angle distributions of jets with transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) of around 100 GeV, obtained with these two algorithms, show that there is a shift of the distribution for jets containing a prompt D$^0$ meson with respect to inclusive jets. The suppression of emissions at small angles observed in the late-$k_\mathrm{T}$ grooming approach is consistent with the dead-cone effect, whereas the similar suppression for splittings selected with the soft-drop algorithm appears to be induced by gluon splitting to charm quark-antiquark pairs at large angles. The measured distributions are corrected to the particle level and can be used to constrain model predictions for the substructure of high-$p_\mathrm{T}$ charm quark jets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of two subjets, with their splitting angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Invariant mass distribution of Kπ pairs for D0 jet candidates and fits for jets with momentum 100 < p jet T < 120 GeV and late-kT splitting angle 2.3 < θl < 2.55 (left). Comparison of the ln(1/θl ) distributions for invariant mass of the track pairs in the resonance region (black rectangles), in the mass sideband region 0.07 < |mπK − mD PDG| < 0.12 GeV (red circles) and for inclusive jet data (green triangles) (righ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detector-level DCA significance distribution in data fitted with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The unfolded late-kT angular distribution for prompt D0 jets (left) and inclusive jets (right) compared to the predictions from PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG7 CH3. The error bands in the upper panel represent the total systematical uncertainty, whereas the vertical bars repre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The unfolded SD angular distribution for prompt D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The late-kT (left) and modified SD (right) angular distribution for prompt D0 jets and inclusive jets. The ratio to the inclusive jets is shown in the lower panels. The error boxes represent the total systematic uncertainty, whereas the vertical bars represent the stat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ratio of the late-kT (left) and SD (right) angle distributions for prompt D0 jets to inclusive jets. The data are compared to PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG7 CH3 predictions with and without g → cc. The error boxes represent the total systematic uncertainty, whereas the ve…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio of the late-kT (left) and SD (right) angle distributions for prompt D0 jets and light jets to inclusive jets obtained with PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG7 CH3 simulated events. 8 Summary This paper presented measurements of the substructure of jets containing prompt …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Basics of perturbative QCD

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V . A. Khoze, A. H. Mueller, and S. I. Troian, “Basics of perturbative QCD”. 1991

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    Direct observation of the dead cone effect in quantum chromodynamics

    ALICE Collaboration, “Direct observation of the dead cone effect in quantum chromodynamics”,Nature605(2022) 440,doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04572-w, arXiv:2106.05713

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    On specific QCD properties of heavy quark fragmentation (’dead cone’)

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V . A. Khoze, and S. I. Troian, “On specific QCD properties of heavy quark fragmentation (’dead cone’)”,J. Phys. G17(1991) 1602, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/17/10/023

    doi:10.1088/0954-3899/17/10/023 1991

  4. [4]

    Dead cone searches in heavy-ion collisions using the jet tree

    L. Cunqueiro, D. Napoletano, and A. Soto-Ontoso, “Dead cone searches in heavy-ion collisions using the jet tree”,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 094008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094008,arXiv:2211.11789

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,Phys. Rept.1115(2025) 219,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.11.007, arXiv:2405.10785

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Medium induced gluon radiation off massive quarks fills the dead cone

    N. Armesto, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, “Medium induced gluon radiation off massive quarks fills the dead cone”,Phys. Rev. D(2004) 114003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.114003,arXiv:hep-ph/0312106

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Better jet clustering algorithms

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, “Better jet clustering algorithms”,JHEP08(1997) 001,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323. 18

    arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Hadronization corrections to jet cross sections in deep inelastic scattering

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, “Hadronization corrections to jet cross sections in deep inelastic scattering”, inProc. Workshop on Monte Carlo generators for HERA physics, p. 270. 1998.arXiv:hep-ph/9907280.doi:10.48550/arXiv.hep-ph/9907280

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-ph/9907280 1998

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    The Lund Jet Plane

    F. A. Dreyer, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The Lund Jet Plane”,JHEP12(2018) 064, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)064,arXiv:1807.04758

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Searching for the dead cone effects with iterative declustering of heavy-flavor jets

    L. Cunqueiro and M. Płosko ´n, “Searching for the dead cone effects with iterative declustering of heavy-flavor jets”,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 074027, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074027,arXiv:1812.00102

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Soft drop

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft drop”,JHEP05(2014) 146, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146,arXiv:1402.2657

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC

    J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P . Salam, “Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2008) 242001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.242001,arXiv:0802.2470

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Measurements of groomed jet substructure of charm jets tagged by D0 mesons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Measurements of groomed jet substructure of charm jets tagged by D0 mesons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 192301,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.192301,arXiv:2208.04857

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Measurement of the Lund plane for light- and beauty-quark jets

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the Lund plane for light- and beauty-quark jets”, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 072015,doi:10.1103/r16d-b4my,arXiv:2505.23530

    2025

  8. [16]

    Jet fragmentation function and groomed substructure of bottom quark jets in proton-proton collisions at 5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet fragmentation function and groomed substructure of bottom quark jets in proton-proton collisions at 5.02 TeV”, 2025.arXiv:2511.10666. Submitted to J. High Energy Phys

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 5.02 TeV in 2017 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 5.02 TeV in 2017 at CMS”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-19-001, 2021. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2765655

    2017

  10. [18]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.156758

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014,arXiv:2012.06888. References 19

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P10005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005,arXiv:1809.02816

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector”,JINST14(2019) P07004,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004,arXiv:1903.06078

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    An introduction toPYTHIA8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction toPYTHIA8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    New formalism for QCD parton showers

    S. Gieseke, P . Stephens, and B. Webber, “New formalism for QCD parton showers”,JHEP 12(2003) 045,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/12/045,arXiv:hep-ph/0310083

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Parton distributions for the LHC Run 2

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run 2”,JHEP04(2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040,arXiv:1410.8849

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A QCD model for jet fragmentation including soft gluon interference

    B. R. Webber, “A QCD model for jet fragmentation including soft gluon interference”, Nucl. Phys. B238(1984) 492,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90333-X

    1984 doi

  27. [35]

    Development and validation ofHERWIG7 tunes from CMS underlying event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Development and validation ofHERWIG7 tunes from CMS underlying event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 312, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08949-5,arXiv:2011.03422

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    TuningPYTHIA8.1: the Monash 2013 tune

    P . Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “TuningPYTHIA8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3024,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 155, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x,arXiv:1512.00815. 20

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    FastJet user manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2,arXiv:1111.6097

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Novel tools and observables for jet physics in heavy-ion collisions

    H. A. Andrews et al., “Novel tools and observables for jet physics in heavy-ion collisions”,J. Phys. G47(2020) 065102,doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab7cbc, arXiv:1808.03689

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS”,JINST6(2011) P11002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002,arXiv:1107.4277

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT

    H. Voss, A. H ¨ocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, inProc. XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40. 2007.arXiv:physics/0703039. doi:10.22323/1.050.0040

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Studies of charm quark diffusion inside jets using PbPb and pp collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Studies of charm quark diffusion inside jets using PbPb and pp collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 102001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.102001,arXiv:1911.01461

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    On heavy-flavor jets with soft drop

    S. Caletti, A. Ghira, and S. Marzani, “On heavy-flavor jets with soft drop”,Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024) 212,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12562-7,arXiv:2312.11623

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances

    T. Skwarnicki, “A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances”. PhD thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, 1986. DESY-F31-86-02

    1986

  39. [47]

    A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem

    G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A362(1995) 487,doi:10.1016/0168-9002(95)00274-X

    1995 doi

  40. [48]

    Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold

    T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold”, inProc. PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, H. Prosper and L. Lyons, eds., p. 313. Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. arXiv:1105.1160.doi:10.5170/CERN-20...

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Single-particle response in the CMS calorimeters

    CMS Collaboration, “Single-particle response in the CMS calorimeters”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-008, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    Measurements of azimuthal anisotropy of nonprompt D 0 mesons in PbPb collisions at 5.02TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of azimuthal anisotropy of nonprompt D 0 mesons in PbPb collisions at 5.02TeV”,Phys. Lett. B850(2024) 138389, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138389,arXiv:2212.01636

    2024

  43. [51]

    Study of quark and gluon jet substructure in Z+jet and dijet events from pp collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Study of quark and gluon jet substructure in Z+jet and dijet events from pp collisions”,JHEP01(2022) 188,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2022)188, arXiv:2109.03340

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Measurement of the primary Lund jet plane density in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the primary Lund jet plane density in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”,JHEP05(2024) 116, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)116,arXiv:2312.16343. 21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia V . Chekhovsky, A. Hayrapety...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.