Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that jet recoils—giving the transverse recoil of a parton-shower branching to a whole angular-ordered group of partons rather than a single parton—let transverse-momentum-ordered dipole showers reach next-to-leading-logari

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:58 UTC pith:HO5E3TSD

load-bearing objection A credible, well-validated new recoil scheme for kt-ordered dipole showers that makes a strong case for NLL accuracy; the key algorithmic equivalence to Cambridge clustering is argued heuristically rather than proven. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.07370 v2 pith:HO5E3TSD submitted 2025-12-08 hep-ph

Timelike showers with jet recoils

Jack Helliwell , Ludovic Scyboz , Peter Skands This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t
keywords parton showersjet recoilNLL accuracydipole showersangular orderingLund planeresummationfour-momentum conservation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Parton showers must conserve energy and momentum exactly, and the way a shower returns that 'recoil' affects whether its predictions are right at next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) accuracy. Local recoil schemes, which dump the recoil on a single parton, are simple but fail NLL for transverse-momentum-ordered evolution; global schemes fix that but are costlier and more complicated. This paper proposes an intermediate option: give the recoil to a small jet—the set of partons that the new emission cannot angularly resolve—rather than to one parton or to everything. The authors implement this for a timelike dipole shower, show that the recoiling jet can be identified without running a jet-clustering algorithm at every step, and verify NLL accuracy in fixed-order and all-order tests across thirteen observables. If correct, the result gives a practical path for upgrading existing dipole-type showers to NLL accuracy.

Core claim

The central claim is that a dipole shower ordered in transverse momentum can satisfy the NLL accuracy criteria if, at each branching, the transverse recoil is absorbed by a jet chosen by angular ordering instead of by a single parton. The paper constructs an explicit 'jet-recoil' kinematic map: an interval list, stored alongside each dipole, encodes which Lund-plane leaf any new emission lands on, and the recoiling jet is the set of particles on that leaf with larger rapidity than the emission; the whole jet is then boosted and rotated by one Lorentz transformation that preserves the relative momenta of its constituents, while the spectator takes only longitudinal recoil. This prescription i

What carries the argument

The jet-recoil map: for each colour dipole the shower stores an interval list linking rapidity ranges to Lund leaves; a new emission's rapidity selects a leaf, and the recoiling jet is the set of particles on that leaf with larger rapidity than the emission. Recoil is applied as a single Lorentz transformation that boosts and rotates the whole jet so that relative transverse momenta inside the jet are preserved, while the spectator takes only longitudinal momentum. This reproduces Cambridge angular-ordered clustering in the limits that matter at NLL, without running a jet algorithm after every emission.

Load-bearing premise

The interval-list procedure for choosing the recoil jet is equivalent to true angular-ordered (Cambridge) clustering everywhere that matters at NLL; if a mis-assignment ever lands in a logarithmically-enhanced region of phase space, the shower's NLL claim fails.

What would settle it

Run the paper's fixed-order Lund-plane test with two emissions at commensurate transverse momentum separated by a large rapidity gap, using a starting configuration engineered to make the interval-list choice differ from true clustering (for example, a tertiary emission just below a secondary leaf boundary); if the earlier emission's kt or rapidity is changed by a non-exponentially-suppressed amount a large distance away on the Lund plane, the NLL claim is falsified. A complementary all-order check: at fixed alpha_s L, push alpha_s lower than the five values tested; if the extrapolated delta_N

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Existing dipole-type showers ordered in transverse momentum can be upgraded to NLL accuracy by swapping their local recoil map for the jet-recoil map, without moving to global recoil or restricting the evolution variable.
  • The shower keeps the full soft-emission pattern of dipole/antenna showers, so the treatment of non-global observables is not degraded by the new recoil prescription.
  • Because recoil is shared by a small jet rather than the whole event, the scheme retains much of the simplicity, Lorentz invariance, and scaling properties of local recoil schemes.
  • With the special-case handling for gluon-to-quark-pair splittings, the map extends to the full timelike branching set, not just gluon emissions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the equivalence between the interval-list shortcut and true angular-ordered clustering is only heuristic, a formal proof would need to show that all deviating configurations are confined to O(1) rapidity-azimuth neighborhoods; the all-order results in the paper make that plausible but not airtight.
  • Because the map preserves intra-jet invariants via a common Lorentz transformation, it should combine naturally with spin-correlation algorithms: spin-sensitive observables can be tested as the next step beyond the azimuthally-averaged observables used here.
  • The same interval-list machinery could be adapted to antenna-type showers that share recoil between two ends, and to initial-state radiation; the paper's timelike dipole proof-of-principle suggests those extensions will inherit NLL behaviour if the same O(1)-neighbourhood confinement holds.
  • A sharper testable extension: implement jet recoil on top of a standard Catani-Seymour style dipole shower and repeat the fixed-order Lund-plane test for emissions at commensurate kt but widely separated rapidity; if any deviation appears in the exponential-suppression region, the NLL criterion would fail.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new 'jet recoil' scheme for timelike dipole/antenna parton showers. In contrast to local recoil, where a single dipole end receives transverse recoil, the proposed map assigns transverse recoil to a jet of partons determined by an angular-ordering-inspired interval procedure, while a spectator parton absorbs only longitudinal recoil. The authors argue this avoids the known NLL failure of kt-ordered dipole-local showers. They implement the map in the PanScales framework, validate the jet-identification algorithm at fixed order, carry out Lund-plane recoil-distortion tests for several base configurations, and perform all-order logarithmic tests for a range of event shapes and related observables. They conclude that the jet-recoil map satisfies NLL accuracy criteria for kt-ordered dipole showers.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful step toward reconciling kt-ordered dipole showers with NLL accuracy without resorting to global recoil or to a restricted evolution variable. The paper has notable strengths: the kinematic map coefficients are fixed by on-shell conditions and momentum conservation (no fitted parameters); the validation uses the public PanScales framework; the fixed-order tests and the all-order tests cover a broad set of observables, including non-global ones; and the authors are transparent about limitations such as spin correlations and the special spectator-removal rule. The central caveat is that the crucial interval-list-to-Cambridge clustering equivalence is argued heuristically and not proven, so the NLL claim is conditional on the correctness of that heuristic. As a proof-of-principle numerical study, the paper is compelling; as a fully established NLL-accurate shower claim, it needs one more layer of analysis or qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 3.2, 3.4.1] The NLL claim rests on the assertion that the interval-list procedure of Sec. 3.2 (Eq. 3.14) is 'equivalent in the limits relevant for NLL accuracy' to Cambridge clustering, and that the spectator-removal rule of Sec. 3.4.1 affects only an O(1) rapidity-azimuth region. No proof or quantitative bound is given. A mis-assignment in a logarithmically-enhanced region would introduce O(alpha_s) recoil without accompanying logarithms and corrupt g2. Please provide an analytic coherence argument or a systematic numerical survey (e.g., random base events; fraction of emission phase space where the jet differs from Cambridge clustering and the resulting prior-emission distortion, as a function of Lund-plane separation L) demonstrating the required suppression.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The fixed-order criterion of Refs. [17,31] applies to arbitrary widely-separated emissions. The tests in Figs. 3, 8 and 9 cover specific qqbar-g1 and qqbar-g1-g2 hierarchies. They do not explicitly cover g->qqbar splittings (Sec. 3.4.2) or interval-update edge cases (Sec. 3.3). Since the interval-list equivalence to Cambridge clustering is not proven, please state which configurations are covered or add tests for these cases.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence 'This constitutes a numerical proof that the jet recoil scheme can be used to achieve NLL accuracy' is stronger than the tests establish. The all-order tests are restricted to the listed observables and exclude spin-correlation-sensitive observables, an omission acknowledged in the text. Mis-assignments in regions not sufficiently weighted by those observables could evade the test. Please qualify the conclusion (e.g., 'strong numerical evidence' or 'within the tested observable set') or add a dedicated probe of the suspected mis-assignment region.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] Typo: 'the spectator the be' should read 'the spectator to be'.
  2. [Eq. (3.13)] Please clarify whether eta_km and eta_kl are computed via Eq. (3.12) with respect to the dipole ends, and how the sign convention maps onto the interval list of Eq. (3.10). The max/min boundaries in Eq. (3.16) also deserve a short explanation.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The text says 13 observables, but the bulleted list appears to contain 14 entries (BT, BW, M and S for three beta values, FC for three values, y23, 1-T, pT-in-slice, Nsubjet). Please check the count.
  4. [Sec. 3.4.1] The statement 'We have verified numerically that the frequency at which these configurations occur agrees with this expectation' is not accompanied by a plot or table. Showing this verification would directly address the O(1) suppression assumption.
  5. [References] Ref. [35] is listed as 'Unpublished notes' with no year or institutional identifier. If the work is publicly available, please provide a link or more complete citation; otherwise consider referring to it only in the acknowledgements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the NLL claim is validated against external analytic benchmarks, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

I find no circularity. The jet-recoil map coefficients (Eqs. 3.4–3.6) are fixed by on-shell conditions and momentum conservation, not fitted to the NLL benchmarks. The NLL claim is validated by two independent external checks: fixed-order Lund-plane tests against IR matrix-element limits from Refs. [17,31], and all-order comparisons (Eq. 4.1, Fig. 10) to analytic resummations for a range of observables, with no free parameters tuned to make delta_NLL vanish. The rapidity-interval shortcut is adapted from Ref. [58], which shares author Scyboz, but this self-citation is procedural rather than load-bearing: the equivalence to Cambridge clustering for well-separated emissions is argued heuristically and its consequences are checked numerically rather than assumed. The remaining gap—an unproven bound on mis-assignment of the recoiling jet in logarithmically-enhanced regions—is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circular reduction; the derivation does not define its target in terms of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data: the map coefficients a_J, b_J, b_s (Eqs. 3.4-3.6) follow from on-shell conditions and 4-momentum conservation; beta_ps = 0 (Eq. 2.5) is the deliberate choice of kt-ordering, not a fitted value; the alpha_s values in Sec. 4.3 are a standard extrapolation ladder; rapidity-interval boundaries are algorithmic bookkeeping. No new physical entities are introduced: the recoiling 'jet' J (Eq. 3.14) is a bookkeeping grouping of existing partons, not a new particle, mediator, or conserved quantity, so no independent falsifiable handle is required.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Leading-colour (large-Nc) approximation: the event is an ensemble of colour-connected dipoles emitting incoherently (Eq. 2.1).
    Standard, stated foundation of all dipole/antenna showers; subleading-colour effects are beyond the claimed accuracy.
  • domain assumption The NLL accuracy definitions of Refs [17,31]: the exponentiated-series structure (Eq. 2.9) and the fixed-order IR-limit criterion that shower matrix elements must match IR limits of tree-level matrix elements up to corrections vanishing as e^-L in Lund-plane distance.
    The paper adopts these widely-used criteria as its definition of NLL accuracy ('the criteria laid out in Ref [17]', Sec. 5). The claim is conditional on these criteria being the right definition.
  • domain assumption QCD coherence / angular ordering (Refs [52-57]) dictates which partons an emission can resolve, hence which partons should share the recoil.
    The entire jet-determination procedure (Sec. 3: 'Our guiding principle will be coherence') rests on this physical principle.
  • ad hoc to paper The interval-list procedure is equivalent to Cambridge clustering in all logarithmically-enhanced regions; deviations are confined to O(1) rapidity/azimuth regions and are hence beyond NLL.
    This confinement is the paper's own working assumption: argued heuristically (Secs. 3.2, 3.4.1) and verified only by numerical spot-checks (Fig. 7 smatterings), not proven. It is the load-bearing premise identified as the weakest assumption.
  • standard math The analytic benchmark resummations (BSZ [42,43]; Catani et al [44,64]; Dasgupta-Salam [60,61]; Medves et al [63]) are exact at NLL/NDL for the tested observables.
    The all-order tests compare the shower against these external resummations; if a benchmark were wrong, the test would mis-attribute the error.
  • domain assumption The alpha_s -> 0 extraction procedure (quadratic fit through 5 points, linear fit through 3, difference as systematic) correctly isolates the NLL contribution.
    Standard PanScales methodology (Sec. 4.3); inherently a numerical extrapolation with residual uncontrolled terms.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17719 in / 24990 out tokens · 213413 ms · 2026-08-03T17:58:02.344534+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a new way to impose four-momentum conservation on timelike parton-shower branchings, allowing for recoil to be imparted not only to individual partons but also to groups of partons, "jets". In this work we present an explicit realisation of this idea for a dipole parton-shower, using angular ordering to decide which partons are grouped into jets in a way that does not require explicit jet clustering at each stage of the evolution. We verify that the algorithm satisfies next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy criteria, from numerical fixed-order tests as well as resummation tests across a range of observables. Our conclusion is that jet recoils provide a viable path for adapting existing dipole/antenna-type showers to achieve NLL accuracy.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Logarithmically-accurate showers with massive quarks

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PanScales final-state showers now include quark masses at NLL accuracy while keeping original accuracy for massless observables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H¨ oche, D

    S. H¨ oche, D. Reichelt and F. Siegert,Momentum conservation and unitarity in parton showers and NLL resummation,JHEP01(2018) 118, [1711.03497]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour,A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,Nucl. Phys.B485(1997) 291–419, [hep-ph/9605323]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    Phaf and S

    L. Phaf and S. Weinzierl,Dipole formalism with heavy fermions,JHEP04(2001) 006, [hep-ph/0102207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    D. A. Kosower,Antenna factorization in strongly ordered limits,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 045016, [hep-ph/0311272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder and M

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder and M. Ritzmann,NLO Antenna Subtraction with Massive Fermions,JHEP07(2009) 041, [0904.3297]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Gustafson and U

    G. Gustafson and U. Pettersson,Dipole Formulation of QCD Cascades,Nucl. Phys.B306 (1988) 746–758

    1988

  7. [7]

    L¨ onnblad,ARIADNE version 4: A Program for simulation of QCD cascades implementing the color dipole model,Comput

    L. L¨ onnblad,ARIADNE version 4: A Program for simulation of QCD cascades implementing the color dipole model,Comput. Phys. Commun.71(1992) 15–31

    1992

  8. [8]

    Sj¨ ostrand and P

    T. Sj¨ ostrand and P. Z. Skands,Transverse-momentum-ordered showers and interleaved multiple interactions,Eur. Phys. J.C39(2005) 129–154, [hep-ph/0408302]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  9. [9]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8, [2203.11601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Fischer, S

    N. Fischer, S. Prestel, M. Ritzmann and P. Skands,Vincia for Hadron Colliders,Eur. Phys. J.C76(2016) 589, [1605.06142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Brooks, C

    H. Brooks, C. T. Preuss and P. Skands,Sector Showers for Hadron Collisions,JHEP07 (2020) 032, [2003.00702]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Pl¨ atzer and S

    S. Pl¨ atzer and S. Gieseke,Dipole Showers and Automated NLO Matching in Herwig++,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2187, [1109.6256]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    Bewick et al.,Herwig 7.3 release note,Eur

    G. Bewick et al.,Herwig 7.3 release note,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1053, [2312.05175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss,A Parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation,JHEP03(2008) 038, [0709.1027]. [15]Sherpacollaboration, E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 3,JHEP12(2024) 156, [2410.22148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [16]

    Hoeche and S

    S. Hoeche and S. Prestel,The midpoint between dipole and parton showers,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 461, [1506.05057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [17]

    Dasgupta, F

    M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,Parton showers beyond leading logarithmic accuracy,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 052002, [2002.11114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [18]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,A New parton shower algorithm: Shower evolution, matching at leading and next-to-leading order level, inRingberg Workshop on New Trends in HERA Physics 2005, pp. 101–123, 1, 2006.hep-ph/0601021. DOI

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [19]

    Dinsdale, M

    M. Dinsdale, M. Ternick and S. Weinzierl,Parton showers from the dipole formalism,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 094003, [0709.1026]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [20]

    Marchesini and B

    G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber,Simulation of QCD Jets Including Soft Gluon Interference, Nucl. Phys.B238(1984) 1–29

    1984

  20. [21]

    Gieseke, P

    S. Gieseke, P. Stephens and B. Webber,New formalism for QCD parton showers,JHEP12 (2003) 045, [hep-ph/0310083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [22]

    Bewick, S

    G. Bewick, S. Ferrario Ravasio, P. Richardson and M. H. Seymour,Logarithmic accuracy of angular-ordered parton showers,JHEP04(2020) 019, [1904.11866]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [23]

    J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin and S. Pl¨ atzer,Building a consistent parton shower,JHEP09 (2020) 014, [2003.06400]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [24]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,A parton shower based on factorization of the quantum density matrix,JHEP06(2014) 097, [1401.6364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [25]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Summations of large logarithms by parton showers,Phys. Rev. D 104(2021) 054049, [2011.04773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [26]

    Ferrario Ravasio, K

    S. Ferrario Ravasio, K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and G. Soyez,Parton Showering with Higher Logarithmic Accuracy for Soft Emissions,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 161906, [2307.11142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    Herren, S

    F. Herren, S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, D. Reichelt and M. Schoenherr,A new approach to color-coherent parton evolution,JHEP10(2023) 091, [2208.06057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [28]

    Assi and S

    B. Assi and S. H¨ oche,New approach to QCD final-state evolution in processes with massive partons,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 114008, [2307.00728]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [29]

    H¨ oche, F

    S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss and D. Reichelt,The Alaric parton shower for hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 094032, [2404.14360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    C. T. Preuss,A partitioned dipole-antenna shower with improved transverse recoil,JHEP07 (2024) 161, [2403.19452]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    Dasgupta, F

    M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni and G. P. Salam,Logarithmic accuracy of parton showers: a fixed-order study,JHEP09(2018) 033, [1805.09327]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [32]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. Corcella and M. Dasgupta,Angular ordering and parton showers for non-global QCD observables,JHEP03(2007) 050, [hep-ph/0612282]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [33]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, K. Hamilton, G. P. Salam, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez et al.,PanScales showers for hadron collisions: all-order validation,JHEP11(2022) 020, [2207.09467]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    van Beekveld et al.,New Standard for the Logarithmic Accuracy of Parton Showers, Phys

    M. van Beekveld et al.,New Standard for the Logarithmic Accuracy of Parton Showers, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 011901, [2406.02661]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    Salam and G

    G. Salam and G. Soyez,Unpublished notes, 2022

    2022

  35. [36]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov,Deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15(1972) 438–450

    1972

  36. [37]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi,Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language,Nucl. Phys.B126 (1977) 298–318

    1977

  37. [38]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer,Calculation of the Structure Functions for Deep Inelastic Scattering and e+ e- Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics.,Sov. Phys. JETP 46(1977) 641–653. – 22 –

    1977

  38. [39]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour,The Dipole formalism for the calculation of QCD jet cross-sections at next-to-leading order,Phys. Lett. B378(1996) 287–301, [hep-ph/9602277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  39. [40]

    D. A. Kosower,Antenna factorization of gauge theory amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 5410–5416, [hep-ph/9710213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  40. [41]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover,Antenna subtraction at NNLO,JHEP09(2005) 056, [hep-ph/0505111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  41. [42]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi,Semi-numerical resummation of event shapes, JHEP01(2002) 018, [hep-ph/0112156]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  42. [43]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi,Principles of general final-state resummation and automated implementation,JHEP03(2005) 073, [hep-ph/0407286]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [44]

    Catani, L

    S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber,Resummation of large logarithms in e+ e- event shape distributions,Nucl. Phys.B407(1993) 3–42

    1993

  44. [45]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson and C. Sjogren,Comparison of the dipole cascade model versus O(α2 s)matrix elements and color interference ine +e− annihilation,Nucl. Phys.B380(1992) 391–407

    1992

  45. [46]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. P. Salam, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez and R. Verheyen,PanScales parton showers for hadron collisions: formulation and fixed-order studies,JHEP11(2022) 019, [2205.02237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [47]

    van Beekveld and S

    M. van Beekveld and S. Ferrario Ravasio,Next-to-leading-logarithmic PanScales showers for Deep Inelastic Scattering and Vector Boson Fusion,JHEP02(2024) 001, [2305.08645]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [48]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, L. L¨ onnblad and U. Pettersson,Coherence Effects in Deep Inelastic Scattering,Z. Phys.C43(1989) 625

    1989

  48. [49]

    F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The Lund Jet Plane,JHEP12(2018) 064, [1807.04758]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [50]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti and B. R. Webber,Better jet clustering algorithms, JHEP08(1997) 001, [hep-ph/9707323]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  50. [51]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual,Eur. Phys. J.C72(2012) 1896, [1111.6097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [52]

    A. H. Mueller,On the Multiplicity of Hadrons in QCD Jets,Phys. Lett. B104(1981) 161–164

    1981

  52. [53]

    A. H. Mueller,Multiplicity and Hadron Distributions in QCD Jets. 2. A General Procedure for All Nonleading Terms,Nucl. Phys. B228(1983) 351–364

    1983

  53. [54]

    B. I. Ermolaev and V. S. Fadin,Log - Log Asymptotic Form of Exclusive Cross-Sections in Quantum Chromodynamics,JETP Lett.33(1981) 269–272

    1981

  54. [55]

    Bassetto, M

    A. Bassetto, M. Ciafaloni, G. Marchesini and A. H. Mueller,Jet Multiplicity and Soft Gluon Factorization,Nucl. Phys. B207(1982) 189–204

    1982

  55. [56]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. S. Fadin and V. A. Khoze,Double Logs of Perturbative QCD for Parton Jets and Soft Hadron Spectra,Z. Phys. C15(1982) 325

    1982

  56. [57]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. S. Fadin and V. A. Khoze,On the Sensitivity of the Inclusive Distributions in Parton Jets to the Coherence Effects in QCD Gluon Cascades,Z. Phys. C 18(1983) 37. – 23 –

    1983

  57. [58]

    Hamilton, R

    K. Hamilton, R. Medves, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and G. Soyez,Colour and logarithmic accuracy in final-state parton showers,JHEP03(2021) 041, [2011.10054]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [59]

    van Beekveld et al.,Introduction to the PanScales framework, version 0.1,SciPost Phys

    M. van Beekveld et al.,Introduction to the PanScales framework, version 0.1,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2024(2024) 31, [2312.13275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [60]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. Salam,Resummation of nonglobal QCD observables,Phys. Lett. B512 (2001) 323–330, [hep-ph/0104277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  60. [61]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam,Accounting for coherence in interjet E(t) flow: A Case study, JHEP03(2002) 017, [hep-ph/0203009]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  61. [62]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, F. Fiorani and B. R. Webber,Average number of jets ine +e− annihilation,Nucl. Phys.B377(1992) 445–460

    1992

  62. [63]

    Medves, A

    R. Medves, A. Soto-Ontoso and G. Soyez,Lund and Cambridge multiplicities for precision physics,JHEP10(2022) 156, [2205.02861]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [64]

    Catani, G

    S. Catani, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber,Jet broadening measures ine +e− annihilation, Phys. Lett.B295(1992) 269–276

    1992

  64. [65]

    Brandt, C

    S. Brandt, C. Peyrou, R. Sosnowski and A. Wroblewski,The Principal axis of jets. An Attempt to analyze high-energy collisions as two-body processes,Phys. Lett.12(1964) 57–61

    1964

  65. [66]

    Farhi,A QCD Test for Jets,Phys

    E. Farhi,A QCD Test for Jets,Phys. Rev. Lett.39(1977) 1587–1588

    1977

  66. [67]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber,New clustering algorithm for multi - jet cross-sections ine +e− annihilation,Phys. Lett.B269(1991) 432–438

    1991

  67. [68]

    J. C. Collins,Spin Correlations in Monte Carlo Event Generators,Nucl. Phys.B304(1988) 794–804

    1988

  68. [69]

    I. G. Knowles,A Linear Algorithm for Calculating Spin Correlations in Hadronic Collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.58(1990) 271–284

    1990

  69. [70]

    H¨ oche, M

    S. H¨ oche, M. Hoppe and D. Reichelt,A simple algorithm for polarized parton evolution, 2508.19018

    arXiv

  70. [71]

    Richardson,Spin correlations in Monte Carlo simulations,JHEP11(2001) 029, [hep-ph/0110108]

    P. Richardson,Spin correlations in Monte Carlo simulations,JHEP11(2001) 029, [hep-ph/0110108]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [72]

    Richardson and S

    P. Richardson and S. Webster,Spin Correlations in Parton Shower Simulations,Eur. Phys. J.C80(2020) 83, [1807.01955]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [73]

    Karlberg, G

    A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Spin correlations in final-state parton showers and jet observables,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 681, [2103.16526]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [74]

    Hamilton, A

    K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Soft spin correlations in final-state parton showers,JHEP03(2022) 193, [2111.01161]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [75]

    Deany,Antenna showers with jet recoils, Honours Thesis, School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, 2023

    W. Deany,Antenna showers with jet recoils, Honours Thesis, School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, 2023. – 24 –

    2023