Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Precision measurement of the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry for dijet production at intermediate pseudorapidity in polarized $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The STAR Collaboration finds that the JAM22 negative-gluon-polarization solution is disfavored at the 3.5 sigma level by a new precision measurement of the dijet double-spin asymmetry at intermediate pseudorapidity in 200 GeV polarized…

desk verdict A careful 2015 STAR dijet A_LL measurement, but the headline 3.5 sigma disfavor of the JAM22 negative-gluon solution is built on a chi-square conversion that does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18976 v2 pith:BZQ2CI4K submitted 2024-11-28 hep-ex

The STAR Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords longitudinaldouble-spinasymmetrydijetproductiongluonhelicitypolarizedproton-protoncollisionsSTARexperimentRHICJAM22partondistributionfunctions
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 paper reports a new measurement of the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry $A_{LL}$ for dijet production in which at least one jet lies at intermediate pseudorapidity ($0.8 < \eta_{\rm jet} < 1.8$), using 52 pb$^{-1}$ of longitudinally polarized proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV recorded by the STAR experiment in 2015. The measurement probes partonic momentum fractions $x$ from 0.01 to 0.5, where the scattering is dominated by high-$x$ valence quarks hitting low-$x$ gluons, so $A_{LL}$ is a direct handle on the gluon helicity distribution $\Delta g(x)$. The data agree with the earlier 2009 STAR measurement and with the predictions of global QCD analyses that find $\Delta g(x)>0$, and they disfavor the negative-gluon-polarization solution of the JAM22 global fit at the 3.5 $\sigma$ level. If the result holds, it settles a genuine ambiguity: two fits of nearly equal quality to earlier inclusive-jet data had opposite signs for the gluon spin, and this dijet measurement breaks the degeneracy toward a positive gluon polarization.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry $A_{LL} = (\sigma^{++} - \sigma^{+-})/(\sigma^{++} + \sigma^{+-})$, measured as a function of the dijet invariant mass. At leading order the dijet mass and the pseudorapidity sum of the two jets give $M = \sqrt{s x_1 x_2}$ and $\eta_3 + \eta_4 = \ln(x_1/x_2)$, so the endcap topology selects collisions in which a high-$x$ valence quark meets a low-$x$ gluon. Because the TPC tracking efficiency falls sharply in the endcap, the analysis uses a Multilayer Perceptron (a neural-network regression) trained on PYTHIA Perugia 2012 plus GEANT3 simulations to correct each jet's $p_T$ and mass, and applies a particle-to-parton mass shift from the same simulation to place the measured $A_{LL}$ at the parton-level dijet mass. A trigger and reconstruction bias correction computed from 100 NNPDFpol1.1 replicas is subtracted from the raw asymmetry, and the JAM22 comparison is made with a $\chi^2$ that folds in the three dominant correlated systematics.

What would settle it

Rerun the JAM22 global fit including the STAR 2015 intermediate-pseudorapidity dijet data while keeping the negative-gluon solution: if the fit still yields an acceptable $\chi^2$ under the same correlated-systematics treatment, the 3.5-$\sigma$ exclusion is not robust. A second, more direct check is to recompute the parton-level dijet mass using a data-driven endcap tracking-efficiency correction instead of the PYTHIA-trained neural network; if the resulting $A_{LL}$ points move by more than the quoted systematic uncertainty, the comparison against JAM22 would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gluon helicity distribution $\Delta g(x)$ is positive in the $x$ range 0.01 to 0.5, and that the alternative negative solution found in the JAM22 global analysis is excluded. The paper establishes this by measuring $A_{LL}$ as a function of parton-level dijet invariant mass for three dijet topologies (east Barrel--Endcap, west Barrel--Endcap, and Endcap--Endcap), combining the 2009 and 2015 STAR data. A $\chi^2$ test that accounts for correlated uncertainties from relative luminosity, dijet energy scale, and beam polarization gives an average $\chi^2$ of 20.4 for 20 degrees of freedom for the positive JAM22 solution and 32.7 for the negative one, corresponding to a 3.5-$\sigma$ disfavoring of the negative solution. The paper further notes that in the negative-gluon scenario the gluon-gluon subprocess would need a negative opposite-helicity cross section at high dijet mass, which is the feature the data reject.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the PYTHIA Perugia 2012 tune (with energy-scale parameter PARP(90)=0.213) combined with the GEANT3 detector simulation faithfully reproduces the reduced tracking efficiency in the endcap and the particle-to-parton relation; if that simulation is biased, the parton-level $A_{LL}$ values could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2015 data, when combined with the 2009 points, give the most precise $A_{LL}$ measurement to date for dijets with an endcap jet at 200 GeV, with sensitivity extending down to $x \sim 0.01$.
  • Incorporating these results into global QCD analyses should reduce the uncertainty on the integrated gluon helicity contribution without significantly shifting its central value.
  • The JAM22 negative-gluon solution, which violates the positivity bound $|\Delta f_i| \le f_i$, is now excluded at 3.5 sigma by direct dijet data, strengthening the case that positivity-breaking negative solutions cannot describe RHIC spin data.
  • The result closes a loop opened by the 2022 JAM22 analysis, which had shown that inclusive-jet $A_{LL}$ data alone could not distinguish opposite-sign gluon solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exclusion is robust, one can translate the measured $A_{LL}$ into a quantitative lower bound on the truncated moment of $\Delta g(x)$ over $0.01 < x < 0.5$; the paper does not quote such a bound directly from this dataset.
  • A future measurement at $\sqrt{s}=510$ GeV with forward endcap coverage could push the same technique to $x$ below 0.01, testing whether the positive sign persists where the gluon density is large.
  • The strength of the 3.5-sigma exclusion depends on the JAM22 fit's scale choices and on the NLO dijet calculation; repeating the comparison with a different NLO framework or with the DSSV14 uncertainty band would reveal how much of the significance is tied to the JAM22 model.
  • The positivity-violating feature of the negative solution could be probed directly: a dedicated measurement of the gluon-gluon subprocess fraction in the high-mass endcap bins would provide an independent check of whether $\sigma^{+-}$ for gluon-gluon scattering is truly negative there.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports STAR measurements of the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry A_LL for dijet production with at least one jet at intermediate pseudorapidity (0.8 < eta_jet < 1.8) in polarized proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV using the 2015 data set (52 pb^-1). Dijets are reconstructed with the anti-kT algorithm (R = 0.6), and dedicated corrections are applied for tracking inefficiencies (ML-based pT and mass regressions), underlying event, trigger bias, and reconstruction bias. The final A_LL values are presented as a function of parton-level dijet invariant mass for three topologies and are compared with the earlier 2009 STAR measurement and with NLO pQCD predictions using DSSV2014, NNPDFpol1.1, and JAM22 positive/negative gluon polarization sets. The data agree with the 2009 results and with positive-gluon predictions, while the JAM22 negative-gluon solution is reported to be disfavored at the 3.5 sigma level.

Significance. If the measurement and its interpretation are sound, this result provides a new, more precise constraint on the gluon helicity distribution in the x range from about 0.01 to 0.5, specifically through dijet topologies that are sensitive to low-x gluons. The analysis is thorough in its treatment of detector effects: the trigger thresholds, machine-learning jet corrections, underlying event subtraction, and reconstruction bias are each addressed with dedicated systematic studies, and the agreement with the earlier 2009 data supports the consistency of the experimental procedure. The paper also provides correlation matrices that will be useful for future global QCD analyses. However, the headline claim that the JAM22 negative-gluon solution is disfavored at 3.5 sigma is not supported by the statistical evidence presented in the manuscript, and this claim is central to the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (1)
  1. [VII.A, Eq. (7)] The comparison with the JAM22 solutions is performed with the data and theory both at parton level, but the particle-to-parton mass shift used to place the data points relies on the PYTHIA Perugia 2012 tune and the same simulation used to train the ML corrections (Sec. VI.A). The systematic studies in Sec. VI.C.2 cover a range of alternative tunes, which is good, but the manuscript does not state whether the spread of the particle-to-parton mass shift across the alternative tunes is included in the x-axis systematic uncertainties used in the chi2 test of Eq. (7). If this shift is correlated with the theory curve, the beta2 term in Eq. (7) may not capture the full uncertainty. Please clarify that the tune-dependent mass shifts are indeed propagated into the beta2 (dijet energy scale) uncertainty, or provide the corresponding additional uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The printed formula for A_LL in Eq. (3) appears to be missing the division sign: as typeset, "ALL = P(PY PB)(N ++ - rN +-)P(PY PB)2(N ++ + rN +-)" is not a valid expression. The correct form should be the ratio (N++ - rN+-)/(N++ + rN+-) multiplied by 1/(P_Y P_B).
  2. [Abstract and Sec. VIII] The abstract and summary state that the negative gluon polarization solution is "strongly disfavored," while Sec. VII.A reports a 3.5 sigma disfavor. Once the significance is properly computed, the wording should be aligned with the quantitative result.
  3. [Sec. IV.B] The pseudorapidity bounds for endcap jets are given inconsistently: the text uses 0.8 < eta_jet < 1.8 in some places and 0.8 <= eta_jet <= 1.8 in others. Please use a consistent convention.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 labels] The figure labels "Jet + Jet + X -> p + p" should read "p + p -> Jet + Jet + X" to reflect the physical process.
  5. [Sec. VII.A] The statement that the 2009 and 2015 data are "combined by average weighting" is vague. Please specify the weights and how the correlated systematic uncertainties (including the relative luminosity and polarization scale uncertainties) are handled in the combination, since these enter the chi2 test of Eq. (7).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the STAR dijet A_LL measurement is an independent experimental result, and the central JAM22 comparison is not built from the model being tested.

full rationale

This paper reports a measurement rather than a derivation, and no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its inputs. The only model-dependent data-reduction step is the trigger and reconstruction bias correction (Sec. VI.B), in which NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDFs are used to compute ΔA_LL = A_det_LL − A_parton_LL and subtract it from the raw asymmetry. That correction is small (0.0005–0.0026, about 10% of the measured asymmetries), is not fitted to the data, and does not define the final asymmetry; the JAM22 negative-gluon solution discussed in Sec. VII.A is not used in the correction, so the central disfavor claim is not equivalent to the correction input. STAR's reuse of its own previous analyses for jet reconstruction, underlying-event subtraction, and systematic methodology is procedural and not load-bearing. The paper's 3.5σ statement is based on average replica χ² values (20.4 vs 32.7 for 20 degrees of freedom) without showing the conversion to a significance; that is a missing justification for the statistical claim, but it is not a circularity. No passage asserts a limitation that would indicate the result is defined by its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard QCD factorization and on PDFs from global fits for theory comparisons. Its analysis-specific assumptions are the fidelity of PYTHIA+GEANT simulations for the ML corrections and mass shifts, and the applicability of NLO pQCD to a positivity-violating PDF set. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • PYTHIA PARP(90) = 0.213
    Underlying-event energy-dependence parameter adjusted from default 0.24 to match previous STAR pi+ yields in 200 GeV pp collisions (Section III.B). The jet pT and mass corrections in this analysis depend on the simulation, so this tuning indirectly affects the corrected A_LL.
  • MLP network configuration for jet pT and mass corrections = not specified (varied for systematics)
    Multilayer Perceptron from TMVA used to regress detector-level jet pT and mass to particle-level. The exact architecture is not given; systematic uncertainty estimated by varying sample size, layers, nodes, and algorithms (Section V).
  • Jet resolution parameter R = 0.6
    Choice of anti-kT jet radius. The paper notes A_LL is largely insensitive to R if not too small, but the measured mass bins and corrections depend on R. Chosen by analysis convention.
  • Leading and subleading jet pT thresholds = 8.0 and 6.0 GeV/c
    Analysis cuts imposed to facilitate comparison with theory and reduce trigger bias (Section IV.B). They define the acceptance and affect the x range probed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption QCD factorization and NLO pQCD describe dijet production and A_LL in polarized pp collisions.
    Used in Section VII for theoretical predictions from de Florian et al. The measurement is interpreted via this framework.
  • domain assumption The global PDF sets DSSV2014, NNPDFpol1.1, and JAM22 are reliable inputs for the theory calculations.
    The comparisons in Figs. 9 and 10 use these PDFs; the result is a test of these PDFs.
  • domain assumption PYTHIA Perugia 2012 with PARP(90)=0.213 and GEANT3 embedded in zero-bias data accurately simulate the detector response, track inefficiency, and underlying event.
    The MLP corrections (Section V) and the particle-to-parton mass shift (Section VI.A) rely on this simulation.
  • domain assumption The NNPDFpol1.1-based trigger and reconstruction bias correction does not introduce a significant model-dependent bias in the final A_LL.
    Section VI.B uses NNPDFpol1.1 to compute the detector-to-parton A_LL difference; the correction is small and its uncertainty is estimated, but the assumption is load-bearing for the reported values.
  • domain assumption It is meaningful to compare data with JAM22 PDFs that violate positivity and yield negative cross sections in some kinematic regions.
    Section VII.A notes the negative sigma_+- for gluon-gluon scattering at high mass and proceeds with the chi2 test anyway.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision measurement of the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry for dijet production at intermediate pseudorapidity in polarized $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZQ2CI4K

@misc{pith2026241118976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision measurement of the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry for dijet production at intermediate pseudorapidity in polarized $pp$ collisions at $\sqrts$ = 200 GeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZQ2CI4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18976}
}
abstract

The STAR Collaboration reports precise measurements of the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry, $A_{LL}$, for dijet production with at least one jet at intermediate pseudorapidity $0.8 < \eta_{\rm jet} < 1.8$ in polarized proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 200 GeV. This study explores partons scattered with a longitudinal momentum fraction ($x$) from 0.01 to 0.5, which are predominantly characterized by interactions between high-$x$ valence quarks and low-$x$ gluons. The results are in good agreement with previous measurements at 200 GeV with improved precision and are found to be consistent with the predictions of global analyses that find the gluon polarization to be positive. In contrast, the negative gluon polarization solution from the JAM Collaboration is found to be strongly disfavored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18976 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Data/simulation comparisons of the mean UE correc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Data/simulation comparisons of the normalized detector level jet yields from dijet pairs as functions of detector jet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Data/simulation comparisons of detector level dijet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The dijet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dijet invariant mass correlation between detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The distributions of the parton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dijet energy scale systematic uncertainties The primary source of the systematic uncertainty in the reconstructed dijet mass arises from the uncertainty in the jet energy scale. The jet energy scale uncertainties consist of two parts: one from the scale and status uncer- tainties of the EMC towers (3.5% for BEMC and 4.6% for EEMC), and the other from the ...

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    E. R. Nocera, R. D. Ball, S. Forte, G. Ridolfi, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), Nucl. Phys. B887, 276 (2014), arXiv:1406.5539 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Systematic uncertainties on machine learning correction Corrections to jet transverse momentum and invariant mass in this analysis were conducted using the MLP, a machine learning technique known for its adaptability to complex nonlinear data relationships. Given the MLP’s sensitivity to its configuration, such as the number of layers and nodes, we consid...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Consequently, this phenomenon in- troduces distortions to the measured dijet invariant mass

    Underlying event systematic uncertainties The presence of the underlying event in hadronic inter- actions results in a systematic increase in the energy scale of the jets composed solely from showers arsing from only the hard scattering. Consequently, this phenomenon in- troduces distortions to the measured dijet invariant mass. As already discussed in Se...

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    R. L. Jaffe and A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B337, 509 (1990)

    1990

  6. [6]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 012001 (2014), arXiv:1404.4293 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Alekseevet al., Nucl

    I. Alekseevet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 392 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 252001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0608030

    arXiv 2006

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 232003 (2008), arXiv:0710.2048 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D86, 032006 (2012), arXiv:1205.2735 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 092002 (2015), arXiv:1405.5134 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D80, 111108 (2009), arXiv:0911.2773 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D89, 012001 (2014), arXiv:1309.1800 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. D79, 012003 (2009), arXiv:0810.0701 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 012003 (2009), arXiv:0810.0694 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. D90, 012007 (2014), arXiv:1402.6296 [hep-ex]

    2014

  9. [17]

    de Florian, Phys

    D. de Florian, Phys. Rev. D79, 114014 (2009), arXiv:0904.4402 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D95, 071103 (2017), arXiv:1610.06616 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D98, 032011 (2018), arXiv:1805.09742 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    de Florian, G

    D. de Florian, G. A. Lucero, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D100, 114027 (2019), arXiv:1902.10548 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D100, 052005 (2019), arXiv:1906.02740 [hep-ex]

    2019

  14. [22]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D105, 092011 (2022), arXiv:2110.11020 [hep-ex]

    2022

  15. [23]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D98, 032013 (2018), arXiv:1805.09745 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. D93, 011501 (2016), arXiv:1510.02317 [hep-ex]

    2016

  17. [25]

    U. A. Acharyaet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. D102, 032001 (2020), arXiv:2004.02681 [hep-ex]

    2020

  18. [26]

    Acharyaet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    U. Acharyaet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 251901 (2023), arXiv:2202.08158 [hep-ex]

    2023

  19. [27]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D103, L091103 (2021), arXiv:2103.05571 [hep-ex]

    2021

  20. [28]

    Y. Zhou, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk (JAM), Phys. Rev. D105, 074022 (2022), arXiv:2201.02075 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Vogelsang, in25th International Spin Physics Sym- posium (SPIN 2023)(2023)

    W. Vogelsang, in25th International Spin Physics Sym- posium (SPIN 2023)(2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    N. T. Hunt-Smith, C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, A. W. Thomas, and M. J. White (JAM), (2024), arXiv:2403.08117 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Huanget al., Nucl

    H. Huanget al., Nucl. Phys. A721, 356 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    Zelenskiet al., Nucl

    A. Zelenskiet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A536, 248 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    K. H. Ackermannet al.(STAR), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 499, 624 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Andersonet al., Nucl

    M. Andersonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 499, 659 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0301015 [nucl-ex]

    2003 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Beddoet al.(STAR), Nucl

    M. Beddoet al.(STAR), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 725 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    C. E. Allgoweret al.(STAR), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 499, 740 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    W. J. Llopeet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 759, 23 (2014), arXiv:1403.6855 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Adler, A

    C. Adler, A. Denisov, E. Garcia, M. J. Murray, H. Stro- bele, and S. N. White, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A470, 488 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0008005 [nucl-ex]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. B. Schmidkeet al.(RHIC Polarimetry Group), Re- port No. BNL-209057-2018-TECH (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, J. High En- ergy Phys.05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep- ph]

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    P. Z. Skands, Phys. Rev. D82, 074018 (2010), arXiv:1005.3457v5 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Phys. Lett. B616, 8 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0309012 [nucl-ex]

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Agakishievet al.(STAR), Phys

    G. Agakishievet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 072302 (2012), arXiv:1110.0579 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D104, 052007 (2021), arXiv:2103.13286 [hep-ex]

    2021

  37. [45]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Lett. B811, 135846 (2020), arXiv:2003.02114 [hep-ex]

    2020

  38. [46]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D101, 052004 (2020), arXiv:1912.08187 [nucl-ex]

    2020

  39. [47]

    Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D106, 072010 (2022), arXiv:2205.11800 [hep-ex]

    2022

  40. [48]

    R. Brun, F. Bruyant, M. Maire, A. C. McPherson, and P. Zanarini, GEANT3 Report No. CERN-DD-EE-84-1 (1987), http://inspirehep.net/record/252007

    1987

  41. [49]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Bouchet, Nucl

    J. Bouchet, Nucl. Phys. A830, 636c (2009), arXiv:0907.3407 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Cacciari and G

    M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B659, 119 (2008), arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [53]

    H. Voss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, PoS ACA T, 040 (2007)

    2007

  45. [54]

    N. S. Craigie, K. Hidaka, M. Jacob, and F. M. Renard, Phys. Rept.99, 69 (1983)

    1983

  46. [55]

    Mukherjee and W

    A. Mukherjee and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D86, 094009 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 119901 (2023)], arXiv:1209.1785 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [56]

    de Florian, S

    D. de Florian, S. Frixione, A. Signer, and W. Vogelsang, Nucl. Phys. B539, 455 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9808262

    1999 arXiv

  48. [57]

    A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 189 (2009), arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [58]

    R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, L. Del Deb- bio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N. P. Hartland, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), Nucl. Phys. B877, 290 (2013), arXiv:1308.0598 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Altarelli, S

    G. Altarelli, S. Forte, and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B534, 277 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806345

    1998 arXiv

  51. [60]

    de Florian, S

    D. de Florian, S. Forte, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. 19 TABLE II. Correlation matrix, Column: bins 23-29 represent the 7 mid-rapidity dijet invariant mass points from the same-sign topology (Sign(η1) =Sign(η 2)) and bins 30-36 represent the 7 dijet points from the opposite-si...

    2024 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Frixione, Z

    S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, and A. Signer, Nucl. Phys. B 467, 399 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512328

    1996 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Frixione and G

    S. Frixione and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B507, 315 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9707345

    1997 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Frixione, Nucl

    S. Frixione, Nucl. Phys. B507, 295 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9706545

    1997

  55. [64]

    Stump, J

    D. Stump, J. Pumplin, R. Brock, D. Casey, J. Huston, J. Kalk, H. L. Lai, and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D65, 014012 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101051

    2001 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.