Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 141 references

Herwig 7 with the Lund String Model: Tuning and Comparative Hadronization Studies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates that Pythia's Lund string hadronization, combined with colour reconnection, can be embedded in Herwig 7 and tuned into a general-purpose 'LH Tune' that performs competitively with Herwig's native cluster model and Pyt

desk verdict A real, citable artifact — the first hadron-collider string tune inside Herwig with colour reconnection — but the abstract oversells it, and the unexplained 73.5% run attrition in the final tuning stage is the main thing to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02348 v1 pith:E7HVVG33 submitted 2025-09-02 hep-ph hep-ex

Michaela Divisova , Miroslav Myska , Pratixan Sarmah , Andrzej Siódmok This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords hadronizationLundstringmodelclusterMonteCarloeventgeneratorsHerwigPythiatuningcolourreconnection
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

The paper makes the case that the Lund string hadronization model, the mechanism Pythia uses to turn coloured partons into hadrons, can be transplanted into Herwig 7 with no loss of descriptive power. By extending the TheP8I interface so that Herwig's angular-ordered parton shower feeds Pythia's string fragmentation and its QCD-based colour reconnection, the authors build a four-stage tune—the Les Houches (LH) Tune—from LEP, Tevatron, and LHC data. They show the resulting tune lands close to the established Herwig cluster default and the Pythia Monash tune across most observables it was tested on, and generalizes to measurements it was not tuned to, including lower-energy data. The payoff is a controlled comparison: with one shower fixed, switching between cluster and string hadronization separates hadronization effects from perturbative-shower effects in systematic-uncertainty estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended TheP8I interface, which bridges Herwig 7's ThePEG event framework to Pythia 8's hadronization classes. It converts showered Herwig events into Pythia-readable colour singlet systems, then runs Pythia's StringFragmentation, with new access to ColourReconnection and JunctionSplitting parameters so that colour reconnection can be tuned from within Herwig. On top of that, the Professor polynomial-response-surface method supplies the tuning machinery: a weighted chi-squared fit over sampled parameter points, applied in four sequential stages under a decoupling assumption.

What would settle it

Take the same data sets and tune all parameters simultaneously, or in a different order, and compare predictions on untuned LHC distributions; if the alternative tune moves by more than the quoted uncertainties or systematically beats the LH Tune on held-out observables such as identified strange-baryon yields at 7 TeV, the decoupling assumption is falsified. A cheaper check is to evaluate the Professor response surface at the LH Tune parameter point against direct generator runs to see whether the polynomial interpolation was accurate there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a modern Lund string model, including the QCD-based colour reconnection scheme needed for hadron-collider final states, is fully usable inside Herwig 7 and can be tuned to collider data at the same quality as the generator's native cluster model. The evidence is the LH Tune: fragmentation and final-state-radiation parameters are fit first to LEP event shapes and multiplicities, then flavour parameters to particle multiplicities, then initial-state radiation and intrinsic transverse momentum to Z-boson production at the LHC, and finally multiple-parton-interaction and colour-reconnection parameters to minimum-bias and underlying-event data at 0.9, 1.8, 7, and 13 TeV.

Load-bearing premise

The tuning assumes the four groups of parameters—fragmentation, flavour, initial-state radiation/intrinsic kT, and multiple-parton-interaction/colour reconnection—are independent enough that fixing each group in sequence does not bias the result, and that the polynomial response surface interpolates the true generator response accurately.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Herwig 7.4 ships the LH Tune, so string-model predictions in Herwig become a standard, maintained option rather than a custom patch.
  • With the shower held fixed, differences between cluster and string predictions directly quantify hadronization-model uncertainty for event shapes, multiplicities, underlying event, and beyond.
  • The interface exposes colour-reconnection parameters to Herwig users, making the QCD-based colour reconnection scheme available for studies of top-pair final states and other colour-reconnection-sensitive processes.
  • The LH Tune can be used at energies from 50 GeV up to 13 TeV, covering lower-energy experiments such as STAR as well as LHC analyses.
  • The separately tuned initial- and final-state radiation couplings come out nearly equal, suggesting they could be unified in a future tune.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the decoupling assumption holds, the same four-stage strategy could be applied to any hadronization model plugged into Herwig, turning model choice into a tunable dimension of systematic uncertainty.
  • The paper leaves implicit that its interface also opens the door to testing newer Pythia hadronization variants—thermodynamical fragmentation, string shoving, hyperfine-split string breaks—inside Herwig without changing the shower.
  • The identified-particle spectra at 7 TeV, which no tune describes within 50 percent, suggest that flavour parameters tuned at LEP do not fully transfer to the LHC environment; a hadron-collider flavour extension of the LH Tune would be the natural next step.
  • A simultaneous full-dimensional tune, once computationally affordable, would provide both a cross-check of the LH Tune and a Hessian-style error set for it.
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 interfaces the Pythia 8 Lund string hadronization model and its QCD-based colour reconnection scheme with Herwig 7's angular-ordered parton shower through an extended TheP8I interface. Using Rivet and Professor, the authors perform a four-stage sequential tune of fragmentation, flavour, ISR/intrinsic-kT, and MPI/CR parameters against LEP, Tevatron, and LHC data, yielding the 'LH Tune'. They compare this tune with Herwig's default cluster tune, Pythia 8's Monash tune, and an earlier string-model autotune across many observables, including some not used in the fit. The abstract and Section 3.1 claim that the LH Tune 'shows good performance across a wide range of observables' and is competitive with existing tunes; the tune will be included in Herwig 7.4.

Significance. If confirmed, this work provides the community with a validated general-purpose string-hadronization tune inside Herwig, enabling controlled comparisons of hadronization models with a fixed parton shower. The paper's strengths are its use of standard, reproducible tuning tools (Rivet/Professor), its explicit reporting of some failures (Section 4.2.2 pseudorapidity, Section 4.2.3 flavour spectra), and the planned public release of the interface patch. The four-stage tuning methodology is conventional and the paper contains a large body of plots that qualitatively support the central claim. However, the central claim rests on the reliability of the Professor interpolation and on the decoupling assumption, both of which receive only limited scrutiny in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1.2] The final tuning stage samples 1000 parameter vectors but only 265 'valid' runs are used for the Professor interpolation. No explanation is given for the 73.5% attrition. If invalid runs (crashes, timeouts, unphysical events) correlate with parameter values, the surviving points are not a uniform sample of the intended hypercube, and the response surface—and hence the optimum—may be biased. This concern is reinforced by the LH Tune values m0 = 2.87 GeV and junctionCorrection = 4.55, both sitting near the upper edges of their ranges (0.1–3 GeV and 0.05–5, respectively). The authors should quantify the causes of invalid runs, show the parameter-space distribution of valid vs. invalid points, and provide robustness checks such as repeated Professor fits on subsets, direct generator validation at the reported optimum, and sensitivity studies to the parameter ranges.
  2. [Section 3.1.1] The four-stage sequential tuning rests on the assumption, stated as 'we expect this assumption to hold', that fragmentation, flavour, ISR/kT, and MPI/CR parameter groups decouple. No numerical test of this decoupling is presented. Strong cross-group correlations could lead to a biased parameter set and would invalidate the generalization claim. The authors should test the assumption, for example by scanning MPI/CR parameters at fixed fragmentation/flavour values and checking LEP event-shape and multiplicity observables, or by comparing the sequential tune with a joint fit on a representative subset of observables. Without such checks, the 'good performance' claim is not fully supported.
  3. [Sections 4.1–4.2 and Abstract] Many of the plots used to demonstrate good performance (Figs. 4–6, 8–9, 11, 18–23) are exactly the observables included in the Professor fit; these cannot independently validate the tune. The paper does include validation plots (Figs. 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 24–25) and reasonably discusses them, but it does not provide quantitative goodness-of-fit measures (e.g., chi2/ndf) for either fitted or validation observables. In addition, Section 4.2.3 reports that none of the tunes describes the LHC flavour data well, with discrepancies up to 50%, and Section 4.2.2 reports that the LH Tune is 'farthest from the data' for the pseudorapidity distribution. These limitations should be reconciled with the abstract's 'good performance across a wide range of observables' by an explicit, quantitative summary of validation performance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.2, near Fig. 12] The text says observables in Fig. 12 use tracks with pT > 500 GeV and the 13 TeV distributions in Fig. 11 use pT > 100 GeV; these should be 500 MeV and 100 MeV. The same unit error appears in the Fig. 12 caption.
  2. [Figure 13 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'ALTAS' should be 'ATLAS'.
  3. [Figure 14 caption (e)] The caption describes the observable as the 'number of Λ and Λbar mesons'; Λ is a baryon, not a meson.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Eq. (4)] The power-law form in Eq. (4) is an assumed parametric form, and the red curve in Fig. 3 is a fit of that form. The statement that this 'demonstrates the intrinsic power law' is too strong, especially because the individual energy tunes share other parameters. Please soften the wording and present parameter uncertainties for the power-law fit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

One power-law 'demonstration' reduces to its own fitted ansatz; the central tuning claim retains independent validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1.2, Eq. (4), Fig. 3]
    "This parameter has been removed from the list of free parameters in [119] and set to follow a power law governed by the three parameters. ... Fig. 3 shows a red curve for the new LH Tune along with the individual pmin⊥(s) points obtained from fully independent tunes at four different energies. ... the individual points lie very close to the curve obtained from the LH Tune, thus demonstrating the intrinsic power law that it obeys."

    Eq. (4) defines pmin⊥(s) as a power law with fitted parameters c, b, and pmin⊥,0. The 'points' in Fig. 3 are not direct measurements but evaluations of the same assumed power-law form using each single-energy tune's fitted parameters. The red curve is likewise the LH Tune's own power-law parametrization. The agreement between points and curve is therefore a consistency check of the imposed ansatz, not an independent demonstration that the energy evolution obeys a power law. The claimed 'intrinsic power law' is an input assumption (taken from [119]) rather than a derived result.

full rationale

This is a tuning paper, so many successful comparisons against LEP and LHC data are expected to reproduce the fitted observables. The paper is transparent about this: Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and the appendix figures are explicitly described as included in the tuning interpolation, while Figs. 7, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are presented as unweighted validation observables. Those held-out comparisons provide genuine independent evidence for the LH Tune's generalization, so the central claim is not circular. The only concrete reduction found is the pmin⊥(s) power-law discussion in Section 3.1.2, where the power-law form is imposed in Eq. (4), fitted to each tune, and then presented as 'demonstrating the intrinsic power law.' That step is circular by construction but does not affect the main comparative hadronization conclusions. There are no load-bearing self-citation chains or imported uniqueness theorems; the cited previous work supplies tuning strategies and parametrizations but the validation is external to the fitted values.

Assumptions & free parameters 31 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on: 31 tuned parameters (Tables 1-4) plus imported phenomenological models (Lund string, AOPS, cluster comparison, QCD-based CR) and tuning-infrastructure assumptions (decoupling, Professor interpolation). The paper adds no new physical entities; its deliverable is a parameter set and a software patch, so the ledger counts parameters and imported-model assumptions rather than invented physics.

free parameters (31)
  • alphaS_FSR (Herwig FSR coupling at MZ) = 0.126
    Fitted to LEP event shapes and multiplicity data in stage 1 (Table 1).
  • pmin_perp (FSR infrared cutoff) = 1.03 GeV
    Fitted jointly with alphaS_FSR; strongly anti-correlated with the coupling (Table 1, Section 3.1.1).
  • aLund (Lund fragmentation a) = 0.75
    Fitted to LEP event shapes and scaled momentum spectra (Table 1).
  • bLund (Lund fragmentation b) = 0.90 GeV^-2
    Fitted to LEP data in stage 1 (Table 1).
  • sigma (Gaussian pT kick width) = 0.31 GeV
    Fitted to LEP transverse momentum distributions (Table 1).
  • aExtraSQuark = 0.18
    Fitted, increases a for s quarks (Table 1).
  • aExtraDiquark = 0.05
    Fitted, increases a for diquarks (Table 1).
  • rFactC = 0.68
    Bowler modification exponent for charm, fitted to LEP flavour data (Table 1).
  • rFactB = 1.27
    Bowler exponent for bottom, fitted to LEP b-quark fragmentation (Table 1).
  • probStoUD = 0.19
    Strangeness suppression, fitted to particle multiplicity ratios (Table 2).
  • probQQtoQ = 0.08
    Diquark suppression, fitted to baryon multiplicities (Table 2).
  • probSQtoQQ = 0.99
    Strange diquark suppression, fitted (Table 2).
  • probQQ1toQQ0 = 0.02
    Spin-1 vs spin-0 diquark suppression, fitted (Table 2).
  • etaSup = 0.51
    Eta suppression, fitted to meson multiplicities (Table 2).
  • etaPrimeSup = 0.18
    Eta-prime suppression, fitted (Table 2).
  • popcornRate = 0.73
    Baryon-meson-antibaryon production rate, fitted to baryon data (Table 2).
  • mesonUDvector = 0.33
    Vector/pseudoscalar ratio for u,d mesons, fitted (Table 2).
  • mesonSvector = 0.68
    Vector/pseudoscalar ratio for s mesons, fitted (Table 2).
  • mesonCvector = 1.07
    Ratio for charm mesons, fitted (Table 2).
  • mesonBvector = 1.85
    Ratio for bottom mesons, fitted (Table 2).
  • alphaS_ISR (Herwig ISR coupling at MZ) = 0.124
    Fitted to ATLAS/CMS Z pT and phi* data at 7 TeV (Table 3).
  • kT (intrinsic primordial kT) = 1.304 GeV
    Fitted to Drell-Yan Z pT data (Table 3).
  • Power c (MPI pmin exponent) = 0.23
    Fitted to MB/UE data across 0.9-13 TeV; enters Eq. (4) power law (Table 4).
  • pmin_perp_0 (MPI threshold scale) = 3.13 GeV
    Fitted, base scale of the pmin(s) power law (Table 4).
  • Offset b (MPI energy offset) = 530.5 GeV
    Fitted, offset in the pmin(s) power law (Table 4).
  • mu2 (MPI regularization) = 1.14 GeV^-2
    Fitted to MB/UE data (Table 4).
  • ladderMult = 0.57
    Fitted MPI ladder multiplicity parameter (Table 4).
  • ladderbFactor = 0.97
    Fitted MPI ladder parameter (Table 4).
  • Rdiff = 0.21
    Diffraction fraction, fitted to MB data (Table 4).
  • m0 (CR lower mass bound) = 2.87 GeV
    Colour reconnection parameter from Pythia via TheP8I, fitted to MB/UE data (Table 4).
  • junctionCorrection (CR junction mass scale) = 4.55
    Scales junction string mass, fitted (Table 4).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Lund string model and its Pythia 8 implementation are a valid description of hadronization
    The paper imports the model wholesale from [76] and [4,5] (Sections 2-3); any deficiency in the model propagates into the tune.
  • domain assumption Herwig 7 AOPS correctly generates the perturbative initial and final state
    Takes the angular-ordered shower [14] as given; differences from Pythia's pT-ordered shower are attributed to the models.
  • ad hoc to paper Fragmentation and flavour parameter groups decouple from each other and from MPI/CR parameters
    Section 3.1.1: 'we adopt the same assumption as other Pythia tunes... that these sets of parameters decouple and can be tuned separately... We expect this assumption to hold for our setup without introducing significant correlations.'
  • domain assumption Professor polynomial response surfaces interpolate the true generator response over the sampled hypercubes
    Section 3.1: the optimal tune is the minimum of fitted polynomials; with 575-950 samples in 9-11 dimensions (and only 265 valid multi-energy runs), interpolation error is unquantified.
  • domain assumption Pythia QCD-based colour reconnection [81] is needed and valid inside Herwig
    CR is switched on through TheP8I and tuned; the scheme is taken from [81] without independent validation in this setup.
  • domain assumption CT14LO PDFs are adequate for the LO event generation
    Section 3.1.2 uses Herwig's default CT14LO [101] without PDF uncertainty assessment.
  • domain assumption Linear confinement V(r) = kappa*r with kappa ~ 1 GeV/fm anchors the string picture
    Section 2, Eq. (1); the string tension is implicitly related to fragmentation parameters but not explicitly tunable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Herwig 7 with the Lund String Model: Tuning and Comparative Hadronization Studies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7HVVG33

@misc{pith2026250902348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Herwig 7 with the Lund String Model: Tuning and Comparative Hadronization Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7HVVG33}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02348}
}
read the original abstract

The modelling of the formation of colour-singlet hadrons from coloured partons, known as Hadronization, is crucial for generating realistic events in Monte Carlo Event Generators. Due to limited understanding of the non-perturbative regime, physically motivated phenomenological hadronization models with tunable parameters are used and later tuned to the experimental data. Modern Monte Carlo generators primarily employ one of two hadronization models: the Lund string model, which is the default in Pythia, and the cluster model, which is the default in Herwig and Sherpa. In this work, we combine the Lund string hadronization model, as implemented in Pythia 8, with Herwig 7 using TheP8I interface. We tune the string model with Herwig 7's Angular Ordered Parton Shower (AOPS) to lepton and hadron collision data, resulting in the Les Houches Tune (LH Tune), which shows good performance across a wide range of observables. The LH Tune will be included in the Herwig 7.4 release. This development enables a direct comparative study of the two hadronization models within Herwig, both interfaced with the Angular Ordered Parton Shower, which serves as the main motivation behind this work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. b. Such a distribution indicates that there is a wide space for finding the optimal values of other pa￾rameters. Subsequently, in the second stage of tuning, eleven flavour parameters listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of perturbative threshold p min ⊥ with the centre-of-mass energies for individual tunes and the energy extrapolated LH Tune along with a dedicated fit obtained from [119]. With the combination of these two tuning strate￾gies, we can also study the energy evolution of the min￾imal transverse momentum threshold p min ⊥ (s) separat￾ing semi-hard and soft parts of MPI modelling in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized differential cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (22 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multiplicities of identified particles: (a) mean number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Event Shape observables measured by DELPHI experiment at LEP [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Inclusive single particle momentum distributions measured by DELPHI experiment at LEP [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Observables measured by (a) SLD [120], (b-d) L3 [121], (e-f) DELPHI [97] and (g-i) ALEPH [122] exper￾iments at LEP and SLC. These observables are not assigned any weights in the tuning procedure, which do not bias the tunes directly. The LH Tune (in red) lies within th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Underlying Event particle multiplicity distributions in azimuthal plane relative to the leading object direc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Underlying Event observables measured by the ATLAS experiment at 13 TeV proton collisions [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Underlying Event observables measured by the ATLAS experiment at 13 TeV proton collisions [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Minimum Bias observables measured by the ATLAS experiment at 0.9 and 7 TeV [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Minimum Bias observables measured by the ATLAS experiment at 13 TeV [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Forward rapidity gaps as measured at ALTAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Identified particle transverse momentum spectra for proton-proton collisions at 7 TeV. Individual plots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Observables measured at STAR [130, 131] and SppS (using UA1-UA5 detectors) [132–134] experiments at √ s = 200 GeV. Individual plots are: Transverse momentum spectrum of (a) π + pions, (b) K+ kaons, (c) Ratio of anti-protons (p¯) to pions (π −) as a function of p⊥, (d)…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Underlying Event measurements for charged particle multiplicity as a function of azimuthal angle related to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Minimum Bias measurements for the three different views on distributions of charged particle multiplicity and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Underlying Event observables for proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Underlying Event observables for proton anti-proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Underlying Event observables for proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Minimum Bias observables for proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Minimum Bias observables for proton anti-proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Minimum Bias observables for proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: A selection of Underlying Event and Minimum Bias observables for proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: A selection of Underlying Event and Minimum Bias observables for proton collisions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_25.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 196, [1512.01178]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 452, [1912.06509]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    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]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [1410.3012]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    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]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Gleisberg, S

    T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, S. Schumann, F. Siegert et al.,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP 02 (2009) 007, [0811.4622]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Bothmann et al.,Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys

    Sherpacollaboration, E. Bothmann et al.,Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034, [1905.09127]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 3, JHEP 12 (2024) 156, [2410.22148]

    Sherpacollaboration, E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 3, JHEP 12 (2024) 156, [2410.22148]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 141 references
  1. [9]

    Höche, F

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

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss,A Parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP 03 (2008) 038, [0709.1027]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Parton showers with quantum interference, JHEP 09 (2007) 114, [0706.0017]

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Effects of subleading color in a parton shower, JHEP 07 (2015) 119, [1501.00778]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bewick, S

    G. Bewick, S. Ferrario Ravasio, P. Richardson and M. H. Seymour,Initial state radiation in the Herwig 7 angular-ordered parton shower, JHEP 01 (2022) 026, [2107.04051]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J.-B. Lee, M. R. Masouminia, M. H. Seymour and U.-k. Yang,Generalized angular-order parton showers in Herwig 7, JHEP 08 (2024) 064, [2312.13125]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fischer, S

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

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. H. Hoang, S. Plätzer and D. Samitz,On the Cutoff Dependence of the Quark Mass Parameter in Angular Ordered Parton Showers, JHEP 10 (2018) 200, [1807.06617]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Holguin, J

    J. Holguin, J. R. Forshaw and S. Plätzer,Improvements on dipole shower colour, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 364, [2011.15087]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Frixione and B

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber,Correcting for cutoff dependence in backward evolution of QCD parton showers, JHEP 03 (2024) 150, [2309.15587]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. R. Forshaw, S. Plätzer and F. T. González,Exact colour evolution for jet observables, 2502.12133

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Frixione and B

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber,Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations, JHEP 06 (2002) 029, [hep-ph/0204244]

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11 (2004) 040, [hep-ph/0409146]

    P. Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11 (2004) 040, [hep-ph/0409146]

    2004 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari,Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP 11 (2007) 070, [0709.2092]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 06 (2010) 043, [1002.2581]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG, JHEP 07 (2008) 060, [0805.4802]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG, JHEP 04 (2009) 002, [0812.0578]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: s- and t-channel contributions, JHEP 09 (2009) 111, [0907.4076]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hamilton,A positive-weight next-to-leading order simulation of weak boson pair production, JHEP 01 (2011) 009, [1009.5391]

    K. Hamilton,A positive-weight next-to-leading order simulation of weak boson pair production, JHEP 01 (2011) 009, [1009.5391]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Plätzer and S

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

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert,A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP 09 (2012) 049, [1111.1220]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nason and B

    P. Nason and B. Webber,Next-to-Leading-Order Event Generators, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62 (2012) 187–213, [1202.1251]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Frederix, E

    R. Frederix, E. Re and P. Torrielli,Single-top t-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO, JHEP 09 (2012) 130, [1207.5391]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, G. Luisoni and E. Vryonidou,NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers, JHEP 08 (2017) 088, [1703.09252]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jones and S

    S. Jones and S. Kuttimalai,Parton Shower and NLO-Matching uncertainties in Higgs Boson Pair Production, JHEP 02 (2018) 176, [1711.03319]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cormier, S

    K. Cormier, S. Plätzer, C. Reuschle, P. Richardson and S. Webster,Parton showers and matching uncertainties in top quark pair production with Herwig 7, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 915, [1810.06493]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    rep., CERN, Geneva, 2023

    ATLAScollaboration, Studies on the improvement of the matching uncertainty definition in top-quark processes simulated with Powheg+Pythia 8, tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Jadach, A

    S. Jadach, A. Kusina, W. Płaczek, M. Skrzypek and M. Sławinska,Inclusion of the QCD next-to-leading order corrections in the quark-gluon Monte Carlo shower, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 034029, [1103.5015]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jadach, W

    S. Jadach, W. Płaczek, S. Sapeta, A. Siódmok and M. Skrzypek,Matching NLO QCD with parton shower in Monte Carlo scheme — the KrkNLO method, JHEP 10 (2015) 052, [1503.06849]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Jadach, G

    S. Jadach, G. Nail, W. Płaczek, S. Sapeta, A. Siódmok and M. Skrzypek,Monte Carlo simulations of Higgs-boson production at the LHC with the KrkNLO method, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 164, [1607.06799]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sarmah, A

    P. Sarmah, A. Siódmok and J. Whitehead,KrkNLO matching for colour-singlet processes, 2409.16417

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Frixione, S

    S. Frixione, S. Amoroso and S. Mrenna,Matrix element corrections in the Pythia8 parton shower in the context of matched simulations at next-to-leading order, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 970, [2308.06389]. 34

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    W. T. Giele, D. A. Kosower and P. Z. Skands,A simple shower and matching algorithm, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 014026, [0707.3652]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. Chen, T. M. Figy and S. Plätzer,NLO multijet merging for Higgs production beyond the VBF approximation, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 704, [2109.03730]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bellm, S

    J. Bellm, S. Gieseke and S. Plätzer,Merging NLO Multi-jet Calculations with Improved Unitarization, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 244, [1705.06700]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bothmann, M

    E. Bothmann, M. Schönherr and S. Schumann,Reweighting QCD matrix-element and parton-shower calculations, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 590, [1606.08753]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mrenna and P

    S. Mrenna and P. Skands,Automated Parton-Shower Variations in Pythia 8, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 074005, [1605.08352]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bellm, S

    J. Bellm, S. Plätzer, P. Richardson, A. Siódmok and S. Webster,Reweighting Parton Showers, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 034028, [1605.08256]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bellm, G

    J. Bellm, G. Nail, S. Plätzer, P. Schichtel and A. Siódmok,Parton Shower Uncertainties with Herwig 7: Benchmarks at Leading Order, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 665, [1605.01338]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Argyropoulos and T

    S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjöstrand,Effects of color reconnection ont¯t final states at the LHC, JHEP 11 (2014) 043, [1407.6653]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Freytsis, P

    M. Freytsis, P. Harris, A. Hinzmann, I. Moult, N. Tran and C. Vernieri,Prospects for a Measurement of theW Boson Mass in the All-Jets Final State at Hadron Colliders, JHEP 02 (2019) 003, [1807.07454]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hou et al.,Reconstruction of Monte Carlo replicas from Hessian parton distributions, JHEP 03 (2017) 099, [1607.06066]

    T.-J. Hou et al.,Reconstruction of Monte Carlo replicas from Hessian parton distributions, JHEP 03 (2017) 099, [1607.06066]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Johnson and D

    M. Johnson and D. Maître,Strong coupling constant extraction from high-multiplicity Z+jets observables, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 054013, [1711.01408]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Fischer and T

    N. Fischer and T. Sjöstrand,Thermodynamical String Fragmentation, JHEP 01 (2017) 140, [1610.09818]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ferreres-Solé and T

    S. Ferreres-Solé and T. Sjöstrand,The space–time structure of hadronization in the Lund model, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 983, [1808.04619]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gieseke, P

    S. Gieseke, P. Kirchgaeßer, S. Plätzer and A. Siodmok,Colour Reconnection from Soft Gluon Evolution, JHEP 11 (2018) 149, [1808.06770]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Plätzer,Colour evolution and infrared physics, JHEP 07 (2023) 126, [2204.06956]

    S. Plätzer,Colour evolution and infrared physics, JHEP 07 (2023) 126, [2204.06956]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, G. Gustafson and L. Lönnblad,Setting the string shoving picture in a new frame, JHEP 03 (2021) 270, [2010.07595]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, G. Gustafson and L. Lönnblad,Hyperfine splitting effects in string hadronization, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 228, [2201.06316]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Chakraborty and L

    S. Chakraborty and L. Lönnblad,Impact of string interactions on the space–time evolution of hadronic vertices, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 464, [2207.14186]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bierlich, G

    C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad and H. Shah,The dynamic hadronization of charm quarks in heavy-ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 231, [2309.12452]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bierlich, G

    C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad and A. Tarasov,Effects of Overlapping Strings in pp Collisions, JHEP 03 (2015) 148, [1412.6259]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kerbizi and L

    A. Kerbizi and L. Lönnblad,Extending StringSpinner to handle vector-meson spin, Comput. Phys. Commun.292 (2023) 108886, [2305.05058]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A. H. Hoang, O. L. Jin, S. Plätzer and D. Samitz,Matching hadronization and perturbative evolution: the cluster model in light of infrared shower cutoff dependence, JHEP 07 (2025) 005, [2404.09856]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. R. Masouminia and P. Richardson,Hadronization and decay of excited heavy hadrons in Herwig 7, JHEP 07 (2024) 278, [2312.02757]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    G. S. Chahal and F. Krauss,Cluster Hadronisation in Sherpa, SciPost Phys. 13 (2022) 019, [2203.11385]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gieseke, S

    S. Gieseke, S. Kiebacher, S. Plätzer and J. Priedigkeit,Phenomenological constraints of the building blocks of the cluster hadronization model, 2505.14542

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ghosh, X

    A. Ghosh, X. Ju, B. Nachman and A. Siodmok,Towards a deep learning model for hadronization, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 096020, [2203.12660]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ilten, T

    P. Ilten, T. Menzo, A. Youssef and J. Zupan,Modeling hadronization using machine learning, SciPost Phys. 14 (2023) 027, [2203.04983]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. Chan, X. Ju, A. Kania, B. Nachman, V. Sangli and A. Siodmok,Fitting a deep generative hadronization model, JHEP 09 (2023) 084, [2305.17169]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. Chan, X. Ju, A. Kania, B. Nachman, V. Sangli and A. Siodmok,Integrating particle flavor into deep learning models for hadronization, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 116015, [2312.08453]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bierlich, P

    C. Bierlich, P. Ilten, T. Menzo, S. Mrenna, M. Szewc, M. K. Wilkinson et al.,Reweighting Monte Carlo predictions and automated fragmentation variations in Pythia 8, SciPost Phys. 16 (2024) 134, [2308.13459]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Heller, P

    N. Heller, P. Ilten, T. Menzo, S. Mrenna, B. Nachman, A. Siodmok et al.,Rejection Sampling with Autodifferentiation – Case study: Fitting a Hadronization Model, 2411.02194

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bierlich, P

    C. Bierlich, P. Ilten, T. Menzo, S. Mrenna, M. Szewc, M. K. Wilkinson et al.,Describing hadronization via histories and observables for Monte-Carlo event reweighting, SciPost Phys. 18 (2025) 054, [2410.06342]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bierlich, P

    C. Bierlich, P. Ilten, T. Menzo, S. Mrenna, M. Szewc, M. K. Wilkinson et al.,Towards a data-driven model of hadronization using normalizing flows, SciPost Phys. 17 (2024) 045, [2311.09296]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    B. Assi, C. Bierlich, P. Ilten, T. Menzo, S. Mrenna, M. Szewc et al.,Characterizing the hadronization of parton showers using the HOMER method, 2503.05667

  68. [76]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and T. Sjöstrand,Parton Fragmentation and String Dynamics, Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31–145

    1983

  69. [77]

    B. R. Webber,A QCD Model for Jet Fragmentation Including Soft Gluon Interference, Nucl. Phys. B 238 (1984) 492–528

    1984

  70. [78]

    Sjöstrand,The PYTHIA Event Generator: Past, Present and Future, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand,The PYTHIA Event Generator: Past, Present and Future, Comput. Phys. Commun.246 (2020) 106910, [1907.09874]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Marchesini and B

    G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber,Monte Carlo Simulation of General Hard Processes with Coherent QCD Radiation, Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988) 461–526

    1988

  72. [80]

    Catani, B

    S. Catani, B. R. Webber and G. Marchesini,QCD coherent branching and semiinclusive processes at large x, Nucl. Phys. B 349 (1991) 635–654

    1991

  73. [81]

    J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands,String Formation Beyond Leading Colour, JHEP 08 (2015) 003, [1505.01681]. 35

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Bellm and L

    J. Bellm and L. Gellersen,High dimensional parameter tuning for event generators, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 54, [1908.10811]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    La Cagnina, K

    S. La Cagnina, K. Kröninger, S. Kluth and A. Verbytskyi,A Bayesian tune of the Herwig Monte Carlo event generator, JINST 18 (2023) P10033, [2302.01139]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    M. G. Bowler,e+ e- Production of Heavy Quarks in the String Model, Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 169

    1981

  77. [85]

    ’t Hooft,A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft,A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions, Nucl. Phys. B 72 (1974) 461

    1974

  78. [86]

    Amati and G

    D. Amati and G. Veneziano,Preconfinement as a Property of Perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B83 (1979) 87–92

    1979

  79. [87]

    Bähr et al.,Herwig++ Physics and Manual, Eur

    M. Bähr et al.,Herwig++ Physics and Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C58 (2008) 639–707, [0803.0883]

    2008 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Lönnblad,ThePEG, Pythia7, herwig++ and Ariadne, Nucl

    L. Lönnblad,ThePEG, Pythia7, herwig++ and Ariadne, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A559 (2006) 246–248

    2006

  81. [89]

    Lönnblad,THEPEG: Toolkit for High Energy Physics event generation, inHERA and the LHC: 4th Workshop on the Implications of HERA for LHC Physics, pp

    L. Lönnblad,THEPEG: Toolkit for High Energy Physics event generation, inHERA and the LHC: 4th Workshop on the Implications of HERA for LHC Physics, pp. 733–736, 3, 2009. DOI

    2009

  82. [90]

    TheP8I: an interface between the Pythia8 and the ThePEG toolkit

    L. Lönnblad et al., “TheP8I: an interface between the Pythia8 and the ThePEG toolkit.”

  83. [91]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, L. Lönnblad, J. Monk et al.,Rivet user manual, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2803–2819, [1003.0694]

    2013 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Bierlich, A

    C. Bierlich, A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, C. H. Christensen, L. Corpe, D. Grellscheid et al.,Robust Independent Validation of Experiment and Theory: Rivet version 3, SciPost Phys. 8 (2020) 026

    2020

  85. [93]

    Bierlich, A

    C. Bierlich, A. Buckley, J. M. Butterworth, C. Gutschow, L. Lonnblad, T. Procter et al.,Robust independent validation of experiment and theory: Rivet version 4 release note, SciPost Phys. Codeb.36 (2024) 1, [2404.15984]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Buckley, H

    A. Buckley, H. Hoeth, H. Lacker, H. Schulz and J. E. von Seggern,Systematic event generator tuning for the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 65 (2010) 331–357, [0907.2973]

    2010 arXiv

  87. [95]

    P. Z. Skands,Tuning Monte Carlo Generators: The Perugia Tunes, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 074018, [1005.3457]

    2010 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Skands, S

    P. Skands, S. Carrazza and J. Rojo,Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 3024, [1404.5630]

    2013 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Abreu et al.,Tuning and test of fragmentation models based on identified particles and precision event shape data, Z

    DELPHI collaboration, P. Abreu et al.,Tuning and test of fragmentation models based on identified particles and precision event shape data, Z. Phys. C 73 (1996) 11–60

    1996

  90. [98]

    Ackerstaff et al.,Measurements of flavor dependent fragmentation functions in Z0 –> q anti-q events, Eur

    OPALcollaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al.,Measurements of flavor dependent fragmentation functions in Z0 –> q anti-q events, Eur. Phys. J. C7 (1999) 369–381, [hep-ex/9807004]

    1999 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Amsler et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Phys

    Particle Data Group collaboration, C. Amsler et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Lett. B667 (2008) 1–1340

    2008

  92. [100]

    A Study of the b-Quark Fragmentation Function with the DELPHI Detector at LEP I

    G. Barker, E. Ben-Haim, M. Feindt, U. Kerzel, P. Roudeau, L. Ramler et al., “A Study of the b-Quark Fragmentation Function with the DELPHI Detector at LEP I.” DELPHI-2002-069 CONF 603, 2002

    2002

  93. [101]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky et al.,New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 033006, [1506.07443]

    2016 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht et al.,LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 132, [1412.7420]

    2015 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Aad et al.,Measurement of theZ/γ∗ boson transverse momentum distribution inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 09 (2014) 145, [1406.3660]

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of theZ/γ∗ boson transverse momentum distribution inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 09 (2014) 145, [1406.3660]

    2014 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Aad et al.,Measurement of angular correlations in Drell-Yan lepton pairs to probe Z/gamma* boson transverse momentum at sqrt(s)=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of angular correlations in Drell-Yan lepton pairs to probe Z/gamma* boson transverse momentum at sqrt(s)=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B720 (2013) 32–51, [1211.6899]

    2013 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Chatrchyan et al.,Measurement of the Rapidity and Transverse Momentum Distributions ofZ Bosons in pp Collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Phys

    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Measurement of the Rapidity and Transverse Momentum Distributions ofZ Bosons in pp Collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 032002, [1110.4973]

    2012 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Aamodt et al.,Transverse momentum spectra of charged particles in proton-proton collisions at√s = 900~GeV with ALICE at the LHC, Phys

    ALICE collaboration, K. Aamodt et al.,Transverse momentum spectra of charged particles in proton-proton collisions at√s = 900~GeV with ALICE at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B693 (2010) 53–68, [1007.0719]

    2010 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Aad et al.,Measurements of underlying-event properties using neutral and charged particles inpp collisions at 900 GeV and 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurements of underlying-event properties using neutral and charged particles inpp collisions at 900 GeV and 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1636, [1103.1816]

    2011 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Aad et al.,Charged-particle multiplicities in pp interactions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, New J

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Charged-particle multiplicities in pp interactions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, New J. Phys.13 (2011) 053033, [1012.5104]

    2011 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Aad et al.,Charged-particle multiplicities inpp interactions at √s = 900 GeV measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Charged-particle multiplicities inpp interactions at √s = 900 GeV measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B688 (2010) 21–42, [1003.3124]

    2010 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Aad et al.,Measurement of underlying event characteristics using charged particles in pp collisions at √s = 900GeV and 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of underlying event characteristics using charged particles in pp collisions at √s = 900GeV and 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 112001, [1012.0791]

    2011 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Acosta et al.,Soft and Hard Interactions inp¯p Collisions at √s = 1800-GeV and 630-GeV, Phys

    CDF collaboration, D. Acosta et al.,Soft and Hard Interactions inp¯p Collisions at √s = 1800-GeV and 630-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 072005

    2002

  104. [112]

    Alexopoulos et al.,The role of double parton collisions in soft hadron interactions, Phys

    T. Alexopoulos et al.,The role of double parton collisions in soft hadron interactions, Phys. Lett. B435 (1998) 453–457

    1998

  105. [113]

    F. Abe, D. Amidei, G. Apollinari, G. Ascoli, M. Atac, P. Auchincloss et al.,Pseudorapidity distributions of charged particles produced inpp interactions as √s = 630 and 1800 gev, Phys. Rev. D41 (Apr, 1990) 2330–2333

    1990

  106. [114]

    Abe et al.,Transverse Momentum Distributions of Charged Particles Produced in¯pp Interactions at√s = 630 GeV and 1800 GeV, Phys

    CDF collaboration, F. Abe et al.,Transverse Momentum Distributions of Charged Particles Produced in¯pp Interactions at√s = 630 GeV and 1800 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.61 (1988) 1819

    1988

  107. [115]

    Affolder et al.,Charged Jet Evolution and the Underlying Event inp¯p Collisions at 1.8 TeV, Phys

    CDF collaboration, T. Affolder et al.,Charged Jet Evolution and the Underlying Event inp¯p Collisions at 1.8 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 092002

    2002

  108. [116]

    Aamodt et al.,Charged-particle multiplicity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV with ALICE at LHC, Eur

    ALICE collaboration, K. Aamodt et al.,Charged-particle multiplicity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV with ALICE at LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C68 (2010) 345–354, [1004.3514]

    2010 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Aaboud et al.,Charged-particle distributions at low transverse momentum in√s = 13 TeV pp interactions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur

    ATLAScollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Charged-particle distributions at low transverse momentum in√s = 13 TeV pp interactions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 502, [1606.01133]

    2016 arXiv

  110. [118]

    ATLAScollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Measurement of charged-particle distributions sensitive to the underlying event in√s = 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, JHEP 03 (2017) 157, [1701.05390]

    2017 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Bellm, S

    J. Bellm, S. Gieseke and P. Kirchgaesser,Improving the description of multiple interactions in Herwig, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 469, [1911.13149]

    2020 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Abe et al.,Measurement of the b quark fragmentation function in Z0 decays, Phys

    SLD collaboration, K. Abe et al.,Measurement of the b quark fragmentation function in Z0 decays, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 092006, [hep-ex/0202031]

    2002 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Achard et al.,Studies of hadronic event structure ine+e− annihilation from 30-GeV to 209-GeV with the L3 detector, Phys

    L3 collaboration, P. Achard et al.,Studies of hadronic event structure ine+e− annihilation from 30-GeV to 209-GeV with the L3 detector, Phys. Rept. 399 (2004) 71–174, [hep-ex/0406049]

    2004 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Barate et al.,Studies of quantum chromodynamics with the ALEPH detector, Phys

    ALEPH collaboration, R. Barate et al.,Studies of quantum chromodynamics with the ALEPH detector, Phys. Rept. 294 (1998) 1–165. 36

    1998

  115. [123]

    Aad et al.,Charged-particle distributions in√s = 13 TeV pp interactions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Charged-particle distributions in√s = 13 TeV pp interactions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B758 (2016) 67–88, [1602.01633]

    2016 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Aad et al.,Rapidity gap cross sections measured with the ATLAS detector inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Rapidity gap cross sections measured with the ATLAS detector inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1926, [1201.2808]

    2012 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Adam et al.,Measurement of pion, kaon and proton production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV, Eur

    ALICE collaboration, J. Adam et al.,Measurement of pion, kaon and proton production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 226, [1504.00024]

    2015 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Khachatryan et al.,Strange Particle Production inpp Collisions at √s = 0.9 and 7 TeV, JHEP 05 (2011) 064, [1102.4282]

    CMS collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al.,Strange Particle Production inpp Collisions at √s = 0.9 and 7 TeV, JHEP 05 (2011) 064, [1102.4282]

    2011 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Chatrchyan, V

    CMS Collaboration collaboration, S. Chatrchyan, V. Khachatryan, A. M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, T. Bergauer et al.,Measurement of neutral strange particle production in the underlying event in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV , Phys. Rev. D88 (Sep, 2013) 052001

    2013

  120. [128]

    ALICE collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al.,Production of Σ(1385)± and Ξ(1530)0 in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 1, [1406.3206]

    2015 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Aaij et al.,Measurement of the inclusiveϕ cross-section inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Phys

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al.,Measurement of the inclusiveϕ cross-section inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 703 (2011) 267–273, [1107.3935]

    2011 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Adams et al.,Identified hadron spectra at large transverse momentum in p+p and d+Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV, Phys

    STARcollaboration, J. Adams et al.,Identified hadron spectra at large transverse momentum in p+p and d+Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV, Phys. Lett. B637 (2006) 161–169, [nucl-ex/0601033]

    2006 arXiv

  123. [131]

    STARcollaboration, B. I. Abelev et al.,Systematic Measurements of Identified Particle Spectra inpp, d+ Au and Au+Au Collisions from STAR, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 034909, [0808.2041]

    2009 arXiv

  124. [132]

    UA5 collaboration, G. J. Alner et al.,Scaling of Pseudorapidity Distributions at c.m. Energies Up to 0.9-TeV, Z. Phys. C 33 (1986) 1–6

    1986

  125. [133]

    UA5 collaboration, R. E. Ansorge et al.,Charged Particle Multiplicity Distributions at 200-GeV and 900-GeV Center-Of-Mass Energy, Z. Phys. C 43 (1989) 357

    1989

  126. [134]

    Albajar et al.,A Study of the General Characteristics ofp¯p Collisions at √s = 0.2-TeV to 0.9-TeV, Nucl

    UA1 collaboration, C. Albajar et al.,A Study of the General Characteristics ofp¯p Collisions at √s = 0.2-TeV to 0.9-TeV, Nucl. Phys. B 335 (1990) 261–287

    1990

  127. [135]

    Behring et al.,Flavoured jet algorithms: a comparative study, 2506.13449

    A. Behring et al.,Flavoured jet algorithms: a comparative study, 2506.13449

  128. [136]

    U. S. Qureshi, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, L. Mozarsky, H. Caines and I. Mooney,A New Herwig7 Underlying Event Tune: from RHIC to LHC Energies, 2411.16897

  129. [137]

    Bellm, C

    J. Bellm, C. B. Duncan, S. Gieseke, M. Myska and A. Siódmok,Spacetime colour reconnection in Herwig 7, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 1003, [1909.08850]

    2019 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Kiebacher,On The Phenomenology Of Hadronization And Colour Reconnection

    S. Kiebacher,On The Phenomenology Of Hadronization And Colour Reconnection. PhD thesis, Institut für Theoretische Physik (ITP), 2, 2025. 10.5445/IR/1000179268

    2025

  131. [139]

    ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7 TeV data

    ATLAS collaboration, “ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7 TeV data.” ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014

    2014

  132. [140]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam,Event shapes in e+ e- annihilation and deep inelastic scattering, J. Phys. G 30 (2004) R143, [hep-ph/0312283]

    2004 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Aad et al.,Measurement of event shapes at large momentum transfer with the ATLAS detector inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of event shapes at large momentum transfer with the ATLAS detector inpp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 2211, [1206.2135]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.