Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 80 references

Studying the Infrared Behaviour of Improved Logarithmic Accuracy Parton Showers with Herwig

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-01 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The precise infrared cutoff definition in parton showers drives observable differences at the hadron level in Herwig.

desk verdict They ported two recent NLL dipole showers into Herwig and show that the infrared cutoff choice affects hadron-level results, but the differences are not isolated from other shower variations. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.02622 v2 pith:F7QM7Q6Q submitted 2026-05-04 hep-ph

Jack Holguin , Simon Plätzer , Michael H. Seymour , Siddharth Sule This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords partonshowersinfraredcutoffhadronizationHerwigdipoleNLOmatchinglogarithmicaccuracycluster
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 implements two dipole parton shower algorithms with next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy at leading colour inside the Herwig event generator. It compares their performance to Herwig's existing dipole and angular-ordered showers, paying special attention to how each algorithm behaves when extrapolated into the infrared regime. The central result is that the exact choice of infrared cutoff, which supplies the starting configuration for Herwig's cluster hadronization model, produces clear differences once hadron-level observables are examined. A sympathetic reader cares because this cutoff choice directly influences the reliability of collider predictions that rely on the transition from perturbative showers to non-perturbative hadronization. The authors also extract best-fit parameters for each shower after tuning.

What carries the argument

The infrared cutoff chosen by each shower algorithm, which supplies the initial configuration for the cluster hadronization model.

What would settle it

Re-running the hadron-level comparisons after forcing every shower to adopt an identical infrared cutoff value would show whether the reported differences disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors implemented two recently proposed dipole shower algorithms with NLL accuracy at leading colour in Herwig. While these algorithms improve properties in the logarithmic regime, their extrapolations into the infrared regime matter because the precise infrared cutoff each shower uses becomes the initial state passed to Herwig's cluster hadronization model. At the hadron level this cutoff difference produces important consequences, which the authors propose as a starting point for further study of the interplay between parton showers and hadronization models.

Load-bearing premise

Observed differences at the hadron level arise primarily from the distinct infrared cutoff definitions rather than from other implementation details of the showers, the NLO matching, or the hadronization model itself.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript implements two recently proposed dipole parton shower algorithms with next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy at leading colour inside the Herwig event generator. These are compared to Herwig's existing dipole and angular-ordered showers, with emphasis on their extrapolations into the hard regime (where NLO matching is performed) and the infrared regime (where the infrared cutoff serves as input to the cluster hadronization model). The authors report that differences in the precise definition of this infrared cutoff produce important consequences at the hadron level and propose the cutoff as a starting point for further study of shower-hadronization interplay; they conclude with a tunability study that identifies best-fit parameters for each model.

Significance. If the reported hadron-level consequences of the infrared cutoff definitions are robust, the work is significant for clarifying the interface between perturbative showers and non-perturbative hadronization in general-purpose event generators. The explicit implementation of improved-logarithmic-accuracy showers and the concrete tuning exercise to data constitute practical strengths that can guide users of Herwig.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4 (hadron-level results)] §4 (hadron-level results): the attribution of observed differences at the hadron level to the distinct infrared cutoff definitions is not supported by a controlled test in which only the cutoff scale or definition is varied inside a single shower framework while holding the NLO matching procedure, hard-regime extrapolation, and cluster hadronization model fixed. Because the compared showers differ simultaneously in multiple algorithmic aspects, the central claim that the cutoff is the dominant driver cannot be isolated from other implementation distinctions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [tunability section] Ensure that all tables reporting best-fit parameters explicitly list the observables and data sets used in the tuning procedure.
  2. Figure captions should state the precise infrared cutoff values employed by each shower variant.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for greater clarity on the origin of the observed hadron-level differences. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (hadron-level results): the attribution of observed differences at the hadron level to the distinct infrared cutoff definitions is not supported by a controlled test in which only the cutoff scale or definition is varied inside a single shower framework while holding the NLO matching procedure, hard-regime extrapolation, and cluster hadronization model fixed. Because the compared showers differ simultaneously in multiple algorithmic aspects, the central claim that the cutoff is the dominant driver cannot be isolated from other implementation distinctions.

    Authors: We agree that a fully controlled test, in which only the infrared cutoff definition is varied inside one fixed shower framework while keeping NLO matching, hard-regime behaviour and the hadronization model identical, would strengthen the attribution. Such a test is not performed in the present work because the two NLL-accurate dipole showers are distinct algorithmic proposals; implementing a hybrid version that isolates only the cutoff would require substantial additional development beyond the scope of the paper. The manuscript instead compares complete, self-consistent implementations as they would be used in practice. We have revised §4 to state explicitly that the showers differ in several respects and that, while the infrared cutoff is expected to be an important driver of the hadron-level differences (because it directly sets the input to cluster hadronization), other algorithmic distinctions may also contribute. The text now frames the cutoff as a promising starting point for future dedicated studies rather than as the sole proven cause. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: numerical implementation study with external tuning

full rationale

The manuscript describes implementation of two prior dipole-shower algorithms inside Herwig, followed by direct Monte-Carlo comparisons against existing showers and data. All reported differences at hadron level are obtained from explicit event generation; the final step identifies best-fit parameters by tuning to external observables. No equation or claim reduces by construction to a quantity defined inside the same paper, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked to justify the central observations. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit equations or derivations. The only free parameters explicitly mentioned are the best-fit tuning parameters identified for each shower model. No new axioms or invented entities are described.

free parameters (1)
  • best-fit parameters for each shower model
    The paper reports identifying best-fit parameters after studying tunability of the implemented algorithms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Studying the Infrared Behaviour of Improved Logarithmic Accuracy Parton Showers with Herwig." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7QM7Q6Q

@misc{pith2026260502622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Studying the Infrared Behaviour of Improved Logarithmic Accuracy Parton Showers with Herwig},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7QM7Q6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.02622}
}
read the original abstract

We have implemented two recently proposed dipole shower algorithms that have next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy at leading colour in the Herwig event generator. We study their properties and compare them to Herwig's existing dipole and angular ordered parton shower algorithms. In addition to their improved properties in the logarithmic regime, we find important roles for their extrapolations into the hard regime, where we perform NLO matching, and into the infrared regime, where we perform cluster hadronization. We emphasise the importance of this infrared regime and the precise definition of the infrared cutoff used by each shower as the initial state for Herwig's hadronization model. Studying the results at the hadron level, we find important consequences of this infrared cutoff difference and propose it as a starting point for further study of the interplay between parton showers and hadronization models. We conclude by studying the models' tunability and identifying the best-fit parameters for each.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    General-purpose event generators for LHC physics

    A. Buckley et al., General-purpose event generators for LHC physics , Phys. Rept. 504 (2011) 145 [1101.2599]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Bewick et al.,Herwig 7.3 release note, Eur

    G. Bewick et al., Herwig 7.3 release note , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1053 [ 2312.05175]

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Bellm et al.,The Physics of Herwig 7,2512.16645

    J. Bellm et al., The Physics of Herwig 7 , 2512.16645

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Sherpa collaboration, Event generation with Sherpa 3 , JHEP 12 (2024) 156 [ 2410.22148]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Parton showers beyond leading logarithmic accuracy

    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]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Colour and logarithmic accuracy in final-state parton showers

    K. Hamilton, R. Medves, G.P. Salam, L. Scyboz and G. Soyez, Colour and logarithmic accuracy in final-state parton showers , JHEP 03 (2021) 041 [ 2011.10054]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Spin correlations in final-state parton showers and jet observables

    A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen, Spin correlations in final-state parton showers and jet observables , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 681 [ 2103.16526]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Hamilton, A

    K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen, Soft spin correlations in final-state parton showers, JHEP 03 (2022) 193 [ 2111.01161]

    2022

  2. [10]

    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, JHEP 11 (2022) 019 [ 2205.02237]

    2022

  3. [11]

    Forshaw, J

    J.R. Forshaw, J. Holguin and S. Pl¨ atzer,Building a consistent parton shower , JHEP 09 (2020) 014 [ 2003.06400]

    2020

  4. [12]

    Holguin, J.R

    J. Holguin, J.R. Forshaw and S. Pl¨ atzer,Improvements on dipole shower colour , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 364 [ 2011.15087]

    2021

  5. [13]

    Herren, S

    F. Herren, S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, D. Reichelt and M. Schoenherr, A new approach to color-coherent parton evolution, JHEP 10 (2023) 091 [ 2208.06057]

    2023

  6. [14]

    H¨ oche, F

    S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss and D. Reichelt,alaric parton shower for hadron colliders , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 094032 [ 2404.14360]

    2025

  7. [15]

    Bewick, S

    G. Bewick, S. Ferrario Ravasio, P. Richardson and M.H. Seymour, Logarithmic accuracy of angular-ordered parton showers, JHEP 04 (2020) 019 [ 1904.11866]

    2020

  8. [16]

    Hoang, S

    A.H. Hoang, S. Pl¨ atzer 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

  9. [17]

    Catani, B.R

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

    1991

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    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]

    2025

  12. [20]

    Pl¨ atzer,Colour evolution and infrared physics , JHEP 07 (2023) 126 [ 2204.06956]

    S. Pl¨ atzer,Colour evolution and infrared physics , JHEP 07 (2023) 126 [ 2204.06956]. – 42 –

    2023

  13. [21]

    Masouminia and P

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

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hoang, O.L

    A.H. Hoang, O.L. Jin, S. Pl¨ atzer 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

  15. [23]

    Altmann, A

    J. Altmann, A. Dubla, V. Greco, A. Rossi and P. Skands, Towards the understanding of heavy quarks hadronization: from leptonic to heavy-ion collisions , Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 16 [2405.19137]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Altmann and P

    J. Altmann and P. Skands, String junctions revisited, JHEP 07 (2024) 238 [ 2404.12040]

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gieseke, S

    S. Gieseke, S. Kiebacher, S. Pl¨ atzer and J. Priedigkeit, Phenomenological constraints of the building blocks of the cluster hadronization model , Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 796 [2505.14542]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Webber, Estimation of power corrections to hadronic event shapes , Phys

    B.R. Webber, Estimation of power corrections to hadronic event shapes , Phys. Lett. B 339 (1994) 148 [ hep-ph/9408222]

    1994 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dokshitzer and B.R

    Yu.L. Dokshitzer and B.R. Webber, Calculation of power corrections to hadronic event shapes, Phys. Lett. B 352 (1995) 451 [ hep-ph/9504219]

    1995 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dokshitzer, G

    Yu.L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, Dispersive approach to power behaved contributions in QCD hard processes , Nucl. Phys. B 469 (1996) 93 [ hep-ph/9512336]

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Salam and D

    G.P. Salam and D. Wicke, Hadron masses and power corrections to event shapes , JHEP 05 (2001) 061 [ hep-ph/0102343]

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mateu, I.W

    V. Mateu, I.W. Stewart and J. Thaler, Power Corrections to Event Shapes with Mass-Dependent Operators, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 014025 [ 1209.3781]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Farren-Colloty, J

    C. Farren-Colloty, J. Helliwell, R. Patel, G.P. Salam and S. Zanoli, Anomalous scaling of linear power corrections, 2507.18696

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bulava et al., Hadron Spectroscopy with Lattice QCD, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022, DOI [2203.03230]

    J. Bulava et al., Hadron Spectroscopy with Lattice QCD, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022, DOI [2203.03230]

    2021

  25. [33]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  26. [34]

    Zurbano Fernandez et al., High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, 12, 2020

    I. Zurbano Fernandez et al., High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, 12, 2020. 10.23731/CYRM-2020-0010

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    S. Amoroso et al., Les Houches 2019: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, in 11th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders: PhysTeV Les Houches, 3, 2020 [ 2003.01700]

    2019

  28. [36]

    Luisoni, P.F

    G. Luisoni, P.F. Monni and G.P. Salam, C-parameter hadronisation in the symmetric 3-jet limit and impact on αs fits, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 158 [ 2012.00622]

    2021

  29. [37]

    Caola, S

    F. Caola, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. Limatola, K. Melnikov, P. Nason and M.A. Ozcelik, Linear power corrections to e +e− shape variables in the three-jet region , JHEP 12 (2022) 062 [2204.02247]

    2022

  30. [38]

    Platzer and S

    S. Platzer and S. Gieseke, Coherent Parton Showers with Local Recoils , JHEP 01 (2011) 024 [0909.5593]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Platzer and S

    S. Platzer and S. Gieseke, Dipole Showers and Automated NLO Matching in Herwig++ , Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2187 [ 1109.6256]. – 43 –

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Frixione and B.R

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

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

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

    M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639 [ 0803.0883]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    Buckley, L

    A. Buckley, L. Corpe, M. Filipovich, C. Gutschow, N. Rozinsky, S. Thor et al., Consistent, multidimensional differential histogramming and summary statistics with YODA 2 , 2312.15070

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    Dinsdale, M

    M. Dinsdale, M. Ternick and S. Weinzierl, Parton showers from the dipole formalism , Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 094003 [ 0709.1026]

    2007 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bellm, S

    J. Bellm, S. Gieseke and S. Pl¨ atzer, Merging NLO Multi-jet Calculations with Improved Unitarization, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 244 [ 1705.06700]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Catani and M.H

    S. Catani and M.H. Seymour, A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 291 [ hep-ph/9605323]

    1997 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Platzer, ExSample: A Library for Sampling Sudakov-Type Distributions , Eur

    S. Platzer, ExSample: A Library for Sampling Sudakov-Type Distributions , Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1929 [ 1108.6182]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Nagy and D.E

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

    2005 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Collins, Spin Correlations in Monte Carlo Event Generators , Nucl

    J.C. Collins, Spin Correlations in Monte Carlo Event Generators , Nucl. Phys. B 304 (1988) 794

    1988

  43. [51]

    Knowles, A Linear Algorithm for Calculating Spin Correlations in Hadronic Collisions , Comput

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

    1990

  44. [52]

    Knowles, Spin Correlations in Parton - Parton Scattering , Nucl

    I.G. Knowles, Spin Correlations in Parton - Parton Scattering , Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988) 571

    1988

  45. [53]

    Richardson and S

    P. Richardson and S. Webster, Spin Correlations in Parton Shower Simulations , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 83 [ 1807.01955]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bellm et al., Herwig 7.2 release note , Eur

    J. Bellm et al., Herwig 7.2 release note , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 452 [ 1912.06509]

    2020

  47. [55]

    Hamilton, A

    K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen, Matching and event-shape NNDL accuracy in parton showers , JHEP 03 (2023) 224 [ 2301.09645]

    2023

  48. [56]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, J. Helliwell, A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam, L. Scyboz et al., Logarithmically-accurate and positive-definite NLO shower matching , JHEP 10 (2025) 038 [2504.05377]

    2025

  49. [57]

    Ellis, W.J

    R.K. Ellis, W.J. Stirling and B.R. Webber, QCD and collider physics , vol. 8, Cambridge University Press (10, 1996), 10.1017/CBO9780511628788

    1996 doi

  50. [58]

    L¨ oschner, S

    M. L¨ oschner, S. Pl¨ atzer and E.S. Dore,Multi-Emission Kernels for Parton Branching Algorithms, 2112.14454. – 44 –

  51. [59]

    Dasgupta, F.A

    M. Dasgupta, F.A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P.F. Monni and G.P. Salam, Logarithmic accuracy of parton showers: a fixed-order study , JHEP 09 (2018) 033 [ 1805.09327]

    2018

  52. [60]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, L. Lonnblad and U. Pettersson, Coherence Effects in Deep Inelastic Scattering, Z. Phys. C 43 (1989) 625

    1989

  53. [61]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, A. Nilsson and C. Sjogren, Fluctuations and Anomalous Dimensions in QCD Cascades , Z. Phys. C 49 (1991) 79

    1991

  54. [62]

    Dreyer, G.P

    F.A. Dreyer, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, The Lund Jet Plane , JHEP 12 (2018) 064 [1807.04758]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bauer, S

    C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays , Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 114020 [ hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Beneke and M

    M. Beneke and M. Neubert, QCD factorization for B — > PP and B — > PV decays, Nucl. Phys. B 675 (2003) 333 [ hep-ph/0308039]

    2003 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Effective Field Theories for Heavy Quarkonium, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 (2005) 1423 [ hep-ph/0410047]

    2005 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Azimov, Yu.L

    Y.I. Azimov, Yu.L. Dokshitzer, V.A. Khoze and S.I. Troyan, Similarity of Parton and Hadron Spectra in QCD Jets , Z. Phys. C 27 (1985) 65

    1985

  59. [67]

    Amati and G

    D. Amati and G. Veneziano, Preconfinement as a Property of Perturbative QCD , Phys. Lett. B 83 (1979) 87

    1979

  60. [68]

    Marchesini, L

    G. Marchesini, L. Trentadue and G. Veneziano, Space-time Description of Color Screening via Jet Calculus Techniques , Nucl. Phys. B 181 (1981) 335

    1981

  61. [69]

    Mazzanti, R

    P. Mazzanti, R. Odorico and V. Roberto, Quantitative Properties of Color Singlet Clusters in QCD Jets, Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 541

    1981

  62. [70]

    Dokshitzer, V.A

    Yu.L. Dokshitzer, V.A. Khoze, A.H. Mueller and S.I. Troyan, Basics of perturbative QCD , Editions Fronti` eres (1991)

    1991

  63. [71]

    Gieseke, P

    S. Gieseke, P. Kirchgaeßer and S. Pl¨ atzer,Baryon production from cluster hadronisation , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 99 [ 1710.10906]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Gieseke, P

    S. Gieseke, P. Kirchgaeßer, S. Pl¨ atzer and A. Si´ odmok,Colour Reconnection from Soft Gluon Evolution, JHEP 11 (2018) 149 [ 1808.06770]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Gieseke, P

    S. Gieseke, P. Kirchgaeßer, S. Pl¨ atzer and A. Si´ odmok,Soft Gluon Evolution as Guiding Principle for Colour Reconnection, Acta Phys. Polon. B 50 (2019) 1871

    2019

  66. [74]

    Corcella, I.G

    G. Corcella, I.G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri, P. Richardson et al., HERWIG 6: An Event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes), JHEP 01 (2001) 010 [ hep-ph/0011363]

    2001 arXiv

  67. [75]

    ALEPH collaboration, Studies of QCD at e+ e- centre-of-mass energies between 91-GeV and 209-GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 35 (2004) 457

    2004

  68. [76]

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

    2004 arXiv

  69. [77]

    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 [ 0907.2973]

    2010 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bellm and L

    J. Bellm and L. Gellersen, High dimensional parameter tuning for event generators , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 54 [ 1908.10811]. – 45 –

    2020

  71. [79]

    Krishnamoorthy, H

    M. Krishnamoorthy, H. Schulz, X. Ju, W. Wang, S. Leyffer, Z. Marshall et al., Apprentice for Event Generator Tuning, EPJ Web Conf. 251 (2021) 03060 [ 2103.05748]

    2021

  72. [80]

    Reichelt, P

    D. Reichelt, P. Richardson and A. Si´ odmok,Improving the Simulation of Quark and Gluon Jets with Herwig 7 , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 876 [ 1708.01491]. – 46 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.