Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

The Cambridge/Aachen jet algorithm suppresses non-global logarithms in V/H+jet production more than the k_t and anti-k_t algorithms at fixed order through four loops, while matching k_t after resummation.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 03:12 UTC pith:GIGLWKR4

load-bearing objection Genuine new fixed-order C/A results for V/H+jet through four loops, but the all-orders 'comparable to k_t' claim rests on an unvalidated exponentiation assumption and the abstract oversells the fixed-order advantage. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13962 v1 pith:GIGLWKR4 submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ph hep-th

V/H+Jet Production with the Cambridge/Aachen Algorithm

K. Khelifa-Kerfa This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords non-global logarithmsclustering logarithmsCambridge/Aachen algorithmjet massV/H+jet productionresummationQCD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

At next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy, the paper computes the invariant-mass distribution of the highest-transverse-momentum jet in vector-boson and Higgs production with an associated jet, using Cambridge/Aachen (C/A) clustering, through four-loop order. It establishes that, starting at three loops, C/A clustering reduces the magnitude of both clustering logarithms and non-global logarithms relative to the k_t algorithm — by roughly 45–80% depending on the partonic channel and jet radius — and that C/A is clearly better than anti-k_t. At all orders, the exponentiated form factors built from these coefficients are comparable to k_t, and finite-color corrections stay at the percent level. The results matter because the jet-mass observable is a key precision probe at hadron colliders, and the C/A algorithm is widely used in jet substructure; knowing its logarithmic structure is necessary for accurate predictions.

Core claim

Paper's central claim: C/A clustering yields the smallest non-global logarithmic corrections to the V/H+jet mass distribution among the standard jet algorithms. At two loops C/A equals k_t; at three loops the purely angular distance measure creates new clustering structures. Using the containment identity (C/A strictly includes k_t configurations), the paper computes pure C/A corrections to the three-loop CL and NGL coefficients, and the combined four-loop coefficient. These are smaller in magnitude than k_t's, confirming C/A's suppression at fixed order. Exponentiating the coefficients under an explicit assumption gives all-orders form factors comparable to k_t, and finite-N_c corrections a

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the C/A clustering function Ξ_m — a product of step functions on the angular distance measure d_ij=ΔR^2/R^2 — together with the containment relation that every k_t-clustered configuration is automatically a C/A configuration. This containment lets the paper define 'pure C/A corrections' by subtracting the known k_t integrand, isolating what is genuinely new. The evaluation uses eikonal dipole/quadrupole antenna functions for strongly energy-ordered soft gluons, and closes with an exponentiation ansatz (Eq. 41) that turns the fixed-order coefficients into resummed CL and NGL form factors.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that clustering and non-global logarithms exponentiate into the resummed form factors of Eq. (41), an assumption it cannot benchmark because no all-orders numerical C/A implementation exists for an observable with both soft and collinear singularities.

What would settle it

A dedicated all-orders numerical resummation for the C/A jet-mass distribution, or an independent recalculation of the three-loop pure C/A coefficients with a different method (e.g., sector-based integration), would settle the claim; disagreement in sign or magnitude of F̃_3 would overturn the reduction result, while a significant deviation of the all-orders form factor from the exponentiated four-loop curve would falsify the exponentiation assumption.

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

If this is right

  • C/A reduces the combined three-loop CL+NGL coefficient by roughly 45–80% relative to k_t depending on channel and radius, and NGLs alone by 75–81%.
  • At four loops, C/A continues to outperform k_t for the quark-initiated channels (δ1, δ2), but for gluon fusion (δ3) the pattern breaks: C/A's combined coefficient exceeds k_t's for R≲0.9.
  • The apparent optimal radius R≈0.55 where the three-loop non-global effect vanishes for δ2/δ3 is not a physical suppression; four-loop contributions are nonzero there, so no fixed radius cures the problem.
  • Finite-N_c corrections to the resummed NGL form factor remain below about 2% for the phenomenologically relevant range (t≤0.15), supporting large-N_c approximations.
  • In the reliable exponentiation range (ρ≳0.005) C/A and k_t perform essentially equally at all orders, and both are far better than anti-k_t.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the fixed-order pattern persists, C/A's angular-ordered clustering history — already the basis of modern jet groomers — should inherit smaller non-global contamination; a testable check is to compute the groomed jet mass or energy-energy correlator with C/A clustering at the same loop orders.
  • The all-orders claim hinges on an exponentiation ansatz that cannot be independently benchmarked for C/A because no dedicated all-orders code exists for observables with both soft and collinear singularities; building one (or extending the BMS equation beyond purely soft singularities) is the direct route to confirmation.
  • The sign-changing four-loop behaviour in the gluon-fusion channel suggests that channel-specific optimal radii could emerge at higher orders, and that the channel-averaged cross section may behave differently from any single channel.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents fixed-order calculations, through four-loop order, of the non-global logarithmic (NGL) and clustering logarithmic (CL) coefficients for the invariant-mass distribution of the highest-p_T jet in V/H+jet production, using the Cambridge/Aachen (C/A) jet algorithm. The calculation is performed in the eikonal approximation with strong energy ordering, at single-logarithmic (NLL) accuracy, and with full jet-radius dependence. The new results are the three-loop coefficients F_3^{C/A} and G_3^{C/A} (Table I) and the combined four-loop coefficient Phi_4^{C/A}/4! (Table II). The C/A results are constructed as the k_t result plus 'pure C/A' corrections, using the stated identity that C/A clustering contains k_t clustering. The fixed-order series is then exponentiated via Eq. (41) to produce all-orders estimates, which are compared with the Dasgupta-Salam Monte Carlo for anti-k_t and k_t. The abstract claims that C/A suppresses non-global logarithms more effectively than anti-k_t and k_t at fixed order, and performs comparably to k_t at all orders.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is the first four-loop C/A calculation of CL+NGL coefficients for a hadronic V/H+jet observable, extending the authors' program and providing a concrete test of jet-algorithm dependence beyond two loops. The three-loop integrand in Eq. (29c) is explicit, and the numerical evaluation is direct rather than fitted, which is a strength. The paper is also honest about its limitations: it states that no all-orders C/A code exists against which to benchmark the exponentiated results, and that the CL and NGL contributions cannot be separated at four loops. These strengths make the fixed-order content potentially valuable. However, the four-loop result is not reproducible from the manuscript alone, and the all-orders conclusion rests on an unvalidated exponentiation assumption, so the significance is currently conditional on those points being addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV, Eq. (41)] The abstract's all-orders claim ('performs comparably to the k_t algorithm at all orders') is not supported by the calculation. Eq. (41) assumes that CL and NGL series exponentiate; no C/A all-orders Monte Carlo exists to test this, as the paper itself states in the Introduction ('no all-orders numerical results are available against which to benchmark our analytical C/A calculations') and in Section IV. For k_t the exponentiated series can be checked against the Dasgupta-Salam code; for C/A it cannot. Please either remove the all-orders statement from the abstract/conclusion or explicitly label it as an assumption/extrapolation whose reliability is not established.
  2. [Eqs. (24), (29b)-(29c), Section III.B] The decomposition into 'pure C/A corrections' rests on the identity that C/A clustering strictly contains k_t clustering for this observable. This identity is not proved here; it is carried from Ref. [30], and the claim is nontrivial because the two algorithms merge pairs in different orders, so phase-space containment alone does not imply equal contributions to the jet-mass distribution. Since F_3^{C/A}, G_3^{C/A} and the four-loop Phi_4^{C/A} are defined by subtracting the k_t result, an error in this identity would affect every new coefficient. Please provide a derivation of Eq. (24) and an explicit proof or precise statement of the containment relation.
  3. [Section III.B, Tables II] The four-loop calculation is not reproducible from the manuscript. The integrand for Phi_{4,delta}^{C/A} is not displayed; the text delegates it to the e+e- calculation in Ref. [30] and describes, but does not provide, the Python/Mathematica enumeration. No integration uncertainties are given. Given that Table II is one of the two principal new results, please include the explicit integrand in an appendix or deposit the enumeration/integration scripts, add numerical error estimates, and report at least one cross-check (e.g., the R->0 limit or recovery of the k_t coefficients). Without these, a reader cannot verify or reuse the four-loop numbers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A, text before Fig. 5] The statement that for R ≲ 0.7 the summed coefficient is 'of order unity or smaller' conflicts with Table I (e.g., R=0.6, delta2 C/A: Phi_3 ≈ -2.99; R=0.7: ≈ -9.5). Please clarify what quantity is plotted or correct the wording.
  2. [Eqs. (36) and (39)] The sign convention for Phi changes: Phi_3 ≡ -F_3 + G_3 in Eq. (36), but Phi_4 ≡ F_4 - G_4 in Eq. (39). Define both signs explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [Figures 1-10] Several figure captions lack axis labels and legends (e.g., Figs. 1-7 appear with only numeric tick marks). Please add physical axis labels and distinguish solid/dashed/dotted curves explicitly in the captions.
  4. [Tables I and II] Numerical values from Cuba integration should be accompanied by integration uncertainties; without them the stability of the last digits in the tables cannot be assessed.
  5. [Section III.A, before Fig. 4] The phrase 'the C/A corrections maintain a consistent sign' is ambiguous: it is the pure C/A corrections \tilde G that keep a sign, while the full G^{C/A} changes sign for delta2 and delta3. Please rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the new C/A coefficients are computed by direct integration of stated integrands; the all-orders claim is an explicit ansatz, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The central fixed-order content of the paper is not circular. The new three- and four-loop C/A coefficients F^{C/A}_{3,δ}, G^{C/A}_{3,δ}, and Φ^{C/A}_{4,δ} are obtained by numerical integration of stated eikonal amplitudes multiplied by C/A clustering constraints (Eqs. (24), (29c), and the four-loop enumeration in Section III.B), not by fitting or by inverting the claimed output. The decomposition F^{C/A}=F^{kt}+\tilde{F}^{C/A} uses the containment statement taken from the author's Ref. [30], but this is an algorithm-level lemma about the phase-space constraints, independent of the target coefficients; it is not equivalent to the result being derived. The eikonal amplitudes come from Ref. [43] and are inputs, not predictions of this paper. The all-orders conclusion indeed rests on the explicit exponentiation assumption in Eq. (41), and the paper candidly states that 'no all-orders numerical results are available against which to benchmark our analytical C/A calculations'. That is an important robustness limitation, but it is not a circularity: an unvalidated ansatz is not the same as a derivation whose output equals its input by construction. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice, and no known empirical pattern merely relabeled in new coordinates. The comparison against the Dasgupta–Salam MC is used only for the kt and anti-kt benchmarks, not to generate the C/A coefficients. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants enter the new C/A coefficients themselves; the only fitted quantities are the MC parameterizations recycled from Ref. [6] for benchmark curves. The derivation rests on the standard eikonal/energy-ordered factorization plus two paper-specific assumptions: the C/A-contains-k_t containment identity and the exponentiation of the fixed-order series. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or ledger entities; all color structures (dipoles, quadrupole/ghost terms) come from prior literature.

free parameters (1)
  • MC fitting parameters lambda_ij, sigma_ij, gamma_ij = given in Eqs. (4.3) and (4.6) of Ref. [6] for k_t at R=0.7
    Free parameters fitted to the Dasgupta-Salam Monte Carlo output in prior work; recycled here for the benchmark curves in Figs. 8-9. They do not enter the C/A fixed-order coefficients, but the 'comparable to k_t at all orders' claim is read off against curves carrying these fits.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Eikonal approximation with strong energy ordering xi_1 >> xi_2 >> ... >> xi_m reduces the m-gluon phase space to a factorized single-logarithmic form.
    Invoked throughout Section II.C (Eq. 18) and required for Eq. (11), which makes k_t and C/A identical at two loops; sets the NLL accuracy target.
  • domain assumption Leading R^2 truncation of each gluon's mass contribution (rho_i ~ R^2 xi_i r_i^2) is sufficient at single-logarithmic accuracy.
    Eqs. (8)-(9), Section II.B; higher-order terms dropped affect NNLL, which the paper declares out of scope.
  • domain assumption Factorization f = f_global x S x C (Eq. 15) with independent exponentiation of NGLs and CLs.
    Adopted from Refs. [5,6,30,36,42]; central to how the computed coefficients are interpreted as separate form factors.
  • ad hoc to paper C/A clustering strictly contains k_t clustering for this observable, so 'pure C/A' corrections can be defined by subtraction.
    Used in Eqs. (24), (29b), and Section III.B to split results into 'k_t plus pure C/A'; carried over as an asserted identity from the authors' own Ref. [30] and not re-proven here.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed-order CL and NGL series exponentiate into the resummed form factors of Eq. (41).
    Stated explicitly in Section IV: 'we assume that both CLs and NGLs exponentiate.' This underpins the all-orders 'comparable to k_t' headline and is not validated for C/A because no C/A all-orders Monte Carlo exists.
  • domain assumption Super-leading logarithms do not interleave with NGLs/CLs below five loops for 2-to-1 processes.
    Section I with Refs. [5,17,40]; defines the class of logarithms included through four loops.
  • domain assumption Recoil corrections and resummation beyond NLL are neglected.
    Section II.A citing Ref. [42]; consistent with the single-logarithmic accuracy claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 239 in / 18700 out tokens · 207408 ms · 2026-08-02T03:12:08.602942+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present fixed-order perturbative calculations up to four-loop order for a generic non-global QCD observable in hadron-hadron collisions. Specifically, we study the invariant-mass distribution of the highest-$p_t$ jet produced in association with a vector boson or a Higgs boson, where jets are defined using the Cambridge/Aachen sequential recombination algorithm. This work is part of a series of papers~\cite{Khelifa-Kerfa:2015mma, Khelifa-Kerfa:2024hwx, Khelifa-Kerfa:2024dut, Khelifa-Kerfa:2025cdn, Khelifa-Kerfa:2024udm, Khelifa-Kerfa:2025jev} examining the impact of various jet algorithms on the perturbative structure of non-global observables across different collision environments. We find that at fixed order the Cambridge/Aachen algorithm suppresses the large non-global logarithms more effectively than the anti-$k_t$ and $k_t$ algorithms, while at all orders it performs comparably to the $k_t$ algorithm. Furthermore, comparisons of all-orders resummed form factors reveal that finite-$N_c$ corrections remain at the percent level, consistent with previous findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13962 by K. Khelifa-Kerfa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The numerical values of F kt 3,δ and F C/A 3,δ at some representative values of R are shown in Table I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The pure C/A corrections to the CL coefficients at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the full C/A (solid) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the full C/A (solid) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The combined CL and NGL coefficient for the pure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The combined CL and NGL coefficient for the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparisons of the fixed-order exponentiated result [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparisons of the fixed-order exponentiated result [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Various approximations to the normalized differen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    CLs The primary-emission piece in Eq. (25) gives rise to clustering logarithms and may be cast in the usual fac- torized form [1, 23, 35, 36, 46]: CC/A 3,δ (ρ) = − 1 3! ¯α3 s L3 F C/A 3,δ (R), (29a) where the full C/A coefficient for CLs at three-loop order decomposes as F C/A 3,δ = F kt 3,δ + ˜F C/A 3,δ , (29b) where F kt 3,δ is the contribution already pr...

  2. [2]

    2-loop”, “3-loop

    NGLs The computation of NGL coefficients follows an anal- ogous procedure to that of CLs. In Eq. (25) there are three terms contributing to NGLs at this loop order. The first term, proportional to Akℓ ij × wm i′j′ , arises from in- terference between the one- and two-loop perturbative distributions. The second, proportional to A12 ij ¯A13 ij and B123 ij , co...

    1957

  3. [3]

    Khelifa-Kerfa and Y

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa and Y. Delenda, JHEP 03, 094, arXiv:1501.00475 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, Eur

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 133 (2025), arXiv:2411.03956 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, Phys

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, Phys. Rev. D 111, 094018 (2025), arXiv:2412.03244 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Khelifa-Kerfa and M

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa and M. Benghanem, (2025), arXiv:2506.14415 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 10, 079, arXiv:2406.13753 [hep-ph]

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 10, 079, arXiv:2406.13753 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Khelifa-Kerfa and M

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa and M. Benghanem, JHEP 02, 009, arXiv:2508.02462 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Kogler et al

    R. Kogler et al. , Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045003 (2019), arXiv:1803.06991 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and B. Nachman, Phys. Rept. 841, 1 (2020), arXiv:1709.04464 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B 512, 323 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104277

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  12. [12]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, JHEP 03, 017, arXiv:hep-ph/0203009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    A. Banfi, G. Marchesini, and G. Smye, JHEP 08, 006, arXiv:hep-ph/0206076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    M. D. Schwartz and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065004 (2014), arXiv:1403.4949 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Hatta and T

    Y. Hatta and T. Ueda, Nucl. Phys. B 874, 808 (2013), arXiv:1304.6930 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    A. Banfi, F. A. Dreyer, and P. F. Monni, JHEP 10, 006, arXiv:2104.06416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    A. Banfi, F. A. Dreyer, and P. F. Monni, JHEP 03, 135, arXiv:2111.02413 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Becher, N

    T. Becher, N. Schalch, and X. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 081602 (2024), arXiv:2307.02283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, D. Y. Shao, and M. Stillger, JHEP 12, 116, arXiv:2307.06359 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Banfi and M

    A. Banfi and M. Dasgupta, Phys. Lett. B628, 49 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  22. [22]

    R. B. Appleby and M. H. Seymour, JHEP 12, 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0211426

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Delenda, R

    Y. Delenda, R. Appleby, M. Dasgupta, and A. Banfi, JHEP 0612, 044, arXiv:hep-ph/0610242 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, and S. Marzani, JHEP 08, 064, arXiv:1004.3483 [hep-ph]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 02, 072, arXiv:1111.2016 [hep-ph]

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 02, 072, arXiv:1111.2016 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Delenda and K

    Y. Delenda and K. Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 09, 109, arXiv:1207.4528 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, JHEP 08, 001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Wobisch and T

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, in Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics (Plenary Starting Meeting) (1998) pp. 270–279, arXiv:hep-ph/9907280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [29]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 406, 187 (1993)

    1993

  30. [30]

    S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D48, 3160 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9305266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  31. [31]

    G. P. Salam, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 637 (2010), arXiv:0906.1833 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, SciPost Phys

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, SciPost Phys. 20, 094 (2026), arXiv:2511.14947 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Dasgupta, A

    M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam, JHEP 09, 029, arXiv:1307.0007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, JHEP 05, 146, arXiv:1402.2657 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    C. Frye, A. J. Larkoski, M. D. Schwartz, and K. Yan, JHEP 07, 064, arXiv:1603.09338 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Marzani, L

    S. Marzani, L. Schunk, and G. Soyez, JHEP 07, 132, arXiv:1704.02210 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Dasgupta, K

    M. Dasgupta, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, S. Marzani, and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 10, 126, arXiv:1207.1640 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Ziani, K

    N. Ziani, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, and Y. De- lenda, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 570 (2021), arXiv:2104.11060 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, Phys

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014027 (2025), arXiv:2409.14029 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Becher and J

    T. Becher and J. Haag, JHEP 01, 155, arXiv:2309.17355 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    J. R. Forshaw, A. Kyrieleis, and M. H. Seymour, JHEP 08, 059, arXiv:hep-ph/0604094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, and D. Y. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 212002 (2021), arXiv:2107.01212 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Barontini, N

    A. Barontini, N. Laurenti, and J. Rojo, PoS DIS2024, 039 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 03, 073, arXiv:hep-ph/0407286 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Khelifa-Kerfa and Y

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa and Y. De- lenda, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135768 (2020), arXiv:2006.08758 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Delenda and K

    Y. Delenda and K. Khelifa- Kerfa, Phys. Rev. D 93, 054027 (2016), arXiv:1512.05401 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, QCD resummation for high- pT jet shapes at hadron colliders , Ph.D

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, QCD resummation for high- pT jet shapes at hadron colliders , Ph.D. thesis, Manchester U. (2012), arXiv:2111.10671 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 168, 78 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Catani, L

    S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 407, 3 (1993)

    1993

  51. [51]

    Hatta and T

    Y. Hatta and T. Ueda, Nucl. Phys. B 962, 115273 (2021), arXiv:2011.04154 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021