Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Measurement of the inclusive isolated-photon cross section in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using 36 fb$^{-1}$ of ATLAS data

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 13 TeV isolated-photon cross section matches QCD predictions.

desk verdict Solid ATLAS isolated-photon measurement with a real but unquantified alpha_em-scheme shift in the NNLO theory comparison; the data are trustworthy, the theory caveat deserves a note. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02746 v2 pith:HESUNKB6 submitted 2019-08-07 hep-ex

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords isolatedphotonproductioninclusivecrosssectionproton-protoncollisionsLHCATLASperturbativeQCDnext-to-next-to-leading-orderpartondistributionfunctions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the ATLAS measurement of the inclusive isolated-photon cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of data, covering photon transverse energies from 125 GeV to 2.5 TeV in several pseudorapidity regions. The authors compare their measurement with next-to-leading-order QCD predictions from JETPHOX and SHERPA and with a next-to-next-to-leading-order prediction from NNLOJET, using several parton distribution functions. The central claim is that all predictions describe the data within experimental and theoretical uncertainties, with the NNLO prediction reproducing the data in most kinematic regions. If true, this confirms that perturbative QCD accurately describes hard photon production at the highest accessible energies and strengthens the case for using these data to constrain the proton's gluon density.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-dimensional sideband, or ABCD, method used to extract the prompt-photon signal from the dominant background of jets misidentified as photons. Photon candidates are divided into four regions defined by tight versus non-tight identification and isolated versus non-isolated transverse energy; the signal yield in the signal region is obtained from Eq. (1) with the background correlation $R_{\text{bg}}$ set to 1, meaning isolation and identification are assumed uncorrelated for background events. Bin-by-bin unfolding correction factors from Monte Carlo simulation convert the background-subtracted yields to particle-level cross sections, while the theoretical comparisons rely on fixed-cone and hybrid-cone photon-isolation prescriptions and on scale-variation uncertainties for the predictions.

What would settle it

Measure $R_{\text{bg}}$ directly in a sample of candidate events from which prompt photons have been removed by an independent method, such as a template fit to the electromagnetic shower-shape distribution, and check whether it deviates from 1 by more than the assigned systematic uncertainties; a larger deviation would shift the extracted cross sections and break the claimed agreement with QCD predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the differential cross section for isolated prompt-photon production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV, measured as a function of $E_\gamma^T$ in four $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions and as a function of $|\eta^\gamma|$ in several $E_\gamma^T$ ranges, is well described by NLO QCD calculations (JETPHOX, SHERPA) and by an NNLO QCD calculation (NNLOJET). The NNLO prediction, which has substantially reduced scale uncertainties, provides a good description of the data except for a tendency to underestimate in the region $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<1.81$. The measurement extends the region where experimental uncertainties dominate to about 1 TeV in $E_\gamma^T$ and significantly improves both statistical and systematic precision over the previous ATLAS 13 TeV measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The signal yields assume that, for the jet background, whether a photon candidate passes the tight identification is unrelated to whether it is isolated, so the background correlation $R_{\text{bg}}$ equals 1; if that is false, the background subtraction and every cross-section bin inherit a bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The NNLO QCD prediction for isolated-photon production at high transverse energy is validated, so future comparisons in this channel can rely on the smaller NNLO scale uncertainties.
  • The measured cross sections can be included in global parton distribution function fits, with the potential to tighten the gluon density in the proton.
  • The extension of the systematic-limited region to about 1 TeV means that additional LHC data can probe the TeV scale where electroweak corrections are expected to become relevant.
  • The agreement between the data and the Sherpa ME+PS@NLO prediction supports the use of matched matrix-element-plus-parton-shower calculations for photon production.
  • The consistency between the nominal ABCD extraction and the validation regions constrains the size of any background-correlation bias in the signal yields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $R_{\text{bg}}=1$ assumption were replaced by an $R_{\text{bg}}$ value measured directly from a dedicated background-enriched sample, the background-subtraction systematic could shrink and sharpen the PDF constraining power.
  • The mild NNLO underestimation in the $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<1.81$ region could point to missing electroweak corrections or to the treatment of isolation in the forward calorimeter transition region; a dedicated calculation including full electroweak effects would test this.
  • Applying the same analysis strategy to the full Run 2 dataset (about 140 fb$^{-1}$) should extend the reach in $E_\gamma^T$ and make the photon energy scale the dominant systematic, providing a sharper test of QCD at the TeV scale.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a measurement of the inclusive isolated-prompt-photon differential cross section in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s)=13 TeV using 36.1 fb^-1 of ATLAS data. Photon candidates with E_T>125 GeV and |eta|<2.37 (excluding the calorimeter transition region 1.37<|eta|<1.56) are selected with tight identification and an isolation requirement. The dominant background from jets misidentified as photons is subtracted with a two-dimensional sideband technique in the isolation-tightness plane; the residual electron background is estimated from simulation. Background-subtracted yields are unfolded to particle level with bin-by-bin correction factors computed with Pythia, with Sherpa used for a model-dependence systematic and an iterative Bayesian unfolding as a cross-check. The cross sections are presented as functions of E_T in four |eta| regions and as a function of |eta| in E_T bins. The results are compared with NLO QCD predictions from JETPHOX and SHERPA 2.2.2 and with an NNLO QCD prediction from NNLOJET using several PDF sets. The authors conclude that the predictions give a good description of the data within uncertainties and that the NNLO prediction provides an excellent description except for a tendency to underestimate the data in 1.56<|eta|<1.81.

Significance. If the measurement and comparisons are taken at face value, the paper provides a substantially improved 13 TeV isolated-photon dataset: the ten-fold luminosity increase extends the systematics-dominated region to about 1 TeV and pushes the E_T reach to 2.5 TeV in the central region. The measurement itself is largely model-independent: signal yields are extracted from data and unfolded with generic MC generators, while the tested predictions come from independent programs with externally fitted PDFs. The experimental analysis is careful: the data-driven background estimate is validated in sideband regions, the Rbg=1 assumption is tested and assigned a systematic uncertainty, 76 photon energy-scale components are propagated individually, and alternative unfolding and generator choices are used as cross-checks. The main caveat concerns the normalization convention of the NNLO prediction: the G_mu scheme for alpha_em introduces an unquantified 3.6% shift relative to the on-shell value used by the other predictions. Since the NNLO scale uncertainty is 0.6%-5%, this convention materially affects the strength of the 'excellent description' conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 8, Table 2; Section 10] Section 8 and Table 2 state that the NNLOJET prediction uses alpha_em = 1/132.232 (G_mu scheme) while JETPHOX and SHERPA 2.2.2 use 1/137.036. The isolated-photon cross section in the direct-dominated phase space of this measurement is proportional to alpha_em at each perturbative order, so this convention changes the NNLOJET prediction by a flat +3.6% relative to the other predictions. The quoted NNLO scale uncertainty is only 0.6%-5% (Section 8.2), so the alpha_em scheme choice is comparable to or larger than the dominant quoted NNLO theory uncertainty, yet no cross-check or uncertainty is assigned to it. The conclusion in Section 10 that the NNLO prediction 'gives an excellent description of the data' therefore depends on this convention; a prediction with alpha_em = 1/137.036 would lie lower by about 3.6% and could shift ratio points out of the quoted theory band and worsen the already-noted underestimate in 1.56<|eta|<1.81. I request that the authors either repeat the NNLO calculation with the on-shell alpha_em value, or add an explicit alpha_em scheme uncertainty and state whether the agreement conclusions in Sections 9 and 10 remain unchanged.
  2. [Section 8.2; Figures 11-12] The PDF and alpha_s uncertainties for the NNLOJET prediction are not computed directly; they are approximated by those estimated at NLO with JETPHOX, which uses a different PDF set (MMHT2014) and a different perturbative order from the NNPDF3.1 NNLO set used in NNLOJET. This approximation is understandable, but because the NNLO scale uncertainty is much smaller than at NLO, the approximate PDF/alpha_s component may not be conservative, and the text does not say how large this component is relative to the quoted total NNLO uncertainty. Please add a sentence clarifying the magnitude of the approximate PDF/alpha_s contribution, or provide a direct estimate with the NNPDF3.1 set, so that readers can judge which uncertainty dominates the NNLO band in Figures 11 and 12.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 8.1] The statement that the hadronisation and underlying-event uncertainty of the SHERPA 2.2.2 prediction 'can be neglected' is based on an expectation; since this prediction is compared directly at particle level, a short numerical justification or a reference to a tune variation would strengthen the claim.
  2. [Section 4, Table 1] The table caption could state explicitly that the 125<E_T<150 GeV event yields use only 2015 data, while the E_T>150 GeV yields use 2015+2016 data; the text says this, but a footnote would make the table self-contained.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (1)] The definitions of regions A, B, C and D appear only in the surrounding prose; adding them to the caption of Eq. (1) or to a small table would improve readability.
  4. [Section 10] The wording 'excellent description' is stronger than the abstract's 'good description'; given the alpha_em scheme issue and the known underestimate in 1.56<|eta|<1.81, I suggest tempering this wording unless the alpha_em cross-check requested in the major comments is added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measurement and theory predictions are independent, with no fitted parameters connecting them.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the measured cross section is obtained from data via background subtraction (Eq. 1, Section 5) and bin-by-bin unfolding (Section 6), with corrections derived from generic Pythia and Sherpa simulations that are not the same calculations being tested. The theory predictions are produced by independent programs (JETPHOX, SHERPA 2.2.2, NNLOJET) using externally fitted PDFs, as described in Section 8, with no equation that fits a theory parameter to the measured points. The nominal signal extraction assumes Rbg = 1, but this is a data-driven background assumption that is validated and assigned a systematic uncertainty, not a theory input. The NNLO prediction's use of alpha_em = 1/132.232 vs 1/137.036 is a scheme-choice normalization difference, which affects the theory-data comparison but is not circular: the prediction does not derive from the data. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness claim, or ansatz-equivalent-to-input step appears in the paper. The central claim of agreement rests on independent external calculations compared with an independently measured cross section.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to its own data; the measured cross section is extracted from data and corrected for detector effects using Monte Carlo. All theoretical predictions rely on external PDFs, fragmentation functions, and scale choices from the prior literature.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Proton PDFs and alpha_s values from external global fits (MMHT2014, CT14, NNPDF3.0/3.1, etc.) describe the proton structure for these predictions.
    Used in Section 8 for all theoretical predictions; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The detector simulation (Geant4) and reconstruction algorithms accurately model photon response, isolation, and trigger.
    Used in Sections 3-4 to generate simulated samples and efficiency/energy scale corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper The isolation and photon identification variables are uncorrelated for background events (Rbg = 1).
    Nominal assumption in Eq. (1), Section 5; tested via validation regions and assigned a systematic uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Pythia 8.186 provides a valid signal model for unfolding correction factors and signal leakage fractions.
    Used in Sections 5-6 as nominal; Sherpa is used as a cross-check.
  • domain assumption The Frixione isolation criterion with the chosen parameters allows the fragmentation contribution to be neglected in the Sherpa and NNLOJET predictions.
    Described in Section 8 and Table 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the inclusive isolated-photon cross section in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using 36 fb$^{-1}$ of ATLAS data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HESUNKB6

@misc{pith2026190802746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the inclusive isolated-photon cross section in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrts=13$ TeV using 36 fb$^-1$ of ATLAS data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HESUNKB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02746}
}
abstract

The differential cross section for isolated-photon production in $pp$ collisions is measured at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC using an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The differential cross section is presented as a function of the photon transverse energy in different regions of photon pseudorapidity. The differential cross section as a function of the absolute value of the photon pseudorapidity is also presented in different regions of photon transverse energy. Next-to-leading-order QCD calculations from JETPHOX and SHERPA as well as next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD calculations from NNLOJET are compared with the measurement, using several parameterisations of the proton parton distribution functions. The predictions provide a good description of the data within the experimental and theoretical uncertainties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Photon-jet correlations in $pp$ and $p \bar p$ collisions

    T. Pietrycki and A. Szczurek, Photon-jet correlations in pp and pp collisions, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 034003, arXiv: 0704.2158 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Photon - Jet Correlations and Constraints on Fragmentation Functions

    Z. Belghobsi et al., Photon-jet correlations and constraints on fragmentation functions, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 114024, arXiv: 0903.4834 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photons cross section in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector using4.6 fb−1, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 052004, arXiv: 1311.1440 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photon cross section in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 08 (2016) 005, arXiv: 1605.03495 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 770 (2017) 473, arXiv: 1701.06882 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the di fferential cross section for isolated prompt photon production in pp collisions at 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 052011, arXiv: 1108.2044 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon and photon+jets production in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 20, arXiv: 1807.00782 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Quantitative constraints on the gluon distribution function in the proton from collider isolated-photon data

    D. d’Enterria and J. Rojo,Quantitative constraints on the gluon distribution function in the proton from collider isolated-photon data, Nucl. Phys. B 860 (2012) 311, arXiv: 1202.1762 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Carminati et al., Sensitivity of the LHC isolated-γ+jet data to the parton distribution functions of the proton, Europhys

    L. Carminati et al., Sensitivity of the LHC isolated-γ+jet data to the parton distribution functions of the proton, Europhys. Lett. 101 (2013) 61002, arXiv: 1212.5511 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. Gao, L. Harland-Lang and J. Rojo, The Structure of the Proton in the LHC Precision Era, Phys. Rep. 742 (2018) 1, arXiv: 1709.04922 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Campbell, J

    J.M. Campbell, J. Rojo, E. Slade, C. Williams, Direct photon production and PDF fits reloaded, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 470, arXiv: 1802.03021 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lipatov and M.A

    A.V . Lipatov and M.A. Malyshev,Reconsideration of the inclusive prompt photon production at the LHC with kT -factorization, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 034020, arXiv: 1606.02696 [hep-ph]. 29

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Klasen, C

    M. Klasen, C. Klein-Bösing and H. Poppenborg, Prompt photon production and photon-jet correla- tions at the LHC, JHEP 03 (2018) 081, arXiv: 1709.04154 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Schwartz, Precision direct photon spectra at high energy and comparison to the 8 TeV ATLAS data, JHEP 09 (2016) 005, arXiv: 1606.02313 [hep-ph]

    M.D. Schwartz, Precision direct photon spectra at high energy and comparison to the 8 TeV ATLAS data, JHEP 09 (2016) 005, arXiv: 1606.02313 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Campbell, R.K

    J.M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis, C. Williams, Direct Photon Production at Next-to–Next-to-Leading Order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 222001, arXiv: 1612.04333 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, M. Höfer and A. Huss,Isolated photon and photon+jet production at NNLO QCD accuracy, (2019), arXiv: 1904.01044 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, M. Höfer and A. Huss,Isolated photon and photon+jet production at NNLO QCD accuracy and the ratio Rγ 13/8, (2019), arXiv: 1905.08577 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Brooijmans et al., Les Houches 2017: Physics at TeV Colliders New Physics Working Group Report, contribution 20, FERMILAB-CONF-17-664-PPD (2018), arXiv: 1803.10379 [hep-ex]

    G. Brooijmans et al., Les Houches 2017: Physics at TeV Colliders New Physics Working Group Report, contribution 20, FERMILAB-CONF-17-664-PPD (2018), arXiv: 1803.10379 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. Ph. Guillet and E. Pilon, Cross section of isolated prompt photons in hadron-hadron collisions, JHEP 05 (2002) 028, arXiv: hep-ph/0204023

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aurenche, M

    P. Aurenche, M. Fontannaz, J. Ph. Guillet, E. Pilon and M. Werlen,A new critical study of photon production in hadronic collisions, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 094007, arXiv: hep-ph/0602133

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gleisberg et al., Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP 02 (2009) 007, arXiv: 0811.4622 [hep-ph]

    T. Gleisberg et al., Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP 02 (2009) 007, arXiv: 0811.4622 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST 3 (2008) S08003

    2008

  15. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report, CERN-LHCC-2010- 013, ATLAS-TDR-19, 2010, URL: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633 , ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report Addendum, ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1, 2012, URL: https : / / cds . cern . ch / rec...

    2010

  16. [24]

    Abbott et al., Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST 13 (2018) T05008, arXiv: 1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al., Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST 13 (2018) T05008, arXiv: 1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015 , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 317, arXiv: 1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Luminosity Determination in pp Collisions at√s = 13 TeV using the ATLAS Detector at the LHC, ATLAS-CONF-2019-021, 2019, url: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/ 2677054

    2019

  19. [27]

    Avoni et al., The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST 13 (2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al., The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST 13 (2018) P07017

    2018

  20. [28]

    Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 - a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 - a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250

    2003

  21. [29]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS simulation infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 823, arXiv: 1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, arXiv: 0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and T. Sjöstrand, Parton Fragmentation and String Dynamics, Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31. 30

    1983

  24. [32]

    Winter, F

    C. Winter, F. Krauss and G. So ff, A modified cluster hadronisation model , Eur. Phys. J. C 36 (2004) 381, arXiv: hep-ph/0311085

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data , Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244, arXiv: 1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lai et al., New parton distributions for collider physics , Phys

    H.-L. Lai et al., New parton distributions for collider physics , Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024, arXiv: 1007.2241 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to 7 TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    2014

  28. [36]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements and truncated showers, JHEP 05 (2009) 053, arXiv: 0903.1219 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Frixione, Isolated photons in perturbative QCD , Phys

    S. Frixione, Isolated photons in perturbative QCD , Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 369, arXiv: hep- ph/9801442

    1998

  30. [38]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Höche, Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP 12 (2008) 039, arXiv: 0808.3674 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Krauss, R

    F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and G. Soff, AMEGIC++ 1.0: A Matrix element generator in C++, JHEP 02 (2002) 044, arXiv: hep-ph/0109036

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 111601, arXiv: 1111.5206 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A Parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisa- tion, JHEP 03 (2008) 038, arXiv: 0709.1027 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers: The NLO case, JHEP 04 (2013) 027, arXiv: 1207.5030 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC Run II, JHEP 04 (2015) 040, arXiv: 1410.8849 [hep-ph]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R.D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC Run II, JHEP 04 (2015) 040, arXiv: 1410.8849 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Summary of ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2012-003, 2012, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1474107

    2012

  37. [45]

    Martin, W.J

    A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne and G. Watt,Parton distributions for the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 189, arXiv: 0901.0002 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the photon identification efficiencies with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 2 data collected in 2015 and 2016 , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 205, arXiv: 1810. 05087 [hep-ex]

    2019

  39. [47]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 490, arXiv: 1603.02934 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photon cross section in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 052005, arXiv: 1012.4389 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photon cross-section in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV using 35 pb−1 of ATLAS data, Phys. Lett. B 706 (2011) 150, arXiv: 1108.0253 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, The catchment area of Jets, JHEP 04 (2008) 005, arXiv: 0802.1188 [hep-ph]. 31

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and S. Sapeta,On the characterisation of the underlying event, JHEP 04 (2010) 065, arXiv: 0912.4926 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 1 data, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3071, arXiv: 1407.5063 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    03848 [hep-ex]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using 2015-2016 LHC proton-proton collision data , JINST 14 (2019) P03017, arXiv: 1812 . 03848 [hep-ex]

    2019

  46. [54]

    D’Agostini, A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem , Nucl

    G. D’Agostini, A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 362 (1995) 487

    1995

  47. [55]

    Bohm and G

    G. Bohm and G. Zech, Introduction to statistics and data analysis for physicists , Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany, ISBN 9783935702881, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the Inelastic Proton-Proton Cross Section at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 182002, arXiv: 1606.02625 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Harland-Lang, A.D

    L.A. Harland-Lang, A.D. Martin, P. Motylinski and R.S. Thorne, Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 204, arXiv: 1412.3989 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bourhis, M

    L. Bourhis, M. Fontannaz and J.Ph. Guillet, Quark and gluon fragmentation functions into photons, Eur. Phys. J. C 2 (1998) 529, arXiv: hep-ph/9704447

    1998 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Dulat et al.,New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics, Phys

    S. Dulat et al.,New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 033006, arXiv: 1506.07443 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, R. Placakyte, Parton distribution functions,αs, and heavy-quark masses for LHC Run II, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 014011, arXiv: 1701.05838 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Abramowicz et al., Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic e±p scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data, Eur

    H1 and ZEUS Collaborations, H. Abramowicz et al., Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic e±p scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 580, arXiv: 1506.06042 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Siegert, A practical guide to event generation for prompt photon production with Sherpa, J

    F. Siegert, A practical guide to event generation for prompt photon production with Sherpa, J. Phys. G 44 (2017) 044007, arXiv: 1611.07226 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Ball et al., Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur

    R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 663, arXiv: 1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Dittmaier and M

    S. Dittmaier and M. Huber, Radiative corrections to the neutral-current Drell-Yan process in the Standard Model and its minimal supersymmetric extension, JHEP 01 (2010) 060, arXiv: 0911.2329 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Becher and X

    T. Becher and X. Garcia i Tormo, Addendum to Electroweak Sudakov e ffects in W, Z and γ production at large transverse momentum, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 073011, arXiv: 1509.01961 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Pumplin et al., Uncertainties of predictions from parton distribution functions

    J. Pumplin et al., Uncertainties of predictions from parton distribution functions. 2. The Hessian method, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2001) 014013, arXiv: hep-ph/0101032

    2001 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Harland-Lang, A.D

    L.A. Harland-Lang, A.D. Martin, P. Motylinski and R.S. Thorne, Uncertainties on αS in the MMHT2014 global PDF analysis and implications for SM predictions, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 435, arXiv: 1506.05682 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-GEN-PUB-2016-002, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2202407. 32 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad101, B. Abbott128, D.C. Abbott102, O. Abdinov13,*, A. Abed Abud70a,70b, K. Abeling53, D.K. Abhayasinghe93, S.H. Abidi167, O.S....

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.