Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Phenomenological constraints of the building blocks of the cluster hadronization model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes perturbatively motivated matrix elements for cluster fission and decay that remove an unphysical plateau in the cluster mass distribution and improve low-energy e+e− di-hadron data.

desk verdict Genuine progress on cluster hadronization building blocks with a real Belle improvement, but the title overpromises and the fission matrix element's key momentum-conservation assumption goes untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14542 v1 pith:OZTYHBQ4 submitted 2025-05-20 hep-ph

Stefan Gieseke , Stefan Kiebacher , Simon Plätzer , Jan Priedigkeit This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords clusterhadronizationfissiondecaysoftfactorizationmatrixelementbuildingblocksdi-hadroninvariantmassjetangularitiesenergycorrelators
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

Hadronization in event generators is a major source of systematic uncertainty for precision measurements, yet the cluster models behind it remain largely phenomenological. This paper argues that the two central steps of cluster hadronization—cluster fission and cluster decay—can be built from theoretically motivated matrix elements rather than ad hoc power laws and fixed angular prescriptions. The proposed fission matrix element, a soft quark-antiquark emission with a t-channel gluon exchange, removes an unphysical plateau in the cluster mass distribution and improves the description of low-energy di-hadron invariant mass data relative to the default model. The paper also constructs angularity and energy-correlator observables that separate the effects of fission from decay, giving a way to constrain each building block individually.

What carries the argument

The central object is the factorized $2\to4$ phase space $f_{\rm PS}(M_1,M_2)$ built from Källén functions, combined with the soft-emission matrix element of Eqs. (9)–(12). The fission matrix element carries a t-channel gluon exchange regulated by a gluon constituent mass and a soft function $S(q_1,q_2,q,\bar q)$ constructed from eikonal factors $I_{ij}$; it simultaneously drives the cluster mass distribution toward lower masses and produces collinear angular distributions that smoothly match the parton shower. The cluster decay uses the t-channel-like matrix element $1/[(p_1-h_1)^2 - M_S^2]^2$, replacing isotropic decay with a kinematics that continues the fission picture. These objects define the new building blocks that the paper tests against data.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the di-hadron invariant mass distribution in the highest fractional-energy bin at 10.58 GeV would settle it: if the matrix-element fission, after a complete tune with colour reconnection included, does not remove the low-mass plateau or does not match the turn-on shape, the central improvement claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its core, the paper claims that cluster fission should be viewed as a low-scale, perturbatively motivated continuation of the parton shower rather than a purely longitudinal splitting with power-law-distributed cluster masses. It writes the fission rate as a factorized phase space times a tree-level soft quark-antiquark emission matrix element, $|\mathcal{M}_{2\to4}|^2 = A_0 |\mathcal{M}_{2\to2}|^2_t\,S(q_1,q_2,q,\bar q)$, where the t-channel gluon denominator is regulated by a gluon constituent mass and the soft function is built from eikonal factors. This matrix element shifts the cluster mass distribution away from the default triangular behaviour, eliminating the flat plateau that is not seen in the measured di-hadron spectra. For cluster decay the paper proposes a t-channel-like hadron matrix element proportional to $1/[(p_1-h_1)^2 - M_S^2]^2$ with $M_S = \max\{(m_1-m_{h_1}),(m_2-m_{h_2})\}$, which smoothly interpolates between the fission and hadron kinematics. Together these building blocks, with default parameters otherwise untouched, improve the description of the di-hadron invariant mass distribution at B-factory energies and introduce no new tensions in high-energy event-shape observables.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simplified soft-emission formula for cluster fission continues to be correct when applied to real clusters with full momentum conservation and massive constituents, even though that formula is normally derived only for very low-energy emissions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The default cluster mass distribution plateau near the constituent-mass threshold disappears when the soft matrix element drives fission, so di-hadron invariant mass spectra at low energies match data without new tuning.
  • Cluster fission can be treated as a smooth, perturbative continuation of the parton shower rather than a longitudinal split with power-law masses, reducing the number of tunable parameters in the hadronization model.
  • Infrared-dangerous soft-takes-all energy correlations are nearly insensitive to cluster decay, while winner-takes-all correlations are sensitive to both fission and decay, so the two probes together isolate the two building blocks.
  • The t-channel-inspired cluster decay leaves established high-energy event-shape distributions without new tensions while improving some regions.
  • The same building-block logic extends to colour reconnection and cluster propagators in a future unified hadronization model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these matrix elements survive a global tune, the hadronization start could be defined at a factorization scale rather than at a shower cutoff, making predictions less dependent on where the shower stops.
  • The observed energy independence of the soft-takes-all correlation could be turned into a direct test of hadronization universality: any measured energy dependence of that correlator would signal energy-dependent hadronization.
  • The decay matrix element's pseudo-mass parameter $M_S$ is set by a kinematical maximum; a natural extension would be to promote it to a fitted form factor and constrain it with the decay-sensitive winner-takes-all correlations.
  • Since colour reconnection is not yet included, the extracted sensitivities of the discriminating observables may shift once it is added, so the observables should be re-run in the unified model before finalizing the building blocks.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes new building blocks for the cluster hadronization model in Herwig, focusing on cluster fission and cluster decay. For fission, the authors factorize the phase space and introduce a matrix element built from a t-channel gluon exchange and a soft q-qbar function (Eqs. 9-12), evaluated with on-shell constituent masses and exact momentum conservation. For decay, they introduce a t-channel-like matrix element with a pseudo-mass parameter M_S. The model is implemented in Herwig and compared with DELPHI and Belle data; the new fission model removes an unphysical plateau in the cluster mass distribution and improves the Belle di-hadron invariant-mass spectra (Figs. 11-12). The paper also proposes angularity and energy-correlation observables intended to discriminate between fission and decay dynamics, but these are shown only as model-variant comparisons, not compared to data.

Significance. If the proposed fission matrix element is a valid continuation of the infrared-factorized soft limit, the work is a meaningful step toward a more principled cluster hadronization model, and the external Belle comparison provides a valuable anchor for the improvement claim. The clean phase-space factorization in Sec. 2.3 is a useful contribution in itself, and the proposed observables in Sec. 4 could be genuinely discriminating for future tuning. However, the central 'phenomenological constraints' advertised in the title are not yet delivered: the new observables are validated only against the model itself, and the key fission matrix element rests on an explicitly acknowledged assumption that is not stress-tested. The improvement over the default model is real but is not yet isolated to the matrix element as opposed to the corrected phase space.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Eqs. (9)-(12)] The load-bearing step of the paper is the continuation of the infrared-factorized soft matrix element to full phase space with momentum-conserving on-shell kinematics. The authors state explicitly that the soft limit 'would normally not provide us with such an expression' and that they assume energy-momentum conservation can be implemented. This assumption underlies the removal of the plateau in Fig. 12 and the Belle improvement in Fig. 11, yet no estimate or validation of subleading-power corrections is provided. The only robustness check mentioned, varying the gluon constituent mass, is not performed. I ask for at least one concrete test, such as a comparison with the full tree-level 2-to-4 matrix element for the diagrams in Fig. 6, or a scan over the regulator parameter epsilon and m_g, to show that the qualitative improvement is not accidental to the chosen continuation.
  2. [Sec. 4, Figs. 14-21] The title and abstract promise 'phenomenological constraints' and observables with 'constraining power on the individual building blocks,' but none of the observables studied in Sec. 4 is compared to experimental data. All conclusions there are drawn from comparisons among Herwig variants with different fission/decay models, which demonstrates sensitivity but not constraint. To support the advertised claims, the authors should either overlay data from DELPHI or Belle for the angularities and energy correlators (at least where they exist), or explicitly reframe Sec. 4 as a model-diagnostic study for future tuning and adjust the title and abstract accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Figs. 11-12] The improvement over the Herwig default is presented for an otherwise untuned model, as the authors acknowledge ('still untuned' in Sec. 3.2). Moreover, the 'CF phase space' variant (blue) also removes the plateau, so the specific role of the new matrix element, as opposed to the corrected phase space alone, is not cleanly isolated. A quantitative comparison of the CF phase-space and CF matrix-element variants (for example, chi-square per bin for the Belle distributions in Figs. 11 and 12) is needed to support the claim that the matrix element itself is the relevant building block.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.5, step 2] The text says the masses M1 and M2 are sampled uniformly in the 'triangular phase space of Fig. 5,' but the allowed region in Fig. 5 is not triangular due to the Källén-function thresholds; please rephrase.
  2. [Sec. 2.5, Eq. (15)] The fitted proposal-distribution parameters A, beta1, beta2 and the overestimate lambda_OE used for the rejection sampling are not reported; including their values, or a link to the implementation, would make the algorithm reproducible.
  3. [Sec. 2.6, cluster decay matrix element] The pseudo-mass choice M_S = max{(m1-mh1),(m2-mh2)} is introduced without derivation; since the authors label it a model assumption and the LEP/Belle comparisons show no new tensions, this is acceptable but should be flagged more visibly as a phenomenological input.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 21] The claim that the STA correlation is approximately independent of sqrt(s) is supported only by visual inspection; a quantitative ratio with uncertainties would be more convincing.
  5. [Whole paper] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'infrafred' in Sec. 5, 'ap1p2-dipole' in Sec. 2.4, and stray '/Bullet' artifacts in Fig. 3 and elsewhere; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: new fission and decay matrix elements are checked against external Belle, DELPHI, and ARGUS data; only minor motivational self-citations remain.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The new building blocks are proposed as ansaetze (Sec 2.4: 'we make the following ansatz'; Sec 2.6: 'we choose a t-channel like interaction') and are then confronted with external data: DELPHI in Fig 10, Belle in Figs 11 and 13, and ARGUS in Fig 3. The acceptance-sampling parameters A, beta1, and beta2 in Eqs (13)-(14) are fitted to histograms of the matrix element (Fig 8) purely to make rejection sampling efficient; they are not physical predictions and do not bias the acceptance weight in Eq (15). The removal of the cluster-mass plateau follows from the phase-space thresholds of Eq (8) and the regulated t-channel poles of Eqs (9)-(12); its phenomenological relevance is judged against Belle di-hadron data, not against the model itself. The Sec 4 angularity and energy-correlator studies are explicitly model-vs-model sensitivity scans, not fitted predictions, so they cannot reduce to their inputs. The momentum-conservation extrapolation of the soft matrix element noted in Sec 2.4 is an uncontrolled approximation, but an approximation is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The framework is motivated by same-author refs [18,19,20], and the conclusion refers to a 'unique consequence' of [18], but these citations are not the evidence for the data improvements and do not define the Catani-Grazzini-based matrix element; hence at most a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation burden.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central physics rests on the smooth-onset assumption from refs [18,19], on the validity of extending IR factorized matrix elements to the non-perturbative cluster regime, and on the Herwig default constituent masses. No new particles are introduced; M_S is a modeling scale. The only fitted numbers are sampling-efficiency parameters, not physical predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon (gluon-mass regulator in fission matrix element) = 1
    Chosen by hand in Sec 2.4 to regulate the t-channel singularity; not varied or derived, and the paper states the IR cancellation is not checked.
  • Proposal distribution parameters A, beta1, beta2 = fitted to weighted histograms of the matrix element (Sec 2.4)
    Fitted to the MC-generated angular distributions in Fig 8 to improve rejection sampling efficiency; they do not affect the physical prediction, only the acceptance probability.
  • Constituent quark and gluon masses (m_u/d = 0.325 GeV, m_g = 0.95 GeV) = m_u/d = 0.325 GeV, m_g = 0.95 GeV
    Taken from Herwig defaults as inputs; the new matrix elements depend on them, but they are not fitted or derived in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hadronization model should smoothly continue the parton shower, with the shower cutoff as a factorization scale (refs [18,19]).
    This motivates the entire approach and the choice of matrix elements, but it is not proven in this paper; it is a premise from prior work by the same group.
  • ad hoc to paper The IR factorized soft emission formula (Catani-Grazzini [28]) remains valid when evaluated with on-shell constituent masses and exact momentum conservation.
    Stated in Sec 2.4 as an assumption; the paper acknowledges momentum conservation is not a subleading effect in the hadronization context.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective expansion around on-shell quarks and gluons, neglecting four-point functions that evolve clusters into themselves.
    Sec 2.3 assumption in the 2PI picture; no derivation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The cluster decay is governed by a t-channel exchange with pseudo mass M_S = max{(m1-mh1),(m2-mh2)}.
    Sec 2.6 model assumption; no derivation, and the paper explicitly calls it 'a model assumption'.
  • domain assumption Cluster constituents are on their constituent mass shell and gluons have mass m_g = 0.95 GeV.
    Standard assumption in the Herwig cluster model, used throughout the paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Pseudo-mass M_S in the cluster decay t-channel
    purpose: Sets the scale of the t-channel propagator in the decay matrix element to align hadron directions with constituent momenta
    Defined in Sec 2.6 as max of mass differences; it is an ad hoc scale with no external observable consequence beyond shaping the decay kinematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenological constraints of the building blocks of the cluster hadronization model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZTYHBQ4

@misc{pith2026250514542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenological constraints of the building blocks of the cluster hadronization model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZTYHBQ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14542}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce building blocks for the cluster hadronization model in light of a new structure, focusing on cluster fission and cluster decay. We propose theoretically motivated matrix elements for cluster fission and decay as building blocks and study some first phenomenological implications at different energies. In particular we develop a set of observables which can be used to dissect the hadronization history and have constraining power on the individual building blocks. Our analysis will be completed by including colour reconnection in a follow-up work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The structure of the cluster hadronization model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sketch of current cluster fission model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The pp¯ azimuthal angular correlations for e +e − collisions at √ s = 10 GeV measured by ARGUS [25] for the opposite hemisphere (upper panel). ϕT is the angle be￾tween the transverse momenta with respect to the thrust axis, cos ϕT = ˆp⊥,p · pˆ⊥,p¯. Λ 0 baryon distribution of scaled momentum, x = 2|⃗p|/ √ s, measured by ARGUS [26] (lower panel). scale, at which we transition to an initial condition which ultimately c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram of Cluster Fission as imprinted by the nature of the external hadron ampli￾tudes, essentially provide us with a 2-Particle-Irreducible (2PI) picture [18] in which we can organise the under￾lying Feynman graph using two-particle interaction dia￾grams as propagat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of flat mass phase space according to Eq. (8). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of mass phase space according to the matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of distributions for angles according to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagram of the chosen cluster decay matrix el [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the different cluster fission models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The p out T distribution and the ζp = − log xp dis￾tribution measured by DELPHI [31], where xp = 2|⃗p|/ √ s. We show a variation of different cluster decay models (keeping the Herwig default cluster fission), where ‘de￾fault’ is the Herwig default, ‘aligned’ is a full…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The mass distribution of clusters binned in ˜z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the different cluster decay models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The generalized jet angularities for α = 0.1, β = 0.1 for the kt WTA algorithm. We show a variation of the cluster fission models with the t-channel like cluster decayer (top) and the different cluster decay models with the Herwig default cluster fission (bottom). whe…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: We show the EEC(θ) correlation of two exclusive kT jets for variable γ with the default cluster fission and cluster decay model. ENCγ(θ) are normalized to unity, with the total inclusive cross section σtot ≡ P∞ m=2 σm. Due to the computational cost, which is O(mN ), o…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The STA (γ → −∞) energy correlator E3Cγ(θmax) (top) and EECγ(θ) (bottom) of two exclusive kT jets. We show a variation of the cluster fission models with the t-channel like cluster decayer. jets clustered using the Durham kT algorithm [40] with the E recombination sch…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: In this case of course we expect large differences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_21.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Lund string model tune inside Herwig 7, the LH Tune, gives competitive descriptions of many LEP and LHC observables and enables fixed-shower comparison of string vs cluster hadronization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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. C 76 (2016), no. 4 196, [arXiv:1512.01178]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Bellm et al., Herwig 7.1 Release Note , arXiv:1705.06919

    J. Bellm et al., Herwig 7.1 Release Note , arXiv:1705.06919

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Bellm et al., Herwig 7.2 release note , Eur

    J. Bellm et al., Herwig 7.2 release note , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020), no. 5 452, [ arXiv:1912.06509]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Bewick et al., Herwig 7.3 release note , Eur

    G. Bewick et al., Herwig 7.3 release note , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 10 1053, [ arXiv:2312.05175]

    arXiv 2024

  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, [ arXiv:2203.11601]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

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

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

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Dasgupta, F

    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), no. 5 052002, [ arXiv:2002.11114]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

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

    arXiv 2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, Summations of large logarithms by parton showers , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 5 054049, [arXiv:2011.04773]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    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, [ arXiv:2208.06057]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    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, [arXiv:2205.02237]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H¨ oche, F

    S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, and D. Reichelt, The Alaric parton shower for hadron colliders , arXiv:2404.14360

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    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), no. 1 011901, [ arXiv:2406.02661]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pl¨ atzer,Summing Large-N Towers in Colour Flow Evolution, Eur

    S. Pl¨ atzer,Summing Large-N Towers in Colour Flow Evolution, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014), no. 6 2907, [arXiv:1312.2448]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin, and S. Pl¨ atzer, Parton branching at amplitude level , JHEP 08 (2019) 145, [arXiv:1905.08686]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    De Angelis, J

    M. De Angelis, J. R. Forshaw, and S. Pl¨ atzer, Resummation and Simulation of Soft Gluon Effects beyond Leading Color, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 11 112001, [ arXiv:2007.09648]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer, and F. T. Gonz´ alez,Exact colour evolution for jet observables , arXiv:2502.12133

    arXiv

  10. [18]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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, arXiv:2404.09856

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gieseke, P

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

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639–707, [ arXiv:0803.0883]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Adam et al., Insight into particle production mechanisms via angular correlations of identified particles in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur

    ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., Insight into particle production mechanisms via angular correlations of identified particles in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 8 569, [ arXiv:1612.08975]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 79, 998 (2019)]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Acharya et al., Studying strangeness and baryon production mechanisms through 16 S

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., Studying strangeness and baryon production mechanisms through 16 S. Gieseke, S. Kiebacher, S. Pl¨ atzer, J. Priedigkeit: Dissecting the cluster model angular correlations between charged Ξ baryons and identified hadrons in pp collisions ...

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gieseke, P

    S. Gieseke, P. Kirchgaeßer, and S. Pl¨ atzer,Baryon production from cluster hadronisation, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018), no. 2 99, [ arXiv:1710.10906]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Albrecht et al., Results on Baryon anti-Baryon Correlations in e+ e- Annihilation , Z

    ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht et al., Results on Baryon anti-Baryon Correlations in e+ e- Annihilation , Z. Phys. C 43 (1989) 45

    1989

  18. [26]

    Albrecht et al., Hyperon Production in e+e− Annihilation at 10-GeV Center-of-mass Energy, Z

    ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht et al., Hyperon Production in e+e− Annihilation at 10-GeV Center-of-mass Energy, Z. Phys. C 39 (1988) 177

    1988

  19. [27]

    Belle Collaboration, S. L. Olsen, The BELLE experiment at KEKB , in 1994 Meeting of the American Physical Society, Division of Particles and Fields (DPF 94), pp. 1908–1913, 8, 1994

    1994

  20. [28]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. Grazzini, Infrared factorization of tree level QCD amplitudes at the next-to-next-to-leading order and beyond, Nucl. Phys. B 570 (2000) 287–325, [hep-ph/9908523]

    2000 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Pl¨ atzer and M

    S. Pl¨ atzer and M. Sjodahl,Amplitude factorization in the electroweak standard model, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 5 056023, [ arXiv:2204.03258]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kupco, Cluster hadronization in HER WIG 5.9, in Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics (Plenary Starting Meeting), pp

    A. Kupco, Cluster hadronization in HER WIG 5.9, in Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics (Plenary Starting Meeting), pp. 292–300, 4, 1998. hep-ph/9906412

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Bierlich, A

    C. Bierlich, A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, C. H. Christensen, L. Corpe, D. Grellscheid, J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus, C. Gutschow, P. Karczmarczyk, J. Klein, L. L¨ onnblad, C. S. Pollard, P. Richardson, H. Schulz, and F. Siegert, Robust independent validation of experiment and theor...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Seidl et al., Invariant-mass and fractional-energy dependence of inclusive production of di-hadrons in e+e− annihilation at √s = 10.58 GeV , Phys

    Belle Collaboration, R. Seidl et al., Invariant-mass and fractional-energy dependence of inclusive production of di-hadrons in e+e− annihilation at √s = 10.58 GeV , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 3 032005, [arXiv:1706.08348]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P. Gras, S. H¨ oche, D. Kar, A. Larkoski, L. L¨ onnblad, S. Pl¨ atzer, A. Si´ odmok, P. Skands, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Systematics of quark/gluon tagging , JHEP 07 (2017) 091, [ arXiv:1704.03878]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and D. Neill, Toward Multi-Differential Cross Sections: Measuring Two Angularities on a Single Jet , JHEP 09 (2014) 046, [arXiv:1401.4458]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bertolini, T

    D. Bertolini, T. Chan, and J. Thaler, Jet observables without jet algorithms , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (Apr., 2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill, and J. Thaler, Jet shapes with the broadening axis , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (Apr., 2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, [arXiv:1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Holguin, I

    J. Holguin, I. Moult, A. Pathak, M. Procura, R. Sch¨ ofbeck, and D. Schwarz,Top Quark Mass Extractions from Energy Correlators: A Feasibility Study , arXiv:2407.12900

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, New clustering algorithm for multi - jet cross-sections in e+ e- annihilation , Phys. Lett. B 269 (1991) 432–438

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.