Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

How much joint resummation do we need?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Two jointly resummed angularities cut event-shape prediction error tenfold; adding more scarcely helps.

desk verdict A genuine technical extension—NLL joint resummation of n angularities—plus a saturation study whose central n=2 claim is plausible but partly hostage to the flat-phase-space prior. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07529 v2 pith:S2Y5NIUU submitted 2019-08-20 hep-ph

Gillian Lustermans , Andreas Papaefstathiou , Wouter J. Waalewijn This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords jointresummationangularitieseventshapese+e-annihilationsoft-collineareffectivetheoryLundplanereweightingnext-to-leadinglogarithmicaccuracy
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 asks how many QCD observables must be resummed together before the full radiation pattern of a jet is captured. Using the family of $e^+e^-$ event shapes called angularities, the authors compute the cross section differential in $n$ angularities at next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy and use it to reweigh a flat multiparticle phase space, then test how well the reweighted events predict angularities that were not part of the input. The central finding is that reweighing with $n=2$ angularities improves predictions by an order of magnitude over $n=1$, while $n=3,4,5$ give only diminishing returns. The same trend appears whether the input distributions come from analytic resummation or from parton-shower generators, and across phase-space multiplicities and collision energies. If this result holds, the practical payoff of joint resummation is already achieved with two observables.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two parts. First, the Lund-plane description of $n$ angularity measurements divides the $n$-dimensional phase space into regions characterized by soft, collinear, and collinear-soft modes; each region gets a factorization formula in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, with the cross section written as a product of convolutions of hard, jet, soft, and collinear-soft functions and resummed through renormalization-group evolution in Laplace space. Second, the optimal-reweighing map of eq. (2.2), which multiplies flat phase space by the ratio of the resummed $n$-angularity distribution to the flat one, so that the held-out angularity is predicted from the correlations already present in flat phase space after the marginal distributions are corrected.

What would settle it

Repeat the reweighting with a phase-space sample whose angularity marginals are correct but whose conditional correlations are deliberately scrambled, for instance by permuting the angularity values between particles in each event; if the $\chi^2_{\min}$ drop from $n=1$ to $n=2$ disappears, the benefit is genuine QCD correlation, while if it persists, the conclusion would not come from the correlations in the phase-space sample and would need to be re-evaluated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the information needed to predict any angularity from a set of jointly resummed angularities saturates at $n=2$. Concretely, reweighing flat $k$-body phase space by the $n$-angularity distribution and then projecting onto a held-out angularity $\ell_{\alpha_j}$ yields a global goodness-of-fit $\chi^2_{\min}$ that drops roughly tenfold from $n=1$ to $n=2$, and then flattens. The authors identify the optimal input sets through global minimization, verify the trend with $k=4,5,6$ phase-space bodies, with two different parton-shower generators as references, and at three different center-of-mass energies, and conclude that the benefit of joint resummation is already realized at two angularities.

Load-bearing premise

The procedure assumes that flat, massless $k$-body phase space, after being reweighted to match the $n$-angularity distribution, already contains the correct QCD correlations needed to predict any other angularity; if flat phase space lacks those correlations, the improvement and its saturation at $n=2$ could be an artifact of the sampler.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monte Carlo samples used for jet-substructure studies need only be constrained by two jointly resummed angularities to reproduce the full family of angularity predictions at the level probed here.
  • Adding a third, fourth, or fifth angularity to the reweighting buys little, so the practical cost of higher-dimensional joint resummation is not justified by the predictive gain for angularities.
  • The same qualitative conclusion holds for both parton-shower-based and analytic NLL inputs, indicating that the saturation at $n=2$ is not specific to one generator.
  • The factorization framework for $n$ angularities requires no new ingredients beyond the two-angularity case at NNLL, so the saturation found at NLL is expected to persist at higher logarithmic order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension would be to measure the mutual information between angularities in a high-statistics $e^+e^-$ dataset and compare where it saturates against the $\chi^2$ saturation found here.
  • The saturation at $n=2$ may reflect an effective low dimensionality of the resummation-region phase space; if so, other observables such as the pair $(q_T,\text{threshold})$ in hadronic collisions should show a similar two-variable sweet spot.
  • The reweighting method itself could become a lightweight way to inject analytic resummation into existing Monte Carlo samples: training a generator on a two-angularity NLL-corrected weight and then validating on data would test whether the order-of-magnitude gain persists at the level of actual measurements.
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 investigates how many jointly resummed angularities are needed to predict other angularities in e+e- dijet events. The authors derive a next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) joint resummation for an arbitrary number of angularities using SCET, obtaining factorization formulas, power corrections, and a matching procedure over phase-space regions. They then combine this analytic input with Herwig and Pythia distributions to reweight flat k-body phase space, using n angularities as input (Eq. (2.2)) and measuring the quality of predictions for held-out angularities through a global chi-squared (Eq. (2.4)). The central claim is that reweighting with n=2 angularities improves the held-out predictions by an order of magnitude over n=1, with diminishing returns for larger n. Robustness checks are presented for Herwig versus Pythia, k=4,5,6, restricted angularity sets, and center-of-mass energies Q=0.2,1,4 TeV.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a useful quantitative answer to a practical question in jet substructure and machine-learning applications: two jointly resummed observables capture most of the predictive information in the angularity family. The derivation of the NLL joint resummation for n angularities, especially the general factorization formula in Eq. (3.16) and the power-correction hierarchy in Eqs. (3.27)-(3.30), is a nontrivial technical contribution. The paper is also careful in several respects: it uses external Monte Carlo generators as independent benchmarks, provides a replica-based estimate of statistical uncertainties, and includes multiple variations of the setup in Appendix A. These strengths make the qualitative trend credible, but they do not by themselves resolve two load-bearing methodological concerns about the optimal-set selection and the role of flat phase-space correlations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (2.3)-(2.4), Fig. 7] The optimal input set I is selected by minimizing the same global chi-squared (2.4) that is later reported as chi^2_min. This is in-sample selection: the performance of the chosen set is evaluated on the very angularities used to choose it, so the reported value measures training performance rather than predictive performance. The order-of-magnitude drop from n=1 to n=2 in the right panel of Fig. 7 could therefore be inflated by overfitting to the 15-member angularity family, especially because the replica median does not remove selection bias within each replica. The qualitative trend may survive, but the quantitative 'order of magnitude' claim should be verified with a proper cross-validation scheme, for example by optimizing I on one half of the angularities and evaluating chi^2 on the other half.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.2), Figs. 9-10] The reweighting procedure constrains only the marginal distributions of the input angularities; the conditional distribution of a held-out angularity given the inputs is inherited entirely from flat massless k-body phase space. If the flat-sampler correlations are not QCD-like, the measured improvement and saturation at n=2 could be artifacts of the low-dimensional sampler rather than properties of QCD final states. The k=4,5,6 checks in Figs. 9-10 do not exclude this, since all three values are in the same small-k regime and all share the same Rambo-based conditional structure. A concrete test would be to repeat the procedure with a base sample that has QCD-like correlations, for example parton-shower events reweighted to the same target marginals, or to increase k to values comparable to typical parton multiplicities in e+e- dijets and check whether the improvement from n=1 to n=2 persists.
  3. [Sec. A.2, Fig. 12, Figs. 6 and 13] The authors find that projections from higher-dimensional analytic NLL distributions do not reproduce the direct one-dimensional distributions, with chi^2 values up to 0.0109 for projections from three angularities, and attribute this to binning. Because the analytic reweighting results in Figs. 6 and 13 are constructed from such projected distributions, the analytic leg of the robustness argument inherits this inconsistency. The claim that the analytic input reproduces the same qualitative trend is therefore contingent on the binning resolution of the n=3 spectra; a check with a larger number of bins, or at least a quantitative estimate of the resulting uncertainty on chi^2_min, would be needed to support that claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 7, left panel] The label 'HEWRIG' in the left panel of Fig. 7 is a typo and should read 'HERWIG'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.3)] The quantity chi^2 in Eq. (2.3) is not a standard chi-square statistic: it is an unnormalized L2 distance between binned distributions. The 'order of magnitude' improvement is therefore metric-dependent, and this should be stated explicitly when the abstract refers to an order-of-magnitude improvement.
  3. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (3.33)] The transition thresholds x_i and x_f in Eq. (3.33) are chosen by fixing the power corrections to 10% and 50%, respectively, but no variation of these thresholds is reported. Since they are free parameters in the matching procedure, a short scan or an estimate of the induced uncertainty would help establish that the main conclusions are insensitive to them.
  4. [Fig. 6 and Sec. 4] For the analytic reweighting, the optimal input set is taken from the analogous Herwig procedure rather than re-optimized for the analytic distributions. The text explains this choice, but a brief discussion of whether the Herwig-optimal set is also optimal, or nearly optimal, for the analytic input would strengthen the comparison.
  5. [Sec. 5] The conclusion states that augmenting Monte Carlo predictions with NLL analytic resummation is 'probably not that useful' due to perturbative uncertainty at this order, but no perturbative scale uncertainty band is shown for the analytic predictions. Adding such a band, or at least a qualitative estimate of its size, would substantiate this statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the n=2 improvement is measured against external Herwig/Pythia benchmarks; the analytic reweighting test is self-referential in its projection target but does not reduce by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, an order-of-magnitude improvement from n=1 to n=2 joint reweighting, is supported by fig. 7 built from Herwig (and Pythia) distributions, which are external, independently generated benchmarks. Eq. (2.2) is a standard importance-reweighting identity: flat k-body phase space supplies the conditional distribution of the held-out angularity given the input angularities, and the reweighted result can differ from the target when the flat conditional is not QCD-like. The prediction is therefore not forced by construction. The analytic NLL calculation for n angularities uses SCET factorization theorems, including self-cited works [40,45] for the n=2 case, but the general-n formula is derived from Lund-plane mode analysis, consistency relations, and power-correction matching rather than being a restatement of those citations. The analytic-only reweighting in fig. 6 and app. A.2 is a self-referential limitation: the target for the held-out angularity is obtained by projecting the same three-dimensional resummed distribution whose marginals are used as input, and the paper notes the projected 1D result differs from the direct 1D calculation. This weakens the analytic-only arm, but the same trend is reproduced with Herwig and Pythia, so the central conclusion does not rest on that element. The selection of the optimal input set I by minimizing chi^2 over held-out angularities is an in-sample model-selection issue rather than a definitional equivalence. No step reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by construction, so circularity is at most minor.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rely on invented entities or fitted parameters from data. The main free choices are the matching thresholds (10% and 50% power-correction distances) and the alpha_s freeze scale at 2 GeV, both of which affect the analytic resummation but not the Herwig/Pythia-based central result. The SCET factorization and the Lund-plane identification of modes are domain assumptions inherited from the literature and extended by pattern-matching from the n=2 case. The power-correction exponents are fixed by boundary-consistency conditions, which is a modeling assumption rather than a derivation. Overall, the paper's contribution is an extension of an established formalism plus a phenomenological study, with no new entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Transition thresholds xi, xf
    In sec. 3.5, the matching coefficients am are set by a transition function ftrans(xi, xf, x) with xi and xf chosen as the distances where power corrections equal 10% and 50% respectively. These thresholds are chosen by hand and affect the interpolation between factorization regions.
  • alpha_s freeze scale = 2 GeV
    In sec. 3.3, the running coupling is frozen below 2 GeV to avoid the Landau pole. This is a non-perturbative choice that affects the resummed distributions in the low-scale region.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SCET factorization with collinear, soft, and collinear-soft modes applies to the joint measurement of n angularities.
    Sec. 3.2 assumes the degrees of freedom identified from Lund diagrams lead to a valid factorization theorem for arbitrary n, extending the proven n=2 case of refs. [40,45].
  • domain assumption At LL accuracy a single emission dominates the measurement of each angularity in the Lund plane.
    Sec. 3.1 uses the uniform distribution of emissions in the Lund plane to identify the shaded region and the modes, following the standard coherent-branching picture.
  • domain assumption Power corrections between factorization regions are fixed by requiring consistency at region boundaries.
    Sec. 3.4 determines the exponents E in eq. (3.29) by demanding that power corrections reduce to those of daughter regions at boundaries, which is a consistency condition, not a first-principles derivation.
  • standard math The two-loop cusp anomalous dimension and one-loop non-cusp anomalous dimensions of SCET are the correct ingredients for NLL resummation.
    Sec. B uses eqs. (B.2)-(B.4) from the standard SCET literature.
  • standard math The cumulative cross section can be resummed in Laplace space and transformed back, with the inclusive cross section recovered upon integration.
    Sec. 3.3 invokes refs. [67-69] for the cumulative resummation procedure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How much joint resummation do we need?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S2Y5NIUU

@misc{pith2026190807529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How much joint resummation do we need?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S2Y5NIUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07529}
}
abstract

Large logarithms that arise in cross sections due to the collinear and soft singularities of QCD are traditionally treated using parton showers or analytic resummation. Parton showers provide a fully-differential description of an event but are challenging to extend beyond leading logarithmic accuracy. On the other hand, resummation calculations can achieve higher logarithmic accuracy but often for only a single observable. Recently, there have been many resummation calculations that jointly resum multiple logarithms. Here we investigate the benefits and limitations of joint resummation in a case study, focussing on the family of $e^+e^-$ event shapes called angularities. We calculate the cross section differential in n angularities at next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy. We investigate whether reweighing a flat phase-space generator to this resummed prediction, or the corresponding distributions from Herwig and Pythia, leads to improved predictions for other angularities. We find an order of magnitude improvement for n = 2 over n = 1, highlighting the benefit of joint resummation, but diminishing returns for larger values of n.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. F. Berger, T. Kucs and G. F. Sterman, Event shape / energy flow correlations , Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 014012 [ hep-ph/0303051]

    arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

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

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

    arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

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

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

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Bellm et al., Herwig 7.1 Release Note , 1705.06919

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

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al., An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 [ 1410.3012]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    H¨ oche, D

    S. H¨ oche, D. Reichelt and F. Siegert, Momentum conservation and unitarity in parton showers and NLL resummation , JHEP 01 (2018) 118 [ 1711.03497]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Dasgupta, F

    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]. – 25 –

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Bewick, S

    G. Bewick, S. Ferrario Ravasio, P. Richardson and M. H. Seymour, Logarithmic Accuracy of Angular-Ordered Parton Showers, 1904.11866

    arXiv 1904

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Jadach, A

    S. Jadach, A. Kusina, W. Placzek and M. Skrzypek, On the dependence of QCD splitting functions on the choice of the evolution variable , JHEP 08 (2016) 092 [ 1606.01238]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    H. T. Li and P. Skands, A framework for second-order parton showers , Phys. Lett. B771 (2017) 59 [ 1611.00013]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    H¨ oche and S

    S. H¨ oche and S. Prestel,Triple collinear emissions in parton showers , Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 074017 [1705.00742]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H¨ oche, F

    S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss and S. Prestel, Implementing NLO DGLAP evolution in Parton Showers, JHEP 10 (2017) 093 [ 1705.00982]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Nagy and D

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

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Isaacson and S

    J. Isaacson and S. Prestel, Stochastically sampling color configurations, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 014021 [ 1806.10102]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Pl¨ atzer, M

    S. Pl¨ atzer, M. Sjodahl and J. Thor´ en,Color matrix element corrections for parton showers , JHEP 11 (2018) 009 [ 1808.00332]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Richardson and S

    P. Richardson and S. Webster, Spin Correlations in Parton Shower Simulations , 1807.01955

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. R. Andersen, H. M. Brooks and L. L¨ onnblad, Merging High Energy with Soft and Collinear Logarithms using HEJ and PYTHIA , JHEP 09 (2018) 074 [ 1712.00178]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. Banfi, B. K. El-Menoufi and P. F. Monni, The Sudakov radiator for jet observables and the soft physical coupling , JHEP 01 (2019) 083 [ 1807.11487]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    G. Bell, A. Hornig, C. Lee and J. Talbert, e+e− angularity distributions at NNLL′ accuracy, JHEP 01 (2019) 147 [ 1808.07867]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Factorization for Short Distance Hadron - Hadron Scattering, Nucl. Phys. B261 (1985) 104

    1985

  13. [21]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Soft Gluons and Factorization , Nucl. Phys. B308 (1988) 833

    1988

  14. [22]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5 (1989) 1 [ hep-ph/0409313]

    1989 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, Semi-numerical resummation of event shapes , JHEP 01 (2002) 018 [ hep-ph/0112156]

    2002 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, Principles of general final-state resummation and automated implementation, JHEP 03 (2005) 073 [ hep-ph/0407286]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. Banfi, H. McAslan, P. F. Monni and G. Zanderighi, A general method for the resummation of event-shape distributions in e+e− annihilation, JHEP 05 (2015) 102 [ 1412.2126]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke, Summing Sudakov logarithms in B→Xsγ in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D63 (2000) 014006 [ hep-ph/0005275]

    2000 arXiv

  19. [27]

    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. D63 (2001) 114020 [ hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Invariant operators in collinear effective theory , Phys. Lett. B516 (2001) 134 [ hep-ph/0107001]. – 26 –

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory , Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 054022 [ hep-ph/0109045]

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Li, Unification of the kT and threshold resummations, Phys

    H.-n. Li, Unification of the kT and threshold resummations, Phys. Lett. B454 (1999) 328 [hep-ph/9812363]

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Laenen, G

    E. Laenen, G. F. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Recoil and threshold corrections in short distance cross-sections, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114018 [ hep-ph/0010080]

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kulesza, G

    A. Kulesza, G. F. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Joint resummation in electroweak boson production, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 014011 [ hep-ph/0202251]

    2002 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kulesza, G

    A. Kulesza, G. F. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Joint resummation for Higgs production , Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 014012 [ hep-ph/0309264]

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lustermans, W

    G. Lustermans, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zeune, Joint transverse momentum and threshold resummation beyond NLL, Phys. Lett. B762 (2016) 447 [ 1605.02740]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Marzani and V

    S. Marzani and V. Theeuwes, Vector boson production in joint resummation , JHEP 02 (2017) 127 [ 1612.01432]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Muselli, S

    C. Muselli, S. Forte and G. Ridolfi, Combined threshold and transverse momentum resummation for inclusive observables , JHEP 03 (2017) 106 [ 1701.01464]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R. D. Ball, M. Bonvini, S. Forte, S. Marzani and G. Ridolfi, Higgs production in gluon fusion beyond NNLO, Nucl. Phys. B874 (2013) 746 [ 1303.3590]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bonvini and S

    M. Bonvini and S. Marzani, Double resummation for Higgs production , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 202003 [ 1802.07758]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Marzani, Combining QT and small-x resummations, Phys

    S. Marzani, Combining QT and small-x resummations, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 054047 [1511.06039]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Procura, W

    M. Procura, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zeune, Resummation of Double-Differential Cross Sections and Fully-Unintegrated Parton Distribution Functions , JHEP 02 (2015) 117 [1410.6483]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lustermans, J

    G. Lustermans, J. K. L. Michel, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Joint two-dimensional resummation in qT and 0-jettiness at NNLL , JHEP 03 (2019) 124 [ 1901.03331]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. W. Bauer, F. J. Tackmann, J. R. Walsh and S. Zuberi, Factorization and Resummation for Dijet Invariant Mass Spectra , Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 074006 [ 1106.6047]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Pietrulewicz, F

    P. Pietrulewicz, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Factorization and Resummation for Generic Hierarchies between Jets, JHEP 08 (2016) 002 [ 1601.05088]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

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

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Procura, W

    M. Procura, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zeune, Joint resummation of two angularities at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic order, JHEP 10 (2018) 098 [ 1806.10622]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. Banfi, F. Caola, F. A. Dreyer, P. F. Monni, G. P. Salam, G. Zanderighi et al., Jet-vetoed Higgs cross section in gluon fusion at N 3LO+NNLL with small-R resummation, JHEP 04 (2016) 049 [ 1511.02886]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    D. W. Kolodrubetz, P. Pietrulewicz, I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Factorization for Jet Radius Logarithms in Jet Mass Spectra at the LHC , JHEP 12 (2016) 054 [1605.08038]. – 27 –

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hornig, D

    A. Hornig, D. Kang, Y. Makris and T. Mehen, Transverse Vetoes with Rapidity Cutoff in SCET, JHEP 12 (2017) 043 [ 1708.08467]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. K. L. Michel, P. Pietrulewicz and F. J. Tackmann, Jet Veto Resummation with Jet Rapidity Cuts, JHEP 04 (2019) 142 [ 1810.12911]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Liu, S.-O

    X. Liu, S.-O. Moch and F. Ringer, Threshold and jet radius joint resummation for single-inclusive jet production, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 212001 [ 1708.04641]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Liu, S.-O

    X. Liu, S.-O. Moch and F. Ringer, Phenomenology of single-inclusive jet production with jet radius and threshold resummation , Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 056026 [ 1801.07284]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult and B. Nachman, Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A Review of Recent Advances in Theory and Machine Learning , 1709.04464

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    E. M. Metodiev, B. Nachman and J. Thaler, Classification without labels: Learning from mixed samples in high energy physics , JHEP 10 (2017) 174 [ 1708.02949]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cohen, M

    T. Cohen, M. Freytsis and B. Ostdiek, (Machine) Learning to Do More with Less , JHEP 02 (2018) 034 [ 1706.09451]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    E. M. Metodiev and J. Thaler, Jet Topics: Disentangling Quarks and Gluons at Colliders , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 241602 [ 1802.00008]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Andreassen, I

    A. Andreassen, I. Feige, C. Frye and M. D. Schwartz, JUNIPR: a Framework for Unsupervised Machine Learning in Particle Physics , Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 102 [1804.09720]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Datta and A

    K. Datta and A. Larkoski, How Much Information is in a Jet? , JHEP 06 (2017) 073 [1704.08249]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kleiss, W

    R. Kleiss, W. J. Stirling and S. D. Ellis, A New Monte Carlo Treatment of Multiparticle Phase Space at High-energies , Comput. Phys. Commun. 40 (1986) 359

    1986

  51. [59]

    Pl¨ atzer,RAMBO on diet , 1308.2922

    S. Pl¨ atzer,RAMBO on diet , 1308.2922

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    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. B269 (1991) 432

    1991

  53. [61]

    Salam, E∞ t Scheme, Unpublished

    G. Salam, E∞ t Scheme, Unpublished

  54. [62]

    Bertolini, T

    D. Bertolini, T. Chan and J. Thaler, Jet Observables Without Jet Algorithms , JHEP 04 (2014) 013 [ 1310.7584]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill and J. Thaler, Jet Shapes with the Broadening Axis , JHEP 04 (2014) 017 [1401.2158]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, L. L¨ onnblad and U. Pettersson, Coherence Effects in Deep Inelastic Scattering, Z. Phys. C43 (1989) 625

    1989

  57. [65]

    Hornig, C

    A. Hornig, C. Lee and G. Ovanesyan, Effective Predictions of Event Shapes: Factorized, Resummed, and Gapped Angularity Distributions , JHEP 05 (2009) 122 [ 0901.3780]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult and D. Neill, Non-Global Logarithms, Factorization, and the Soft Substructure of Jets , JHEP 09 (2015) 143 [ 1501.04596]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Abbate, M

    R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu and I. W. Stewart, Thrust at N 3LL with Power Corrections and a Precision Global Fit for αs(mZ), Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 074021 [1006.3080]. – 28 –

    2011 arXiv

  60. [68]

    L. G. Almeida, S. D. Ellis, C. Lee, G. Sterman, I. Sung and J. R. Walsh, Comparing and counting logs in direct and effective methods of QCD resummation , JHEP 04 (2014) 174 [1401.4460]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Bertolini, M

    D. Bertolini, M. P. Solon and J. R. Walsh, Integrated and Differential Accuracy in Resummed Cross Sections, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 054024 [ 1701.07919]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. G. Echevarr´ ıa, T. Kasemets, J.-P. Lansberg, C. Pisano and A. Signori, Matching factorization theorems with an inverse-error weighting , Phys. Lett. B781 (2018) 161 [1801.01480]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Lagrange, M´ ecanique Analytique

    J.-L. Lagrange, M´ ecanique Analytique. Veuve Desaint, rue du Foin S. Jacques, Paris, 1788

  64. [72]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896 [1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Resummation of nonglobal QCD observables , Phys. Lett. B512 (2001) 323 [ hep-ph/0104277]

    2001 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Neill and W

    D. Neill and W. J. Waalewijn, The Entropy of a Jet , 1811.01021

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Alioli, C

    S. Alioli, C. W. Bauer, C. Berggren, F. J. Tackmann and J. R. Walsh, Drell-Yan production at NNLL′+NNLO matched to parton showers , Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 094020 [ 1508.01475]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Renormalization of the Wilson Loops Beyond the Leading Order, Nucl. Phys. B283 (1987) 342

    1987

  69. [77]

    O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Yu. Zharkov, The Gell-Mann-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation , Phys. Lett. B93 (1980) 429. – 29 –

    1980

Pith tools

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