Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 85 references

The soft drop groomed jet radius at NLL

T0 review · 2 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 This paper proves an all-order equivalence between the soft drop groomed radius and a jet veto, which makes the observable predictable at next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy.

desk verdict A genuinely new NLL calculation of the soft drop groomed jet radius, with an all-order equivalence claim that is slightly stronger than the proof supports; worth serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01783 v1 pith:UHOQMIJY submitted 2019-08-05 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

Zhong-Bo Kang , Kyle Lee , Xiaohui Liu , Duff Neill , Felix Ringer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords softdropgroominggroomedjetradiussubstructurefactorizationtheoremresummationnon-globallogarithmsCambridge/Aachenclusteringveto
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the radius of a soft-drop-groomed jet — the opening angle between the two branches that survive grooming — can be predicted at next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy. The key move is a proof that, when the groomed radius and the soft threshold are small, the soft drop declustering procedure is equivalent, to all orders, to a jet veto on the region between the groomed and the original jet boundaries. That equivalence puts the observable inside an existing factorization theorem, so the large logarithms of the groomed radius, the jet radius, and the soft-drop threshold can be resummed. Non-global logarithms and clustering effects from the Cambridge/Aachen reclustering are resummed with a Monte Carlo algorithm, and the resulting distribution matches a parton-shower simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the soft-drop/jet-veto equivalence: for angular-ordered collinear-soft branches $J_i$, the soft drop measurement function obeys $M_N=\prod_i M_1(J_i)$, where $M_1$ keeps a branch inside the groomed radius $R_g$ or vetoes it if it lies outside and below the soft-drop threshold. This turns the groomed-radius measurement into independent veto constraints and is what separates the collinear and collinear-soft functions in the factorization. The paper carries the all-order resummation with a dipole Monte Carlo that implements the veto and the Cambridge/Aachen clustering rule, resumming the non-global and Abelian clustering logarithms at leading-logarithmic accuracy; fixed-order calculations of the first coefficients $S^{C/A}_{i,2}$ and $A^{C/A}_{i,2}$, including the $4/9$ reduction of the non-global logarithm from clustering, anchor the resummation at two loops.

What would settle it

An explicit next-to-next-to-leading-order evaluation of the configuration in which two collinear-soft emissions have the smallest mutual distance and cluster before either joins the hard branch would settle the equivalence: if the soft drop measurement there differs from the independent-veto product $M_1(k_1)M_1(k_2)$, the factorized non-global logarithm and the $4/9$ clustering reduction would need revision. The experimental side of the same check is a high-statistics comparison of the resummed $\theta_g$ distribution with LHC data at $p_T>600$ GeV and $z_{\rm cut}=0.1$, $\beta=0,1,2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a factorization theorem for the cumulative soft drop groomed jet radius $\theta_g=R_g/R$ in the double-small limit $z_{\rm cut}\ll 1$, $\theta_g\ll 1$. The semi-inclusive jet function is refactorized into hard, soft, collinear, and collinear-soft functions, and the novel ingredient is the all-order equivalence proven in Section 2.2: measuring $\theta_g$ is the same as vetoing every collinear-soft branch that lies outside the groomed-radius cone and above the threshold $z_{\rm cut}\theta_g^{\beta}p_T$. Because the veto constraint is independent for each branch, the measurement function factorizes into a product of single-branch constraints, and the resulting non-global and Cambridge/Aachen clustering logarithms can be resummed at leading-logarithmic accuracy by a Monte Carlo algorithm in the large-$N_c$ limit. With canonical scale choices the framework reproduces the earlier modified-leading-log result at leading accuracy and goes beyond it; the resummed distribution agrees with the parton-shower comparison for $\beta=0,1,2$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument requires that the soft wide-angle emissions inside a jet are angularly ordered, so that no two such emissions cluster together before either clusters with the hard core; if that ordering fails at the required accuracy, the claimed identity between soft drop and a jet veto breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The groomed radius distribution becomes a resummed, perturbatively controlled observable that can be compared with LHC and RHIC data at next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy.
  • All jet-veto resummation technology, including non-global logarithms and clustering corrections, transfers to soft-drop groomed substructure through the proven equivalence.
  • Quark-versus-gluon jet fractions and logarithms of the original jet radius are included systematically beyond leading order through the flavor-dependent refactorization.
  • The framework is extendable beyond NLL and can be matched to fixed-order calculations, so the accuracy of the groomed-radius prediction is not a dead end.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equivalence is as general as the proof indicates, other groomed observables that fix only the declustering angle — groomed jet mass, groomed angularities — should admit the same veto mapping, unifying their resummations.
  • Event generators with recoil or with emissions that are not angularly ordered could expose the numerical size of the power corrections the factorization drops, especially when two collinear-soft branches sit close together.
  • The $\beta=0$ (mMDT) case, where the groomed jet shrinks most and hadronization shifts are smallest, is the cleanest place for data to discriminate NLL resummation from the earlier modified-leading-log result.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a factorization-based resummation of the soft drop groomed jet radius R_g (equivalently θ_g = R_g/R) at next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy. The authors develop an SCET refactorization of the semi-inclusive jet function in the limit z_cut ≪ 1, θ_g ≪ 1, based on an asserted all-order equivalence between the soft drop declustering measurement and a jet veto in the angular region between the groomed and ungroomed jet boundaries. They compute the collinear and collinear-soft functions to NLO, compute the leading non-global logarithms and the leading Abelian Cambridge/Aachen clustering logarithms at NNLO, and resum these corrections at leading logarithmic accuracy in the large-N_c limit with a dipole Monte Carlo algorithm. The resulting NLL distributions are compared with Pythia 8 for LHC kinematics, and predictions are provided for STAR/RHIC kinematics. The paper openly states in Section 2.7 that the subleading non-global and clustering logarithms are not fully conclusive, and it describes the nonperturbative freezing of α_s used in the low-scale region.

Significance. If the framework is correct, this is the first NLL calculation of the soft drop groomed jet radius, an observable that is important for jet substructure and for heavy-ion applications. The paper's strengths are the explicit closed-form NLO collinear and collinear-soft functions, the explicit NNLO phase-space check in Appendix A, the transparent Monte Carlo algorithm for non-global and clustering logarithms, and the parameter-free comparison with Pythia 8. The main risk is the precise status of the claimed all-order jet-veto equivalence and the extent to which the Monte Carlo correctly captures the exact C/A clustering structure; the paper is candid about some of these limitations but not about all of them.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.2 / App. A] The induction proof of the all-order equivalence M_N = ∏_i M1(J_i) rests on the assertion that 'Due to angular ordering the collinear-soft branches J_i are not clustered together.' This assertion is not guaranteed by the collinear-soft power counting: two emissions with θ_1, θ_2 ~ R_g and azimuthal separation φ satisfy d_12 < d_1 whenever θ_2^2 - 2 θ_1 θ_2 cos φ < 0, so the C/A tree can cluster the two soft branches before either clusters with the hard branch. The authors' own NNLO calculation, eq. (A.11), contains the residual term Θ(θ_1J−θ_12)Θ(θ_2J−θ_12)[M1(k_12)−M1(k_1)M1(k_2)] relative to the independent-veto product. Thus the induction in Sec. 2.2 proves the equivalence only in the channel without mutual clustering, and the abstract's claim of an 'all order equivalence to a jet veto' overstates the result. Please qualify the equivalence as holding modulo C/A clustering corrections and state explicitly how the factors S^C/A_i,NGL and A^C/A_i,Abel in eq. (2.10) and the Monte Carlo of Sec. 3 absorb those corrections at the claimed accuracy.
  2. [Sec. 3] The NLL claim depends on the Monte Carlo of Sec. 3 resumming the non-global and Abelian clustering logarithms with the same C/A clustering prescription as the exact soft drop algorithm. The only quantitative validation of the Monte Carlo is the small-t comparison with the two-loop coefficients in Figs. 3-4, and the Pythia comparison is not a controlled test of the factorization. I request either a direct comparison of the Monte Carlo's veto and clustering rule against an exact implementation of the C/A soft drop algorithm on Monte Carlo-generated phase space (for example at fixed order in the small-t region), or an explicit argument that the clustering rule in eq. (3.2) together with the veto prescription in Sec. 3.2 is exact at leading logarithmic accuracy for this observable. Without such a check, the statement that the resummation is at NLL, rather than at NLL for the global logs plus an assumed LL treatment of clustering effects, is not fully supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.7] The text states that the impact of subleading NGLs and clustering logarithms is 'not yet conclusive' but then uses the leading-log treatment in the main predictions. This caveat should be repeated in the conclusions when the overall accuracy is summarized as NLL.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] In the bullet list at the end of Section 3.1, 'See App. 3.4' should read 'See Sec. 3.4'.
  3. [Eq. (2.51)] The abbreviation 'f.c.' in eq. (2.51) is not defined; please spell out 'fixed-coupling' at first use.
  4. [Sec. 2.5] The sentence 'Therefore, to we need to insert the constraint' contains a grammatical typo and should be corrected.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The sentence 'We result is plotted as a function of θ_g' should read 'The result is plotted as a function of θ_g'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the jet-veto equivalence is an algebraic identity under stated ordering assumptions, the NLO functions and NGL/clustering coefficients are computed in the paper, and the Pythia comparison is external validation.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is self-contained. The factorization theorem in eqs. (2.2)–(2.10) follows from standard SCET mode power counting, with the new ingredient being the all-order equivalence between soft drop declustering and a jet veto. That equivalence is proven algebraically in eqs. (2.15)–(2.22), and the crux is the stated angular-ordering condition for collinear-soft branches. The paper does not hide the residual clustering configuration: Appendix A explicitly isolates the extra term Θ(θ1J−θ12)Θ(θ2J−θ12)[M1(k12)−M1(k1)M1(k2)] in eq. (A.11), so the equivalence is not asserted by definition but derived with its validity domain stated. The collinear and collinear-soft functions are computed to NLO in eqs. (2.24)–(2.31), and the leading NGL and Abelian clustering coefficients are obtained by explicit phase-space integrals in eqs. (2.37)–(2.47). The Monte Carlo algorithm in Sec. 3 is described in detail in the paper and is checked against the two-loop results. Canonical scales in eqs. (2.58)–(2.61) are chosen to minimize logarithms, not fitted to data, and the comparison to Pythia 8 is an external test rather than an input. Self-citations, including to Refs. [13,14,58,80], refer to prior fixed-order results or to a shower method that is re-derived here; none are used to define the observable or to force the central numerical answer. The weakest assumption—that clustering corrections exponentiate in the assumed form—is a correctness risk, not circularity.

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

The central derivation contains no fitted constants. The scale choices in eqs. (2.58)-(2.61) are canonical, not fit to data. The hand-chosen alpha_s freezing scale and shower cutoff affect numerical results but not the factorization. The main relied-on items are standard SCET factorization, angular ordering under C/A, large-N_c, and the nonperturbative freeze; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha_s freezing scale = 0.4 GeV
    Chosen by hand in Section 4 to freeze the running coupling near the Landau pole. It affects the smallest theta_g bins of the numerical predictions but is not used in the factorization derivation.
  • shower angular cutoff delta = 0.001
    Technical cutoff in the dipole shower, Section 3.4. The authors report that results are independent of it, so it is not a physical fitted parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math SCET factorization of hard scattering, jet function, collinear and collinear-soft modes.
    Used for eqs. (2.2), (2.6), and (2.9); relies on established effective field theory results.
  • domain assumption Power corrections of O(R^2) and correlations between theta_g-sensitive and theta_g-insensitive modes are neglected.
    Stated in Section 2.1; this permits the multiplicative refactorization in eq. (2.6).
  • domain assumption Collinear-soft branches are angular ordered under C/A and do not cluster with each other before clustering with the hard branch.
    Asserted in Section 2.2; the all-order veto equivalence and the Monte Carlo clustering rule depend on it.
  • domain assumption Large-N_c limit is sufficient for the all-order resummation of non-global and clustering logarithms.
    Section 3 uses a large-N_c dipole shower; subleading color terms are not resummed.
  • domain assumption Running coupling can be frozen smoothly below 0.4 GeV.
    Section 4: numerical predictions freeze alpha_s at 0.4 GeV, which matters for the smallest theta_g bins.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The soft drop groomed jet radius at NLL." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHOQMIJY

@misc{pith2026190801783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The soft drop groomed jet radius at NLL},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHOQMIJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01783}
}
abstract

We present results for the soft drop groomed jet radius $R_g$ at next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy. The radius of a groomed jet which corresponds to the angle between the two branches passing the soft drop criterion is one of the characteristic observables relevant for the precise understanding of groomed jet substructure. We establish a factorization formalism that allows for the resummation of all relevant large logarithms, which is based on demonstrating the all order equivalence to a jet veto in the region between the boundaries of the groomed and ungroomed jet. Non-global logarithms including clustering effects due to the Cambridge/Aachen algorithm are resummed to all orders using a suitable Monte Carlo algorithm. We perform numerical calculations and find a very good agreement with Pythia 8 simulations. We provide theoretical predictions for the LHC and RHIC.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Krohn, J

    D. Krohn, J. Thaler, and L.-T. Wang, Jet Trimming, JHEP 02 (2010) 084, [arXiv:0912.1342]

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, and J. R. Walsh, Recombination Algorithms and Jet Substructure: Pruning as a Tool for Heavy Particle Searches , Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 094023, [arXiv:0912.0033]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Dasgupta, A

    M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam, Towards an understanding of jet substructure, JHEP 09 (2013) 029, [ arXiv:1307.0007]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Soft Drop, JHEP 05 (2014) 146, [arXiv:1402.2657]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Aaboud et al., A measurement of the soft-drop jet mass in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , arXiv:1711.08341

    ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., A measurement of the soft-drop jet mass in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , arXiv:1711.08341

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Measurements of the differential jet cross section as a function of the jet mass in dijet events from proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, arXiv:1807.05974

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Measurement of jet-substructure observables in top quark, W boson and light jet production in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Submitted to: JHEP (2019) [arXiv:1903.02942]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    ATLAS Collaboration, T. A. collaboration, Measurement of the Lund Jet Plane using charged particles with the ATLAS detector from 13 TeV proton–proton collisions ,

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    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 , arXiv:1709.04464

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Asquith et al., Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider : Experimental Review , arXiv:1803.06991

    L. Asquith et al., Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider : Experimental Review , arXiv:1803.06991

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    C. Frye, A. J. Larkoski, M. D. Schwartz, and K. Yan, Factorization for groomed jet substructure beyond the next-to-leading logarithm , JHEP 07 (2016) 064, [arXiv:1603.09338]. – 27 –

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Marzani, L

    S. Marzani, L. Schunk, and G. Soyez, A study of jet mass distributions with grooming , JHEP 07 (2017) 132, [ arXiv:1704.02210]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, X. Liu, and F. Ringer, The groomed and ungroomed jet mass distribution for inclusive jet production at the LHC , JHEP 10 (2018) 137, [ arXiv:1803.03645]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, X. Liu, and F. Ringer, Soft drop groomed jet angularities at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B793 (2019) 41–47, [ arXiv:1811.06983]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and D. Neill, Factorization and Resummation for Groomed Multi-Prong Jet Shapes, JHEP 02 (2018) 144, [ arXiv:1710.00014]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Makris, D

    Y. Makris, D. Neill, and V. Vaidya, Probing Transverse-Momentum Dependent Evolution With Groomed Jets, JHEP 07 (2018) 167, [ arXiv:1712.07653]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, A. Pathak, and I. W. Stewart, Extracting a Short Distance Top Mass with Light Grooming , arXiv:1708.02586

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Baron, S

    J. Baron, S. Marzani, and V. Theeuwes, Soft-Drop Thrust, JHEP 08 (2018) 105, [arXiv:1803.04719]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Makris and V

    Y. Makris and V. Vaidya, Transverse Momentum Spectra at Threshold for Groomed Heavy Quark Jets, JHEP 10 (2018) 019, [ arXiv:1807.09805]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kardos, G

    A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi,Soft-drop event shapes in electron-positron annihilation at next-to-next-to-leading order accuracy , arXiv:1807.11472

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Napoletano and G

    D. Napoletano and G. Soyez, Computing N-subjettiness for boosted jets , JHEP 12 (2018) 031, [arXiv:1809.04602]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Chien and I

    Y.-T. Chien and I. W. Stewart, Collinear Drop, arXiv:1907.11107

    1907 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. Lee, P. Shrivastava, and V. Vaidya, Predictions for energy correlators probing substructure of groomed heavy quark jets , arXiv:1901.09095

    1901 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, Y

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, Y. Makris, V. Vaidya, I. Scimemi, and L. Zoppi, Probing Transverse-Momentum Distributions With Groomed Jets , arXiv:1907.05896

    1907 arXiv

  17. [25]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Measurement of the Splitting Function in pp and Pb-Pb Collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), no. 14 142302, [arXiv:1708.09429]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Measurement of the groomed jet mass in PbPb and pp collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV, JHEP 10 (2018) 161, [ arXiv:1805.05145]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Acharya et al., Exploration of jet substructure using iterative declustering in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at LHC energies , arXiv:1905.02512

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., Exploration of jet substructure using iterative declustering in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at LHC energies , arXiv:1905.02512

    1905 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kauder, Measurement of the Shared Momentum Fraction zg using Jet Reconstruction in p+p and Au+Au Collisions with STAR , Nucl

    STAR Collaboration, K. Kauder, Measurement of the Shared Momentum Fraction zg using Jet Reconstruction in p+p and Au+Au Collisions with STAR , Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 289-290 (2017) 137–140, [ arXiv:1703.10933]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mehtar-Tani and K

    Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, Groomed jets in heavy-ion collisions: sensitivity to medium-induced bremsstrahlung, JHEP 04 (2017) 125, [ arXiv:1610.08930]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chien and I

    Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, Probing the Hardest Branching within Jets in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 11 112301, [ arXiv:1608.07283]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Milhano, U

    G. Milhano, U. A. Wiedemann, and K. C. Zapp, Sensitivity of jet substructure to jet-induced medium response, Phys. Lett. B779 (2018) 409–413, [ arXiv:1707.04142]. – 28 –

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chang, S

    N.-B. Chang, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, Probing medium-induced jet splitting and energy loss in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B781 (2018) 423–432, [ arXiv:1707.03767]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. T. Li and I. Vitev, Inverting the mass hierarchy of jet quenching effects with prompt b-jet substructure, Phys. Lett. B793 (2019) 259–264, [ arXiv:1801.00008]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Chien and R

    Y.-T. Chien and R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, Probing heavy ion collisions using quark and gluon jet substructure , arXiv:1803.03589

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sirimanna, S

    C. Sirimanna, S. Cao, and A. Majumder, Medium modified leading hadrons, jets and sub-jetsin a single formalism , PoS HardProbes2018 (2019) 053, [ arXiv:1901.03635]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Caucal, E

    P. Caucal, E. Iancu, and G. Soyez, Deciphering the zg distribution in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, arXiv:1907.04866

    1907 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K

    R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, Medium response in JEWEL and its impact on jet shape observables in heavy ion collisions , JHEP 07 (2017) 141, [ arXiv:1707.01539]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Casalderrey-Solana, G

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, Modification of Jet Substructure in Heavy Ion Collisions as a Probe of the Resolution Length of Quark-Gluon Plasma, arXiv:1907.11248

    1907 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ringer, B.-W

    F. Ringer, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Can We Observe Jet PT -broadening in Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC? , arXiv:1907.12541

    1907 arXiv

  32. [40]

    H. A. Andrews et al., Novel tools and observables for jet physics in heavy-ion collisions , arXiv:1808.03689

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm , JHEP 04 (2008) 063, [ arXiv:0802.1189]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, Better jet clustering algorithms, JHEP 08 (1997) 001, [ hep-ph/9707323]

    1997 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Wobisch and T

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering, hep-ph/9907280

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The Catchment Area of Jets , JHEP 04 (2008) 005, [arXiv:0802.1188]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Invariant operators in collinear effective theory , Phys. Lett. B516 (2001) 134–142, [ hep-ph/0107001]

    2001 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, and T. Feldmann, Soft collinear effective theory and heavy to light currents beyond leading power , Nucl. Phys. B643 (2002) 431–476, [hep-ph/0206152]

    2002 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Resummation of nonglobal QCD observables , Phys. Lett. B512 (2001) 323–330, [ hep-ph/0104277]. – 29 –

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Delenda, R

    Y. Delenda, R. Appleby, M. Dasgupta, and A. Banfi, On QCD resummation with k(t) clustering, JHEP 12 (2006) 044, [ hep-ph/0610242]

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, Non-global logs and clustering impact on jet mass with a jet veto distribution, JHEP 02 (2012) 072, [ arXiv:1111.2016]

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, Non-global logs and clustering impact on jet mass with a jet veto distribution, JHEP 02 (2012) 072, [ arXiv:1111.2016]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Delenda and K

    Y. Delenda and K. Khelifa-Kerfa, On the resummation of clustering logarithms for non-global observables, JHEP 09 (2012) 109, [ arXiv:1207.4528]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dasgupta, K

    M. Dasgupta, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, S. Marzani, and M. Spannowsky, On jet mass distributions in Z+jet and dijet processes at the LHC , JHEP 10 (2012) 126, [ arXiv:1207.1640]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kelley, J

    R. Kelley, J. R. Walsh, and S. Zuberi, Abelian Non-Global Logarithms from Soft Gluon Clustering, JHEP 09 (2012) 117, [ arXiv:1202.2361]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kelley, J

    R. Kelley, J. R. Walsh, and S. Zuberi, Disentangling Clustering Effects in Jet Algorithms , arXiv:1203.2923

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    R. B. Appleby and M. H. Seymour, Nonglobal logarithms in interjet energy flow with kt clustering requirement, JHEP 12 (2002) 063, [ hep-ph/0211426]

    2002 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Neill, Non-Global and Clustering Effects for Groomed Multi-Prong Jet Shapes , JHEP 02 (2019) 114, [ arXiv:1808.04897]

    D. Neill, Non-Global and Clustering Effects for Groomed Multi-Prong Jet Shapes , JHEP 02 (2019) 114, [ arXiv:1808.04897]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mukherjee and W

    A. Mukherjee and W. Vogelsang, Jet production in (un)polarized pp collisions: dependence on jet algorithm , Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 094009, [ arXiv:1209.1785]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Aversa, P

    F. Aversa, P. Chiappetta, M. Greco, and J. P. Guillet, QCD Corrections to Parton-Parton Scattering Processes, Nucl. Phys. B327 (1989) 105

    1989

  53. [61]

    Jager, A

    B. Jager, A. Schafer, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to high pT pion production in longitudinally polarized pp collisions , Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 054005, [ hep-ph/0211007]

    2003 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet, and E. Pilon, Isolating Prompt Photons with Narrow Cones, JHEP 09 (2013) 007, [ arXiv:1306.6498]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dasgupta, F

    M. Dasgupta, F. Dreyer, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Small-radius jets to all orders in QCD , JHEP 04 (2015) 039, [ arXiv:1411.5182]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kaufmann, A

    T. Kaufmann, A. Mukherjee, and W. Vogelsang, Hadron Fragmentation Inside Jets in Hadronic Collisions, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 054015, [ arXiv:1506.01415]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and I. Vitev, The semi-inclusive jet function in SCET and small radius resummation for inclusive jet production , JHEP 10 (2016) 125, [ arXiv:1606.06732]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    L. Dai, C. Kim, and A. K. Leibovich, Fragmentation of a Jet with Small Radius , Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 11 114023, [ arXiv:1606.07411]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    B. T. Elder, M. Procura, J. Thaler, W. J. Waalewijn, and K. Zhou, Generalized Fragmentation Functions for Fractal Jet Observables , JHEP 06 (2017) 085, [arXiv:1704.05456]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn, The Energy Distribution of Subjets and the Jet Shape, JHEP 07 (2017) 064, [ arXiv:1705.05375]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Z.-B. Kang, X. Liu, F. Ringer, and H. Xing, The transverse momentum distribution of hadrons within jets , JHEP 11 (2017) 068, [ arXiv:1705.08443]. – 30 –

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, L. Rothen, and D. Y. Shao, Effective Field Theory for Jet Processes , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 19 192001, [ arXiv:1508.06645]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

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

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    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, [ arXiv:1106.6047]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. Banfi, G. Marchesini, and G. Smye, Away from jet energy flow , JHEP 08 (2002) 006, [hep-ph/0206076]

    2002 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, and S. Marzani, Non-global logarithms and jet algorithms in high-pT jet shapes , JHEP 08 (2010) 064, [ arXiv:1004.3483]

    2010 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Liu and F

    X. Liu and F. Petriello, Resummation of jet-veto logarithms in hadronic processes containing jets, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013), no. 1 014018, [ arXiv:1210.1906]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Liu and F

    X. Liu and F. Petriello, Reducing theoretical uncertainties for exclusive Higgs-boson plus one-jet production at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D87 (2013), no. 9 094027, [ arXiv:1303.4405]

    2013 arXiv

  69. [77]

    F. J. Tackmann, J. R. Walsh, and S. Zuberi, Resummation Properties of Jet Vetoes at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 053011, [ arXiv:1206.4312]

    2012 arXiv

  70. [78]

    S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, J. R. Walsh, A. Hornig, and C. Lee, Jet Shapes and Jet Algorithms in SCET , JHEP 11 (2010) 101, [ arXiv:1001.0014]

    2010 arXiv

  71. [79]

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, Infrared safe definition of jet flavor , Eur. Phys. J. C47 (2006) 113–124, [ hep-ph/0601139]

    2006 arXiv

  72. [80]

    P. Cal, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn, The jet shape at NLL , JHEP 05 (2019) 143, [arXiv:1901.06389]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Banfi and M

    A. Banfi and M. Dasgupta, Problems in resumming interjet energy flows with kt clustering, Phys. Lett. B628 (2005) 49–56, [ hep-ph/0508159]

    2005 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [ arXiv:1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 033006, [ arXiv:1506.07443]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, A. Pathak, and I. W. Stewart, Nonperturbative Corrections to Soft Drop Jet Mass , arXiv:1906.11843

    1906 arXiv

  77. [85]

    STAR Collaboration, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, Jet sub-structure and parton shower evolution in p+p and Au+Au collisions at STAR , in 13th International Workshop on High-pT Physics in the RHIC/LHC Era (HPT 2019) Knoxville, TN, USA, March 19-22, 2019, 2019. arXiv:1906.05129. – 31 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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