Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Second-order QCD corrections to event shape distributions in deep inelastic scattering

T0 review · 0 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 Second-order QCD corrections now cover DIS event shapes

desk verdict First NNLO DIS event shapes: solid fixed-order result, model-dependent data comparison, worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02760 v1 pith:I6625WUH submitted 2019-09-06 hep-ph

T. Gehrmann , A. Huss , J. Mo , J. Niehues This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords QCDNNLOcorrectionseventshapesdeepinelasticscatteringpowerdispersivemodelHERAjetphysics
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 establishes that event shape distributions and their mean values in deep inelastic lepton-proton scattering can now be predicted at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in perturbative QCD. The corrections differ in size and shape among the thrust, jet mass, broadening, and C-parameter variables, and they typically shrink the renormalization and factorization scale uncertainty from about ten percent at NLO to about five percent, or a few percent at high $Q^2$. Supplemented with dispersive-model power corrections to account for hadronization, the NNLO predictions describe the HERA data better than NLO, especially the shape of the distributions. This matters because it removes the main theory limitation on extracting the strong coupling constant and the non-perturbative parameter $\alpha_0$ from HERA event shape data.

What carries the argument

The calculation is built by extending the NNLO corrections to di-jet production in deep inelastic scattering, replacing the jet algorithm with computations of the event shape variables. It combines four-parton tree amplitudes, three-parton one-loop amplitudes, and two-parton two-loop amplitudes using the antenna subtraction method, which isolates and cancels infrared singularities numerically, inside a parton-level Monte Carlo program. The hadronization treatment is the dispersive model, which represents the leading power correction as a universal quantity $P$ times a variable-dependent coefficient $a_F$, shifting the distribution $d\sigma/dF$ to $d\sigma/d(F-a_F P)$ and adding $a_F P$ to mean values; $P$ is expanded to $\alpha_s^3$ at NNLO. The paper also identifies the kinematical ridges and Sudakov shoulders in $C$ and $\tau_T$ that destabilize fixed-order predictions at exceptional values.

What would settle it

Refit $\alpha_0$ in each $Q^2$ bin, or in separate ranges of $F$, using the NNLO predictions; the constant-shift dispersive model predicts a single universal $\alpha_0$ with no systematic trend, so a trend of the fitted $\alpha_0$ with $Q^2$ or with the event shape variable that exceeds the NNLO scale uncertainty would rule out the hadronization treatment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the complete NNLO QCD corrections to the current-hemisphere event shape distributions ($\tau_\gamma$, $\tau_T$, $\rho$, $B_\gamma$, $C$) and their mean values in deep inelastic scattering have been computed and are phenomenologically relevant. In the bulk of the distributions the NNLO corrections are positive, up to about 20% at low and moderate $Q^2$, while they become small or negative at high $Q^2$ and near the upper kinematical boundaries; the NNLO/NLO ratio has a non-trivial shape for every variable. The scale uncertainty is reduced from roughly 10% at NLO to roughly 5% at NNLO, and to below 4% at high $Q^2$, so that the theory uncertainty falls below the experimental errors for moderate and high $Q^2$. When hadronization is modelled by a dispersive power correction that shifts each distribution, the NNLO predictions improve the description of the data. For the mean values, the positive NNLO corrections to the fixed-order result are largely compensated by negative NNLO contributions to the power correction, leaving a small net shift but a substantially smaller scale uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The hadron-level comparison assumes that hadronization can be represented by one constant shift per event shape distribution, with $\alpha_0=0.5$ taken from earlier fits; if the true shift depends on the value of the event shape variable, the claimed improvement in the data description does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DIS event shape distributions and mean values are now available at NNLO, with scale uncertainties of a few percent at moderate and high $Q^2$, typically below the experimental errors of the HERA data.
  • The improved theory description of the shape of the distributions, particularly at large jet mass and in the broadening variable, strengthens the case for using these observables in precision QCD studies.
  • A fully consistent NNLO-based combined fit of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and $\alpha_0$ to event shapes is now possible; the theory uncertainty on $\alpha_s$, previously about 5% from NLO scale variation, should be substantially reduced.
  • The first bin near $F \to 0$ remains unreliable without resummation, and Sudakov shoulders and kinematical ridges in $C$ and $\tau_T$ require new resummation approaches before fixed-order predictions can be used there.
  • High-resolution measurements at future lepton-hadron colliders would be able to resolve the ridge and shoulder structures and test the need for the new resummations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the constant-shift hadronization approximation is inadequate, the NNLO improvement may be specific to the bulk of each distribution; fits of $\alpha_0$ in separate $Q^2$ bins or $F$ regions would reveal whether the effective shift varies, which the paper leaves open.
  • The compensation between fixed-order and power-correction NNLO terms in the mean values implies that the value of $\alpha_0$ extracted from data may shift when the fit is upgraded from NLO to NNLO, as was seen in $e^+e^-$ event shape moments; this shift can be tested by repeating the combined fit to the existing HERA data.
  • The same calculation can be recast into convolution grids for fast re-evaluation, which would enable a practical $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ extraction from the existing HERA data at NNLO.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD calculation of event shape distributions and their mean values in deep inelastic scattering. The calculation is implemented in NNLOJET by adapting the existing NNLO dijet-in-DIS calculation; the paper documents the phase-space cuts, scale choice, PDF set, and the technical low-F cut-offs. The fixed-order results are compared with H1 and ZEUS data after applying dispersive-model hadronization corrections as a constant shift (Eq. 15). The authors find that NNLO corrections reduce scale uncertainties and generally improve the description of the data, while explicitly identifying regions where fixed-order predictions are unreliable (small F, Sudakov shoulders, kinematical ridges).

Significance. This is a substantial step forward: DIS event shapes were previously known only to NLO, and the scale uncertainty on NLO predictions limited precision studies; the present work makes NNLO predictions available for all five standard DIS event shapes and their mean values. The fixed-order part is parameter-free once PDFs and alpha_s are fixed, and it reuses machinery already validated in DIS dijet and single-jet calculations. The authors are commendably explicit about the known limitations of the constant-shift dispersive model and about the instability regions. If the results hold, they also open the door to a consistent NNLO extraction of alpha_s and alpha0 from HERA data.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The sentence 'inclusion of the NNLO corrections leads in general to an improved description' should be qualified to specify the regions where the statement is robust (medium/high Q2, away from the first bin and from Sudakov shoulders), because at low Q2 the comparison relies on the constant-shift approximation and the authors themselves note large shifts for the C-parameter.
  2. [Section 3] The text states that the normalization cross sections are computed to NNLO for all predictions; this means the NLO and NNLO distribution predictions are normalized by the same NNLO total cross section. This choice should be stated explicitly in Section 3 so that the NLO curves are not misinterpreted as normalized to an NLO total cross section.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Eq. (15)] The statement that the smallness of the NNLO correction to tau_T is due to a cancellation between positive parton-level corrections and decreased power corrections would be more compelling with a quantitative illustration; consider giving P_NNLO/P_NLO values for a few Q bins or plotting the separate contributions.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] Axis labels in Figures 2 and 3 are inconsistent or missing for some rows (for example, the label 'T' leaves ambiguity between tau_T and B_T); please label each panel explicitly with the event shape variable.
  5. [Section 3.1 and Section 5.1] The definition of the 'left-most non-vanishing bin' after the shift depends on the cut values in Eq. (13); please specify exactly which experimental bins are excluded in the comparison, for example by listing the bin indices, to make the comparisons reproducible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The NNLO fixed-order computation is non-circular; only the hadron-level comparison inherits a previously fitted power-correction parameter from the same HERA datasets.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Eqs. 14/16/20) and Section 5.2 (Figs. 14-15)]
    "In our numerical results, we use α0(µI) = 0.5 at µI = 2 GeV, which has been estimated from fits to event shape moments in DIS [23, 24, 58] and e+e− annihilation [56]."

    The dispersive-model power correction P is proportional to α0, and the mean-value comparison uses the additive shift ⟨F⟩ = ⟨F⟩_pert + a_F P (Eq. 20). Since α0=0.5 was fitted to event shape moments from the same H1 [23] and ZEUS [24] experiments that are subsequently compared in Figures 14-15, the hadron-level mean-value improvement is partly inherited from fits to those data rather than produced by the NNLO calculation. The NNLO parton-level corrections are parameter-free and not fitted, so the circularity is partial and does not infect the central fixed-order result.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper, the NNLO QCD correction to DIS event shape distributions, is not circular. The calculation is performed with NNLOJET by reusing the published NNLO di-jet DIS calculation [26,27]; the event-shape observables are obtained by replacing the jet algorithm with the shape definitions, and the fixed-order result is parameter-free once PDFs and αs are specified. Nothing in the matrix elements, antenna subtraction, or scale variation is defined in terms of the H1/ZEUS data or of the final distributions. The stronger 'improved description' claim is more delicate: the hadronization corrections are estimated with the dispersive model using α0=0.5, a value fitted in previous work to event-shape moments including the same H1 and ZEUS data, and then applied as an additive shift to mean values and a constant shift to distributions (Eqs. 15 and 20). Thus the hadron-level comparison is not a from-scratch prediction of the data; it is a consistency check of the NNLO corrections given a power-correction model whose parameter was fixed to similar observables. The paper explicitly acknowledges that using a constant shift P for the full distribution is only an approximation, and it flags the left-most bin as unreliable due to the interplay of the lower cut-off and the shift. No self-citation chain forces the result: the cited NNLO di-jet work provides independent validation of the antenna-subtraction setup, and the a_F coefficients come from independent dispersive-model literature. Score 2 reflects the one parameter inherited from the comparison data, while the core NNLO result remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central NNLO fixed-order calculation relies on standard perturbative QCD ingredients and the established NNLOJET machinery. The data-comparison segment additionally depends on the dispersive model with an externally fitted alpha0 and on the constant-shift approximation. No new particles, forces, or parameters are introduced by the paper itself, apart from reusing previously fitted constants.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha0(mu_I=2 GeV) = 0.5
    First moment of the effective coupling in the dispersive model. Taken from previous fits to DIS and e+e- event shape moments (Refs. [23,24,56,58]); not fitted in this paper, but it enters the hadron-level comparisons.
  • M (Milan factor) = 1.49
    Constant normalization factor in the power correction P, Eq. (16), accounting for higher-order contributions; fixed from earlier literature.
  • eta0 in broadening shift a'_B = -0.614
    Additional enhancement for the jet broadening shift, Eq. (19), from Ref. [60]. The resulting a'_B varies between 1.6 and 2.3 depending on scale.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dispersive model describes non-perturbative hadronization corrections as a universal constant shift of the event shape distributions.
    Section 4, around Eq. (15). The paper applies a constant shift P to the full distribution, and states this is an approximation. The data comparison depends on this model.
  • domain assumption NNPDF3.1 parton distributions with alpha_s(MZ)=0.118 are the correct input.
    Section 3, stated as the central setup. The results inherit the accuracy and assumptions of these PDFs.
  • domain assumption The antenna subtraction method and the NNLOJET implementation correctly compute infrared-safe observables in DIS.
    Section 3, used to combine four-parton tree, three-parton one-loop and two-parton two-loop contributions. The method is established but not independently re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The seven-point scale variation envelope is a reliable estimate of missing higher-order uncertainty.
    Section 3, used to assign the theory uncertainty bands shown in all figures. This is a standard but inherently heuristic prescription.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Second-order QCD corrections to event shape distributions in deep inelastic scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6625WUH

@misc{pith2026190902760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Second-order QCD corrections to event shape distributions in deep inelastic scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6625WUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02760}
}
read the original abstract

We compute the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD corrections to event shape distributions and their mean values in deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering. The magnitude and shape of the corrections varies considerably between different variables. The corrections reduce the renormalization and factorization scale uncertainty of the predictions. Using a dispersive model to describe non-perturbative power corrections, we compare the NNLO QCD predictions with data from the H1 and ZEUS experiments. The newly derived corrections improve the theory description of the distributions and of their mean values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. These exceptional points are shifted to larger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Exploring soft anomalous dimensions for $1/Q$ power corrections

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The leading logarithmic correction to the 1/Q power correction for thrust and C-parameter is computed, with a sizeable coefficient S1 ≈ 2.455 and a universal C-to-thrust ratio of 3π/2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Tests of Quantum Chromo Dynamics at e^+e^- Colliders

    S. Kluth, Rept. Prog. Phys. 69 (2006) 1771–1846, arXiv:hep-ex/0603011

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Newman and M

    P. Newman and M. Wing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86 (2014) 1037, arXiv:1308.3368

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich, JHEP 12 (2007) 094, arXiv:0711.4711

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich, JHEP 05 (2009) 106, arXiv:0903.4658

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 3331, arXiv:1402.4140

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Weinzierl, JHEP 06 (2009) 041, arXiv:0904.1077

    S. Weinzierl, JHEP 06 (2009) 041, arXiv:0904.1077

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Weinzierl, Phys

    S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 094018, arXiv:0909.5056

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, Z. Sz˝ or, Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi and Z. Tulip´ ant,Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 074019, arXiv:1606.03453

    arXiv 2016

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Gehrmann, E

    T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, J. Niehues and H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B775 (2017) 185–189, arXiv:1709.01097

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP 07 (2008) 034, arXiv:0803.0342

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chien and M

    Y.-T. Chien and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP 08 (2010) 058, arXiv:1005.1644

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Abbate, M

    R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 074021, arXiv:1006.3080

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. F. Monni, T. Gehrmann and G. Luisoni, JHEP 08 (2011) 010, arXiv:1105.4560

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Becher and G

    T. Becher and G. Bell, JHEP 11 (2012) 126, arXiv:1210.0580

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. H. Hoang, D. W. Kolodrubetz, V. Mateu and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 094017, arXiv:1411.6633

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B485 (1997) 291–419, arXiv:hep-ph/9605323. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B510,503(1998)]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Graudenz, arXiv:hep-ph/9710244

    D. Graudenz, arXiv:hep-ph/9710244

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Nagy and Z

    Z. Nagy and Z. Trocsanyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 082001, arXiv:hep-ph/0104315

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Antonelli, M

    V. Antonelli, M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, JHEP 02 (2000) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/9912488

    2000 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Eur. Phys. J. C24 (2002) 213–236, arXiv:hep-ph/0110213

    2002 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, JHEP 08 (2002) 032, arXiv:hep-ph/0208073

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, J. Phys. G30 (2004) R143, arXiv:hep-ph/0312283

    2004 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aktas et al

    H1 Collaboration, A. Aktas et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C46 (2006) 343–356, arXiv:hep-ex/0512014

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chekanov et al

    ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al. , Nucl. Phys. B767 (2007) 1–28, arXiv:hep-ex/0604032

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gehrmann et al

    T. Gehrmann et al. , PoS RADCOR2017 (2018) 074, arXiv:1801.06415

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Currie, T

    J. Currie, T. Gehrmann and J. Niehues, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 042001, arXiv:1606.03991. 15

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Currie, T

    J. Currie, T. Gehrmann, A. Huss and J. Niehues, JHEP 07 (2017) 018, arXiv:1703.05977

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B469 (1996) 93–142, arXiv:hep-ph/9512336

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dasgupta and B

    M. Dasgupta and B. R. Webber, Eur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 539–546, arXiv:hep-ph/9704297

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dasgupta and B

    M. Dasgupta and B. R. Webber, JHEP 10 (1998) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/9809247

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hagiwara and D

    K. Hagiwara and D. Zeppenfeld, Nucl. Phys. B313 (1989) 560–594

    1989

  24. [32]

    F. A. Berends, W. T. Giele and H. Kuijf, Nucl. Phys. B321 (1989) 39–82

    1989

  25. [33]

    N. K. Falck, D. Graudenz and G. Kramer, Nucl. Phys. B328 (1989) 317–341

    1989

  26. [34]

    E. W. N. Glover and D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. B396 (1997) 257–263, arXiv:hep-ph/9609474

    1997 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. A. Kosower and S. Weinzierl, Nucl. Phys. B489 (1997) 3–23, arXiv:hep-ph/9610370

    1997 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. M. Campbell, E. W. N. Glover and D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. B409 (1997) 503–508, arXiv:hep-ph/9706297

    1997 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B513 (1998) 3–86, arXiv:hep-ph/9708239

    1998 arXiv

  30. [38]

    L. W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Koukoutsakis and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B627 (2002) 107–188, arXiv:hep-ph/0112081

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Koukoutsakis and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B642 (2002) 227–262, arXiv:hep-ph/0206067

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Gehrmann and E

    T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B640 (2002) 379–411, arXiv:hep-ph/0207020

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gehrmann and E

    T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, Phys. Lett. B676 (2009) 146–151, arXiv:0904.2665

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, JHEP 09 (2005) 056, arXiv:hep-ph/0505111

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Daleo, T

    A. Daleo, T. Gehrmann and D. Maitre, JHEP 04 (2007) 016, arXiv:hep-ph/0612257

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Currie, E

    J. Currie, E. W. N. Glover and S. Wells, JHEP 04 (2013) 066, arXiv:1301.4693

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Currie, T

    J. Currie, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, J. Niehues and A. Vogt, JHEP 05 (2018) 209, arXiv:1803.09973

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Andreev et al

    H1 Collaboration, V. Andreev et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 791, arXiv:1709.07251

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Britzger et al

    D. Britzger et al. , arXiv:1906.05303

    1906 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Britzger, J

    D. Britzger, J. Currie, T. Gehrmann, A. Huss, J. Niehues and R. ˇZlebˇ c´ ık,Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 538, arXiv:1804.05663

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Niehues and D

    J. Niehues and D. M. Walker, Phys. Lett. B788 (2019) 243–248, arXiv:1807.02529

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gehrmann, A

    T. Gehrmann, A. Huss, J. Niehues, A. Vogt and D. M. Walker, Phys. Lett. B792 (2019) 182–186, arXiv:1812.06104

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Catani and B

    S. Catani and B. R. Webber, JHEP 10 (1997) 005, arXiv:hep-ph/9710333

    1997 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Accardi et al

    A. Accardi et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A52 (2016) 268, arXiv:1212.1701

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    LHeC Study Group Collaboration, J. L. Abelleira Fernandez et al. , J. Phys. G39 (2012) 075001, arXiv:1206.2913

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Catani, B

    S. Catani, B. R. Webber and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B349 (1991) 635–654

    1991

  47. [55]

    R. A. Davison and B. R. Webber, Eur. Phys. J. C59 (2009) 13–25, arXiv:0809.3326

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gehrmann, M

    T. Gehrmann, M. Jaquier and G. Luisoni, Eur. Phys. J. C67 (2010) 57–72, arXiv:0911.2422

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. Lucenti, G. Marchesini and G. P. Salam, JHEP 05 (1998) 003, arXiv:hep-ph/9802381

    1998 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Adloff et al

    H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C14 (2000) 255–269, arXiv:hep-ex/9912052. [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J.C18,417(2000)]

    2000 arXiv

  51. [59]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B688 (2004) 101–134, arXiv:hep-ph/0403192

    2004 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and G. P. Salam, Eur. Phys. J.direct 1 (1999) 3, arXiv:hep-ph/9812487

    1999 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Andreev et al

    H1 Collaboration, V. Andreev et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 215, arXiv:1611.03421

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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