Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Heavy Flavor Jet Substructure at Lepton Colliders

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read All three major Monte Carlos overstate the dead-cone effect in b-quark jets, according to next-to-leading-logarithm resummation in e+e- collisions.

desk verdict Solid NLL benchmark for heavy-flavor ECFs and angularities at lepton colliders; the central finding that MCs overestimate the dead-cone effect is robust, but the groomed zcut=0.1 approximation needs scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07894 v2 pith:VCKRIBSO submitted 2025-02-11 hep-ph

Prasanna K. Dhani , Oleh Fedkevych , Andrea Ghira This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords heavy-flavorjetsdead-coneeffectenergycorrelationfunctionsjetangularityNLLresummationmMDTgroominge+e-collisionsMonteCarloeventgenerators
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 derives next-to-leading-logarithm (NLL) resummed predictions for two jet substructure observables, the energy correlation function $e_2^\alpha$ and the jet angularity $\lambda_\alpha$, on bottom-quark jets in electron-positron annihilation, and uses them to benchmark how well standard Monte Carlo generators reproduce the QCD dead-cone effect. The central object is the ratio of cumulative distributions $\Sigma_b(v)/\Sigma_q(v)$, which stays near one for observable values well above the dead-cone angle $\theta_D = 2m_b/\sqrt{s}$ and rises sharply as $v$ approaches $\theta_D$, where heavy-quark mass logarithms dominate. When the same ratio is computed with Pythia, Herwig, and Sherpa at parton level, all three generators show the rise beginning earlier, which the paper reads as each Monte Carlo overestimating the dead-cone effect. The paper concludes that the NLL result is a more reliable benchmark for the transition region, and that mMDT grooming reduces both the theory-Monte Carlo gap and the sensitivity to hadronization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the heavy-quark radiator constructed from the quasi-collinear massive splitting function $P_{gb}(z,k_t^2)$, integrated together with the Catani-Marchesini-Webber running coupling in the decoupling scheme, so that the number of active flavors changes at the quark-mass threshold. Lund diagrams for heavy flavors organize the phase space into regions where observable logarithms or mass logarithms dominate, yielding a single NLL radiator $R_b(v,\xi)$ whose fixed-order subtraction fixes the behavior at the dead-cone transition. The ratio $\Sigma_b/\Sigma_q$ isolates the mass effect because the mass-independent part of the mMDT grooming correction cancels in the ratio for $v \gtrsim \theta_D$, which is why groomed and ungroomed predictions coincide there.

What would settle it

A concrete check: compute the mMDT-groomed NLL prediction at $z_{\rm cut}=0.1$ with the full $z_{\rm cut}$ dependence retained (or with $z_{\rm cut}=0.05$ and 0.2 in both the analytic result and the generators). If the ratio $\Sigma_b/\Sigma_q$ at $v\approx\theta_D$ shifts by more than the quoted uncertainty band when $z_{\rm cut}$ is varied within this range, the neglected power corrections are numerically important and the conclusion that grooming brings the Monte Carlos into agreement with NLL would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the result is an all-order prediction for the heavy-to-light ratio of cumulative distributions of $e_2^\alpha$ and $\lambda_\alpha$ in $e^+e^-$ collisions, accurate to next-to-leading logarithms in both the observable $v$ and the mass ratio $\xi = m^2/s$, matched to fixed order so that the transition near the dead cone is captured. For $v \gtrsim \theta_D$ the ratio is essentially unity, while for $v \ll \theta_D$ heavy-quark mass logarithms generate an enhancement that grows as the dead-cone threshold is approached; the same fixed-order pattern explains why ungroomed and groomed ratios agree for $v \gtrsim \theta_D$ but differ deep inside the dead-cone region. The sharpest phenomenological claim is the Monte Carlo comparison: each of Pythia, Herwig, and Sherpa overestimates the dead-cone effect, because $\Sigma_b/\Sigma_q$ increases before the dead-cone boundary, and the three generators disagree among themselves at small $v$. Grooming with mMDT reduces non-perturbative effects and brings the Monte Carlos closer to the NLL band, the groomed energy correlation function being the least hadronization-sensitive case.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes $z_{\rm cut} \ll 1$ and drops power corrections in $z_{\rm cut}$, but all numerical comparisons use $z_{\rm cut} = 0.1$; if 0.1 is not small enough, the groomed NLL band near the dead-cone threshold could miss corrections larger than the stated uncertainty, and the claim that grooming reconciles theory and Monte Carlo would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At LEP energy, the NLL ratio for both observables stays near unity above $\theta_D\simeq 0.11$ and rises only inside the dead cone, whereas all three Monte Carlos begin rising earlier; archived LEP data could therefore discriminate the two behaviors.
  • The three generators give substantially different parton-level predictions for the heavy-to-light ratio, so heavy-flavor jet substructure measurements would provide new constraints on the heavy-quark radiation models in each generator.
  • mMDT grooming with $z_{\rm cut}=0.1$ reduces the discrepancy between theory and Monte Carlo and makes hadronization effects much smaller near the dead-cone boundary, with the energy correlation function less affected than the angularity.
  • At $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV the dead-cone threshold moves to $v\sim 0.01$, so resolving the effect in dijet $b$-quark events requires exceptional detector resolution; multi-jet events or top-quark jets are proposed as alternatives.
  • Ungroomed observables at hadron level can screen the perturbative dead-cone effect, which makes the groomed observables the better channel for testing the resummed prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the approximation: vary $z_{\rm cut}$ between 0.05 and 0.2 in the groomed ratio. Because the analytic calculation drops power corrections in $z_{\rm cut}$, the observed shift of $\Sigma_b/\Sigma_q$ near $\theta_D$ would measure exactly what the paper neglects.
  • The same ratio technique should transfer to charm jets, where the larger dead-cone angle gives better experimental access, at the cost of more complicated fragmentation and D-meson decay contamination.
  • If the Monte Carlos really do overestimate mass suppression, retuning them against lepton-collider data would effectively modify the quark-mass threshold used inside their parton showers, which would also shift their LHC heavy-flavor jet predictions.
  • Treating B hadrons as stable, as the paper does, omits decay products that can alter jet shapes; folding those in with transfer matrices is a concrete step before direct comparison with reconstructed archived LEP data.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents NLL resummed predictions for two event-shape observables, the energy correlation function e_2^alpha and jet angularity lambda_alpha, for b-quark jets in e+e- -> b bbar events at sqrt(s) = 91 GeV and 2 TeV. Cumulative distributions for ungroomed and mMDT-groomed hemispheres are built from heavy-quark radiators, supplemented by O(alpha_s) fixed-order matching, and the ratio Sigma_b/Sigma_q is compared with Pythia8, Herwig7, and Sherpa2 parton-level simulations. The main phenomenological claim is that all three MC generators overestimate the dead-cone mass suppression relative to the NLL benchmark, and that mMDT grooming reduces the discrepancy near the dead-cone threshold.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a parameter-free, NLL-accurate benchmark for heavy-flavour jet substructure in the clean e+e- environment, with explicit fixed-order expressions and a cross-check against MadGraph fixed order (reported agreement of 10-20% for v >~ theta_D). The comparison to three independent MC generators is a useful diagnostic of heavy-quark radiation models and motivates reanalysis of archived LEP data. The central ungroomed claim does not rely on the zcut << 1 approximation and is therefore robust to the main concern raised below. The groomed recommendation is, however, not yet fully supported at the stated zcut = 0.1, so the paper needs a quantitative check before the secondary conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (10); Section V, Figs. 1 and 3] The groomed predictions are built on the approximation v < zcut and x zcut^(2/alpha) << 1, but the numerical comparisons use zcut = 0.1. For sqrt(s) = 91 GeV and alpha = 1, the dead-cone threshold is theta_D = 2 m_b / sqrt(s) ≈ 0.11, which exceeds zcut = 0.1. The transition region v ≈ theta_D therefore lies partly in the regime v > zcut, where the groomed and ungroomed fixed-order radiators differ by an O(alpha_s) mass-dependent constant coming from the z < zcut phase space regulated by theta^2 + 4 xi, rather than by the mass-independent logarithm of Eq. (10). Because Eq. (16) uses the ungroomed R_V^(f.o.) as the matching term for both groomed and ungroomed cases, the groomed Sigma_b/Sigma_q near the dead-cone boundary may contain an unquantified mass-dependent shift. I ask the authors to quantify the numerical size of this effect, for example by repeating the groomed analysis at zcut = 0.05 and zcut = 0.2, or by including the full groomed matching term, and to state explicitly over which v-range the claim that grooming reduces discrepancies is valid.
  2. [Section V] The conclusion that 'each MC overestimates the dead-cone effect' is based on parton-level predictions from three MC generators at LO+PS with their default settings, but the paper does not quantify the scale or tuning uncertainty of the MC predictions. The NLL uncertainty band is shown, yet no corresponding MC uncertainty band or variation is provided, so it is unclear whether the disagreement between NLL and the MC generators is significant compared with the combined uncertainties. Please add an estimate of MC uncertainties, for example shower-scale variations or alternative tunes, or state explicitly that the claim applies only to the default implementations. This point is load-bearing because the central phenomenological claim is precisely the discrepancy between the NLL benchmark and the three generators.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and title page] The abstract on the arXiv listing omits the word 'partial' before 'fixed-order contributions' while the full-text abstract includes it; please make the two versions consistent.
  2. [Section II] The text states that zcut << 1 and that power corrections in zcut are neglected, but the numerical analysis uses zcut = 0.1; please add a sentence in Section V noting that this value sits at the edge of the approximation and refer to the quantitative check requested above.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (16)] The sentence 'Eq. (10 is no longer valid' is missing a closing parenthesis; it should read 'Eq. (10) is no longer valid'.
  4. [References] References [42], [44], [50], and [51] are incomplete: they lack author lists, titles, or bibliographic details and should be completed before submission.
  5. [Figures 1-3] The colored MC curves may be difficult to distinguish in grayscale or for color-blind readers; please add distinct line styles or markers in addition to color.
  6. [Section V] The MC curves are shown without statistical error bars; since Sigma_b/Sigma_q is a ratio of cumulative distributions, statistical fluctuations at small v can be significant, so error bars or a statement on MC statistics should be included.
  7. [Section V] The notation 'NLL|alpha_s' in the figures is not defined in the captions; please clarify that it denotes the O(alpha_s) expansion of the resummed ratio.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the heavy-quark radiators and resummed cumulants are derived in-paper or imported from parameter-free prior work, and the MC dead-cone comparison is an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central phenomenological claim is that "each MC overestimates the dead-cone effect, as Σb/Σq increases before the dead cone boundary" (Section V). This is an external comparison between the authors' NLL resummed ratio and the parton-level outputs of Pythia, Herwig, and Sherpa; no parameter is fitted to the MC curves, and no MC result is used as an input to the analytical calculation. The analytical chain is self-contained: the O(αs) radiators are computed in Eqs. (7)-(10) and Appendix A from the quasi-collinear massive splitting function, and the all-order cumulants in Eqs. (15)-(16) are built from the explicitly stated radiators Eqs. (11) and (14) in a standard exponential-resummation form. The self-citations to [32] for Lund-diagram techniques and to [37] for details are not load-bearing circularity: those works are parameter-free, externally published, and do not already contain the e+e- Σb/Σq dead-cone comparison; the quantities needed here are reproduced in this paper. The use of zcut = 0.1 in the numerical section despite the zcut << 1 approximation used in Eq. (10) is a numerical-accuracy limitation, and it is centrally relevant to the groomed benchmark, but it is not a circular reduction: it concerns the size of neglected power corrections, not the re-use of a fitted parameter or the definition of a result in terms of itself. Overall, the derivation does not reduce to its inputs, so the circularity score is low; the only mild caveat is the presence of self-citations, which are not load-bearing here.

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

The central predictions use no fitted parameters: the b-quark mass and zcut are fixed inputs. The machinery rests on established QCD factorization and the authors' earlier heavy-flavor resummation work. The most fragile entry is the zcut power-correction approximation, which is explicitly flagged in the text as zcut << 1 but numerically applied at zcut = 0.1.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quasi-collinear factorization for massive quarks, Eq. (5), with kt and m both small compared to Q and kt/m fixed.
    Underlies the fixed-order radiators and the massive splitting function Pgb. This is standard in heavy-quark QCD, but its validity across the full dead-cone transition is assumed without a dedicated check.
  • domain assumption The all-order heavy-flavor radiator from Lund diagrams, Eq. (11), taken from Ref. [32], correctly resums mass and soft logarithms at NLL in the e+e- hemisphere setup.
    The paper does not re-derive this radiator; it imports the Lund-diagram result for heavy flavors. The correctness of the NLL predictions rests on this external result.
  • domain assumption Running coupling in the decoupling scheme, Eq. (12), with four- and five-flavor matching.
    Standard QCD treatment of quark-mass thresholds; used in the radiators. Not independently verified in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Power corrections in zcut are negligible for zcut = 0.1.
    The fixed-order and resummed groomed results neglect O(zcut) power corrections, but the numerical comparison uses zcut = 0.1, which is not asymptotically small. This is the paper's weakest approximation.
  • standard math The standard Banfi-Salam-Zanderighi resummation formula, Eq. (15), applies to these hemisphere observables.
    The all-order cumulative distribution is written using the well-established resummation formalism of Ref. [96]. The paper relies on this without re-deriving it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heavy Flavor Jet Substructure at Lepton Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCKRIBSO

@misc{pith2026250207894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heavy Flavor Jet Substructure at Lepton Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCKRIBSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07894}
}
read the original abstract

We provide a detailed analysis of event-shape observables, namely the energy correlation function and jet angularity, for heavy-flavor jets produced in electron-positron collisions, focusing on quantum chromodynamics (QCD) interactions. Using modern jet substructure techniques, we investigate the dead-cone effect, where QCD radiation is suppressed around a heavy quark within an angle proportional to its mass. Our analysis achieves next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy, combined with fixed-order contributions, to improve the description of the transition near the dead-cone threshold. To ensure a comprehensive perspective, we compare our analytical results with predictions from the Pythia, Herwig and Sherpa Monte Carlo simulations at past and future lepton colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as in Fig. 1 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.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. Heavy Quark Pair Energy Correlators: From Profiling Partonic Splittings to Probing Heavy-Flavor Fragmentation

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heavy-flavor energy-energy correlators isolate the gluon to heavy quark-antiquark splitting and are predicted to be sensitive to medium modifications and anisotropic quark-gluon plasma structure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Britzger, K

    D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, D. Savoiu, G. Sieber, and M. Wobisch, Determination of the strong coupling constant using inclusive jet cross section data from multiple experiments, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 1 68, [arXiv:1712.00480]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Measurement of the Ratio of the Inclusive 3-Jet Cross Section to the Inclusive 2-Jet Cross Section in pp Collisions at √s = 7 TeV and First Determination of the Strong Coupling Constant in the TeV Range, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013), no. 10 2604, [arXiv:1304.7498]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Aaboud et al., Determination of the strong coupling constant αs from transverse energy–energy correlations in multijet events at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Determination of the strong coupling constant αs from transverse energy–energy correlations in multijet events at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 12 872, [arXiv:1707.02562]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Determination of the parton distribution functions of the proton from ATLAS measurements of differential W± and Z boson production in association with jets, JHEP 07 (2021) 223, [arXiv:2101.05095]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    CMS Collaboration, V . Khachatryan et al.,Constraints on parton distribution functions and extraction of the strong coupling constant from the inclusive jet cross section in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), no. 6 288, [arXiv:1410.6765]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Phenomenology of NNLO jet production at the LHC and its impact on parton distributions, Eur

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Phenomenology of NNLO jet production at the LHC and its impact on parton distributions, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020), no. 8 797, [arXiv:2005.11327]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, The Impact of LHC Jet Data on the MMHT PDF Fit at NNLO, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018), no. 3 248, [arXiv:1711.05757]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Pumplin, J

    J. Pumplin, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, W.-K. Tung, and C. P. Yuan,Collider Inclusive Jet Data and the Gluon Distribution, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 014019, [arXiv:0904.2424]. 9

    arXiv 2009

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    B. J. A. Watt, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne, The Effect of LHC Jet Data on MSTW PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2934, [arXiv:1311.5703]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Tumasyan et al., Study of quark and gluon jet substructure in Z+jet and dijet events from pp collisions, JHEP 01 (2022) 188, [arXiv:2109.03340]

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Study of quark and gluon jet substructure in Z+jet and dijet events from pp collisions, JHEP 01 (2022) 188, [arXiv:2109.03340]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Acharya et al., Measurements of the groomed and ungroomed jet angularities in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV, JHEP 05 (2022) 061, [arXiv:2107.11303]

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., Measurements of the groomed and ungroomed jet angularities in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV, JHEP 05 (2022) 061, [arXiv:2107.11303]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D. E. Soper and M. Spannowsky, Combining subjet algorithms to enhance ZH detection at the LHC, JHEP 08 (2010) 029, [arXiv:1005.0417]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. M. Godbole, D. J. Miller, K. A. Mohan, and C. D. White, Jet substructure and probes of CP violation in Vh production, JHEP 04 (2015) 103, [arXiv:1409.5449]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    N. Chen, J. Li, Y . Liu, and Z. Liu,LHC searches for the CP-odd Higgs by the jet substructure analysis, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), no. 7 075002, [arXiv:1410.4447]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Adams et al., Towards an Understanding of the Correlations in Jet Substructure, Eur

    D. Adams et al., Towards an Understanding of the Correlations in Jet Substructure, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), no. 9 409, [arXiv:1504.00679]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Marzani, G

    S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and M. Spannowsky, Looking inside jets: an introduction to jet substructure and boosted-object phenomenology, vol. 958. Springer, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    A. J. Larkoski, G. P. Salam, and J. Thaler, Energy Correlation Functions for Jet Substructure, JHEP 06 (2013) 108, [arXiv:1305.0007]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Moult, L

    I. Moult, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, New Angles on Energy Correlation Functions, JHEP 12 (2016) 153, [arXiv:1609.07483]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. J. Larkoski, J. Thaler, and W. J. Waalewijn, Gaining (Mutual) Information about Quark/Gluon Discrimination, JHEP 11 (2014) 129, [arXiv:1408.3122]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. F. Berger, T. Kucs, and G. F. Sterman, Event shape / energy flow correlations, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 014012, [hep-ph/0303051]

    2003 arXiv

  13. [21]

    L. G. Almeida, S. J. Lee, G. Perez, G. F. Sterman, I. Sung, and J. Virzi, Substructure of high-pT Jets at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 074017, [arXiv:0807.0234]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Resummation of nonglobal QCD observables, Phys. Lett. B 512 (2001) 323–330, [hep-ph/0104277]

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    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]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kardos, A

    A. Kardos, A. J. Larkoski, and Z. Tr ´ocs´anyi, Groomed jet mass at high precision, Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020) 135704, [arXiv:2002.00942]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cunqueiro and M

    L. Cunqueiro and M. Ploskon, Searching for the dead cone effects with iterative declustering of heavy-flavor jets, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 7 074027, [arXiv:1812.00102]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. Lee, P. Shrivastava, and V . Vaidya,Predictions for energy correlators probing substructure of groomed heavy quark jets, JHEP 09 (2019) 045, [arXiv:1901.09095]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Craft, K

    E. Craft, K. Lee, B. Mec ¸aj, and I. Moult,Beautiful and Charming Energy Correlators, arXiv:2210.09311

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Apolin ´ario, Y .-J

    L. Apolin ´ario, Y .-J. Lee, and M. Winn,Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127 (2022) 103990, [arXiv:2203.16352]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Seeing beauty in the quark-gluon plasma with energy correlators, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 L031503, [arXiv:2307.15110]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Caletti, A

    S. Caletti, A. Ghira, and S. Marzani, On heavy-flavour jets with Soft Drop, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 2 212, [arXiv:2312.11623]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ghira, S

    A. Ghira, S. Marzani, and G. Ridolfi, A consistent resummation of mass and soft logarithms in processes with heavy flavours, JHEP 11 (2023) 120, [arXiv:2309.06139]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gaggero, A

    D. Gaggero, A. Ghira, S. Marzani, and G. Ridolfi, Soft logarithms in processes with heavy quarks, JHEP 09 (2022) 058, [arXiv:2207.13567]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ghira, L

    A. Ghira, L. Mai, and S. Marzani, Bridging massive and massless schemes for soft gluon resummation in heavy-flavour production, arXiv:2412.13261

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. Wang, W. Dai, E. Wang, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang, Heavy-Flavour Jets in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions, Symmetry 15 (2023), no. 3 727, [arXiv:2303.14660]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Z.-X

    Q. Zhang, Z.-X. Xu, W. Dai, B.-W. Zhang, and E. Wang, Substructures of heavy flavor jets in pp and PbPb collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV, arXiv:2303.08620

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    P. K. Dhani, O. Fedkevych, A. Ghira, S. Marzani, and G. Soyez, Heavy Flavour Jet Substructure, arXiv:2410.05415

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jiang, H

    C.-H. Jiang, H. T. Li, S.-Y . Li, and Z.-G. Si,Mass suppression effect in QCD radiation and hadron angular distribution in jet*, Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024), no. 6 063101, [arXiv:2401.09033]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dainese, Unveiling the QCD Dead-Cone Effect at the LHC and its Role on Energy Loss in the Quark-Gluon Plasma, Nucl

    A. Dainese, Unveiling the QCD Dead-Cone Effect at the LHC and its Role on Energy Loss in the Quark-Gluon Plasma, Nucl. Phys. News 34 (2024), no. 3 17–20

    2024

  32. [40]

    von Kuk, J

    R. von Kuk, J. K. L. Michel, and Z. Sun, Transverse momentum-dependent heavy-quark fragmentation at next-to-leading order, JHEP 07 (2024) 129, [arXiv:2404.08622]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    U. G. Aglietti and G. Ferrera, Heavy quark mass effects in the Energy-Energy Correlation in the back-to-back region, arXiv:2412.02629

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    CMS Collaboration, Exploring small-angle emissions in prompt D0 jets in proton-proton collisions at√s = 5.02 TeV,

  35. [43]

    Acharya et al., Measurements of Groomed-Jet Substructure of Charm Jets Tagged by D0 Mesons in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., Measurements of Groomed-Jet Substructure of Charm Jets Tagged by D0 Mesons in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023), no. 19 192301, [arXiv:2208.04857]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    CMS Collaboration, Jet fragmentation function and groomed substructure of bottom quark jets in proton-proton collisions at 5.02 TeV,

  37. [45]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, Infrared safe definition of jet flavor, Eur. Phys. J. C 47 (2006) 113–124, [hep-ph/0601139]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Caletti, A

    S. Caletti, A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and D. Reichelt, Practical jet flavour through NNLO, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022), no. 7 632, [arXiv:2205.01109]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet, Infrared-safe flavoured anti-kT jets, JHEP 04 (2023) 138, [arXiv:2205.11879]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gauld, A

    R. Gauld, A. Huss, and G. Stagnitto, Flavor Identification of Reconstructed Hadronic Jets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 16 161901, [arXiv:2208.11138]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 132, 159901 (2024)]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Caola, R

    F. Caola, R. Grabarczyk, M. L. Hutt, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz, and J. Thaler, Flavored jets with exact anti-kt kinematics and 10 tests of infrared and collinear safety, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 9 094010, [arXiv:2306.07314]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A TLASCollaboration, Optimisation and performance studies of the ATLAS b-tagging algorithms for the 2017-18 LHC run,

    2017

  43. [51]

    A TLASCollaboration, Topological b-hadron decay reconstruction and identification of b-jets with the JetFitter package in the ATLAS experiment at the LHC,

  44. [52]

    Y . L. Dokshitzer, V . A. Khoze, and S. I. Troian,On specific QCD properties of heavy quark fragmentation (’dead cone’), J. Phys. G 17 (1991) 1602–1604

    1991

  45. [53]

    Y . L. Dokshitzer, V . A. Khoze, and S. I. Troian,Specific features of heavy quark production. LPHD approach to heavy particle spectra, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 89–119, [hep-ph/9506425]

    1996 arXiv

  46. [54]

    R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling, and B. R. Webber, QCD and collider physics, vol. 8. Cambridge University Press, 2, 2011

    2011

  47. [55]

    Acharya et al., Direct observation of the dead-cone effect in quantum chromodynamics, Nature 605 (2022), no

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., Direct observation of the dead-cone effect in quantum chromodynamics, Nature 605 (2022), no. 7910 440–446, [arXiv:2106.05713]. [Erratum: Nature 607, E22 (2022)]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abreu et al., A Measurement of B meson production and lifetime using D lepton- events in Z0 decays, Z

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., A Measurement of B meson production and lifetime using D lepton- events in Z0 decays, Z. Phys. C 57 (1993) 181–196

    1993

  49. [57]

    Akers et al., A Measurement of the production of D*+- mesons on the Z0 resonance, Z

    OPAL Collaboration, R. Akers et al., A Measurement of the production of D*+- mesons on the Z0 resonance, Z. Phys. C 67 (1995) 27–44

    1995

  50. [58]

    Alexander et al., A Study of b quark fragmentation into B0 and B+ mesons at LEP, Phys

    OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander et al., A Study of b quark fragmentation into B0 and B+ mesons at LEP, Phys. Lett. B 364 (1995) 93–106

    1995

  51. [59]

    Abe et al., Precise measurement of the b quark fragmentation function in Z0 boson decays, Phys

    SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Precise measurement of the b quark fragmentation function in Z0 boson decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 4300–4304, [hep-ex/9912058]

    2000 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Abreu et al., Hadronization properties of b quarks compared to light quarks in e+ e− → qq from 183-GeV to 200-GeV, Phys

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Hadronization properties of b quarks compared to light quarks in e+ e− → qq from 183-GeV to 200-GeV, Phys. Lett. B 479 (2000) 118–128, [hep-ex/0103022]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 492, 398–398 (2000)]

    2000 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Heister et al., Study of the fragmentation of b quarks into B mesons at the Z peak, Phys

    ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al., Study of the fragmentation of b quarks into B mesons at the Z peak, Phys. Lett. B 512 (2001) 30–48, [hep-ex/0106051]

    2001 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Aad et al., Measurement of jet shapes in top-quark pair events at √s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of jet shapes in top-quark pair events at √s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013), no. 12 2676, [arXiv:1307.5749]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Summing Sudakov logarithms in B → Xsγin effective field theory., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2000) 014006, [hep-ph/0005275]

    2000 arXiv

  56. [64]

    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. D 63 (2001) 114020, [hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  57. [65]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054022, [hep-ph/0109045]

    2002 arXiv

  58. [66]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein, and I. W. Stewart, Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 014017, [hep-ph/0202088]

    2002 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Abreu et al., Determination of alpha(s) in second order QCD from hadronic Z decays, Z

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Determination of alpha(s) in second order QCD from hadronic Z decays, Z. Phys. C 54 (1992) 55–74

    1992

  60. [68]

    Adrian et al., Determination of alpha-s from hadronic event shapes measured on the Z0 resonance, Phys

    L3 Collaboration, O. Adrian et al., Determination of alpha-s from hadronic event shapes measured on the Z0 resonance, Phys. Lett. B 284 (1992) 471–481

    1992

  61. [69]

    OPAL Collaboration, P. D. Acton et al., An Improved measurement of alpha-s (M (Z0)) using energy correlations with the OPAL detector at LEP, Phys. Lett. B 276 (1992) 547–564

    1992

  62. [70]

    OPAL Collaboration, P. D. Acton et al., A Determination of alpha-s (M (Z0)) at LEP using resummed QCD calculations, Z. Phys. C 59 (1993) 1–20

    1993

  63. [71]

    Fujii et al., Tests of the Standard Model at the International Linear Collider, arXiv:1908.11299

    LCC Physics Working Group Collaboration, K. Fujii et al., Tests of the Standard Model at the International Linear Collider, arXiv:1908.11299

    1908 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Dong et al., CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector, arXiv:1811.10545

    CEPC Study Group Collaboration, M. Dong et al., CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector, arXiv:1811.10545

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Abada et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur

    FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019), no. 2 261–623

    2019

  66. [74]

    Belloni et al., Report of the Topical Group on Electroweak Precision Physics and Constraining New Physics for Snowmass 2021, arXiv:2209.08078

    A. Belloni et al., Report of the Topical Group on Electroweak Precision Physics and Constraining New Physics for Snowmass 2021, arXiv:2209.08078

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chen et al.,Jet energy spectrum and substructure in e+e− collisions at 91.2 GeV with ALEPH Archived Data, JHEP 06 (2022) 008, [arXiv:2111.09914]

    Y . Chen et al.,Jet energy spectrum and substructure in e+e− collisions at 91.2 GeV with ALEPH Archived Data, JHEP 06 (2022) 008, [arXiv:2111.09914]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Sjostrand, Multiple Parton-Parton Interactions in Hadronic Events, in 23rd International Conference on High-Energy Physics, 8, 1985

    T. Sjostrand, Multiple Parton-Parton Interactions in Hadronic Events, in 23rd International Conference on High-Energy Physics, 8, 1985

    1985

  69. [77]

    Sjostrand and M

    T. Sjostrand and M. van Zijl, A Multiple Interaction Model for the Event Structure in Hadron Collisions, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 2019

    1987

  70. [78]

    Sjostrand and P

    T. Sjostrand and P. Z. Skands, Multiple interactions and the structure of beam remnants, JHEP 03 (2004) 053, [hep-ph/0402078]

    2004 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjostrand, Parton Fragmentation and String Dynamics, Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31–145

    1983

  72. [80]

    Sjostrand, Jet Fragmentation of Nearby Partons, Nucl

    T. Sjostrand, Jet Fragmentation of Nearby Partons, Nucl. Phys. B 248 (1984) 469–502

    1984

  73. [81]

    M. Bahr, S. Gieseke, and M. H. Seymour, Simulation of multiple partonic interactions in Herwig++, JHEP 07 (2008) 076, [arXiv:0803.3633]

    2008 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Gieseke, F

    S. Gieseke, F. Loshaj, and P. Kirchgaeßer, Soft and diffractive scattering with the cluster model in Herwig, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 3 156, [arXiv:1612.04701]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    B. R. Webber, A QCD Model for Jet Fragmentation Including Soft Gluon Interference, Nucl. Phys. B 238 (1984) 492–528

    1984

  76. [84]

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

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

    1998 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Winter, F

    J.-C. Winter, F. Krauss, and G. Soff, A Modified cluster hadronization model, Eur. Phys. J. C 36 (2004) 381–395, [hep-ph/0311085]

    2004 arXiv

  78. [86]

    M. R. Aguilar, Z. Chang, R. K. Elayavalli, R. Fatemi, Y . He, Y . Ji, D. Kalinkin, M. Kelsey, I. Mooney, and V . Verkest, pythia8 underlying event tune for RHIC energies, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 1 016011, [arXiv:2110.09447]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Reichelt, S

    D. Reichelt, S. Caletti, O. Fedkevych, S. Marzani, S. Schumann, and G. Soyez, Phenomenology of jet angularities at the LHC, JHEP 03 (2022) 131, [arXiv:2112.09545]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour, and Z. Trocsanyi, The Dipole formalism for next-to-leading order QCD calculations with massive partons, Nucl. Phys. B 627 (2002) 189–265, [hep-ph/0201036]. 11

    2002 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, and Z. Trocsanyi, One loop singular behavior of QCD and SUSY QCD amplitudes with massive partons, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 149–160, [hep-ph/0011222]

    2001 arXiv

  82. [90]

    P. K. Dhani, G. Rodrigo, and G. F. R. Sborlini, Triple-collinear splittings with massive particles, JHEP 12 (2023) 188, [arXiv:2310.05803]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Craft, M

    E. Craft, M. Gonzalez, K. Lee, B. Mecaj, and I. Moult, The 1 → 3 massive splitting functions from QCD factorization and SCET, JHEP 07 (2024) 080, [arXiv:2310.06736]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Catani, Y

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

    1991

  85. [93]

    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

  86. [94]

    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

  87. [95]

    Cacciari, G

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

    2012 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Banfi, G

    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

  89. [97]

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

    2014 arXiv

  90. [98]

    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]

    2013 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Catani, B

    S. Catani, B. R. Webber, and G. Marchesini, QCD coherent branching and semiinclusive processes at large x, Nucl. Phys. B 349 (1991) 635–654

    1991

  92. [100]

    Catani, L

    S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, Resummation of large logarithms in e+ e- event shape distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 407 (1993) 3–42

    1993

  93. [101]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, [arXiv:2203.11601]

    2022 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026, [hep-ph/0603175]

    2006 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Bellm et al., Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur

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

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Corcella, I

    G. Corcella, I. G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri, P. Richardson, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, HERWIG 6: An Event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes), JHEP 01 (2001) 010, [hep-ph/0011363]

    2001 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Bothmann et al., Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys

    Sherpa Collaboration, E. Bothmann et al., Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys. 7 (2019), no. 3 034, [arXiv:1905.09127]

    2019 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Gleisberg, S

    T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, S. Schumann, F. Siegert, and J. Winter,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP 02 (2009) 007, [arXiv:0811.4622]

    2009 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 0...

    2014 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Norrbin and T

    E. Norrbin and T. Sjostrand, QCD radiation off heavy particles, Nucl. Phys. B 603 (2001) 297–342, [hep-ph/0010012]

    2001 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Gieseke, P

    S. Gieseke, P. Stephens, and B. Webber, New formalism for QCD parton showers, JHEP 12 (2003) 045, [hep-ph/0310083]

    2003 arXiv

  102. [110]

    A. H. Hoang, S. Pl ¨atzer, and D. Samitz, On the Cutoff Dependence of the Quark Mass Parameter in Angular Ordered Parton Showers, JHEP 10 (2018) 200, [arXiv:1807.06617]

    2018 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Cormier, S

    K. Cormier, S. Pl ¨atzer, C. Reuschle, P. Richardson, and S. Webster, Parton showers and matching uncertainties in top quark pair production with Herwig 7, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 11 915, [arXiv:1810.06493]

    2019 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Schumann and F

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

    2008 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Krauss, D

    F. Krauss, D. Napoletano, and S. Schumann, Simulating b-associated production of Z and Higgs bosons with the SHERPA event generator, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 3 036012, [arXiv:1612.04640]

    2017 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Bierlich, G

    C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, and L. L ¨onnblad, Collectivity without plasma in hadronic collisions, Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 58–63, [arXiv:1710.09725]

    2018 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Maltoni, M

    F. Maltoni, M. Selvaggi, and J. Thaler, Exposing the dead cone effect with jet substructure techniques, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016), no. 5 054015, [arXiv:1606.03449]

    2016 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, L. Lonnblad, J. Monk, H. Schulz, and F. Siegert, Rivet user manual, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2803–2819, [arXiv:1003.0694]

    2013 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Bierlich et al., Robust Independent Validation of Experiment and Theory: Rivet version 3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., Robust Independent Validation of Experiment and Theory: Rivet version 3, SciPost Phys. 8 (2020) 026, [arXiv:1912.05451]

    2020 arXiv

  110. [118]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 (2007), no. 3 90–95

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.