Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 127 references

Factorization for Collider Dataspace Correlators

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The SEMD jet-distance metric factorizes into soft and collinear parts, yielding the first resummed precision predictions on collider-event dataspace.

desk verdict A real first step toward precision perturbative calculations on collider dataspace, with a solid two-point factorization and a clearly-acknowledged weak spot in the inverse-Laplace approximation behind the headline non-Gaussianity. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12380 v3 pith:SEC7BLQC submitted 2025-04-16 hep-ph hep-ex

Andrew J. Larkoski This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords collidereventdataspaceSpectralEnergyMover'sDistancefactorizationtheoremresummationjetsubstructurenon-GaussianitySudakovsafety
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 the first systematically improvable calculational framework on the space of collider physics events, using the Spectral Energy Mover's Distance (SEMD) as the metric. Its central claim is that in the limit of small metric distance $d$ compared with the jet energy $E$, soft and collinear contributions to the SEMD factorize from one another to all orders in the QCD coupling. That factorization reduces the two-point event correlator to a hard function times a convolution of a jet function and a soft function, so logarithms of $d$ can be resummed by renormalization-group evolution. The paper presents next-to-leading-logarithmic predictions for the two-point jet correlator and for the dataspace non-Gaussianity, and shows that the original Energy Mover's Distance agrees with the SEMD through next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $p=2$ Spectral Energy Mover's Distance, the only IRC-safe collider event metric with an exact closed form, whose expression is sums of squared pair energies times angular weights minus ReLU subtraction terms built from cumulative spectral functions. The argument is carried by a power-counting analysis in the limit $d=\lambda E$: collinear angles are rescaled by $\lambda$ and soft energies by $\lambda^2$, and each of the metric's three sectors (collinear-collinear, soft-soft, collinear-soft) is shown homogeneous of degree $\lambda^2$. The load-bearing result is that the soft-collinear ReLU term is suppressed by $\theta_{\mathrm{cc}} E_s \sim \lambda^3$, so to leading power the metric separates into a jet-mass-like collinear part plus a soft part. Renormalization-group evolution of the hard, jet, and soft functions in Laplace space then resums logarithms, with one-loop anomalous dimensions inherited from the jet mass and a computed two-loop correlation correction $\Delta\gamma^{(2)}_{AB} = -2(\alpha_s/2\pi)^2 C_J^2(6\pi^2\log 2 - 7\zeta_3)$.

What would settle it

Evaluate the exact $p=2$ SEMD in the limit where jet A has a collinear splitting and jet B has one soft wide-angle particle, and check whether the cross term $\theta_{\mathrm{cc},A}\,\omega_{s,B}\,\mathrm{ReLU}(S_{cs,AB})$ is suppressed as $\lambda^3$ rather than $\lambda^2$; a direct fixed-order soft-collinear computation that finds a $\lambda^2$ remainder would falsify the factorization theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the $p=2$ SEMD, although a global optimal-transport-style metric, collapses at leading power into a sum of per-jet squared masses plus soft squared-mass contributions, with no soft-collinear mixing term. The paper proves this by power counting the metric's ReLU subtraction functions: collinear angles scale as $\lambda$, soft energies as $\lambda^2$, and the mixed ReLU term scales as $\theta_{\mathrm{cc}} E_s \sim \lambda^3$, hence is subleading; the argument uses metric non-negativity to rule out an order-one soft-energy-independent ReLU term. Consequently the two-point correlator obeys $p(d^2)=H_{AB}\int J_{AB}(d^2_J)S_{AB}(d^2_S)\delta(d^2-d^2_J-d^2_S)$, which is the basis for NLL resummation. The paper argues that the non-Gaussianity's universal ledge near the QCD scale is a perturbative phenomenon, and that measuring two events makes the two-point correlator Sudakov-suppressed twice over, so it is perturbatively calculable over nearly all of its support.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the metric's subtraction term cannot be independent of soft-particle energies because that would make the metric negative, so it must vanish linearly with those energies; if it instead stayed order one in some kinematic corner, soft and collinear contributions would mix at leading power and the factorization would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-point jet-event correlator is Sudakov-suppressed twice over, and its NLL distribution is perturbatively reliable from its peak down to distances near $\sqrt{\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}} E R}$.
  • The non-Gaussianity $\eta_{n\text{-}G}(d)$ is a Sudakov-safe observable: fixed-order perturbation theory is singular when the two distances are set equal, but the resummed expression regulates and exponentially suppresses that region.
  • The universal ledge in $\eta_{n\text{-}G}(d)$ near the QCD scale, previously seen in simulated data, is reproduced by pure perturbative resummation and is not a sign of parton-to-hadron physics.
  • The SEMD and the original (tangent) EMD produce identical event-correlator distributions through NNLL accuracy.
  • All ingredients except fixed-order matching are in place for NNLL resummation of the two-point correlator, via the two-loop anomalous dimension computed in the appendix.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the factorization holds, geometric observables such as local dimensionality and scalar curvature of the dataspace manifold can be assigned perturbative error bars rather than simulation-based estimates.
  • Beyond the paper: the near-total perturbative calculability of the two-point correlator opens a route to a high-precision $\alpha_s$ extraction from jet-pair distance distributions, provided the non-perturbative shape-function shift is controlled.
  • Beyond the paper: the metric distance between real and virtual phase-space points could serve as a process-independent regulator for fixed-order subtraction; the paper gestures at this idea but does not develop it.
  • Beyond the paper: computing $\eta_{n\text{-}G}(d)$ at NNLL for quark jets would test whether the ledge's near-universal value around 0.2 persists or is an artifact of the NLL truncation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The manuscript develops a factorization framework for precision calculations on the space of collider events using the spectral energy mover's distance (SEMD). In the small-distance limit d ≪ E, it argues that soft and collinear contributions to the SEMD between two jets factorize at leading power, leading to the factorization theorem in Eq. (23): p(d^2) = H_AB ∫ J_AB(d^2_J) S_AB(d^2_S) δ(d^2−d^2_J−d^2_S). The authors perform NLL resummation for the two- and three-point event correlators, define a non-Gaussianity measure η_n-G(d), and report a universal 'ledge' near the QCD scale that they interpret as validating previous simulation results. The appendices provide the resummation ingredients, a two-loop anomalous dimension for the jet function, and an argument that the SEMD equals the tangent EMD through NNLL accuracy.

Significance. If correct, this is the first systematically improvable calculational framework for collider dataspace observables and a substantial advance over fixed-order or Monte-Carlo-only studies. The two-point NLL predictions rest on well-established jet-mass anomalous dimensions, and the Sudakov-squared suppression argument is physically compelling. The explicit two-loop non-cusp anomalous dimension in Appendix B is a concrete new result, and the identification of the non-Gaussianity as a Sudakov-safe observable is conceptually interesting. However, the headline application—validation of a universal non-Gaussian structure—depends on a numerical inverse Laplace transform whose error is not controlled, so the strongest claims of the paper are not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [App. A.4, Eqs. (A26)–(A27), Figs. 6–8] The three-point correlator is evaluated with Post's inverse Laplace formula truncated at k=25 derivatives. Figure 6 shows that the derivative of f(q) at q=0 grows like the square root of k with the truncation order, so the series is not convergent in precisely the region q≈0 that controls the non-Gaussianity at the distances plotted in Figs. 3 and 4. Figures 7 and 8 show large variation with k and negative gluon distributions unless k is very large. The paper's own statements that the approximation is 'insufficient' and that 'better approximations' are needed (App. A.4; Sec. VI) confirm that the universal ledge is extracted from an uncontrolled approximation. The scale-variation bands in Figs. 3 and 4 do not quantify this inversion error. A quantitative inversion uncertainty, an alternative method, or a controlled k→∞ extrapolation is required before the ledge can be presented as a prediction.
  2. [Sec. V.B, Figs. 3 and 4, Eq. (46)] Even if the inversion were controlled, the claim that the ledge is a purely perturbative phenomenon is not supported by the parametric separation. The ledge positions for E=500, 1000, and 2000 GeV are approximately 30, 50, and 80 GeV, while the author's own estimate gives d_np ≈ 22, 32, and 45 GeV; the separation is only a factor of 1.3–1.8, not a parametric power. The text concedes that non-perturbative effects 'may be important' and could shift the ledge. To validate the universality observed in Ref. [62], the paper needs either a quantitative treatment of non-perturbative shifts or a demonstration that they are numerically negligible in the ledge region.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V.B] The heading contains a typo: 'Non-Guassianities' should be 'Non-Gaussianities'.
  2. [Sec. V.B, paragraph after Eq. (46)] There is a placeholder citation '[ ? ? ]' for the non-perturbative shape-function shift of the jet-mass distribution; this should be replaced with the relevant literature.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The color description 'sold green' should read 'solid green'.
  4. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (20)] The all-orders factorization statement would be easier to check if Secs. III.B–III.C included an explicit expansion of the min/max functions in Eq. (6) rather than only the scaling-based argument; the present argument is plausible but indirect.
  5. [Eq. (37) and footnote 1] The definition of η_n-G(d) in Eq. (37) drops the bin width and event-number factors used in Ref. [62]; the text should state explicitly whether the comparison in Figs. 3 and 4 is intended to match the absolute normalization of that simulation or only the shape.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the universal ledge is predicted from standard resummation with no fitted parameters; self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The factorization theorem in Eq. (23) follows from an explicit power-counting analysis of the SEMD in Sec. III, where the scaling of soft emissions (E_s ~ lambda^2) and the suppression of soft-collinear mixing are argued directly from the metric's algebraic form and non-negativity; this is a mathematical argument, not an input fitted to any target result. The NLL resummation uses standard, externally established ingredients: the cusp anomalous dimension, the QCD beta-function coefficients, and the one-loop jet-mass anomalous dimensions, all quoted from the literature. The claim that the one-loop anomalous dimension of the two-point correlator is twice the jet-mass anomalous dimension is derived from the explicit one-loop expansion of J_AB in Eq. (31), not assumed. The two-loop anomalous dimension in App. B is obtained by an explicit regulated integral, again with no free parameters. The non-Gaussianity prediction is not fitted to the simulation: the paper states that 'no non-perturbative information has been included in these calculations' when explaining the universal ledge in Sec. V.B, and the comparison with Ref. [62] is a validation, not an input. Self-citations to Refs. [12,17] define the SEMD and to Ref. [62] report the previously observed simulation structure, but none of these citations supplies a theorem or parameter that forces the predictions. The paper's own most serious caveat, the finite-order Post inverse-Laplace truncation (App. A.4, Eq. (A27), Figs. 7 and 8), is a numerical approximation issue acknowledged explicitly by the author, not a circularity of the derivation chain. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction, so the circularity burden is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard SCET factorization plus the geometric properties of a metric the author co-defined. No new physical entities are introduced. The fragile steps are the scaling of the ReLU subtraction term, justified by metric non-negativity rather than direct evaluation, and the finite Post inversion used for the three-point correlator.

free parameters (2)
  • Post inversion order k = 25
    Chosen in App. A.4 for practical implementation; f(q) depends on k and the slope at q=0 diverges like sqrt(k), so predictions for the three-point correlator and non-Gaussianity are not fully converged.
  • Jet radius R = 1 (plots)
    Canonical jet radius set to order-one for the plots and for d_np estimates; the factorization theorem itself depends on E R as the soft scale.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Soft and collinear factorization of QCD squared matrix elements holds to all orders in the d/E << 1 limit.
    Used in Sec. IV to write p(d^2) as a convolution of hard, jet, and soft functions; standard SCET result from Refs. [65-76].
  • ad hoc to paper The SEMD subtraction (ReLU) terms cannot scale as O(1) in soft energies because the SEMD is a non-negative metric.
    Invoked in Secs. III.B and III.C to rule out leading-power soft-soft and soft-collinear mixing; this is the load-bearing step of the factorization proof.
  • domain assumption Events from distinct collisions are statistically independent, so the joint distribution factorizes as p(ΠA)p(ΠB).
    Stated in Sec. IV; the correlator is a squared cross section, analogous to double parton scattering but assumes independence.
  • domain assumption Non-global logarithms and multi-scale hard functions are neglected at NLL.
    Sec. IV states that 'soft radiation may produce correlations between in- and out-of-jet scales resulting in non-global logarithms... We leave such an analysis to future work.'
  • standard math Standard QCD RG evolution with cusp anomalous dimensions through two loops is valid for these correlators.
    App. A.2 uses two-loop cusp and beta function coefficients from Refs. [108,109].
  • ad hoc to paper Post's finite-order inversion with k=25 provides a controlled approximation for f(q) in the three-point correlator.
    App. A.4 relies on Post's formula because no closed-form inverse Laplace transform is known; the approximation is shown to be imperfect for gluon jets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Factorization for Collider Dataspace Correlators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SEC7BLQC

@misc{pith2026250412380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Factorization for Collider Dataspace Correlators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SEC7BLQC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12380}
}
read the original abstract

A metric on the space of collider physics data enables analysis of its geometrical properties, like dimensionality or curvature, as well as quantifying the density with which a finite, discrete ensemble of data samples the space. We provide the first systematically-improvable precision calculations on this dataspace, presenting predictions resummed to next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy, using the Spectral Energy Mover's Distance (SEMD) as its metric. This is accomplished by demonstration of factorization of soft and collinear contributions to the metric at leading power and renormalization group evolution of the single-scale functions that are present in the factorization theorem. As applications of this general framework, we calculate the two-point correlator between pairs of jets on the dataspace, and the measure of the non-Gaussian fluctuations in a finite dataset. For the non-Gaussianities, our calculations validate the existence of a universal structure that had been previously observed in simulated data. As byproducts of this analysis, we also calculate the two-loop anomalous dimension of the SEMD metric and show that the original Energy Mover's Distance metric is identical to the SEMD through next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Plots of the two-point correlator measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plot of the non-Gaussianity measure log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Plot of the non-Gaussianity measure log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: If the inverse Laplace transform f(q) were truly linear in q about the origin, then we would ex￾pect convergence of the derivative as k increases. By contrast, what is observed is that the slope at the origin continues to increase as k increases, and to very good appro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Distribution of the non-Gaussianity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Distribution of the non-Gaussianity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [62]

    D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, Conformal col- lider physics: Energy and charge correlations, JHEP 05, 012, arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    IV B, we presented the one-loop anoma- lous dimensions of the jet function of the invariant mass

    One-Loop Anomalous Dimensions In Sec. IV B, we presented the one-loop anoma- lous dimensions of the jet function of the invariant mass. For the factorization theorem, we need also the corresponding anomalous dimensions of the soft function and the hard function. For simplicity, we work in the boosted limit, in which the jet of inter- est recoils against t...

  3. [2]

    We need the cusp anomalous dimension through two-loop order

    Ingredients for Resummation To resum through NLL accuracy, there are a few universal quantities that are needed. We need the cusp anomalous dimension through two-loop order. We define the perturbative expansion of the cusp anomalous dimension as Γcusp(αs) = ∞X i=0 Γi αs 4π i+1 , (A5) where the Γ n are the series coefficients. Through two-loops, this is [1...

  4. [3]

    To determine the distribution in original, “real” space, we note two things

    Resummation of the Two-Point Event Correlator Applying these general results to the two-point event correlator distribution, its NLL resummed form in Laplace space is ˜p(ν) =e2[KH(µ,µH)+KJ(µ,µJ)+KS(µ,µS)]HAB(µH)JAB(µJ)SAB(µS) (A18) × µ2 H E2R2 2ωH(µ,µH) µ2 JνeγE 2ωJ(µ,µJ) µ2 Sν2E2R2e2γE 2ωS(µ,µS) , where the natural scales of the hard, jet, and soft funct...

  5. [4]

    Here, recall that νAB and νAC are the Laplace con- jugates of the squared pairwise distances d2 AB and d2 AC

    Resummation of the Three-Point Event Correlator Performing the analogous analysis for the three- point event correlator, we can express the Laplace transformed distribution as 17 ˜p(νAB,νAC) =e3[KH(µ,µH)+KJ(µ,µJ)+KS(µ,µS)]HABC(µH)JABC(µJ)SABC(µS) (A23) × µ2 H E2R2 3ωH(µ,µH) µ2 J (νABνAC(νAB +νAC))1/3eγE 3ωJ(µ,µJ) × µ2 S (νABνAC(νAB +νAC))2/3E2R2e2γE 3ωS(µ...

  6. [5]

    G. F. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Jets from Quan- tum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1436 (1977)

    1977

  7. [6]

    R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling, and B. R. Webber, QCD and collider physics , Vol. 8 (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  8. [7]

    P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, Metric Space of Collider Events, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 041801 (2019), arXiv:1902.02346 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 127 references
  1. [8]

    Mullin, S

    A. Mullin, S. Nicholls, H. Pacey, M. Parker, M. White, and S. Williams, Does SUSY have friends? A new approach for LHC event analysis, JHEP 02, 160, arXiv:1912.10625 [hep-ph]

    1912 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Crispim Rom˜ ao, N

    M. Crispim Rom˜ ao, N. F. Castro, J. G. Milhano, R. Pedro, and T. Vale, Use of a generalized energy Mover’s distance in the search for rare phenom- ena at colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 192 (2021), arXiv:2004.09360 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    T. Cai, J. Cheng, N. Craig, and K. Craig, Lin- earized optimal transport for collider events, Phys. Rev. D 102, 116019 (2020), arXiv:2008.08604 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. J. Larkoski and T. Melia, Covariantizing phase space, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094014 (2020), arXiv:2008.06508 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    S. Tsan, R. Kansal, A. Aportela, D. Diaz, J. Duarte, S. Krishna, F. Mokhtar, J.-R. Vli- mant, and M. Pierini, Particle Graph Autoen- coders and Differentiable, Learned Energy Mover’s Distance, in 35th Conference on Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems (2021) arXiv:2111.1284...

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    T. Cai, J. Cheng, K. Craig, and N. Craig, Which metric on the space of collider events?, Phys. Rev. D 105, 076003 (2022), arXiv:2111.03670 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kitouni, N

    O. Kitouni, N. Nolte, and M. Williams, Finding NEEMo: Geometric Fitting using Neural Esti- mation of the Energy Mover’s Distance, (2022), arXiv:2209.15624 [stat.ML]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Alipour-Fard, P

    S. Alipour-Fard, P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, Pileup and Infrared Radiation An- nihilation (PIRANHA): a paradigm for continu- ous jet grooming, JHEP 09, 157, arXiv:2305.00989 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. J. Larkoski and J. Thaler, A spectral metric for collider geometry, JHEP 08, 107, arXiv:2305.03751 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Davis, T

    A. Davis, T. Menzo, A. Youssef, and J. Zupan, Earth mover’s distance as a measure of CP viola- tion, JHEP 06, 098, arXiv:2301.13211 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    D. Ba, A. S. Dogra, R. Gambhir, A. Tasissa, and J. Thaler, SHAPER: can you hear the shape of a jet?, JHEP 06, 195, arXiv:2302.12266 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    Craig, J

    N. Craig, J. N. Howard, and H. Li, Exploring Optimal Transport for Event-Level Anomaly De- tection at the Large Hadron Collider, (2024), arXiv:2401.15542 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    T. Cai, J. Cheng, N. Craig, G. Koszegi, and A. J. Larkoski, The phase space distance between col- lider events, JHEP 09, 054, arXiv:2405.16698 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Gambhir, A

    R. Gambhir, A. J. Larkoski, and J. Thaler, SPECTER: efficient evaluation of the spectral EMD, JHEP 12, 219, arXiv:2410.05379 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. J. Larkoski, A step toward interpretabil- ity: smearing the likelihood, JHEP 03, 198, arXiv:2501.07643 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    T. Cai, N. Craig, K. Craig, and X. Lin, Multi-scale Optimal Transport for Complete Collider Events, (2025), arXiv:2501.10681 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [24]

    P. T. Komiske, R. Mastandrea, E. M. Metodiev, P. Naik, and J. Thaler, Exploring the Space of Jets with CMS Open Data, Phys. Rev. D 101, 034009 (2020), arXiv:1908.08542 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Grassberger and I

    P. Grassberger and I. Procaccia, Characterization of Strange Attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 346 (1983)

    1983

  19. [26]

    Edelsbrunner, Letscher, and Zomorodian, Topolog- 23 ical persistence and simplification, Discrete & com- putational geometry 28, 511 (2002)

    2002

  20. [27]

    Carlsson, Topology and data, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 46, 255 (2009)

    G. Carlsson, Topology and data, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 46, 255 (2009)

    2009

  21. [28]

    Cayley, On a theorem in the geometry of po- sition, Cambridge mathematical journal 2, 267 (1841)

    A. Cayley, On a theorem in the geometry of po- sition, Cambridge mathematical journal 2, 267 (1841)

  22. [29]

    Menger, Untersuchungen ¨ uber allgemeine metrik, Mathematische Annalen 100, 75 (1928)

    K. Menger, Untersuchungen ¨ uber allgemeine metrik, Mathematische Annalen 100, 75 (1928)

    1928

  23. [30]

    M. H. Seymour, Searches for new particles using cone and cluster jet algorithms: A Comparative study, Z. Phys. C 62, 127 (1994)

    1994

  24. [31]

    J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam, Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 242001 (2008), arXiv:0802.2470 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. , Boosted Objects: A Probe of Beyond the Standard Model Physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1661 (2011), arXiv:1012.5412 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Altheimer et al

    A. Altheimer et al. , Jet Substructure at the Tevatron and LHC: New results, new tools, new benchmarks, J. Phys. G 39, 063001 (2012), arXiv:1201.0008 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Altheimer et al

    A. Altheimer et al. , Boosted Objects and Jet Sub- structure at the LHC. Report of BOOST2012, held at IFIC Valencia, 23rd-27th of July 2012, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2792 (2014), arXiv:1311.2708 [hep- ex]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    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, 409 (2015), arXiv:1504.00679 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [36]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and B. Nachman, Jet Sub- structure at the Large Hadron Collider: A Review of Recent Advances in Theory and Machine Learn- ing, Phys. Rept. 841, 1 (2020), arXiv:1709.04464 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Kogler et al

    R. Kogler et al. , Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: Experimental Review, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045003 (2019), arXiv:1803.06991 [hep- ex]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Guest, K

    D. Guest, K. Cranmer, and D. Whiteson, Deep Learning and its Application to LHC Physics, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 161 (2018), arXiv:1806.11484 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Albertsson et al., Machine Learning in High En- ergy Physics Community White Paper, J

    K. Albertsson et al., Machine Learning in High En- ergy Physics Community White Paper, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1085, 022008 (2018), arXiv:1807.02876 [physics.comp-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Radovic, M

    A. Radovic, M. Williams, D. Rousseau, M. Kagan, D. Bonacorsi, A. Himmel, A. Aurisano, K. Terao, and T. Wongjirad, Machine learning at the energy and intensity frontiers of particle physics, Nature 560, 41 (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Machine learning and the physi- cal sciences, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045002 (2019), arXiv:1903.10563 [physics.comp-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bourilkov, Machine and Deep Learning Applica- tions in Particle Physics, Int

    D. Bourilkov, Machine and Deep Learning Applica- tions in Particle Physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1930019 (2020), arXiv:1912.08245 [physics.data- an]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [43]

    M. D. Schwartz, Modern Machine Learning and Particle Physics 10.1162/99608f92.beeb1183 (2021), arXiv:2103.12226 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Karagiorgi, G

    G. Karagiorgi, G. Kasieczka, S. Kravitz, B. Nach- man, and D. Shih, Machine Learning in the Search for New Fundamental Physics, (2021), arXiv:2112.03769 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Boehnlein et al., Colloquium: Machine learning in nuclear physics, Rev

    A. Boehnlein et al., Colloquium: Machine learning in nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 031003 (2022), arXiv:2112.02309 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Shanahan et al

    P. Shanahan et al. , Snowmass 2021 Compu- tational Frontier CompF03 Topical Group Re- port: Machine Learning, (2022), arXiv:2209.07559 [physics.comp-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Plehn, A

    T. Plehn, A. Butter, B. Dillon, T. Heimel, C. Krause, and R. Winterhalder, Modern Ma- chine Learning for LHC Physicists, (2022), arXiv:2211.01421 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Nachman et al

    B. Nachman et al. , Jets and Jet Substructure at Future Colliders, Front. in Phys. 10, 897719 (2022), arXiv:2203.07462 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    DeZoort, P

    G. DeZoort, P. W. Battaglia, C. Biscarat, and J.- R. Vlimant, Graph neural networks at the Large Hadron Collider, Nature Rev. Phys. 5, 281 (2023)

    2023

  43. [50]

    K. Zhou, L. Wang, L.-G. Pang, and S. Shi, Ex- ploring QCD matter in extreme conditions with Machine Learning, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135, 104084 (2024), arXiv:2303.15136 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Belis, P

    V. Belis, P. Odagiu, and T. K. Aarrestad, Machine learning for anomaly detection in particle physics, Rev. Phys. 12, 100091 (2024), arXiv:2312.14190 [physics.data-an]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Mondal and L

    S. Mondal and L. Mastrolorenzo, Machine Learn- ing in High Energy Physics: A review of heavy-flavor jet tagging at the LHC, (2024), arXiv:2404.01071 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Feickert and B

    M. Feickert and B. Nachman, A Living Review of Machine Learning for Particle Physics, (2021), arXiv:2102.02770 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    A. J. Larkoski, QCD masterclass lectures on jet physics and machine learning, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1117 (2024), arXiv:2407.04897 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Halverson, TASI Lectures on Physics for Ma- chine Learning, (2024), arXiv:2408.00082 [hep-th]

    J. Halverson, TASI Lectures on Physics for Ma- chine Learning, (2024), arXiv:2408.00082 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Neyman and E

    J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson, On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 231, 289 (1933)

    1933

  50. [57]

    Fr´ echet, Sur la loi de probabilit´ e de l’´ ecart max- imum, Ann

    M. Fr´ echet, Sur la loi de probabilit´ e de l’´ ecart max- imum, Ann. de la Soc. Polonaise de Math. (1927)

    1927

  51. [58]

    R. A. Fisher and L. H. C. Tippett, Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or small- est member of a sample, in Mathematical proceed- ings of the Cambridge philosophical society , Vol. 24 (Cambridge University Press, 1928) pp. 180–190

    1928

  52. [59]

    Von Mises, La distribution de la plus grande de n valuers, Rev

    R. Von Mises, La distribution de la plus grande de n valuers, Rev. math. Union interbalcanique 1, 141 24 (1936)

    1936

  53. [60]

    Gnedenko, Sur la distribution limite du terme maximum d’une serie aleatoire, Annals of mathe- matics 44, 423 (1943)

    B. Gnedenko, Sur la distribution limite du terme maximum d’une serie aleatoire, Annals of mathe- matics 44, 423 (1943)

    1943

  54. [61]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Energy Correlations in electron - Positron Annihilation: Testing QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1585 (1978)

    1978

  55. [63]

    L. J. Dixon, M.-X. Luo, V. Shtabovenko, T.-Z. Yang, and H. X. Zhu, Analytical Computation of Energy-Energy Correlation at Next-to-Leading Or- der in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 102001 (2018), arXiv:1801.03219 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Re- thinking jets with energy correlators: Tracks, re- summation, and analytic continuation, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054012 (2020), arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Boutin and G

    M. Boutin and G. Kemper, On reconstructing n- point configurations from the distribution of dis- tances or areas, Advances in Applied Mathematics 32, 709 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    A. J. Larkoski, Non-Gaussianities in Collider Met- ric Binning, (2025), arXiv:2503.03809 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Fukushima, Visual feature extraction by a mul- tilayered network of analog threshold elements, IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cyber- netics 5, 322 (1969)

    K. Fukushima, Visual feature extraction by a mul- tilayered network of analog threshold elements, IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cyber- netics 5, 322 (1969)

    1969

  60. [68]

    P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, The Hidden Geometry of Particle Collisions, JHEP 07, 006, arXiv:2004.04159 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  61. [69]

    F. E. Low, Bremsstrahlung of very low-energy quanta in elementary particle collisions, Phys. Rev. 110, 974 (1958)

    1958

  62. [70]

    Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys. Rev. 140, B516 (1965)

    1965

  63. [71]

    T. H. Burnett and N. M. Kroll, Extension of the low soft photon theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 86 (1968)

    1968

  64. [72]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972)

    1972

  65. [73]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, e+ e- pair annihi- lation and deep inelastic e p scattering in pertur- bation theory, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 675 (1972)

    1972

  66. [74]

    L. N. Lipatov, The parton model and perturbation theory, Yad. Fiz. 20, 181 (1974)

    1974

  67. [75]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Calculation of the Structure Functions for Deep Inelastic Scattering and e+ e- Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quan- tum Chromodynamics., Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977)

    1977

  68. [76]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298 (1977)

    1977

  69. [77]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Sum- ming Sudakov logarithms in B → Xsγin effec- tive field theory., Phys. Rev. D 63, 014006 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005275

    2000 arXiv

  70. [78]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stew- art, An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011336

    2001 arXiv

  71. [79]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Invariant operators in collinear effective theory, Phys. Lett. B 516, 134 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107001

    2001 arXiv

  72. [80]

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

    2002

  73. [81]

    M. D. Schwartz, Resummation and NLO matching of event shapes with effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014026 (2008), arXiv:0709.2709 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  74. [82]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and W. J. Waalewijn, N-Jettiness: An Inclusive Event Shape to Veto Jets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 092002 (2010), arXiv:1004.2489 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  75. [83]

    S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, J. R. Walsh, A. Hornig, and C. Lee, Jet Shapes and Jet Algo- rithms in SCET, JHEP 11, 101, arXiv:1001.0014 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and D. Neill, Power Counting to Better Jet Observables, JHEP12, 009, arXiv:1409.6298 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, Princi- ples of general final-state resummation and auto- mated implementation, JHEP 03, 073, arXiv:hep- ph/0407286

  78. [86]

    Dasgupta and G

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

    2001 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Diehl and J

    M. Diehl and J. R. Gaunt, Double parton scatter- ing theory overview, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 29, 7 (2018), arXiv:1710.04408 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    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, 3 (1993)

    1993

  81. [89]

    C. W. Bauer and A. V. Manohar, Shape function effects in B — > X(s) gamma and B — > X(u) l anti-nu decays, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034024 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312109

    2004 arXiv

  82. [90]

    S. W. Bosch, B. O. Lange, M. Neubert, and G. Paz, Factorization and shape function effects in inclu- sive B meson decays, Nucl. Phys. B 699, 335 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402094

    2004 arXiv

  83. [91]

    C. W. Bauer, C.-W. Chiang, S. Fleming, A. K. Lei- bovich, and I. Low, Resumming the Color Octet Contribution to Radiative Upsilon Decay, Phys. Rev. D 64, 114014 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106316

    2001 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Fleming, A

    S. Fleming, A. K. Leibovich, and T. Mehen, Re- summing the Color Octet Contribution toe+e−→ J/ψ + X, Phys. Rev. D 68, 094011 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306139

    2003 arXiv

  85. [93]

    C. W. Bauer and M. D. Schwartz, Improving jet distributions with effective field theory, Phys. Rev. 25 Lett. 97, 142001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604065

    2006 arXiv

  86. [94]

    P. T. Komiske, S. Kryhin, and J. Thaler, Disentan- gling quarks and gluons in CMS open data, Phys. Rev. D 106, 094021 (2022), arXiv:2205.04459 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    A. J. Larkoski and J. Thaler, Unsafe but Calcula- ble: Ratios of Angularities in Perturbative QCD, JHEP 09, 137, arXiv:1307.1699 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and J. Thaler, Sudakov Safety in Perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. D 91, 111501 (2015), arXiv:1502.01719 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  89. [97]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Soft Drop, JHEP 05, 146, arXiv:1402.2657 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Power cor- rections to event shapes and factorization, Nucl. Phys. B 555, 335 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902341

    1999 arXiv

  91. [99]

    G. P. Korchemsky and S. Tafat, On power cor- rections to the event shape distributions in QCD, JHEP 10, 010, arXiv:hep-ph/0007005

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    Batson and Y

    J. Batson and Y. Kahn, Scaling Laws in Jet Clas- sification, (2023), arXiv:2312.02264 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  93. [101]

    E. L. Post, Generalized differentiation, Transac- tions of the American Mathematical Society 32, 723 (1930)

    1930

  94. [102]

    D. V. Widder, The inversion of the laplace inte- gral and the related moment problem, Transac- tions of the American Mathematical Society 36, 107 (1934)

    1934

  95. [103]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, A General algo- rithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 485, 291 (1997), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 510, 503–504 (1998)], arXiv:hep- ph/9605323

    1997

  96. [104]

    Frixione, Z

    S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, and A. Signer, Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order, Nucl. Phys. B 467, 399 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512328

    1996 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. Grazzini, An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its application to Higgs boson production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 222002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703012

    2007 arXiv

  98. [106]

    J. Gao, C. S. Li, and H. X. Zhu, Top Quark Decay at Next-to-Next-to Leading Order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 042001 (2013), arXiv:1210.2808 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Gao and H

    J. Gao and H. X. Zhu, Electroweak prodution of top-quark pairs in e+e- annihilation at NNLO in QCD: the vector contributions, Phys. Rev. D 90, 114022 (2014), arXiv:1408.5150 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Boughezal, C

    R. Boughezal, C. Focke, X. Liu, and F. Petriello, W -boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 062002 (2015), arXiv:1504.02131 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Boughezal, C

    R. Boughezal, C. Focke, W. Giele, X. Liu, and F. Petriello, Higgs boson production in associa- tion with a jet at NNLO using jettiness subtrac- tion, Phys. Lett. B748, 5 (2015), arXiv:1505.03893 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Gaunt, M

    J. Gaunt, M. Stahlhofen, F. J. Tackmann, and J. R. Walsh, N-jettiness Subtractions for NNLO QCD Calculations, JHEP 09, 058, arXiv:1505.04794 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  103. [111]

    Moult, L

    I. Moult, L. Rothen, I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tack- mann, and H. X. Zhu, Subleading Power Correc- tions for N-Jettiness Subtractions, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074023 (2017), arXiv:1612.00450 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  104. [112]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Renor- malization of the Wilson Loops Beyond the Lead- ing Order, Nucl. Phys. B 283, 342 (1987)

    1987

  105. [113]

    O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov, and A. Y. Zharkov, The Gell-Mann-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation, Phys. Lett. B 93, 429 (1980)

    1980

  106. [114]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. Marchesini, Resum- mation of large infrared corrections using Wilson loops, Phys. Lett. B 313, 433 (1993)

    1993

  107. [115]

    Balzereit, T

    C. Balzereit, T. Mannel, and W. Kilian, Evolution of the light cone distribution function for a heavy quark, Phys. Rev. D 58, 114029 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9805297

    1998

  108. [116]

    Neubert, Advanced predictions for moments of the anti-B — > X(s) gamma photon spec- trum, Phys

    M. Neubert, Advanced predictions for moments of the anti-B — > X(s) gamma photon spec- trum, Phys. Rev. D 72, 074025 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0506245

    2005

  109. [117]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, and B. D. Pecjak, Factorization and Momentum-Space Resumma- tion in Deep-Inelastic Scattering, JHEP 01, 076, arXiv:hep-ph/0607228

    arXiv

  110. [118]

    Fleming, A

    S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, Top Jets in the Peak Region: Factoriza- tion Analysis with NLL Resummation, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114003 (2008), arXiv:0711.2079 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  111. [119]

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

    arXiv

  112. [120]

    J. M. Campbell and E. W. N. Glover, Double unresolved approximations to multiparton scatter- ing amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B 527, 264 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710255

    1998 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Catani and M

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

    2000 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, and C. R. Schmidt, The Infrared behavior of one loop gluon amplitudes at next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Lett. B 445, 168 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9810409

    1998 arXiv

  115. [123]

    D. A. Kosower and P. Uwer, One loop splitting amplitudes in gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B 563, 477 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903515

    1999 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, W. B. Kilgore, and C. R. Schmidt, The infrared behavior of one loop QCD amplitudes at next-to-next-to leading order, Phys. Rev. D 60, 116001 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903516

    1999 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Neubert, Renormalization-group improved cal- culation of the B — > X(s) gamma branching ra- 26 tio, Eur

    M. Neubert, Renormalization-group improved cal- culation of the B — > X(s) gamma branching ra- 26 tio, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 165 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0408179

    2005

  118. [126]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. D. Schwartz, Direct photon pro- duction with effective field theory, JHEP 02, 040, arXiv:0911.0681 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  119. [127]

    Pele and B

    O. Pele and B. Taskar, The tangent earth mover’s distance, in International Conference on Geomet- ric Science of Information (Springer, 2013) pp. 397–404. 27

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.