Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 120 references

Extracting Essential Non-perturbative Information in Jet Invariant Mass via the Bayesian Analysis

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new three-dimensional non-perturbative model of hadronization, fit to proton-proton jet mass data, reproduces e+e− jet mass data it was never shown, and finds initial-state radiation negligible.

desk verdict The theta prescription is a genuinely new NP model for jet mass with a real e+e− out-of-sample check, but the extraction rests on hand-chosen R and √s scalings that the paper leaves untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15945 v1 pith:4BNF2BMC submitted 2025-07-21 hep-ph hep-exhep-thnucl-th

Zhan Gao , Yu Shi , Bo-Wen Xiao , Han-Zhong Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exhep-thnucl-th
keywords jetinvariantmassnon-perturbativeQCDhadronizationunderlyingeventsinitial-stateradiationBayesiananalysissubstructureresummation
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 aims to separate the non-perturbative (NP) contributions to the jet invariant mass spectrum into hadronization, initial soft-gluon radiation, and underlying events. It introduces a new three-dimensional 'θ prescription' in which hadronization deflects the final hadron's direction in the plane transverse to the jet, adding a term $2m_0 m_{\rm NP}\cos\phi + m_{\rm NP}^2$ to the squared mass. Fitting this model, and the older mass-shift prescription, to $pp$ jet mass data from STAR and ATLAS/CMS via Bayesian inference, the authors find that initial-state radiation is negligible, hadronization dominates at small jet radius $R$, and underlying events dominate at large $R$. The strongest claim is that the hadronization part extracted from $pp$ data alone reproduces the $e^+e^-$ jet mass spectrum measured by ALEPH, which contains only hadronization effects and was not used in the fit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-dimensional angular-splitting identity $m^2 = \xi(1-\xi)P_J^2(\theta_0^2 + 2\theta_0\theta_{\rm NP}\cos\phi + \theta_{\rm NP}^2)$, or equivalently $m^2 = m_0^2 + 2m_0 m_{\rm NP}\cos\phi + m_{\rm NP}^2$, together with the Gaussian NP distribution $G(m_{\rm NP}) = (1/\pi\lambda^2)e^{-m_{\rm NP}^2/\lambda^2}$. The NP width $\lambda$ is tied to a scale $Q_{\rm NP}^2$ through $\lambda^2 = Q_{\rm NP}^2 P_J^2/m^2$, and the scale is decomposed additively as $Q_{\rm NP}^2 = Q_h^2 + Q_i^2 + Q_{\rm UE}^2$ with the hand-picked ansatz $Q_i^2 = (a_{i,a}^2 + a_{i,b}^2)R^4$, $Q_h^2 = a_{h,c}^2R^2$, and $Q_{\rm UE}^2 = a_{\rm UE}^2\sqrt{s}\,R^4$. This identity converts a single observed mass distribution into a sum of physically separate NP contributions, letting the Bayesian fit attribute each piece to a different physical origin.

What would settle it

Measure the jet-mass distribution at fixed $\sqrt{s}$ and $P_J$ for several cone sizes $R$ and check whether the hadronization width extracted in the θ prescription grows as $R^2$ with no $R^4$ piece: any data requiring an $R^4$ hadronization term or a different $\sqrt{s}$-dependence for the underlying-event term would falsify the ansatz. A second check is to compare the hadronization-only prediction against $e^+e^-$ data at LEP energies above 91.2 GeV, since the model fixes the hadronization scale from $pp$ data and should reproduce those spectra without refitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a new parameterization, the θ prescription, in which non-perturbative hadronization acts as a three-dimensional angular kick: the jet mass squared becomes $m^2 = m_0^2 + 2m_0 m_{\rm NP}\cos\phi + m_{\rm NP}^2$, with $m_{\rm NP}$ drawn from a Gaussian of width $\lambda^2 = Q_{\rm NP}^2 P_J^2/m^2$. Bayesian fits to $pp$ data determine separate NP scales $Q_h^2 \propto R^2$ for hadronization, $Q_i^2 \propto R^4$ for initial-state radiation, and $Q_{\rm UE}^2 \propto \sqrt{s}\,R^4$ for underlying events. The extracted initial-state radiation scale is consistent with zero, while hadronization dominates for small $R$ and underlying events dominate for large $R$. The prediction with only hadronization, using parameters fixed by $pp$ data, matches the ALEPH $e^+e^-$ jet mass distribution at 91.2 GeV, providing an out-of-sample test of the model.

Load-bearing premise

The entire separation into hadronization, initial-state radiation, and underlying events rests on the assumed power-law ansatz $Q_i^2 \propto R^4$, $Q_h^2 \propto R^2$, $Q_{\rm UE}^2 \propto \sqrt{s}\,R^4$ together with a Gaussian shape for the NP mass distribution; these functional forms are chosen by hand, not derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The extracted dominance pattern — hadronization at small $R$, underlying events at large $R$ — gives a quantitative target for jet grooming, which removes wide-angle radiation and should therefore suppress the large-$R$ region more strongly than the small-$R$ region.
  • The agreement with ALEPH data establishes that hadronization parameters extracted from $pp$ collisions transfer to $e^+e^-$ collisions, at least for the jet-mass observable.
  • The negligible initial-state radiation contribution simplifies future NP extractions: for jet mass at NLL accuracy, the ISR term can be dropped from the NP model without loss.
  • The θ prescription's stability when CMS dijet data are added, in contrast to the mass-shift prescription's sensitivity, suggests that the three-dimensional picture captures physics the one-dimensional shift prescription misses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the θ prescription is correct, the same three-dimensional angular kick should leave a characteristic fingerprint in other jet substructure observables such as jet broadening or energy-energy correlators; a dedicated measurement of those observables would provide an independent test.
  • The $R^2$ hadronization scaling differs in power from the odd-power scaling of the mass-shift prescription; future event-generator or lattice studies of hadronization could directly test which $R$-dependence the true NP mechanism produces.
  • The flavor-independent underlying-event assumption could be tested by comparing the UE scale extracted from quark-dominated $W/Z+$jet events with that from gluon-dominated inclusive jets; a discrepancy would indicate the UE term is not flavor-blind.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new non-perturbative (NP) description of the jet invariant mass spectrum based on a three-dimensional angular deflection during hadronization (the "θ prescription"), and compares it with the conventional mass-shift prescription. The authors perform a Bayesian analysis of inclusive and W/Z-tagged jet mass data in pp collisions from STAR, ATLAS, and CMS, extracting parameters for hadronization, initial-state radiation, and underlying-event effects. They conclude that ISR is negligible, hadronization dominates for small jet radii, and UE dominates for large jet radii. As an out-of-sample test, the hadronization-only prediction is compared with ALEPH e+e− jet mass data, with claimed good agreement. The supplemental material provides extensive comparisons with additional datasets and an analysis of the sensitivity to CMS dijet data.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be a valuable step toward separating hadronization, ISR, and underlying-event contributions to jet substructure in a single framework. The Bayesian treatment with posterior credible intervals, the cross-check on two independent pp datasets, and the explicit out-of-sample e+e− comparison are genuine strengths, and the paper ships enough detail in the supplemental material to reproduce the main comparisons. The two-prescription comparison is also instructive. However, the significance is conditional on the assumed power-law scalings in Eq. (15) and on the unquantified theory systematics; the out-of-sample test validates only the combination of the Gaussian ansatz and the assumed R^2 hadronization scaling, not the hadronization model in full generality.

major comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental Sec. I, Eq. (15)] The scaling ansatz Q_i^2 = (a_i,a^2 + a_i,b^2)R^4, Q_h^2 = a_h,c^2 R^2, and Q_UE^2 = a_UE^2 sqrt(s) R^4 is chosen by hand rather than derived. The e+e− validation in Fig. 5 tests hadronization only under this assumed R^2 dependence; if hadronization had an R^4 piece, or if UE had a different R or sqrt(s) dependence, the extracted a_h,c could be biased while the pp fit could remain acceptable through compensating changes in other parameters. The companion mass-shift model already includes both R and R^3 terms, and its cubic coefficient is essentially unconstrained (Table II: b_h,g^(3) = 0.084^{+0.829}_{-0.055} for Set 1), showing that the data cannot pin down higher-order R dependence. The authors should test alternative scalings (for example, including a hadronization R^4 term) or give a physics argument for why they are excluded.
  2. [Supplemental Sec. I, Eq. (11)] The coupling freeze scale mu_NP in Eq. (11) is never specified numerically and is not varied within the analysis. Since the Sudakov factor depends on mu_NP, this scale choice is a theory systematic that can be partially absorbed into the extracted NP parameters. Without reporting the value of mu_NP and the resulting uncertainty band, the extracted parameters and the small-R/large-R dominance pattern in Fig. 6 are not fully characterized. The paper should also state whether PDF and renormalization/factorization scale uncertainties are included; none are mentioned.
  3. [Numerical results, Fig. 5] The central e+e− agreement is asserted only visually. The text says "excellent agreement" and "good agreement" with the ALEPH data, but no quantitative goodness-of-fit measure (chi^2 per degree of freedom, p-value, or similar) is reported for this out-of-sample comparison. Since this comparison is the load-bearing falsifiable test of the framework, a quantitative measure is needed to substantiate the claim that the hadronization-only prediction "successfully describes" the ALEPH spectrum.
  4. [Tables I and II] The conclusion that the ISR contribution is "negligible" is not strongly supported by the posteriors. For example, a_i,g = 0.180^{+0.745}_{-0.146} (Set 1) is consistent with a wide range including values comparable to a_h,g, and b_i,g = 0.018^{+0.222}_{-0.013} is similarly broad. The wording in the abstract and conclusion should be softened, or the authors should show a posterior probability statement (e.g., the probability that a_i,g lies below a physically motivated threshold) to justify the "negligible" claim.
  5. [Supplemental Sec. III, Fig. 8] The sensitivity comparison between the two prescriptions uses CMS dijet data, but the calculation does not implement the dijet kinematic selections described in Ref. [60]. The authors state "we expect our resummed prediction to describe" these data, but this expectation is not demonstrated. This weakens the claim that the mass-shift prescription "modestly overestimates" the dijet data when not fitted to them, and in turn weakens the contrast with the robustness of the θ prescription. The comparison would be more convincing if the dijet phase-space cuts were implemented or if the sensitivity conclusion were limited to the observables actually computed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The derivation of the R^2 scaling of Q_h^2 is hard to follow; the chain of proportionalities mixes m^2_NP, p_perp^2, z, P_J, and R without clear definitions of each quantity. Please clarify the steps and the meaning of m in the denominator.
  2. [Bayesian analysis] There are several minor typographical issues: "We take that the prior distribution" should read "We take the prior distribution"; "Next, We employ" should be "Next, we employ"; and "The full chain consists of 10 4 steps" should read "10^4 steps."
  3. [Figs. 4 and 5] The axis label in Fig. 4 is written as "m/P_J" while the caption uses "m/PJ," and Fig. 5 has the same inconsistency. Use a single consistent notation for the jet momentum and the mass-to-momentum ratio.
  4. [Eq. (17)] The mass-shift relation is written as m_0^2 = m^2 - 2 k_t P_J; since the usual convention in Ref. [101] is m^2 = m_0^2 + 2 k_t P_J, please confirm the sign convention and state it explicitly.
  5. [Sec. I, Eq. (15) notation] The coefficients a_i,a and a_i,b are both introduced but Table I reports only a_i,g; it would be helpful to state explicitly that a_i,g in the table corresponds to the sum or to a single combination of a_i,a and a_i,b used in the fit, and similarly for b_i,g.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ALEPH e+e− comparison is an out-of-sample test of the pp-fitted hadronization parameter; the R and √s ansatz in Eq. (15) is model dependence, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central claimed prediction—that hadronization parameters extracted from pp data describe the ALEPH e+e− jet-mass spectrum—is genuinely out-of-sample: ALEPH data are not included in the Bayesian fit, and the hadronization coefficient a_h enters the e+e− curve without refitting. The decomposition of Q_NP into Q_h ∝ R^2, Q_i ∝ R^4, and Q_UE ∝ √s R^4 in Eq. (15) is explicitly called an ansatz, and the Gaussian shape G(m_NP) in Eq. (4) is stated as an assumption; these are model assumptions, not circular reductions. The paper invokes no uniqueness theorem, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Ref. [35] (which includes a co-author) is cited for the angular-deflection prescription, but the present work presents the prescription as an ansatz and tests it against independent external data, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The main caveat—that alternative R and √s scalings would change the extracted hadronization component—is a model-selection and correctness risk, not circularity. No equation reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction rests on a phenomenological model with seven independent fitted coefficients across two prescriptions, plus an unstated coupling freeze scale. The additivity of NP contributions and the chosen R and sqrt(s) scaling laws are assumed, not derived; the main independent support is the out-of-sample e+e- prediction for the hadronization component.

free parameters (8)
  • a_h,g (theta hadronization, gluon) = 2.907+0.127-0.169 (Set 1); 2.637+0.113-0.178 (Set 2)
    Sets R^2 hadronization width in the 3D model; extracted from pp data and then used for the e+e- prediction.
  • a_i,g (theta ISR, gluon) = 0.180+0.745-0.146 (Set 1); 0.324+0.911-0.259 (Set 2)
    Sets R^4 initial-state radiation width; posterior is consistent with zero, driving the conclusion that ISR is negligible.
  • a_UE (theta underlying event) = 3.712+0.129-0.107 (Set 1); 3.856+0.108-0.109 (Set 2)
    Sets sqrt(s)R^4 underlying-event width; dominates at large R.
  • b^(1)_h,g (mass-shift hadronization, linear R) = 1.530+0.086-0.116 (Set 1); 1.494+0.080-0.125 (Set 2)
    Linear-R hadronization term in the standard momentum-shift model.
  • b^(3)_h,g (mass-shift hadronization, cubic R) = 0.084+0.829-0.055 (Set 1); 0.224+0.800-0.185 (Set 2)
    Cubic-R hadronization term; shifts strongly when CMS dijet data are added, a sign of prescription sensitivity.
  • b_i,g (mass-shift ISR) = 0.018+0.222-0.013 (Set 1); 0.018+0.206-0.013 (Set 2)
    R^4 ISR term in the mass-shift model; negligible in both fits.
  • b_UE (mass-shift underlying event) = 0.815+0.054-0.062 (Set 1); 0.863+0.050-0.065 (Set 2)
    sqrt(s)R^4 UE term; dominates at large R.
  • mu_NP coupling freeze scale = not stated
    Equation (11) freezes alpha_s below an NP scale following Ref. [47], but the numerical value is not given in the text; it affects the perturbative baseline and can bias the extracted NP parameters.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Bayes theorem and Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling as statistical framework
    Used to map priors and likelihoods to posteriors; standard and machine-checkable.
  • domain assumption Collinear factorization and eikonal approximation for the jet mass cross-section (Eq. 7-9)
    Assumes the resummed NLL form with NLO PDFs and LO hard scattering is adequate for the small-mass region.
  • domain assumption Coupling freeze below mu_NP (Eq. 11)
    Freezing the strong coupling is a phenomenological extension into the deep non-perturbative region; the scale value is not specified or varied.
  • ad hoc to paper Additive factorization of NP contributions into hadronization, ISR, and UE terms (Eq. 14, 19)
    The independence and additivity of these three sources is assumed, not derived; it is the basis for extracting each contribution separately.
  • ad hoc to paper Scaling ansatz Q2_i proportional to R4, Q2_h to R2, Q2_UE to sqrt(s)R4 (Eq. 15) and analogous Omega scaling (Eq. 20)
    These exponents are chosen by hand and directly determine the small-R versus large-R dominance conclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper Flavor-independence of UE and color-factor scaling of quark and gluon NP parameters (Eq. 22-23)
    Imposed to reduce the number of free parameters; if UE is flavor-dependent, the extracted UE term would absorb some quark-gluon differences.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian shape for G(mNP) and exponential shape for Fk(kt)
    The functional forms of the NP shape functions are assumed without derivation; the extraction is conditional on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extracting Essential Non-perturbative Information in Jet Invariant Mass via the Bayesian Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BNF2BMC

@misc{pith2026250715945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extracting Essential Non-perturbative Information in Jet Invariant Mass via the Bayesian Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BNF2BMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15945}
}
abstract

In this paper, we present a new three-dimensional non-perturbative (NP) function to account for and parameterize the NP contributions in the jet invariant mass spectrum, in addition to the conventional NP mass shift parametrization. By implementing Bayesian analysis on experimental data of the jet invariant mass from exclusive $W/Z+$jet events and inclusive jet events in $pp$ collisions at RHIC and LHC, where collisional energy increases by a factor of up to $65$ from RHIC to LHC, we ensure the analysis covers a wide range of data. For the first time, we simultaneously extract NP contributions from hadronization, initial soft-gluon radiation, and underlying events, based on two different NP prescriptions. We find that the contribution from initial soft-gluon radiation is negligible, and the hadronization effect dominates in the small-$R$ region, while underlying events provide the dominant contribution in the large-$R$ region. Moreover, when only hadronization effects are considered, our results successfully describe the jet mass data measured in $e^+e^-$ collisions, where only hadronization effects are expected to be present. Our work offers quantitative insights into understanding the soft hadronic contribution to jet substructure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the combined jet mass contributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Posterior distributions and correlations of the gluon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Comparison numerical results with the ATLAS mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison numerical results with the ALEPH mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The plots of the NP effects as functions of jet cone size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Posterior distributions and correlations of the gluon parameters from Bayesian analysis to experimental data fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison theory results using the parameters fitting with and without the CMS dijet data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The comparison of the numerical results with the CMS measurement of the jet mass distribution for Z/W+jet events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Jet-mass distribution in inclusive-jet events in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. We compare the numerical results with the ATLAS measurement of the jet mass distribution for inclusive jet events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison of the numerical results with the ATLAS measurement of the jet mass distribution for inclusive jet events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of the numerical results with the CMS measurement of the jet mass distribution for di-jet events in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 11, 113 (2018) [arXiv:1807.05974 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Pumplin, J

    J. Pumplin, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, W. K. Tung and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014019 (2009) [arXiv:0904.2424 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  3. [2]

    B. J. A. Watt, P. Motylinski and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2934 (2014) [arXiv:1311.5703 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2014

  4. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 73, no.8, 2509 (2013) [arXiv:1304.4739 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [4]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.6, 288 (2015) [arXiv:1410.6765 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [5]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], JHEP 03, 156 (2017) [arXiv:1609.05331 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    Currie, E

    J. Currie, E. W. N. Glover and J. Pires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no.7, 072002 (2017) [arXiv:1611.01460 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.3, 248 (2018) [arXiv:1711.05757 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 120 references
  1. [8]

    Currie, A

    J. Currie, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss and J. Pires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.15, 152001 (2017) [arXiv:1705.10271 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Marzani, D

    S. Marzani, D. Reichelt, S. Schumann, G. Soyez and V. Theeuwes, JHEP 11, 179 (2019) [arXiv:1906.10504 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, Y

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, Y. Makris, V. Vaidya, I. Scimemi and L. Zoppi, JHEP 08, 161 (2019) [arXiv:1907.05896 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Abdul Khalek, S

    R. Abdul Khalek, S. Forte, T. Gehrmann, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Giani, N. Glover, A. Huss, E. R. Nocera, J. Pires and J. Rojo, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.8, 797 (2020) [arXiv:2005.11327 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 07, 223 (2021) [arXiv:2101.05095 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 01, 188 (2022) [arXiv:2109.03340 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], JHEP 05, 061 (2022) [arXiv:2107.11303 [nucl-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    M. A. Benitez, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, I. W. Stewart and G. Vita, [arXiv:2412.15164 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 73, no.10, 2604 (2013) [arXiv:1304.7498 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.5, 186 (2015) [arXiv:1412.1633 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 750, 427-447 (2015) [arXiv:1508.01579 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.12, 872 (2017) [arXiv:1707.02562 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Britzger, K

    D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, D. Savoiu, G. Sieber and M. Wobisch, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.1, 68 (2019) [arXiv:1712.00480 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    H. S. Hannesdottir, A. Pathak, M. D. Schwartz and I. W. Stewart, JHEP 04, 087 (2023) [arXiv:2210.04901 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    M. A. Benitez, A. Bhattacharya, A. H. Hoang, V. Ma- teu, M. D. Schwartz, I. W. Stewart and X. Zhang, [arXiv:2502.12253 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    D. E. Soper and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 08, 029 (2010) [arXiv:1005.0417 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [24]

    R. M. Godbole, D. J. Miller, K. A. Mohan and 6 C. D. White, JHEP 04, 103 (2015) [arXiv:1409.5449 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    N. Chen, J. Li, Y. Liu and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.7, 075002 (2015) [arXiv:1410.4447 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Adams, A

    D. Adams, A. Arce, L. Asquith, M. Backovic, T. Baril- lari, P. Berta, D. Bertolini, A. Buckley, J. Butterworth and R. C. Camacho Toro, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.9, 409 (2015) [arXiv:1504.00679 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 03, 145 (2020) [arXiv:1910.08447 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.8, 752 (2020) [arXiv:2001.10086 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Chekhovsky et al

    V. Chekhovsky et al. [CMS], Rept. Prog. Phys. 88, no.6, 067802 (2025) [arXiv:2412.03747 [hep-ex]]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], [arXiv:2503.06726 [hep- ex]]

  24. [31]

    M. L. Mangano and B. Nachman, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.4, 343 (2018) [arXiv:1708.08369 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Milhano, U

    G. Milhano, U. A. Wiedemann and K. C. Zapp, Phys. Lett. B 779, 409-413 (2018) [arXiv:1707.04142 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    N. B. Chang, S. Cao and G. Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B 781, 423-432 (2018) [arXiv:1707.03767 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K

    R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, JHEP 07, 141 (2017) [arXiv:1707.01539 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Ringer, B

    F. Ringer, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135634 (2020) [arXiv:1907.12541 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Casalderrey-Solana, G

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, G. Milhano, D. Pablos and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 01, 044 (2020) [arXiv:1907.11248 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Caucal, E

    P. Caucal, E. Iancu and G. Soyez, JHEP 10, 273 (2019) [arXiv:1907.04866 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Caucal, A

    P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso and A. Takacs, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.11, 114046 (2022) [arXiv:2111.14768 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Cunqueiro, D

    L. Cunqueiro, D. Pablos, A. Soto-Ontoso, M. Spousta, A. Takacs and M. Verweij, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.1, 014015 (2024) [arXiv:2311.07643 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Tachibana et al

    Y. Tachibana et al. [JETSCAPE], Phys. Rev. C 110, no.4, 044907 (2024) [arXiv:2301.02485 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Y. T. Chien, O. Fedkevych, D. Reichelt and S. Schu- mann, JHEP 07, 230 (2024) [arXiv:2404.04168 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Apolin´ ario, Y

    L. Apolin´ ario, Y. T. Chien and L. Cunqueiro Mendez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, no.07, 2430003 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    Moraes, C

    A. Moraes, C. Buttar and I. Dawson, Eur. Phys. J. C 50, 435-466 (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    Cacciari and G

    M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B 659, 119- 126 (2008) [arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [45]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult and B. Nachman, Phys. Rept. 841, 1-63 (2020) [arXiv:1709.04464 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Kogler, B

    R. Kogler, B. Nachman, A. Schmidt, L. Asquith, M. Campanelli, C. Delitzsch, P. Harris, A. Hinzmann, D. Kar and C. McLean, et al. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, no.4, 045003 (2019) [arXiv:1803.06991 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Marzani, G

    S. Marzani, G. Soyez and M. Spannowsky, Lect. Notes Phys. 958, pp. (2019) Springer, 2019, [arXiv:1901.10342 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

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

    2010 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Y. Chen, A. Badea, A. Baty, P. Chang, Y. T. Chien, G. M. Innocenti, M. Maggi, C. McGinn, D. V. Pere- pelitsa and M. Peters, et al. JHEP 06, 008 (2022) [arXiv:2111.09914 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Andreev et al

    V. Andreev et al. [H1], Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.7, 718 (2024) [arXiv:2403.10134 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  44. [51]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], Phys. Rev. D 85, 091101 (2012) [arXiv:1106.5952 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. D 104, no.5, 052007 (2021) [arXiv:2103.13286 [hep-ex]]

    2021

  46. [53]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 05, 128 (2012) [arXiv:1203.4606 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 05, 090 (2013) [arXiv:1303.4811 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 776, 249-264 (2018) [arXiv:1702.00804 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [56]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.7, 467 (2017) [arXiv:1703.06330 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.9, 092001 (2018) [arXiv:1711.08341 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [58]

    [ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2018-014

    2018

  52. [59]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 10, 161 (2018) [arXiv:1805.05145 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 864, 139409 (2025) [arXiv:2411.03106 [nucl-ex]]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], [arXiv:2505.11955 [hep-ex]]

  55. [63]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

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

    2007 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Baron, S

    J. Baron, S. Marzani and V. Theeuwes, JHEP 08, 105 (2018) [erratum: JHEP 05, 056 (2019)] [arXiv:1803.04719 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Kardos, G

    A. Kardos, G. Somogyi and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, Phys. Lett. B 786, 313-318 (2018) [arXiv:1807.11472 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    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, no.7, 074019 (2016) [arXiv:1606.03453 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Weinzierl, JHEP 06, 041 (2009) [arXiv:0904.1077 [hep-ph]]

    S. Weinzierl, JHEP 06, 041 (2009) [arXiv:0904.1077 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Dasgupta, K

    M. Dasgupta, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, S. Marzani and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 10, 126 (2012) [arXiv:1207.1640 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    C. Frye, A. J. Larkoski, M. D. Schwartz and K. Yan, [arXiv:1603.06375 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Idilbi and C

    A. Idilbi and C. Kim, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 73, no.9, 1230-1239 (2018) [arXiv:1606.05429 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kardos, A

    A. Kardos, A. J. Larkoski and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135704 (2020) [arXiv:2002.00942 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Ziani, K

    N. Ziani, K. Khelifa-Kerfa and Y. Delenda, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 570 (2021) [arXiv:2104.11060 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Catani, B

    S. Catani, B. R. Webber and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B 349, 635-654 (1991)

    1991

  66. [74]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 406, 187-224 (1993)

    1993

  67. [75]

    Banfi, G

    A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 03, 073 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0407286 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    H. n. Li, Z. Li and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 87, 074025 (2013) [arXiv:1206.1344 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Y. T. Chien, R. Kelley, M. D. Schwartz and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.1, 014010 (2013) [arXiv:1208.0010 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  70. [78]

    C. Frye, A. J. Larkoski, M. D. Schwartz and K. Yan, JHEP 07, 064 (2016) [arXiv:1603.09338 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    D. W. Kolodrubetz, P. Pietrulewicz, I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 12, 054 (2016) [arXiv:1605.08038 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Marzani, L

    S. Marzani, L. Schunk and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 7 78, no.2, 96 (2018) [arXiv:1712.05105 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Z. B. Kang, K. Lee, X. Liu and F. Ringer, JHEP 10, 137 (2018) [arXiv:1803.03645 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Balsiger, T

    M. Balsiger, T. Becher and D. Y. Shao, JHEP 04, 020 (2019) [arXiv:1901.09038 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    S. Gaid, Y. Delenda and R. Soualah, JHEP 12, 179 (2024) [arXiv:2409.12260 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, M. D. Schwartz and I. W. Stew- art, [arXiv:2506.09130 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B 512, 323- 330 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0104277 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, JHEP 03, 017 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0203009 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  79. [87]

    R. M. Duran Delgado, J. R. Forshaw, S. Marzani and M. H. Seymour, JHEP 08, 157 (2011) [arXiv:1107.2084 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 02, 072 (2012) [arXiv:1111.2016 [hep-ph]]

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 02, 072 (2012) [arXiv:1111.2016 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  81. [89]

    M. D. Schwartz and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.6, 065004 (2014) [arXiv:1403.4949 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult and D. Neill, JHEP 09, 143 (2015) [arXiv:1501.04596 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  83. [91]

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult and D. Neill, JHEP 11, 089 (2016) [arXiv:1609.04011 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, L. Rothen and D. Y. Shao, JHEP 11, 019 (2016) [erratum: JHEP 05, 154 (2017)] [arXiv:1605.02737 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Becher, R

    T. Becher, R. Rahn and D. Y. Shao, JHEP 10, 030 (2017) [arXiv:1708.04516 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Caletti, O

    S. Caletti, O. Fedkevych, S. Marzani, D. Reichelt, S. Schumann, G. Soyez and V. Theeuwes, JHEP 07, 076 (2021) [arXiv:2104.06920 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert and D. Y. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.21, 212002 (2021) [arXiv:2107.01212 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Becher, N

    T. Becher, N. Schalch and X. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.8, 8 (2024) [arXiv:2307.02283 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, D. Y. Shao and M. Stillger, JHEP 12, 116 (2023) [arXiv:2307.06359 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 555, 335-351 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9902341 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Dasgupta, L

    M. Dasgupta, L. Magnea and G. P. Salam, JHEP 02, 055 (2008) [arXiv:0712.3014 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  92. [100]

    T. T. Jouttenus, I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.5, 054031 (2013) [arXiv:1302.0846 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, no.9, 092001 (2015) [arXiv:1405.6722 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Reichelt, S

    D. Reichelt, S. Caletti, O. Fedkevych, S. Marzani, S. Schumann and G. Soyez, JHEP 03, 131 (2022) [arXiv:2112.09545 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  95. [103]

    S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion and J. R. Walsh, Phys. Rev. D 80, 051501 (2009) [arXiv:0903.5081 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  96. [104]

    S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion and J. R. Walsh, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094023 (2010) [arXiv:0912.0033 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Krohn, J

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

    2010 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Dasgupta, A

    M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani and G. P. Salam, JHEP 09, 029 (2013) [arXiv:1307.0007 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  99. [107]

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

    2014 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Dasgupta, L

    M. Dasgupta, L. Schunk and G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 166 (2016) [arXiv:1512.00516 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Marzani, L

    S. Marzani, L. Schunk and G. Soyez, JHEP 07, 132 (2017) [arXiv:1704.02210 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  102. [110]

    A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, A. Pathak and I. W. Stew- art, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.7, 074021 (2019) [arXiv:1708.02586 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Z. B. Kang, K. Lee, X. Liu and F. Ringer, Phys. Lett. B 793, 41-47 (2019) [arXiv:1811.06983 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  104. [112]

    A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, A. Pathak and I. W. Stewart, JHEP 12, 002 (2019) [arXiv:1906.11843 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Ferdinand, K

    A. Ferdinand, K. Lee and A. Pathak, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.11, L111501 (2023) [arXiv:2301.03605 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Pathak, JHEP 08, 054 (2023) [arXiv:2301.05714 [hep-ph]]

    A. Pathak, JHEP 08, 054 (2023) [arXiv:2301.05714 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  107. [115]

    P. K. Dhani, O. Fedkevych, A. Ghira, S. Marzani and G. Soyez, JHEP 02, 046 (2025) [arXiv:2410.05415 [hep- ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  108. [116]

    T. J. Hou, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, K. Xie, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. Schmidt, et al. Phys. Rev. D103, no.1, 014013 (2021) [arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  109. [117]

    & Wynn, H

    Sacks, J., Welch, W., Mitchell, T. & Wynn, H. Design and Analysis of Computer Exper- iments. Statistical Science . 4, 409-423 (1989), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2245858

    1989

  110. [118]

    & Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. & Williams, C. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. (The MIT Press,2005,11), https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001

    2005 doi

  111. [119]

    Goodman and J

    J. Goodman and J. Weare, Commun. Appl. Math. Com- put. Sc. 5, no.1, 65-80 (2010)

    2010

  112. [120]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Good- man, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306-312 (2013) [arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]]. 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL CONTENTS References 5 I. The theoretical framework 8 II. The Bayesian inference based on two independent data sets 10...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.