pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25490 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Les Houches study on inclusive jet production at NNLO+NNLL

Terry Generet , Joey Huston , Kyle Lee , Ian Moult , Rene Poncelet , Xiaoyuan Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exnucl-th
keywords inclusive jet productionNNLO QCDNNLL resummationscale uncertaintieshigher-order correctionsLHC jet phenomenologyjet radius logarithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Scale variations underestimate higher-order effects in inclusive jet production for common jet radii.

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

The paper computes inclusive jet cross sections at the LHC using NNLO QCD accuracy supplemented by NNLL resummation of small-jet-radius logarithms. It demonstrates that the resummation can both enlarge the scale uncertainty bands and produce sizeable shifts in the central values compared to fixed-order NNLO alone. A sympathetic reader cares because jet production data are central to extracting parton distributions and the strong coupling constant, so trustworthy uncertainty estimates are required for meaningful theory-data comparisons. The authors conclude that standard scale-variation procedures in both fixed-order and resummed calculations fail to capture the true size of missing higher orders. This finding directly questions the reliability of uncertainty estimates that rely solely on scale variation.

Core claim

NNLO QCD calculations supplemented by NNLL small-jet-radius resummation show that resummation appreciably modifies the scale uncertainty and, for some scale choices, shifts the central inclusive jet cross section. The study concludes that scale variations in fixed-order and resummed calculations can drastically underestimate the impact of higher orders for commonly used jet radius parameters, rendering missing higher-order estimates obtained via scale variations unreliable.

What carries the argument

NNLO fixed-order QCD calculations combined with next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic resummation of small-jet-radius logarithms.

If this is right

  • Resummation must be included when assessing perturbative uncertainties for inclusive jet observables at typical LHC jet radii.
  • Precision extractions of parton distribution functions or the strong coupling from jet data require uncertainty methods that go beyond scale variation.
  • Scale-variation bands reported in current NNLO jet analyses should be treated as underestimates of the true theoretical error.
  • Further all-order or higher-logarithm resummation may be needed to stabilize predictions for small-radius jets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same underestimation may affect other jet and jet-substructure observables that rely on small cone sizes.
  • Experimental collaborations could test the conclusion by comparing data to both NNLO and NNLO+NNLL predictions and checking whether the larger theory bands better describe the measurements.
  • Alternative uncertainty techniques, such as explicit variation of the resummation scale or matching to parton showers, become more important when scale variation alone is shown to be insufficient.

Load-bearing premise

The NNLO plus NNLL calculation captures the dominant higher-order perturbative effects for the chosen jet radii and scale choices.

What would settle it

A complete N3LO calculation for inclusive jet production whose central value lies inside the NNLO scale-variation band while differing substantially from the NNLO+NNLL central value would falsify the claim that scale variations underestimate the higher-order shift.

read the original abstract

Jet production at the LHC is a powerful probe of QCD, making it ideal for precision tests and determinations of QCD parameters such as parton distribution functions and the strong coupling constant. To make the most of the abundant jet production data collected at the LHC, precise calculations are required. While state-of-the-art calculations reach next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD accuracy, a critical assessment of the remaining uncertainties arising from non-perturbative effects and missing higher orders remains crucial for correctly interpreting comparisons between theory and data. Scale variation is nearly always used to determine effects from missing higher orders. In this article, we reassess this method in the context of inclusive jet production by performing NNLO QCD calculations supplemented by small-jet-radius resummation through next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy (NNLL). We find that NNLL resummation can have an appreciable impact on the scale uncertainty for inclusive jet cross sections, and, for some scale choices, can lead to sizeable shifts of the central cross section. We conclude that scale variations in fixed-order and resummed calculations can drastically underestimate the impact of higher orders for commonly used jet radius parameters, and that missing higher-order estimates obtained via scale variations should be considered unreliable. Our findings add further evidence to the importance of going beyond scale variations in jet and jet substructure calculations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from a Les Houches workshop study on inclusive jet production at the LHC. It performs explicit NNLO QCD calculations for jet cross sections supplemented by small-jet-radius resummation at NNLL accuracy. Numerical comparisons between fixed-order NNLO and NNLO+NNLL predictions show that resummation can produce appreciable shifts in central values (for certain scale choices) and substantial changes to scale-variation uncertainties. The authors conclude that conventional scale variations in both fixed-order and resummed calculations underestimate the size of missing higher-order corrections for commonly used jet radii, rendering such estimates unreliable.

Significance. If the numerical results and their interpretation hold, the work provides concrete evidence that scale variation is insufficient for reliable uncertainty quantification in jet phenomenology. This would strengthen the case for incorporating resummation or alternative methods (e.g., Bayesian or machine-learning-based uncertainty estimates) in precision LHC analyses, with direct relevance to PDF fits and strong-coupling determinations. The collaborative Les Houches format and explicit NNLO+NNLL implementation are positive features that enhance the credibility of the presented comparisons.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim that scale variations 'drastically underestimate' higher orders for commonly used jet radii (R = 0.4–0.7) rests on the small-R resummation accurately capturing the dominant missing contributions at these values. The manuscript must demonstrate this quantitatively by showing the size of the NNLL corrections as a function of R (including at R = 0.4) and by assessing the validity of the small-R approximation (e.g., via the magnitude of ln(1/R) or comparison to non-small-R terms). Without such evidence, the extrapolation from the parametric small-R limit to experimental radii remains a load-bearing assumption that is not yet fully substantiated.
  2. The abstract and results sections note that sizeable shifts occur 'for some scale choices.' The paper should specify which scale choices are representative of current LHC analyses and demonstrate that the underestimation conclusion is robust (or not) for those standard choices, rather than depending on particular ad-hoc selections.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract could more explicitly state the range of jet radii and kinematic cuts used in the numerical study to allow readers to immediately assess relevance to typical ATLAS/CMS measurements.
  2. A brief discussion of non-perturbative corrections (hadronization, underlying event) and their interplay with the resummed perturbative results would help contextualize the quoted uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and positive evaluation of the significance of our work. We address each of the major comments below and have made revisions to the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that scale variations 'drastically underestimate' higher orders for commonly used jet radii (R = 0.4–0.7) rests on the small-R resummation accurately capturing the dominant missing contributions at these values. The manuscript must demonstrate this quantitatively by showing the size of the NNLL corrections as a function of R (including at R = 0.4) and by assessing the validity of the small-R approximation (e.g., via the magnitude of ln(1/R) or comparison to non-small-R terms). Without such evidence, the extrapolation from the parametric small-R limit to experimental radii remains a load-bearing assumption that is not yet fully substantiated.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative support for the applicability of the small-R resummation at experimental jet radii would strengthen the manuscript. In the revised version, we include a new panel or figure displaying the NNLL correction relative to NNLO as a function of R for fixed pT, explicitly including R=0.4. We also add text assessing the size of ln(1/R), which ranges from approximately 0.36 for R=0.7 to 0.92 for R=0.4, and discuss that although the small-R approximation is used, the resummation captures the leading logarithmic enhancements, and the effects persist in the matched calculation. This addresses the concern about the load-bearing assumption. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The abstract and results sections note that sizeable shifts occur 'for some scale choices.' The paper should specify which scale choices are representative of current LHC analyses and demonstrate that the underestimation conclusion is robust (or not) for those standard choices, rather than depending on particular ad-hoc selections.

    Authors: We appreciate this clarification request. We have updated the abstract and the relevant results sections to explicitly identify the scale choices used, noting that the central scale is chosen as μ = p_T (the jet transverse momentum) with variations by a factor of two, which is standard in many LHC jet analyses. We demonstrate that for these representative choices, the scale variation bands in the NNLO calculation are smaller than the shifts induced by including NNLL resummation in several kinematic regions, supporting the conclusion that scale variations underestimate the higher-order effects. This makes the finding more directly applicable to current practices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claim from explicit numerical comparison

full rationale

The paper derives its conclusion that scale variations underestimate higher-order effects by performing explicit NNLO fixed-order calculations supplemented with NNLL small-R resummation and directly comparing the resulting cross sections and uncertainty bands for inclusive jet production. This chain relies on standard perturbative QCD computations and observed numerical shifts rather than any self-definitional equivalence, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the argument to unverified prior claims by the same authors. The resummation provides an independent assessment of missing higher orders outside the fixed-order framework, and the paper remains self-contained against external benchmarks without reducing its key result to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the validity of perturbative QCD at NNLO+NNLL and the assumption that resummation captures the leading missing higher-order logarithms for the jet radii studied.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Perturbative expansion of QCD is valid and convergent at NNLO+NNLL for inclusive jet production at LHC energies
    Invoked when performing the NNLO calculations supplemented by resummation.
  • domain assumption NNLL resummation accurately approximates the dominant logarithmic higher-order corrections for small jet radii
    Central premise allowing the reassessment of scale variation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5554 in / 1361 out tokens · 70545 ms · 2026-05-07T16:17:48.546611+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A. Huss, J. Huston, S. Jones, M. Pellen, and R. R¨ ontsch,Les Houches 2023 – Physics at TeV Colliders: Report on the Standard Model Precision Wishlist,SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep.(2026) 21, [arXiv:2504.06689]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    E. R. Nocera and M. Ubiali,Constraining the gluon PDF at large x with LHC data, PoSDIS2017(2018) 008, [arXiv:1709.09690]

    work page arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    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. C78(2018) 248, [arXiv:1711.05757]

    work page arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Houet al., Phys

    T.-J. Hou et al.,New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 014013, [arXiv:1912.10053]. [5]CTEQ-TEACollaboration, A. Ablat, et al.,Impact of LHC precision measurements of inclusive jet and dijet production on the CTEQ-TEA global PDF fit,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 036033, [arXiv:2412.00350]

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    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. C80(2020) 797, [arXiv:2005.11327]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Bailey, T

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne,Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 341, [arXiv:2012.04684]. [8]NNPDFCollaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 428, [arXiv:2109.02653]. [9]H1, ZEUSCollabor...

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    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 (2015) 062002, [arXiv:1504.02131]

    work page arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Boughezal, F

    R. Boughezal, F. Caola, K. Melnikov, F. Petriello, and M. Schulze,Higgs boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order,Phys. Rev. Lett. 115(2015) 082003, [arXiv:1504.07922]

    work page arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Boughezal, C

    R. Boughezal, C. Focke, W. Giele, X. Liu, and F. Petriello,Higgs boson production in association with a jet at NNLO using jettiness subtraction,Phys. Lett. B748 (2015) 5–8, [arXiv:1505.03893]

    work page arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and M. Jaquier,Precise QCD predictions for the production of Higgs + jet final states,Phys. Lett. B740(2015) 147–150, [arXiv:1408.5325]. – 29 –

    work page arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, and T. A. Morgan,Precise QCD predictions for the production of a Z boson in association with a hadronic jet,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 022001, [arXiv:1507.02850]

    work page arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Boughezal, et al.,Z-boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD,Phys

    R. Boughezal, et al.,Z-boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 152001, [arXiv:1512.01291]

    work page arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams,Direct Photon Production at Next-to–Next-to-Leading Order,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 222001, [arXiv:1612.04333]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 124, 259901 (2020)]

    work page arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    H. A. Chawdhry, M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet,NNLO QCD corrections to diphoton production with an additional jet at the LHC,JHEP09(2021) 093, [arXiv:2105.06940]

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Badger, et al.,Isolated photon production in association with a jet pair through next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD,JHEP10(2023) 071, [arXiv:2304.06682]

    S. Badger, et al.,Isolated photon production in association with a jet pair through next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD,JHEP10(2023) 071, [arXiv:2304.06682]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Currie, E

    J. Currie, E. W. N. Glover, and J. Pires,Next-to-Next-to Leading Order QCD Predictions for Single Jet Inclusive Production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 072002, [arXiv:1611.01460]

    work page arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Currie, et al.,Precise predictions for dijet production at the LHC,Phys

    J. Currie, et al.,Precise predictions for dijet production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(2017) 152001, [arXiv:1705.10271]

    work page arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Currie, et al.,Infrared sensitivity of single jet inclusive production at hadron colliders,JHEP10(2018) 155, [arXiv:1807.03692]

    J. Currie, et al.,Infrared sensitivity of single jet inclusive production at hadron colliders,JHEP10(2018) 155, [arXiv:1807.03692]

    work page arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. van Hameren, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet,Single-jet inclusive rates with exact color atO(α 4 s),JHEP10(2019) 262, [arXiv:1907.12911]

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Huss, and J. Mo,NNLO QCD corrections in full colour for jet production observables at the LHC,JHEP09(2022) 025, [arXiv:2204.10173]

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet,Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Study of Three-Jet Production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 152001, [arXiv:2106.05331]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 129, 119901 (2022)]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Alvarez, et al.,NNLO QCD corrections to event shapes at the LHC,JHEP03 (2023) 129, [arXiv:2301.01086]

    M. Alvarez, et al.,NNLO QCD corrections to event shapes at the LHC,JHEP03 (2023) 129, [arXiv:2301.01086]

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Alioli, K

    S. Alioli, K. Hamilton, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re,Jet pair production in POWHEG,JHEP04(2011) 081, [arXiv:1012.3380]

    work page arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    Event generation with SHERPA 1.1

    T. Gleisberg, et al.,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1,JHEP02(2009) 007, [arXiv:0811.4622]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  25. [25]

    Reyer, M

    M. Reyer, M. Sch¨ onherr, and S. Schumann,Full NLO corrections to 3-jet production andR 32 at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 321, [arXiv:1902.01763]. – 30 –

    work page arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    J. R. Andersen and J. M. Smillie,The Factorisation of the t-channel Pole in Quark-Gluon Scattering,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 114021, [arXiv:0910.5113]

    work page arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    J. R. Andersen and J. M. Smillie,Constructing All-Order Corrections to Multi-Jet Rates,JHEP01(2010) 039, [arXiv:0908.2786]

    work page arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    J. R. Andersen and J. M. Smillie,Multiple Jets at the LHC with High Energy Jets, JHEP06(2011) 010, [arXiv:1101.5394]

    work page arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    J. R. Andersen, et al.,HEJ 2.2: W boson pairs and Higgs boson plus jet production at high energies,SciPost Phys. Codeb.(2023) 21, [arXiv:2303.15778]

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Dasgupta, F

    M. Dasgupta, F. Dreyer, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,Small-radius jets to all orders in QCD,JHEP04(2015) 039, [arXiv:1411.5182]

    work page arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Dasgupta, F

    M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,Inclusive jet spectrum for small-radius jets,JHEP06(2016) 057, [arXiv:1602.01110]

    work page arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and I. Vitev,The semi-inclusive jet function in SCET and small radius resummation for inclusive jet production,JHEP10(2016) 125, [arXiv:1606.06732]

    work page arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    L. Dai, C. Kim, and A. K. Leibovich,Fragmentation of a Jet with Small Radius, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 114023, [arXiv:1606.07411]

    work page arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Generet, K

    T. Generet, K. Lee, I. Moult, R. Poncelet, and X. Zhang,Small radius inclusive jet production at the LHC through NNLO+NNLL,JHEP08(2025) 015, [arXiv:2503.21866]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Kidonakis, G

    N. Kidonakis, G. Oderda, and G. F. Sterman,Threshold resummation for dijet cross-sections,Nucl. Phys. B525(1998) 299–332, [hep-ph/9801268]

    work page arXiv 1998

  36. [36]

    Kidonakis and J

    N. Kidonakis and J. F. Owens,Effects of higher order threshold corrections in high E(T) jet production,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 054019, [hep-ph/0007268]

    work page arXiv 2001

  37. [37]

    Liu, S.-O

    X. Liu, S.-O. Moch, and F. Ringer,Threshold and jet radius joint resummation for single-inclusive jet production,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 212001, [arXiv:1708.04641]

    work page arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Liu, S.-O

    X. Liu, S.-O. Moch, and F. Ringer,Phenomenology of single-inclusive jet production with jet radius and threshold resummation,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 056026, [arXiv:1801.07284]

    work page arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    S.-O. Moch, E. Eren, K. Lipka, X. Liu, and F. Ringer,Threshold and jet radius joint resummation for single-inclusive jet production,PoSLL2018(2018) 002, [arXiv:1808.04574]

    work page arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Cacciari and N

    M. Cacciari and N. Houdeau,Meaningful characterisation of perturbative theoretical uncertainties,JHEP09(2011) 039, [arXiv:1105.5152]

    work page arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Bonvini,Probabilistic definition of the perturbative theoretical uncertainty from missing higher orders,Eur

    M. Bonvini,Probabilistic definition of the perturbative theoretical uncertainty from missing higher orders,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 989, [arXiv:2006.16293]. – 31 –

    work page arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    C. Duhr, A. Huss, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Szafron,An analysis of Bayesian estimates for missing higher orders in perturbative calculations,JHEP09(2021) 122, [arXiv:2106.04585]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Ghosh, et al.,Statistical patterns of theory uncertainties,SciPost Phys

    A. Ghosh, et al.,Statistical patterns of theory uncertainties,SciPost Phys. Core6 (2023) 045, [arXiv:2210.15167]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    F. J. Tackmann,Beyond scale variations: perturbative theory uncertainties from nuisance parameters,JHEP08(2025) 098, [arXiv:2411.18606]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    M. A. Lim and R. Poncelet,Robust estimates of theoretical uncertainties at fixed-order in perturbation theory,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) L111901, [arXiv:2412.14910]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Bellm et al.,Jet Cross Sections at the LHC and the Quest for Higher Precision, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Jet Cross Sections at the LHC and the Quest for Higher Precision, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 93, [arXiv:1903.12563]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Czakon,A novel subtraction scheme for double-real radiation at NNLO,Phys

    M. Czakon,A novel subtraction scheme for double-real radiation at NNLO,Phys. Lett. B693(2010) 259–268, [arXiv:1005.0274]

    work page arXiv 2010

  48. [48]

    Czakon and D

    M. Czakon and D. Heymes,Four-dimensional formulation of the sector-improved residue subtraction scheme,Nucl. Phys. B890(2014) 152–227, [arXiv:1408.2500]

    work page arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Czakon, T

    M. Czakon, T. Generet, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet,B-hadron production in NNLO QCD: application to LHC t tevents with leptonic decays,JHEP10(2021) 216, [arXiv:2102.08267]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Czakon, T

    M. Czakon, T. Generet, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet,Open B-Hadron Production at Hadron Colliders in QCD at Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Order and Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Logarithmic Accuracy,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 161903, [arXiv:2411.09684]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Czakon, T

    M. Czakon, T. Generet, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet,Identified Hadron Production at Hadron Colliders in Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Order QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (2025) 17, [arXiv:2503.11489]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    K. Lee, I. Moult, and X. Zhang,Revisiting single inclusive jet production: timelike factorization and reciprocity,JHEP05(2025) 129, [arXiv:2409.19045]. [56]NNPDFCollaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663, [arXiv:1706.00428]. [57]CMSCollaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al.,Dependence of i...

    work page arXiv 2025