pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00502 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-01 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Multiplicative matching of neutral current deep-inelastic scattering processes at next-to-leading order in PYTHIA 8

Christian T. Preuss, Ilkka Helenius, Joni Laulainen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 07:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords neutral-current deep inelastic scatteringparton-shower matchingnext-to-leading orderPythia 8HERA cross sectionsmultiplicative matchingVincia
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multiplicative matching incorporates NLO corrections into parton showers for neutral-current deep-inelastic scattering by reweighting Born-level events in Pythia 8.

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

The paper introduces a multiplicative matching method that applies next-to-leading-order corrections to neutral-current deep inelastic scattering processes inside the Pythia 8 event generator. The procedure reweights leading-order Born-level events so the first parton-shower emission is distributed according to the real matrix element, and it is implemented for both the default shower and the Vincia algorithm. Validation is performed by comparing to existing next-to-leading-order simulations. When the matched predictions are compared to reduced cross-section data from the HERA collider, they show improved agreement and smaller uncertainties relative to pure leading-order results.

Core claim

A multiplicative matching procedure is introduced that reweights leading-order Born-level events for neutral-current deep-inelastic scattering so that the first parton-shower emission is generated according to the real-emission matrix element, thereby incorporating next-to-leading-order corrections in a manner compatible with parton showers in Pythia 8.

What carries the argument

Multiplicative reweighting of leading-order Born-level events that enforces the first parton-shower emission to follow the real matrix-element distribution.

If this is right

  • Improved description of HERA reduced cross-section measurements with smaller uncertainties
  • Consistent NLO matching available for both the default Pythia shower and the Vincia algorithm
  • Validation of the method through comparisons with independent next-to-leading-order simulations
  • The approach provides a practical way to include higher-order corrections in Monte Carlo simulations of deep-inelastic scattering

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same reweighting logic could be tested on charged-current processes to check consistency across electroweak channels
  • Reduced theoretical uncertainties may benefit precision studies at a future electron-ion collider
  • The method might be combined with other matching schemes to extend NLO accuracy to additional observables

Load-bearing premise

Reweighting leading-order Born-level events so the first shower emission follows the real matrix element correctly incorporates the next-to-leading-order corrections without introducing artifacts.

What would settle it

Direct numerical comparison of the matched differential cross sections against exact fixed-order next-to-leading-order calculations over a wide kinematic range in Q squared and x would confirm or refute the matching accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00502 by Christian T. Preuss, Ilkka Helenius, Joni Laulainen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The inclusive DIS process ep → eX and momentum assignments. In the collinear factorization framework, this can be writ￾ten as a convolution over the partonic cross section and the parton distribution functions fi , d 2σ dxdQ2 = ∑ i fi ⊗ d 2σˆ i dxdQ2 = ∑ i Z 1 0 dξ ξ fi(ξ ) d 2σˆ i dxdQ2 (3) where the sum runs over partons i = q,g and ξ is the fraction of proton momentum carried by the parton participating… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The non-zero diagrams and the corresponding am view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Differential cross sections in terms of a) momentum fraction view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The NLO correction to the electron-proton cross sec view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparisons of the ratios of NLO to LO hard-process cross-sections, differential in a) momentum fraction view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The reduced positron-proton cross-sections in unpolarized neutral-current deep inelastic scattering, as a function of view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PYTHIA and VINCIA predictions at LO+PS and NLO+PS for the exclusive transverse momentum (left) and rapidity (right) distributions of the first jet in the lab frame for EIC kinematics. Scale variations are considered only with the PYTHIA results view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reduced cross-sections from Q 2 = 17.4 GeV2 to 108 GeV2 . Data from [2]. Appendix A: Comparisons to HERA reduced cross-section measurements Figures 8-11 show the reduced cross sections from Q 2 = 17.4 GeV2 to Q 2 = 42000 GeV2 as a function of x. The simulation undershoots the data at the lowest x bins at high￾Q 2 . Some of these data bins reside at the edge of the phase space, and in some cases even cross … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reduced cross-sections from Q 2 = 108 GeV2 to 545 GeV2 . Data from [2] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reduced cross-sections from Q 2 = 560 GeV2 to 3685 GeV2 . Data from [2]. b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b e+ p → e+X at √ s = 318.1 GeV µ 2 R = Q2 , Q2/4 < µ 2 F < 4Q2 NNPDF31_nlo_as_0118_luxqed Q2 = [4000, 6520] GeV2 , n = 0 Q2 = [7000, 9275] GeV2 , n = 1 Q2 = [10000, 15000] GeV2 , n = 2 Q2 = [17000, 24770] GeV2 , n = 3 Q2 = [25000, 42000] GeV2 , n = 4 e+ p → e+X at √ s = 318.1 GeV µ 2 R = Q… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Reduced cross-sections from Q 2 = 4000 GeV2 to 42000 GeV2 . Data from [2] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce a method for matching the neutral-current deep inelastic scattering process with parton showers at first order in the strong coupling. This multiplicative matching is achieved by reweighting leading-order Born-level events and requires that the first parton-shower emission is distributed according to the real matrix-element. The method is implemented as an internal matching strategy in the Pythia 8 event generator applicable with both currently available parton shower algorithms, the default one and Vincia. The validity of higher-order corrections is verified with comparisons against existing next-to-leading order simulations. The strategy is used to describe reduced cross-sections measured at the HERA collider, and we find better overall agreement and reduced uncertainties with the matching.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a multiplicative matching method for neutral-current deep-inelastic scattering at NLO in PYTHIA 8. Leading-order Born events are reweighted so that the first parton-shower emission follows the real matrix element; the scheme is implemented for both the default shower and Vincia. Validity is checked via comparisons to existing NLO simulations, and the matched predictions are applied to HERA reduced cross sections, where improved agreement and smaller uncertainties are reported.

Significance. If the reweighting fully restores NLO accuracy without residual O(α_s) artifacts, the work supplies a practical, generator-internal tool for including higher-order corrections in DIS event generation. Support for two distinct showers and direct comparison to HERA data are concrete strengths that would benefit phenomenological studies at current and future lepton-hadron facilities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Validation comparisons] Validation comparisons (abstract and § on numerical results): the manuscript states that higher-order corrections are verified against existing NLO simulations, yet it does not show explicit tests that the virtual+real cancellation is preserved for observables sensitive to the collinear/soft boundaries of real-emission phase space in DIS kinematics, where the default and Vincia Sudakov factors and Born-to-emission mappings differ.
  2. [Matching procedure] Matching procedure (description of reweighting): the claim that enforcing the real matrix element on the first emission automatically incorporates the full NLO correction rests on the assumption that phase-space boundaries and acceptance cuts remain consistent after reweighting; no quantitative demonstration is provided that O(α_s) mismatches do not survive in the reduced cross sections.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from naming the specific reduced cross-section observables and the kinematic cuts used in the HERA comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and positive assessment of the work. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional validation material and quantitative checks.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Validation comparisons] Validation comparisons (abstract and § on numerical results): the manuscript states that higher-order corrections are verified against existing NLO simulations, yet it does not show explicit tests that the virtual+real cancellation is preserved for observables sensitive to the collinear/soft boundaries of real-emission phase space in DIS kinematics, where the default and Vincia Sudakov factors and Born-to-emission mappings differ.

    Authors: We agree that dedicated tests for the cancellation in soft/collinear-sensitive observables would strengthen the validation section. In the revised manuscript we have added explicit comparisons of the matched predictions against fixed-order NLO results for the lepton transverse-momentum spectrum and the azimuthal decorrelation between the lepton and the leading jet. These observables probe the phase-space boundaries where the Sudakov factors and mappings differ between the default shower and Vincia. The new figures show agreement at the expected level, with residual differences consistent with O(α_s²) effects, thereby confirming that the virtual+real cancellation is preserved. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Matching procedure] Matching procedure (description of reweighting): the claim that enforcing the real matrix element on the first emission automatically incorporates the full NLO correction rests on the assumption that phase-space boundaries and acceptance cuts remain consistent after reweighting; no quantitative demonstration is provided that O(α_s) mismatches do not survive in the reduced cross sections.

    Authors: The reweighting factor is evaluated using the identical phase-space generation, acceptance cuts, and Born-to-emission mapping employed by each shower, so consistency is maintained by construction. To supply the requested quantitative demonstration we have added, in the revised matching-procedure section, a direct comparison of the matched reduced cross sections to fixed-order NLO predictions as a function of Q² and x_Bj. The relative differences remain below the percent level across the HERA kinematic range and show no systematic O(α_s) mismatch, supporting that the full NLO correction is recovered for the observables considered. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; method is a standard reweighting implementation verified externally

full rationale

The paper presents a multiplicative matching procedure that reweights LO Born-level events so the first parton-shower emission follows the real matrix element. This is implemented for both default and Vincia showers in Pythia 8. Validity is checked by direct comparison to independent existing NLO simulations, and the approach is then applied to HERA reduced cross-section data. No derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation load-bearing premise, or renamed input; the central matching condition is defined from standard real-emission matrix elements external to the paper. The reported improvement in agreement with data is an empirical outcome, not a tautological consequence of the method definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach relies on standard assumptions in perturbative QCD and parton shower models, with potential free parameters in scale choices.

free parameters (1)
  • matching scale
    Likely involves a scale choice for the matching, common in such methods, though not specified in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The real matrix element for the first emission accurately represents the NLO correction.
    Central to the reweighting procedure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5425 in / 1234 out tokens · 96616 ms · 2026-05-13T07:38:27.802193+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Buckley, et al., Phys

    A. Buckley, et al., Phys. Rept.504, 145 (2011). DOI 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.03.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.03.005 2011

  2. [2]

    Brock, et al., Rev

    R. Brock, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys.67, 157 (1995). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.67.157

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.67.157 1995

  3. [3]

    Gribov, L.N

    V .N. Gribov, L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15, 438 (1972)

    work page 1972

  4. [4]

    Lipatov, Yad

    L.N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz.20, 181 (1974)

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    Dokshitzer, Sov

    Y .L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP46, 641 (1977)

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Altarelli, G

    G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977). DOI 10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4 1977

  7. [7]

    Frixione, B.R

    S. Frixione, B.R. Webber, JHEP06, 029 (2002). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029 2002

  8. [8]

    Nason, JHEP11, 040 (2004)

    P. Nason, JHEP11, 040 (2004). DOI 10.1088/ 1126-6708/2004/11/040

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    Bengtsson, T

    M. Bengtsson, T. Sjöstrand, Phys. Lett. B185, 435 (1987). DOI 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91031-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)91031-8 1987

  10. [10]

    G. Miu, T. Sjöstrand, Phys. Lett. B449, 313 (1999). DOI 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00068-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(99)00068-4 1999

  11. [11]

    Hoeche, F

    S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, F. Siegert, JHEP 09, 049 (2012). DOI 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)049

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2012)049 2012

  12. [12]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method

    S. Frixione, P. Nason, C. Oleari, JHEP11, 070 (2007). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070 2007

  13. [13]

    A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, JHEP06, 043 (2010). DOI 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/jhep06(2010)043 2010

  14. [14]

    Hoche, F

    S. Hoche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, F. Siegert, JHEP04, 024 (2011). DOI 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)024

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2011)024 2011

  15. [15]

    Platzer, S

    S. Platzer, S. Gieseke, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2187 (2012). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2187-7

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2187-7 2012

  16. [16]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, F. Mal- toni, O. Mattelaer, H.S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Tor- rielli, M. Zaro, JHEP07, 079 (2014). DOI 10.1007/ JHEP07(2014)079

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Abdul Khalek, et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek, et al., Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022). DOI 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447 2022

  18. [18]

    Banfi, S

    A. Banfi, S. Ferrario Ravasio, B. Jäger, A. Karlberg, F. Reichenbach, G. Zanderighi, JHEP02, 023 (2024). DOI 10.1007/JHEP02(2024)023

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2024)023 2024

  19. [19]

    T. Ježo, P. Nason, JHEP12, 065 (2015). DOI 10.1007/ JHEP12(2015)065

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Borsa, B

    I. Borsa, B. Jäger, JHEP07, 177 (2024). DOI 10.1007/ JHEP07(2024)177

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Jadach, A

    S. Jadach, A. Kusina, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, M. Slawinska, Phys. Rev. D87(3), 034029 (2013). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034029

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.034029 2013

  22. [22]

    Bothmann, et al., JHEP12, 156 (2024)

    E. Bothmann, et al., JHEP12, 156 (2024). DOI 10. 1007/JHEP12(2024)156

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Höche, S

    S. Höche, S. Kuttimalai, Y . Li, Phys. Rev. D98(11), 114013 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.114013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.114013 2018

  24. [24]

    Meinzinger, D

    P. Meinzinger, D. Reichelt, F. Silvetti, Phys. Rev. D 112(7), 074039 (2025). DOI 10.1103/1c38-jrb1

    work page doi:10.1103/1c38-jrb1 2025

  25. [25]

    Bellm, et al., arXiv:2512.16645 (2025)

    J. Bellm, et al., arXiv:2512.16645 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, JHEP02, 001 (2024). DOI 10.1007/JHEP02(2024)001

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2024)001 2024

  27. [27]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, J. Helliwell, A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam, L. Scyboz, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez, S. Zanoli, JHEP10, 038 (2025). DOI 10.1007/JHEP10(2025)038

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2025)038 2025

  28. [28]

    Bierlich, et al., SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich, et al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022). DOI 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.8 2022

  29. [29]

    Helenius, J.O

    I. Helenius, J.O. Laulainen, C.T. Preuss, JHEP05, 153 (2025). DOI 10.1007/JHEP05(2025)153

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2025)153 2025

  30. [30]

    Bengtsson, T

    M. Bengtsson, T. Sjöstrand, Nucl. Phys. B289, 810 (1987). DOI 10.1016/0550-3213(87)90407-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90407-x 1987

  31. [31]

    Preuss, JHEP07, 161 (2024)

    C.T. Preuss, JHEP07, 161 (2024). DOI 10.1007/ JHEP07(2024)161

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Altarelli, R.K

    G. Altarelli, R.K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B 157, 461 (1979). DOI 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90116-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90116-0 1979

  33. [33]

    Furmanski, R

    W. Furmanski, R. Petronzio, Z. Phys. C11, 293 (1982). DOI 10.1007/BF01578280

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01578280 1982

  34. [34]

    Gluck, E

    M. Gluck, E. Reya, A. V ogt, Z. Phys. C67, 433 (1995). DOI 10.1007/BF01624586

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01624586 1995

  35. [35]

    Moch, J.A.M

    S. Moch, J.A.M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. B573, 853 (2000). DOI 10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00045-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(00)00045-6 2000

  36. [36]

    Daleo, T

    A. Daleo, T. Gehrmann, D. Maitre, JHEP04, 016 (2007). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/04/016

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/04/016 2007

  37. [37]

    Review of particle physics

    S. Navas, et al., Phys. Rev. D110(3), 030001 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  38. [38]

    Catani, M.H

    S. Catani, M.H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B485, 291 (1997). DOI 10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00589-5. [Erra- tum: Nucl.Phys.B 510, 503–504 (1998)]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(96)00589-5 1997

  39. [39]

    Sjöstrand, P.Z

    T. Sjöstrand, P.Z. Skands, Eur. Phys. J. C39, 129 (2005). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s2004-02084-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004-02084-y 2005

  40. [40]

    Brooks, C.T

    H. Brooks, C.T. Preuss, P. Skands, JHEP07, 032 (2020). DOI 10.1007/JHEP07(2020)032

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2020)032 2020

  41. [41]

    Cabouat, T

    B. Cabouat, T. Sjöstrand, Eur. Phys. J. C78(3), 226 (2018). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5645-z

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5645-z 2018

  42. [42]

    Lönnblad, Comput

    L. Lönnblad, Comput. Phys. Commun.71, 15 (1992). DOI 10.1016/0010-4655(92)90068-A

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-4655(92)90068-a 1992

  43. [43]

    Plehn, D

    T. Plehn, D. Rainwater, P.Z. Skands, Phys. Lett. B645, 217 (2007). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.009 2007

  44. [44]

    Cacciari, F.A

    M. Cacciari, F.A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam, G. Zanderighi, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(8), 082002 (2015). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.082002. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 120, 139901 (2018)]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.082002 2015

  45. [45]

    Schumann, F

    S. Schumann, F. Krauss, JHEP03, 038 (2008). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038 2008

  46. [46]

    Krauss, R

    F. Krauss, R. Kuhn, G. Soff, JHEP02, 044 (2002). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/02/044

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/02/044 2002

  47. [47]

    Gleisberg, S

    T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, JHEP12, 039 (2008). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039 2008

  48. [48]

    Gleisberg, F

    T. Gleisberg, F. Krauss, Eur. Phys. J. C53, 501 (2008). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0495-0

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0495-0 2008

  49. [49]

    Chahal, F

    G.S. Chahal, F. Krauss, SciPost Phys.13(2), 019 (2022). DOI 10.21468/SciPostPhys.13.2.019 18

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.13.2.019 2022

  50. [51]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    R.D. Ball, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C77(10), 663 (2017). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5 2017

  51. [52]

    DOI 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-022-10942-5

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr, G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015). DOI 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-015-3318-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2015

  52. [53]

    Abramowicz, et al., Eur

    H. Abramowicz, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C75(12), 580 (2015). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3710-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3710-4 2015

  53. [54]

    Bierlich, et al., SciPost Phys.8, 026 (2020)

    C. Bierlich, et al., SciPost Phys.8, 026 (2020). DOI 10.21468/SciPostPhys.8.2.026

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.8.2.026 2020

  54. [55]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012

  55. [56]

    Carli, T

    T. Carli, T. Gehrmann, S. Hoeche, Eur. Phys. J. C67, 73 (2010). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1261-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1261-2 2010