pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18093 · v1 · pith:W43RBAFJnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · ⚛️ nucl-ex

Probing jet evolution with charged energy correlators in small systems

ALICE Collaboration This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 21:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex
keywords energy-energy correlatorsjet substructurehadronizationparton showerproton-proton collisionsproton-lead collisionscold nuclear mattercharged jets
0
0 comments X

The pith

Charged energy correlators inside jets separate parton shower effects from hadronization in small collision systems.

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

The ALICE measurements of charged energy-energy correlators in jets at 5.02 TeV compare proton-proton and proton-lead collisions to test how energy and charge flow during jet fragmentation. Like-sign particle pairs within the jets respond to changes in parton shower models, while unlike-sign pairs respond to different hadronization schemes. The proton-lead data show that cold nuclear matter effects act the same way regardless of charge sign. This separation gives a direct handle on the distinct energy scales in jet evolution without needing large collision systems. The results constrain the modeling choices used in event generators for high-energy collisions.

Core claim

In proton-proton collisions, like-sign charged EECs are sensitive to parton shower modeling while unlike-sign charged EECs are sensitive to hadronization schemes. In proton-lead collisions, cold nuclear matter effects on charged EECs are consistent with charge-independent behavior.

What carries the argument

charged energy-energy correlators, which measure the angular distribution of energy carried by pairs of charged particles inside jets and are split by like-sign versus unlike-sign combinations

If this is right

  • Like-sign EECs can be used to tune parton shower parameters in event generators.
  • Unlike-sign EECs can be used to test and refine hadronization models.
  • Cold nuclear matter effects can be treated as charge-independent when modeling jet observables in proton-nucleus collisions.
  • The same observables can be measured in different jet transverse momentum ranges to map the energy scales of fragmentation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The charge-sign separation could serve as a baseline for isolating medium-induced modifications when the same observables are measured in heavy-ion collisions.
  • Applying the method to jets initiated by identified partons or in electron-positron collisions would add flavor or purity information to the constraints.
  • The observables may help quantify the relative importance of perturbative and non-perturbative stages across a wider range of collision energies.

Load-bearing premise

Differences between event generators can be attributed mainly to isolated changes in their parton shower or hadronization modules.

What would settle it

Repeating the comparison with a generator set in which parton shower and hadronization modules are exchanged independently while all other components stay fixed would show whether the like-sign and unlike-sign sensitivities remain cleanly separated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18093 by ALICE Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The inclusive (left panel), charge-selected (middle three panels), and charge-weighted EECs (right panel) in pp collisions are plotted as a function of RL for 20–40 (red circles), 40–60 (blue squares), and 60–80 (purple diamonds) GeV/c charged-particle jets. Statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines, and systematic uncertainties as shaded boxes. The inclusive and charged EECs in pp collisions, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The ratio of Σ ++ EEC to Σ −− EEC in pp collisions as a function of RL for 20–40, 40–60, and 60–80 GeV/c charged-particle jets, along with predictions from five MC event generators. Statistical uncertainties on the data are shown as vertical lines, and systematic uncertainties as shaded boxes. Ratios to the data are shown in the second row, and the relative combined statistical and systematic uncertainties… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the inclusive and charge-selected EECs in pp collisions for 20–40 GeV/c jets with five different MC models. In the first row, statistical uncertainties on the data are shown as vertical lines, and systematic uncertainties are shown as shaded boxes. Statistical uncertainties on the five models are shown as shaded bands around the lines but are mostly too small to be seen. For the model-to-data… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the charge-weighted EEC in pp collisions with five different Monte Carlo models in each interval of pT,chjet. In the first row, statistical uncertainties on the data are shown as vertical lines, and systematic uncertainties are shown as shaded boxes. Statistical uncertainties on the five models are shown as shaded bands around the lines but are mostly too small to be seen. For the model-to-da… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The scaled inclusive and charged EECs in pp collisions in each of the pT,chjet intervals. 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Tra n sitio n s c ale (G e V/c) EEC + EEC ++ EEC EEC 20 40 60 ­ pT, ch jet ® (GeV/c) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 P e a k h eig ht (c/G e V) 20 40 60 ­ pT, ch jet ® (GeV/c) 20 40 60 ­ pT, ch jet ® (GeV/c) ALICE pp p s = 5.02 TeV Anti-kT ch-particle jets R= 0.4, | jet| < 0.5 p track T > 1 GeV/c 20 40 60 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The transition scales (top row) and peak heights (bottom row) of the scaled charged and inclusive EECs in ALICE data, as a function of the average pT,chjet in each interval. The statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines, and the systematic uncertainties are shown as shaded boxes. The horizontal uncertainties are set to ±5 GeV/c and are purely for visibility. Constant (blue) and linear fits (ora… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The transition scales (top row) and peak heights (bottom row) in pp collision data compared to MC models in each interval of pT,chjet. The data points for the MC models are offset within each interval for visibility only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The charged EEC asymmetry, defined as the ratio of the charge-weighted EEC to the inclusive EEC, in pp collisions in the three pT,chjet intervals. The statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines, and the systematic uncertainties as shaded gray boxes. The transition angles, defined as the transition scale divided by ⟨pT,chjet⟩ in the given interval, are extracted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The inclusive and charged EECs in p–Pb collisions. Statistical uncertainties are shown as lines, and systematic uncertainties shown as shaded boxes. 5.5 Comparison to pQCD predictions New theoretical techniques have recently been developed to calculate infrared- and collinear-unsafe ob￾servables like the charged EECs in both elementary pp collisions and those modified by nuclear matter, as in p–Pb collisio… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ratio of charged and inclusive EECs in p–Pb to pp collisions for jets with 20 < pT,chjet < 40 GeV/c. 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 ALICE Light-ray OPE NLL twist-2 + LO twist-4 EEC pp, p Pb p sNN = 5.02 TeV anti-kT ch-particle jets, R= 0.4 + EEC 10 2 10 1 RL 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 | jet| < 0.5, p track T > 1 GeV/c 20 < pT, ch jet < 40 GeV/c ++ EEC 10 2 10 1 RL EEC 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 p P… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the charged and inclusive EEC ratio in p–Pb to pp collisions for 20–40 GeV/c charged￾particle jets with a pQCD calculation based on [13]. The excellent agreement between this calculation and the data shows that theoretical calculations can now account for cold nuclear matter effects. However, it should be noted that, because the twist-4 matrix element is fitted to the ΣEEC ratio, the calcula… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The ALICE Collaboration presents measurements of charged energy-energy correlators (charged EECs) within charged-particle jets at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ Tev in proton-proton and proton-lead collisions at the LHC. Charged EECs are a class of jet substructure observables that trace the flow of energy and electric charge within a jet, and provide a tool for disentangling the energy scales involved in the jet fragmentation process through the angular separation and charges of particle pairs. The interplay between energy distribution and charge conservation enables charged EECs to provide novel constraints on hadronization mechanisms. Measurements of charged EECs in proton--proton collisions in charged-particle jets with $20 < p_{\rm T,chjet} < 80$ GeV/$c$ are compared to event generators to investigate different hadronization mechanisms and parton shower models. These model comparisons show that the like-sign EECs are sensitive to changes in parton shower modeling, while unlike-sign EECs are sensitive to different hadronization schemes. Measurements in proton-lead collisions indicate that cold nuclear matter effects on charged EECs are consistent with charge-independent behavior.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The ALICE Collaboration reports measurements of charged energy-energy correlators (EECs) in charged-particle jets (20 < p_T,chjet < 80 GeV/c) at √s_NN = 5.02 TeV in pp and p-Pb collisions. Like-sign and unlike-sign charged EECs are compared to event generators to extract sensitivities to parton-shower modeling versus hadronization schemes; p-Pb results are used to assess cold-nuclear-matter effects, which are found to be charge-independent.

Significance. If the generator comparisons isolate the varied components, the work supplies a new experimental handle on the interplay of energy flow and charge conservation inside jets. The direct LHC data and the reported separation between like-sign (shower-sensitive) and unlike-sign (hadronization-sensitive) observables constitute a concrete, falsifiable input for fragmentation modeling that is not available from conventional jet observables.

major comments (1)
  1. [Model comparisons] Model-comparison section: the attribution that unlike-sign EECs are sensitive to hadronization schemes (while like-sign EECs respond to parton showers) presupposes that the compared generators differ only in the hadronization module, with shower ordering, color reconnection, PDFs, and MPI settings held fixed. The manuscript must document the exact generator versions, tunes, and parameter lists used for each comparison; absent such documentation the observed differences cannot be cleanly assigned to hadronization.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the phrase 'different hadronization schemes' should be accompanied by a brief parenthetical listing the specific models (e.g., Lund string vs. cluster) that are actually varied.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: axis labels and legend entries for like-sign versus unlike-sign distributions should be made consistent across all panels to avoid reader confusion when comparing pp and p-Pb results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comment on the model-comparison section. We address the point below and will incorporate the requested documentation in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Model-comparison section: the attribution that unlike-sign EECs are sensitive to hadronization schemes (while like-sign EECs respond to parton showers) presupposes that the compared generators differ only in the hadronization module, with shower ordering, color reconnection, PDFs, and MPI settings held fixed. The manuscript must document the exact generator versions, tunes, and parameter lists used for each comparison; absent such documentation the observed differences cannot be cleanly assigned to hadronization.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of the generator configurations is necessary to support the attribution of sensitivities. In the revised manuscript we will add a new table (or expanded subsection) that lists, for each generator and tune employed in the comparisons: the exact version number, the tune name and reference, the PDF set, the MPI and color-reconnection settings, and any other parameters that were varied or held fixed. This will allow readers to verify the extent to which the observed differences can be ascribed to hadronization versus parton-shower modeling. The generators were selected following standard practices in the field to isolate the targeted physics components, but we acknowledge that the current text does not provide the full parameter list and will correct this omission. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; data-driven measurement with external generator comparisons

full rationale

This is an experimental measurement paper reporting charged EEC distributions in pp and p-Pb collisions and comparing them to external event generators. The central claims concern observed sensitivities (like-sign to shower modeling, unlike-sign to hadronization) extracted from those comparisons rather than any internal derivation, fit, or self-referential equation. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described content. The attribution of differences to specific generator modules is an interpretive statement whose validity can be checked against the cited external codes; it does not reduce the reported measurements to the paper's own inputs by construction. This is the expected non-circular outcome for a data-driven analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on established experimental techniques for jet reconstruction and particle identification rather than introducing new free parameters, axioms, or entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions in charged-particle jet reconstruction and background subtraction at mid-rapidity in the ALICE detector
    Invoked when defining the charged-particle jets with 20 < p_T,chjet < 80 GeV/c

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5721 in / 1293 out tokens · 26104 ms · 2026-06-26T21:41:35.654885+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

40 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP2008(Apr.,

  2. [2]

    063–063,arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Energy Correlations in Electron-Positron Annihilation: Testing Quantum Chromodynamics

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, “Energy Correlations in Electron-Positron Annihilation: Testing Quantum Chromodynamics”,Phys. Rev. Lett.41(Dec, 1978) 1585–1588. [4]STARCollaboration, B. E. Aboonaet al., “Measurement of Two-Point Energy Correlators within Jets inp+pCollisions at √s=200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(Sep, 2025) 111901, arX...

    arXiv 1978

  4. [4]

    Gluon Polarimetry with Energy-Energy Correlators

    Y .-K. Song, S.-Y . Wei, L. Yang, and J. Zhou, “Gluon Polarimetry with Energy-Energy Correlators”,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(Mar, 2026) 131901,arXiv:2509.14960 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Early-Time Dynamics of Heavy-Ion Collisions through Energy Correlators: celestial blocks and the spacetime structure of out-of-equilibrium QCD matter

    J. Barata, J. G. Milhano, A. V . Sadofyev, and J. M. Silva, “Early-Time Dynamics of Heavy-Ion Collisions through Energy Correlators: celestial blocks and the spacetime structure of out-of-equilibrium QCD matter”,arXiv:2512.17009 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Simple Scaling Laws for Energy Correlators in Nuclear Matter

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, “Simple Scaling Laws for Energy Correlators in Nuclear Matter”,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(Mar, 2026) 122301,arXiv:2411.15298 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Energy Correlators: A Journey From Theory to Experiment

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, “Energy Correlators: A Journey From Theory to Experiment”, arXiv:2506.09119 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Energy Correlators Taking Charge

    K. Lee and I. Moult, “Energy Correlators Taking Charge”,arXiv:2308.00746 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  9. [9]

    AnalyzingN-Point Energy Correlators inside Jets with CMS Open Data

    P. T. Komiske, I. Moult, J. Thaler, and H. X. Zhu, “AnalyzingN-Point Energy Correlators inside Jets with CMS Open Data”,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(Feb, 2023) 051901,arXiv:2201.07800 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Parton fragmentation and string dynamics

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjöstrand, “Parton fragmentation and string dynamics”,Phys. Rept.97(1983) 31–145

    1983

  11. [11]

    Jet fragmentation of multiparton configurations in a string framework

    T. Sjöstrand, “Jet fragmentation of multiparton configurations in a string framework”,Nuclear Physics B248(1984) 469–502

    1984

  12. [12]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty,et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3”SciPost Phys. Codebases(2022) 8,arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Herwig 7.3 release note

    G. Bewick, S. F. Ravasio,et al., “Herwig 7.3 release note”,arXiv:2312.05175 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Event generation with Sherpa 3

    E. Bothmann, L. Flower,et al., “Event generation with Sherpa 3”,arXiv:2410.22148 [hep-ph]. [22]ALICECollaboration, E. Abbaset al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”,JINST8 (2013) P10016,arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex]. [23]ALICECollaboration, K. Aamodtet al., “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks”,JINST5(2010) P03003,arXiv:1...

    arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events

    J. Alme, Y . Andres,et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622(Oct., 2010) 316–367, arXiv:arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det]. [25]ALICECollaboration, B. Abelevet al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29(2014) 1430044,a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    Towards jetography

    G. P. Salam, “Towards jetography”,Eur . Phys. J. C67(May, 2010) 637–686,arXiv:0906.1833 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    FastJet User Manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual”,Eur . Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]. 19 Charged EECs in small systems with ALICE ALICE Collaboration

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Pileup subtraction using jet areas

    M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,Phys. Lett. B659(Jan., 2008) 119–126,arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    The Catchment Area of Jets

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The Catchment Area of Jets”,JHEP2008(Apr., 2008) 005–005,arXiv:0802.1188 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  20. [20]

    Brunet al.,GEANT

    R. Brunet al.,GEANT. CERN Program Library. CERN, Geneva, 1993. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1073159. Long Writeup W5013

    arXiv 1993

  21. [21]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sjöstrandet al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”Comput. Phys. Commun.191(June, 2015) 159–177,arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune

    P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,Eur . Phys. J. C 74(Aug, 2014) 3024,arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    The Monte Carlo event generator DPMJET-III

    S. Roesler, R. Engel, and J. Ranft, “The Monte Carlo event generator DPMJET-III”, in International Conference on Advanced Monte Carlo for Radiation Physics, Particle Transport Simulation and Applications (MC 2000), pp. 1033–1038. 12, 2000.arXiv:hep-ph/0012252

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  24. [24]

    Photoproduction within the two-component Dual Parton Model: amplitudes and cross sections

    R. Engel, “Photoproduction within the two-component Dual Parton Model: amplitudes and cross sections”,Z. Phys. C66(Mar, 1995) 203–214

    1995

  25. [25]

    Azimuthally-differential pion femtoscopy relative to the third harmonic event plane in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    A. Fedynitch,Cascade equations and hadronic interactions at very high energies. PhD thesis, KIT, Karlsruhe, Dept. Phys., 11, 2015. [36]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Azimuthally-differential pion femtoscopy relative to the third harmonic event plane in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B785(2018) 320–331,arXiv:1803.10594 [nucl-ex]. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem

    G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A362(1994) 487–498

    1994

  27. [27]

    Comparison of unfolding methods using RooFitUnfold

    L. Brenner, R. Balasubramanian, C. Burgard, W. Verkerke, G. Cowan, P. Verschuuren, and V . Croft, “Comparison of unfolding methods using RooFitUnfold”,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) 2050145,arXiv:1910.14654 [physics.data-an]

    arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”,JHEP2006(May,

  29. [29]

    026–026,arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Tuning Monte Carlo generators: The Perugia tunes

    P. Z. Skands, “Tuning Monte Carlo generators: The Perugia tunes”,Phys. Rev. D82(Oct, 2010) 074018,arXiv:1005.3457 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  31. [31]

    HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA, and AA collisions

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA, and AA collisions”,Phys. Rev. D44(Dec, 1991) 3501–3516

    1991

  32. [32]

    Herwig++ physics and manual

    M. Bähr, S. Gieseke,et al., “Herwig++ physics and manual”,Eur . Phys. J. C58(Nov., 2008) 639–707,arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

    Transverse-momentum-ordered showers and interleaved multiple interactions

    T. Sjöstrand and P. Z. Skands, “Transverse-momentum-ordered showers and interleaved multiple interactions”,Eur . Phys. J. C39(Feb, 2005) 129–154,arXiv:hep-ph/0408302 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  34. [34]

    VINCIA for hadron colliders

    N. Fischer, S. Prestel, M. Ritzmann, and P. Skands, “VINCIA for hadron colliders”,Eur . Phys. J. C76(Oct., 2016) 589,arXiv:1605.06142 [hep-ph]. 20 Charged EECs in small systems with ALICE ALICE Collaboration

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Sector showers for hadron collisions

    H. Brooks, C. T. Preuss, and P. Skands, “Sector showers for hadron collisions”,JHEP2020(Jul,

  36. [36]

    32,arXiv:2003.00702 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    A simple shower and matching algorithm

    W. T. Giele, D. A. Kosower, and P. Z. Skands, “A simple shower and matching algorithm”,Phys. Rev. D78(Jul, 2008) 014026,arXiv:0707.3652 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    Multipole photon radiation in the Vincia parton shower

    P. Skands and R. Verheyen, “Multipole photon radiation in the Vincia parton shower”,Phys. Lett. B811(2020) 135878,arXiv:2002.04939 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, “A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation”,JHEP2008(Mar., 2008) 038–038,arXiv:0709.1027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    A modified cluster-hadronisation model

    J.-C. Winter, F. Krauss, and G. Soff, “A modified cluster-hadronisation model”,Eur . Phys. J. C36 (Aug., 2004) 381–395,arXiv:hep-ph/0311085 [hep-ph]. 21 Charged EECs in small systems with ALICE ALICE Collaboration A The ALICE Collaboration D.A.H. Abdallah 134, I.J. Abualrob 112, S. Acharya 49, K. Agarwal II,23, G. Aglieri Rinella 32, L. Aglietta 24, N. Ag...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004