Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Fits of $\alpha_s$ from event-shapes in the three-jet region: extension to all energies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fitting e+e− event-shape data from 22 to 207 GeV with three-jet power corrections yields αs(MZ) = 0.1181, consistent with the world average, with the hadron-mass scheme choice as the dominant uncertainty.

desk verdict A careful multi-energy extension of the three-jet power-correction alpha_s fits; the central value is plausible and the uncertainty budget is honest, but the dominant mass-scheme uncertainty rests on unvalidated Pythia8 migrations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18173 v1 pith:DIM7DFMY submitted 2025-01-30 hep-ph

Paolo Nason , Giulia Zanderighi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t12.38.Bx
keywords strongcouplingalpha_seventshapesthree-jetpowercorrectionsNNLOQCDe+e-annihilationnon-perturbativehadronmassschemeambiguityalpha_0dispersivemodel
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

The paper tries to establish that the strong coupling $\alpha_s$ can be extracted from $e^+e^-$ event-shape data across a wide energy range, 22 to 207 GeV, by combining NNLO three-jet calculations with non-perturbative power corrections computed in the three-jet region rather than extrapolated from two jets. A simultaneous fit to the C-parameter, thrust, and the three-jet resolution variable $y_3$ gives $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1181$, consistent with the world average, and the spread in energies breaks the degeneracy between $\alpha_s$ and the non-perturbative parameter $\alpha_0$ that limited single-energy fits. The paper's key finding is that the dominant uncertainty is the hadron-mass scheme ambiguity, at about +1.6/−1.7%, which sets a floor: sub-percent accuracy from this approach is not achievable. If the result holds, it reconciles three-jet event-shape fits with the world average while explaining why different determinations in this class disagree.

What carries the argument

The computation uses NNLO (order $\alpha_s^3$) three-jet distributions from the EERAD3 code, evaluated at a dynamical renormalization scale $\mu_0$ set to the average transverse momentum $\langle k_t\rangle \approx a\,v^b$ of the Born-level gluon that produces the third jet. Non-perturbative corrections enter as a shift $\delta_{\rm NP}(v) = \zeta(v)\,H_{\rm NP}\,(1+K_1(v))$ applied to the cumulative distribution, with the three-jet $\zeta(v)$ functions replacing the older two-jet extrapolations, and the dispersive parameter $\alpha_0$ (through $H_{\rm NP}$) fitted together with $\alpha_s$. The hadron-mass ambiguity is quantified by Pythia8 migration matrices (Eq. 5.1) that convert measured distributions from the standard scheme to the E, p, and D schemes. Auxiliary machinery includes an automated fit-range choice (lower limit at twice the peak position, with the running scale kept above 4 GeV), a full covariance matrix without theory-error terms in the $\chi^2$, and an iterative grid search for the ($\alpha_s$, $\alpha_0$) minimum.

What would settle it

Recompute the mass-scheme migration matrices of Eq. (5.1) with an independent event generator (for example Herwig or Sherpa) and refit; if the central $\alpha_s$ shifts by more than the quoted $+1.6/-1.7\%$ mass-scheme error, the dominant uncertainty is underestimated. A complementary check would be a direct computation of light-hadron-mass effects in a massive-quark variant of the large-$n_f$ framework, testing whether the E/p/D scheme spread is genuinely irreducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that when the full energy range of available $e^+e^-$ data is used, fits of event-shape variables with three-jet power corrections return a value of the strong coupling fully consistent with the world average: $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1181$ with experimental uncertainties of $+0.0002/-0.0005$ and theory uncertainties of $+0.0018/-0.0021$. The multi-energy data set disentangles perturbative and non-perturbative contributions, so fits to a single observable — C, thrust, or $y_3$ — each give reasonable $\alpha_s$ values instead of the highly degenerate results of the previous Z-pole-only analysis. The largest theory uncertainty is not the renormalization scale but the choice of hadron-mass scheme (E, p, D versus the standard scheme), estimated with Pythia8 migration matrices, followed by the fit-range choice; with all uncertainties accounted for, theory variations move $\alpha_s$ by up to about three percent, so an error below one percent is out of reach for this method.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that Pythia8's Monte Carlo hadronization correctly captures the hadron-mass ambiguity through the migration matrices of Eq. (5.1), because that ambiguity is the dominant quoted uncertainty and, as the paper notes, light-hadron-mass effects cannot be studied in the large-$n_f$ framework used for the power corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-energy fits break the $\alpha_s$–$\alpha_0$ degeneracy enough that fits to a single observable (C, T, or $y_3$) give reasonable $\alpha_s$ values, although with larger errors than the combined fit.
  • Any $e^+e^-$ event-shape determination of $\alpha_s$ that ignores the hadron-mass scheme ambiguity is likely underestimating its theory error, since this ambiguity is the dominant one in the present fit.
  • For the heavy-jet mass and jet-mass difference, the three-jet power corrections are negative and describe the data better than the old two-jet extrapolation; using the two-jet input raises $\chi^2$ dramatically when these observables are included.
  • Including heavy-jet mass and jet-mass difference data in the fit raises the central $\alpha_s$ by about 2.8% and worsens the overall $\chi^2$, an effect that softens when the lower fit limit is raised — evidence of residual issues near the two-jet limit.
  • Across all theory variations considered, $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ moves by up to about three percent, so a sub-percent determination of $\alpha_s$ from this event-shape approach is not achievable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass-scheme ambiguity is as large as reported, previously published $e^+e^-$ event-shape $\alpha_s$ determinations that omit it may carry an uncounted systematic floor; part of the historical spread among such determinations could reflect this ambiguity rather than genuine physics disagreement.
  • A straightforward test of the dominant uncertainty would be to rebuild Eq. (5.1) with a second, independent generator; agreement would strengthen the 0.1181 central value, while a sizeable shift would call for a larger error or a better hadron-mass model.
  • The energy lever arm that now constrains $\alpha_0$ suggests that including data at still lower energies, where the 4 GeV scale cut allows, could further shrink the $\alpha_s$–$\alpha_0$ correlation and sharpen the test of the three-jet $\zeta(v)$ functions.
  • The paper's handling of the DELPHI heavy-jet-mass discrepancy suggests a broader lesson: cross-experiment inconsistencies in published shape-variable data may be more common than assumed, and a systematic consistency scan of all inputs could change the central fit.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the earlier single-energy analysis of Nason and Zanderighi to e+e- event-shape data at centre-of-mass energies from 22 to 207 GeV. The authors fit alpha_s(MZ) and the non-perturbative parameter alpha_0 simultaneously to thrust, C-parameter, and y3 distributions using NNLO perturbation theory (EERAD3) together with linear power corrections computed in the three-jet region. The main result is alpha_s(MZ) = 0.1181 (+0.0002 -0.0005) (+0.0018 -0.0021) from a combined CTy3 fit, with the second error dominated by the ambiguity in the hadron-mass scheme. The paper also reports individual fits, scale variations, fit-range variations, alternative non-perturbative schemes, and a fit including heavy-jet mass and jet-mass-difference data.

Significance. If the result is correct, it shows that three-jet power corrections can bring event-shape alpha_s determinations into agreement with the world average without relying on resummation in the three-jet region, and that the hadron-mass-scheme ambiguity currently prevents sub-percent precision. The analysis is thorough in its documentation of fit procedures and variations, and the use of public data and of a published independent calculation of the power corrections are strengths. The main caveat is that the dominant uncertainty is estimated with a Monte Carlo migration procedure that is not itself validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.2.1, Eq. (5.1)] The mass-scheme dependence is assessed by converting the experimental distributions with Pythia8 migration matrices. Since this is the dominant uncertainty in the quoted alpha_s error, and since the theoretical calculation is for massless partons, the migration matrix carries essentially all of the hadron-mass ambiguity. No estimate of the migration-matrix uncertainty is provided, no independent-generator cross-check is shown, and Sec. 5.2.5 concedes that light-hadron-mass effects cannot be studied in the large-nf framework. I request a robustness study: for example, varying the Pythia8 tune, comparing with an independent generator such as Herwig, or validating the migration on a data-driven quantity. Without this, the central value and the largest uncertainty are conditional on the Pythia8 hadronization model.
  2. [Tables 2 and 5; abstract] The quoted second error of +0.0018/-0.0021 equals exactly the spread of the p- and D-scheme results in Table 5. It is not explained how the scale variations, fit-range variations, non-perturbative schemes, and npup/npdn variations are combined into the final error. If the total is the envelope of all variations, this should be stated; if it is the mass-scheme variation alone, the abstract's wording is misleading. Please specify the combination rule and, if the envelope is used, list the source of the largest positive and negative deviations explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 5.4, Table 9] Including M_h^2 and M_d^2 in the fit changes alpha_s(MZ) from 0.1181 to 0.1214, a shift of about 2.8% that exceeds the quoted second error. The paper dismisses this as due to the sharp variation of the zeta functions near the two-jet limit, but does not quantify why this indicates a failure of the model rather than a genuine uncertainty. Since the main fit excludes these observables by choice, the observable-selection dependence is not reflected in the error budget. I ask for a quantitative criterion for the exclusion and, absent such a criterion, for adding the shift to the systematic uncertainty.
  4. [Table 2 and Sec. 5.1] The y3-only fit yields alpha_s = 0.1155 and alpha_0 = 0.4151, in strong disagreement with the C and T fits (alpha_0 about 0.61-0.62). The combined CTy3 fit thus includes an observable whose preferred non-perturbative parameter is far outside the common range. Table 2 shows that dropping y3 (the CT fit) gives alpha_s = 0.1173, which is 0.0008 lower. The authors should discuss whether this tension indicates a failure of the power-correction model for y3 and whether the 0.0008 shift is fully covered by the quoted uncertainties. At minimum, the compatibility of the y3 data with the other observables should be quantified by a proper goodness-of-fit test rather than by the marginal chi-square contributions in Table 3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The text contains several typos ('uncertianties', 'availabity', 'varibales', 'determimnations'); a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 1] The first error in the headline result is quoted in the abstract but its origin is not defined in the text. I assume it comes from the Delta chi^2 = 1 contours in Fig. 1; please state this explicitly and give the corresponding error on alpha_0.
  3. [Sec. 5.4] The WICKE data of ref. [36] are taken from a PhD thesis and are not in HEPData. Please specify how these data were obtained and confirm they are public.
  4. [Figs. 1-3] The figures would benefit from larger axis labels and from showing the off-peak energies in a distinct color, since many energy sets are displayed simultaneously.
  5. [Sec. 5.2.2] The fit-range variation Cll = 1.5 increases the number of bins by 88, while Cll = 3 decreases it by 137; the text explains the mu_R cut but not why the Cll variation alone changes the bin count so strongly. Please comment.
  6. [Sec. 5.2.1, Eq. (5.1)] Equation (5.1) uses the notation T(S)_{i,j}; the convention for the direction of the migration (i = standard scheme bin, j = alternative scheme bin) is not stated in the text. Please make the convention explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quoted αs(MZ) = 0.1181 is a genuine least-squares fit to roughly 900 external e+e− data points, and the only self-citations are to published, externally falsifiable power-correction calculations, with the dominant mass-scheme uncertainty resting on a Pythia8 migration that the paper itself flags as first-principles-inaccessible.

full rationale

The paper's claimed result αs(MZ) = 0.1181 is a least-squares fit of αs and α0 to about 900 measured histogram bins from external e+e− experiments (Sec. 3, HEPData [33]), so the central value is an input-driven fit to external data, not a quantity derived from the model's own assumptions, and nothing that is fitted is fed back as a prediction. The theoretical input combines the public NNLO three-jet code EERAD3 [10-12] with the three-jet power-correction framework of refs. [1] and [5]; those references include the present authors (Nason in both, Zanderighi in [1]) and the framework is load-bearing for the analysis, but it is a published, externally falsifiable calculation whose correction functions are fixed from QCD matrix elements rather than from the αs values fitted here, so the self-citation counts as real evidence, not circularity. The one clearly model-dependent ingredient is the Pythia8 migration matrix of Eq. (5.1), used to convert measured distributions between hadron-mass schemes, and it controls the dominant quoted uncertainty (+0.0018/−0.0021); the paper explicitly concedes in Sec. 5.2.5 that light-hadron-mass corrections cannot be studied in the large-nf framework because the calculation always ends up with massless partons, so the dominant error lacks a first-principles anchor and no independent validation of the migration is supplied. That is a robustness and correctness limitation, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper is equal to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, so the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The central fit depends on two fitted physics parameters (alpha_s, alpha_0) plus several analysis choices that affect the range and scale definitions. The heaviest assumptions are the self-cited three-jet power-correction calculation and the Monte Carlo-based mass-scheme conversion, which is the dominant uncertainty. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha_s(MZ) = 0.1181 (CTy3 fit)
    Strong coupling at the Z mass; the primary parameter of the fit.
  • alpha_0 = 0.5902 (CTy3 fit)
    Non-perturbative parameter in the dispersive-model shift of event-shape distributions.
  • C coefficient in K1/2 = 1
    Order-unity coefficient in the estimate of quadratic power corrections, set to 1 by hand (Sec. 2.2).
  • vpeak(E) parameters v0 and a = not quoted
    Fit to the peak position of each distribution as a function of energy, used to set the lower fit limit (Sec. 2.3).
  • dynamical scale parameters a and b in <kt> = a v^b = not quoted
    Fit to the Born-level average transverse momentum as a function of the shape variable, used as central scale mu0 (Sec. 2.1).
  • Cll = 2.0 (varied 1.5, 3)
    Multiplier of the peak position that sets the lower fit range, chosen by hand (Sec. 2.3).
  • |l_perp|/Q in zeta function extraction = 0.01
    Chosen small enough to approximate the limit l_perp/Q -> 0 (Sec. 2.2).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The EERAD3 NNLO calculation of e+e- -> 3 jets is correct.
    Used via Eq. (2.1) as the perturbative input; the paper does not re-derive or validate it.
  • domain assumption The linear power-correction formula of ref [5] (Eqs. (4.29)-(4.32) of ref [1]) correctly describes non-perturbative effects in the three-jet region.
    The entire non-perturbative treatment rests on this calculation by the authors and collaborators.
  • domain assumption A single parameter alpha_0 captures the leading 1/Q power corrections through the dispersive model.
    Standard Milan-factor/dispersive model assumption used to shift distributions by delta_NP(v) = zeta(v) * HNP.
  • ad hoc to paper Pythia8-based migration matrices faithfully convert experimental data between the standard hadron-mass scheme and the E, p, D schemes.
    Eq. (5.1) and Sec. 5.2.1: the dominant uncertainty is assessed only by this Monte Carlo conversion.
  • domain assumption Heavy-quark mass effects are correctly removed by Monte Carlo corrections.
    Stated in Sec. 2: heavy-quark mass-effects are corrected for using Monte Carlos.
  • ad hoc to paper The Born-level average transverse momentum is an appropriate central renormalization scale.
    Sec. 2.1: mu0 is chosen via a fit to <kt> at Born level, with no first-principles justification; variations of 2 up/down are used.
  • ad hoc to paper The lower fit limit set by Cll times the data peak excludes the Sudakov region sufficiently.
    Sec. 2.3: the fit range is determined by an automated recipe; the paper checks sensitivity by Cll = 1.5 and 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fits of $\alpha_s$ from event-shapes in the three-jet region: extension to all energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIM7DFMY

@misc{pith2026250118173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fits of $\alpha_s$ from event-shapes in the three-jet region: extension to all energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIM7DFMY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18173}
}
abstract

This work is an extension of a previous publication [1] where we fitted the strong coupling $\alpha_s$ together with the non-perturbative parameter $\alpha_0$ from event-shape and jet-shape distributions using power corrections computed in the three-jet region. In ref. [1] only ALEPH data at the $Z$-pole were used in the fit. Here, instead, we include a large data sample from various $e^+e^-$ experiments at energies ranging from 22 to 207 GeV and revisited the treatment of theoretical uncertainties. We find that the inclusion of different energies, while not changing the central fit result considerably, helps to disentangle the dependence of perturbative and non-perturbative corrections. Our best fit result is $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1181 (+0.0002 -0.0005) (+0.0018 -0.0021)$, where the first error includes experimental uncertianties and the second one includes uncertainties associated with scale variation, mass effects, fit limits, non-perturbative schemes and non-perturbative uncertainties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Thrust distribution in electron-positron annihilation at full NNNLL+NNLO (and beyond) in QCD

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Laplace-space resummation of the thrust distribution at N4LL accuracy yields alpha_S(mZ^2) = 0.1181 +/- 0.0018, consistent with the world average, while physical-space resummation gives a lower value.

  2. Heavy Jet Mass in Hadronic Higgs Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heavy jet mass in hadronic Higgs decays is predicted at N³LL′ (dijet) plus NNLL (Sudakov shoulder) plus NNLO, with new analytic trijet-region logarithms for H→gg and H→q̄q.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nason and G

    P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, Fits of αs using power corrections in the three-jet region , JHEP 06 (2023) 058, [ arXiv:2301.03607]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  3. [3]

    Luisoni, P

    G. Luisoni, P. F. Monni, and G. P. Salam, C-parameter hadronisation in the symmetric 3-jet limit and impact on αs fits, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 2 158, [ arXiv:2012.00622]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Caola, S

    F. Caola, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. Limatola, K. Melnikov, and P. Nason, On linear power corrections in certain collider observables , JHEP 01 (2022) 093, [ arXiv:2108.08897]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Caola, S

    F. Caola, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. Limatola, K. Melnikov, P. Nason, and M. A. Ozcelik, Linear power corrections to e+e− shape variables in the three-jet region , arXiv:2204.02247. – 18 –

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    M. A. Benitez, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, I. W. Stewart, and G. Vita, On Determining αs(mZ) from Dijets in e+e− Thrust, arXiv:2412.15164

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    G. Bell, C. Lee, Y. Makris, J. Talbert, and B. Yan, Effects of renormalon scheme and perturbative scale choices on determinations of the strong coupling from e+e- event shapes , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 9 094008, [ arXiv:2311.03990]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Dasgupta and F

    M. Dasgupta and F. Hounat, Exploring soft anomalous dimensions for 1/Q power corrections, arXiv:2411.16867

    arXiv

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    G. P. Salam and D. Wicke, Hadron masses and power corrections to event shapes , JHEP 05 (2001) 061, [ hep-ph/0102343]

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, Infrared structure of e+ e- — > 3 jets at NNLO , JHEP 11 (2007) 058, [ arXiv:0710.0346]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, NNLO corrections to event shapes in e+ e- annihilation , JHEP 12 (2007) 094, [ arXiv:0711.4711]

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, Jet rates in electron-positron annihilation at O(alpha(s)**3) in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 172001, [arXiv:0802.0813]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi,Three-Jet Production in Electron-Positron Collisions at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Accuracy , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016), no. 15 152004, [ arXiv:1603.08927]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and E. W. N. Glover, Antenna subtraction at NNLO, JHEP 09 (2005) 056, [ hep-ph/0505111]

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Akhoury and V

    R. Akhoury and V. I. Zakharov, On the universality of the leading, 1/Q power corrections in QCD, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 646–652, [ hep-ph/9504248]

    1995 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini, and B. R. Webber, Dispersive approach to power behaved contributions in QCD hard processes , Nucl. Phys. B 469 (1996) 93–142, [ hep-ph/9512336]

    1996 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. Lucenti, G. Marchesini, and G. P. Salam, Universality of 1/Q corrections to jet-shape observables rescued , Nucl. Phys. B 511 (1998) 396–418, [hep-ph/9707532]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 593, 729–730 (2001)]

    1998 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. Lucenti, G. Marchesini, and G. P. Salam, On the universality of the Milan factor for 1 / Q power corrections to jet shapes , JHEP 05 (1998) 003, [hep-ph/9802381]

    1998 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Heister et al., Studies of QCD at e+ e- centre-of-mass energies between 91-GeV and 209-GeV , Eur

    ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al., Studies of QCD at e+ e- centre-of-mass energies between 91-GeV and 209-GeV , Eur. Phys. J. C 35 (2004) 457–486

    2004

  12. [20]

    Abreu et al., Energy dependence of event shapes and of alpha(s) at LEP-2 , Phys

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Energy dependence of event shapes and of alpha(s) at LEP-2 , Phys. Lett. B 456 (1999) 322–340

    1999

  13. [21]

    Abreu et al., Consistent measurements of alpha(s) from precise oriented event shape distributions , Eur

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Consistent measurements of alpha(s) from precise oriented event shape distributions , Eur. Phys. J. C 14 (2000) 557–584, [ hep-ex/0002026]

    2000 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Abdallah et al., A Study of the energy evolution of event shape distributions and their means with the DELPHI detector at LEP , Eur

    DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., A Study of the energy evolution of event shape distributions and their means with the DELPHI detector at LEP , Eur. Phys. J. C 29 (2003) 285–312, [hep-ex/0307048]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    JADE Collaboration, P. A. Movilla Fernandez, O. Biebel, S. Bethke, S. Kluth, and P. Pfeifenschneider, A Study of event shapes and determinations of alpha-s using data of e+ – 19 – e- annihilations at s**(1/2) = 22-GeV to 44-GeV , Eur. Phys. J. C 1 (1998) 461–478, [hep-ex/9708034]

    1998 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Adeva et al., Studies of hadronic event structure and comparisons with QCD models at the Z0 resonance , Z

    L3 Collaboration, B. Adeva et al., Studies of hadronic event structure and comparisons with QCD models at the Z0 resonance , Z. Phys. C 55 (1992) 39–62

    1992

  17. [25]

    Achard et al., Determination of alphas from hadronic event shapes in e+e− annihilation at 192-GeV <= √s <= 208-GeV , Phys

    L3 Collaboration, P. Achard et al., Determination of alphas from hadronic event shapes in e+e− annihilation at 192-GeV <= √s <= 208-GeV , Phys. Lett. B 536 (2002) 217–228, [hep-ex/0206052]

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Achard et al., Studies of hadronic event structure in e+e− annihilation from 30-GeV to 209-GeV with the L3 detector , Phys

    L3 Collaboration, P. Achard et al., Studies of hadronic event structure in e+e− annihilation from 30-GeV to 209-GeV with the L3 detector , Phys. Rept. 399 (2004) 71–174, [hep-ex/0406049]

    2004 arXiv

  19. [27]

    OP ALCollaboration, P. D. Acton et al., A Global determination of α−s (M(z0) ) at LEP , Z. Phys. C 55 (1992) 1–24

    1992

  20. [28]

    OP ALCollaboration, P. D. Acton et al., A Determination of alpha-s (M (Z0)) at LEP using resummed QCD calculations, Z. Phys. C 59 (1993) 1–20

    1993

  21. [29]

    Abbiendi et al., Measurement of event shape distributions and moments in e+ e- — > hadrons at 91-GeV - 209-GeV and a determination of alpha(s) , Eur

    OP ALCollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Measurement of event shape distributions and moments in e+ e- — > hadrons at 91-GeV - 209-GeV and a determination of alpha(s) , Eur. Phys. J. C 40 (2005) 287–316, [ hep-ex/0503051]

    2005 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Abe et al., Measurement of alpha-s (M(Z)**2) from hadronic event observables at the Z0 resonance , Phys

    SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Measurement of alpha-s (M(Z)**2) from hadronic event observables at the Z0 resonance , Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 962–984, [ hep-ex/9501003]

    1995 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ohnishi et al., Measurements of alpha-s in e+ e- annihilation at TRISTAN, Phys

    TOP AZCollaboration, Y. Ohnishi et al., Measurements of alpha-s in e+ e- annihilation at TRISTAN, Phys. Lett. B 313 (1993) 475–482

    1993

  24. [32]

    Pfeifenschneider et al., QCD analyses and determinations of alpha(s) in e+ e- annihilation at energies between 35-GeV and 189-GeV , Eur

    JADE, OP ALCollaboration, P. Pfeifenschneider et al., QCD analyses and determinations of alpha(s) in e+ e- annihilation at energies between 35-GeV and 189-GeV , Eur. Phys. J. C 17 (2000) 19–51, [ hep-ex/0001055]

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Maguire, L

    E. Maguire, L. Heinrich, and G. Watt, HEPData: a repository for high energy physics data , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 898 (2017), no. 10 102006, [ arXiv:1704.05473]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Event shapes in e+ e- annihilation and deep inelastic scattering, J. Phys. G 30 (2004) R143, [ hep-ph/0312283]

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [ arXiv:1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wicke, Energieabh¨ angigkeit von Ereignisformobservablen und der starken Kopplung

    D. Wicke, Energieabh¨ angigkeit von Ereignisformobservablen und der starken Kopplung. PhD thesis, Wuppertal U., 1999

    1999

  29. [37]

    Bhattacharya, J

    A. Bhattacharya, J. K. L. Michel, M. D. Schwartz, I. W. Stewart, and X. Zhang, NNLL resummation of Sudakov shoulder logarithms in the heavy jet mass distribution , JHEP 11 (2023) 080, [ arXiv:2306.08033]. – 20 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.