Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Clustering logarithms up to six loops

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper computes the leading clustering logarithms for the $k_t$ jet algorithm through six loops and shows their resummed exponential reproduces the all-orders Monte Carlo result at the percent level.

desk verdict New five- and six-loop clustering-log coefficients, but the decisive integrals are hidden in a notebook and the factorization pattern has gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03244 v2 pith:JQX2OU27 submitted 2024-12-04 hep-ph

K. Khelifa-Kerfa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords clusteringlogarithmsnon-globalktjetalgorithmresummationeikonalapproximationsingle-jetmassabeliansubstructure
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

Clustering logarithms are large QCD corrections that enter jet-mass distributions only because the $k_t$ algorithm clusters soft gluons; previous calculations reached four loops. This paper carries the fixed-order series to five and six loops, finding $F_5(R)\simeq-0.013$ and $F_6(R)\simeq0.010$, both nearly constant in the jet radius. It then exponentiates the coefficients and compares the result with an all-orders Monte Carlo simulation, obtaining agreement at the percent level. If the calculation is right, the clustering-logarithm series is under control at four loops, and the missing higher orders cannot affect precision jet phenomenology.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the master formula for the analytic structure of $k_t$ clustering from Ref. [1], which writes the all-orders measurement operator as products of step functions: $\Theta_i^{\mathrm{in/out}}$ for jet-region membership and $\Omega_{ij}$ for pairwise clustering. The paper uses this formula to build the five- and six-loop clustering functions $\Xi^{kt}_{1\cdots5}$ and $\Xi^{kt}_{1\cdots6}$; at every order the clustering function splits into reducible products of lower-order functions plus one irreducible term $\Xi^{kt}_{1\cdots n}$, whose phase-space integral defines the new coefficient $F_n(R)$. The eikonal approximation and strong energy ordering reduce the squared amplitudes to products of single-gluon antenna functions, making the multidimensional integrals tractable.

What would settle it

Compute the five-loop coefficient directly by a brute-force phase-space integration of the $k_t$-clustered eikonal amplitude for the single-jet mass observable, without using the master formula, and compare with Eq. (42): a value for $F_5(R)$ that differs from approximately $-0.013$ by more than the numerical integration uncertainty would invalidate the central claim. A second, model-independent check is to run the all-orders Monte Carlo of Ref. [2] at larger values of $t$ (say $t=0.3$ through $0.5$): if the measured clustering form factor departs from the exponential (46) by more than a few percent there, the claimed all-orders accuracy fails where the missing coefficients would matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the leading clustering (abelian non-global) logarithms for the $k_t$ jet algorithm obey a pattern of exponentiation in which each loop order contributes one new irreducible coefficient, $F_n(R)$, and that the first six of these coefficients are $F_2(R)\simeq0.183$, $F_3(R)\simeq-0.052$, $F_4(R)\simeq0.022$, $F_5(R)\simeq-0.013$, and $F_6(R)\simeq0.010$. Substituted into the all-orders exponential $C(t)=\exp\big[\sum_{n\ge2}(-1)^n F_n(R)\,(2C_F t)^n/n!\big]$, these coefficients reproduce the all-orders Monte Carlo clustering form factor at the percent level for jet radii $R=0.7$ and $R=1.0$ over a wide range of $t$. The paper reads this as evidence that the clustering-logarithm series converges rapidly and that the four-loop result already captures the phenomenologically relevant contribution.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation inherits the master formula for the analytic structure of $k_t$ clustering from Ref. [1] and does not rederive or independently test it; if that formula mis-describes how clustering acts on the phase-space measurement operator at five or six gluons, the new coefficients $F_5$ and $F_6$ are wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $n$-loop coefficients follow the alternating pattern $0.183$, $-0.052$, $0.022$, $-0.013$, $0.010$, so the CL series converges rapidly and the $1/n!$ suppression is effective.
  • The resummed exponential $C(t)$ tracks the Monte Carlo form factor to about $0.5\%$ or better at $t=0.15$ and $t=0.25$ for $R=1.0$, and in the exponential form the five- and six-loop curves are effectively indistinguishable from the four-loop curve.
  • For the single-jet mass observable, four-loop information is sufficient: five- and six-loop terms change the distribution by less than the already-small $\sim5\%$ CL contribution.
  • The same exponentiation pattern applies to generic non-global observables in $e^+e^-$, lepton-hadron, and hadron-hadron collisions, because the master formula is observable-independent.
  • The factorization of the jet mass fraction at each order into products of lower-order terms plus a new irreducible term confirms the CL distribution is an exponential of the irreducible coefficients, not a power series with unrelated numbers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the master formula is claimed to be observable-independent, the same $F_n(R)$ coefficients should appear for other non-global observables; testing this on, say, the gap-between-jets observable would extend the paper's single-observable check.
  • The near-constancy of $F_n(R)$ as $R\to0$ points to a boundary/edge effect; if that is universal, small-$R$ clustering corrections could be predicted from jet geometry rather than from a new integration at each order.
  • The calculations treat only abelian primary emissions; whether non-abelian correlated emissions generate comparable clustering logarithms at leading-log level is left open, and a positive answer would change the interpretation of these coefficients as 'leading.'
  • Since percent-level agreement is reached already at four loops, a practical next step would be to embed the four-loop exponential as a default clustering correction in jet-substructure codes, a step the paper notes but does not take.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the leading clustering logarithms (abelian non-global logarithms) for the kt jet algorithm through six loops in the eikonal, strong-energy-ordered approximation, using a master formula for the analytic structure of kt clustering introduced in the author's companion paper Ref. [1]. After recapping the two- through four-loop results for the single-jet-mass observable, it presents new five- and six-loop coefficients F5(R) ≈ −0.013 and F6(R) ≈ +0.010, claims a factorization pattern reminiscent of an exponential, and proposes the all-orders form C(t) = exp[Σ_{n≥2} (−1)^n/n! F_n(R) (2 C_F t)^n]. The resummed and truncated forms are compared with the Monte Carlo program of Dasgupta and Salam, with percent-level agreement reported. The paper concludes that the CL series converges rapidly and that four-loop accuracy is sufficient phenomenologically.

Significance. If the new five- and six-loop results are correct, the leading clustering logarithms for the kt algorithm are indeed rapidly convergent, and the existing four-loop calculations are enough for phenomenology. The two- through four-loop recap reproduces previously published coefficients, and the comparison with Monte Carlo is a useful convergence check. The principal significance of the paper, however, lies in the first-ever five- and six-loop coefficients. Because those coefficients are not displayed in the manuscript and are relegated to an external Mathematica file, the central new content is not verifiable from the paper itself. The paper also does not rederive or independently test the master formula of Ref. [1] on which the higher-loop integrands rest. The exponentiation claim is weakened by an apparent incompleteness in the reducible terms of the factorized cross-section.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. III and IV, Eqs. (38)–(45)] The five- and six-loop irreducible clustering functions Ξ^kt_12345 and Ξ^kt_1...6 are not presented; the text states only that they are provided in an accompanying Mathematica notebook file 'Xi5-Xi6.nb', which is not part of the manuscript. Consequently the numerical coefficients F5(R) and F6(R) quoted near Eqs. (42) and (45) and plotted in Fig. 1 cannot be checked from the paper. Since these coefficients are the sole new quantitative results, the manuscript should either include the notebook as supplementary material or display the integrands explicitly with sufficient detail (including the numerical integration method, grid sizes, and estimated uncertainties) to allow reproduction.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (40) and Sec. IV, Eq. (43)] The claimed factorization pattern is not consistent with the cluster expansion of the lower-order clustering functions. At five loops, Eq. (39) contains the reducible contribution Ξ^kt_ij Ξ^kt_kl Θ^in_m, which upon integration and symmetrization produces a term proportional to Σ1 (Σ2)^2. This term is missing from Eq. (40). At six loops, Eq. (43) similarly omits the Σ1 Σ2 Σ3 term that is part of the exponential expansion of the connected-cluster series. The paper should either correct the reducible terms in Eqs. (40) and (43) or explain why those terms are excluded from the stated factorization. As written, the claimed pattern of exponentiation is not self-consistently verified.
  3. [Sec. V, Eq. (46)] The all-orders exponential C(t) is defined so that its expansion reproduces the fixed-order coefficients F_n; it is therefore a repackaging of the computed F_n rather than a predictive resummation obtained from an evolution equation. The paper's own Monte Carlo comparison, Fig. 2 and the associated text, states that the three-, four-, five-, and six-loop curves coincide, so the comparison is insensitive to the precise values of F5 and F6. This means that the new coefficients are not independently validated by the numerical comparison. To strengthen the central claim, the author should either derive the exponent from an evolution or recurrence, or provide a direct MC-based extraction of F5 and F6 (for example, from logarithmic moments of the CL form factor).
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (38) and Sec. IV] The five- and six-loop integrands are taken verbatim from the master formula of Ref. [1] by the same author, and this master formula is not rederived or independently tested in the present manuscript. A mistake in that formula would propagate directly into the new F5 and F6. The lower-loop recap in Sec. II provides some validation for two through four loops, but it does not test the master formula's predictions at five and six loops. Please include a self-contained derivation or at least a nontrivial consistency check at the new orders (for example, a symmetry or limiting-behavior test of the five- and six-loop integrands).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (38), last line] The product of Θ-factors reads '¯Ω15 ¯Ω25 ¯Ω45 ¯Ω45'; presumably the last factor should be '¯Ω35' (and ¯Ω45 should appear once). Please correct this typographical error.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (48)] The sentence giving the fitting parameters contains a stray period: 'for R = 0.7. and 0.83, 3.16 and 0.31, respectively'. It should read 'for R = 0.7, and 0.83, 3.16 and 0.31, respectively, for R = 1.0'.
  3. [Sec. V, paragraph after Eq. (47)] The sentence 'although the signs of the CLs contributions ... alternate, they are in fact all positive' is confusing; the signs of the coefficients F_n alternate, whereas the physical contributions, after including the prefactors, are all positive. Please rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction.
  4. [Sec. V, Fig. 2 and Eq. (48)] The fitted Monte Carlo parameters a, b, and c are quoted without uncertainties or a description of the fit procedure, and the MC statistical errors are not shown in Fig. 2. Since the paper claims 'percent-level accuracy', the precision of the comparison would be clearer if the MC uncertainties and fit residuals were reported.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The all-orders exponential is defined from the fixed-order coefficients it is said to reproduce, and the new five/six-loop coefficients are inherited from the author's master formula and an off-paper notebook; the Monte Carlo check is explicitly insensitive to the new orders.

  1. self definitional [Sec. V, Eq. (46); abstract]
    "We may represent the said exponential using the following formula: C(t) = exp[∑_{n≥2} (-1)^n/n! F_n(R) (2 C_F t)^n], such that, when expanded, C(t) reproduces the fixed-order distributions derived above."

    The exponential is assembled from the coefficients F2,...,F6 computed in Eqs. (22), (29), (36), (41), and (44), so its Taylor series is identical to those fixed-order distributions by construction. No evolution equation or independent all-orders principle generates the coefficients; the 'resummation' is a re-packaging of the input F_n. The Monte Carlo comparison is the only external test, but the paper states that curves for three loops and beyond coincide, so that benchmark cannot validate the new F5 and F6 values.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. III Eq. (38); Sec. IV]
    "The five loop integrand in Eq. (6) (for m = 5) can be determined from the master formula in [1]. ... The full expression of the irreducible CLs clustering function, Ξ^kt_{1...6}, is provided in the aforementioned Mathematica file."

    The paper's new results, F5≈-0.013 and F6≈0.010, are not derived in the text: the five- and six-loop integrands are said to follow from the author's own master formula [1], and the irreducible clustering functions are relegated to a Mathematica notebook. The coefficients therefore reduce, as presented, to acceptance of that self-cited formula; no independent derivation, numerical cross-check, or displayed integrand is given in this paper.

full rationale

The central fixed-order coefficients F2-F4 are reproduced from the author's earlier framework, but the genuinely new five- and six-loop numbers are asserted through Eq. (38)/Sec. IV without visible integrands and are not independently tested: the MC comparison in Sec. V is stated to be indistinguishable from the four-loop prediction. The exponential form in Eq. (46) is explicitly defined so that its expansion equals the fixed-order input, making the all-orders curve a bookkeeping device rather than a derived prediction. The factorization omissions noted in the review, such as the missing (1/2)Σ1(Σ2)^2 term in Eq. (40) and the missing Σ1Σ2Σ3 term in Eq. (43), further show that the claimed 'pattern of exponentiation' is not self-consistently verified from the displayed equations. Because an external Monte Carlo benchmark exists and the low-order coefficients have independent historical support, the circularity is partial rather than total, but the new-order claims are not self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The main computation has no hand-fitted constants; the only fitted numbers are the a, b, c parameters used to represent the Monte Carlo benchmark. The calculation leans heavily on the author's own master formula [1] and on standard soft, energy-ordered approximations.

free parameters (3)
  • a (MC fit) = 0.9 (R=0.7), 0.83 (R=1.0)
    Appears in Eq. (48), fitted to Monte Carlo output for the CLs form factor.
  • b (MC fit) = 3.12 (R=0.7), 3.16 (R=1.0)
    Appears in Eq. (48), fitted to Monte Carlo output.
  • c (MC fit) = 0.4 (R=0.7), 0.31 (R=1.0)
    Appears in Eq. (48), fitted to Monte Carlo output.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eikonal (soft) approximation and strong energy ordering Q >> omega_1 >> ... >> omega_n of emitted gluons.
    Used throughout Sec. II.A to factorize the measurement operator and the eikonal amplitudes; limits the accuracy to single logarithms.
  • ad hoc to paper The master formula of Ref. [1] correctly describes the analytic structure of kt clustering at arbitrary loop order.
    The five- and six-loop integrands are obtained from this formula in Secs. III and IV; the formula is by the same author and is not rederived or independently checked in this paper.
  • domain assumption Only primary (abelian, independent) emissions contribute to the computed clustering logarithms; secondary non-abelian correlated emissions are dropped.
    Stated in Sec. I and Sec. VI; this assumption is what makes the eikonal amplitudes in Eq. (10) simple.
  • domain assumption The Monte Carlo program of Ref. [2], run with kt clustering on and off, correctly isolates the CLs form factor.
    Used in Sec. V.A as the all-orders benchmark for the analytic exponential.
  • ad hoc to paper The parametrized form C_MC(t) in Eq. (48), with fitted parameters a, b, and c, accurately represents the Monte Carlo output.
    The comparison in Sec. V.A uses this fitted parametrization rather than raw Monte Carlo data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clustering logarithms up to six loops." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQX2OU27

@misc{pith2026241203244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clustering logarithms up to six loops},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQX2OU27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03244}
}
abstract

We compute the leading clustering (abelian non-global) logarithms, which arise in the distribution of non-global QCD observables when final-state partons are clustered using the $k_t$ jet algorithm, up to six loops in perturbation theory. Our calculations are based on the recently introduced formula for the analytic structure of $k_t$ clustering [1]. These logarithms exhibit a pattern of exponentiation and are subsequently resummed into an exponential form. We compare this resummed result with all-orders numerical calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The CLs coefficients at two, three, four, five and six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A comparison between the all-order MC CLs form [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. $V/H$+Jet Production with the Cambridge/Aachen Algorithm

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    C/A clustering reduces non-global and clustering logarithms relative to k_t at three loops and behaves comparably to k_t at all orders in V/H+jet jet-mass predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Begin with a list of final-state particles, denoted as I

    work page

  2. [2]

    R is the jet-radius parameter and B denotes the beam direction

    For each pair ( ij) in I, compute the distance mea- sures: dij = min ( k2 ti, k2 tj ) ∆R2 ij R2 , d iB = k2 ti, (12) where ∆ R2 ij = η2 ij + φ2 ij, with ηij = ηi − ηj, and φij = φi − φj. R is the jet-radius parameter and B denotes the beam direction

    work page

  3. [3]

    If diB is the smallest, declare particle i as a final jet and remove it from I

    If the smallest distance is dij, merge particles ( i, j) into a single pseudo-jet by summing their four- momenta using the E-scheme. If diB is the smallest, declare particle i as a final jet and remove it from I

    work page

  4. [4]

    Notably, the clustering condition for a particle pair ( i, j) is given by: ∆R2 ij < R 2

    Repeat steps 2 and 3 until I is empty. Notably, the clustering condition for a particle pair ( i, j) is given by: ∆R2 ij < R 2. (13) Thus, if two particles i and j are within a circle of radius R in the rapidity–azimuth space, they will be clustered together by the kt algorithm; otherwise, they will not. In the subsequent sections, we compute the summatio...

    work page

  5. [5]

    an expansion of an exponential

    The step function Θ in 1 = Θ ( R2 − ∆R2 1j ) = 1 if gluon k1 ends up inside the measured jet, j, after applying the jet algo- rithm and zero otherwise. The one loop clustering func- tion is then given by: Ξ1(k1) = Θ in 1 . (15) 4 Substituting (14) back into the expression of the jet mass fraction (6) (for m = 1) we find, at SL accuracy, Σ1(ρ) = ∫ dΦ1 Ξ1 Θρ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, (2024), arXiv:2409.14029 [hep-ph]

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, (2024), arXiv:2409.14029 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Dasgupta and G

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

    arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    A. Banfi, G. Marchesini, and G. Smye, JHEP 08, 006, arXiv:hep-ph/0206076

    arXiv

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, and S. Marzani, JHEP 08, 064, arXiv:1004.3483 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

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

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

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dasgupta, K

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

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Delenda and K

    Y. Delenda and K. Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 09, 109, arXiv:1207.4528 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hatta and T

    Y. Hatta and T. Ueda, Nucl. Phys. B 874, 808 (2013), arXiv:1304.6930 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Khelifa-Kerfa and Y

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa and Y. Delenda, JHEP 03, 094, arXiv:1501.00475 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. D. Schwartz and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065004 (2014), arXiv:1403.4949 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Banfi, F. A. Dreyer, and P. F. Monni, JHEP 10, 006, arXiv:2104.06416 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Becher, N

    T. Becher, N. Schalch, and X. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 081602 (2024), arXiv:2307.02283 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Banfi and M

    A. Banfi and M. Dasgupta, Phys. Lett. B628, 49 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508159

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Catani, Y

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

    1993

  12. [20]

    S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D48, 3160 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9305266

    1993 arXiv

  13. [21]

    R. B. Appleby and M. H. Seymour, JHEP 12, 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0211426

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Becher and J

    T. Becher and J. Haag, JHEP 01, 155, arXiv:2309.17355 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    K. K. Kerfa, QCD resummation for high- pT jet shapes at hadron colliders , Ph.D. thesis, Manchester U. (2012), arXiv:2111.10671 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ziani, K

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

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bouaziz, Y

    H. Bouaziz, Y. Delenda, and K. Khelifa-Kerfa, JHEP 10, 006, arXiv:2207.10147 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Benslama, Y

    H. Benslama, Y. Delenda, and K. Khelifa- Kerfa, Phys. Lett. B 840, 137903 (2023), arXiv:2301.00860 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Delenda, R

    Y. Delenda, R. Appleby, M. Dasgupta, and A. Banfi, JHEP 0612, 044, arXiv:hep-ph/0610242 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, JHEP 08, 001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Wobisch and T

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, in Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics (Plenary Starting Meeting) (1998) pp. 270–279, arXiv:hep-ph/9907280

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Khelifa-Kerfa, (2024), arXiv:2411.03956 [hep-ph]

    K. Khelifa-Kerfa, (2024), arXiv:2411.03956 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 168, 78 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

    2005 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dasgupta and G

    M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, JHEP 03, 017, arXiv:hep-ph/0203009

    arXiv

  27. [35]

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

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.