Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Sudakov evolution without unitarity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Running a parton shower in a non-unitary 'Sunshine' mode cancels every Sudakov factor, so the generated events are distributed according to the shower's tree-level expansion.

desk verdict A genuinely useful shower-expansion trick with a clean proof, but the implementation's restart scale doesn't match the full-coverage proof beyond four partons. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00111 v2 pith:WNXJJJQ5 submitted 2025-06-30 hep-ph

Javira Altmann , Hai Tao Li , Ludovic Scyboz , Peter Skands This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Sudakovevolutionpartonshowerstree-levelexpansionphase-spacesamplingdetailedbalancematrix-elementcorrectionssectorfixed-orderaccuracy
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 claims that a parton shower can be modified to 'maximally violate' the detailed-balance condition that normally makes it unitary: whenever a branching is generated, the pre-branching state is kept instead of being annihilated, so one input event seeds many output events. With this modification, every Sudakov no-emission factor is exactly cancelled by the accumulated vetoed branchings, and the generated phase-space samples are distributed according to the shower's tree-level expansion — the product of its branching kernels, or, with matrix-element corrections, the full tree-level matrix element. If correct, the method lets one read off a shower's fixed-order accuracy directly from the shower code itself, without constructing separate expansion codes. The paper demonstrates the algorithm (named Sunshine) on hadronic Z decays and uses it to verify the tree-level accuracy of a sector shower through second order.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Sudakov factor $\Delta_i(t_{i-1},t_i)$, the no-emission probability between ordered evolution scales, together with the branching kernels $\mathrm{ant}_{i\to i+1}$. The proof rests on the identity that summing over all possible numbers of vetoed emissions at a stage converts the product of nested integrals into $\exp\!\left[\int_t^{t_0}\mathrm{ant}(\tilde t)\,d\tilde t\right]$, the inverse Sudakov factor; summing over all veto multiplicities at every stage therefore yields a product of inverse Sudakov factors that exactly cancels those in the ordinary unitary shower weight. Mechanically, Sunshine bifurcates the event evolution at each accepted branching, storing the post-branching event while continuing to evolve the pre-branching one, so that no state is ever annihilated and the output events all carry the Born-level weight.

What would settle it

Run Sunshine on a shower whose trial density is deliberately set to zero in a small, singular region of phase space (or with strong ordering and no dead-zone-filling branchings) and compare the n-parton distributions against a direct fixed-order calculation: the sample would show a hole in exactly that region, disproving proportionality to the tree-level matrix element. The paper's own validation, reweighting Sunshine events with trial-shower Sudakov factors and checking agreement with the physical shower, is a concrete test that would fail if the cancellation were wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is eq. (14): for the Sunshine mode, $\sum_{m_k\ge0} dP_{m_1\ldots m_n}/d\Phi_n = |M_0|^2 \prod_{i=0}^{n-1} \mathrm{ant}_{i\to i+1}$, meaning the sum over all numbers of vetoed emissions at each branching stage cancels every Sudakov factor, provided each generated phase-space point is reached by the shower. The paper proves this by recognizing the sum over nested veto integrals as an ordered-hypertriangle identity whose total is the inverse of the corresponding Sudakov factor, and it extends the proof to power showers, smooth ordering, and direct $2\to4$ branchings. The authors validate that Sunshine events reweighted with trial-shower Sudakov factors reproduce physical shower distributions, and they use the method to show that the sector shower with nested matrix-element corrections and direct $2\to4$ branchings reproduces exact tree-level results through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof shows cancellation only for phase-space points the shower actually reaches; the conclusion holds for all of phase space only if the veto algorithm's trial density overestimates every branching kernel everywhere and if power showers, smooth ordering, or direct 2-to-4 branchings cover all dead zones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fixed-order expansions of any Sudakov-based shower (QCD, QED, or other) can be generated by running the shower itself in Sunshine mode, eliminating the need for separately coded products of kernels and phase-space maps.
  • With iterated matrix-element corrections, the Sunshine distribution becomes proportional to the full tree-level matrix element at each order, making direct tests of MEC implementations possible at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and beyond.
  • The cancellation proof extends to power showers and smooth ordering, so unordered branching sequences also contribute to a correct tree-level sample as long as the trial density covers the full phase space.
  • Because Sunshine produces unweighted output events and its event rate in infrared regions grows dramatically as the cutoff is lowered, it offers a practical way to sample singular phase-space regions with high statistics.
  • The same procedure can be used to test whether a shower's dead zones are adequately filled by direct $2\to4$ branchings, as demonstrated by the second-order comparisons against exact results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The bifurcation trick could be applied to any Markov chain with a detailed-balance structure, such as multiple-interaction models or resonance-decay algorithms, to strip resummation weights and expose an underlying perturbative expansion.
  • Inference: If a trial density fails to overestimate the branching kernels in some region of phase space, the Sunshine sample would silently miss that region; a practical mitigation would be to compare Sunshine output against a direct fixed-order generator in narrow phase-space slices to detect such holes.
  • Inference: Because Sunshine turns an unweighted Born sample into a larger unweighted sample enriched in singular regions, it could serve as a front-end for fixed-order calculations that need many unweighted events at small infrared cutoffs, complementing weighted generators whose efficiency degrades there.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Sunshine, a modification of parton-shower event generation in which every branching bifurcates the event history instead of replacing the parent state. The authors prove that summing over all numbers of vetoed branchings cancels the Sudakov factors, so that the generated phase-space distribution is proportional to the product of the shower's splitting kernels (Eq. (14)); with matrix-element corrections, it becomes proportional to the tree-level matrix element (Eq. (15)). They discuss full phase-space coverage through power showers, smooth ordering, and direct 2→4 branchings, and implement the algorithm as a UserHooks module in Pythia 8.3. Validation includes a Sudakov-reweighting self-consistency test and comparisons of the O(α_s) and O(α_s²) expansions of the Vincia sector shower against Event2 and analytic results for Z→hadrons, including D-parameter and Lund-plane observables.

Significance. The central idea is attractive and potentially widely useful: it lets one extract the fixed-order expansion of any Sudakov-based shower directly from the shower code, avoiding separate implementations of the expansion. The algebraic proof in §3.1 is clean and parameter-free, resting only on the exponential-series identity for nested integrals. No parameters are fitted to the validation data: α_s, the IR cutoff, and the headroom factor are inputs. The O(α_s²) comparison is thorough, covering q qbar gg, q qbar q qbar, and q qbar q' qbar' channels and several phase-space regions, and it explicitly isolates the effect of direct 2→4 branchings. If the implementation question raised below is resolved, the paper provides a valuable new tool for shower validation and matching.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and Appendix A] The proof that power showers and smooth ordering eliminate Sunshine's Sudakov factors assumes that after each accepted branching the evolution restarts from the phase-space maximum t0; this is what turns Eq. (10) into Eq. (16) and sets the boundary t~_{k0}=t0. The pseudocode in Appendix A does not implement this restart. In Algorithm 1, line 9, after a vetoed (saved) emission the shower continues with tnow = tn. In Algorithm 3, line 6, a buffered post-branching event is resumed with tnow = tn, the scale of the last branching. That is the strong-ordering restart. Consequently, as written, the implementation does not realize the power-shower or smooth-ordering cancellation of §3.2, and the claim at the end of §3.2 that the implementation "reverts to smooth ordering (or power showers)" for multiplicities beyond four partons is not supported by the pseudocode. The authors should either modify the implementation to restart buffered events at t0 when those modes are selected, or explicitly restrict the full-coverage claim to the four-parton level for the released code.
  2. [§4.2 and §3.2] The second-order validation cannot detect the restart discrepancy because direct 2→4 branchings are asserted to cover the entire four-parton phase space. The green curves in Figs. 9–13 (MEC on, 2→4 off) indeed show residuals, but these are not decomposed into missing phase-space points versus subleading-colour or soft approximations. The paper should state that the O(α_s²) agreement validates Eq. (14) only up to four partons and that the power/smooth-ordering modes require a dedicated test at five or more partons (e.g., an observable sensitive to an unordered 2→3→4 path versus a direct 2→4 path). Without such a test, the general statement in Eq. (14) is established only for phase-space regions reachable by the implemented ordering.
  3. [§3.3 and Eq. (22)] The veto-algorithm proof in §3.1 requires the trial acceptance probability to be ≤ 1 everywhere. For the MEC mode, Eq. (22) defines w_MEC with an ad hoc headroom H_MEC = 4 and states that this "ensures" w_MEC < 1, but no numerical scan or bound is shown. If w_MEC exceeds unity in some corner of phase space, the generated distribution is not proportional to the tree-level matrix element and the central claim would fail there. Please provide a numerical verification (e.g., the maximum of w_MEC over the full phase space for each channel) or a rigorous bound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 4] The trial emission scale is written as tn ∈ [tnow, 0]; since the evolution stops at a positive IR cutoff tcut, this should read [tnow, tcut] (or [tnow, t_cut]) for clarity.
  2. [§3.3, footnote 4] The footnote "Or from t0 if using power showers" is inconsistent with the pseudocode in Appendix A, which resumes buffered events from the last branching scale tn; this footnote should be revised in light of the major comment above.
  3. [§3.4, Fig. 4] The comparison of event rates with Event2 is only qualitative because of different cutoff definitions (p⊥ in Vincia versus invariant mass in Event2) and because Event2 rates are effective weighted-event rates; the text acknowledges this, but the figure caption should restate the cutoff definitions and the Neff convention.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (22)] The notation in the denominator, |M^2_n|, is confusing; please clarify that this is the squared n-parton matrix element after stripping coupling and colour factors, and define all symbols explicitly.
  5. [§5] The statement that the Sunshine code "will be publicly released in an upcoming version of Pythia 8.3" is a promise rather than a current artifact; if a preprint version of the code is available, a repository link or code archive would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: eq. (14) follows from an algebraic Sudakov cancellation and is validated against external Event2 benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, eq. (14), is not circular. It is derived from the standard unitary shower distribution, eq. (8), by summing over all numbers of vetoed emissions. The key step is the ordered-hypertriangle identity, eq. (11), which turns the iterated veto integrals into (1/m!)(integral ant)^m; summing over m yields the exponential exp(integral ant), i.e. the inverse Sudakov factor, and this cancels the Sudakov factors in eq. (8). The derivation is algebraic and self-contained; no parameter is fitted to the validation data. The alpha_s value, IR cutoff, and headroom factor HMEC are stated as chosen inputs, and the second-order comparison is against the external fixed-order generator Event2, so the 2->4 branching construction (cited to the authors' earlier work) is independently tested rather than assumed. The Sudakov reweighting test of Sec. 3.3 is explicitly a self-consistency check and is not used as the source of the claim. The only caveat is non-circular: the proof of full phase-space coverage in Sec. 3.2 assumes restart at the phase-space maximum t0, whereas the appendix pseudocode restarts at the last branching scale tn; this is an implementation/coverage concern, not a circularity, and does not affect the algebraic cancellation that is the paper's central result.

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

The central derivation relies on standard Monte Carlo and parton-shower assumptions (overestimating trial densities, nested phase-space factorization, antenna factorization) plus the mathematical identity for the exponential series. No parameters are fitted to the validation data; the fixed coupling, IR cutoff, and headroom factor are input settings that do not enter the claimed sampling distribution.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The veto algorithm samples according to the product of kernels and Sudakov factors when the trial density overestimates the true branching density (eqs. 4-5).
    Taken as the standard property of Sudakov veto algorithms; used as the starting point of the proof in section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The n-parton phase space factorizes into sequential nested branchings with kernels ant_{i->i+1} (eq. 5).
    Assumed for antenna showers, following the sector-antenna framework of refs. [14,17,24,25]; invoked throughout section 2.
  • domain assumption Power showers, smooth ordering, or direct 2->4 branchings cover the full radiative phase space, leaving no dead zones.
    Stated in section 3.2; the proof in section 3.1 only guarantees the tree-level sampling for points the shower can reach.
  • domain assumption Antenna functions reproduce the leading singular (pole) structure of matrix elements, and with MECs the sampling target becomes |M_n|^2 (eqs. 6, 15).
    This is the shower approximant; the paper's application tests whether MECs repair the non-singular differences.
  • standard math The ordered hypertriangle integral identity sum_m (1/m!) (integral)^m = exp(integral) holds for the nested veto integrals (eqs. 11-12).
    Standard calculus, used to telescope the Sudakov factors in eq. (13).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sudakov evolution without unitarity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNXJJJQ5

@misc{pith2026250700111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sudakov evolution without unitarity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNXJJJQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00111}
}
abstract

We present a method for sampling singular functions defined on (nested) multi-particle phase spaces, based on a generalisation of parton-shower phase-space generation techniques. At the heart of the method are three key ingredients: 1) the Sudakov sampling by which shower-style calculations sweep across phase space in an ordered manner, from hard to soft; 2) the sequential nesting of multiparticle phase spaces; and 3) the factorisations obeyed by singular multiparton amplitudes on the edges of these phase spaces. We demonstrate a C++ implementation of the proposed algorithm, dubbed Sunshine, for hadronic Z decays, and use it to test the tree-level accuracy of the Vincia sector shower through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00111 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The case of an (n + 2)-parton configuration, C, which can only be reached through unordered n 7→ n+1 branchings (red lines) — e.g., via the on-shell (n+1)-parton configuration at B. Alternatively, in a shower that allows for direct n 7→ n + 2 branchings the A 7→ C transition can be generated directly (blue line), bypassing the configuration at B. Power showers and smooth ordering The simplest prescription for coveri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Validation tests of the Sunshine algorithm, for one, two, three and four emissions. The plots show the distribution of the scale of the last branching, t = 2 ln ECM/2pt , according to Sunshine (i.e. a fixed-order expansion of the Vincia shower, green), the Sudakov-weighted distribution of Sunshine events (following the procedure in the text, blue) and the physical distribution from the shower truncated at the corres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Event rate (per microsecond) as a function of the number of emitted gluons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective event rate (per microsecond) as function of the infrared cutoff, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average number of branched events with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The discrepancy ∆(PS, ME), as in eq. (26), between the Vincia parton shower expanded at O(αs) with Sunshine, to the exact matrix element from eq. (24). The ratio is plotted as a function of the Dalitz variables xq and xq¯ (top) and logarithmically (bottom). The relativ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tests of the O(αs) expansion of the Vincia sector shower, for the thrust 1 − T (left) and ln(1 − T) (right), without (red) and with (blue) MECs. 10−1 100 101 1 σB dσ dC Vincia sector + Sunshine αs(MZ) = 0.1, tcut = 0.01 GeV Event2 O(αs) MEC = off MEC = on 0.0 0.1 0.2 0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as fig. 7 for the C-parameter. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Tests of the O(α 2 s ) expansion for the D-parameter (left) and ln D (right). Results are shown without MECs for the second emission (red), with MECs but direct 2 7→ 4 branchings disabled (green), and with both enabled (blue). The contributing channels (qqgg ¯ , qqq¯ q…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of the cuts performed to target two commensurately soft emissions on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as fig. 9 for Lund declustering observables in the qqgg ¯ final state: (left) the difference in rapidity ∆η21 between two primary, soft declusterings, and (right) the azimuthal difference ∆ψ12 between a soft primary followed by a collinear secondary declustering.…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as fig. 11, for the final state qqq¯ q¯, with same-flavour quarks. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as fig. 11, for the final state qqq¯ ′ q¯ ′ , with different-flavour quarks. 5 Summary and Outlook In this article we have introduced a method, dubbed Sunshine, to generate parton configura￾tions distributed according to a parton shower’s fixed-order expansion. W…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Final state dipole showers and the DGLAP equation

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, Final state dipole showers and the DGLAP equation , JHEP 05, 088 (2009), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/088, 0901.3587

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    P. Z. Skands and S. Weinzierl, Some remarks on dipole showers and the DGLAP equation , Phys. Rev. D 79, 074021 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.074021, 0903.2150

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    W. T. Giele, D. A. Kosower and P. Z. Skands, Higher-Order Corrections to Timelike Jets , Phys. Rev. D 84, 054003 (2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.054003, 1102.2126

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Dasgupta, F

    M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni and G. P. Salam, Logarithmic accuracy of parton showers: a fixed-order study , JHEP 09, 033 (2018), doi:10.1007/ JHEP09(2018)033, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 083 (2020)], 1805.09327

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin and S. Pl¨ atzer,Building a consistent parton shower , JHEP 09, 014 (2020), doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)014, 2003.06400

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    C. T. Preuss, A partitioned dipole-antenna shower with improved transverse recoil , JHEP 07, 161 (2024), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)161, 2403.19452

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    H¨ oche, F

    S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss and D. Reichelt, Alaric parton shower for hadron colliders , Phys. Rev. D 111(9), 094032 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.094032, 2404.14360

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    van Beekveld et al

    M. van Beekveld et al. , New Standard for the Logarithmic Accuracy of Parton Showers , Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(1), 011901 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011901, 2406. 02661

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.011901 2025

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972), [Yad. Fiz.15,781(1972)]

    1972

  2. [10]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language , Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4

    1977 doi

  3. [11]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Calculation of the Structure Functions for Deep Inelastic Scattering and e+ e- Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics. , Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.73,1216(1977)]

    1977

  4. [12]

    Gustafson and U

    G. Gustafson and U. Pettersson, Dipole Formulation of QCD Cascades , Nucl. Phys. B 306, 746 (1988), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90441-5

    1988 doi

  5. [13]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, The Dipole formalism for the calculation of QCD jet cross- sections at next-to-leading order, Phys. Lett. B378, 287 (1996), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96) 00425-X, hep-ph/9602277

    1996 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D. A. Kosower, Antenna factorization of gauge theory amplitudes , Phys. Rev. D 57, 5410 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.5410, hep-ph/9710213

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, Antenna subtraction at NNLO, JHEP 09, 056 (2005), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/09/056, hep-ph/0505111

    2005 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, 2203.11601

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Brooks, C

    H. Brooks, C. T. Preuss and P. Skands, Sector Showers for Hadron Collisions , JHEP 07, 032 (2020), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2020)032, 2003.00702. 26

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. K. Ellis, D. A. Ross and A. E. Terrano, The Perturbative Calculation of Jet Structure in e+ e- Annihilation , Nucl. Phys. B 178, 421 (1981), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90165-6

    1981 doi

  11. [19]

    Catani and M

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD , Nucl. Phys. B485, 291 (1997), doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00589-5,10.1016/ S0550-3213(98)81022-5, [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B510,503(1998)], hep-ph/9605323

    1997 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Boos et al., Generic User Process Interface for Event Generators , In 2nd Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders (2001), hep-ph/0109068

    E. Boos et al., Generic User Process Interface for Event Generators , In 2nd Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders (2001), hep-ph/0109068

    2001 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alwall et al., A Standard format for Les Houches event files , Comput

    J. Alwall et al., A Standard format for Les Houches event files , Comput. Phys. Commun. 176, 300 (2007), doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2006.11.010, hep-ph/0609017

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. J. Larkoski, J. J. Lopez-Villarejo and P. Skands, Helicity-Dependent Showers and Matching with VINCIA , Phys. Rev. D 87(5), 054033 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87. 054033, 1301.0933

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fischer, A

    N. Fischer, A. Lifson and P. Skands, Helicity Antenna Showers for Hadron Colliders , Eur. Phys. J. C 77(10), 719 (2017), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5306-7, 1708.01736

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. A. Kosower, Antenna factorization in strongly ordered limits, Phys. Rev. D 71, 045016 (2005), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.045016, hep-ph/0311272

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. J. Larkoski and M. E. Peskin, Spin-Dependent Antenna Splitting Functions , Phys. Rev. D 81, 054010 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.054010, 0908.2450

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. J. Lopez-Villarejo and P. Z. Skands, Efficient Matrix-Element Matching with Sector Showers, JHEP 11, 150 (2011), doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2011)150, 1109.3608

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Skands and R

    P. Skands and R. Verheyen, Multipole photon radiation in the Vincia parton shower , Phys. Lett. B 811, 135878 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135878, 2002.04939

    2020

  20. [28]

    Mrenna and P

    S. Mrenna and P. Skands, Automated Parton-Shower Variations in Pythia 8 , Phys. Rev. D 94(7), 074005 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.074005, 1605.08352

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kleiss and R

    R. Kleiss and R. Verheyen, Competing Sudakov Veto Algorithms , Eur. Phys. J. C 76(7), 359 (2016), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4231-5, 1605.09246

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hartgring, E

    L. Hartgring, E. Laenen and P. Skands, Antenna Showers with One-Loop Matrix Elements, JHEP 10, 127 (2013), doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)127, 1303.4974

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    H. T. Li and P. Skands, A framework for second-order parton showers, Phys. Lett. B 771, 59 (2017), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.011, 1611.00013

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Catani, B

    S. Catani, B. R. Webber and G. Marchesini, QCD coherent branching and semiinclusive processes at large x , Nucl. Phys. B 349, 635 (1991), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90390-J

    1991 doi

  25. [33]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, J. Helliwell, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez and S. Zanoli, Logarithmically-accurate and positive-definite NLO shower matching (2025), 2504.05377

    2025

  26. [34]

    Lavesson and L

    N. Lavesson and L. L¨ onnblad,Extending CKKW-merging to One-Loop Matrix Elements , JHEP 12, 070 (2008), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/070, 0811.2912

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L¨ onnblad and S

    L. L¨ onnblad and S. Prestel,Merging Multi-leg NLO Matrix Elements with Parton Showers, JHEP 03, 166 (2013), doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2013)166, 1211.7278. 27

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sj¨ ostrand and M

    T. Sj¨ ostrand and M. van Zijl, A Multiple Interaction Model for the Event Structure in Hadron Collisions , Phys. Rev. D 36, 2019 (1987), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2019

    1987 doi

  29. [37]

    Plehn, D

    T. Plehn, D. Rainwater and P. Z. Skands, Squark and gluino production with jets , Phys. Lett. B 645, 217 (2007), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.009, hep-ph/0510144

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Corke and T

    R. Corke and T. Sj¨ ostrand,Improved Parton Showers at Large Transverse Momenta, Eur. Phys. J. C 69, 1 (2010), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1409-0, 1003.2384

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. M. Campbell, S. H¨ oche, H. T. Li, C. T. Preuss and P. Skands, Towards NNLO+PS matching with sector showers , Phys. Lett. B 836, 137614 (2023), doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2022.137614, 2108.07133

    2023

  32. [40]

    B. K. El-Menoufi, C. T. Preuss, L. Scyboz and P. Skands, Matching Z → Hadrons at NNLO with Sector Showers (2024), 2412.14242

    2024

  33. [41]

    W. T. Giele, D. A. Kosower and P. Z. Skands, A simple shower and matching algorithm , Phys. Rev. D 78, 014026 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.014026, 0707.3652

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and B. R. Webber, QCD matrix elements + parton showers, JHEP 11, 063 (2001), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/11/063, hep-ph/0109231

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L¨ onnblad,Correcting the color dipole cascade model with fixed order matrix elements , JHEP 05, 046 (2002), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/046, hep-ph/0112284

    L. L¨ onnblad,Correcting the color dipole cascade model with fixed order matrix elements , JHEP 05, 046 (2002), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/046, hep-ph/0112284

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Brooks and C

    H. Brooks and C. T. Preuss, Efficient multi-jet merging with the Vincia sector shower , Comput. Phys. Commun. 264, 107985 (2021), doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107985, 2008. 09468

    2021

  37. [45]

    C. W. Bauer, N. L. Rodd and B. R. Webber, Dark matter spectra from the electroweak to the Planck scale , JHEP 06, 121 (2021), doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)121, 2007.15001

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Brooks, P

    H. Brooks, P. Skands and R. Verheyen, Interleaved resonance decays and electroweak radiation in the Vincia parton shower , SciPost Phys. 12(3), 101 (2022), doi:10.21468/ SciPostPhys.12.3.101, 2108.10786

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dasgupta, F

    M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Parton showers beyond leading logarithmic accuracy , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125(5), 052002 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.052002, 2002.11114

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hamilton, R

    K. Hamilton, R. Medves, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and G. Soyez, Colour and log- arithmic accuracy in final-state parton showers , JHEP 03(041), 041 (2021), doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2021)041, 2011.10054

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Karlberg, G

    A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen, Spin correlations in final-state parton showers and jet observables , Eur. Phys. J. C 81(8), 681 (2021), doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-021-09378-0, 2103.16526

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hamilton, A

    K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen, Soft spin correlations in final-state parton showers, JHEP 03, 193 (2022), doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)193, 2111. 01161

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. P. Salam, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez and R. Ver- heyen, PanScales parton showers for hadron collisions: formulation and fixed-order stud- ies, JHEP 11, 019 (2022), doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2022)019, 2205.02237. 28

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    van Beekveld, S

    M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, K. Hamilton, G. P. Salam, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez and R. Verheyen, PanScales showers for hadron collisions: all-order validation , JHEP 11, 020 (2022), doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2022)020, 2207.09467

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Herren, S

    F. Herren, S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, D. Reichelt and M. Schoenherr, A new approach to color-coherent parton evolution , JHEP 10, 091 (2023), doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)091, 2208.06057

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    van Beekveld and S

    M. van Beekveld and S. Ferrario Ravasio, Next-to-leading-logarithmic PanScales showers for Deep Inelastic Scattering and Vector Boson Fusion , JHEP 02, 001 (2024), doi:10. 1007/JHEP02(2024)001, 2305.08645

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fousse, G

    L. Fousse, G. Hanrot, V. Lef` evre, P. P´ elissier and P. Zimmermann, Mpfr: A multiple- precision binary floating-point library with correct rounding , ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 33(2), 13–es (2007), doi:10.1145/1236463.1236468

    2007

  48. [56]

    Y. Hida, X. S. Li and D. H. Bailey, Quad-double arithmetic: Algorithms, implementation, and application, In 15th IEEE Symposium on Computer Arithmetic , pp. 155–162 (2000)

    2000

  49. [57]

    van Beekveld et al

    M. van Beekveld et al. , Introduction to the PanScales framework, version 0.1 , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2024, 31 (2024), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.31, 2312.13275

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    VINCIA Collaboration, VINCIA QCD Antenna Shower Settings , https://pythia.org/ latest-manual/VinciaQCD.html, (accessed on 23-06-2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Brandt, C

    S. Brandt, C. Peyrou, R. Sosnowski and A. Wroblewski, The Principal axis of jets. An Attempt to analyze high-energy collisions as two-body processes, Phys. Lett. 12, 57 (1964), doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91176-X

    1964 doi

  52. [60]

    Farhi, A QCD Test for Jets , Phys

    E. Farhi, A QCD Test for Jets , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1587 (1977), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.39.1587

    1977

  53. [61]

    Parisi, Super Inclusive Cross-Sections , Phys

    G. Parisi, Super Inclusive Cross-Sections , Phys. Lett. B 74, 65 (1978), doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(78)90061-8

    1978

  54. [62]

    J. F. Donoghue, F. E. Low and S.-Y. Pi, Tensor Analysis of Hadronic Jets in Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2759 (1979), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2759

    1979 doi

  55. [63]

    De Rujula, J

    A. De Rujula, J. R. Ellis, E. G. Floratos and M. K. Gaillard, QCD Predictions for Hadronic Final States in e+ e- Annihilation , Nucl. Phys. B 138, 387 (1978), doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(78)90388-7

    1978

  56. [64]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, L. L¨ onnblad and U. Pettersson, Coherence Effects in Deep Inelastic Scattering, Z. Phys. C43, 625 (1989), doi:10.1007/BF01550942

    1989 doi

  57. [65]

    F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, The Lund Jet Plane , JHEP 12, 064 (2018), doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)064, 1807.04758

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti and B. R. Webber, Better jet clustering algo- rithms, JHEP 08, 001 (1997), doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001, hep-ph/9707323

    1997 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, 1111.6097

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Richardson and S

    P. Richardson and S. Webster, Spin Correlations in Parton Shower Simulations , Eur. Phys. J. C 80(2), 83 (2020), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7429-5, 1807.01955. 29

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    P. D. Draggiotis, A. van Hameren and R. Kleiss, SARGE: An Algorithm for generating QCD antennas , Phys. Lett. B 483, 124 (2000), doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00532-3, hep-ph/0004047

    2000 arXiv

  62. [70]

    van Hameren and R

    A. van Hameren and R. Kleiss, Generating QCD antennas , Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 611 (2000), doi:10.1007/s100520000508, hep-ph/0008068

    2000 arXiv

  63. [71]

    W. T. Giele, G. C. Stavenga and J.-C. Winter, A Forward Branching Phase-Space Gen- erator (2011), 1106.5045

    2011 arXiv

  64. [72]

    T. M. Figy and W. T. Giele, A Forward Branching Phase Space Generator for Hadron colliders, JHEP 10, 203 (2018), doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)203, 1806.09678. 30

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.