Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Anisotropic jet broadening and jet shape

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Azimuthal-dependent jet broadening and jet shape can factorize in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, allowing a direct low-parameter measurement of the collinear quark transversity distribution in polarized deep-inelastic scattering.

desk verdict New azimuthal-dependent jet substructure formalism is solid and worth refereeing; the transversity "direct probe" claim rests on an asserted, uncomputed factorization. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12250 v1 pith:ZZX7CVOV submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

Weiyao Ke , John Terry , Ivan Vitev This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords jetsubstructureazimuthal-dependentbroadeningshapetransversitypartondistributionsoft-collineareffectivetheoryWinner-Take-Allaxisdeepinelasticscatteringresummation
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

This paper aims to establish that two new jet substructure observables, the azimuthal-dependent jet broadening and the azimuthal-dependent jet shape, can carry directional information that ordinary isotropic jet measurements average away. It argues that both observables factorize and resum in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, with the same anomalous dimensions as their azimuthally integrated counterparts, so the formalism transfers directly to many hard-scattering processes. The central application is that in polarized deep-inelastic scattering, the azimuthal modulation of jet broadening measured with a Winner-Take-All axis is directly proportional to the collinear quark transversity distribution $h_1(x)$, which measures how much transverse spin quarks carry inside a transversely polarized proton. Only one new non-perturbative constant enters this relation. If the claim is right, the observable gives a clean experimental route to the transversity PDF, which is otherwise hard to access because it is chiral-odd.

What carries the argument

The operational object is the wedge: a slice of the jet subtending azimuthal angle $\phi$, either cut out of a reconstructed jet for broadening or built iteratively for the jet shape. For broadening the measured quantity is the transverse-momentum-weighted angular deviation of particles inside that wedge, and for the jet shape it is the energy fraction inside a wedge of subradius $r$. The argument is carried by a refactorization of the wedge jet function into hyper-collinear, soft-collinear, hard-collinear, and non-perturbative sectors connected by convolutions in the broadening $\tau$ and in transverse momentum, with evolution in the renormalization and rapidity scales. The Winner-Take-All axis, fixed by the hardest particle rather than by the total jet momentum, removes the soft-recoil convolution, and that is what allows the polarized jet function $G_T$ to share the same soft and collinear functions as the unpolarized one. The load-bearing identity is the factorized transverse-spin structure function $F_{TU}^{\sin(\phi_S-\phi)} = \hat\sigma_T \, h_1 \, G_T$, which makes the azimuthal asymmetry a direct image of $h_1$ up to the single constant $c_T$.

What would settle it

Measure the $\sin(\phi_S-\phi)$ asymmetry of Winner-Take-All jet broadening in polarized deep-inelastic scattering over a range of $x$ at fixed $z$, $\tau$, and $R$. If the ratio $F_{TU}^{\sin(\phi_S-\phi)}/F_{UU}$ does not follow the transversity PDF template $h_1$ with one constant $c_T$ independent of $x$ and of the beam-energy configuration, the factorization and the direct-probe claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that breaking the azimuthal symmetry of jet measurements converts jet substructure into a direct probe of spin and directional dynamics without losing factorization. It defines the jet broadening $\tau = \frac{1}{p_T}\sum_{i\in J_\phi} p_{iT}|\Delta R_{iJ}|$ restricted to an azimuthal wedge, and the $r$- and $\phi$-dependent jet shapes, and computes their one-loop jet functions for both a Standard Jet Axis and a Winner-Take-All axis, in fixed-order and resummed regions. In deep-inelastic scattering the cross section separates into an unpolarized piece $F_{UU} = \hat\sigma_U \otimes f_1 \otimes G$ and a transverse-spin piece $F_{TU}^{\sin(\phi_S-\phi)} = \hat\sigma_T \otimes h_1 \otimes G_T$, so the measured $\sin(\phi_S-\phi)$ asymmetry is proportional to the collinear transversity PDF $h_1(x)$ times a polarized jet function $G_T$. The paper parameterizes the new non-perturbative input of $G_T$ as a single constant $c_T$ multiplying the same shape function used for the unpolarized broadening. It also obtains new azimuthally integrated results as by-products: the semi-inclusive jet function and the exclusive jet shape for the Winner-Take-All axis, and jet broadening in the fixed-order region.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the azimuthal-dependent jet functions factorize into the same hyper-collinear, soft-collinear, and non-perturbative sectors as the azimuthally integrated ones, with soft recoil handled by the stated scheme, especially for the transversely polarized Winner-Take-All jet function $G_T$, which is asserted rather than derived; if that mode separation or the recoil treatment fails, the resummed results and the claimed $h_1$ proportionality would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\sin(\phi_S-\phi)$ modulation of Winner-Take-All jet broadening in polarized deep-inelastic scattering becomes a direct, low-parameter measurement channel for the collinear transversity PDF $h_1(x)$.
  • Because the azimuthal-dependent jet functions share the anomalous dimensions of the azimuthally integrated ones, existing broadening and jet-shape resummations apply without new classes of logarithms.
  • The new Winner-Take-All-axis semi-inclusive jet function and exclusive jet shape, together with the fixed-order jet broadening, fill gaps in the azimuthally integrated jet-substructure formalism.
  • The energy-weighted $r$- and $\phi$-dependent jet shape is infrared finite at one loop, so the non-perturbative wedge function drops out of this observable.
  • Directional effects such as preferred color flow or an anisotropically flowing quark-gluon plasma now have jet-substructure observables designed to see them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to fit $c_T$ simultaneously to polarized deep-inelastic and polarized $e^+e^-$ jet data; if the same constant describes both, the factorization is universal.
  • The wedge construction could be applied to energy-energy correlators or other azimuthal correlators, giving spin-sensitive versions of those measurements without introducing fragmentation functions.
  • If a dedicated analysis finds that $c_T$ must depend on $z$ or $\tau$ to describe data, that would signal additional non-perturbative spin structure in the polarized jet function beyond the paper's minimal model.
  • The spin-dependent wedge function the paper leaves for future work could supply a jet-axis alternative to spin-dependent fragmentation measurements.
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 azimuthal-dependent jet broadening and jet shape observables, in which the jet is partitioned into azimuthal wedges, and computes the associated jet functions in SCET for standard and Winner-Take-All jet axes, in both fixed-order and resummed regions. It also derives evolution equations for these functions and reports several by-products for azimuthally integrated observables: the semi-inclusive WTA jet function, the exclusive WTA jet shape, and fixed-order jet broadening. The final section applies the WTA azimuthal-dependent broadening to lepton-jet production in DIS and claims that the resulting transverse spin asymmetry directly probes the collinear transversity PDF h_1(x).

Significance. If the factorization and the one-loop ingredients are valid, the paper provides a useful first formalism for anisotropic jet substructure, with potential applications to spin physics and to jets propagating through anisotropic media. The analytic one-loop results for the broadening and jet-shape functions are extensive, and several nontrivial consistency checks are performed: the WTA results reduce to the SJA cone results in Eqs. (2.62) and (2.69), the azimuthally dependent expressions reduce to the known isotropic ones at phi = 2pi, e.g. in Eq. (3.42) and the limits after Eq. (3.57), and the claimed anomalous dimensions cancel between the hyper-collinear and soft-collinear sectors. The transversity-PDF application, if supported by a calculation of the chiral-odd jet function, would be a significant result because a direct collinear probe of h_1 is presently difficult. However, as written, that application rests on a factorization and on nonperturbative assumptions that are asserted rather than derived.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.15)] The central claim that the azimuthal-dependent WTA broadening is a direct probe of the collinear transversity PDF depends on the factorized form G_T = h^T_qq * C_T * S_q * F_T stated in Eq. (4.15). No one-loop expression for the hard-collinear function h^T_qq or the hyper-collinear function C_T is given anywhere in the paper, and the only support in Sec. 4.3 is the statement that the perturbative hyper-collinear contribution is identical to the one-loop matching for the Collins function. That identification is not a trivial consequence of operator equivalence: the Collins function is a TMD fragmentation function with different kinematics, operator content, and evolution. Similarly, Eq. (4.21) asserts without derivation that G_T obeys the transversity DGLAP kernel P^h_qq. Because Eq. (4.12) and the numerical predictions in Fig. 8 use this uncomputed G_T, the advertised direct extraction of h_1 is not established. Either the one-loop matching must be computed, or the claim must be reduced to a conjectural application with the required calculation explicitly flagged.
  2. [Sec. 2.1-2.5, Eqs. (2.12)-(2.17) and (2.94)] The factorized forms for the azimuthal-dependent broadening jet functions are stated immediately after a BPS field redefinition, but the paper does not provide a derivation that the wedge measurement, the collinear recoil, and the jet boundary factorize into the claimed hyper-collinear, soft-collinear, and nonperturbative functions. In particular, the treatment of emissions along the jet axis is fixed by a scheme choice in Sec. 2.4: the finite terms of the soft-collinear function are suppressed by phi/2pi while the divergences are not, Eq. (2.94). Such a scheme can be consistent, but the paper needs to demonstrate it explicitly, for example by showing that the resummed expression matches the fixed-order calculation at the boundary tau ~ R and that the scheme dependence cancels between C, S, and the matching function H. The one-loop agreement of anomalous dimensions noted in Sec. 2.7 is necessary but not sufficient for this. Since the resummed predictions are the main technical output of Sec. 2, this missing check is load-bearing.
  3. [Sec. 3.1-3.4, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.17) and (3.56)-(3.57)] The factorization for the r- and phi-dependent jet shapes is also presented as a set of assumed forms rather than derived. In particular, Eq. (3.9) and Eq. (3.16) require a WTA matching coefficient J that the text says is left for a later study, yet exclusive WTA jet shape results are reported in Eqs. (3.56)-(3.57). If the resummation for the WTA jet shape relies on J, then the missing coefficient is a gap in the formalism as presented; if the reported results are only fixed-order, the limitation should be stated explicitly wherever Eqs. (3.56)-(3.57) are used. The same comment applies to the soft-collinear recoil treatment in Eq. (3.14) for the SJA case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.56)] The distribution identity for x^{-1-2epsilon} ln x is written in a compressed notation; the plus-distribution conditions and the range of x should be specified to make the subsequent fixed-order integrations reproducible.
  2. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (3.59)] The displayed expression for the soft-collinear function has an unbalanced parenthesis/bracket in the term after the delta function; this should be corrected before publication.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence stating that the perturbative hyper-collinear contribution is identical to the one-loop matching for the Collins function gives no reference and no definition of the Collins-function matching coefficient; either a citation or, preferably, the calculation itself is needed.
  4. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (4.22)] The ratio R_phi in Fig. 7 uses cos phi for a quark polarized in the y direction, but the relation between phi, the wedge orientation, and the spin direction phi_S is not defined in the text; this should be clarified so that the plotted modulation is unambiguous.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The wedge function section states that spin dependence is left for another study, while Sec. 4 requires precisely the spin-dependent version of the wedge function and nonperturbative jet-broadening function; the relationship between these statements should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the azimuthal-dependent jet functions are genuine one-loop SCET computations benchmarked to known jet functions. The transversity application contains an uncomputed G_T and a free c_T ansatz, making the EIC 'prediction' conditional, but these are missing derivations rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the azimuthal-dependent jet broadening and jet shape is largely self-contained: the phi-dependent jet functions are built from the same one-loop splitting kernels, phase-space measures, and jet constraints as the known isotropic functions (for example, Eq. (2.63) constructs the SJA azimuthal result from the azimuthally integrated broadening through the wedge geometry), and the results are benchmarked against the standard exclusive and semi-inclusive jet functions and reduce to known r-dependent jet shapes at phi = 2 pi (Eqs. (3.52)-(3.57)). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. The transversity application does contain two unverified, load-bearing assertions: Eq. (4.15) factorizes the chiral-odd jet function with the same soft function as the unpolarized case without giving a derivation, and Sec. 4.3 states without calculation that the polarized hyper-collinear contribution 'is identical to the one-loop matching for the Collins function.' It also relies on the explicit ansatz Eq. (4.20), F_Tq = c_T F_i, with c_T chosen for illustration rather than fitted. These are genuine missing-load-bearing-calculations and make Fig. 8 a conditional prediction of a model with a free normalization, not a parameter-free test of the formalism. However, they are not circular reductions: the paper does not define the observable in terms of the fit, does not fit c_T to the same data, and the displayed x-dependence comes from the external transversity parameterization of Ref. [77]. No step reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on the SCET factorization assumption, which is stated and used but not proven. The numerical example relies on literature fits (transversity PDF, shape function) and on the illustrative constant c_T. Only one genuinely new non-perturbative entity, the wedge function, is introduced; it is parameterized but not independently constrained.

free parameters (1)
  • c_T (non-perturbative constant for anisotropic broadening) = 0.1 (illustrative, not fitted)
    In Eq. (4.20), the non-perturbative contribution to the transversely polarized jet function is parameterized as F_T = c_T F_i with c_T < 1. The paper says the exact value must be determined through a comprehensive analysis of experimental data. In the plots, c_T = 0.1 is chosen by hand to illustrate a 10% modulation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SCET factorizes the jet function into hyper-collinear and soft-collinear functions in the resummed region.
    Eqs. (2.12) to (2.17) and Eqs. (3.8) to (3.17) state the factorization without a proof. The paper computes one-loop ingredients assuming this separation, and identifies the modes in Eq. (2.10) and Eq. (3.13).
  • standard math Transversity PDF evolution in the example application follows the standard DGLAP equation with kernel P^h_qq from Ref. [78].
    Eq. (4.17) uses the known transversity DGLAP evolution. This is standard and brought in from the literature.
  • domain assumption The shape function parameterization for the non-perturbative broadening uses values from Ref. [79] (a=1, b=0.45, Lambda=0.5).
    Eq. (4.19) uses a parameterization taken from the literature. The paper notes that this is an assumption and that the parameters must be determined from data.
invented entities (1)
  • The jet wedge J_phi and the wedge function w(phi, z)
    purpose: Divides the jet into angular wedges to define the azimuthal-dependent observables.
    The wedge function is a new non-perturbative function introduced in Sec. 3.1 to 3.2. The paper parameterizes it at the initial scale as w = (phi/2pi) delta(1-z) (Eq. (3.19)) and states that spin correlations introduce non-trivial azimuthal dependence, but the spin-dependent wedge function is left for future work. It has no independent evidence in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic jet broadening and jet shape." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZX7CVOV

@misc{pith2026241212250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic jet broadening and jet shape},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZX7CVOV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12250}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we explore the use of jet substructure as a way of probing phenomena which break the isotropic behavior of jets, such as jet propagation through an anisotropically flowing quark-gluon plasma or spin correlations. We introduce two novel observables for this purpose: the azimuthal-dependent jet broadening and the azimuthal-dependent jet shape, which generalize the traditional isotropic substructure studies. Using Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, we explicitly calculate the jet functions associated with these observables with a standard jet axis and with a Winner-Take-All jet axis in both the resummed and fixed order limits. While our analysis first and foremost establishes the formalism for the azimuthal-dependent jet substructure, it also brings to light new results for jet substructure in the azimuthally integrated case, such as the semi-inclusive jet function and the exclusive jet shape for the Winner-Take-All axis, and the jet broadening in the fixed order region. As an illustrative example for the new formalism we demonstrate that the azimuthal-dependent jet broadening can be used as a direct probe of the transversity parton distribution function in deep inelastic scattering.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. H. Seymour, Searches for new particles using cone and cluster jet algorithms: A Comparative study, Z. Phys. C 62 (1994) 127–138

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    M. H. Seymour, The Average number of subjets in a hadron collider jet , Nucl. Phys. B 421 (1994) 545–564

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    J. M. Butterworth, B. E. Cox, and J. R. Forshaw, W Wscattering at the CERN LHC , Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 096014, [ hep-ph/0201098]. – 53 –

    arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    D. E. Soper and M. Spannowsky, Combining subjet algorithms to enhance ZH detection at the LHC , JHEP 08 (2010) 029, [ arXiv:1005.0417]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    R. M. Godbole, D. J. Miller, K. A. Mohan, and C. D. White, Jet substructure and probes of CP violation in Vh production , JHEP 04 (2015) 103, [ arXiv:1409.5449]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    N. Chen, J. Li, Y. Liu, and Z. Liu, LHC searches for the CP-odd Higgs by the jet substructure analysis, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), no. 7 075002, [ arXiv:1410.4447]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Adams et al., Towards an Understanding of the Correlations in Jet Substructure , Eur

    D. Adams et al., Towards an Understanding of the Correlations in Jet Substructure , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), no. 9 409, [ arXiv:1504.00679]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Britzger, K

    D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, D. Savoiu, G. Sieber, and M. Wobisch, Determination of the strong coupling constant using inclusive jet cross section data from multiple experiments , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 1 68, [ arXiv:1712.00480]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Measurement of the Ratio of the Inclusive 3-Jet Cross Section to the Inclusive 2-Jet Cross Section in pp Collisions at √s = 7 TeV and First Determination of the Strong Coupling Constant in the TeV Range , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013), no. ...

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aaboud et al., Determination of the strong coupling constant αs from transverse energy–energy correlations in multijet events at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Determination of the strong coupling constant αs from transverse energy–energy correlations in multijet events at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 12 872, [ arXiv:1707.02562]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of transverse energy-energy correlations in multi-jet events in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector and determination of the strong coupling constant αs(mZ), Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 427–447, [arXiv:1508.01579]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Measurement of the inclusive 3-jet production differential cross section in proton–proton collisions at 7 TeV and determination of the strong coupling constant in the TeV range , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), no. 5 186, [arXiv:1412.1633]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Determination of the parton distribution functions of the proton from ATLAS measurements of differential W and Z boson production in association with jets , JHEP 07 (2021) 223, [ arXiv:2101.05095]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of the inclusive jet cross section in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV and comparison to the inclusive jet cross section at sqrt(s)=7 TeV using the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013), no. 8 2509, [ arXiv:1304.4739]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Constraints on parton distribution functions and extraction of the strong coupling constant from the inclusive jet cross section in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), no. 6 288, [ arXiv:1410.6765]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Measurement and QCD analysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross sections in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV and cross section ratios to 2.76 and 7 TeV , JHEP 03 (2017) 156, [ arXiv:1609.05331]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Phenomenology of NNLO jet production at the LHC and its impact on parton distributions , Eur

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Phenomenology of NNLO jet production at the LHC and its impact on parton distributions , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020), no. 8 797, [ arXiv:2005.11327]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, The Impact of LHC Jet Data on the MMHT PDF Fit at NNLO , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018), no. 3 248, [ arXiv:1711.05757]. – 54 –

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pumplin, J

    J. Pumplin, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, W.-K. Tung, and C. P. Yuan, Collider Inclusive Jet Data and the Gluon Distribution , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 014019, [arXiv:0904.2424]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. J. A. Watt, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne, The Effect of LHC Jet Data on MSTW PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2934, [ arXiv:1311.5703]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Marzani, G

    S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and M. Spannowsky, Looking inside jets: an introduction to jet substructure and boosted-object phenomenology, vol. 958. Springer, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    C. F. Berger, T. Kucs, and G. F. Sterman, Event shape / energy flow correlations , Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 014012, [ hep-ph/0303051]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L. G. Almeida, S. J. Lee, G. Perez, G. F. Sterman, I. Sung, and J. Virzi, Substructure of high-pT Jets at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 074017, [ arXiv:0807.0234]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. J. Larkoski, J. Thaler, and W. J. Waalewijn, Gaining (Mutual) Information about Quark/Gluon Discrimination , JHEP 11 (2014) 129, [ arXiv:1408.3122]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. D. Ellis, Z. Kunszt, and D. E. Soper, Jets at hadron colliders at order α − s3: A Look inside, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 3615–3618, [ hep-ph/9208249]

    1992 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. C. Collins, Fragmentation of transversely polarized quarks probed in transverse momentum distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 396 (1993) 161–182, [ hep-ph/9208213]

    1993 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Arratia, Z.-B

    M. Arratia, Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, and F. Ringer, Jet-based measurements of Sivers and Collins asymmetries at the future electron-ion collider , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 7 074015, [arXiv:2007.07281]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pitonyak, C

    D. Pitonyak, C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, A. Prokudin, and N. Sato, Number Density Interpretation of Dihadron Fragmentation Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 1 011902, [arXiv:2305.11995]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cocuzza, A

    JAM Collaboration, C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and R. Seidl, Transversity Distributions and Tensor Charges of the Nucleon: Extraction from Dihadron Production and Their Universal Nature , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 9 091901, [arXiv:2306.12998]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cocuzza, A

    Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM) Collaboration, C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and R. Seidl, First simultaneous global QCD analysis of dihadron fragmentation functions and transversity parton distribution functions , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 3 ...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report , Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report , Nucl. Phys. A 1026 (2022) 122447, [ arXiv:2103.05419]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders, and M. Schlegel, Semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering at small transverse momentum , JHEP 02 (2007) 093, [hep-ph/0611265]

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Callos, Z.-B

    D. Callos, Z.-B. Kang, and J. Terry, Extracting the transverse momentum dependent polarizing fragmentation functions , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 9 096007, [arXiv:2003.04828]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. G. Echevarria, Z.-B. Kang, and J. Terry, Global analysis of the Sivers functions at NLO+NNLL in QCD , JHEP 01 (2021) 126, [ arXiv:2009.10710]. – 55 –

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, D. Y. Shao, and F. Zhao, Probing transverse momentum dependent structures with azimuthal dependence of energy correlators , JHEP 03 (2024) 153, [arXiv:2310.15159]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, and F. Zhao, Polarized jet fragmentation functions , Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020) 135756, [ arXiv:2005.02398]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    W. K. Lai, X. Liu, M. Wang, and H. Xing, Unveiling Nucleon 3D Chiral-Odd Structure with Jet Axes , arXiv:2205.04570

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Liu and H

    X. Liu and H. Xing, The time-reversal odd side of a jet , Fund. Res. 3 (2023) 346–350, [arXiv:2104.03328]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gallicchio and M

    J. Gallicchio and M. D. Schwartz, Seeing in Color: Jet Superstructure , Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 022001, [ arXiv:1001.5027]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Larkoski, S

    A. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and C. Wu, Safe Use of Jet Pull , JHEP 01 (2020) 104, [arXiv:1911.05090]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and C. Wu, Theory Predictions for the Pull Angle , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 9 091502, [ arXiv:1903.02275]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk, Limits of applicability of the theory of bremsstrahlung electrons and pair production at high-energies, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 92 (1953) 535–536

    1953

  35. [43]

    A. B. Migdal, Bremsstrahlung and pair production in condensed media at high-energies , Phys. Rev. 103 (1956) 1811–1820

    1956

  36. [44]

    Vitev, S

    I. Vitev, S. Wicks, and B.-W. Zhang, A Theory of jet shapes and cross sections: From hadrons to nuclei , JHEP 11 (2008) 093, [ arXiv:0810.2807]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Chien and I

    Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, Towards the understanding of jet shapes and cross sections in heavy ion collisions using soft-collinear effective theory , JHEP 05 (2016) 023, [ arXiv:1509.07257]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Medium modification of jet shapes and jet multiplicities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 042301, [ hep-ph/0310079]

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Cao and X.-N

    S. Cao and X.-N. Wang, Jet quenching and medium response in high-energy heavy-ion collisions: a review , Rept. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021), no. 2 024301, [ arXiv:2002.04028]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Brewer, A

    J. Brewer, A. Sadofyev, and W. van der Schee, Jet shape modifications in holographic dijet systems, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136492, [ arXiv:1809.10695]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    H. T. Li and I. Vitev, Jet charge modification in dense QCD matter , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 076020, [ arXiv:1908.06979]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chien and I

    Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, Probing the Hardest Branching within Jets in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 11 112301, [ arXiv:1608.07283]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mehtar-Tani and K

    Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, Groomed jets in heavy-ion collisions: sensitivity to medium-induced bremsstrahlung, JHEP 04 (2017) 125, [ arXiv:1610.08930]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. a. Barata, P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and R. Szafron, Advancing the understanding of energy-energy correlators in heavy-ion collisions , arXiv:2312.12527

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    S. Wang, W. Dai, B.-W. Zhang, and E. Wang, Radial profile of bottom quarks in jets in high-energy nuclear collisions , Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021), no. 6 064105, [ arXiv:2012.13935]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y. Li, S. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang, Longitudinal momentum fraction of heavy-flavor mesons – 56 – in jets in high-energy nuclear collisions , Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023), no. 2 024905, [arXiv:2209.00548]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. T. Li and I. Vitev, Inverting the mass hierarchy of jet quenching effects with prompt b-jet substructure, Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 259–264, [ arXiv:1801.00008]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Devereaux, W

    K. Devereaux, W. Fan, W. Ke, K. Lee, and I. Moult, Imaging Cold Nuclear Matter with Energy Correlators, arXiv:2303.08143

  49. [57]

    Budhraja, R

    A. Budhraja, R. Sharma, and B. Singh, Medium modifications to jet angularities using SCET with Glauber gluons , arXiv:2305.10237

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. V. Sadofyev, M. D. Sievert, and I. Vitev, Ab initio coupling of jets to collective flow in the opacity expansion approach, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 9 094044, [ arXiv:2104.09513]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. a. Barata, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, Picturing QCD jets in anisotropic matter: from jet shapes to energy energy correlators , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 2 174, [arXiv:2308.01294]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Antiporda, J

    L. Antiporda, J. Bahder, H. Rahman, and M. D. Sievert, Jet drift and collective flow in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 5 054025, [ arXiv:2110.03590]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bahder, H

    J. Bahder, H. Rahman, M. D. Sievert, and I. Vitev, Signatures of Jet Drift in QGP Hard Probe Observables, arXiv:2412.05474

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, J. R. Walsh, A. Hornig, and C. Lee, Jet Shapes and Jet Algorithms in SCET , JHEP 11 (2010) 101, [ arXiv:1001.0014]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Hornig, Y

    A. Hornig, Y. Makris, and T. Mehen, Jet Shapes in Dijet Events at the LHC in SCET , JHEP 04 (2016) 097, [ arXiv:1601.01319]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and I. Vitev, The semi-inclusive jet function in SCET and small radius resummation for inclusive jet production , JHEP 10 (2016) 125, [ arXiv:1606.06732]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and I. Vitev, Jet substructure using semi-inclusive jet functions in SCET, JHEP 11 (2016) 155, [ arXiv:1606.07063]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, and F. Ringer, Jet angularity measurements for single inclusive jet production, JHEP 04 (2018) 110, [ arXiv:1801.00790]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. Lucenti, G. Marchesini, and G. P. Salam, On the QCD analysis of jet broadening, JHEP 01 (1998) 011, [ hep-ph/9801324]

    1998 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn, The Energy Distribution of Subjets and the Jet Shape, JHEP 07 (2017) 064, [ arXiv:1705.05375]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    P. Cal, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn, The jet shape at NLL’ , JHEP 05 (2019) 143, [arXiv:1901.06389]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill, and J. Thaler, Jet Shapes with the Broadening Axis , JHEP 04 (2014) 017, [ arXiv:1401.2158]

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Z.-B. Kang, X. Liu, F. Ringer, and H. Xing, The transverse momentum distribution of hadrons within jets , JHEP 11 (2017) 068, [ arXiv:1705.08443]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. Vogelsang, and F. Yuan, Lepton-jet Correlations in Deep Inelastic Scattering at the Electron-Ion Collider , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 19 192003, [arXiv:1812.08077]. – 57 –

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. Vogelsang, and F. Yuan, Lepton-jet Correlation in Deep Inelastic Scattering, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 9 094022, [ arXiv:2007.12866]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    S. Fang, W. Ke, D. Y. Shao, and J. Terry, Precision three-dimensional imaging of nuclei using recoil-free jets, JHEP 05 (2024) 066, [ arXiv:2311.02150]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Fang, M.-S

    S. Fang, M.-S. Gao, H. T. Li, and D. Y. Shao, N3LL + O(α2 s) predictions of lepton-jet azimuthal angular distribution in deep-inelastic scattering , arXiv:2409.09248

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, D. Y. Shao, and F. Zhao, Spin asymmetries in electron-jet production at the future electron ion collider , JHEP 11 (2021) 005, [ arXiv:2106.15624]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun, and F. Yuan, Extraction of Quark Transversity Distribution and Collins Fragmentation Functions with QCD Evolution , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 1 014009, [ arXiv:1505.05589]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Stratmann and W

    M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Next-to-leading order QCD evolution of transversity fragmentation functions, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 057502, [ hep-ph/0108241]

    2002 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Cao, Z.-B

    H. Cao, Z.-B. Kang, X. Liu, and S. Mantry, One-jettiness DIS event shape at N3LL+O( αs2), Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 1 014045, [ arXiv:2401.01941]. – 58 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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