CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-SMP-22-007 ; CERN-EP-2023-282
Measurement of the primary Lund jet plane density in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
JHEP 05 (2024) 116
Abstract: A measurement is presented of the primary Lund jet plane (LJP) density in inclusive jet production in proton-proton collisions. The analysis uses 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of data collected by the CMS experiment at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. The LJP, a representation of the phase space of emissions inside jets, is constructed using iterative jet declustering. The transverse momentum $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ and the splitting angle $ \Delta R $ of an emission relative to its emitter are measured at each step of the jet declustering process. The average density of emissions as function of $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$ and $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ is measured for jets with distance parameters $ R = $ 0.4 or 0.8, transverse momentum $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 700 GeV, and rapidity $ |y| < $ 1.7. The jet substructure is measured using the charged-particle tracks of the jet. The measured distributions, unfolded to the level of stable particles, are compared with theoretical predictions from simulations and with perturbative quantum chromodynamics calculations. Due to the ability of the LJP to factorize physical effects, these measurements can be used to improve different aspects of the physics modeling in event generators.
Figures Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Left: schematic diagram of the Cambridge-Aachen primary declustering tree of a jet. The black lines represent the branch that follows the harder subjet at each step of the declustering tree. The softer subjet at each node is used as a proxy for an emission in the primary LJP. Right: schematic diagram of the primary emissions of a jet in the LJP, which is filled from left to right corresponding to emissions ordered from large to small angles. The numbers represent the order of appearance in the declustering tree. The dashed diagonal line represents the kinematical limit.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Left: schematic diagram of the Cambridge-Aachen primary declustering tree of a jet. The black lines represent the branch that follows the harder subjet at each step of the declustering tree. The softer subjet at each node is used as a proxy for an emission in the primary LJP. Right: schematic diagram of the primary emissions of a jet in the LJP, which is filled from left to right corresponding to emissions ordered from large to small angles. The numbers represent the order of appearance in the declustering tree. The dashed diagonal line represents the kinematical limit.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Left: schematic diagram of the Cambridge-Aachen primary declustering tree of a jet. The black lines represent the branch that follows the harder subjet at each step of the declustering tree. The softer subjet at each node is used as a proxy for an emission in the primary LJP. Right: schematic diagram of the primary emissions of a jet in the LJP, which is filled from left to right corresponding to emissions ordered from large to small angles. The numbers represent the order of appearance in the declustering tree. The dashed diagonal line represents the kinematical limit.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Schematic diagram of the mechanisms affecting different regions of the primary LJP in a given proton-proton collision. Initial-state radiation (ISR), the underlying event (UE) activity, and multiple-parton interactions (MPI) affect wide-angle radiation at $ \Delta R \sim R $, close to the boundary of the jet. In an experimental context, pileup contributes to the same region as the UE. Hadronization affects the low $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$ region (below $ k_{\mathrm{T}} \sim $ 1 GeV) at all angles. Soft and hard collinear parton splittings affect the rest of the LJP. The diagonal line represents the kinematical limit of the primary LJP, which corresponds to $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{j_1} = p_{\mathrm{T}}^{j_2} $.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Detector-level distributions of measured and MC-simulated events generated with PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3 for four different slices of the LJP, as indicated by the triangular diagrams in the plots. The lower panels in the plots show the ratio of the predictions with respect to the data. Only statistical uncertainties are included here. The comparison shows that neither HERWIG 7 CH3 nor PYTHIA8 CP5 are able to describe the data well in various regions of the LJP. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Detector-level distributions of measured and MC-simulated events generated with PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3 for four different slices of the LJP, as indicated by the triangular diagrams in the plots. The lower panels in the plots show the ratio of the predictions with respect to the data. Only statistical uncertainties are included here. The comparison shows that neither HERWIG 7 CH3 nor PYTHIA8 CP5 are able to describe the data well in various regions of the LJP. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Detector-level distributions of measured and MC-simulated events generated with PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3 for four different slices of the LJP, as indicated by the triangular diagrams in the plots. The lower panels in the plots show the ratio of the predictions with respect to the data. Only statistical uncertainties are included here. The comparison shows that neither HERWIG 7 CH3 nor PYTHIA8 CP5 are able to describe the data well in various regions of the LJP. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Detector-level distributions of measured and MC-simulated events generated with PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3 for four different slices of the LJP, as indicated by the triangular diagrams in the plots. The lower panels in the plots show the ratio of the predictions with respect to the data. Only statistical uncertainties are included here. The comparison shows that neither HERWIG 7 CH3 nor PYTHIA8 CP5 are able to describe the data well in various regions of the LJP. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Detector-level distributions of measured and MC-simulated events generated with PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3 for four different slices of the LJP, as indicated by the triangular diagrams in the plots. The lower panels in the plots show the ratio of the predictions with respect to the data. Only statistical uncertainties are included here. The comparison shows that neither HERWIG 7 CH3 nor PYTHIA8 CP5 are able to describe the data well in various regions of the LJP. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Event displays of a simulated AK4 jet at detector level (solid triangles) and particle level (open triangles). The right-hand side plot represents the $ \eta $ and $ \phi $ coordinates of the emissions in the CMS coordinate system to illustrate the geometrical matching used for the corrections in the measurement. The center of the particle-level anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet is represented by the solid circular marker. The circular line with radius $ R = $ 0.4 serves as a proxy for the anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ distance parameter used to cluster the AK4 jet. The Lund plane on the left plot is associated with the same jet, and is filled with the primary emissions from the CA declustering from left to right (from large to small angles). The numbers in both plots represent the order of the emission of the primary CA tree declustering sequence.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Event displays of a simulated AK4 jet at detector level (solid triangles) and particle level (open triangles). The right-hand side plot represents the $ \eta $ and $ \phi $ coordinates of the emissions in the CMS coordinate system to illustrate the geometrical matching used for the corrections in the measurement. The center of the particle-level anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet is represented by the solid circular marker. The circular line with radius $ R = $ 0.4 serves as a proxy for the anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ distance parameter used to cluster the AK4 jet. The Lund plane on the left plot is associated with the same jet, and is filled with the primary emissions from the CA declustering from left to right (from large to small angles). The numbers in both plots represent the order of the emission of the primary CA tree declustering sequence.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Event displays of a simulated AK4 jet at detector level (solid triangles) and particle level (open triangles). The right-hand side plot represents the $ \eta $ and $ \phi $ coordinates of the emissions in the CMS coordinate system to illustrate the geometrical matching used for the corrections in the measurement. The center of the particle-level anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet is represented by the solid circular marker. The circular line with radius $ R = $ 0.4 serves as a proxy for the anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ distance parameter used to cluster the AK4 jet. The Lund plane on the left plot is associated with the same jet, and is filled with the primary emissions from the CA declustering from left to right (from large to small angles). The numbers in both plots represent the order of the emission of the primary CA tree declustering sequence.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Detector-level (open symbols) and particle-level (closed symbols) distributions for the data and MC simulated events of PYTHIA8 CP5. Only statistical uncertainties are included in these plots, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins. The lower panels in the plot show the ratio of the particle-level to the respective detector-level distributions, which is used as a metric for the effective modifications of the LJP density because of the detector effects. The size of the corrections can be inferred from the ratio of the particle-level to the detector-level distributions, which are larger closer to the kinematical edge of the LJP.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Detector-level (open symbols) and particle-level (closed symbols) distributions for the data and MC simulated events of PYTHIA8 CP5. Only statistical uncertainties are included in these plots, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins. The lower panels in the plot show the ratio of the particle-level to the respective detector-level distributions, which is used as a metric for the effective modifications of the LJP density because of the detector effects. The size of the corrections can be inferred from the ratio of the particle-level to the detector-level distributions, which are larger closer to the kinematical edge of the LJP.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Detector-level (open symbols) and particle-level (closed symbols) distributions for the data and MC simulated events of PYTHIA8 CP5. Only statistical uncertainties are included in these plots, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins. The lower panels in the plot show the ratio of the particle-level to the respective detector-level distributions, which is used as a metric for the effective modifications of the LJP density because of the detector effects. The size of the corrections can be inferred from the ratio of the particle-level to the detector-level distributions, which are larger closer to the kinematical edge of the LJP.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Detector-level (open symbols) and particle-level (closed symbols) distributions for the data and MC simulated events of PYTHIA8 CP5. Only statistical uncertainties are included in these plots, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins. The lower panels in the plot show the ratio of the particle-level to the respective detector-level distributions, which is used as a metric for the effective modifications of the LJP density because of the detector effects. The size of the corrections can be inferred from the ratio of the particle-level to the detector-level distributions, which are larger closer to the kinematical edge of the LJP.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Detector-level (open symbols) and particle-level (closed symbols) distributions for the data and MC simulated events of PYTHIA8 CP5. Only statistical uncertainties are included in these plots, which are smaller than the markers for most of the bins. The lower panels in the plot show the ratio of the particle-level to the respective detector-level distributions, which is used as a metric for the effective modifications of the LJP density because of the detector effects. The size of the corrections can be inferred from the ratio of the particle-level to the detector-level distributions, which are larger closer to the kinematical edge of the LJP.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Different components of the systematic uncertainties for AK4 jets for two different vertical slices of the LJP density. The upper plot is for large angles 0.205 $ < \Delta R < $ 0.287, and the lower plot is for small angles 0.039 $ < \Delta R < $ 0.054. The total experimental uncertainty is represented by the filled area. The statistical uncertainties in the data are represented by the hashed band.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Different components of the systematic uncertainties for AK4 jets for two different vertical slices of the LJP density. The upper plot is for large angles 0.205 $ < \Delta R < $ 0.287, and the lower plot is for small angles 0.039 $ < \Delta R < $ 0.054. The total experimental uncertainty is represented by the filled area. The statistical uncertainties in the data are represented by the hashed band.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Different components of the systematic uncertainties for AK4 jets for two different vertical slices of the LJP density. The upper plot is for large angles 0.205 $ < \Delta R < $ 0.287, and the lower plot is for small angles 0.039 $ < \Delta R < $ 0.054. The total experimental uncertainty is represented by the filled area. The statistical uncertainties in the data are represented by the hashed band.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Different components of the systematic uncertainties for AK4 jets for different horizontal slices of the LJP density. The upper plot is for low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ of 1.09 $ < k_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 1.79 GeV, and the lower plot is for higher $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ of 8.03 $ < k_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 13.25 GeV. The total experimental uncertainty is represented by the filled area. The statistical uncertainties in the data are represented by the hashed band.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Different components of the systematic uncertainties for AK4 jets for different horizontal slices of the LJP density. The upper plot is for low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ of 1.09 $ < k_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 1.79 GeV, and the lower plot is for higher $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ of 8.03 $ < k_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 13.25 GeV. The total experimental uncertainty is represented by the filled area. The statistical uncertainties in the data are represented by the hashed band.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Different components of the systematic uncertainties for AK4 jets for different horizontal slices of the LJP density. The upper plot is for low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ of 1.09 $ < k_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 1.79 GeV, and the lower plot is for higher $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ of 8.03 $ < k_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 13.25 GeV. The total experimental uncertainty is represented by the filled area. The statistical uncertainties in the data are represented by the hashed band.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Two-dimensional distributions of the primary LJP densities corrected to particle level for AK4 jets (upper plot) and AK8 jets (lower plot). The diagonal line in both plots represents the kinematical limit of the emissions for a jet with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{jet} = $ 700 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Two-dimensional distributions of the primary LJP densities corrected to particle level for AK4 jets (upper plot) and AK8 jets (lower plot). The diagonal line in both plots represents the kinematical limit of the emissions for a jet with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{jet} = $ 700 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Two-dimensional distributions of the primary LJP densities corrected to particle level for AK4 jets (upper plot) and AK8 jets (lower plot). The diagonal line in both plots represents the kinematical limit of the emissions for a jet with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{jet} = $ 700 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK4 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot contains low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, whereas the lower-right plot contains high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK4 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot contains low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, whereas the lower-right plot contains high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK4 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot contains low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, whereas the lower-right plot contains high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK4 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot contains low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, whereas the lower-right plot contains high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK4 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot contains low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, whereas the lower-right plot contains high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 10-c:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 10-d:
Four slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8 CP5 and HERWIG 7 CH3. Variations of the ISR and FSR scales for PYTHIA8 CP5 predictions are shown as well. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions generated with PYTHIA8 using tunes CP2, CP5, Monash, and CUEP8M1. The most important difference between the tunes is the value of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{FSR}(m_\mathrm{Z}) $, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions generated with PYTHIA8 using tunes CP2, CP5, Monash, and CUEP8M1. The most important difference between the tunes is the value of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{FSR}(m_\mathrm{Z}) $, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions generated with PYTHIA8 using tunes CP2, CP5, Monash, and CUEP8M1. The most important difference between the tunes is the value of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{FSR}(m_\mathrm{Z}) $, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 11-c:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions generated with PYTHIA8 using tunes CP2, CP5, Monash, and CUEP8M1. The most important difference between the tunes is the value of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{FSR}(m_\mathrm{Z}) $, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 11-d:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions generated with PYTHIA8 using tunes CP2, CP5, Monash, and CUEP8M1. The most important difference between the tunes is the value of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{FSR}(m_\mathrm{Z}) $, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8+ VINCIA, PYTHIA8+ DIRE, HERWIG 7 with dipole shower, and SHERPA 2. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 12-a:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8+ VINCIA, PYTHIA8+ DIRE, HERWIG 7 with dipole shower, and SHERPA 2. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 12-b:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8+ VINCIA, PYTHIA8+ DIRE, HERWIG 7 with dipole shower, and SHERPA 2. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 12-c:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8+ VINCIA, PYTHIA8+ DIRE, HERWIG 7 with dipole shower, and SHERPA 2. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 12-d:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions by PYTHIA8+ VINCIA, PYTHIA8+ DIRE, HERWIG 7 with dipole shower, and SHERPA 2. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ \ln(k_{\mathrm{T}}/$GeV$)$: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 13:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different choices of the recoil scheme of the angular-ordered shower of HERWIG 7. Each recoil scheme achieves a different degree of logarithmic accuracy, up to NLL for certain observables, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 13-a:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different choices of the recoil scheme of the angular-ordered shower of HERWIG 7. Each recoil scheme achieves a different degree of logarithmic accuracy, up to NLL for certain observables, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 13-b:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different choices of the recoil scheme of the angular-ordered shower of HERWIG 7. Each recoil scheme achieves a different degree of logarithmic accuracy, up to NLL for certain observables, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 13-c:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different choices of the recoil scheme of the angular-ordered shower of HERWIG 7. Each recoil scheme achieves a different degree of logarithmic accuracy, up to NLL for certain observables, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 13-d:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different choices of the recoil scheme of the angular-ordered shower of HERWIG 7. Each recoil scheme achieves a different degree of logarithmic accuracy, up to NLL for certain observables, as described in the text. The band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 14:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different values of the transverse momentum cutoff used for FSR ($ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $) in PYTHIA8 with the Monash tune. The larger $ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $ value yields a better agreement with the data at low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $. The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 14-a:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different values of the transverse momentum cutoff used for FSR ($ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $) in PYTHIA8 with the Monash tune. The larger $ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $ value yields a better agreement with the data at low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $. The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 14-b:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different values of the transverse momentum cutoff used for FSR ($ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $) in PYTHIA8 with the Monash tune. The larger $ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $ value yields a better agreement with the data at low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $. The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 14-c:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different values of the transverse momentum cutoff used for FSR ($ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $) in PYTHIA8 with the Monash tune. The larger $ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $ value yields a better agreement with the data at low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $. The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 14-d:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with predictions based on different values of the transverse momentum cutoff used for FSR ($ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $) in PYTHIA8 with the Monash tune. The larger $ k_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{FSR\,cutoff} $ value yields a better agreement with the data at low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $. The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation. Statistical uncertainties in data and MC-simulated events are represented by vertical bars, which are smaller than the markers in most of the bins.

png pdf
Figure 15:
Measured LJP distribution for AK8 jets, compared with the leading-order perturbative-QCD asymptotic prediction in the soft and collinear limit. The grey boxes represent the total experimental uncertainty from the measured data. For the prediction, an effective color factor of $ C_{\mathrm{R}}^{\text{eff}} = 0.59 C_{\mathrm{F}}+0.41 C_{\mathrm{A}} \approx $ 2 is assumed, as described in the text. The strong coupling $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ evolves with $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ using the one-loop $ \beta $ function with $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} (m_\mathrm{Z}) = $ 0.118. The theoretical uncertainty band is calculated with variations of the renormalization scale up and down by factors of 2. The discontinuity is due to the change of the number of active flavors when $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ reaches the mass of the bottom quark, which is assumed to be 4.2 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 16:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with perturbation theory calculations by A. Lifson, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez [10]. The calculations include all-orders resummation at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy matched to a next-to-leading order (NLO) fixed-order calculation, and supplemented with nonperturbative (NP) corrections, as described in the text. The band around the theory prediction represents the uncertainty from variations of the renormalization scale uncertainty in the perturbative calculation as well as uncertainties in the NP corrections. The gray band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 16-a:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with perturbation theory calculations by A. Lifson, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez [10]. The calculations include all-orders resummation at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy matched to a next-to-leading order (NLO) fixed-order calculation, and supplemented with nonperturbative (NP) corrections, as described in the text. The band around the theory prediction represents the uncertainty from variations of the renormalization scale uncertainty in the perturbative calculation as well as uncertainties in the NP corrections. The gray band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 16-b:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with perturbation theory calculations by A. Lifson, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez [10]. The calculations include all-orders resummation at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy matched to a next-to-leading order (NLO) fixed-order calculation, and supplemented with nonperturbative (NP) corrections, as described in the text. The band around the theory prediction represents the uncertainty from variations of the renormalization scale uncertainty in the perturbative calculation as well as uncertainties in the NP corrections. The gray band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 16-c:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with perturbation theory calculations by A. Lifson, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez [10]. The calculations include all-orders resummation at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy matched to a next-to-leading order (NLO) fixed-order calculation, and supplemented with nonperturbative (NP) corrections, as described in the text. The band around the theory prediction represents the uncertainty from variations of the renormalization scale uncertainty in the perturbative calculation as well as uncertainties in the NP corrections. The gray band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.

png pdf
Figure 16-d:
Four different slices of the primary LJP density of AK8 jets compared with perturbation theory calculations by A. Lifson, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez [10]. The calculations include all-orders resummation at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy matched to a next-to-leading order (NLO) fixed-order calculation, and supplemented with nonperturbative (NP) corrections, as described in the text. The band around the theory prediction represents the uncertainty from variations of the renormalization scale uncertainty in the perturbative calculation as well as uncertainties in the NP corrections. The gray band represents the total experimental uncertainty. The upper two plots correspond to vertical slices of the LJP for fixed $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $ (large angles on upper-left, small angles on upper-right). The lower two plots correspond to two different horizontal slices for fixed $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ interval: the lower-left plot corresponds to low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings and spans the full range in $ \ln(R/\Delta R) $, whereas the lower-right plot corresponds to high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ splittings, which populate mostly wide-angle radiation.
Summary
We have presented a measurement of the primary Lund jet plane (LJP) density in inclusive jet production in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $, collected in Run 2 (2016-2018) with the CMS experiment. The LJP is a two-dimensional representation of the phase space of emissions inside a jet constructed using iterative Cambridge-Aachen declustering. The logarithm of the relative transverse momentum $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the emission and the logarithm of the opening angle of the branching $ \Delta R $ are used for the vertical and horizontal axes of the LJP. We analyzed the substructure of jets initially clustered with the anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ algorithm with transverse momentum $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 700 GeV and rapidity $ |y| < $ 1.7 clustered with distance parameters $ R = $ 0.4 or 0.8. The smaller $ R = $ 0.4 is the standard $ R $ for Run 2 analyses. The larger $ R = $ 0.8, used for the first time in a measurement of the primary LJP density, enables the exploration of a broader kinematical region of the LJP that is inaccessible with the $ R = $ 0.4 parameter value, particularly for wide-angle, hard radiation. Clustering effects associated with the initial anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ clustering have a less strong effect in the collinear region with the larger $ R $ value; hence the angular region where the emission density plateaus is wider for $ R = $ 0.8 jets. The corrected distributions have an experimental uncertainty in a range of 2-7% in the region away from the kinematical LJP edge and about 15-25% close to the LJP edge. We compared the corrected primary LJP density with various particle-level predictions from Monte Carlo (MC) simulated events. The predictions use different implementations of parton showers as well as different models for the underlying-event (UE) activity, beam-beam remnants, hadronization, and color reconnection effects. The aforementioned mechanisms can be effectively factorized in the primary LJP density, which allows for strong constraints in terms of the substructure of jets. At leading-logarithmic (LL) accuracy, the primary LJP density is proportional to the strong coupling $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(k_{\mathrm{T}}) $, so it can be used to tune the value of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ evaluated at the Z boson mass used for final-state radiation (FSR) in MC event generators, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{FSR}(m_\mathrm{Z}) $. Predictions generated with the CP5 tune of the PYTHIA8 generator underestimate the measured density of emissions in the perturbative region ($ k_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 5 GeV) by about 15% because of the small value of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{FSR}(m_\mathrm{Z}) $ used for this tune. Other PYTHIA8 tunes or parton shower options tested in the measurement are in better agreement with the data. The predictions generated with the angular-ordered shower of the HERWIG 7.2.0 generator are in better agreement with the data than those generated with its alternative dipole shower. The data were also compared with different recoil schemes of the angular-ordered shower of HERWIG 7, which allow the parton shower to reach up to next-to-LL (NLL) accuracy for certain global observables. The HERWIG 7 predictions with the dot-product preserving recoil scheme, together with a veto on high-virtuality partons, have the best global agreement with the data among the generators tested in the measurement. The low-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ region is dominated by hadronization effects in a wide range of $ \Delta R $ values, with additional contributions from the UE at large $ \Delta R \approx R $. The predictions based on cluster fragmentation models, such as those generated with HERWIG 7 or SHERPA 2 generators, are in better agreement with the data at low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ for a wide range of $ \Delta R $ values than those of PYTHIA8. The PYTHIA8 predictions, where hadronization is described with the Lund string fragmentation model, overestimate the LJP density by about 15-20% for $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ at the GeV scale for a wide range of $ \Delta R $ values. One possibility to improve the description of the low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ region is to include the FSR cutoff $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ as a free parameter in future event generator tuning; a larger FSR cutoff $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ value decreases the density of emissions at low $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the LJP without affecting the high-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ region that is dominated by the parton shower. Finally, the data are also compared with a perturbative QCD calculation with a resummation at NLL accuracy, which is matched to a fixed-order next-to-leading order calculation [10]. To compare with the measured LJP at hadron level, nonperturbative corrections are supplemented to the calculation. The predictions are in agreement with the data within the theoretical and experimental uncertainties. For collinear emissions, the data can be qualitatively described with the running of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ with $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $. These measurements highlight the different aspects of the physics modeling of event generators that should be improved, ranging from the modeling of hadronization and up to the logarithmic accuracy of parton showering algorithms.
References
1 A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and B. Nachman Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: a review of recent advances in theory and machine learning Phys. Rept. 841 (2020) 1 1709.04464
2 R. Kogler and others Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: experimental review Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (2019) 045003 1803.06991
3 S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and M. Spannowsky Looking inside jets: an introduction to jet substructure and boosted-object phenomenology Lect. Notes Phys. 958 (2019) 1 1901.10342
4 R. Kogler Advances in jet substructure at the LHC: algorithms, measurements, and searches for new physical phenomena Volume 284, Springer
ISBN 978-3-030-72857-1, 978-3-030-72858-8, 2021
5 B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad, and U. Pettersson Coherence effects in deep inelastic scattering Z. Phys. C 43 (1989) 625
6 H. A. Andrews et al. Novel tools and observables for jet physics in heavy-ion collisions JPG 47 (2020) 065102 1808.03689
7 F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The Lund jet plane JHEP 12 (2018) 064 1807.04758
8 Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber Better jet clustering algorithms JHEP 08 (1997) 001 hep-ph/9707323
9 M. Wobisch and T. Wengler Hadronization corrections to jet cross sections in deep inelastic scattering in Workshop on Monte Carlo generators for HERA physics, 1998
link
hep-ph/9907280
10 A. Lifson, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez Calculating the primary Lund jet plane density JHEP 10 (2020) 170 2007.06578
11 M. Dasgupta et al. Logarithmic accuracy of parton showers: a fixed-order study JHEP 09 (2018) 033 1805.09327
12 M. Dasgupta et al. Parton showers beyond leading logarithmic accuracy PRL 125 (2020) 052002 2002.11114
13 K. Hamilton et al. Color and logarithmic accuracy in final-state parton showers JHEP 03 (2021) 041 2011.10054
14 J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin, and S. Pl ä tzer Building a consistent parton shower JHEP 09 (2020) 014 2003.06400
15 Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper Summations by parton showers of large logarithms in electron-positron annihilation 2011.04777
16 F. Herren et al. A new approach to color-coherent parton evolution JHEP 10 (2023) 091 2208.06057
17 M. van Beekveld et al. PanScales parton showers for hadron collisions: formulation and fixed-order studies JHEP 11 (2022) 019 2205.02237
18 M. van Beekveld et al. PanScales showers for hadron collisions: all-order validation JHEP 11 (2022) 020 2207.09467
19 ALICE Collaboration Direct observation of the dead-cone effect in quantum chromodynamics Nature 605 (2022) 440 2106.05713
20 F. A. Dreyer and H. Qu Jet tagging in the Lund plane with graph networks JHEP 03 (2021) 052 2012.08526
21 L. Cavallini et al. Tagging the Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks with color-sensitive observables and the Lund jet plane EPJC 82 (2022) 493 2112.09650
22 M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam Towards an understanding of jet substructure JHEP 09 (2013) 029 1307.0007
23 A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler Soft drop JHEP 05 (2014) 146 1402.2657
24 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the splitting function in pp and PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV PRL 120 (2018) 142302 CMS-HIN-16-006
1708.09429
25 CMS Collaboration Measurements of the differential jet cross section as a function of the jet mass in dijet events from proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 11 (2018) 113 CMS-SMP-16-010
1807.05974
26 CMS Collaboration Measurement of jet substructure observables in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events from proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PRD 98 (2018) 092014 CMS-TOP-17-013
1808.07340
27 ALICE Collaboration First measurement of jet mass in PbPb and pPb collisions at the LHC PLB 776 (2018) 249 1702.00804
28 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of jet substructure observables in top quark, W boson and light jet production in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 08 (2019) 033 1903.02942
29 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of soft-drop jet observables in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PRD 101 (2020) 052007 1912.09837
30 ALICE Collaboration Exploration of jet substructure using iterative declustering in pp and PbPb collisions at LHC energies PLB 802 (2020) 135227 1905.02512
31 ALICE Collaboration Measurement of the groomed jet radius and momentum splitting fraction in pp and PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}}= $ 5.02 TeV PRL 128 (2022) 102001 2107.12984
32 ALICE Collaboration Measurements of the groomed and ungroomed jet angularities in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 5.02 TeV JHEP 05 (2022) 061 2107.11303
33 CMS Collaboration Study of quark and gluon jet substructure in Z+jet and dijet events from pp collisions JHEP 01 (2022) 188 CMS-SMP-20-010
2109.03340
34 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of substructure-dependent jet suppression in PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 054909 2211.11470
35 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section as a function of the jet mass and extraction of the top quark mass in hadronic decays of boosted top quarks EPJC 83 (2023) 560 CMS-TOP-21-012
2211.01456
36 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of suppression of large-radius jets and its dependence on substructure in PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector PRL 131 (2023) 172301 2301.05606
37 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the Lund jet plane using charged particles in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector PRL 124 (2020) 222002 2004.03540
38 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
39 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
40 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
41 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
42 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
43 CMS Tracker Group The CMS Phase-1 pixel detector upgrade JINST 16 (2021) P02027 2012.14304
44 CMS Collaboration Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudorapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS Phase-1 pixel detector CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020
CDS
45 CMS Collaboration Technical proposal for the Phase-2 upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015
CDS
46 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
47 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV JINST 12 (2017) P02014 CMS-JME-13-004
1607.03663
48 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
49 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
50 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
51 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS EPJC 81 (2021) 800 CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
52 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018
link
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
53 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019
link
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
54 T. Sjöstrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
55 B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjöstrand Parton fragmentation and string dynamics Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31
56 T. Sjöstrand The merging of jets PLB 142 (1984) 420
57 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
58 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run 2 JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
59 CMS Collaboration Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlying-event measurements EPJC 81 (2021) 312 CMS-GEN-19-001
2011.03422
60 S. Gieseke, P. Stephens, and B. Webber New formalism for QCD parton showers JHEP 12 (2003) 045 hep-ph/0310083
61 B. R. Webber A QCD model for jet fragmentation including soft gluon interference NPB 238 (1984) 492
62 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
63 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA8.1: the Monash 2013 tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
64 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
65 S. Höche and S. Prestel The midpoint between dipole and parton showers EPJC 75 (2015) 461 1506.05057
66 W. T. Giele, D. A. Kosower, and P. Z. Skands A simple shower and matching algorithm PRD 78 (2008) 014026 0707.3652
67 A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and E. W. N. Glover Antenna subtraction at NNLO JHEP 09 (2005) 056 hep-ph/0505111
68 H. Brooks, C. T. Preuss, and P. Skands Sector showers for hadron collisions JHEP 07 (2020) 032 2003.00702
69 J. Bellm et al. HERWIG 7.0/ HERWIG++ 3.0 release note EPJC 76 (2016) 196 1512.01178
70 J. Bellm et al. HERWIG 7.2 release note EPJC 80 (2020) 452 1912.06509
71 S. Catani and M. H. Seymour A general algorithm for calculating jet cross sections in NLO QCD NPB 485 (1997) 291 hep-ph/9605323
72 E. Bothmann et al. Event generation with SHERPA 2.2 SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034 1905.09127
73 F. Krauss, R. Kuhn, and G. Soff \textscamegic++ 1.0: a matrix element generator in C++ JHEP 02 (2002) 044 hep-ph/0109036
74 T. Gleisberg and S. Höche Comix, a new matrix element generator JHEP 12 (2008) 039 0808.3674
75 S. Schumann and F. Krauss A parton shower algorithm based on Catani--Seymour dipole factorization JHEP 03 (2008) 038 0709.1027
76 J.-C. Winter, F. Krauss, and G. Soff A modified cluster hadronization model EPJC 36 (2004) 381 hep-ph/0311085
77 G. Bewick, S. Ferrario Ravasio, P. Richardson, and M. H. Seymour Logarithmic accuracy of angular-ordered parton showers JHEP 04 (2020) 019 1904.11866
78 A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi Principles of general final-state resummation and automated implementation JHEP 03 (2005) 073 hep-ph/0407286
79 T. Sjöstrand and M. van Zijl A multiple-interaction model for the event structure in hadron collisions PRD 36 (1987) 2019
80 J. M. Butterworth, J. R. Forshaw, and M. H. Seymour Multiparton interactions in photoproduction at HERA Z. Phys. C 72 (1996) 637 hep-ph/9601371
81 I. Borozan and M. H. Seymour An eikonal model for multiparticle production in hadron-hadron interactions JHEP 09 (2002) 015 hep-ph/0207283
82 M. Bahr, S. Gieseke, and M. H. Seymour Simulation of multiple partonic interactions in HERWIG++ JHEP 07 (2008) 076 0803.3633
83 S. Gieseke, C. Rohr, and A. Si \'o dmok Color reconnections in HERWIG++ EPJC 72 (2012) 2225 1206.0041
84 CMS Collaboration DeepCore: convolutional neural network for high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet tracking CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2019-007, 2019
CDS
85 G. D'Agostini A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem NIM A 362 (1995) 487
86 T. Adye Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold in PHYSTAT 2011 workshop on statistical issues related to discovery claims in search experiments and unfolding, 2011
PHYSTAT 201 (2011) 313
1105.1160
87 M. Cacciari et al. The $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section at 1.8 TeV and 1.96 TeV: a study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence JHEP 04 (2004) 068 hep-ph/0303085
88 S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason Soft-gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders JHEP 07 (2003) 028 hep-ph/0306211
89 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of jet substructure in boosted $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events with the ATLAS detector using 140 fb$ ^{-1} $ of 13 TeV pp collisions Submitted to Phys. Rev. D, 2023 2312.03797
90 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
91 Particle Data Group Collaboration Review of particle physics Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022) 083C01
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN