- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Factorization for collider dataspace correlators

Andrew J. Larkoski*

  • American Physical Society, Hauppauge, New York 11788, USA

  • *Contact author: larkoski@aps.org
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 054012 – Published 9 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6r43-xhtj

Abstract

A metric on the space of collider physics data enables analysis of its geometrical properties, like dimensionality or curvature, as well as quantifying the density with which a finite, discrete ensemble of data samples the space. We provide the first systematically-improvable precision calculations on this dataspace, presenting predictions resummed to next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy, using the spectral energy mover’s distance (SEMD) as its metric. This is accomplished by demonstration of factorization of soft and collinear contributions to the metric at leading power and renormalization group evolution of the single-scale functions that are present in the factorization theorem. As applications of this general framework, we calculate the two-point correlator between pairs of jets on the dataspace, and the measure of the non-Gaussian fluctuations in a finite dataset. For the non-Gaussianities, our calculations validate the existence of a universal structure that had been previously observed in simulated data. As by-products of this analysis, we also calculate the two-loop anomalous dimension of the SEMD metric and show that the original energy mover’s distance metric is identical to the SEMD through next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (125)

  1. G. F. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Jets from quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1436 (1977).
  2. R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling, and B. R. Webber, QCD and Collider Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2011), Vol. 8.
  3. P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, Metric space of collider events, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 041801 (2019).
  4. A. Mullin, S. Nicholls, H. Pacey, M. Parker, M. White, and S. Williams, Does SUSY have friends? A new approach for LHC event analysis, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2021) 160.
  5. M. Crispim Romão, N. F. Castro, J. G. Milhano, R. Pedro, and T. Vale, Use of a generalized energy Mover’s distance in the search for rare phenomena at colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 192 (2021).
  6. T. Cai, J. Cheng, N. Craig, and K. Craig, Linearized optimal transport for collider events, Phys. Rev. D 102, 116019 (2020).
  7. A. J. Larkoski and T. Melia, Covariantizing phase space, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094014 (2020).
  8. S. Tsan, R. Kansal, A. Aportela, D. Diaz, J. Duarte, S. Krishna, F. Mokhtar, J.-R. Vlimant, and M. Pierini, Particle graph autoencoders and differentiable, learned energy mover’s distance, in Proceedings of the 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2021); arXiv:2111.12849.
  9. T. Cai, J. Cheng, K. Craig, and N. Craig, Which metric on the space of collider events?, Phys. Rev. D 105, 076003 (2022).
  10. O. Kitouni, N. Nolte, and M. Williams, Finding NEEMo: Geometric fitting using neural estimation of the energy mover’s distance, arXiv:2209.15624.
  11. S. Alipour-Fard, P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, Pileup and Infrared Radiation Annihilation (PIRANHA): A paradigm for continuous jet grooming, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 157.
  12. A. J. Larkoski and J. Thaler, A spectral metric for collider geometry, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2023) 107.
  13. A. Davis, T. Menzo, A. Youssef, and J. Zupan, Earth mover’s distance as a measure of CP violation, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2023) 098.
  14. D. Ba, A. S. Dogra, R. Gambhir, A. Tasissa, and J. Thaler, SHAPER: Can you hear the shape of a jet?, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2023) 195.
  15. N. Craig, J. N. Howard, and H. Li, Exploring optimal transport for event-level anomaly detection at the large hadron collider, arXiv:2401.15542.
  16. T. Cai, J. Cheng, N. Craig, G. Koszegi, and A. J. Larkoski, The phase space distance between collider events, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2024) 054.
  17. R. Gambhir, A. J. Larkoski, and J. Thaler, SPECTER: Efficient evaluation of the spectral EMD, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2025) 219.
  18. A. J. Larkoski, A step toward interpretability: Smearing the likelihood, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2025) 198.
  19. T. Cai, N. Craig, K. Craig, and X. Lin, Multi-scale optimal transport for complete collider events, arXiv:2501.10681.
  20. P. T. Komiske, R. Mastandrea, E. M. Metodiev, P. Naik, and J. Thaler, Exploring the space of jets with CMS open data, Phys. Rev. D 101, 034009 (2020).
  21. P. Grassberger and I. Procaccia, Characterization of strange attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 346 (1983).
  22. Edelsbrunner, Letscher, and Zomorodian, Topological persistence and simplification, Discrete Comput. Geom. 28, 511 (2002).
  23. G. Carlsson, Topology and data, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 46, 255 (2009).
  24. A. Cayley, On a theorem in the geometry of position, Cambridge Math. J. 2, 267 (1841).
  25. K. Menger, Untersuchungen über allgemeine metrik, Math. Ann. 100, 75 (1928).
  26. M. H. Seymour, Searches for new particles using cone and cluster jet algorithms: A comparative study, Z. Phys. C 62, 127 (1994).
  27. J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam, Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 242001 (2008).
  28. A. Abdesselam et al., Boosted objects: A probe of beyond the standard model physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1661 (2011).
  29. A. Altheimer et al., Jet substructure at the tevatron and LHC: New results, new tools, new benchmarks, J. Phys. G 39, 063001 (2012).
  30. A. Altheimer et al., Boosted objects and jet substructure at the LHC. Report of BOOST2012, held at IFIC Valencia, 23rd-27th of July 2012, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2792 (2014).
  31. D. Adams et al., Towards an understanding of the correlations in jet substructure, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 409 (2015).
  32. 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. Rep. 841, 1 (2020).
  33. R. Kogler et al., Jet substructure at the large hadron collider: Experimental review, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045003 (2019).
  34. D. Guest, K. Cranmer, and D. Whiteson, Deep learning and its application to LHC physics, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 161 (2018).
  35. K. Albertsson et al., Machine Learning in High Energy Physics Community White Paper, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1085, 022008 (2018).
  36. A. Radovic, M. Williams, D. Rousseau, M. Kagan, D. Bonacorsi, A. Himmel, A. Aurisano, K. Terao, and T. Wongjirad, Machine learning at the energy and intensity frontiers of particle physics, Nature (London) 560, 41 (2018).
  37. G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborová, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045002 (2019).
  38. D. Bourilkov, Machine and deep learning applications in particle physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1930019 (2020).
  39. M. D. Schwartz, Modern Machine Learning and Particle Physics, 10.1162/99608f92.beeb1183 (2021).
  40. G. Karagiorgi, G. Kasieczka, S. Kravitz, B. Nachman, and D. Shih, Machine learning in the search for new fundamental physics, arXiv:2112.03769.
  41. A. Boehnlein et al., Colloquium: Machine learning in nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 031003 (2022).
  42. P. Shanahan et al., Snowmass 2021 computational frontier CompF03 topical group report: Machine learning, arXiv:2209.07559.
  43. T. Plehn, A. Butter, B. Dillon, T. Heimel, C. Krause, and R. Winterhalder, Modern machine learning for LHC physicists, arXiv:2211.01421.
  44. B. Nachman et al., Jets and jet substructure at future colliders, Front. Phys. 10, 897719 (2022).
  45. G. DeZoort, P. W. Battaglia, C. Biscarat, and J.-R. Vlimant, Graph neural networks at the Large Hadron Collider, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 281 (2023).
  46. K. Zhou, L. Wang, L.-G. Pang, and S. Shi, Exploring QCD matter in extreme conditions with machine learning, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135, 104084 (2024).
  47. V. Belis, P. Odagiu, and T. K. Aarrestad, Machine learning for anomaly detection in particle physics, Rev. Phys. 12, 100091 (2024).
  48. S. Mondal and L. Mastrolorenzo, Machine learning in high energy physics: A review of heavy-flavor jet tagging at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 233, 2657 (2024).
  49. M. Feickert and B. Nachman, A living review of machine learning for particle physics, arXiv:2102.02770.
  50. A. J. Larkoski, QCD masterclass lectures on jet physics and machine learning, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1117 (2024).
  51. J. Halverson, TASI lectures on physics for machine learning, arXiv:2408.00082.
  52. J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson, On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 231, 289 (1933).
  53. M. Fréchet, Sur la loi de probabilité de l’écart maximum, Ann. de la Soc. Polonaise de Math. 6, 93 (1927).
  54. R. A. Fisher and L. H. C. Tippett, Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample, in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1928), Vol. 24, pp. 180–190.
  55. R. Von Mises, La distribution de la plus grande de n valuers, Rev. Math. Union Interbalcanique 1, 141 (1936).
  56. B. Gnedenko, Sur la distribution limite du terme maximum d’une serie aleatoire, Ann. Math. 44, 423 (1943).
  57. C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Energy correlations in electron—positron annihilation: Testing QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1585 (1978).
  58. D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, Conformal collider physics: Energy and charge correlations, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2008) 012.
  59. L. J. Dixon, M.-X. Luo, V. Shtabovenko, T.-Z. Yang, and H. X. Zhu, Analytical computation of energy-energy correlation at next-to-leading order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 102001 (2018).
  60. H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Rethinking jets with energy correlators: Tracks, resummation, and analytic continuation, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054012 (2020).
  61. M. Boutin and G. Kemper, On reconstructing n-point configurations from the distribution of distances or areas, Adv. Appl. Math. 32, 709 (2004).
  62. A. J. Larkoski, Non-Gaussianities in collider metric binning, arXiv:2503.03809.
  63. K. Fukushima, Visual feature extraction by a multilayered network of analog threshold elements, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. 5, 322 (1969).
  64. P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, The hidden geometry of particle collisions, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2020) 006.
  65. F. E. Low, Bremsstrahlung of very low-energy quanta in elementary particle collisions, Phys. Rev. 110, 974 (1958).
  66. S. Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys. Rev. 140, B516 (1965).
  67. T. H. Burnett and N. M. Kroll, Extension of the low soft photon theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 86 (1968).
  68. V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972).
  69. V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, e+e− pair annihilation and deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 675 (1972).
  70. L. N. Lipatov, The parton model and perturbation theory, Yad. Fiz. 20, 181 (1974).
  71. Y. L. Dokshitzer, Calculation of the structure functions for deep inelastic scattering and e+e− annihilation by perturbation theory in quantum chromodynamics, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977).
  72. G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Asymptotic freedom in parton language, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977).
  73. C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Summing Sudakov logarithms in B→Xsγ in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014006 (2000).
  74. C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, An effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001).
  75. C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Invariant operators in collinear effective theory, Phys. Lett. B 516, 134 (2001).
  76. C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002).
  77. M. D. Schwartz, Resummation and NLO matching of event shapes with effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014026 (2008).
  78. I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and W. J. Waalewijn, N-jettiness: An inclusive event shape to veto jets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 092002 (2010).
  79. S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, J. R. Walsh, A. Hornig, and C. Lee, Jet shapes and jet algorithms in SCET, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2010) 101.
  80. A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and D. Neill, Power counting to better jet observables, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2014) 009.
  81. A. Banfi, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, Principles of general final-state resummation and automated implementation, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2005) 073.
  82. M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Resummation of nonglobal QCD observables, Phys. Lett. B 512, 323 (2001).
  83. M. Diehl and J. R. Gaunt, Double parton scattering theory overview, Adv. Ser. Dir. High Energy Phys. 29, 7 (2018).
  84. S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, Resummation of large logarithms in e+e− event shape distributions, Nucl. Phys. B407, 3 (1993).
  85. C. W. Bauer and A. V. Manohar, Shape function effects in B→Xsγ and B→Xulν¯ decays, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034024 (2004).
  86. S. W. Bosch, B. O. Lange, M. Neubert, and G. Paz, Factorization and shape function effects in inclusive B meson decays, Nucl. Phys. B699, 335 (2004).
  87. C. W. Bauer, C.-W. Chiang, S. Fleming, A. K. Leibovich, and I. Low, Resumming the color octet contribution to radiative upsilon decay, Phys. Rev. D 64, 114014 (2001).
  88. S. Fleming, A. K. Leibovich, and T. Mehen, Resumming the color octet contribution to e+e−→J/ψ+X, Phys. Rev. D 68, 094011 (2003).
  89. C. W. Bauer and M. D. Schwartz, Improving jet distributions with effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 142001 (2006).
  90. P. T. Komiske, S. Kryhin, and J. Thaler, Disentangling quarks and gluons in CMS open data, Phys. Rev. D 106, 094021 (2022).
  91. A. J. Larkoski and J. Thaler, Unsafe but calculable: Ratios of angularities in perturbative QCD, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2013) 137.
  92. A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and J. Thaler, Sudakov safety in perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. D 91, 111501 (2015).
  93. A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Soft drop, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2014) 146.
  94. G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Power corrections to event shapes and factorization, Nucl. Phys. B555, 335 (1999).
  95. G. P. Korchemsky and S. Tafat, On power corrections to the event shape distributions in QCD, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2000) 010.
  96. J. Batson and Y. Kahn, Scaling laws in jet classification, SciPost Phys. Core 8, 034 (2025).
  97. E. L. Post, Generalized differentiation, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 32, 723 (1930).
  98. D. V. Widder, The inversion of the laplace integral and the related moment problem, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 36, 107 (1934).
  99. Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Calculation of power corrections to hadronic event shapes, Phys. Lett. B 352, 451 (1995).
  100. C. Lee and G. F. Sterman, Universality of nonperturbative effects in event shapes, eConf C0601121, A001 (2006).
  101. S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, A general algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD, Nucl. Phys. B485, 291 (1997); B510, 503(E) (1998).
  102. S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, and A. Signer, Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order, Nucl. Phys. B467, 399 (1996).
  103. S. Catani and M. Grazzini, An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its application to Higgs boson production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 222002 (2007).
  104. J. Gao, C. S. Li, and H. X. Zhu, Top quark decay at next-to-next-to leading order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 042001 (2013).
  105. J. Gao and H. X. Zhu, Electroweak prodution of top-quark pairs in e+e− annihilation at NNLO in QCD: The vector contributions, Phys. Rev. D 90, 114022 (2014).
  106. R. Boughezal, C. Focke, X. Liu, and F. Petriello, W-boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 062002 (2015).
  107. R. Boughezal, C. Focke, W. Giele, X. Liu, and F. Petriello, Higgs boson production in association with a jet at NNLO using jettiness subtraction, Phys. Lett. B 748, 5 (2015).
  108. J. Gaunt, M. Stahlhofen, F. J. Tackmann, and J. R. Walsh, N-jettiness subtractions for NNLO QCD calculations, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2015) 058.
  109. I. Moult, L. Rothen, I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and H. X. Zhu, Subleading power corrections for N-jettiness subtractions, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074023 (2017).
  110. G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Renormalization of the Wilson loops beyond the leading order, Nucl. Phys. B283, 342 (1987).
  111. O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov, and A. Y. Zharkov, The Gell-Mann-low function of QCD in the three loop approximation, Phys. Lett. 93B, 429 (1980).
  112. G. P. Korchemsky and G. Marchesini, Resummation of large infrared corrections using Wilson loops, Phys. Lett. B 313, 433 (1993).
  113. C. Balzereit, T. Mannel, and W. Kilian, Evolution of the light cone distribution function for a heavy quark, Phys. Rev. D 58, 114029 (1998).
  114. M. Neubert, Advanced predictions for moments of the B¯→Xsγ photon spectrum, Phys. Rev. D 72, 074025 (2005).
  115. T. Becher, M. Neubert, and B. D. Pecjak, Factorization and momentum-space resummation in deep-inelastic scattering, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2007) 076.
  116. S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart, Top jets in the peak region: Factorization analysis with NLL resummation, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114003 (2008).
  117. C. Frye, A. J. Larkoski, M. D. Schwartz, and K. Yan, Factorization for groomed jet substructure beyond the next-to-leading logarithm, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2016) 064.
  118. J. M. Campbell and E. W. N. Glover, Double unresolved approximations to multiparton scattering amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B527, 264 (1998).
  119. S. Catani and M. Grazzini, Infrared factorization of tree level QCD amplitudes at the next-to-next-to-leading order and beyond, Nucl. Phys. B570, 287 (2000).
  120. Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, and C. R. Schmidt, The infrared behavior of one loop gluon amplitudes at next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Lett. B 445, 168 (1998).
  121. D. A. Kosower and P. Uwer, One loop splitting amplitudes in gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B563, 477 (1999).
  122. Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, W. B. Kilgore, and C. R. Schmidt, The infrared behavior of one loop QCD amplitudes at next-to-next-to leading order, Phys. Rev. D 60, 116001 (1999).
  123. M. Neubert, Renormalization-group improved calculation of the B→Xsγ branching ratio, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 165 (2005).
  124. T. Becher and M. D. Schwartz, Direct photon production with effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2010) 040.
  125. O. Pele and B. Taskar, The tangent earth mover’s distance, in International Conference on Geometric Science of Information (Springer, New York, 2013), pp. 397–404.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 054012– Published 9 September, 2025
  • Received 20 May 2025
  • Accepted 26 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation