Boosted objects and jet substructure at the LHC. Report of BOOST2012, held at IFIC Valencia, 23rd–27th of July 2012
 1.2k Downloads
 88 Citations
Abstract
This report of the BOOST2012 workshop presents the results of four working groups that studied key aspects of jet substructure. We discuss the potential of firstprinciple QCD calculations to yield a precise description of the substructure of jets and study the accuracy of stateoftheart Monte Carlo tools. Limitations of the experiments’ ability to resolve substructure are evaluated, with a focus on the impact of additional (pileup) proton proton collisions on jet substructure performance in future LHC operating scenarios. A final section summarizes the lessons learnt from jet substructure analyses in searches for new physics in the production of boosted top quarks.
1 Introduction
With a centreofmass energy of 7 TeV in 2010 and 2011 and of 8 TeV in 2012 the LHC has pushed the energy frontier well into the TeV regime. Another leap in energy is expected with the start of the second phase of operation in 2014, when the centreofmass energy is to be increased to 13–14 TeV. For the first time experiments produce large samples of \(W\) and \(Z\) bosons and top quarks with a transverse momentum \(p_T\) that considerably exceeds their rest mass \(m\) (\(p_T \gg m\)). The same is true also for the Higgs boson and, possibly, for as yet unknown particles with masses near the electroweak scale. In this new kinematic regime, wellknown particles are observed in unfamiliar ways. Classical reconstruction algorithms that rely on a onetoone jettoparton assignment are often inadequate, in particular for hadronic decays of such boosted objects.
A suite of techniques has been developed to fully exploit the opportunities offered by boosted objects at the LHC. Jets are reconstructed with a much larger radius parameter to capture the energy of the complete (hadronic) decay in a single jet. The internal structure of these fat jets is a key signature to identify boosted objects among the abundant jet production at the LHC. Many searches use a variety of recently proposed substructure observables. Jet grooming techniques^{1} improve the resolution of jet substructure measurements, help to reject background, and increase the resilience to the impact of multiple protonproton interactions.
In July 2012 IFIC Valencia organized the 2012 edition [4] of the BOOST series of workshops, the main forum for the physics of boosted objects and jet substructure^{2}. Working groups formed during the 2010 and 2011 workshops prepared reports [9, 10] that provide an overview of the state of the field and an entry point to the now quite extensive literature and present new material prepared by participants. In this paper we present the report of the working groups set up during BOOST2012. Each contribution addresses an important aspect of jet substructure analysis as a tool for the study of boosted objects at the LHC.

Can jet substructure be predicted by firstprinciple QCD calculations and compared to data in a meaningful way?

How accurately is jet substructure described by stateoftheart Monte Carlo tools?

How does the impact of additional proton proton collisions limit the performance of jet substructure analysis at the LHC, now and in future operating scenarios?

How powerful a tool is jet substructure analysis in studies of boosted top production, and how can it be made even more powerful?
2 Measurements and firstprinciple QCD predictions for jet substructure
Section prepared by the Working Group: ’Predictions and measurements of jet substructure observables’, A. Davison, A. Hornig, S. Marzani, D.W. Miller, G. Salam, M. Schwartz, I. Stewart, J. Thaler, N.V. Tran, C. Vermilion, J. Walsh
The internal structure of jets has traditionally been characterized in jet shape measurements. A detailed introduction to the current theoretical understanding and of the calculations needed for observables that probe jet substructure is provided in last year’s BOOST report [10]. Here, rather than give a comprehensive review of the literature relevant to the myriad of developments, we focus on the progress made in the last year in calculations of jet substructure at hadron colliders. Like the Tevatron experiments ATLAS and CMS have performed measurements of the energy flow within the jet [11, 12]. Both collaborations have moreover performed dedicated jet substructure measurements on jets reconstructed with a large radius parameter (\(R = 0.8  1.2\), as opposed to the usual \(R= 0.4  0.7\)). These experimental results are briefly reviewed before we introduce analytical calculations and summarize the status of the two main approaches.
2.1 Jet substructure measurements by ATLAS
The first measurement of jet mass for largeradius jets, with radii of \(1.0\) and \(1.2\), and several substructure observables was performed by ATLAS on data from the 2010 run of the LHC [13]. These early studies include also a first measurement of the jet mass distribution for filtered [1] CambridgeAachen jets. A number of further jet shapes were studied with the same data set in Reference [14]. These early studies were crucial to establish the ability of the experiment to resolve jet substructure and to validate the Monte Carlo description of jet substructure. They are moreover unique, as the impact of pileup could be trivially avoided by selecting events with a single primary vertex. The results, fully corrected for detector effects, are available for comparison to calculations.
Since then, the ATLAS experiment has performed a direct and systematic comparison of the performance of several grooming algorithms on inclusive jet samples, purified samples of high\(p_{T}\) \(W\) bosons and top quarks, and Monte Carlo simulations of boosted \(W\) and topquark signal samples [15]. The parameters of largeradius (\(R=1.0\)) trimmed [2], pruned [3] and massdrop filtered jet algorithms were optimized in the context of Standard Model measurements and new physics searches using multiple performance measures, including efficiency and jet mass resolution. The impact of pileup on the jet mass measurement is studied quantitatively. The mitigating effect of trimming and massdrop filtering is established in events with up to 15 additional proton proton interactions.
For a subset of the jet algorithms tested, dedicated jet energy scale and mass scale calibrations were derived and systematic uncertainties evaluated for a wide range of jet transverse momenta. Relative systematic uncertainties were obtained by comparing ratios of trackbased quantities to calorimeterbased quantities in the data and MC simulation. In situ measurements of the mass of jets containing boosted hadronically decaying \(W\) bosons further constrain the jet mass scale uncertainties for this particular class of jets to approximately \(\pm 1\%\).
2.2 Jet substructure measurements by CMS
The CMS experiment measured jet mass distributions with approximately 5 fb\(^{1}\) of data at a centerofmass energy of \(\sqrt{s} =\) 7 TeV [16]. The measurements were performed in several \(p_T\) bins and for two processes, inclusive jet production and vector boson production in association with jets. For inclusive jet production, the measurement corresponds to the average jet mass of the highest two \(p_T\) jets. In vector boson plus jet (\(V +\) jet) production the mass of the jet with the highest \(p_T\) was measured. The measurements were performed primarily for jets clustered with the anti\(k_t\) algorithm with distance parameter \(R=\) 0.7 (AK7). The mass of ungroomed, filtered, trimmed, and pruned jets are presented in bins of pt. Additional measurements were performed for anti\(k_t\) jets with smaller and larger radius parameter (\(R=\) 0.5, 0.8), after applying pruning [3] and filtering [1] to the jet, and for CambridgeAachen jets with \(R=0.8 \) and \(R=1.2\).
The jet mass distributions are corrected for detector effects and can be compared directly with theoretical calculations or simulation models. The dominant systematic uncertainties are jet energy resolution effects, pileup, and parton shower modeling.
The study finds that, for the grooming parameters examined, the pruning algorithm is the most aggressive grooming algorithm, leading to the largest average reduction of the jet mass with respect to the original jet mass. Due to this fact, CMS also finds that the pruning algorithm reduced the pileup dependence of the jet mass the most of the grooming algorithms.
The jet mass distributions are compared against different simulation programs: Pythia 6 [17, 18] (version 424, tune Z2), Herwig ++ [19, 20] (version 2.4.2, tune 23), and Pythia 8 (version 145, tune 4C), in the case of inclusive jet production. In general the agreement between simulation and data is reasonable although Herwig ++ appears to have the best agreement with the data for more aggressive grooming algorithms. The \(V + \) jet channel appears to have better agreement overall than the inclusive jets production channel which indicates that quark jets are modeled better in simulation. The largest disagreement with data comes from the low jet mass region, which is more affected by pileup and soft QCD effects.
The jet energy scale and jet mass scale of these algorithms were validated individually. The jet energy scale was investigated in MC simulation, and was found to agree with the ungroomed energy scale within 3%, which is assigned as an additional systematic uncertainty. The jet mass scale was investigated in a sample of boosted W bosons in a semileptonic \({t\overline{t}}\) sample. The jet mass scale derived from the mass of the boosted W jet agrees with MC simulation within 1%, which is also assigned as a systematic uncertainty.
2.3 Analytical predictions for jet substructure
Nexttoleading order (NLO) calculations in the strong coupling constant have been performed for multijet production, even in association with an electroweak boson. This means that substructure observables, such as the jet mass, can be computed to NLO accuracy using publicly available codes [21, 22]. However, whenever multiple scales, e.g. a jet’s transverse momentum and its mass, are involved in a measurement, the prediction of the observables will contain logarithms of ratios of these scales at each order in perturbation theory. These logarithms are so important for jet shapes that they qualitatively change the shapes as compared to fixed order. Resummation yields a more efficient organization of the perturbative expansion than traditional fixedorder perturbation theory. Accurate calculations of jet shapes are impossible without resummation. In general one can moreover interpolate between, or merge, the resummed and fixedorder result.
The notation used in traditional fixedorder perturbation theory refers to the lowestorder calculation as leading order (LO) and higherorder calculations as NLO, nexttonext to leading order (NNLO), and so on (with N\({^n}\)LO referring to the \(\mathcal {O}(\alpha _s^n)\) correction to the LO result). When organized instead in resummed perturbation theory as in Eq. (1), the lowest order, in which only the function \(g_1^{(\delta )}\) is retained, is referred to as leadinglog (LL) approximation. Similarly, the inclusion of all \(g_i^{(\delta )}\) with \(1\le i\le k+1\) and of \(g_0\) up to order \(\alpha _s^{k1}\) gives the next\(^k\)toleading log approximation to \(\ln \sigma \); this corresponds to the resummation of all the contributions of the form \(\alpha _s^n L^m\) with \(2(nk)+1\le m\le 2n\) in the cross section \(\sigma \). This can be extended to \(2(nk)\le m\le 2n\) by also including the order \(\alpha _s^k\) contribution to \(g_0^{(\delta )}\).
Typical Monte Carlo event generators such as Pythia, Herwig ++ and Sherpa [23] are based on calculations to LeadingLog precision. NexttoLeadingLog (NLL) accuracy has also been achieved for some specific observables, but it is difficult to say whether this can be generally obtained. Analytic calculations provide a way of obtaining precise calculations for jet substructure. Multiple observables have been resummed (most often at least to NLL but not uncommonly to NNLL and as high as NNNLL accuracy for a few cases) and others are actively being studied and calculated in the theory community.
Often for observables of experimental interest, nonglobal logarithms (NGLs) arise [24], in particular whenever a hard boundary in phasespace is present (such as a rapidity cut or a geometrical jet boundary). These effects enter at NLL level and therefore modify the structure of the function \(g_2^{(\delta )}\) in Eq. (1). Until very recently [25], the resummation of NGLs was confined to the limit of large number of colours \(N_C\) [24, 26, 27].
Moreover, we should stress that another class of contributions, usually referred to as clustering logarithms, affects the \(g_2^{(\delta )}\) series of Eq. (1) if an algorithm other than anti\(k_t\) is used to define the jets [28, 29]. The analytic structure of these clustering effects has been recently explored in Ref. [30, 31] for the case of CambridgeAachen and \(k_t\) algorithms.
Furthermore, recent studies have shown that strict collinear factorization is violated if the observable considered is not sufficiently inclusive [32, 33]. As a consequence, coherenceviolating (or superleading) logarithms appear, which further complicate the resummation of certain observables. These contributions affect not only nonglobal dijets observables, such as the fraction of dijets events with a central gap [34, 35], but also some classes of global event shapes [36].
Of course, to fully compare to data one needs to incorporate the effects of hadronization and multiparticle interactions (MPI). Progress on this front has also been made, both in purely analytical approaches (especially for hadronization effects [37]) and in interfacing analytical results with parton showers that incorporate these effects.
The two main active approaches to resummation are referred to as traditional perturbative QCD resummation (pQCD) and Soft Collinear Effective Theory (SCET). They describe the same physical effects, which are captured by the Eqs. 1 and 2. However, the techniques employed in pQCD and SCET approaches often differ. Calculations in pQCD exploit factorization and exponentiation properties of QCD matrix elements and of the phasespace associated to the observable at hand, in the soft or collinear limits. The SCET approach is based on factorization at the operator level and exploits the renormalization group to resum the logarithms. The two approaches also adopt different philosophies for the treatment of NGLs. A more detailed description of these differences is given in the next Sections.
2.4 Resummation in pQCD
Jet mass was calculated in pQCD in [38]. A more extensive study can be found in Ref. [39] where the jet mass distribution for \(Z\)+jet and inclusive jet production, with jets defined with the anti\(k_t\) algorithm, were calculated at NLL accuracy and matched to LO. In particular, for the \(Z\)+jet case, the jet mass distribution of the highest \(p_T\) jet was calculated whereas for inclusive jet production, essentially the average of jet mass distributions of the two highest \(p_T\) jets was calculated. For the \(Z\)+jet case, one has to consider softwide angle emissions from a three hard parton ensemble, consisting of the incoming partons and the outgoing hard parton. For three or fewer partons, the colour structure is trivial. Dijet production on the other hand involves an ensemble of four hard partons and the consequent soft wideangle radiation has a nontrivial colour matrix structure. The rank of these matrices grows quickly with the number of hard partons, making the calculations for multi jet final states a formidable challenge^{5}.
The jet mass is a nonglobal observable and NGLs of \(m_J/p_T\) for jets with transverse momentum \(p_T\) are induced. Their effect was approximated using an analytic formula with coefficients fit to a Monte Carlo simulation valid in the large \(N_C\) limit, obtained by means of a dipole evolution code [24]. It was found that in inclusive calculations^{6} the effects of both the soft wideangle radiation and the NGLs, both of which affect the \(g_2^{(\delta )}\) series in Eq. (1), play a relevant role even at relatively small values of jet radius such as \(R=0.6\) and hence in general cannot be neglected.
A restriction on the number of additional jets could be implemented, for instance, by vetoing additional jets with \(p_T>p_T^\text {cut}\). The presence of a jet veto modifies the calculation in several ways. First of all, it affects the argument of the nonglobal logarithms: \(\ln ^n (m_J^2/p_T^2) \rightarrow \ln ^n (m_J^2/(p_T p_T^{cut}))\). Thus \(p_T^\text {cut}\) could, in principle, be used to tame the effect of NGLs. However, if the veto scale is chosen such that \(p_T^\text {cut}\ll p_T\), logarithms of this ratio must be also resummed. Depending on the specific details of the definition of the observable, this further resummation can be affected by a new class of NGLs [44, 45].
An obstacle to inclusive predictions in the number of jets is that the constant term \(g_0^{(\delta )}\) in Eq. 1 receives contributions from topologies with higher jet multiplicities that are not related to any Born configurations. For instance, the jet mass in the \(Z\)+jet process would receive contributions from \(Z\)+2jet configurations, which are clearly absent in the exclusive case. The full determination of the constant term to \(\mathcal {O}(\alpha _s)\) and the matching to NLO is ongoing.
2.5 Resummation in SCET
There have been several recent papers in SCET directly related to substructure in hadron collisions^{7}. Reference [46] discusses the resummation of jet mass by expanding around the threshold limit, where (nearly) all of the energy goes into the final state jets. Expanding around the threshold limit has proven effective for other observables, see Ref. [47] and references in Ref. [46]. The large logarithms for jet mass are mainly due to collinear emission within the jet and soft emission from the recoiling jet and the beam. These same logarithms are present near threshold and the threshold limit automatically prevents additional jets from being relevant, simplifying the calculation. The study in Ref. [46] performs resummation at the NNLL level, but does not include NGLs. Instead, their effect is estimated and found to be subdominant in the peak region, where other effects, such as nonperturvative corrections, are comparable. Thus NGLs could be safely ignored where the calculation was most accurate.
An alternative approach using SCET is found in Ref. [48]. Beam functions are used to contain the collinear radiation from the beam remnants. The jet mass distribution in Higgs+1jet events is studied via the factorization formula for the 1jettiness event shape [49], that is calculated to NNLL accuracy. Using 1jettiness, the jet boundaries are defined by the distance measure used in 1jettiness itself, instead of a more commonly employed jet algorithm, although generalizations to arbitrary jet algorithms are possible.
For a single jet in hadron collisions, 1jettiness can be used as a means to separate the injet and outofjet radiation (see for a review the BOOST2011 report [10]). The observable studied in Ref. [48] is separately differential in the jet mass and the beam thrust. The injet component is related to the jet mass, and can be converted directly, up to power corrections that become negligible for higher \(p_T\) (up to about 3% for \(p_T = 300\) GeV in the peak of the distribution of the injet contribution to 1jettiness which is smaller than NNLL uncertainties). The beam thrust^{8} is a measure of the outofjet contributions, equivalent to a rapidityweighted veto scale \(p_\mathrm{cut}\) on extra jets. The calculation can be made exclusive in the number of jets by making the outofjet contributions small. Where Ref. [46] ensures a fixed number of jets by expanding around the threshold limit, Ref. [48] includes an explicit jet veto scale.
Exclusive calculations in the number of jets avoid some of the issues mentioned in Sect. 2.4. An important property of 1jettiness is that, when considering the sum of the in and outofjet contributions, no NGLs are present, and when considering these contributions separately, only the ratio \(p_\mathrm{cut} / m_J\) of these two scales is nonglobal. A smart choice of the veto scale may then allow to minimize the NGL and make the resummation unnecessary. This corresponds to the NGLs discussed in Sect. 2.4 that are induced in going from the inclusive to the exclusive case. These are the only NGLs present; the additional NGLs of the measured jet \(p_T\) to their mass discussed for the observable of Sect. 2.4 are absent in this case. By using an exclusive observable, with an explicit veto scale, NGLs are controlled. For comparison with inclusive jet mass measurements, such as those discussed in Sects. 2.1 and 2.2, the uncertainty associated with the veto scale can be estimated in a similar fashion as the NGL estimate in Ref. [46].
It was argued in Ref. [48] that the NGLs induced by imposing a veto on both the \(p_T\) and jet mass are smaller than the resummable logarithms of the measured jets over a range of veto scales. In contrast, in the inclusive case the corresponding \(p_T\) value that appears in the NGLs is of the order of the measured jet \(p_T\) (since all values less than this are allowed), making it a large scale and the NGLs as large as other logarithms. For a fixed veto cut, it was argued that the effect of these NGLs (at least of those that enter at the first nontrivial order, \({\mathcal {O}}(\alpha _s^2)\)), can be considered small enough to justify avoiding resummation for a calculation up to NNLL accuracy for \(1/\sqrt{8} < m_J^\mathrm{cut}/p_\mathrm{cut} < \sqrt{8}\) (cf. Ref. [53]) in the peak region where a majority of events lie. It is also worth noting that the effect of normalizing the distribution by the total rate up to a maximum \(m_J^\mathrm{cut}\) and \(p_\mathrm{cut}\) has several advantages and in particular has a smaller perturbative uncertainty than the unnormalized distribution, in addition to having smaller experimental uncertainties.
We also note that while jet mass is now theoretically the best understood substructure observable, experiments often apply much more complex techniques in their analyses of the data. There has also been progress in understanding more complicated measurements using SCET, and in particular a calculation of the signal distribution in \(H \rightarrow b \bar{b}\) was performed in Ref. [54]. While it is probably fair to say that our theoretical understanding (or at least the numerical accuracy) of such measurements are currently not at the same level as that of the jet mass, this is a nice demonstration that reasonably accurate calculations of realistic substructure measurements can be performed with the current technologies and that it is not unreasonable to expect related studies in the near future.
2.6 Discussion and recommendations for further substructure measurements
We have presented a status report for the two main approaches to the resummation of jet substructure observables, with a focus on their potential to predict the jet invariant mass at hadron colliders. In both approaches recent work has shown important progress
We hope that providing predictions beyond the accuracy of parton showers may help both discovery and measurement. Beyond the scope of improving our understanding of QCD, gaining intuition for which treatments work best is an important step towards adopting such predictions as an alternative to parton showers. Nonperturbative corrections like hadronization are more complicated at the LHC due to the increased colour correlations. Entirely new perturbative and semiperturbative effects such as multipleparticle interactions appear. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that these have a significant impact.
The treatments of nonperturbative corrections and NGLs are often different in pQCD and SCET^{9} and this leads to slight differences in which measurements are best suited for comparison to predictions. The first target for the next year should be a phenomenological study of the jet mass distribution in \(Z\)+jet, for which we encourage ATLAS and CMS measurements. Ideally, since the QCD and SCET literature have emphasized a difference in preference for inclusive or exclusive measurements (in the number of jets), both should be measured to help our understanding of the two techniques.
The importance of boostedobject taggers in searches for new physics will increase strongly in the near future in view of the higherenergy and higherluminosity LHC runs. However, the theoretical understanding of these tools is in its infancy. Analytic calculations must be performed in order to understand the properties of the different taggers and establish which theoretical approaches (MC, resummation or even fixed order) are needed to accurately compute these kind of observables^{10}.
3 Monte Carlo generators for jet substructure observables
Section prepared by the Working Group: ’Monte Carlo predictions for jet substructure’, A. Arce, D. Bjergaard, A. Buckley, M. Campanelli, D. Kar, K. Nordstrom.
In order to use boosted objects and substructure techniques for measurements and searches, it is important that Monte Carlo generators describe the jet substructure with reasonable precision, and that variations due to the choice of parton shower models and their parameters are characterized and understood. We study jet mass, before and after several jet grooming procedures, a number of popular jet substructure observables, colour flow and jet charge. For each of these we compare the predictions of several parton shower and hadronisation codes, not only in signallike topologies, but also in background or calibration samples.
3.1 Monte Carlo samples and tools
Three processes in \(pp\) collisions are considered at \(\sqrt{s}=7\) TeV: semileptonic \({t\overline{t}}\) decays, boosted semileptonic \({t\overline{t}}\) decays, and \((W^\pm \rightarrow \mu \nu )+\)jets. These processes provide massive jets coming from hadronic decays of a colourneutral boson as well as jets from heavy and light quarks.
Like \(Z\)+jets, the (\(W\rightarrow \mu \nu )\)+jets process provides a wellunderstood source of quarks and gluons, and additionally allows an experimentally accessible identification (“awaysidetag”) of the charge of the leading jet. Assuming that the charge of this jet is opposite to the muon’s charge leads to the same charge assignment as a conventional parton matching scheme in approximately 70% of simulated events in leading order Monte Carlo simulation; in the remaining 30% of cases, the recoiling jet matches a (chargeneutral) gluon.
The selection of \(t\), \(W^\pm \), and quark jet candidates for the distributions compared below include event topologies that can be realistically collected in the LHC experiments, with typical background rejection cuts, so that these studies, based on simulation, could be reproduced using LHC data.
The most commonly used leading order Monte Carlo simulation codes are the Pythia and Herwig families. Here, predictions from the Perugia 2011 [58, 59] tune with CTEQ5L [60] parton density function (PDF) and corresponding NOCR tunes of pythia6 [17, 61] (version 6.426), tune 4C [62] with CTEQ6L1 PDF [63] of the newer C++ Pythia8 generator [18] (version 8.170), and the LHCUEEE4 [64] tune of Herwig ++ [20, 65] (version 2.6.1) with CTEQ6L1 PDF are compared. The default parameter tune of the nexttoleading order (NLO) parton shower model implemented in Sherpa [23] (version 1.4.2) with CT10 PDF [66] is also included in comparisons. The Pythia6 generator with the Perugia2011 tune is taken as a reference in all comparisons. For each generator, tune and process one million protonproton events at \(\sqrt{s}=\) 7 TeV are produced.
The analysis relies on the FastJet 3.0.3 package [67, 68] and Rivet analysis framework [69]. All analysis routines are available on the conference web page [70]. In the boosted semileptonic \({t\overline{t}}\) analysis, largeradius jets were formed using the anti\(k_t\) algorithm [71] with a radius parameter of \(1.2\) using all stable particles within pseudorapidity \(\eta  < 4\). The jets are selected if they passed the following cuts: \(p_T^{\text {jet}} > 350\) GeV, 140 GeV \( < m^{\text {jet}} < 250\) GeV. Only the leading and subleading jets were selected if more than two jets passed the cuts. The subjets were formed using the CambridgeAachen algorithm [72, 73] with radius \(0.3\).
3.2 Jet mass
The effect of different grooming techniques on jet mass is also shown in Fig. 1. For filtering, three hardest subjets with \(R^{sub} =0.3\) are used. The trimming uses all subjets over \(3\%\) of \(p_T^{jet}\) and \(R^{sub} = 0.3\). For pruning, \(z = 0.1\) and \(D = m^{jet} / p_T^{jet}\) is used. As expected, a much narrower top quark mass peak is obtained, with a particularly strong reduction of the highmass tail. The grooming procedure improves the agreement among the different Monte Carlo tools, as expected from previous Monte Carlo studies with a more limited set of generators [9] and comparison with data [13].
3.3 Jet substructure observables
 The Angular Correlation Function [74] measures the \(\Delta R\) distance scale of the radiation in the jet:where the sum runs over all pairs of particles in the jet, and \(\Theta (x)\) is the Heaviside step function. The Angular Structure Function is defined as the derivative:$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {G}(R)&= \frac{1}{\sum p_{T,i} p_{T,j} \Delta R_{i,j}^2} \sum p_{T,i} p_{T,j} \Delta R_{i,j}^2 \Theta \nonumber \\&\times (R  \Delta R_{i,j}) \end{aligned}$$A peak in \(\Delta \mathcal {G}(R)\) at a given \(\Delta R\) indicates that radiation in the jet separated by \(\Delta R\) contributes significantly to the jet mass. Only prominent peaks, with prominence \(h > 4\) are retained^{11}. The variable \(r_{1*}\) studied here corresponds to the location of the first peak in the angular structure function. Jets with a total number of prominent peaks \(n_p\) greater than 1 are discarded.$$\begin{aligned} \Delta \mathcal {G}(R) = \frac{ d \text {log} \mathcal {G}(R) }{d \text {log} R} \end{aligned}$$
 \(N\)subjettiness [75, 76] measures how much of a jet’s radiation is aligned along \(N\) subjet axes in the plane formed by the rapidity \(y\) and azimuthal angle \(\phi \). It is defined as:where \(\Delta R_{n,k}\) is the distance from \(k\) to the \(n\)th subjet axis in the \(y  \phi \) plane, \(R_{\text {jet}}\) is the radius used for clustering the original jet, and \(\beta \) is an angular weighting exponent^{12}.$$\begin{aligned} \tau _N = \frac{1}{\sum \limits _k p_{T,k} R_{\text {jet}}^\beta } \sum \limits _k p_{T,k} \text {min}(\Delta R_{1,k}^\beta , \Delta R_{2_k}^\beta ,...) \end{aligned}$$
 Angularity [77] introduces an adjustable parameter \(a\) that interpolates between the wellknown event shapes thrust and jet broadening. Jet angularity is an IRC safe variable (for \(a<\) 2) that can be used to separate multijet background from jets containing boosted objects [78]. It is defined as:where \(\omega _i\) is the energy of a constituent of the jet.$$\begin{aligned} \tau _a = \frac{1}{m_{jet}} \sum \limits _{i\in jets} \omega _i \sin ^a \theta _i (1  \cos \theta _i)^{1a} \end{aligned}$$

Eccentricity [79] of jets is defined by \(1v_{\text {max}}/v_{\text {min}}\), where \(v_{max}\) and \(v_{min}\) are the maximum and minimum values of the variances of jet constituents along the principle and minor axes^{13}.
3.4 Colour flow
Dipolarity [81] can distinguish whether a pair of subjets arises from a colour singlet source. In the top right plot of Fig. 3, the dipolarity predictions are seen to be similar for all models considered.
3.5 Jet charge
3.6 Summary
We have prepared the Rivet routines to evaluate the predictions of Monte Carlo generators for the internal structure of large area jets. The normalized predictions from several mainstream Monte Carlo models are compared. Several aspects of jet substructure are evaluated, from basic jet invariant mass to colour flow observables and jet charge.
We find that for jet mass large variations are observed between the various MC models. However, for groomed jets the deviations between different model predictions are smaller. The differences between several recent tunes of the Pythia generator are much smaller. The MC model predictions are similar for \(N\)subjettiness, angularity and eccentricity. The colour flow model recently implemented in Herwig ++ yields different predictions for colour flow observables than the models in other generators.
4 The impact of multiple protonproton collisions on jet reconstruction
Section prepared by the Working Group: ’Jet substructure performance at high luminosity’, P. Loch, D. Miller, K. Mishra, P. Nef, A. Schwartzman, G. Soyez.
The first LHC analyses exploring the experimental response to jet substructure demonstrated that the highly granular ATLAS and CMS detectors can yield excellent performance. They also confirmed the susceptibility of the invariant mass of largeradius jets, with a very large catchment area, to the energy flow from the additional protonproton interactions that occur each bunch crossing. And, finally, they provided a first hint that jet grooming could be a powerful tool to mitigate the impact of pileup. Since then, the LHC collaborations have gained extensive experience in techniques to correct for the impact of pileup on jets. In this Section these tools are deployed in an extreme pileup environment. We simulate pileup levels as high as \({\langle \mu \rangle }= 200\), such as may be expected in a future highluminosity phase of the LHC. We evaluate the impact on jet reconstruction, with a focus on the (substructure) performance.
4.1 Pileup
Each LHC bunch crossing gives rise to a number of protonproton collisions and typically the hard scattering (signal) interaction is accompanied by several additional pileup protonproton collisions. The total protonproton crosssection is about \(\sigma _{\mathrm {tot}} = 98\) mb (inelastic \(\sigma _{\mathrm {inel}} = 72.9\) mb) at \({\sqrt{s}=7} \mathrm{TeV}\) [85], and even slightly higher at \({\sqrt{s}=8} \mathrm{TeV}\) in 2012. With a peak instantaneous luminosity of about \(7.7 \times 10^{33}\) cm\(^{2}\) s\(^{1}\) in 2012, the resulting average number of pileup collisions reached \({\langle \mu \rangle }= 20\) at the highest intensities. The 2012 data set has a rather flat \(\mu \) distribution extending from \(\mu = 5\) to \(\mu = 35\). In future LHC running even higher \({\langle \mu \rangle }{}\) are expected.
Pileup manifests itself mostly in additional hadronic transverse momentum flow, which is generated by overlaid and statistically independent, predominantly soft protonproton collisions that we refer to as “minimum bias” (MB). This diffuse transverse energy emission is superimposed onto the signal of hard scattering final state objects like particles and particle jets, and typically requires corrections, in particular for particle jets. In addition, pileup can generate particle jets (pileup jets). We distinguish two types: QCD jets, where the particles in the jet stem from a single MB collision, and stochastic jets that combine particles from different vertices in the high density particle flow.
4.2 Monte Carlo event generation
We model the pileup with MB collisions at \({\sqrt{s}=8} \mathrm{TeV}\) and a bunch spacing of 50 ns, generated with the Pythia Monte Carlo (MC) generator [86, 87], with its 4C tune [62]. All inelastic, single diffractive, and double diffractive processes are included, with the default fractions as provided by Pythia(tune 4C).
Overall \(100\times 10^{6}\) MB events are available for pileup simulation. The corresponding data are generated in samples of \(25000\) MB collisions, with the largest possibly statistical independence between samples, including new random seeds for each sample. To model pileup for each signal interaction, the stable particles^{14} generated in a number \(\mu \) of MB collisions, with \(\mu \) being sampled from a Poisson distribution around the chosen \({\langle \mu \rangle }\), are added to the final state stable particles from the signal. This is done dynamically by an event builder in the analysis software, and is thus not part of the signal or MB event production. All analysis is then performed on the merged list of stable particles to model one full collision event at the LHC.
The example signal chosen for the Monte Carlo simulation based studies presented in this Section is the decay of a possible heavy \({Z'} {}\) boson with a chosen \({M_{{Z'} }}= 1.5\) TeV to a (boosted) top quark pair, at \({\sqrt{s}=8} \mathrm{TeV}\). The top and antitopquarks then decay fully hadronically (\(t \rightarrow {W}b \rightarrow jj\,{b}\text{ }\mathrm{jet}\)) or semileptonically (\(t \rightarrow {W}b \rightarrow \ell \nu \,{b}\text{ }\mathrm{jet}\)). The Pythia generator [86, 87] is used to generate the signal samples. The soft physics modeling parameters in both cases are from the preLHCdata tune 4C [62]. The pileup is simulated by overlaying generated minimum bias protonproton interactions at \({\sqrt{s}=8} \mathrm{TeV}\) using Poisson distributions with averages \({\langle \mu \rangle }= \{ 30, 60, 100, 200 \}\), respectively, thus focusing on the exploration of future high intensity scenarios at LHC.
All analysis utilizes the tools available in the FastJet [67] package for jet finding and jet substructure analysis. The larger jets used to analyze the final state are reconstructed with the \(\mathrm{anti}{k_{\mathrm {T}}}{}\) algorithm [71] with \(R = 1.0\), to assure that most of the final state topquark decays can be collected into one jet. This corresponds to topquarks generated with \({p_{\mathrm {T}}}\gtrsim 400\) GeV. The configurations for jet grooming are discussed in Sect. 4.6.
4.3 Investigating jets from pileup

Truth jets are obtained by clustering all stable particles from a single MB interaction. For an event containing \(\mu \) pileup interactions, jet finding is therefore executed \(\mu \) times. The resulting truth jets are required to have \({p_{\mathrm {T}}}\ge 5\) GeV.

Pileup jets are obtained by clustering the stable particles from all MB interactions forming the pileup event. They are subjected to the kinematic cuts described below.
4.4 Evaluation of the pileup jet nature
It follows from the definition of \({R_{p_T}}{}\) that pileup jets with values of \({R_{p_T}}{}\) close to unity are matched to a truth jet with \({p_{\mathrm {T}}}\approx {p_T^{corr}}\) of the pileup jet itself. Consequently, there is a single MB interaction which predominantly contributes to the jet. On the other hand, jets with a small value of \({R_{p_T}}{}\) are mostly stochastic, as no single minimumbias collision contributes in a dominant way to the pileup jet. We characterize jets as stochastic if \({R_{p_T}}{}\) is smaller than 0.8. This threshold value is arbitrary and the fraction of QCDlike and stochastic jets depends on the exact choice. The conclusion of our study holds for a broad range of cut values.
4.5 Pileup jet multiplicity
The subsample of QCDlike jets in the inclusive pileup jet sample shows a different behavior, as indicated in the righmost panel of Fig. 5. In this case \(\partial \langle N \rangle /\partial \mu \) decreases with increasing \(\mu \) in all considered bins of \({p_T^{corr}}\). This contradicts the immediate expectation of an increase following the inclusive sample, but can be understood from the fact that with increasing \(\mu \) the likelihood of QCDlike jets to overlap with (stochastic) jets increases as well. The resulting (merged) pileup jets no longer display features consistent with QCD jets (e.g., loss of single energy core), and thus fail the \({R_{p_T}}> 0.8\) selection.
The pileup jet multiplicity shown in Fig. 5 is evaluated as a function of the pileup corrected transverse momentum of the jet (\({p_T^{corr}}\)). This means that after the correction approximately two pileup jets with \({p_T^{corr}}> {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {min}}}= 20\) GeV can be expected for \({\langle \mu \rangle }\simeq 100\). This number decreases rapidly with increasing \({p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {min}}}\). The mean number of QCD jets is small, at about 0.4 at \({\langle \mu \rangle }= 100\), for \({p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {min}}}= 20\) GeV.
4.6 Jet grooming configurations

Jet trimming Trimming is described in detail in Ref. [2]. In this approach the constituents of the large \(\mathrm{anti}{k_{\mathrm {T}}}{}\) jet formed with \(R = 1.0\) are reclustered into smaller jets with \(R_{\mathrm {trim}} = 0.2\), using the \(\mathrm{anti}{k_{\mathrm {T}}}{}\) algorithm again. The resulting subjets are only accepted if their transverse momentum is larger than a fraction \(f\) (here \(f = 0.03\)) of a hard scale, which was chosen to be the \({p_{\mathrm {T}}}{}\) of the large jet. The surviving subjets are recombined into a groomed jet.

Jet filtering Filtering was introduced in the context of a study to enhance the signal from the Higgs boson decaying into two bottomquarks, see Ref. [1]. In its simplified configuration without massdrop criterion [90] applied in this study it works similar to trimming, except that in this case the subjets are found with the CambridgeAachen algorithm [73, 91] with \(R_{\mathrm {filt}} = 0.3\), and only the three hardest subjets are retained. The groomed jet is then constructed from these three subjets.

Jet pruning Pruning was introduced in Ref. [92]. Contrary to filtering and trimming, it is applied during the formation of the jet, rather than based on the recombination of subjets. It dynamically suppresses small and larger distance contributions to jet using two parameters, \(Z_{\mathrm {cut}}\) for the momentum based suppression, and \(D_{cut} = D_{\mathrm {cut,fact}} \times 2 m/{p_{\mathrm {T}}}\) (here \(m\) and \({p_{\mathrm {T}}}{}\) are the transverse momentum and mass of the original jet) for the distance based. Pruning vetoes recombinations between two objects \(i\) and \(j\) for which the geometrical distance between \(i\) and \(j\) is more than \(D_\mathrm{cut}\) and the \(p_T\) of one of the objects is less than \(Z_\mathrm{cut} \times p_T^{i+j}\), where \(p_T^{i+j}\) is the combined transverse momentum of \(i\) and \(j\). In this case, only the hardest of the two objects is kept. Typical values for the parameters are: \(Z_{\mathrm {cut}} = 0.1\) and \(D_{\mathrm {cut,fact}} = 0.5\).
The estimation of \(\rho \) and \(\rho _m\) is performed with FastJet using^{15} \(k_t\) jets with \(R=0.4\). Corrections for the rapidity dependence of the pileup density \(\rho \) are applied using a rapidity rescaling.
When we apply this background subtraction together with trimming or filtering, the subtraction is performed directly on the subjets, before deciding which subjets should be kept, so as to limit the potential effects of pileup on which subjets are to be kept.
4.7 Jet substructure reconstruction
The effect of the other grooming techniques on the reconstructed jet mass distributions is summarized in Fig. 6, with and without the pileup subtraction applied first. The spectra show that both trimming and filtering can improve the mass reconstruction. The application of the pileup subtraction in addition to trimming or filtering further improves the mass reconstruction performance.
Both trimming and filtering improve the mass resolution to different degrees, but in any case better than pileup subtraction alone, as expected. Applying the additional pileup subtraction to trimming yields the least sensitivity to the pileup activity in terms of mass resolution and scale.
These effects can be explained as follows. As discussed earlier, pileup has mainly two effects on the jet: a constant shift proportional to \(\rho A\) and a smearing effect proportional to \(\sigma \sqrt{A}\), with \(\sigma \) a measure of the fluctuations of the pileup within an event. In that language, the subtraction corrects for the shift leaving the smearing term untouched. Grooming, to the contrary, since it selects only part of the subjets, acts as if it was reducing the area of the jet^{16}. This reduces both the shift and the dispersion. Combining grooming with subtraction thus allows to correct for the shift leftover by grooming and reduce the smearing effects at the same time. All these effects are observed in Fig. 7.
4.8 Concluding remarks
The source of jets produced in minimum bias collisions in the presence of pileup is analyzed using a technique relating the single collision contribution in the jet to its transverse momentum after pileup correction in particle level Monte Carlo. The rate of pileup jets surviving after application of the jet area based pileup subtraction is about two with \({p_T^{corr}}> 20\) GeV and within \(y<2\), at a pileup activity of \({\langle \mu \rangle }= 100\). It rises about linearly with increasing pileup for this particular selection. Higher \({p_{\mathrm {T}}}{}\) jets occur at a much reduced rate, but with a steeper than linear rise with increasing \(\mu \).
The rate of QCDlike jets is significantly smaller, and shows a lessthanlinear increase with increasing \(\mu \) even for \({p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {min}}}= 20\) GeV. This can be understood as a sign of increased merging between QCDlike jets and stochastic jets. The merged jets are less likely to display features characteristic for QCDlike jets, and therefore fail the selection.
The fraction of QCDlike jets with a core of energy arising from a single protonproton interaction of at least \(0.8 {p_T^{corr}}\) is found to decrease rapidly with increasing \(\mu \). At \(\mu =50\) about 60% of the pileup jets with \({p_T^{corr}}> 50{\mathrm {\ GeV}}\) are found to be QCDlike, whereas at \(\mu =200\) this number is decreased to about 20%.
A brief Monte Carlo study of the effect of jet grooming techniques on the jet mass reconstruction in \({Z'} \rightarrow {t\overline{t}}\) final states has been conducted. Jet trimming and filtering are used by themselves, or in combination with the pileup subtraction using the fourvector area, to reconstruct the single jet mass and evaluate the stability of the mass scale and resolution at pileup levels of 30, 60, 100, and 200 extra protonproton collisions, in addition to the signal event. It is found that for this particular final state trimming and filtering work well for maintaining the mass scale and resolution, provided they are applied together with pileup subtraction so as to benefit both from the average shift correction from subtraction and noise reduction from the grooming.
The studies presented here are performed with Monte Carlo simulated signal and pileup (minimum bias) interactions. No considerations have been given to detector sensitivities and other effects deteriorating the stable particle level kinematics and flows exploited here. With this respect the conclusions of this study are limited and can be considered optimistic until shown otherwise.
Note also that comparing the performance of filtering and trimming would require varying their parameters and that this goes beyond the scope of this study.
5 The potential of boosted top quarks
Section prepared by the Working Group: ’Prospects for boosted top quarks’, A. Altheimer, J. Ferrando, J. Pilot, S. Rappoccio, M. Villaplana, M. Vos.
Many applications of the strategies for boosted objects have been proposed (the bibliography of this paper and those included in Refs. [9, 10] are a good starting point to navigate the extensive literature). Among these, the study of highly energetic top quarks forms the case that has been studied in greatest detail by the experiments. Several studies of the production of boosted top quarks have set limits on new physics scenarios. The first sample of boosted top quarks has also been used to understand the modelling of the parton shower and the detector response. In this section we present a summary of achievements so far, discuss how existing analyses could benefit from an improved understanding of jet substructure, and explore possible directions for future work.
5.1 Boosted top quark production
The top quark decay topology observed in the detector depends strongly on the kinematic regime. The decay products of top quarks produced nearly at rest (\(p_T < 200\) GeV/\(c\)) are wellseparated, leading to experimental signatures such as isolated leptons and a relatively large number of clearly resolved jets. With increasing transverse momentum, the decay products of the top quark will become collimated and possibly reconstructed in the same final state object. For intermediate boosts (200 \(< p_T < \)400 GeV), the daughters of the \(W\) boson from a fullyhadronic top decay will be close enough to be clustered into the same jet. At this point, the use of jet substructure techniques becomes important to efficiently identify these decay signatures. At even larger \(p_T\) top quarks become truly boosted objects: all decay products of the top will be strongly collinear, with the \(\Delta R \sim 2 m_{\mathrm {top}}/p_T\). Hadronic top quarks can be reconstructed in a single jet, and top quarks with leptonic decays generally contain nonisolated leptons due to the overlap with the \(b\)quark jet.
The top pair production rate at past, present and future colliders, calculated with the MCFM code [93]. The inclusive production rate is given in the first row. The expected number of events with boosted top quarks (\(M_{t\bar{t}} > \) 1 TeV) and highly boosted top quarks (\(M_{t \bar{t}} > \) 2 TeV) is given in the second and third row, respectively
Collider & phase  Tevatron run II  LHC 2012  LHC phase II  HELHC 

process & energy,  \( p \bar{p}\) at \(\sqrt{s} = \) 1.96 TeV  \(pp \) at \(\sqrt{s} = \)8 TeV  \(pp \) at \(\sqrt{s} = \)13 TeV  \(pp\) at \(\sqrt{s} = \)33 TeV 
integrated luminosity  \(\mathcal {L} =\) 10 fb\(^{1}\)  \(\mathcal {L} =\) 20 fb\(^{1}\)  \(\mathcal {L} =\) 300 fb\(^{1}\)  \(\mathcal {L} =\) 300 fb\(^{1}\) 
Inclusive \(t \bar{t}\) production  6 \(\times \) 10\(^{4}\)  4 \(\times \) 10\(^6\)  2 \(\times \) 10\(^8\)  1.4 \(\times \) 10\(^9\) 
Boosted production  23  6 \(\times \) 10\(^{4}\)  5.2 \(\times \) 10\(^6\)  7.1 \(\times \) 10\(^7\) 
Highly boosted  0  500  1.1 \(\times \) 10\(^5\)  3.9 \(\times \) 10\(^6\) 
We expect, therefore, that boosted topologies will gain considerable importance as the LHC program develops. To exploit the LHC data to their full potential it is critical that existing experimental strategies are adapted to this challenging kinematical regime. Before we turn to the results of analyses of boosted object production, we discuss a number of new tools that were developed to identify and reconstruct boosted top quarks efficiently.
5.2 Top tagging
Excellent reviews of top tagging algorithms exist [94]. Previous BOOST reports have compared their performance for simulated events (at the particle level). In this Section we present a very brief review for completeness.
The Johns Hopkins (JHU) tagger [95] identifies substructure by reversing the last steps of the jet clustering. Hard subjets are selected using several criteria—the ratio of their individual \(p_T\) to the original jet \(p_T\) must be above a given threshold, and the subjets must be spatially separated from each other to give a valid decomposition. In this way, a jet can be deconstructed into up to four subjets, and jets with three or more subjets are analyzed further, requiring the invariant mass of the identified subjets to be in the range \([145, 205]\) GeV, and two of the subjets to be consistent with \(m_W\), in the range [64, 94] GeV. There is an additional cut on the \(W\) boson helicity angle, \(\cos \theta _h < 0.7\).
The variant of the JHU tagger used by CMS [96] uses a similar jet decomposition, with slight differences in the selections of top quark and \(W\) boson masses from the subjets. Additionally, the CMS top tagger does not apply the \(W\) boson helicity angle requirement, but instead selects jets with the minimum pairwise mass of the subjets larger than 50 Gev. The JHU and CMS top tagging algorithms have been developed with jet distance parameters up to \(R = 0.8\), and therefore are only efficient for top quarks with \(p_T\) above approximately 400 GeV/\(c\).
The HEP top tagger [97], is designed to use jets with distance parameter \(R=1.5\), thereby extending the reach of the tagging algorithm to lower jet \(p_T\) values. The algorithm uses a mass drop criterion to identify substructure within the jet, but also uses a filtering algorithm to remove soft and largeangle constituents from the individual subjets. The three subjets with a combined mass closest to \(m_t\) are then chosen for further consideration. Cuts are then applied to masses of subjet combinations to ensure consistency with \(m_W\) and \(m_t\). Specifically, for the three subjets sorted in order of subjet \(p_T\), having masses \(m_1, m_2, m_3\), the quantities \(m_{23}/m_{123}\) and \(\arctan m_{13}/m_{12}\) are computed. Geometrical cuts can be applied in the phase space defined by these two quantities to select top jets and reject quark or gluon jets.
The HEP top tagger obtains tagging efficiencies of up to 37% for lower \(p_T\) top quarks (\(p_T > 200\) GeV/\(c\)), with an acceptable mistag rate. It has been used by the ATLAS \({t\overline{t}}{}\) resonance search in the fully hadronic channel [98], where no resolved analysis has been performed. At high jet \(p_T\), the efficiencies for the HEP Top Tagger and JHU Top Tagger selections are comparable.
Boosted top quarks were also studied using both \(R=1.0\) anti\(k_{t}\) jets and jets identified by the HEPTopTagger [97] algorithm as candidate “topjets.” Kinematic and substructure distributions were compared between data and MC simulation and were found to be in agreement. Furthermore, the efficiency with which top quarks were identified as such was found to be significantly increased in both cases, and the HEPTopTagger was shown to reduce the backgrounds to such searches dramatically, even with a relatively relaxed transverse momentum selection.
Overall, the results from ATLAS suggests that, among the jet grooming configurations tested, the trimming algorithm exhibited an improved mass resolution and smaller dependence of jet kinematics and substructure observables on pileup (such as \(N\)subjettiness [75, 76] and the \(k_{t}\) splitting scales [99]) compared to the pruning configurations examined. For boosted top quark studies, the anti\(k_{t}\) algorithm with a radius parameter of \(R=1.0\) and trimming parameters \(f_\mathrm{cut}=0.05\) and \(R_\mathrm{sub}=0.3\) was found to be optimal, where a minimum \(p_{T}\) requirement of 350 GeV is typical. It is important to note that only the \(k_{t}\)pruning for \(R=1.0\) jets was tested and that since the performance does depend somewhat on this parameter, further studies are necessary to optimize for other jet size. Lastly, CambridgeAachen jets with \(R=1.2\) using the massdrop filtering parameter \(\mu _\mathrm{frac}=0.67\) were found to perform well for boosted twopronged analyses such as \(H\rightarrow b\overline{b}\) or searches involving boosted \(W\rightarrow q\overline{q}\) decays.
A final algorithm that is currently being investigated is the \(N\)subjettiness algorithm [75] presented in Sect. 3.
Several new techniques and ideas are emerging, that aim to improve boosted top identification and reconstruction.
One such technique is that of shower deconstruction [100]. This method aims to identify boosted hadronic top quarks by computing the probability for a top quark decay to produce the observed jet, including its distribution of constituents. The probability for the same jet to have originated from a background process is also computed. These probabilities are computed by summing over all possible shower formations resulting in the observed final state, accounting for different gluon splittings and radiations, among other processes. This is done both for the signal shower processes and background shower processes. A likelihood ratio is formed from the signal and background probabilities and used to discriminate boosted top quarks from generic QCD jets. The process of evaluating all shower histories can be computationally intensive, so certain requirements are made on the number of constituents used in the method to make the problem tractable. The results presented in Ref. [101] show an improvement on the top taggers described previously. Specifically, the shower deconstruction method reduces the top mistag rate by a factor of 3.6 compared to the JHU top tagger, while maintaining the same signal acceptance. This method is also applicable to the lower \(p_T\) regime, and there improves upon the top mistag rate from the HEP top tagger by a factor of 2.6, again keeping identical signal efficiency.
Another algorithm under development is the template overlap method [116]. The template overlap method is designed for use in boosted top identification as well as boosted Higgs identification. The method is similar to that of shower deconstruction, in that it attempts to quantify how well a given jet matches a certain expectation such as a boosted top quark or boosted Higgs decay. However, this method uses only final state configurations, whereas the shower deconstruction method takes into account the showering histories. A catalog of templates is formed by analyzing signal events. Once this is in place, individual jets can be analyzed by evaluating an overlap function which evaluates how well the current jet matches the templates from the signal process of interest. For example, a template for hadronic boosted top quark decays would consist of three energy deposits within the jet. The background of high\(p_T\) QCD jets is reduced by two orders of magnitude. One additional feature of this template overlap method is the automatic inclusion of additional parton radiation into the template catalog, such as for Higgs decays to bottom quark pairs, where there is commonly an additional gluon radiated, resulting in 3 energy deposits instead of the 2 from the \(b\) quarks.
Finally, the Qjets [117] scheme could be used for toptagging. This is a method to remove dependence of analysis results on the choice of clustering algorithm used to reconstruct jets. For example, one could use either the CambridgeAachen algorithm or the \(k_t\) algorithm to cluster jets, and may obtain significantly different results in the jet masses. The Qjets algorithm attempts to use all possible “trees” to cluster constituents, rather than using the single tree provided by the specific clustering algorithm used. In this way, each jet now has a distribution of possible masses instead of a single jet. This provides additional information which can enhance signal discrimination. For example, the variance of the jet mass between individual clustering trees can be examined, rather than relying on just a single value. The statistical stability is also enhanced when using the Qjets algorithm.
5.3 Searches with boosted top quarks
In some cases ATLAS and CMS analyses specifically designed for boosted top quarks [108, 112] scrutinized the same data set that had been used by the resolved approach. A direct comparison of these results demonstrates that the novel approach has considerably better sensitivity for massive states [108]. The final analyses on 2011 data [109, 112] combine resolved and boosted methods to attain good sensitivity over the complete mass spectrum. The excluded mass range is pushed up to 1.74 TeV.
Exclusion limits at 95% confidence level for a narrow \({Z'} {}\) boson, as obtained in \({t\overline{t}}{}\) resonance searches at the Tevatron and the first years of operation of the LHC
CDF and D0 References  [102]  [103]  [104]  [105]  [106] 
Final state&  l+jets  l+jets  fully had.  l+jets  l+jets 
Reconstruction  resolved  resolved  resolved  resolved  resolved 
\(\sqrt{s}\) [TeV]  1.96  1.96  1.96  1.96  1.96 
\(\int {L}\) [ fb\(^{1}\) ]  1 fb\(^{1}\)  1 fb\(^{1}\)  4 fb\(^{1}\)  4 fb\(^{1}\)  10 fb\(^{1}\) 
\({Z'} {}\) mass [TeV]  \(<\)0.7  \(<\)0.720  \(<\)0.805  \(<\)0.835  \(<\)0.915 
ATLAS Reference  [107]  [108]  [98]  [109]  [110] 
Final state&  \(l\)+jets  \(l\)+jets  fully had.  \(l\)+jets  \(l\)+jets 
Reconstruction  resolved  boosted  boosted  combined  combined 
\(\sqrt{s}\) [TeV]  7  7  7  7  8 
\(\int {L} \) [fb\(^{1}\) ]  2.04 fb\(^{1}\)  2.04 fb\(^{1}\)  4.07 fb\(^{1}\)  4.07 fb\(^{1}\)  14 fb\(^{1}\) 
\({Z'} {}\) mass [TeV]  0.5 \(\) 0.88  0.6 \(\) 1.15  0.7\(\)1, 1.28\(\)1.32  \( < \)1.74  \(<\)1.8 
\(g_{KK} \) mass [TeV]  0.5 \(\) 1.13  0.6 \(\) 1.5  0.7 \(\) 1.62  \(<\)2.07  \( < \)2.0 
CMS Reference  [111]  [112]  [113]  [114]  [115] 
Final state&  fully hadronic  \(l\)+jets  dilepton  fully hadronic  \(l\)+jets 
Reconstruction  boosted  combined  boosted  combined  
\(\sqrt{s}\) [TeV]  7  7  7  8  8 
\(\int {L} \) [fb\(^{1}\) ]  5.0 fb\(^{1}\)  4.4\(\)5.0 fb\(^{1}\)  5.0 fb\(^{1}\)  19.6 fb\(^{1}\)  19.6 fb\(^{1}\) 
\({Z'} {}\) mass [TeV]  1.3 \(\) 1.5  \( < \)1.49  \( < \)1.3  \( < \)1.7  \( < \)2.1 
\(g_{KK} \) mass [TeV]  1.4 \(\) 1.5  \( < \)1.82  \( < \)1.8  \( < \)1.8  \( < \)2.5 
The prospects for progress are good. Preliminary results on the 2012 data set [110, 114, 115] have significantly extended previous limits.
5.4 Jet substructure performance and searches
The results in the previous Section form the proofofprinciple: the addition of jet substructure analysis techniques to the experimentalists’ toolbox boosts the sensitivity of searches for new physics at the LHC. It is clear, however, that these tools are still in their infancy. In all searches discussed in the previous Section large systematic uncertainties are assigned to the largeR jets. It is natural to suspect that further progress could be made with better (and, especially, better understood) tools.
To quantify the impact of the jetrelated systematics on the sensitivity we have evaluated expected limits on the narrow \({Z'} {}\) boson with all sources of systematic uncertainty, except one (socalled \(N1\) limits) in several iterations of the ATLAS searches in the lepton+jets final state. The uncertainties associated with the largeR jet that captures the hadronic top decay are always the dominant source of uncertainty. Their impact is considerably larger than that of systematics associated with the narrow jets, even at relatively low resonance mass. The limits over a large mass range (1–2 TeV) would improve by approximately 5–10% if only the uncertainty on the scale and resolution of mass and energy of anti\(k_t\) jets with \(R=1\) were removed.
If we apply an ad hoc scale factor of two to this uncertainty (representing a failure to bring these uncertainties under control) we find that the sensitivity is further degraded. A significant reduction of largeR jet uncertainties, on the other hand, brings the \(N1\) limits with no jetrelated systematics and the limits with reduced largeR jet systematics to within 2%.
CMS has not published the \(N1\) results for their searches, but qualitatively the same picture emerges. In the fully hadronic searches the jetrelated uncertainties have the largest impact on the limits.
We conclude that further progress understanding jet substructure still has substantial potential to increase our sensitivity to massive new states decaying to top quarks.
5.5 Further applications
The selection for boosted top quarks, in the lepton+jets and fully hadronic channels, have proven their value in \({t\overline{t}}{}\) resonance searches, but are more generally applicable.
The obvious direction to extend the range of applications is to other searches with boosted top quarks. The \(W' \rightarrow tb\) that are currently performed in the channel where the top quark decays to a charged lepton, neutrino and bjet. We expect, however, that, ultimately the highest mass reach should be obtained in the hadronic decay (with a factor two large branching ratio if \(\tau \)leptons are not considered).
We expect differential crosssection measurements for \({t\overline{t}}{}\) to benefit from these techniques at large transverse momentum and invariant mass of the \({t\overline{t}}{}\) pair. Apart from the better selection efficiency in algorithms designed for this kinematic regime, the better truthtoreconstructed mapping of \(p_T\) and \(m_{{t\overline{t}}}\) is expected to be an important advantage. We are looking forward to such measurements from the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Also analyses that rely strongly on the reconstruction of the top quark direction, such as the charge asymmetry measurement, should benefit.
Finally, several authors [118] have commented on the potential of events with mildly boosted top quarks for the observation of \(t\bar{t}H\) and a measurement of the production rate.
5.6 Summary
Over the last five years, many ideas have been proposed to cope with the challenge of boosted top quark reconstruction. Since then, these ideas have been implemented by the experiments and put to the test, primarily in searches for massive new states decaying to \({t\overline{t}}{}\) pairs. The overview we presented in Table 2; Fig. 8 is a testimony to the increase of sensitivity for such states fuelled by the performance of the LHC. Such progress would not have been possible if novel techniques for the study of boosted top quarks had not been developed. We expect the selection developed for the lepton+jets and fully hadronic to find further applications in searches and measurements.
6 Summary and conclusions
This report of the BOOST2012 workshop addresses a number of important questions concerning the use of jet substructure for the study of boosted object production at the LHC.
We evaluated the current limitations in the description of jet substructure, both at the analytical level and in Monte Carlo generators. Impressive progress is being made for the former and we expect a meaningful comparison to LHC data to be a reality soon. Two approaches—perturbative QCD and Soft Collinear Effective Theory—to a firstprinciple resummation of the jet invariant mass are producing mature results. Measurements of the jet mass in Z+jet events are proposed, both inclusively and exclusively in the number of jets. We hope that in the nottoodistant future these calculations can enhance our understanding of the internal structure in jets.
Monte Carlo predictions remain crucial to searches and measurements employing jet substructure. We have compared the predictions of several mainstream generators for a number of substructure observables a and for several signal and background topologies. While jet mass is still poorly described by several generators, several ways of introducing the inherent uncertainties become evident. Jet grooming reduces the spread among Monte Carlo models, as do several alternative jet substructure observables.
We also studied potential experimental limitations that could check further progress, in particular the impact of the large number of simultaneous protonproton interactions. We find that, even if the substructure of largeradius jets is quite sensitive to pileup, a combination of a stateoftheart correction technique and jet grooming can effectively restore the jet mass scale and strongly mitigate the impact on the jet mass resolution.
Finally, we reviewed toptagging techniques deployed in the LHC experiments and assessed their impact on the sensitivity to new physics. A series of \({t\overline{t}}{}\) resonance searches performed by ATLAS and CMS provide clear proof of the power of techniques specifically designed for boosted top quarks. Through an evaluation of the impact of all sources of systematic uncertainties, we show that further progress can still be made with an enhanced understanding of jet substructure. We expect to see these techniques applied in further searches involving boosted top quarks and in measurements of the boosted top production rate.
Footnotes
 1.
 2.
 3.
The actual form of Eq. (1) is in general rather complex. For more than three hard partons it involves a nontrivial matrix structure in colour space. Moreover, the actual form of the constant terms \(g_0(\alpha _s)\) depends on the flavor of the jet under consideration.
 4.
In the following we concentrate on the case of jet masses with a cut on the jet \(p_T\). In this case \(L=\ln m_J^2/p_T^2\) and \(\sigma (v)\) in Eq. (1) is the integrated (cumulative) distribution for \(m_J^2< v p_T^2\).
 5.
 6.
We refer to inclusive calculations if no requirements were made on the number of additional jets in the selection of the event.
 7.
We consider here only research made publicly available at the time of BOOST 2012 or soon after.
 8.
 9.
We have focused on differences in our discussion, but typically both communities have the option to adopt the treatments commonly employed in the other community. That is, the treatments typically utilized are not features inherent to the approach.
 10.
 11.
The prominence of the highest peak is defined as its height and the prominence of any lower peak as the minimum vertical descent that is required in descending from that peak before ascending a higher, neighboring peak. In this analysis the derivatives are smoothed using a Gaussian in the numerator and an error function in the denominator, both with \(\sigma = 0.06\).
 12.
To improve the performance of \(N\)subjettiness it is possible to use a kmeans clustering algorithm to find (locally) optimal locations for the subjet axes. In this analysis \(\beta = 1\) is used to find the subjet axes by reclustering with the \(k_t\) algorithm. The \(k\)means clustering algorithm is run once, as with this angular weighting exponent it finds a local minimum immediately. No attempt is made to find the global minimum.
 13.
Eccentricity is strongly correlated with the planar flow, and it is a measure of jet elongation ranging from 0 for perfectly circularly symmetric jet shapes to 1 for infinitely elongated jet shapes. This is primarily useful for identifying high \(p_T\) merged jets.
 14.
A particle is considered stable if its lifetime \(\tau \) in the laboratory frame of reference passes \(c\tau > 10\) mm.
 15.
Ghosts are placed up to \(y_\mathrm{max}=3\) and explicit ghosts are enabled.
 16.
Note that grooming techniques do more than reducing the catchment area of a jet. Noticeably, the selection of the hardest subjets introduces a bias towards including upwards fluctuations of the background. This positive bias is balanced by a negative one related to the perturbative radiation discarded by the grooming. These effects go beyond the generic features explained here.
 17.
The sensitivity to massive particles is expressed in terms of the observed 95% CL lower limit on the mass of a leptophobic topcolor Z’ boson. The motivation of this particular model may not have survived recent advances in particle physics, but to monitor the sensitivity of searches it is still the best benchmark on the market.
Notes
Acknowledgments
We thank the Spanish Center for Particle Physics, Astroparticle and Nuclear Physics (CPAN), the regional government (Generalitat Valenciana), Heidelberg University and IFIC (U. Valencia/CSIC) for their generous support of the BOOST2012 conference. We furthermore thank the Fundación Cultural Bancaja for putting at our disposal the “Centro Cultural” that hosted the workshop, the IT teams at IFIC, UW and LPTHE for the facilities offered to host the BOOST samples, TotNou for the organization of the workshop, Isidoro García of CPAN for organizing the outreach event and coordinating the contacts with the media and Pilar Ordaz for the design of the poster and logotype.
References
 1.J.M. Butterworth, A.R. Davison, M. Rubin, G.P. Salam, Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 242001 (2008). arXiv:0802.2470 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 2.D. Krohn, J. Thaler, L.T. Wang, Jet trimming. JHEP 1002, 084 (2010). arXiv:0912.1342 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 3.S.D. Ellis, C.K. Vermilion, J.R. Walsh, Recombination algorithms and jet substructure: pruning as a tool for heavy particle searches. Phys. Rev. D81, 094023 (2010). arXiv:0912.0033 ADSGoogle Scholar
 4.Boost 2012, IFIC Valencia, 23–27 July 2012. http://ific.uv.es/boost2012
 5.Boost 2009, giving physics a new boost, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 9–10 July, 2009. http://wwwconf.slac.stanford.edu/Boost2009
 6.Boost 2010, University of Oxford, 22–25 June 2010. http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/boost2010
 7.Boost 2011, Princeton University, 22–26 May 2011. http://boost2011.org
 8.Boost 2013, University of Arizona, 12–17 August 2013. http://w3atlas.physics.arizona.edu/boost2013
 9.A. Abdesselam, E.B. Kuutmann, U. Bitenc, G. Brooijmans, J. Butterworth et al., Boosted objects: a Probe of beyond the Standard Model physics. Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1661 (2011). arXiv:1012.5412 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 10.A. Altheimer, S. Arora, L. Asquith, G. Brooijmans, J. Butterworth et al., Jet substructure at the tevatron and LHC: new results, new tools, new benchmarks. J. Phys. G39, 063001 (2012). arXiv:1201.0008 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 11.Atlas Collaboration, Study of jet shapes in inclusive jet production in \(pp\) collisions at \(s=7\) TeV using the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D83, 052003 (2011). arXiv:1101.0070 Google Scholar
 12.C.M.S. Collaboration, Shape, transverse size, and charged hadron multiplicity of jets in pp collisions at 7 TeV. JHEP 1206, 160 (2012). arXiv:1204.3170 ADSGoogle Scholar
 13.ATLAS Collaboration, Jet mass and substructure of inclusive jets in \(s=7\) TeV \(pp\) collisions with the ATLAS experiment. JHEP 1205, 128 (2012). arXiv:1203.4606
 14.ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS measurements of the properties of jets for boosted particle searches. Phys. Rev. D86, 072006 (2012). arXiv:1206.5369
 15.ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of jet substructure techniques for large\(R\) jets in protonproton collisions at \(s = 7\) TeV using the ATLAS detector. Submitted to JHEP (2013). arXiv:1306.4945
 16.C.M.S. Collaboration, Studies of jet mass in dijet and W/Z + jet events. JHEP 1305, 090 (2013). arXiv:1303.4811 ADSGoogle Scholar
 17.T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual. JHEP 0605, 026 (2006). hepph/0603175Google Scholar
 18.T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1. Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852–867 (2008). arXiv:0710.3820 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 19.G. Corcella, I. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri et al., HERWIG 6: an event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes). JHEP 0101, 010 (2001). hepph/0011363CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 20.M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ physics and manual. Eur. Phys. J. C58, 639–707 (2008). arXiv:0803.0883 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 21.J.M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis, Nexttoleading order corrections to \(W^+\) 2 jet and \(Z^+\) 2 jet production at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D65, 113007 (2002). hepph/0202176ADSGoogle Scholar
 22.Z. Nagy, Nexttoleading order calculation of three jet observables in hadron hadron collision. Phys. Rev. D68, 094002 (2003). hepph/0307268ADSGoogle Scholar
 23.T. Gleisberg et al., Event generation with SHERPA 1.1. JHEP 02, 007 (2009), arXiv:0811.4622
 24.M. Dasgupta, G. Salam, Resummation of nonglobal QCD observables. Phys. Lett. B512, 323–330 (2001). hepph/0104277ADSGoogle Scholar
 25.Y. Hatta, T. Ueda, Resummation of nonglobal logarithms at finite \(N_c\). arXiv:1304.6930
 26.M. Dasgupta, G.P. Salam, Accounting for coherence in interjet E(t) flow: a case study. JHEP 0203, 017 (2002). hepph/0203009CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 27.A. Banfi, G. Marchesini, G. Smye, Away from jet energy flow. JHEP 0208, 006 (2002). hepph/0206076CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 28.A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta, Problems in resumming interjet energy flows with \(k_t\) clustering. Phys. Lett. B628, 49–56 (2005). hepph/0508159CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 29.Y. Delenda, R. Appleby, M. Dasgupta, A. Banfi, On QCD resummation with k(t) clustering. JHEP 0612, 044 (2006). hepph/0610242CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 30.R. Kelley, J.R. Walsh, S. Zuberi, Disentangling clustering effects in jet algorithms. arXiv:1203.2923
 31.Y. Delenda, K. KhelifaKerfa, On the resummation of clustering logarithms for nonglobal observables. JHEP 1209, 109 (2012). arXiv:1207.4528 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 32.S. Catani, D. de Florian, G. Rodrigo, Spacelike (versus timelike) collinear limits in QCD: is factorization violated ? JHEP 1207, 026 (2012). arXiv:1112.4405 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 33.J.R. Forshaw, M.H. Seymour, A. Siodmok, On the breaking of collinear factorization in QCD. JHEP 1211, 066 (2012). arXiv:1206.6363 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 34.A. Kyrieleis, M. Seymour, The colour evolution of the process \(q q \rightarrow q q g\). JHEP 0601, 085 (2006). hepph/0510089CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 35.J. Forshaw, A. Kyrieleis, M. Seymour, Superleading logarithms in nonglobal observables in QCD: colour basis independent calculation. JHEP 0809, 128 (2008). arXiv:0808.1269 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 36.A. Banfi, G.P. Salam, G. Zanderighi, Phenomenology of event shapes at hadron colliders. JHEP 1006, 038 (2010). arXiv:1001.4082 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 37.V. Mateu, I.W. Stewart, J. Thaler, Power corrections to event shapes with massdependent operators. Phys. Rev. D87, 014025 (2013). arXiv:1209.3781 ADSGoogle Scholar
 38.H.n. Li, Z. Li, C.P. Yuan, QCD resummation for jet substructures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 152001 (2011). arXiv:1107.4535 Google Scholar
 39.M. Dasgupta, K. KhelifaKerfa, S. Marzani, M. Spannowsky, On jet mass distributions in Z+jet and dijet processes at the LHC. JHEP 1210, 126 (2012). arXiv:1207.1640 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 40.M. Sjodahl, Color evolution of 2 \(\rightarrow \) 3 processes. JHEP 0812, 083 (2008). arXiv:0807.0555 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 41.M. Sjodahl, Color structure for soft gluon resummation: a General recipe. JHEP 0909, 087 (2009). arXiv:0906.1121 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 42.J.R. Forshaw, A. Kyrieleis, M. Seymour, Superleading logarithms in nonglobal observables in QCD. JHEP 0608, 059 (2006). hepph/0604094CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 43.R.M. Duran Delgado, J.R. Forshaw, S. Marzani, M.H. Seymour, The dijet cross section with a jet veto. JHEP 1108, 157 (2011). arXiv:1107.2084
 44.A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta, K. KhelifaKerfa, S. Marzani, Nonglobal logarithms and jet algorithms in highpT jet shapes. JHEP 1008, 064 (2010). arXiv:1004.3483 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 45.K. KhelifaKerfa, Nonglobal logs and clustering impact on jet mass with a jet veto distribution. JHEP 1202, 072 (2012). arXiv:1111.2016 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 46.Y.T. Chien, R. Kelley, M.D. Schwartz, H.X. Zhu, Resummation of jet mass at Hadron Colliders. Phys. Rev. D87, 014010 (2013). arXiv:1208.0010 ADSGoogle Scholar
 47.E. Laenen, G. Oderda, G.F. Sterman, Resummation of threshold corrections for single particle inclusive crosssections. Phys. Lett. B 438, 173 (1998). hepph/9806467CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 48.T.T. Jouttenus, I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann, W.J. Waalewijn, Jet mass spectra in Higgs + one jet at NNLL. Phys. Rev. D88, 054031 (2013). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.054031. arXiv:1302.0846
 49.I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann, W.J. Waalewijn, Njettiness: an inclusive event shape to veto jets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 092002 (2010). arXiv:1004.2489 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 50.C.F. Berger, C. Marcantonini, I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann, W.J. Waalewijn, Higgs production with a central jet veto at NNLL+NNLO. JHEP 1104, 092 (2011). arXiv:1012.4480 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 51.I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann, W.J. Waalewijn, The beam thrust cross section for DrellYan at NNLL order. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 032001 (2011). arXiv:1005.4060 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 52.I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann, W.J. Waalewijn, Factorization at the LHC: from PDFs to initial state jets. Phys. Rev. D 81, 094035 (2010). arXiv:0910.0467 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 53.A. Hornig, C. Lee, I.W. Stewart, J.R. Walsh, S. Zuberi, Nonglobal structure of the O(\({\alpha }_s^2\)) Dijet soft function. JHEP 1108, 054 (2011). arXiv:1105.4628 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 54.I. Feige, M.D. Schwartz, I.W. Stewart, J. Thaler, Precision jet substructure from boosted event shapes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 092001 (2012). arXiv:1204.3898 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 55.M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, G.P. Salam, Towards an understanding of jet substructure. JHEP 1309, 029 (2013). doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)029. arXiv:1307.0007
 56.M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, A. Powling, Jet substructure with analytical methods. Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2623 (2013). doi: 10.1140/epj/s1005201326233. arXiv:1307.0013
 57.A.J. Larkoski, G.P. Salam, J. Thaler, Energy correlation functions for jet substructure. JHEP 1306, 108 (2013). arXiv:1305.0007 CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
 58.P. Skands, The Perugia tunes, FERMILABCONF09113T. arXiv:0905.3418
 59.P.Z. Skands, Tuning Monte Carlo generators: the Perugia Tunes. Phys. Rev. D82, 074018 (2010). arXiv:1005.3457 ADSGoogle Scholar
 60.CTEQ Collaboration Collaboration, H. Lai et al., Global QCD analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton distributions. Eur. Phys. J. C12, 375–392 (2000). hepph/9903282Google Scholar
 61.T. Sjostrand, P. Eden, C. Friberg, L. Lonnblad, G. Miu et al., Highenergy physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1. Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 238–259 (2001). hepph/0010017CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 62.R. Corke, T. Sjostrand, Interleaved parton showers and tuning prospects. JHEP 03, 032 (2011). arXiv:1011.1759 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 63.J. Pumplin et al. New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis. JHEP 07, 012 (2002). hepph/0201195Google Scholar
 64.S. Gieseke, C. Rohr, A. Siodmok, Colour reconnections in Herwig++. Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2225 (2012). arXiv:1206.0041 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 65.S. Gieseke et al. Herwig++ 2.5 release note. arXiv:1102.1672
 66.H.L. Lai et al., New parton distributions for collider physics. Phys. Rev. D82, 074024 (2010). arXiv:1007.2241 ADSGoogle Scholar
 67.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet user manual. Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012). arXiv:1111.6097 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 68.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The catchment area of jets. JHEP 0804, 005 (2008). arXiv:0802.1188 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 69.A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, L. Lonnblad, H. Hoeth, J. Monk, et al. Rivet user manual. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 2803–2819 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.05.021. arXiv:1003.0694 Google Scholar
 70.Boost 2012 MC Working Group web page. http://ific.uv.es/boost2012/workingroups.html
 71.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The Antik(t) jet clustering algorithm. JHEP 0804, 063 (2008). arXiv:0802.1189 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 72.Y.L. Dokshitzer, G.D. Leder, S. Moretti, B.R. Webber, Better jet clustering algorithms. JHEP 08, 001 (1997). hepph/9707323CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 73.M. Wobisch, T. Wengler, Hadronization corrections to jet cross sections in deep inelastic scattering. hepph/9907280Google Scholar
 74.M. Jankowiak, A.J. Larkoski, Jet substructure without trees. JHEP 1106, 057 (2011). arXiv:1104.1646 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 75.J. Thaler, K. Van Tilburg, Identifying boosted objects with Nsubjettiness. JHEP 1103, 015 (2011). arXiv:1011.2268 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 76.J. Thaler, K. Van Tilburg, Maximizing boosted top identification by minimizing Nsubjettiness. JHEP 1202, 093 (2012). arXiv:1108.2701 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 77.C.F. Berger, T. Kucs, G.F. Sterman, Event shape/energy flow correlations. Phys. Rev. D68, 014012 (2003). hepph/0303051ADSGoogle Scholar
 78.L.G. Almeida, S.J. Lee, G. Perez, G.F. Sterman, I. Sung et al., Substructure of high\(p_T\) jets at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D79, 074017 (2009). arXiv:0807.0234 ADSGoogle Scholar
 79.S. Chekanov, J. Proudfoot, Searches for TeVscale particles at the LHC using jet shapes. Phys. Rev. D81, 114038 (2010). arXiv:1002.3982 ADSGoogle Scholar
 80.J. Gallicchio, M.D. Schwartz, Seeing in color: jet superstructure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 022001 (2010). arXiv:1001.5027 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 81.A. Hook, M. Jankowiak, J.G. Wacker, Jet dipolarity: top tagging with color flow. JHEP 1204, 007 (2012). doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2012)007. arXiv:1102.1012
 82.R. Feynman, R. Field, A parameterization of the properties of Quark Jets. Nucl. Phys. B 136 1 (1978), in Selected papers of Richard Feynman, ed. by L.M. Brown, pp. 763–838. doi: 10.1016/05503213(78)900159
 83.W.J. Waalewijn, Calculating the charge of a jet. Phys. Rev. D 86, 094030 (2012)Google Scholar
 84.D. Krohn, T. Lin, M.D. Schwartz, W.J. Waalewijn, Jet charge at the LHC. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 212001 (2013). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.212001. arXiv:1209.2421 Google Scholar
 85.TOTEM Collaboration, G. Antchev et al., Luminosityindependent measurements of total, elastic and inelastic crosssections at\({\sqrt{s}} = 7\) TeV. Europhys. Lett. 101, 21004 (2013)Google Scholar
 86.T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual. JHEP 05, 026 (2006). hepph/0603175. For older versions, see http://home.thep.lu.se/torbjorn/Pythia.html
 87.T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1. Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852–867 (2008). arXiv:0710.3820 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 88.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, Pileup subtraction using jet areas. Phys. Lett. B659, 119–126 (2008). arXiv:0707.1378 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 89.M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Jet reconstruction in heavy ion collisions. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1539 (2011). arXiv:1010.1759 ADSGoogle Scholar
 90.M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Quantifying the performance of jet definitions for kinematic reconstruction at the LHC. JHEP 0812, 032 (2008). arXiv:0810.1304 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 91.M. Wobisch, Measurement and QCD analysis of jet crosssections in deep inelastic positron proton collisions at\({\sqrt{s}}= 300\) GeV. PhD thesis, University of Hamburg, 2000. DESYTHESIS2000049Google Scholar
 92.S.D. Ellis, C.K. Vermilion, J.R. Walsh, Techniques for improved heavy particle searches with jet substructure. Phys. Rev. D80, 051501 (2009). arXiv:0903.5081 ADSGoogle Scholar
 93.J.M. Campbell, R. Ellis, MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC. Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205–206, 10–15 (2010). arXiv:1007.3492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 94.T. Plehn, M. Spannowsky, Top tagging. J. Phys. G39, 083001 (2012). arXiv:1112.4441 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 95.D.E. Kaplan, K. Rehermann, M.D. Schwartz, B. Tweedie, Top tagging: a method for identifying boosted hadronically decaying top quarks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 142001 (2008). arXiv:0806.0848 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 96.CMS Collaboration, A cambridgeaachen (ca) based jet algorithm for boosted topjet tagging. Tech. Rep. CMS PAS JME09001, CERN, Geneva, 2009Google Scholar
 97.T. Plehn, M. Spannowsky, M. Takeuchi, D. Zerwas, Stop reconstruction with tagged tops. JHEP 1010, 078 (2010). doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2010)078. arXiv:1006.2833
 98.ATLAS Collaboration, Search for resonances decaying into topquark pairs using fully hadronic decays in \(pp\) collisions with ATLAS at \(\sqrt{s}=7\) TeV. JHEP 1301, 116 (2013). arXiv:1211.2202
 99.J.M. Butterworth, B.E. Cox, J.R. Forshaw, \(W W\) scattering at the CERN LHC. Phys. Rev. D65, 096014 (2002). hepph/0201098ADSGoogle Scholar
 100.D.E. Soper, M. Spannowsky, combining subjet algorithms to enhance ZH detection at the LHC. arXiv:1005.0417
 101.D.E. Soper, M. Spannowsky, Finding top quarks with shower deconstruction. Phys. Rev. D87, 054012 (2013). arXiv:1211.3140 ADSGoogle Scholar
 102.C.D.F. Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., Limits on the production of narrow \(t\overline{t}\) resonances in \(p\overline{p}\) collisions at \({\sqrt{s}} =1.96  TeV\) . Phys. Rev. D77, 051102 (2008). arXiv:0710.5335
 103.D0 Collaboration, V. Abazov et al., Search for\(t\overline{t}\) resonances in the lepton plus jets final state in \(p\overline{p}\) collisions at \({\sqrt{s}} = 1.96  TeV\) . Phys. Lett. B668, 98–104 (2008). arXiv:0804.3664
 104.C.D.F. Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., Search for resonant production of tt decaying to jets in \(t\overline{t}\) collisions at \({\sqrt{s}} = 1.96  TeV\) . Phys. Rev. D84, 072003 (2011). arXiv:1108.4755
 105.D0 Collaboration, V.M. Abazov et al., Search for a narrow \(t\overline{t}\) resonance in \(p\overline{p}\) collisions at \({\sqrt{s}} = 1.96  TeV\). Phys. Rev. D85, 051101 (2012). arXiv:1111.1271
 106.CDF Collaboration Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., Search for resonant \(t\overline{t}\) production in the semileptonic decay mode using the full CDF data set. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 121802 (2013). arXiv:1211.5363
 107.ATLAS Collaboration, A search for \(t\overline{t}\) resonances with the ATLAS detector in 2.05 \(fb^1\) of protonproton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 7 TeV\). Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2083 (2012). arXiv:1205.5371
 108.ATLAS Collaboration, A search for \(t\overline{t}\) resonances in lepton+jets events with highly boosted top quarks collected in \(p\overline{p}\) collisions at\({\sqrt{s}} = 7 TeV\) with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 1209, 041 (2012). arXiv:1207.2409
 109.ATLAS Collaboration, A search for ttbar resonances in the lepton plus jets final state with ATLAS using 4.7 \(fb^1\) of pp collisions at s = 7 TeV. Phys. Rev. D88, 012004 (2013). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.012004. arXiv:1305.2756
 110.ATLAS Collaboration, A search for t tbar resonances in the lepton plus jets final state with atlas using 14 \(fb^1\) of pp collisions at s = 8 TeV. Tech. Rep. ATLASCONF2013052, May, 2013Google Scholar
 111.CMS Collaboration, Search for anomalous t tbar production in the highlyboosted allhadronic final state. JHEP 1209, 029 (2012). arXiv:1204.2488
 112.CMS Collaboration, Search for resonant tt production in lepton+jets events in \(pp\) collisions at s=7 TeV. JHEP 1212, 015 (2012). arXiv:1209.4397
 113.CMS Collaboration, Search for \(Z\)’ resonances decaying to \(t\overline{t}\) in dilepton+jets final states in \(p\overline{p}\) collisions at \({\sqrt{s}}=7 TeV\). Phys. Rev. D87, 072002 (2013). arXiv:1211.3338
 114.CMS collaboration, Search for anomalous top quark pair production in the boosted allhadronic final state using pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} =\) 8 TeV. Tech. Rep. CMSPASB2G12005, CERN, Geneva, May, 2013Google Scholar
 115.CMS collaboration, Search for t tbar resonances in semileptonic final states in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=\) 8 TeV. Tech. Rep. CMSPASB2G12006, CERN, Geneva, April, 2013Google Scholar
 116.M. Backovic, J. Juknevich, G. Perez, Boosting the standard model Higgs signal with the template overlap method. JHEP 1307, 114 (2013). arXiv:1212.2977 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 117.S.D. Ellis, A. Hornig, T.S. Roy, D. Krohn, M.D. Schwartz, Qjets: a nondeterministic approach to treebased jet substructure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 182003 (2012). arXiv:1201.1914 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 118.T. Plehn, G.P. Salam, M. Spannowsky, Fat jets for a light Higgs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 111801 (2010). arXiv:0910.5472 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Funded by SCOAP^{3} / License Version CC BY 4.0.