P--wave quarkonia in jets at the LHC

We present the first systematic theoretical study of the production of P-wave charmonium states χcJ and bottomonium states χbJ(nP) within jets at the LHC using the fragmenting jet function framework at next-to-leading…

By Ha, Hong, Kang +2Oct 29, 2026

Score████░░░░░░4.3

Caveats

Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.

VerdictWorth a reader's time today.

Read the original PDF

Abstract

We present the first systematic theoretical study of the production of P-wave charmonium states χ_cJ and bottomonium states χ_bJ(nP) within jets at the LHC using the fragmenting jet function framework at next-to-leading order in α_s. Our calculation resums both collinear DGLAP logarithms and threshold double logarithms in the fragmentation functions and accounts for feeddown contributions from higher quarkonium states. We observe a notable contrast between the charmonium and bottomonium sectors. For χ_bJ(nP), the normalized momentum-fraction distributions exhibit a nearly universal shape, with remarkably weak dependence on the choice of long-distance matrix element sets, the radial excitation (n=1,2,3), and the total angular momentum (J=0,1,2). We attribute this universality to the overwhelming dominance of the ³S₁^[8] fragmentation channel, while feeddown contributions from higher bottomonium states remain small. In contrast, the shape of χ_cJ distributions exhibits a stronger dependence on the matrix-element set, reflecting the different relative contributions of the ³S₁^[8] and ³P_J^[1] channels. We provide predictions for the χ_cJ and χ_bJ(nP) distributions for the CMS and LHCb kinematic selections across a range of jet transverse momenta. We also compare our predictions with Pythia~8 simulations for selected P-wave quarkonium states.

Taewook Ha, Byungsik Hong, Daekyoung Kang, Soohwan Lee, Bayu Adi Nugraha Putra

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

Leverage3 / 5: A method or resource many groups across the field will adopt within a year.; 18% of this desk’s rubric
Magnitude2 / 5: Solid incremental gain on a meaningful problem.; 20% of this desk’s rubric
Evidence3 / 5: Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.; 22% of this desk’s rubric
Novelty3 / 5: A genuinely new approach to an open problem.; 22% of this desk’s rubric
Trajectory2 / 5: Some room to improve with obvious engineering.; 10% of this desk’s rubric
Stakes2 / 5: Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).; 8% of this desk’s rubric

Dimension	Level	Weight	What that level means
Leverage	███░░3/5	18%	A method or resource many groups across the field will adopt within a year.
Magnitude	██░░░2/5	20%	Solid incremental gain on a meaningful problem.
Evidence	███░░3/5	22%	Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.
Novelty	███░░3/5	22%	A genuinely new approach to an open problem.
Trajectory	██░░░2/5	10%	Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
Stakes	██░░░2/5	8%	Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we propose); breadth (general-purpose); novelty (discovery); verification (error bars).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-10-18

Score████░░░░░░4.3

Score = 10 × (75% × adjusted merit / 10 + 15% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.

Merit: 5.2 / 10; Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit: 4.5 / 10; Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (38%).
Attention: 0%; Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness: 93%; Half-life decay since publication.

No attention signals recorded yet.

The record

Reviewed by heuristic-v10 on Oct 30, 2026, 07:29 UTC. Paper type: method.
Categories: hep-ph, hep-ex, nucl-th
TOP, No.5 in the Physics edition of October 30, 2026.