abstract:
  .
  In this work we approach the brain tumor segmentation problem with a cascade of two CNNs inspired in the V-Net architecture , reformulating residual connections and making use of ROI masks to constrain the networks to train only on relevant voxels. This architecture allows dense training on problems with highly skewed class distributions, such as brain tumor segmentation, by focusing training only on the vecinity of the tumor area. We report results on BraTS2017 Training and Validation sets.
author: Adrià Casamitjana, Marcel Catà, Irina Sánchez, Marc Combalia and Verónica Vilaplana
title: Cascaded V-Net using ROI masks for brain tumor segmentation

[^1]

# Introduction

Accurate localization and segmentation of brain tumors in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is crucial for monitoring progression, surgery or radiotherapy planning and follow-up studies. Since manual segmentation is time-consuming and may lead to inter-rater discrepancy, automatic or semi-automatic approaches have been a topic of interest during the last decade. Among tumors that originally develop in the brain, gliomas are the most common type. Gliomas may have different degrees of aggressiveness, variable prognosis and several heterogeneous histological sub-regions (peritumoral edema, necrotic core, enhancing and non-enhancing tumor core) that are described by varying intensity profiles across different MRI modalities, which reflect diverse tumor biological properties . However, the distinction between tumor and normal tissue is difficult as tumor borders are often fuzzy and there is a high variability in shape, location and extent across patients. Despite recent advances in automated algorithms for brain tumor segmentation in multimodal MRI scans, the problem is still a challenging task in medical imaging analysis.

Many different computational methods have been proposed to solve the problem. Here we will only review some of the most recent approaches based on deep learning, which are the top-performing methods in BraTS challenge since 2014. Representative works based on other machine learning models include and methods reviewed in .

As opposed to classical discriminative models based on pre-defined features, deep learning models learn a hierarchy of increasingly complex task specific features directly from data, which results in more robust features.

Some methods do not completely exploit the available volumetric information and use two-dimensional Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), processing 2D slices independently or using three orthogonal 2D patches to incorporate contextual information . The model in consists of two pathways, a local pathway that concentrates on pixel neighborhood information, and a global pathway, which captures global context of the slice. This two-path structure is adopted in a fully 3D approach named DeepMedic , consisting of two parallel 3D CNN pathways producing soft segmentation maps, followed by a fully connected 3D CRF that imposes generalization constraints. The network is extended in by adding residual connections between the outputs of every two layers. The work shows empirically that the residual connections give modest but consistent improvement in sensitivity over all tumor classes. In we compare the performances of three 3D CNN architectures inspired in two well known 2D models used for image segmentation and a variant of showing the importance of the multi-resolution connections to obtain fine details in the segmentation of tumor sub-regions. More recently, V-Net presents successful results on challenging medical imaging segmentation tasks by using both short and long skip connections that help learning finer structures and ease training.

In this paper, in the context of BraTS Challenge 2017, we present a brain tumor segmentation method based on a cascade of two convolutional neural networks. The problem is divided in two simpler tasks that can be performed independently using two 3D-CNN and a later combination of their outputs to get the final segmentation. The network architecture used for the two tasks is a modified version of V-Net consisting of convolutional blocks and residual connections that have been reformulated according to recent findings in the literature . Additionally, we introduce the use of ROI masks during the learning process in order to constrain each CNN to focus only on relevant voxels or regions from each task. Hence, the first network will be trained only on brain tissue to produce raw tumor masks and the second networks will be trained on the vecinity of the tumor to predict tumor regions.

Medical images in general and brain MRI in particular contain non-informative voxels (e.g. background or non-brain tissue) and many techniques have been developed to filter out this information. We can benefit from this knowledge and focus the entire system to train only on relevant, informative voxels or regions (e.g. apply a skull-stripping method and work with the brain mask to discard background information). To do so, the loss is computed only within the mask and the outer voxels will not contribute in the learning process, blocking the backpropagated signal through them. Finally, we use a dense-training scheme with small batch sizes that avoids patch-wise training and reduces the overall training time. Moreover, the common structure of the brain across subjects may be better learned using the whole image for training.

# Method

One of the main problems in brain lesion detection is that lesions affect a small portion of the brain, making naive training strategies biased towards the trivial decision of null detection. Brain tumors normally correspond to only 3-5% of the overall image, accounting for 5-15% of the brain tissue and being each tumor region an even smaller portion. To address this issue, we propose to divide the brain tumor segmentation problem into two simpler tasks: (i) segmentation of the overall tumor and (ii) delineation of the different tumor regions. The tasks are performed in parallel using two CNN networks, where the output of the first network is used an input to the second one. The overall system pipeline is depicted in Fig. .

## V-Net using ROI masks

Our network is a variant of V-Net that aims at reducing the overall number of parameters by using smaller filter sizes (3x3x3 instead of 5x5x5) and changing the non-linearity from PReLU to ReLU. In addition, we use batch normalization before the non-linearity to account for internal covariate shift. Based on insights from , we also reformulate the short residual connections in order to improve gradients flow across the network by using identity mappings as residual connections. In the case of dimensions mismatch in the addition layer, we minimally modify the residual connection with max-pooling and repeated up-sampling for spatial correspondence and 1x1x1 convolutions to match the number of channels. For better understanding, we show in Fig.  the main changes from the original V-Net.

We use ROI masks before the final predictions both during training and inference in order to smooth the class imbalance problem, specially for small sub-tumor regions. The ROI mask forces the outer voxels to belong to the background class with full probability by first multiplying them by 0 and turn their probability of belonging to the background class to 1. The multiplication prevents the backpropagated signal from going through the outer voxels and thus, it does not contribute in the learning process. The overall architecture is shown in Fig. .

## Training

Each network in the pipeline performs a different task and thus, they can be independently trained. Instead of using patch-wise training and non-uniform sampling strategies to account for class imbalance, we use dense-training with a single subject per batch. The first network is trained as a binary segmentation problem with tumor/non-tumor classes and outputs a raw segmentation of the whole-tumor region. It takes the four modalities (T1, T1c, T2 and FLAIR) as inputs and uses the FLAIR intensity information in the deeper layers of the network by concatenating it with the predicted feature maps from the last level in the expanding path of the network. The network makes use of a brain mask in order to consider only brain tissue voxels for training. The loss function used is the modified dice coefficient () suited for binary segmentation tasks with imbalanced data:

$$L_1=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i \cdot l_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i +  \sum_{i=1}^{N} l_i }
\label{eq:dice_loss}$$

where N is the total number of voxels, $p_i$ is the softmax output of the $i$-th voxel, and $l_i$ is the $i$-th voxel label ($l_i = 0,1$).

The second network is trained as a multi-class segmentation problem with four classes (non-tumor, edema, enhancing core and non-enhancing core). It also uses the four MRI modalities as input. From the ground-truth labels, we generate a rectangular mask that covers the whole tumor and it is used to train the network only in the vicinity of the tumor, avoiding to train on brain tissue far from the tumor region. As we use dense-training with a single subject per batch, the use of raw tumor masks in the training procedure helps to reduce the high class imbalance present among different classes. The loss function in the second network is a combination of cross entropy ($X_E$) and the dice coefficient for each tumor sub-region (whole tumor ($D_{WT}$), enhancing tumor ($D_{ET}$) and tumor core ($D_{TC}$)). We empirically choose the values for the weights in both parts of the function:

$$L_2= X_E + 0.5 * ( {D_{WT} + D_{ET} + D_{TC}})$$

## Inference

At inference time, we first get the whole-tumor prediction from the first network. We use morphological filtering to remove small spurious detections made by the first network and we automatically find the smallest rectangular mask that covers the detected tumor. This result is then used as ROI mask in the second network to mask out the majority of false positives, since the second network is only trained to discriminate tumor regions on the vicinity of the tumor. This process can be done in parallel since one can decouple the masking process from the network prediction and thus, save inference time.

# Results and discussion

## Data

BraTS2017 training data consists of 210 pre-operative MRI scans of subjects with glioblastoma (GBM/HGG) and 75 scans of subjects with lower grade glioma (LGG), corresponding to the following modalities: native T1, post-contrast T1-weighted, T2-weighted and FLAIR, acquired from multiple institutions. Ground truth annotations comprise GD-enhancing tumor (ET, label 4), peritumoral edema (ED, label 2), necrotic and non-enhancing tumor (CNR/NET, label 1) as described in . The data is distributed co-registered to the same anatomical template, interpolated to the same resolution ($1mm^3$) and skull-stripped. The validation set consists of 46 scans with no distinction between GBM/HGG and LGG.

Each scan is individually normalized in mean and standard deviation. For training, we use data augmentation by adding scan reflections with respect to the sagittal plane.

## Performance on BraTS2017 training and validation sets

Evaluation of the results is performed merging the predicted labels into three classes: enhancing tumor ET (label 1), whole tumor WT (labels 1, 2, 4), and tumor core TC (labels 1, 4), using Dice score, Hausdorff distance, Sensitivity and Specificity. Preliminary results for the BraTS 2017 Training dataset have been obtained by hold-out using 70% of the data for training and the remaining 30% for development purposes, such as early stopping or to tune some hyperparameter. In addition to that, the performance on the BraTS 2017 Validation set, reported on the challenge's leaderboard [^2], is also presented in Table and Table .

In Table we show Dice and Hausdorff metrics. We achieve rather high performance on the Dice metric for the whole tumor (WT) region, but low values for enhancing tumor (ET) and tumor core (TC) regions, compared to state-of-the-art. Using the BraTS Validation set, we are able to compare to other participants in the challenge. In the case of Dice-WT, our method is very close to the results obtained by the top performing methods while, again, our method achieves rather low Dice-ET and Dice-TC metrics. Hausdorff distances are higher than the best performing algorithms, being specially high for the whole-tumor region, probably indicating some outlier predictions that increase the metric.

|                 | Dice  |       |       | Hausdorff |       |        |
|:---------------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:---------:|:-----:|:------:|
|                 |  ET   |  WT   |  TC   |    ET     |  WT   |   TC   |
| Development set | 0.671 | 0.869 | 0.685 |   7.145   | 6.410 | 9.584  |
| Validation set  | 0.714 | 0.877 | 0.637 |   5.434   | 8.343 | 11.173 |

Results for BraTS 2017 data. Dice and Hausdorff metrics are reported.

Even though specificity is not very informative for imbalanced classes, results from Table  show that we are able to properly represent background, probably due to the use of masks in the predictions. More interestingly, sensitivity shows that ET and TC regions might be underrepresented in our predicted segmentations. This results guide us to future improvements trying to overcome that behavior.

|                 | Sensitivity |       |       | Specificity |       |       |
|:---------------:|:-----------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----------:|:-----:|:-----:|
|                 |     ET      |  WT   |  TC   |     ET      |  WT   |  TC   |
| Development set |    0.735    | 0.851 | 0.664 |    0.998    | 0.994 | 0.997 |
| Validation set  |    0.723    | 0.879 | 0.619 |    0.998    | 0.994 | 0.998 |

Results for BraTS 2017 data. Sensitivity and specificity are reported.

These results can be further analyzed and confirmed with Train/Development curves in Fig. , which mostly indicate the generalization power of the method by analyzing the bias/variance trade-off. We clearly see that from epoch 18 (iteration 3600) we start overfitting the tumor core metric (Fig. .b) while the other regions are either slowly gaining insignificant improvements (Fig. .a, whole tumor) or not improving at all (Fig. .c, enhancing core). However the development loss is still improving due to the cross-entropy term.

## Visual analysis

Figure shows two subjects among the quantitatively better (first row) and poorer (second row) results. In both cases, it can be visually appreciated that our method correctly segments the whole tumor region. For the subject shown in Figure .a, the system is able to properly capture all tumor regions, meaning that the first network is able to correctly localize the tumor and the second network is able to capture differences between tumor regions. On the other hand, in Figure .b, we show a case where even though the tumor is correctly localized by the first network, the second isn't able to properly detect different tumor subregions. We see that edema (ED - label 2) is overrepresented in our segmentation in detriment of smaller classes: GD-enhancing tumor (ET - label 4) and the necrotic and non-enhancing tumor (NCR/NET - label 1). This effect can also be inferred from lower values in ET and TC dice coefficients.

# Conclusions

In this paper we introduce a cascaded V-Net architecture that uses masks to focus training on relevant parts of the brain. We use it to solve the class imbalance problem inherent to brain tumor segmentation. We use a two-step process that (i) localizes the brain tumor area and (ii) distinguishes between different tumor regions, ignoring all other background voxels. This scheme allows to perform dense-training on MR images. We finally show results on BraTS 2017 Training and Validation sets, showing that while the results obtained for the WT segmentation are competitive with other participants' algorithms, we are not able to properly capture the less common regions (TC or ET). When trying to avoid patch-wise sampling strategies and make use of dense-training scheme, smaller classes are not well detected even using ROI masks, meaning that more weight should be placed when learning those classes. As a future work we will explore how to up-weight small tumor regions in the learning procedure.

[^1]: This work has been partially supported by the projects BIGGRAPH-TEC2013-43935-R and MALEGRA TEC2016-75976-R financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Adrià Casamitjana is supported by the Spanish "Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte" FPU Research Fellowship.

[^2]: https://www.cbica.upenn.edu/BraTS17/lboardValidation.html


**A matching of**
**matrix elements and parton showers**
J. André and T. Sjöstrand[^1]
*Department of Theoretical Physics,*
*Lund University, Lund, Sweden*

**Abstract**

We propose a simple scheme to start a parton-shower evolution description from a given jet configuration in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation events. This allows a convenient combination of the full angular information content of matrix elements with the detailed sub-jet structure of parton showers, and should give a realistic overall description of event properties. Explicit studies with this hybrid approach are presented for the four-jet case, as a simple testing ground of the ideas.

In modern high-energy particle physics, the ability to perform precision measurements or tests of fundamental concepts often requires an accurate modelling of multiparticle topologies. These events have their origin in the perturbative production of sets of partons — quarks and gluons — that subsequently hadronize nonperturbatively to produce the observable final state. The first step therefore is to obtain an accurate description of the perturbative production of multiparton topologies. Basically, there exists two approaches to this problem.

The standard method is the *matrix element* one. In this approach the relevant Feynman graphs are calculated, order by order in $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$, until the required accuracy is ensured. Taking the convenient example of the lowest-order process $e^+ e^- \to \gamma/Z^0 \to q\overline{q}$, the first-order real production process is $e^+ e^- \to \gamma/Z^0 \to q \overline{q} g$. The infrared and collinear gluon-emission divergences of the latter process are cancelled by the first-order virtual corrections to the lowest-order graph, to give a finite total cross section. In second order, two new processes appear, $e^+ e^- \to \gamma/Z^0 \to q \overline{q} g g$ and $e^+ e^- \to \gamma/Z^0 \to q \overline{q} q \overline{q}$, together with virtual corrections to the lower-order processes.

In principle, the matrix-element approach is the correct one, that gives the full information content of perturbative QCD. There are caveats, however. One is that the calculations become increasingly complex in higher orders. This in particular affects the virtual corrections, where subtle cancellations of singularities have to be performed between graphs corresponding to different number of phase-space dimensions. Therefore a full calculation of all virtual corrections only exists to second order in $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$ . Another caveat is that the matrix-element method is unreliable when applied to the exclusive production of two nearby partons. In an order-by-order calculation of such a fixed parton configuration, the virtual corrections are (to leading-log accuracy) expected to appear as an alternating series that sums up to give an exponential damping — a Sudakov form factor . The closer a gluon is to another parton, the larger are the terms of this series, and the more terms are necessary to obtain a convergent answer.

The alternative approach is the *parton shower* one. Here the amplitude-based language of matrix elements is replaced by a simplified probabilistic one. The basic process $e^+ e^- \to \gamma/Z^0 \to q \overline{q}$ is supplemented by standard QCD evolution-equation rules for subsequent branchings $q \to q g$, $g \to g g$ and $g \to q \overline{q}$. By repeated application of these simpler $1 \to 2$ branchings arbitrarily complicated multiparton topologies are generated. The shower approach obeys detailed balance — a branching transforms an $n$-parton configuration to an $n+1$ one — which implies that a Sudakov form factor enters in a natural fashion. While the traditional parton-shower approach formally is of leading-log accuracy only, in reality many next-to-leading effects are included: an event generator takes full account of energy–momentum conservation and recoil effects, it can be made to include angular ordering (coherence) of emissions , the $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$ scale can be optimized based on knowledge of higher-order branching kernels , and azimuthal angles in branchings can be chosen non-isotropically to include both spin and coherence effects .

However sophisticated, the parton-shower approach still cannot be expected to cover the full information content available in the matrix-element expressions. This should be especially notable for situations when partons are well separated: here exact kinematics is important and several graphs can be expected to contribute comparably much, so that interference terms are significant.

The picture then is one where matrix elements are likely to provide the better description of the main character of events, i.e. the topology of well separated jets, while parton showers should be better at describing the internal structure of these jets. A marriage of the two approaches seems rather natural, but is actually not so simple. Only for first-order $e^+ e^-$ events is this routinely done. One approach is to generate a normal parton shower starting from a $q \overline{q}$ topology, and reweight (by a rejection technique) the first branchings of the $q$ and the $\overline{q}$ so that the first-order $q \overline{q} g$ three-jet matrix elements are reproduced. An improvement is to include weights in all branches . A clever choice of cascading description can automatically lead to a good agreement also with four-jet matrix elements . Another technique is to use matrix elements to generate a varying number of initial partons that then are allowed to shower further . This strategy has also been applied to deep inelastic scattering . The number of event classes to consider can be reduced if cut-offs are chosen appropriately .

In this letter we propose another strategy for combining matrix elements with parton showers. It has the advantage that it can be applied to arbitrarily complicated partonic states, but the disadvantage that it does not tell how to mix different event topologies consistently. Its main application therefore is to events where the bulk properties are given by matrix elements, i.e. where the main partons are well separated, and the task is to provide a realistic representation of the structure of the resulting jets. One such example is four-jet studies at LEP 1 to test the coupling structure of QCD, another four-jet studies at LEP 2 to control backgrounds to $W^+ W^-$ events.

The basic idea is to cast the output of matrix element generators in the form of a parton-shower history, that then can be used as input for a complete parton shower. In the shower, that normally would be allowed to develop at random, some branchings are now fixed to their matrix-element values while the others are still allowed to evolve in the normal shower fashion. The preceding history of the event is also in these random branchings then reflected e.g. in terms of kinematical or dynamical (e.g. angular ordering) constraints.

The idea is best exemplified by $e^+ e^-$ four-jet events. The process receives contributions from seven graphs, see Fig. . The $q \overline{q} g g$ and $q \overline{q} q \overline{q}$ graphs easily separate, so we can concentate on the former processes. Then the matrix-element expression contains contributions from five graphs, and from interferences between them. The five graphs can also be read as five possible parton-shower histories for arriving at the same four-parton state, but here without the possibility of including interferences. The relative probability for each of these possible shower histories can be obtained from the rules of shower branchings. For example, the relative probability for the history shown in Fig.  is given by: $${\cal P} = {\cal P}_{1\rightarrow 34} {\cal P}_{4\rightarrow 56}
= \frac{1}{m_{1}^{2}} \frac{4}{3} \frac{1+z^{2}_{34}}{1-z_{34}}
\cdot \frac{1}{m_{4}^{2}} 3
\frac{(1-z_{56}(1-z_{56}))^{2}}{z_{56}(1-z_{56})}$$ where the probability for each branching contains the mass singularity, the colour factor and the momentum splitting kernel. The masses are given by $$\begin{aligned}
m_{1}^{2} = p_{1}^{2} & = & (p_{3}+p_{5}+p_{6})^{2}~, \\
m_{4}^{2} = p_{4}^{2} & = & (p_{5}+p_{6})^{2}~, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ and the z values by $$\begin{aligned}
z_{bc} = z_{a \to bc} &=&
\frac{ m^{2}_{a} }{ \lambda }\frac{ E_{b} }{ E_{a} } -
\frac{m^{2}_{a} - \lambda + m^{2}_{b} - m^{2}_{c}}{2\lambda}
\\
\mathrm{with~~}
\lambda &=& \sqrt{(m^{2}_{a} - m^{2}_{b} - m^{2}_{c})^{2} - 4m^{2}_{b}\,
m^{2}_{c}}~.
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ The form of the probability matches the expression used in the Jetset parton-shower algorithm . Other programs use the opening angle or the transverse momentum as main evolution variable instead of mass. The $z$ definition (again the one used in Jetset) reduces to energy fractions in the limit that the daughters are massless, and corresponds to unchanged decay angle in the rest frame of the mother when daughter masses are introduced.

Variants on the above probabilities are imaginable. For instance, in the spirit of the matrix-element approach we have assumed a common $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$ for all graphs, which thus need not be shown, whereas the parton-shower language normally assumes $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$ to be a function of the transverse momentum of each branching . One could also include information on azimuthal anisotropies .

The relative probability ${\cal P}$ for each of the five possible parton-shower histories can be used to select one of the possibilities at random. (A less appealing alternative would be a "winner takes all" strategy, i.e. selecting the configuration with the largest ${\cal P}$.) The selection fixes the values of the $m$, $z$ and $\varphi$ at two vertices. The azimuthal angle $\varphi$ is defined by the daughter parton orientation around the mother direction. When the conventional parton-shower algorithm is executed, these values are then forced on the otherwise random evolution. This forcing cannot be exact for the $z$ values, since the final partons given by the matrix elements are on the mass shell, while the corresponding partons in the parton shower might be virtual and branch further. The shift between the wanted and the obtained $z$ values are rather small, very seldom above $10^{-6}$. More significant are the changes of the opening angle between two daughters: when daughters originally assumed massless are given a mass the angle between them tends to be reduced. This shift has a non-negligible tail even above 0.1 radians. The "narrowing" of jets by this mechanism is compensated by the broadening caused by the decay of the massive daughters, and thus overall effects are not so dramatic.

All other branchings of the parton shower are selected at random according to the standard evolution scheme. In Fig. 2, this means that partons 2, 3, 5 and 6 (and any daughters) have random masses and branchings. There is an upper limit on the non-forced masses from internal logic, however. For instance, for four-parton matrix elements, the singular regions are typically avoided with a cut $y > 0.01$, where $y$ is the square of the minimal scaled invariant mass between any pair of partons. Larger $y$ values could be used for some purposes, while smaller ones give so large four-jet rates that the need to include Sudakov form factors can no longer be neglected. The $y > 0.01$ cut roughly corresponds to $m > 9$ GeV at LEP 1 energies, so the hybrid approach must allow branchings at least below 9 GeV in order to account for the emission missing from the matrix-element part. Since no 5-parton emission is generated by the second-order matrix elements, one could also allow a threshold higher than 9 GeV in order to account for this potential emission. However, if any such mass is larger than one of the forced masses, the result would be a different history than the chosen one. Thus one plausible strategy is to choose as threshold the smallest of the two forced masses. Another choice is a fixed mass threshold at 13 GeV, a value that gives the same average multiplicity as the original parton shower. This may be viewed as a pragmatical compromise between the two extremes above.

The resulting charged multiplicity distributions are shown in Fig. . The JADE P0 scheme has been used to find four-jet events with a separation $y > 0.02$, and results are compared with DELPHI data . The hybrid is executed with three different mass thresholds: fixed at 13 GeV (ME+PS I), fixed at 9 GeV (ME+PS II) and minimum of the two forced masses (ME+PS III). In all cases the partons have been hadronized with the string fragmentation scheme . The distributions of the parton shower (PS) and the three hybrids nearly coincide, and agree with the data. The matrix elements distribution (ME) is peaked at significantly lower multiplicities, as should be expected from the lesser activity. This difference could be reduced by a retuning of the fragmentation parameters for the matrix-element approach, but this retuning would then have to be done separately at each energy, while the parton-shower tuned parameters should be valid at all energies and for all jet multiplicities.

The subjet multiplicity is shown in Fig. . This is the average number of jets as a function of $y < 0.03$, given that there are exactly four jets at $y = 0.03$. Thus the subjet multiplicity gives a picture of the width of the four original jets. The ME+PS events have been generated using the fixed mass threshold at 13 GeV. The curve corresponding to the matrix elements has the strongest tendency towards 4 jets, as could be expected, whereas ME+PS agrees rather well with the convenventional parton shower.

Angular distributions in four-jet events have been studied in order to test the predictions of QCD . We therefore already know that these distributions are well described by the matrix-element approach, while the Jetset parton shower is somewhat less accurate . Without entering into the (not easily reproducible) details of the experimental procedure, we can thus directly compare the hybrid approach with the ME and PS options. Fig.  gives the distribution of one such angle for four-jets at $y=0.03$. As expected, the ME+PS curve here agrees well with the pure ME one.

In summary, we have therefore obtained a simple scheme that allows a convenient combination of the best aspects of the matrix-element and parton-shower approaches to the description of multihadronic $e^+e^-$ annihilation events. The structure of well separated jets agrees with the matrix-element prediction, while the richer substructure of jets follows the parton-shower pattern. Further details on the algorithm and tests of it can be found elsewhere; the four-parton program itself is also available .

The method has here been illustrated for four-jet events, but could easily be extended to any other fixed multiplicity. A possible weakness of the approach, however, is that it does not automatically tell how to mix different jet multiplicities in the proper proportions. One could use the matrix-element mixture as a starting point, and generate three- and two-jet events with a veto against too large masses, similarly to what was discussed above. This would not be unreasonable, but the Sudakov form factors of the pure parton-shower approach are then missing and therefore the transition between jet multiplicities is not as well controlled.

The same kind of approach could also be applied to other processes, such as three-jet production in hadron collisions, which could be viewed as a basic $2 \to 2$ scattering combined with one forced parton-shower branching. This branching could here occur either in the initial or in the final state, however, so there are more possibilities to keep track of. Furthermore, the cross section of the $2 \to 2$ scattering here needs to be included in the relative probability to select a given configuration, since this scattering varies between the possible event histories.

[^1]: firstname.lastname@example.com