Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Particle Correlations in Jets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that subtracting a 'trivial' energy-energy correlator built from independent single-particle flows from the measured correlator isolates genuine two-particle correlations in jets, and that the same ratio in heavy-ion…

desk verdict A clean new jet EEC subtraction observable with a solid pp demonstration, but the heavy-ion medium-response cancellation is asserted, not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18790 v1 pith:3QMK5YKF submitted 2025-07-24 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Wenbin Zhao , Volker Koch , Feng Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords energy-energycorrelatorjetsubstructureparticlecorrelationsenergylossheavy-ioncollisionspartonsplittingTMDfragmentationQCDfactorization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the standard energy-energy correlator (EEC) measured inside a jet is not a genuine two-particle correlation: it counts every energy-weighted pair, including pairs of unrelated particles, so it is nonzero even when particles are emitted independently. The authors therefore construct a 'trivial' EEC from two independent single-particle energy flows around the jet axis and compare it with the full EEC, either by subtraction or by ratio. Using Monte Carlo generated jets, they find that the difference and ratio are sizable at both small angles and moderate-to-large angles, and they attribute both to correlated splitting, with non-perturbative fragmentation dominating the smallest angles. If correct, the same comparison becomes a jet-substructure observable that separates hadronization from perturbative splitting and, in heavy-ion collisions, an AA-vs-pp double ratio that exposes medium-modified parton splitting and jet energy loss while cancelling the background from medium response.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the trivial EEC built from the single-particle energy flows, defined as the angular convolution $\int \mathrm{d}^2\theta_1\,\mathrm{d}^2\theta_2\, [\mathrm{d}\langle E(\theta_1)\rangle/\mathrm{d}^2\theta_1]\,[\mathrm{d}\langle E(\theta_2)\rangle/\mathrm{d}^2\theta_2]\,\delta^{(2)}(\vec{\theta}-(\vec{\theta}_1-\vec{\theta}_2))$, times a normalization factor $N_{\rm trivial}\approx 0.85$ that corrects the normalization to match the full EEC. Equivalently the paper constructs it by 'jet mixing,' assembling fake jets from one particle drawn from many different real jets, which removes all correlations while preserving the single-particle angular and energy-fraction distributions. The full EEC minus this trivial reference, Eq. (9), or divided by it, Eq. (10), is the genuine-correlation observable; because the integral of the difference vanishes by construction, the ratio is used to display the signal in the large-angle region.

What would settle it

A heavy-ion Monte Carlo in which the medium response is given an explicit angular distribution (for example, particles added uniformly in annuli of $\theta$) should leave the double ratio of Eq. (12) unchanged if the cancellation claim is correct; any dependence of that double ratio on the angular distribution of the added response falsifies the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that subtracting the trivial EEC, $\mathrm{d}\langle \mathrm{EEC}(\theta)\rangle_{\mathrm{trivial}}/\mathrm{d}^2\theta$, from the measured $\mathrm{d}\langle \mathrm{EEC}(\theta)\rangle_{\mathrm{full}}/\mathrm{d}^2\theta$ leaves a nonzero genuine-correlation signal in every angular region, not just at the angles that are usually associated with correlated radiation. The ratio $R_{\mathrm{EEC}}(\theta)$ defined in Eq. (10) rises above 1 at small $\theta$ and again at larger $\theta$ toward the jet boundary, with a central region where it approaches 1, and the structure matches the 'free hadron', 'transition', and 'collinear' classifications of the jet EEC. The paper interprets the nonzero signal as evidence that the two particles come from a common source, namely a correlated splitting, rather than from two independent energy flows. The paper further claims that in AA collisions the double ratio of Eq. (12) is greater than 1 at small angles because the genuine-correlation ratio is nearly proportional to jet energy, providing a direct handle on the jet energy loss fraction, and that the large-angle behavior exposes medium modification of parton splitting.

Load-bearing premise

The heavy-ion application stands or falls on the assumption that the hot-medium response adds to the EEC with no angular dependence, so that it cancels in the genuine-correlation ratio and double ratio; the paper cites a reference for this but gives no calculation or simulation showing it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Measuring $R_{\mathrm{EEC}}(\theta)$ in pp collisions gives a direct, model-independent view of genuine two-particle correlations in jets, with the three angular regions mapping to free-hadron emission, the transition region, and collinear parton splitting.
  • The AA/pp double ratio of Eq. (12) at small angles should exceed 1 and scale with jet energy, allowing the jet energy loss fraction to be read off from the energy dependence.
  • At moderate/large angles the same double ratio isolates the medium modification of parton splitting, because the trivial background and the medium response cancel.
  • The method extends to proton-nucleus collisions, where the analogous comparison probes the nuclear modification of EEC observables without single-particle contamination.
  • It also extends to multi-point energy correlators, offering a family of observables sensitive to higher-order correlations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the same subtraction could be applied to other jet-substructure distributions, such as angularities or generalized energy correlators, to separate genuine correlations from phase-space and normalization effects, provided a suitable axis and a normalization factor are defined.
  • Inference: the paper's assumption that the medium response has no angular dependence is testable in heavy-ion Monte Carlo simulations with an explicit medium-response model; if the double ratio changes when the response is angularly modulated, the cancellation premise fails.
  • Inference: if the near-linearity of $R_{\mathrm{EEC}}$ with jet energy at small angles is confirmed, the double ratio could be promoted from a qualitative indicator to a quantitative estimator of the fraction of energy lost by the jet, with the uncertainty dominated by the size of the subtraction.
  • Inference: the claim that two particles at small angle come from a single non-perturbative fragmentation event could be checked by measuring the genuine correlation in electron-positron annihilation, where there is no nuclear medium and hadronization dominates the small-angle region.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decomposition of the in-jet energy-energy correlator (EEC) into a "trivial" part built from two independent single energy flows with respect to the jet axis and a "genuine correlation" remainder. The authors define the trivial correlator both as a convolution of single energy distributions (Eq. 7) and through a mixed-jet procedure (Eq. 8), demonstrate in PYTHIA pp events at several LHC jet energies that the full and trivial EECs differ, and present the difference (Eq. 9) and ratio (Eq. 10) as observables that expose genuine two-particle correlations at small and moderate/large angles. They further propose AA/pp double ratios (Eqs. 11-12) to isolate medium modification of parton splitting in heavy-ion collisions, arguing that the medium response cancels in the genuine correlations because it has no particular angular dependence. The pp analysis is the central new demonstration; the heavy-ion application is presented as a prediction rather than as a computed result.

Significance. If the pp decomposition is robust, the proposal offers a clearly defined, experimentally accessible jet-substructure observable that separates correlated from uncorrelated pair production and could sharpen the interpretation of EEC measurements in different kinematic regions. The paper has concrete strengths: the PYTHIA demonstration, the explicit mixed-jet algorithm, the comparison with a TMD-based model in Appendix B, and the clear statement of the observable definitions. The main weakness is that the heavy-ion claims rest on an unproven cancellation of the medium response; the paper provides no analytic calculation and no AA Monte Carlo check for that cancellation. The pp part of the paper is sound and publishable in principle, but the AA conclusions as currently stated go beyond what is demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Paragraph before Conclusion; Eqs. (9)-(12)] The claim that the medium response cancels in the genuine correlations in AA collisions is not established. Cancellation in the difference Δ = full − trivial requires that all response-involving pair contributions factorize into single-particle densities; "no particular angular dependence" of the response single-particle distribution is neither necessary nor sufficient (for example, a flat but jet-aligned wake would survive in Δ). Moreover, even if the response canceled in Δ, the ratio in Eq. (10) and the double ratio in Eq. (12) divide by the trivial EEC, whose normalization Ntrivial is set to match the full integral and therefore depends on the response; a response that only shifts the overall normalization can still change these ratios. The paper provides no analytic derivation and no AA Monte Carlo demonstration; the PYTHIA study is pp only. Until the factorization property is demonstrated in a medium-response model, the advertised extraction of the jet energy-loss fraction and the medium modification of parton splitting is unsupported.
  2. [Section 'Trivial two particle distributions...', Eqs. (5)-(8)] The two constructions of the trivial correlator are not obviously equivalent, and the equivalence is load-bearing for the subtraction in Eq. (9). Eq. (7) is a convolution of the angle-averaged single energy distributions and, as written, includes pairs drawn from the same original jet, including self-pairs (i=j) and genuine correlated pairs within a jet; the mixed-jet definition in Eq. (8) contains only pairs from different original jets. These same-jet terms are formally suppressed by 1/Njet, but the suppression is not stated or quantified. The paper should provide a derivation of the equivalence, or state the large-Njet approximation and estimate the correction, rather than only showing agreement in one pT bin in Fig. 5. Without this, the claimed isolation of genuine correlations is not fully pinned down.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "genuine correlations exists" should read "genuine correlations exist".
  2. [Figures 2 and 3] The x-axis label "-10L R" appears to be a rendering artifact; it should read something like "log10(RL)".
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B8) and Fig. 5] The parameters c1, c2, and N in the TMD model are free parameters chosen to describe the same PYTHIA distribution; the text should state explicitly that these are fitted values, so the agreement is a description rather than an independent prediction.
  4. [Section 'Trivial two particle distributions...', Eq. (7)] The text states Ntrivial ≈ 0.85 and that it equals the integral of Eq. (1), but should explicitly note that this normalization is fixed by that equality, so the angular integral of the difference in Eq. (9) vanishes by construction and the ratio in Eq. (10) carries the shape information.
  5. [Figures 2 and 3] No statistical uncertainties are shown; since the ratio at large θ involves a ratio of two small quantities, adding error bars or stating that the curves are qualitative would strengthen the claims about the large-angle region.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the genuine-correlation decomposition is a standard connected-correlator subtraction and is self-contained; the heavy-ion medium-response cancellation is an unsupported physics assumption, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is Eq. (1) -> Eq. (6) -> Eq. (7) -> Eq. (9). The trivial EEC is defined as the convolution of single-energy flows with a normalization Ntrivial chosen so that its total integral matches the full EEC integral; this makes the angular integral of Eq. (9) vanish by construction, but the angular shape of the difference is an empirical PYTHIA result and is not an input to the decomposition. The ratio Eq. (10) and double ratio Eq. (12) are proposed observables built from the measured and constructed distributions, and the text explicitly acknowledges that this is the standard subtraction of uncorrelated pairs. The TMD appendix is an illustrative model calculation; even if its parameters are tuned to the displayed PYTHIA curves, that tuning does not feed into the central full-versus-trivial definition. The assertion that the medium response cancels in heavy-ion collisions is stated with a citation to Ref. [47] rather than demonstrated analytically or with an AA Monte Carlo check; this is a correctness and validation gap, not a circular reduction. Minor self-citations in the interpretation of the small-angle region are not load-bearing because the PYTHIA comparisons in Fig. 3 directly provide the evidence for the claimed correlations. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central pp demonstration rests on standard jet-substructure modeling, while the AA proposal pulls the angle-independence of the medium response from a cited preprint rather than deriving it. The numerical results are from PYTHIA with no data, and the TMD support in Appendix B relies on parameters fitted to the same PYTHIA distributions.

free parameters (6)
  • Ntrivial = ~0.85
    Normalization factor in Eq. (7), chosen so the angular integral of the trivial EEC matches the full EEC of Eq. (1) for LHC jet energies; quoted from PYTHIA, not derived analytically.
  • c1 = 0.62
    Average parton energy fraction introduced in Appendix B; tuned to make the TMD model reproduce the PYTHIA trivial EEC.
  • c2 = 0.30
    Sudakov scale parameter in the TMD model; tuned together with c1 and N to reproduce the PYTHIA trivial EEC.
  • eN (or N) = 0.65
    Effective normalization in Eq. (B8), combining Ntrivial and N1 squared; fitted for the 300 to 350 GeV jet pT bin.
  • Cmix = not quoted
    Normalization in the mixed-jet construction, Eq. (8), adjusted to match true-jet normalization; the value is not given in the paper.
  • N1 = absorbed into eN
    Normalization for perturbative matching, stated to have a mild energy dependence; treated as an adjustable constant rather than a prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The trivial EEC from the product of single energy flows captures every contribution that is not a genuine two-particle correlation.
    This is the defining assumption of the subtraction; it neglects correlations induced by momentum conservation and phase-space constraints that the product of single distributions does not encode.
  • ad hoc to paper The medium response in heavy-ion collisions has no angular dependence and cancels in the ratio and double ratio.
    Asserted before the Conclusion and supported only by citing Ref. [47]; no derivation or AA simulation is given.
  • domain assumption PYTHIA 8.306 faithfully simulates parton shower and hadronization for the pp EEC demonstration.
    All quantitative claims about genuine correlations come from PYTHIA, not from experimental data.
  • domain assumption The EEC in jets is described by collinear factorization for theta greater than 0.1 and by TMD fragmentation at small theta.
    Standard jet substructure framework imported from Refs. [13, 40, 43, 49-54].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle Correlations in Jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QMK5YKF

@misc{pith2026250718790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle Correlations in Jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QMK5YKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18790}
}
read the original abstract

We study particle correlations in high energy jets by comparing the measured energy-energy correlator (EEC) with that constructed from two individual energy flows with respect to the jet axis. This comparison demonstrates that genuine correlations exists for small angle and moderate/large angle, indicating that they are coming from correlated splitting. This method will provide a unique tool to disentangle different physics, by comparing the genuine correlations in jet EEC between heavy ion collisions and proton-proton collisions. It will help to expose the medium modification of parton splitting in hot QCD medium. On the other hand, the medium responses are expected to be canceled out in the genuine correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18790 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy-Energy Correlator measurement inside the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The PYTHIA simulations of angular distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Mixing jet events to evaluate the trivial correlations: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Jet-by-jet energy correlators as stochastic probes of the parton-to-hadron transition

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Per-jet fluctuations of binned energy-energy correlators show a smaller covariance trace and larger neighboring-shell correlations at hadron level than at parton level in Pythia and Herwig across all tested configurations.

  2. Benchmarking the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators with Mellin Transform

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Mellin-transform framework with one fitted transition scale Λ describes nearside EECs in e+e− annihilation at NNLO+NNLL accuracy across ALEPH and earlier data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [47]

    Apolin´ arioet al

    L. Apolin´ arioet al. , (2025), 2502.11406

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    free hadrons

    Therefore, |⃗Ph i⊥| ≪Ei = ziEJ, i.e., the transverse momentum of the hadron |⃗Ph i⊥| is much smaller than its longitudinal momentum Ei. With the jet axis well defined, one can also define the correlator depending on two angles, d⟨EEC(θ1,θ 2)⟩ d2θ1d2θ2 = 1 Njet X jets J X i̸=j∈J EiEj E2 J ×δ(2)(θ1−θi)δ(2)(θ2−θj) , (3) from which we can derive the angular d...

    work page

  3. [2]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1585 (1978)

    1978

  4. [3]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2298 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [4]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2018 (1979)

    work page 1979

  6. [5]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 381 (1981), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 213, 545 (1983)]

    1981

  7. [6]

    Ali and F

    A. Ali and F. Barreiro, Phys. Lett. B 118, 155 (1982)

    work page 1982

  8. [7]

    K. A. Clay and S. D. Ellis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4392 (1995), hep-ph/9502223

    arXiv 1995

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    de Florian and M

    D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 704, 387 (2005), hep-ph/0407241

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 152004 (2016), 1603.08927

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Tulip´ ant, A

    Z. Tulip´ ant, A. Kardos, and G. Somogyi, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 749 (2017), 1708.04093

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Kardos, S

    A. Kardos, S. Kluth, G. Somogyi, Z. Tulip´ ant, and A. Verbytskyi, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 498 (2018), 1804.09146

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 08, 160 (2018), 1801.02627

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    L. J. Dixon, M.-X. Luo, V. Shtabovenko, T.-Z. Yang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 102001 (2018), 1801.03219. 5

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    L. J. Dixon, I. Moult, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014009 (2019), 1905.01310

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger, and G. Vita, JHEP 08, 022 (2021), 2012.07859

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    S. T. Schindler, I. W. Stewart, and Z. Sun, JHEP 10, 187 (2023), 2305.19311, [Erratum: JHEP 10, 175 (2024)]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lee and G

    C. Lee and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014022 (2007), hep-ph/0611061

    2007 arXiv

  11. [18]

    C. F. Berger, T. Kucs, and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 68, 014012 (2003), hep-ph/0303051

    2003 arXiv

  12. [19]

    D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, JHEP 05, 012 (2008), 0803.1467

    2008 arXiv

  13. [20]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054012 (2020), 2004.11381

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    K. Lee, B. Me¸ caj, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D 111, L011502 (2025), 2205.03414

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Craft, K

    E. Craft, K. Lee, B. Me¸ caj, and I. Moult, (2022), 2210.09311

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    P. T. Komiske, I. Moult, J. Thaler, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 051901 (2023), 2201.07800

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Andres et al

    C. Andres et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 262301 (2023), 2209.11236

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP 09, 088 (2023), 2303.03413

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D 110, L031503 (2024), 2307.15110

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Z. Yang, Y. He, I. Moult, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 011901 (2024), 2310.01500

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP 03, 166 (2025), 2407.07936

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    J. a. Barata, P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and R. Szafron, JHEP 11, 060 (2024), 2312.12527

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. a. Barata, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 174 (2024), 2308.01294

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bossi et al

    H. Bossi et al. , JHEP 12, 073 (2024), 2407.13818

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Moult, (2023), 2308.01332

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    K. Lee, I. Moult, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 01, 194 (2024), 2308.00028

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    K. Lee, A. Pathak, I. W. Stewart, and Z. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 231902 (2024), 2405.19396

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    H. Chen, P. F. Monni, Z. Xu, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 231901 (2024), 2406.06668

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Holguin et al

    J. Holguin et al. , (2023), 2311.02157

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Holguin et al

    J. Holguin et al. , JHEP 04, 072 (2025), 2407.12900

    2025 arXiv

  31. [38]

    M. Xiao, Y. Ye, and X. Zhu, JHEP 10, 088 (2024), 2405.20001

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 052301 (2025), 2409.12843

    2025 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Andres, J

    C. Andres, J. Holguin, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, and J. Viinikainen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 082303 (2025), 2409.07514

    2025 arXiv

  34. [41]

    X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 151901 (2025), 2410.16371

    2025 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Alipour-fard, A

    S. Alipour-fard, A. Budhraja, J. Thaler, and W. J. Waalewijn, (2024), 2410.16368

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Z.-B. Kang, J. Penttala, and C. Zhang, (2024), 2410.21435

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    J. a. Barata, Z.-B. Kang, X. Mayo L´ opez, and J. Penttala, (2024), 2411.11782

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Cs´ aki, S

    C. Cs´ aki, S. Ferrante, and A. Ismail, (2024), 2412.02738

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Y. Fu, B. M¨ uller, and C. Sirimanna, (2024), 2411.04866

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. a. Barata, I. Moult, A. V. Sadofyev, and J. a. M. Silva, (2025), 2503.13603

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    H. Chen, H. Ruan, and H. X. Zhu, (2025), 2505.16753

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Stewart, (2025), 2507.11495

    2025

  43. [51]

    Y. Guo, F. Yuan, and W. Zhao, (2025), 2507.15820

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chang et al

    C.-H. Chang et al. , (2025), 2507.15923

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, and C. Zhang, (2025), 2507.17444

    2025

  46. [54]

    Herrmann, Z.-B

    E. Herrmann, Z.-B. Kang, J. Penttala, and C. Zhang, (2025), 2507.17704

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. B. Cuerpo, I. Scimemi, and A. Vladimirov, (2025), 2507.17478

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, (2025), 2506.09119

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    CMS, A. Hayrapetyan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 071903 (2024), 2402.13864

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Acharya et al

    ALICE, S. Acharya et al. , (2024), 2409.12687

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Tamis, PoS HardProbes2023, 175 (2024), 2309.05761

    STAR, A. Tamis, PoS HardProbes2023, 175 (2024), 2309.05761

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chekhovsky et al

    CMS, V. Chekhovsky et al. , (2025), 2503.19993

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Acharya et al

    ALICE, S. Acharya et al. , (2025), 2504.03431

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A. Nambrath, Energy-energy correlators of inclusive jets from small to large collision systems with the ALICE experiment, talk presented at the Hard Probe 2024, Na- gasaki, Japan, September 22-27, 2024, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    U. A. Wiedemann and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rept. 319, 145 (1999), nucl-th/9901094

    1999 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sj¨ ostrand, Comput

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun. 246, 106910 (2020), 1907.09874

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Kaufmann, A

    T. Kaufmann, A. Mukherjee, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054015 (2015), 1506.01415, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 079901 (2020)]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Chien, Z.-B

    Y.-T. Chien, Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, I. Vitev, and H. Xing, JHEP 05, 125 (2016), 1512.06851

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Shen, H. Xing, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114019 (2024), 2407.04422

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Neill, I

    D. Neill, I. Scimemi, and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 04, 020 (2017), 1612.04817

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Z.-B. Kang, X. Liu, F. Ringer, and H. Xing, JHEP 11, 068 (2017), 1705.08443

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, J. Terry, and H. Xing, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134978 (2019), 1906.07187

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Mi and Z

    Z. Mi and Z. Wang, One-Point energy correlator inside jets, Preprint, 2025

    2025

  64. [72]

    P. Sun, J. Isaacson, C. P. Yuan, and F. Yuan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1841006 (2018), 1406.3073. 6 Appendix A: “Mixing” Events to Construct the T rivial Correlations Here we briefly describe the method of event or rather jet mixing used in our work. We use the following pro- cedure:

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Reconstruct the jets from Pythia and select the jets within certain PT range, for example 300 GeV < PT,jet < 350 GeV

  66. [74]

    PT range, see Fig

    To generate a mixed jet corresponding to a given true jet with n particles, we pick n particles, one each, from n random jets in the same sample, i.e. PT range, see Fig. 4. Keep track of the energy fraction carried by each particle and the relative angle ⃗θ respect to the orig...

  67. [75]

    This procedure will be repeated to have a suffi- ciently large sample of mixed jets which has the same particle multiplicity distribution within the jets as that of the true jet sample

  68. [76]

    (1) and (6), respectively

    Calculate the EEC and the single energy flow based on sample of mixed jets by replacing the true jet sample with that of the mixed events in Eqs. (1) and (6), respectively. For example: d⟨E(θ)⟩mix d2θ = 1 Njet X mixed jets J X i∈J Ei EJ,i δ(2)(⃗θ−⃗θi), d⟨EEC(θ)⟩mix d2θ = 1 Nje...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.