Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Collinear limit of the energy-energy correlator in $e^+ e^-$ collisions: transition from perturbative to non-perturbative regimes

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 A single non-perturbative jet function describes the full near-side energy-energy correlator in $e^+e^-$ collisions, placing the quark-jet hadronization transition at about 2.3 GeV.

desk verdict A solid global fit of the e+e- EEC that overreaches in calling its effective NP scale direct evidence for quark-gluon flavor dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17704 v1 pith:3W762DWB submitted 2025-07-23 hep-ph hep-exhep-thnucl-exnucl-th

Enrico Herrmann , Zhong-Bo Kang , Jani Penttala , Congyue Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-thnucl-exnucl-th
keywords energy-energycorrelatorcollinearlimitnon-perturbativeQCDhadronizatione+e-annihilationNNLO+NNLLresummationjetfunctionflavordependence
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 tries to establish that the collinear energy-energy correlator in $e^+e^-$ annihilation can be described across the whole near-side region ($0^\circ<\chi<90^\circ$) by one unified framework: fixed-order NNLO plus NNLL resummation, multiplied by a non-perturbative jet function acting in position space. Fitting the parameters of that jet function to eight legacy datasets at center-of-mass energies from 29.0 to 91.2 GeV gives a good global description, with $\chi^2/N_{\rm data}=1.38$ over 257 data points. The fit locates the parton-to-hadron transition for quark jets at a transverse momentum scale $a_1 = 2.31$ GeV, clearly below the $3.8$ GeV scale previously extracted from gluon-dominated jets in $pp$ collisions. This difference is what the authors present as the first direct evidence of flavor dependence in the energy-energy correlator. If the result holds, it gives a concrete, data-anchored description of exactly where perturbative QCD ends and hadronization begins inside a jet.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-perturbative jet function $j_{\rm np}(b)=\exp[-(a_1 b)^{a_2}]$, inserted in position space as a multiplicative correction to the resummed EEC jet function at the initial scale $\mu_J^i=\mu_{b^*}$, where $\mu_{b^*}=2e^{-\gamma_E}/b_*$ and the $b_*$ prescription regulates the Landau pole. In this representation the non-perturbative transverse-momentum physics becomes a simple product rather than a convolution, and the shape parameters $a_1,a_2$ are fixed by a global $\chi^2$ fit together with two $K$-factors $A$ and $B$. The same machinery provides the resummation of $\ln z$ logarithms through NNLL via the time-like DGLAP evolution of the position-space jet function, matched to fixed-order NNLO results for the non-singular piece. The near-linear exponent $a_2\simeq 1.06$ also reproduces the known leading power correction in the small-$b$ limit, tying the modeled profile to earlier power-correction analyses.

What would settle it

Fit the same eight datasets with a different non-perturbative ansatz\,--\,separate $a_1^q$ and $a_1^g$ for quark and gluon jets, or a power-series correction in $b$\,--\,and check whether a comparable global fit still requires a quark scale near 2.3 GeV. A sharper test is to apply the framework to track-based EEC data from the LEP era: if the data force a materially different $a_1$ or $a_2$, or a joint NNLL fit of $e^+e^-$ and LHC jet data returns a common $a_1$ for both flavors, the claimed 2.3-versus-3.8 GeV flavor dependence does not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the non-perturbative physics of the near-side EEC factorizes into a single multiplicative profile in position space, $j_{\rm np}(b)=\exp[-(a_1 b)^{a_2}]$, attached to the perturbative jet function at its initial scale. The global fit returns $a_1=2.310$ GeV and $a_2=1.059$, together with two $K$-factors, and reproduces the measured EEC at all eight energies in the full near-side angular range. Because $e^+e^-$ events are quark-jet dominated, the paper interprets $a_1$ as the characteristic transition scale of the quark jet function and contrasts it with the $3.8$ GeV scale assigned to gluon-dominated jets from earlier $pp$ analyses. That contrast, the authors argue, constitutes the first direct evidence of quark-versus-gluon flavor dependence in the energy-energy correlator, with the transition peak in the data appearing near $Q\sin(\chi/2)\simeq 2.8$ GeV, comparable to $a_1$.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the EEC transition is flavor dependent rests on the assumption that non-perturbative hadronization effects factor exactly as one multiplicative exponential profile $\exp[-(a_1 b)^{a_2}]$ shared by quark and gluon jets and fixed across all energies; if the true correction has a different shape, or the forced equality $j_{q,\rm np}=j_{g,\rm np}$ hides a flavor difference, the extracted $2.31$ GeV scale is an artifact of the ansatz rather than a physical quark transition scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One unified NNLO+NNLL framework with a fitted non-perturbative jet function describes the full near-side EEC across $Q=29.0$\,--\,$91.2$ GeV with $\chi^2/N_{\rm data}=1.38$.
  • The quark-dominated $e^+e^-$ data yield a transition scale $a_1=2.31$ GeV, compared with $3.8$ GeV for gluon-dominated jets in $pp$ collisions, which the paper presents as the first direct evidence of flavor dependence in the EEC.
  • The extracted exponent $a_2=1.06$ is close to the value found in the EEC-in-jet analysis and to the back-to-back value $a_2=1.15$, suggesting a common non-perturbative profile across different EEC limits.
  • The same non-perturbative jet function can be applied to track-based EEC measurements, to $pp$ and heavy-ion data, and to $ep$ collisions, providing cross-environment tests of hadronization universality.
  • Combining $e^+e^-$ and LHC data in a future NNLL fit would allow separate constraints on quark and gluon non-perturbative functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the quark scale is genuinely about 2.3 GeV, jet samples with different quark fractions should show an effective transition scale between 2.3 and 3.8 GeV that tracks the fraction; this is a testable prediction for LHC jet EEC measurements but is not derived in the paper.
  • The same $b$-space profile should reappear in the back-to-back limit and in light-ray energy correlators, so a unified fit across those observables could either confirm the universality of the profile or reveal environment-dependent hadronization corrections.
  • The near-linear exponent ($a_2\simeq 1$) suggests that a single soft scale, rather than a tower of power corrections, dominates the hadronization correction; if so, the ansatz could absorb renormalon-type ambiguities in $\alpha_s$ extractions from event shapes, though the paper does not pursue this.
  • Track-based EEC data from the LEP era, with finer angular resolution, should show the same transition peak near $Q\sin(\chi/2)\simeq 2.8$ GeV; if that peak moves with the track selection, the flavor-scale interpretation would need revisiting.
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 studies the collinear limit of the electron-positron energy-energy correlator (EEC) and describes the transition from the perturbative to the non-perturbative regime. The authors factorize the EEC in position space and introduce a non-perturbative jet function j_np(b) = exp[-(a1 b)^a2] multiplying the perturbative quark and gluon jet functions. Using this framework at NNLO+NNLL accuracy, they perform a global fit to eight e+e- datasets spanning Q = 29.0-91.2 GeV, obtaining chi2/Ndata = 1.38 over 257 points. The fit extracts a1 = 2.31 GeV and a2 = 1.06, and the paper claims this a1 is a characteristic quark-jet transition scale distinct from the gluon-dominated value a1 = 3.8 GeV extracted from pp EEC-in-jet data, presenting this as the first direct evidence of flavor dependence in the EEC.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a useful unified description of the EEC over a wide range of center-of-mass energies and a quantitative handle on hadronization effects in the collinear limit. The global fit quality is good, the replica method for statistical uncertainties is well described, and the position-space factorization in the supplementary material is carefully laid out. The central modeling assumption - a multiplicative non-perturbative jet function with a simple two-parameter form - is physically motivated and has some predictive power, for example the geometric scaling dΣ/dz ~ z^0 at small qT. However, the headline flavor-dependence claim is not directly established by the analysis presented, because the fit enforces equality of the quark and gluon non-perturbative functions and the comparison to the pp result is across different perturbative accuracies and environments. The work is therefore a solid phenomenological contribution whose most exciting conclusion needs additional support or a more cautious interpretation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, Numerical Results, Conclusions] The claim that a1 = 2.31 GeV is a quark-jet transition scale and that its difference from the pp value 3.8 GeV constitutes 'the first direct evidence of flavor dependence in the EEC' is not supported by the present analysis. In Eq. (6) the authors impose j_q,np(b) = j_g,np(b) and explicitly state that e+e- data cannot separately constrain the two non-perturbative jet functions; the fitted a1 is therefore an effective flavor-averaged parameter rather than a quark-specific scale. Moreover, the comparison value a1 = 3.8 GeV from Ref. [37] comes from a leading-logarithmic fit to EEC in inclusive jets in pp collisions, so the comparison mixes different perturbative orders (LL vs. NNLO+NNLL), different observables (full e+e- EEC vs. EEC-in-jet), and a jet sample that is only 'mostly' gluon-dominated. The 1.5 GeV shift could be produced by any of these differences without genuine flavor dependence. The authors should either soften the wording to 'an indication consistent with flavor dependence' or perform a controlled comparison, such as a matched-accuracy fit to the pp data or a sensitivity study with j_q,np ≠ j_g,np.
  2. [Global Analysis, Eq. (9), Table II] The extraction of a1 and a2 relies on the assumption that the two constant K-factors A and B in Eq. (9) absorb all missing higher-order corrections and that the non-perturbative physics is fully captured by the multiplicative ansatz j_np(b). The paper itself notes that the fitted K-factors indicate 'a non-trivial z-dependence that cannot be fully captured by constant K-factors,' which means the central parameters are correlated with the K-factor modeling choice. A robustness test, for example allowing a mild z-dependent K-factor or varying the matching between the resummed and non-singular contributions, would help establish that the extracted a1 is a stable physical scale rather than an artifact of the fixed form of the K-factors. Without such a test, the quantitative comparison to the pp value of 3.8 GeV is on weaker footing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [61] is incomplete: it lists 'arXiv:2507.xxxxx' and 'to appear'; the arXiv number and full citation should be provided before publication.
  2. [Eq. (8)] In Eq. (8), the expression 'a1/4' is ambiguous in the typeset version; the power of a1 should be written explicitly (e.g., a1/4 or a1^{1/4}) to avoid confusion.
  3. [Global Analysis - Data Selection] The statement that the model describes 'the entire near-side region (0°<χ<90°)' should be qualified by the fact that the first point of each dataset is excluded and that data do not extend into the free-hadron region qT ≲ 1 GeV.
  4. [Numerical Results] The sentence 'Because the EEC in e+e− collisions is quark jet dominated, this implies a quark jet transition scale around 2.3 GeV' is a logical jump; it should be phrased as an interpretation consistent with quark dominance rather than a direct implication of the analysis.
  5. [Theoretical Framework] The choice bmax = 2e^{-γE} GeV^{-1} is fixed, but the paper does not include an uncertainty from this choice in the theoretical error budget; a brief discussion of the sensitivity to bmax would improve the robustness assessment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the perturbative resummation is independent, the non-perturbative ansatz is fitted rather than derived, and the flavor comparison uses an external CMS-based fit.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the NNLO+NNLL resummed EEC in Eqs. (3)-(5) follows the independent factorization of Ref. [12] with NNLO fixed-order input Refs. [64-66] and is matched to eight external datasets (Table I). The non-perturbative input is not presented as a derived result; Eq. (7) is explicitly called an ansatz, and a1 and a2 are free parameters fitted to 257 data points (Table II), so the extracted value a1 = 2.31 GeV is a fit output, not a prediction of a quantity already contained in the input. The comparison with a1 = 3.8 GeV from Ref. [37] is a self-citation with overlapping authorship, but the underlying number comes from an independent fit to CMS data, i.e. it is externally falsifiable, so it does not amount to a circular reduction. The paper itself flags the key limitation: it cannot separately constrain j_q,np and j_g,np and therefore sets them equal, and it calls for a future combined NNLL fit to constrain the two non-perturbative functions separately. That means the flavor-dependence interpretation is model-dependent and indirect, but that is a robustness/correctness concern rather than a case in which the claimed result is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction uses four fitted parameters (a1, a2, A, B) and a chosen bmax in the b* prescription. The factorization and RG equations are standard, but the stretched-exponential form, the equality of quark and gluon NP functions, and the constant K-factors are assumptions specific to this analysis. No new particles or forces are posited; the NP jet function is a phenomenological parameterization.

free parameters (5)
  • a1 = 2.31 GeV
    Width of the non-perturbative jet function; fitted to the eight EEC datasets and interpreted as the transition scale.
  • a2 = 1.06
    Exponent in j_np = exp[-(a1 b)^a2]; fitted, close to 1, making the NP correction nearly linear in b.
  • A = 0.858
    Constant K-factor multiplying the resummed contribution; fitted, absorbs missing higher orders.
  • B = 1.238
    Constant K-factor multiplying the non-singular contribution; fitted, absorbs missing higher orders.
  • bmax = 2 e^-gamma_E GeV^-1 ~ 1.123 GeV^-1
    Freezing scale in the b* prescription; chosen by hand rather than fitted; regulates the Landau pole and partitions perturbative and non-perturbative regions.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Collinear factorization of the EEC into hard and jet functions is valid and can be transformed to position space.
    Basis of the whole resummation; taken from Ref. [12] and summarized in the supplementary material.
  • standard math The position-space jet function obeys the same RG equation as the momentum-space jet function, and the NNLO coefficients in b-space equal the momentum-space coefficients.
    Follows from Fourier transform and scale invariance, as derived in the supplementary material around Eqs. (21) and (24).
  • domain assumption The b* prescription with bmax = 2 e^-gamma_E GeV^-1 regulates the Landau pole and defines the transition to the non-perturbative region.
    Standard TMD regulator; the choice of bmax influences the split between perturbative and non-perturbative b regions.
  • ad hoc to paper Quark and gluon non-perturbative jet functions are identical.
    Imposed because electron-positron data cannot constrain gluon jets; directly used in the flavor-dependence interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper Two constant K-factors absorb all missing higher-order corrections in the fit.
    The fit treats A and B as free constants; if missing corrections are z-dependent, part of the non-perturbative signal may leak into these K-factors.
  • domain assumption Hadronization corrections are universal across electron-positron and proton-proton EEC, differing only through the initial-state parton flavor.
    Needed to compare the quark scale from this paper with the gluon scale from Ref. [37]; not independently tested here.
  • domain assumption The selected datasets and uncertainty-expansion procedure are unbiased.
    The Q >= 29 GeV cut, exclusion of charged-track-only data, and expansion of rounded uncertainties follow Ref. [78] but are not validated internally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collinear limit of the energy-energy correlator in $e^+ e^-$ collisions: transition from perturbative to non-perturbative regimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3W762DWB

@misc{pith2026250717704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collinear limit of the energy-energy correlator in $e^+ e^-$ collisions: transition from perturbative to non-perturbative regimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3W762DWB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17704}
}
abstract

We study the collinear limit of the energy-energy correlator (EEC) in $e^+e^-$ collisions, focusing on the transition from the perturbative QCD regime at relatively large angles to the non-perturbative region at small angles. To describe this transition, we introduce a non-perturbative jet function and perform a global analysis at NNLO+NNLL accuracy using experimental data spanning center-of-mass energies from $Q = 29.0$ to $91.2$ GeV. This marks the first accurate description of the EEC across the entire near-side region ($0^\circ<\chi<90^\circ$) within a unified theoretical framework. Our analysis also provides, for the first time, a quantitative extraction of the non-perturbative contribution to the EEC quark jet function, identifying a characteristic transition scale around $2.3$ GeV - distinct from the scale observed in EEC-in-jet measurements in $pp$ collisions at the LHC, which are dominated by gluon jets. These results offer the first evidence for flavor dependence (quark vs. gluon) in the EEC and provide new insights into the interplay between perturbative and non-perturbative QCD dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the EEC theory prediction with experimental data. The light and dark bands represent the 68% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Combined comparison of the EEC theory prediction with experimental data. The light and dark bands represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The distributions of the fit parameters for the 200 fit replicas. The inner and outer error ellipses correspond to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Photon-Tagged Energy Flow in Inclusive Endpoint $B$ Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new photon-tagged angular energy correlator in inclusive B→X_sγ factorizes at leading power into the standard shape function and a newly computed measured jet function, enabling angular tests of endpoint factorization.

  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.

  3. Heavy Quark Pair Energy Correlators: From Profiling Partonic Splittings to Probing Heavy-Flavor Fragmentation

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heavy-flavor energy-energy correlators isolate the gluon to heavy quark-antiquark splitting and are predicted to be sensitive to medium modifications and anisotropic quark-gluon plasma structure.

  4. Particle Correlations in Jets

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Subtracting the product of single-particle energy flows from the energy-energy correlator isolates genuine two-particle correlations in jets, as demonstrated with PYTHIA.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [37]

    Barata, Z.-B

    J. Barata, Z.-B. Kang, X. Mayo L´ opez and J. Penttala, Energy-Energy Correlator for Jet Production in pp and pA Collisions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) no. 25 251903 [arXiv:2411.11782 [hep-ph] ]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis and S. T. Love, Energy Correlations in electron - Positron Annihilation: Testing QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41 (1978) 1585

    1978

  3. [2]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis and S. T. Love, Energy Correlations in electron-Positron Annihilation in Quantum Chromodynamics: Asymptotically Free Perturbation Theory, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 2018

    1979

  4. [3]

    Kravchuk and D

    P. Kravchuk and D. Simmons-Duffin, Light-ray operators in conformal field theory , JHEP 11 (2018) 102 [arXiv:1805.00098 [hep-th] ]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Meltzer 6 and D. Simmons-Duffin, Detectors in weakly-coupled field theories, JHEP 04 (2023) 014 [ arXiv:2209.00008 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Kologlu, P

    M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Simmons-Duffin and A. Zhiboedov, The light-ray OPE and conformal colliders, JHEP 01 (2021) 128 [ arXiv:1905.01311 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, Conformal collider physics: Energy and charge correlations , JHEP 05 (2008) 012 [ arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th] ]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [7]

    A. V. Belitsky, S. Hohenegger, G. P. Korchemsky, E. Sokatchev and A. Zhiboedov, From correlation functions to event shapes , Nucl. Phys. B 884 (2014) 305 [arXiv:1309.0769 [hep-th] ]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    A. V. Belitsky, S. Hohenegger, G. P. Korchemsky, E. Sokatchev and A. Zhiboedov, Event shapes in N = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory, Nucl. Phys. B 884 (2014) 206 [arXiv:1309.1424 [hep-th] ]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. V. Belitsky, S. Hohenegger, G. P. Korchemsky, E. Sokatchev and A. Zhiboedov, Energy-Energy Correlations in N=4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) no. 7 071601 [arXiv:1311.6800 [hep-th] ]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Chang, M

    C.-H. Chang, M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Simmons-Duffin and A. Zhiboedov, Transverse spin in the light-ray OPE , JHEP 05 (2022) 059 [arXiv:2010.04726 [hep-th] ]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, Simplicity from Recoil: The Three-Loop Soft Function and Factorization for the Energy-Energy Correlation, JHEP 08 (2018) 160 [arXiv:1801.02627 [hep-ph] ]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    L. J. Dixon, I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, Collinear limit of the energy-energy correlator, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no. 1 014009 [ arXiv:1905.01310 [hep-ph] ]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    H. Chen, I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, Quantum Interference in Jet Substructure from Spinning Gluons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) no. 11 112003 [ arXiv:2011.02492 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Chen, QCD factorization from light-ray OPE , JHEP 01 (2024) 035 [ arXiv:2311.00350 [hep-ph] ]

    H. Chen, QCD factorization from light-ray OPE , JHEP 01 (2024) 035 [ arXiv:2311.00350 [hep-ph] ]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, Energy Correlators: A Journey From Theory to Experiment, arXiv:2506.09119 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Neill, G

    D. Neill, G. Vita, I. Vitev and H. X. Zhu in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.07113 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, The Energy-Energy Correlation in the back-to-back limit at N3LO and N 3LL’, JHEP 08 (2021) 022 [arXiv:2012.07859 [hep-ph] ]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Boussarie et

    R. Boussarie et. al., TMD Handbook, arXiv:2304.03302 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    Z.-B. Kang, J. Penttala and C. Zhang, Determination of the strong coupling constant and the Collins-Soper kernel from the energy-energy correlator in e+e− collisions, arXiv:2410.21435 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, D. Diakonov and S. I. Troian, On the Transverse Momentum Distribution of Massive Lepton Pairs, Phys. Lett. B 79 (1978) 269

    1978

  14. [21]

    Parisi and R

    G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, Small Transverse Momentum Distributions in Hard Processes , Nucl. Phys. B 154 (1979) 427

    1979

  15. [22]

    Parisi, Summing Large Perturbative Corrections in QCD, Phys

    G. Parisi, Summing Large Perturbative Corrections in QCD, Phys. Lett. B 90 (1980) 295

    1980

  16. [23]

    Kodaira and L

    J. Kodaira and L. Trentadue, Summing Soft Emission in QCD, Phys. Lett. B 112 (1982) 66

    1982

  17. [24]

    S.-C. Chao, D. E. Soper and J. C. Collins, The Order α−s2 Energy-energy Correlation Function at Small Angles, Nucl. Phys. B 214 (1983) 513

    1983

  18. [25]

    D. E. Soper, ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION OF TWO OBSERVED HADRONS IN ELECTRON - POSITRON ANNIHILATION, Z. Phys. C 17 (1983) 367

    1983

  19. [26]

    Kodaira and L

    J. Kodaira and L. Trentadue, Single Logarithm Effects in electron-Positron Annihilation, Phys. Lett. B 123 (1983) 335

    1983

  20. [27]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Back-To-Back Jets: Fourier Transform from B to K-Transverse , Nucl. Phys. B 197 (1982) 446

    1982

  21. [28]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, The Two Particle Inclusive Cross-section in e+e− Annihilation at PETRA, PEP and LEP Energies , Nucl. Phys. B 284 (1987) 253

    1987

  22. [29]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Transverse Momentum in e+e− → a + B + X, Acta Phys. Polon. B 16 (1985) 1047

    1985

  23. [30]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Back-to-back Jets in QCD: Comparison With Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 655

    1982

  24. [31]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, D. Y. Shao and F. Zhao, Probing transverse momentum dependent structures with azimuthal dependence of energy correlators , JHEP 03 (2024) 153 [ arXiv:2310.15159 [hep-ph] ]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Konishi, A

    K. Konishi, A. Ukawa and G. Veneziano, A Simple Algorithm for QCD Jets , Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 243

    1978

  26. [33]

    Konishi, A

    K. Konishi, A. Ukawa and G. Veneziano, On the Transverse Spread of QCD Jets , Phys. Lett. B 80 (1979) 259

    1979

  27. [34]

    Konishi, A

    K. Konishi, A. Ukawa and G. Veneziano, Jet Calculus: A Simple Algorithm for Resolving QCD Jets , Nucl. Phys. B 157 (1979) 45

    1979

  28. [35]

    H. Chen, I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, Spinning gluons from the QCD light-ray OPE , JHEP 08 (2022) 233 [arXiv:2104.00009 [hep-ph] ]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan and H. X. Zhu, Universality in the Near-Side Energy-Energy Correlator , arXiv:2410.16371 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. Fu, B. M¨ uller and C. Sirimanna,Modification of the Jet Energy-Energy Correlator in Cold Nuclear Matter , arXiv:2411.04866 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    SLD collaboration, K. Abe et. al., Measurement of alpha-s (M(Z)**2) from hadronic event observables at the Z0 resonance, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 962 [arXiv:hep-ex/9501003]

    1995 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Adrian et

    L3 collaboration, O. Adrian et. al., Determination of alpha-s from hadronic event shapes measured on the Z0 resonance, Phys. Lett. B 284 (1992) 471

    1992

  33. [41]

    OP ALcollaboration, P. D. Acton et. al., An Improved measurement of alpha-s (M (Z0)) using energy correlations with the OPAL detector at LEP , Phys. Lett. B 276 (1992) 547

    1992

  34. [42]

    Adachi et

    TOP AZcollaboration, I. Adachi et. al., Measurements of α−s in e+e− Annihilation at √s = 53.3-GeV and 59.5-GeV, Phys. Lett. B 227 (1989) 495

    1989

  35. [43]

    Braunschweig et

    T ASSOcollaboration, W. Braunschweig et. al., A Study of Energy-energy Correlations Between 12-GeV 7 and 46.8-GeV CM Energies , Z. Phys. C 36 (1987) 349

    1987

  36. [44]

    Bartel et

    JADE collaboration, W. Bartel et. al., Measurements of Energy Correlations in e+e− → Hadrons, Z. Phys. C 25 (1984) 231

    1984

  37. [45]

    Fernandez et

    E. Fernandez et. al., A Measurement of Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− → Hadrons at √s = 29-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 2724

    1985

  38. [46]

    D. R. Wood et. al., Determination of α−s From Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilation at 29-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3091

    1988

  39. [47]

    CELLO collaboration, H. J. Behrend et. al., Analysis of the Energy Weighted Angular Correlations in Hadronice+e− Annihilations at 22-GeV and 34-GeV , Z. Phys. C 14 (1982) 95

    1982

  40. [48]

    Berger et

    PLUTO collaboration, C. Berger et. al., A Study of Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilations at√s = 34.6-GeV, Z. Phys. C 28 (1985) 365

    1985

  41. [49]

    OP ALcollaboration, M. Z. Akrawy et. al., A Measurement of energy correlations and a determination of alpha-s (M2 (Z0)) in e+ e- annihilations at s**(1/2) = 91-GeV, Phys. Lett. B 252 (1990) 159

    1990

  42. [50]

    Decamp et

    ALEPH collaboration, D. Decamp et. al., Measurement of alpha-s from the structure of particle clusters produced in hadronic Z decays , Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) 479

    1991

  43. [51]

    Adeva et

    L3 collaboration, B. Adeva et. al., Determination of alpha-s from energy-energy correlations measured on the Z0 resonance., Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) 469

    1991

  44. [52]

    SLD collaboration, K. Abe et. al., Measurement of alpha-s from energy-energy correlations at the Z0 resonance, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 5580 [arXiv:hep-ex/9405006]

    1994 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bossi, A

    H. Bossi, A. Baty, Y. Chen, Y.-C. J. Chen, G.-M. Innocenti, M. Maggi, C. McGinn and Y.-J. Lee, Measurement of the energy-energy correlator in the back-to-back limit using the archived ALEPH e+e- data at 91.2 GeV , PoS LHCP2024 (2025) 228 [arXiv:2501.01968 [hep-ex] ]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bossi, Y.-C

    H. Bossi, Y.-C. Chen, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, G. M. Innocenti, A. Badea, A. Baty, M. Maggi, C. McGinn and Y.-J. Lee, Analysis note: measurement of energy-energy correlator in e+e− collisions at 91 GeV with archived ALEPH data , arXiv:2505.11828 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hayrapetyan et

    CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et. al., Measurement of Energy Correlators inside Jets and Determination of the Strong Coupling αS(mZ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no. 7 071903 [ arXiv:2402.13864 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Acharya et

    ALICE collaboration, S. Acharya et. al., Exposing the parton-hadron transition within jets with energy-energy correlators in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV, arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    P. T. Komiske, I. Moult, J. Thaler and H. X. Zhu, Analyzing N-Point Energy Correlators inside Jets with CMS Open Data , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) no. 5 051901 [arXiv:2201.07800 [hep-ph] ]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Stewart, Dihadron Fragmentation and the Confinement Transition in Energy Correlators , arXiv:2507.11495 [hep-ph]

  51. [59]

    Y. Guo, F. Yuan and W. Zhao, Factorization and Resummation for the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators, arXiv:2507.15820 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chang, H

    C.-H. Chang, H. Chen, X. Liu, D. Simmons-Duffin, F. Yuan and H. X. Zhu, Quantum Scaling in Energy Correlators Beyond the Confinement Transition , arXiv:2507.15923 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak and C. Zhang, Dihadron fragmentation framework for near-side energy-energy correlators, arXiv:2507.xxxxx [hep-ph] . to appear

  54. [62]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Power corrections to event shapes and factorization , Nucl. Phys. B 555 (1999) 335 [ arXiv:hep-ph/9902341]

    1999 arXiv

  55. [63]

    K. Lee, A. Pathak, I. W. Stewart and Z. Sun, Nonperturbative Effects in Energy Correlators: From Characterizing Confinement Transition to Improving αs Extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no. 23 231902 [arXiv:2405.19396 [hep-ph] ]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    L. J. Dixon, M.-X. Luo, V. Shtabovenko, T.-Z. Yang and H. X. Zhu, Analytical Computation of Energy-Energy Correlation at Next-to-Leading Order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no. 10 102001 [arXiv:1801.03219 [hep-ph] ]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi,Three-Jet Production in Electron-Positron Collisions at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Accuracy , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no. 15 152004 [arXiv:1603.08927 [hep-ph] ]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Tulip´ ant, A

    Z. Tulip´ ant, A. Kardos and G. Somogyi,Energy–energy correlation in electron–positron annihilation at NNLL + NNLO accuracy, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no. 11 749 [arXiv:1708.04093 [hep-ph] ]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kalinowski, K

    J. Kalinowski, K. Konishi, P. N. Scharbach and T. R. Taylor, RESOLVING QCD JETS BEYOND LEADING ORDER: QUARK DECAY PROBABILITIES , Nucl. Phys. B 181 (1981) 253

    1981

  60. [68]

    Richards, W

    D. Richards, W. Stirling and S. Ellis, Second order corrections to the energy-energy correlation function in quantum chromodynamics, Physics Letters B 119 (1982) no. 1 193. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/0370269382902751

    1982

  61. [69]

    Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD , vol

    J. Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD , vol. 32 of Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology . Cambridge University Press, 7, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven, Higher order QCD corrections to the transverse and longitudinal fragmentation functions in electron - positron annihilation, Nucl. Phys. B 487 (1997) 233 [arXiv:hep-ph/9609377]

    1997 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Mitov and S.-O

    A. Mitov and S.-O. Moch, QCD Corrections to Semi-Inclusive Hadron Production in Electron-Positron Annihilation at Two Loops , Nucl. Phys. B 751 (2006) 18 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604160]

    2006 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Mitov, S

    A. Mitov, S. Moch and A. Vogt, Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Evolution of Non-Singlet Fragmentation Functions, Phys. Lett. B 638 (2006) 61 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604053]

    2006 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Moch and A

    S. Moch and A. Vogt, On third-order timelike splitting functions and top-mediated Higgs decay into hadrons , Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 290 [ arXiv:0709.3899 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. A. Almasy, S. Moch and A. Vogt, On the Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Evolution of Flavour-Singlet Fragmentation Functions, Nucl. Phys. B 854 (2012) 133 [ arXiv:1107.2263 [hep-ph] ]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, 8 Transverse Momentum Distribution in Drell-Yan Pair and W and Z Boson Production , Nucl. Phys. B 250 (1985) 199

    1985

  68. [76]

    Collins and T

    J. Collins and T. Rogers, Understanding the large-distance behavior of transverse-momentum-dependent parton densities and the Collins-Soper evolution kernel , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no. 7 074020 [ arXiv:1412.3820 [hep-ph] ]

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Apolin´ ario, R

    L. Apolin´ ario, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, N. O. Madureira, J.-X. Sheng, X.-N. Wang and Z. Yang, Flavor dependence of Energy-energy correlators, arXiv:2502.11406 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kardos, S

    A. Kardos, S. Kluth, G. Somogyi, Z. Tulip´ ant and A. Verbytskyi, Precise determination of αS(MZ) from a global fit of energy–energy correlation to NNLO+NNLL predictions, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no. 6 498 [arXiv:1804.09146 [hep-ph] ]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Mezard, G

    M. Mezard, G. Parisi and M. Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory and Beyond . WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1986

    1986

  72. [80]

    NNPDF collaboration, R. D. Ball, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, J. I. Latorre, A. Piccione, J. Rojo and M. Ubiali, A Determination of parton distributions with faithful uncertainty estimation , Nucl. Phys. B 809 (2009) 1 [ arXiv:0808.1231 [hep-ph] ]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys...

    2009 arXiv

  73. [81]

    G. Bell, C. Lee, Y. Makris, J. Talbert and B. Yan, Effects of renormalon scheme and perturbative scale choices on determinations of the strong coupling from e+e- event shapes , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no. 9 094008 [arXiv:2311.03990 [hep-ph] ]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn and H. X. Zhu, Energy correlators on tracks: resummation and non-perturbative effects, JHEP 12 (2023) 087 [arXiv:2307.15739 [hep-ph] ]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Moult, Energy Correlators Taking Charge, arXiv:2308.00746 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Moult, Joint Track Functions: Expanding the Space of Calculable Correlations at Colliders , arXiv:2308.01332 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    ST ARcollaboration, Measurement of Two-Point Energy Correlators Within Jets in p+p Collisions at √s = 200 GeV , arXiv:2502.15925 [hep-ex] . 9 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL F actorization of EEC in the Collinear Limit In this section, we review the collinear factorization of the EE...

    arXiv

Pith tools

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