Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Jet-by-jet EEC covariance exposes a hadronization fingerprint the mean spectrum hides.

desk verdict Careful generator-level study of a genuinely new stochastic EEC observable, but the headline claim about the parton-to-hadron transition outruns what the unpaired parton/hadron samples can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01764 v1 pith:JUA7U4RJ submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ph hep-ex

Jingyu Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords energy-energycorrelatorsjetsubstructurehadronizationparton-to-hadrontransitioncovariancejet-by-jetfluctuationsMonteCarlogenerators
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

This paper argues that the standard practice of averaging energy-energy correlators over all jets discards exactly the information that reveals how a jet turns into hadrons. The author instead keeps the binned two-point correlator as a vector for every jet and studies the covariance of its angular-shell weights across the ensemble. In Pythia and Herwig, across 24 radius-momentum combinations, hadron-level jets always show a smaller covariance trace and a larger positive neighboring-shell correlation than parton-level jets. The mean EEC would be nearly unchanged in those matched comparisons, so this sign pattern is a stochastic, fluctuation-level signal of the parton-to-hadron transition. If correct, jet-by-jet covariance becomes a new observable for comparing shower and hadronization models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-jet shell increment vector M_J = (M_{J,1}, ..., M_{J,K}), the binned two-point energy-energy correlator of a single jet, with M_{J,k} = sum over constituent pairs z_i z_j times an indicator that their angular separation falls in shell B_k. Retaining this vector per jet turns the EEC into a random measure over angular scale; its covariance matrix C_{k,ell}, the trace TrC, and the average neighboring-shell Pearson correlation on the fixed support 0.30 <= r/R < 1 carry the argument. These quantities receive three- and four-particle contributions because products M_k M_ell include pairs sharing one constituent or four distinct constituents. The physical mechanism te

What would settle it

Generate event-paired parton/hadron samples in which each hadron-level jet is matched to its parton-level ancestor using the tagged color-connected intermediate state recommended for Herwig 7.3, then recompute Eq. (15) after removing decays, the constituent threshold, and jet-selection migration. The claim is falsified if the 24/24 sign pattern TrC_had/TrC_part < 1 and DeltaL^S_adj > 0 disappears or flips under those controlled conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that going from a parton-level shower to a hadron-level final state changes the jet-by-jet fluctuations of binned energy-energy correlators in a characteristic way: the summed shell variance decreases and neighboring outer-angle shells become more positively correlated, TrC_had/TrC_part < 1 and DeltaL^S_adj > 0, in all 24 tested generator-radius-momentum configurations. The same mean EEC would not register the change. The paper further shows this covariance is not reducible to a few jet-level summaries: residualizing on momentum, multiplicity, total shell weight, active-shell count, and leading fraction still leaves 84-92% of the trace, and shuffle controls fail to repro

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the separately generated parton- and hadron-level ensembles differ only by the parton-to-hadron transition; if decays, the 1 GeV constituent threshold, or jet-selection migration drive the sign pattern, the conclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jet-by-jet EEC covariance becomes a new ensemble-level observable: two models with nearly identical mean EECs can be separated by their fluctuation correlations.
  • Because the leading eigenmode carries only about 18-20% of the covariance trace, mean-spectrum fits miss most of the fluctuation structure.
  • Residualization shows that most covariance is not due to overall jet activity, so models must generate correlated fluctuations across angular shells.
  • The sign of the response is common to Pythia and Herwig, while its size and angular profile differ, making it a potential hadronization model discriminator.
  • The result is specific to the fixed 30-shell grid and the 0.30-1.0 support; coarser raw binning does not preserve the sign in one case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Event-paired hadronization corrections would allow decomposition of the change into hadronization itself versus decays, the constituent threshold, and jet selection; preserving the sign in such a paired study would strengthen the conclusion.
  • The covariance eigenspectrum and neighboring-shell response are natural tuning statistics for hadronization models, complementing mean-level observables.
  • Because the observable is binning- and threshold-dependent, cross-experiment comparisons require standardized grids and thresholds.
  • The absence of a common characteristic scale suggests a mixture of mechanisms; systematic scanning in radius and momentum could separate wide-angle fragmentation from boundary migration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 retaining the binned two-point energy-energy-correlator vector for each jet and studying its covariance across angular shells, rather than only its mean. It first characterizes the stochastic structure in a high-statistics Pythia sample: shell weights are sparse and non-Gaussian, the covariance is spread over many modes, and residualizing on five jet-level summaries leaves most of the covariance trace. It then compares separately generated parton- and hadron-level Pythia and Herwig samples over 24 radius/momentum configurations and reports the fixed sign pattern of Eq. (15): the hadron-level covariance trace is smaller and the average neighboring-shell correlation on 0.30 <= r/R < 1 is larger. The paper interprets this as information about the parton-to-hadron transition absent from the mean EEC.

Significance. If the attribution were clean, this would be a useful new stochastic jet-substructure observable. The statistical methodology is careful: 300-event-block bootstrap, five-fold cross-fitted residualization, shell-permutation and angle-shuffle controls, and K=30/15/10 robustness checks are all present, and the paper is candid about many limitations. The sign pattern in Eq. (15) is at least a nontrivial generator-level observation that could in principle discriminate hadronization models. The main issue is that the comparison of unpaired parton- and hadron-level ensembles does not isolate hadronization from threshold acceptance, decays, and jet-selection migration, so the abstract's transition claim is stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V.B/C and Eq. (11)] The central sign pattern TrC_had/TrC_part < 1 is computed from separately generated, unpaired parton- and hadron-level ensembles. Appendix A explicitly states that the Herwig parton sample is 'a post-shower snapshot rather than the tagged, color-connected intermediate state recommended for paired hadronization corrections,' and Sec. V.B concedes that 'the present samples do not separate these effects from decays, the constituent threshold, and jet-selection migration.' This is quantitatively important because the shell weights are normalized to the pre-threshold jet momentum while constituents are accepted only if pT >= 1 GeV. The hadron-level accepted-momentum fraction is therefore systematically lower. If all accepted pair weights were rescaled by a common factor f, each shell increment would scale as f^2 and its variance as f^4, producing TrC_had/TrC_part < 1 even with no change in an
  2. [Sec. V.C and Eq. (11)] The positive neighboring-shell response DeltaL_adj is evaluated only on the fixed support 0.30 <= r/R < 1, the outermost angular window where wide-angle decays, the constituent threshold, and jet-boundary migration are most active, as the manuscript itself notes in Sec. V.C. The claim that hadronization increases neighboring-shell correlation is therefore not isolated from these effects. Decays and threshold acceptance can also create multiple soft hadrons in the same local angular region, which would inflate Rhad_{k,k+1} without any change in the underlying fragmentation process. Additional controls are needed: for example, disabling decays, varying the constituent threshold, or comparing stable hadrons before decays. Without them, the positive sign of DeltaL_adj cannot be attributed specifically to the parton-to-hadron transition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B/Appendix B] The statement that the support 0.30 <= r/R < 1 was selected before evaluating any hadron-minus-parton response cannot be verified externally. Since the headline DeltaL_adj depends on this support, the provenance statement should be accompanied by a preregistration-style record or by a systematic scan over inner supports, not only neighboring lower boundaries.
  2. [Table II] The raw K=10 one-pair response is sign-stable in only 21/24 configurations. The paper is appropriately cautious in restricting the common claim to the fixed K=30 observable, but the abstract and conclusions should carry the same restriction more explicitly.
  3. [Sec. IV.C] The residualization feature set includes S_J and N_active,J, which are summaries of the shell vector itself. The paper acknowledges this, but the reader should be reminded that Fres and the conditioned DeltaL_adj are not independent of the covariance being studied; they are conditional statements about the chosen predictor set.
  4. [Fig. 7] The third panel of Fig. 7 is a pointwise standardized difference, not a simultaneous significance map. This is stated in the text, but the color scale saturating at 10 may invite over-interpretation; consider adding a note in the caption.
  5. [References] Reference [18] contains a nonstandard DOI placeholder ('10.1103/tgtl-7xh9') that should be corrected before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is a direct Monte Carlo observation with acknowledged identification caveats.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, Eq. (15), is a direct Monte Carlo observation: across 24 generator-radius-momentum configurations, the hadron-level covariance trace is smaller and the neighboring-shell correlation is larger than at parton level. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then relabeled as a prediction; the quantities are fixed-grid summaries of generated ensembles. The residualization in Sec. III B uses features that include S_J and N_active,J, which are summaries of the shell vector itself, but the paper explicitly states this is 'a residualization test rather than a full conditional-distribution estimate' and uses held-out residuals descriptively. This is a transparent statistical limitation, not a circular derivation. Similarly, the unpaired parton/hadron samples do not isolate hadronization from decays, the constituent threshold, and jet-selection migration; the paper concedes this in Sec. V B and Appendix A. That is a threat to the physical interpretation of the sign pattern, not a reduction of the result to its inputs. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the references to cumulant and hypergraph constructions are contextual, and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem from prior work to force its choice. The comparison is self-contained generator-level data analysis, so no equation is equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

Everything load-bearing is paid for upstream or by hand: generator fidelity, the unpaired population contrast, the non-collinear-safe observable's physical relevance, the hand-chosen support and binning on which the headline summaries are defined, and the residualization feature set. No new physical entities are postulated; the 'random measure' and shell variables are observable constructions, not entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Fixed support S = {25,...,30} (0.30 <= r/R < 1) = six outermost of 30 logarithmic shells
    Hand-chosen before the response evaluation per Sec. III B; the reported DeltaL_adj and resolved Delta_rho_k are defined on it, and the raw response at coarser K=10 resolution is sign-stable in only 21/24 configurations (Table II).
  • 30-shell logarithmic grid over 0.0025R <= r < R = K = 30
    Hand-chosen; the covariance trace is explicitly discretization-dependent (Sec. II B), and robustness is checked at 20 and 40 shells only for the effective-rank ratio, not for the trace ratio itself.
  • Residualization feature set and functional form = five features, additive linear and quadratic terms
    The reported Fres = 0.843-0.918 depends on which jet-level summaries are included, and S_J and N_active,J are themselves functions of the shell vector, an acknowledged limitation (Sec. III B).
  • pT representatives and occupancy thresholds for characteristic-position test = 45/55/70/90 GeV; 30 nonzero event blocks
    Appendix C: the fitted physical-coordinate location moves under domain and momentum choices, so the null result is partly resolution limited.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pythia 8.315 (Monash) and Herwig 7.3.0 event generation faithfully represents QCD jet production at sqrt(s) = 5.02 TeV.
    All conclusions are statements about these generators; extrapolation to nature inherits this assumption (Sec. III A, Table I).
  • domain assumption Separately generated parton- and hadron-level samples with matched configurations form a valid population-level contrast for the parton-to-hadron transition.
    Appendix A: no event- or jet-level matching is used, and the Herwig parton state is a post-shower snapshot, not the recommended tagged intermediate state for paired hadronization corrections.
  • domain assumption The threshold-dependent, non-collinear-safe observable still carries meaningful hadronization information despite the pT >= 1 GeV constituent cut and pre-threshold normalization.
    Sec. III A: 'The observable is consequently a finite-resolution, threshold-dependent quantity and is not strictly collinear safe.' The claim is scoped to this observable, but its physics relevance is an assumption.
  • standard math Event-block bootstrap with 300 replicas adequately estimates sampling uncertainties for these covariance functionals.
    Sec. III B describes the procedure; this is a standard resampling assumption for dependent jet-level data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jet-by-jet energy correlators as stochastic probes of the parton-to-hadron transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUA7U4RJ

@misc{pith2026260801764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jet-by-jet energy correlators as stochastic probes of the parton-to-hadron transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUA7U4RJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01764}
}
read the original abstract

Energy-energy correlators are usually reported as ensemble averages and therefore do not specify how different angular regions fluctuate together from jet to jet. We retain the binned two-point correlator for each jet and study the distribution and covariance of its angular-shell weights. In a high-statistics Pythia sample, the shell variables are sparse and strongly non-Gaussian, and their covariance contains nonzero cross-shell structure spread over many modes. Regressing each shell on five jet-level summaries leaves 84-92% of the covariance trace, while shell-wise permutation and constituent-angle shuffling do not reproduce the observed off-diagonal correlations. We then compare separately generated parton- and hadron-level samples in Pythia and Herwig. Across 24 generator-radius-momentum configurations, the hadron-level covariance trace is smaller and the average neighboring-shell correlation over 0.30 <= r/R < 1 is larger. The size and angular dependence of the change differ between the generators, and a characteristic-position analysis does not identify a common scale. Jet-by-jet EEC covariance thus provides information on the parton-to-hadron transition that is absent from the mean spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01764 by the authors.

Figure 11
Figure 11. The zero fraction decreases where many pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Mean and sparsity of the shell increments in the high-statistics Pythia reference. Left: mean shell-weight density with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Cross-scale structure in the Pythia reference. Left: off-diagonal correlation matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Hadron-level cross-fitted conditioning at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Reference compared with the angle-shuffle and independent-shell controls. Top left: relative shell variance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Pythia and Herwig parton-level snapshots at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Parton-to-hadron changes in Pythia (top) and Herwig (bottom) versus jet radius. Curves denote the 40–50, 50–60, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Pythia shell-correlation matrices for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Resolved neighboring-shell response at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Generator comparison versus jet radius for the three displayed momentum intervals. Solid circles denote Pythia, dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Common-domain characteristic positions versus representative jet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Pythia reference shell distributions. From left to right: median and 16–84% interval of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, En- ergy correlations in electron-positron annihilation: Test- ing QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 1585 (1978)

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    A. J. Larkoski, G. P. Salam, and J. Thaler, Energy Cor- relation Functions for Jet Substructure, JHEP06(2013), 108, arXiv:1305.0007 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    L. J. Dixon, I. Moult, and H. X. Zhu, Collinear limit of the energy-energy correlator, Phys. Rev. D100, 014009 (2019), arXiv:1905.01310 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Rethinking jets with energy correlators: Tracks, resummation, and analytic continuation, Phys. Rev. D102, 054012 (2020), arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, Energy Correlators: A Jour- ney From Theory to Experiment, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2506.09119 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Chen, M.-X

    H. Chen, M.-X. Luo, I. Moult, T.-Z. Yang, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Three point energy correlators in the collinear limit: symmetries, dualities and analytic results, JHEP 08(2020), 028, arXiv:1912.11050 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, J. Sandor, and H. X. Zhu, Celestial blocks and transverse spin in the three-point energy cor- relator, JHEP09(2022), 199, arXiv:2202.04085 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Yang and X

    T.-Z. Yang and X. Zhang, Analytic Computation of three- point energy correlator in QCD, JHEP09(2022), 006, arXiv:2208.01051 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Neill, G

    D. Neill, G. Vita, I. Vitev, and H. X. Zhu, Energy-Energy Correlators for Precision QCD, inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.07113 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. Gao, H. T. Li, I. Moult, and H. X. Zhu, The trans- verse energy-energy correlator at next-to-next-to-next-to- leading logarithm, JHEP09(2024), 072, arXiv:2312.16408 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    K. Lee, Y. Li, Z. Xu, and X. Zhang, Projected Energy Correlators: Two-Loop Jet Functions and NNLL Resum- mation, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.02714 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Budhraja and W

    A. Budhraja and W. J. Waalewijn, FastEEC: Fast eval- uation of N-point energy correlators, Phys. Lett. B861, 139276 (2025), arXiv:2406.08577 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Budhraja, H

    A. Budhraja, H. Chen, and W. J. Waalewijn, ν-point en- ergy correlators with FastEEC: Small-x physics from LHC jets, Phys. Lett. B861, 139239 (2025), arXiv:2409.12235 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Alipour-fard, A

    S. Alipour-fard, A. Budhraja, J. Thaler, and W. J. Waalewijn, New Angles on Energy Correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 231902 (2025), arXiv:2410.16368 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Alipour-fard and W

    S. Alipour-fard and W. J. Waalewijn, Energy correlators beyond angles, JHEP07(2025), 043, arXiv:2501.17218 [hep-ph]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Mi and Z

    Z. Mi and Z. Wang, One-point energy correlator inside jets, JHEP11(2025), 090, arXiv:2507.21613 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Measurement of Energy Correlators inside Jets and Determination of the Strong Coupling αS(mZ), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Measurement of Energy Correlators inside Jets and Determination of the Strong Coupling αS(mZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 071903 (2024), arXiv:2402.13864 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    ALICE Collaboration, Exposing the parton-hadron tran- sition within jets with energy-energy correlators in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 10.1103/tgtl- 7xh9 (2026), accepted for publication, arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. E. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Measurement of Two- Point Energy Correlators within Jets in p+p Collisions at √s = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111901 (2025), arXiv:2502.15925 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Energy-energy correlators in charm-tagged jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Energy-energy correlators in charm-tagged jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Holguin, I

    J. Holguin, I. Moult, A. Pathak, M. Procura, R. Sch¨ ofbeck, and D. Schwarz, Using the W Boson as a Standard Candle to Reach the Top: Calibrating Energy-Correlator-Based Top Mass Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 231903 (2025), arXiv:2311.02157 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Holguin, I

    J. Holguin, I. Moult, A. Pathak, M. Procura, R. Sch¨ ofbeck, and D. Schwarz, Top quark mass extractions from energy correlators: a feasibility study, JHEP04(2025), 072, arXiv:2407.12900 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, J. Thaler, and H. X. Zhu, Non- Gaussianities in collider energy flux, JHEP07(2022), 146, arXiv:2205.02857 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, Energy flow polynomials: A complete linear basis for jet substructure, JHEP04(2018), 013, arXiv:1712.07124 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    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, 051901 (2023), arXiv:2201.07800 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    W. Zhao, V. Koch, and F. Yuan, Particle Correlations in Jets, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2507.18790 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. Duan, W. Ke, G.-Y. Qin, and L. Wang, Uncover the correlation between jet energy correlators and multiplicity fluctuations, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2604.01102 [hep- ph]

    2026

  20. [28]

    A. Bal, M. Klute, B. Maier, and M. Spannowsky, From Information Geometry to Jet Substructure: A Triality of Cumulant Tensors, Energy Correlators, and Hypergraphs, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2605.03063 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gonzalez, P

    M. Gonzalez, P. Harris, K. Lee, I. Moult, and S. Roth- man, Dissecting Parton Showers with Multi-Point Energy Correlators, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2607.07792 [hep- ph]

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. T. Schindler, I. W. Stewart, and Z. Sun, Renormalons in the energy-energy correlator, JHEP10(2023), 187, [Erratum: JHEP 10, 175 (2024)], arXiv:2305.19311 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. Lee, A. Pathak, I. W. Stewart, and Z. Sun, Nonpertur- bative Effects in Energy Correlators: From Characterizing Confinement Transition to Improvingαs Extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 231902 (2024), arXiv:2405.19396 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    H. Chen, P. F. Monni, Z. Xu, and H. X. Zhu, Scaling Violation in Power Corrections to Energy Correlators from the Light-Ray Operator Product Expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 231901 (2024), arXiv:2406.06668 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. Li, I. Moult, S. S. van Velzen, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, Extending Precision Perturbative QCD with Track Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 182001 (2022), arXiv:2108.01674 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, Renormalization group flows for track function moments, JHEP06(2022), 139, arXiv:2201.05166 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, Energy correlators on tracks: resumma- tion and non-perturbative effects, JHEP12(2023), 087, 14 arXiv:2307.15739 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Moult, Energy Correlators Taking Charge, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2308.00746 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and H. X. Zhu, Universal- ity in the Near-Side Energy-Energy Correlator, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151901 (2025), arXiv:2410.16371 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Observation of nuclear modification of energy-energy correlators inside jets in heavy ion collisions, Phys

    V. Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Observation of nuclear modification of energy-energy correlators inside jets in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B866, 139556 (2025), arXiv:2503.19993 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Towards an interpretation of the first measure- ments of energy correlators in the quark-gluon plasma, JHEP03(2025), 166, arXiv:2407.07936 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bossi, A

    H. Bossi, A. S. Kudinoor, I. Moult, D. Pablos, A. Rai, and K. Rajagopal, Imaging the wakes of jets with energy-energy-energy correlators, JHEP12(2024), 073, arXiv:2407.13818 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Singh and V

    B. Singh and V. Vaidya, Factorization for energy-energy correlator in heavy ion collision, JHEP06(2025), 071, arXiv:2408.02753 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Barata, Z.-B

    J. Barata, Z.-B. Kang, X. Mayo L´ opez, and J. Pent- tala, Energy-Energy Correlator for Jet Production in pp and pA Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 251903 (2025), arXiv:2411.11782 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Barata, I

    J. Barata, I. Moult, A. V. Sadofyev, and J. M. Silva, Dis- secting Jet Modification in the QGP with Multi-Point En- ergy Correlators, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.13603 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Andres, J

    C. Andres, J. Holguin, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, and J. Viinikainen, Minimizing Selection Bias in Inclusive Jets in Heavy-Ion Collisions with Energy Correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 082303 (2025), arXiv:2409.07514 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008), 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bierlichet al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlichet al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bierlichet al., Codebase release 8.3 for PYTHIA, Sci- Post Phys

    C. Bierlichet al., Codebase release 8.3 for PYTHIA, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases 8-r8.3 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Skands, S

    P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3024 (2014), arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bellmet al., Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur

    J. Bellmet al., Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 452 (2020), arXiv:1912.06509 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bewicket al., Herwig 7.3 release note, Eur

    G. Bewicket al., Herwig 7.3 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1053 (2024), arXiv:2312.05175 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    H. Chen, M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, Multi-collinear splitting ker- nels for track function evolution, JHEP07(2023), 185, arXiv:2210.10058 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    H. Chen, M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, Collinear parton dynamics beyond Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi frame- work, Phys. Rev. D111, 076021 (2025), arXiv:2210.10061 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.