Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Assessing the sensitivity of Energy-Energy Correlations in $e^+e^-$ annihilation to TMD dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Existing back-to-back energy-energy correlation data do not meaningfully constrain the Collins-Soper kernel or $\alpha_s$, and the narrow uncertainty bands of a prior extraction are an artifact of the replica method applied to correlated…

desk verdict A transparent, mostly convincing negative result: EEC back-to-back data do not meaningfully constrain the CS kernel or alpha_s, but the paper oversells one phrase and skips a jet-ansatz robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17478 v1 pith:TSL24K4E submitted 2025-07-23 hep-ph

Alejandro Bris Cuerpo , Ignazio Scimemi , Alexey Vladimirov This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords energy-energycorrelationsCollins-SoperkernelTMDfactorizationstrongcouplingconstante+e-annihilationback-to-backlimitnonperturbativeQCDMonte-Carloreplicamethod
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 asks whether the back-to-back (large-angle) limit of the energy-energy correlation in $e^+e^-$ annihilation can actually measure the Collins-Soper kernel and the strong coupling $\alpha_s$, as a 2024 analysis claimed. Working with transverse-momentum-dependent (TMD) factorization at N$^4$LL accuracy and a global sample of 243 data points from ten experiments, the authors find that the data can be described with $\chi^2/N_{\rm pt}<1$ for any minimally reasonable model of the Collins-Soper kernel, once the nonperturbative jet profile is re-minimized. A direct scan of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ yields a range roughly twenty times wider than the established world average, so the data carry negligible information on either quantity. The paper concludes that the uncertainty bands obtained by the earlier extraction are artifacts of the Monte-Carlo replica method, which underestimates uncertainties when applied to data with unknown point-to-point correlations. A sympathetic reader would take away a caution: agreement with data is not sensitivity, and constraining nonperturbative QCD here needs new measurements with roughly 1% precision near $\chi\simeq 180^\circ$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the TMD-factorized EEC cross-section in the back-to-back limit, written as an integral over impact parameter $b_T$: $d\sigma/dz \propto \sum_f H(Q)\int d(b_T Q)^2\, J_0(b_T Q\sqrt{1-z})\, R(\mu,Q)\, J_f(b_T)J_{\bar f}(b_T)$, with the rapidity-evolution factor $R$ built from the Collins-Soper kernel and with scale-independent 'optimal' jet functions obtained through the $\zeta$-prescription. The CS kernel is modelled as perturbative four-loop terms plus a two-parameter nonperturbative part $D_{\rm NP}(b)=(b/b_*)(c_0+c_1\ln(b_*/B_{\rm NP}))$, and the jet profile is taken as $J_{\rm NP}=\exp(-a_1 b_T)$ (model 1) or $\exp(-a_1 b_T)(1+a_2 b_T^2)/(1+a_3 b_T^2)$ (model 2). What carries the argument is a diagnostic rather than a theorem: fix $(c_0,c_1)$ (or fix $\alpha_s$), re-minimize all other nonperturbative parameters, and draw the $\chi^2/N_{\rm pt}$ contour map in the plane of interest. The flatness of those contours is the direct evidence that the data cannot distinguish among CS kernels or among $\alpha_s$ values.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same 243 points using full covariance matrices that encode the unknown point-to-point correlations (or a conservative estimate of them) and repeat the contour scan; a collapse of the allowed $(c_0,c_1)$ region to a band comparable to the Drell-Yan/SIDIS extractions would falsify the claimed flatness. Alternatively, a new measurement at $Q\approx 10.6$ GeV with $\lesssim 5\%$ uncertainties near $\chi\simeq 180^\circ$ whose $\chi^2$ contours are no longer flat along the $(c_0,c_1)$ plane would settle the question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the back-to-back EEC, described by TMD factorization with N$^4$LL evolution, N$^3$LO matching, and a simple nonperturbative jet-function profile, fits all existing data extremely well; but the fit is so good that it proves nothing. The authors demonstrate that the $\chi^2/N_{\rm pt}<1$ region in the Collins-Soper parameter plane $(c_0,c_1)$ covers almost the entire space of reasonable models, and that scanning $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ with the same criterion gives $0.105\lesssim \alpha_s(M_Z)\lesssim 0.125$, incompatible with the world-average value $0.1180\pm 0.0009$. Hence the current EEC data in the TMD-sensitive region are not sufficient to impose meaningful constraints on either the Collins-Soper kernel or the strong coupling constant. The intended causal mechanism is not bad factorization but bad error propagation: the old data sets do not provide correlation matrices, the replica method generates pseudo-data with artificially small scatter, and the resulting uncertainty bands are artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the one- or three-parameter exponential ansatz for the nonperturbative jet function is flexible enough to span the true nonperturbative shape the data require, so that flatness of the $\chi^2$ landscape is read as absence of sensitivity to the Collins-Soper kernel rather than as rigidity of the jet model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A claim that EEC data determine the Collins-Soper kernel or $\alpha_s$ must survive a profile scan with jet parameters re-minimized; contour flatness shows the information is not there.
  • The Monte-Carlo replica method should not be applied to these data without correlation matrices; any uncertainty band it produces is unreliable.
  • Existing EEC measurements still validate the shape of TMD factorization down to $\chi\simeq 145^\circ$\textendash$150^\circ$ (equivalently $q_T\sim 0.25Q$), consistent with Drell-Yan and SIDIS studies.
  • New data near $\chi\simeq 180^\circ$ with roughly 1% uncertainties would be needed to constrain nonperturbative QCD; the paper estimates that even 5% precision at Belle-like energies would meaningfully restrict the Collins-Soper kernel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader could take this as a general warning: phenomenological extractions from high-precision, low-point-count event-shape data need a sensitivity scan of this kind before reporting bands.
  • If the flatness is as severe as claimed, earlier lattice and Drell-Yan/SIDIS determinations of the Collins-Soper kernel are not contradicted by EEC, but neither are they confirmed by it; the EEC data are simply silent.
  • One testable extension is to apply the same fixed-parameter profile-scan diagnostic inside the global Drell-Yan and SIDIS fits to see whether their Collins-Soper constraints are as robust as reported.
  • The paper's per-dataset normalization tuning (with shifts up to about 10%) is itself absorbing information; an alternative analysis that models normalization with physical uncertainties could either sharpen or further flatten the contours.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript critically re-examines the back-to-back region of e+e- energy-energy correlations (EEC) as a probe of the Collins-Soper (CS) kernel and the strong coupling constant. Using TMD factorization at N4LL accuracy with the artemide framework, the authors assemble 243 published data points from ten experiments, fit nonperturbative jet-function parameters with the CS kernel fixed to two recent extractions (ART23 and ART25) and also with the CS parameters c0,c1 left free, and profile chi2/Npt over the (c0,c1) and (alpha_s,c0) planes. They find equally good or better fits (chi2/Npt <= 1) across an enormous range of CS-kernel parameters, and an alpha_s interval roughly twenty times wider than the PDG average. From this they conclude that current EEC data do not meaningfully constrain the CS kernel or alpha_s, that the uncertainty bands of ref. [33] are artifacts of the Monte-Carlo replica method applied to strongly correlated data, and that about 1% experimental precision near chi = 180 degrees would be needed for future sensitivity.

Significance. If the negative claim survives scrutiny, this is an important cautionary result for TMD phenomenology: it would retract a claimed extraction of fundamental QCD parameters from a high-precision dataset and would redirect future experimental and theoretical effort. The paper has clear strengths: it uses an external benchmark of 243 data points, a documented N4LL theoretical setup, public code (artemide), and a careful account of dataset-specific normalization and binning issues. The direct profile scans in figs. 8 and 10 are the right diagnostic for the question posed, and the near-identical fit quality with ART23 versus ART25 kernels in tables 3 and 5 is a simple, convincing demonstration that the data are not selecting between very different CS kernels.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Figs. 8 and 10] The central negative conclusion is inferred from the flatness of chi2/Npt in the (c0,c1) and (alpha_s,c0) planes while the jet-function parameters are re-minimized. The only jet models tested are eqs. (2.23) and (2.24). This is not yet sufficient to establish the stronger claim that the data provide no meaningful constraint for any minimally reasonable model of the CS kernel. The model-2 scan already exhibits two separate minima near the ART23 and ART25 values, indicating that the absorption of c0,c1 variations by the jet function is imperfect for the more flexible ansatz. I ask for a robustness check with a wider or differently parameterized jet-function family, and/or a prior on a1 anchored to DY/SIDIS extractions, with a quantitative statement of how much the chi2/Npt<1 region shrinks under those variations.
  2. [Secs. 4-5, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.4)] The conclusion that the EEC data carry no information on the CS kernel depends on interpreting chi2/Npt<1 as evidence of hidden correlations rather than as overestimated experimental uncertainties. These two interpretations have opposite consequences for the size of the allowed region: if the quoted uncertainties are overestimated, the flatness of fig. 8 would be an artifact of the error model rather than a property of the data. The manuscript states the correlated-data interpretation as the likely one but does not test it. A concrete test would be to rescale the per-point uncertainties so that the best fit has chi2/Npt=1 and repeat the profiles, or to add a correlated systematic component with plausible magnitude and observe the stability of the allowed regions; without such a test the claim that the data provide 'no meaningful constraints' remains conditional on an unverified error model.
  3. [Eq. (5.1) and Fig. 10] The alpha_s interval is obtained by profiling with all other nonperturbative parameters minimized, so it inherits the jet-ansatz dependence noted above. In addition, the sentence 'These estimations are not even compatible with the current uncertainty for alpha_s...' is ambiguous: the interval [0.105,0.125] contains the PDG central value 0.1180, so the incompatibility is with the PDG precision, not with the central value. The statement should be reworded to say that the range is much wider than the PDG uncertainty, and the scan should be presented as a sensitivity bound rather than as a measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.3)] The phrase 'The energy-jet function is defined as a production of an any-type hadron' should read 'product' rather than 'production'.
  2. [Sec. 3, OPAL bullet] There is a typo: 'Althought the center of mass energy is averaged' should be 'Although'.
  3. [Sec. 5, replica-method paragraph] The statistical argument that pseudo-data distributed in the range of 2 sigma lead to underestimated uncertainties is compressed; a short formal derivation or a reference explaining the expected chi2_rep/N behavior would help the reader assess the claim.
  4. [Figs. 7-10] The contour levels in figs. 8 and 10 and the uncertainty bands in fig. 7 (right) are stated in the text but the captions do not spell out the exact chi2/Npt thresholds; adding the values to the captions would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claim that EEC data do not constrain the CS kernel or alpha_s follows from a chi2 scan against external data, not from any fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central assertion of the paper is an empirical statement about the sensitivity of 243 measured EEC points in the back-to-back region. The flatness of the chi2 surface in the (c0,c1) plane (fig. 8) and in the (alpha_s(MZ),c0) plane (fig. 10) is the result of a direct scan in which other nonperturbative parameters are re-minimized for each grid point; it is not an input to the model. The CS-kernel parameterization (2.9)-(2.11) and the jet-function ansaetze (2.23)-(2.24) are assumptions, but the conclusion does not follow from them by construction: a broader or narrower ansatz would change the size of the allowed region, not turn the scan into a tautology. The paper normalizes each data set via a fitted delta_n (eq. 4.3), but this is disclosed as a bookkeeping step, and the constraining information is taken from the shape, so no fitted quantity is renamed a prediction. The self-citations (ART23/ART25 for reference CS-kernel values, the zeta-prescription, and the artemide code) are methodological inputs and comparison anchors; the negative result is not justified by any of these citations and would survive their removal. The possibility that the jet ansatz is not flexible enough to explore all shape changes is a robustness concern about the breadth of the scan, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to the model's definitions. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the paper is self-contained against the external benchmark.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fitting machinery consumes 8 effective free parameters (c0, c1, a1, a2, a3, B_NP, B*_J, chi_min) plus 19 per-experiment normalizations delta_n, while importing the CS-kernel model, the zeta-prescription, and the artemide code from the authors' own prior papers. No new physical entities are introduced. The balance between imported same-group machinery and fitted flexibility is the key reason the paper's negative conclusion is plausible but also the key place where a hidden model-space bias could live.

free parameters (8)
  • c0 (CS-kernel NP coefficient) = fitted: 3.17e-2 (model 1), 1.41e-2 (model 2); ART23: 3.69e-2; ART25: 8.59e-2 (GeV^-2)
    Defines the nonperturbative CS kernel D_NP = (b/b*)(c0 + c1 ln(b*/B_NP)) (eq. 2.11). The wide fitted range is the basis of the paper's negative conclusion.
  • c1 (CS-kernel NP coefficient) = fitted: 2.37e-2 (model 1), 5.31e-2 (model 2); ART23: 5.82e-2; ART25: 3.03e-2 (GeV^-2)
    Second CS-kernel NP parameter, strongly correlated with c0 (correlation about 0.8).
  • a1 (jet-function NP exponent) = 0.941 (model 1, cfitted)
    Exponent in J_NP = e^{-a1 b} (eq. 2.23).
  • a2, a3 (jet-function NP coefficients) = a2 ~ 0.88, a3 ~ 1.2 (model 2, cfitted)
    Parameters of model 2 (eq. 2.24), used to test model bias.
  • delta_n (per-experiment normalization) = from 0.04% (PLUTO) to 10-16% (OPAL, MARKII, JADE, DELPHI sets)
    One normalization per data set fitted by chi2 minimization (eq. 4.4); absorbs normalization disagreement and inflates fit flexibility.
  • B_NP (CS-kernel b* scale) = 1.5 GeV (fixed)
    Fixed to the ART23 central value; enters b* = b / sqrt(1 + b^2 / B_NP^2) (eq. 2.10).
  • B*_J (jet-function b* scale) = 0.2 GeV^-1 (fixed by hand)
    Chosen so that mu_OPE > m_b, avoiding heavy-quark threshold matching (Section 2.2).
  • chi_min (TMD validity cut) = 150 degrees
    Selected by inspecting where chi2/Npt rises (fig. 2); data-dependent selection parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption TMD factorization of the back-to-back EEC at leading power in (1-z)Q (eq. 2.2)
    The central theoretical input from refs. [9,10]; assumes the cross-section factorizes into hard, Bessel, and two jet functions in the chi -> 180 degrees limit.
  • domain assumption Rapidity zeta-prescription with equi-evolution line (refs. [39,40])
    Same-group formalism that makes scale-independent optimal jet functions; underlies eq. (2.5).
  • standard math Jet-function sum rule (eq. 2.16) for the perturbative jet function
    Computes the Mellin moment of the TMDFF; yields the coefficients of eq. (2.20).
  • domain assumption Positivity bounds c0, c1 >= 0 for the CS-kernel model
    Restricts the scanned region in fig. 8; the paper notes c0 = c1 = 0 is an allowed flat-model limit.
  • domain assumption Within-bin uncertainties treated as uncorrelated for all data sets
    Stated in Section 3: no correlation matrices available; this assumption underlies the chi2/Npt < 1 observation and the replica-method critique.
  • ad hoc to paper Normalization of sigma_t (eq. 2.8) is replaced by per-experiment fitted delta_n
    The theory normalization disagrees with data at 3-5% and per-set normalizations are fitted instead (Section 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing the sensitivity of Energy-Energy Correlations in $e^+e^-$ annihilation to TMD dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSL24K4E

@misc{pith2026250717478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing the sensitivity of Energy-Energy Correlations in $e^+e^-$ annihilation to TMD dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSL24K4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17478}
}
abstract

We critically examine the back-to-back limit of the energy-energy correlation (EEC) in $e^+e^-$ annihilation as a potential source of information on the Collins-Soper kernel and the strong coupling constant. The analysis is performed within the framework of transverse momentum dependent (TMD) factorization at next-to-next-to-next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (N$^4$LL) accuracy, using a global fit to all available experimental data. Contrary to previous claims, we demonstrate that the current data do not provide meaningful constraints on either the Collins-Soper kernel or $\alpha_s$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Event-axis TMD measurements in $e^+e^-$ and SIDIS

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Completes soft-operator formulation for thrust-axis TMD in e+e- and SIDIS, proposes nonperturbative model with event-shape dependence, resums logs, and validates against Pythia8.3 simulations.

  2. Accessing nucleon transversity with one-point energy correlators

    hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper proposes that one-point energy correlators in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions access the nucleon's transversity distribution through a single-spin asymmetry with sin(φ_s - φ_n) angular depend...

  3. 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.

  4. Energy Correlators Resolving Proton Spin

    hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The work establishes a correspondence between spin-dependent energy correlators and polarized TMDs/NECs using SCET, yielding N3LL/N2LL predictions for correlation patterns in current and target fragmentation regions.

  5. Novel analysis for the energy-energy correlation in electron-positron annihilation in the perturbative domain

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    PMC application to EEC yields a dynamically varying renormalization scale and improved agreement with experimental data in the perturbative domain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [33]

    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, 2410.21435

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Basham, L.S

    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]

    Basham, L.S

    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]

    OPAL collaboration, 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

    work page 1990

  5. [4]

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

    arXiv 1994

  6. [5]

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

    arXiv 1995

  7. [6]

    DELPHI collaboration, Energy-energy correlations in hadronic final states from Z0 decays , Phys. Lett. B 252 (1990) 149. – 21 –

    work page 1990

  8. [7]

    DELPHI collaboration, Determination of alpha-s using the next-to-leading log approximation of QCD, Z. Phys. C 59 (1993) 21

    work page 1993

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    OPAL collaboration, A Determination of alpha-s (M (Z0)) at LEP using resummed QCD calculations, Z. Phys. C 59 (1993) 1

    1993

  2. [9]

    Moult and H.X

    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 [ 1801.02627]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ebert, B

    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 [ 2012.07859]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Vladimirov, Self-contained definition of the Collins-Soper kernel , Phys

    A.A. Vladimirov, Self-contained definition of the Collins-Soper kernel , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 192002 [2003.02288]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    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) 231902 [2405.19396]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Stewart, Dihadron Fragmentation and the Confinement Transition in Energy Correlators, 2507.11495

  7. [14]

    Bacchetta, V

    A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, F. Delcarro, F. Piacenza et al., Transverse-momentum-dependent parton distributions up to N 3LL from Drell-Yan data , JHEP 07 (2020) 117 [ 1912.07550]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bertone, I

    V. Bertone, I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, Extraction of unpolarized quark transverse momentum dependent parton distributions from Drell-Yan/Z-boson production , JHEP 06 (2019) 028 [1902.08474]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Scimemi and A

    I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, Non-perturbative structure of semi-inclusive deep-inelastic and Drell-Yan scattering at small transverse momentum , JHEP 06 (2020) 137 [ 1912.06532]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)collaboration, Unpolarized transverse momentum distributions from a global fit of Drell-Yan and semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering data, JHEP 10 (2022) 127 [ 2206.07598]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    V. Moos, I. Scimemi, A. Vladimirov and P. Zurita, Extraction of unpolarized transverse momentum distributions from the fit of Drell-Yan data at N 4LL, JHEP 05 (2024) 036 [ 2305.07473]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    MAP collaboration, Flavor dependence of unpolarized quark transverse momentum distributions from a global fit , JHEP 08 (2024) 232 [ 2405.13833]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    V. Moos, I. Scimemi, A. Vladimirov and P. Zurita, Determination of unpolarized TMD distributions from the fit of Drell-Yan and SIDIS data at N 4LL, 2503.11201

  14. [21]

    Schlemmer, A

    M. Schlemmer, A. Vladimirov, C. Zimmermann, M. Engelhardt and A. Sch¨ afer, Determination of the Collins-Soper Kernel from Lattice QCD , JHEP 08 (2021) 004 [ 2103.16991]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    H.-T. Shu, M. Schlemmer, T. Sizmann, A. Vladimirov, L. Walter, M. Engelhardt et al., Universality of the Collins-Soper kernel in lattice calculations , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 074519 [ 2302.06502]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Avkhadiev, P.E

    A. Avkhadiev, P.E. Shanahan, M.L. Wagman and Y. Zhao, Collins-Soper kernel from lattice QCD at the physical pion mass , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 114505 [ 2307.12359]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Avkhadiev, P.E

    A. Avkhadiev, P.E. Shanahan, M.L. Wagman and Y. Zhao, Determination of the Collins-Soper Kernel from Lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 231901 [ 2402.06725]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bollweg, X

    D. Bollweg, X. Gao, S. Mukherjee and Y. Zhao, Nonperturbative Collins-Soper kernel from chiral quarks with physical masses , Phys. Lett. B 852 (2024) 138617 [ 2403.00664]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bollweg, X

    D. Bollweg, X. Gao, J. He, S. Mukherjee and Y. Zhao, Transverse-momentum-dependent pion structures from lattice QCD: Collins-Soper kernel, soft factor, TMDWF, and TMDPDF , 2504.04625. – 22 –

  20. [27]

    Li and H.X

    Y. Li and H.X. Zhu, Bootstrapping Rapidity Anomalous Dimensions for Transverse-Momentum Resummation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 022004 [ 1604.01404]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Vladimirov, Structure of rapidity divergences in multi-parton scattering soft factors , JHEP 04 (2018) 045 [ 1707.07606]

    A. Vladimirov, Structure of rapidity divergences in multi-parton scattering soft factors , JHEP 04 (2018) 045 [ 1707.07606]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, Four-Loop Rapidity Anomalous Dimension and Event Shapes to Fourth Logarithmic Order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 162001 [ 2205.02242]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Moult, H.X

    I. Moult, H.X. Zhu and Y.J. Zhu, The four loop QCD rapidity anomalous dimension , JHEP 08 (2022) 280 [ 2205.02249]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Korchemsky and G.F

    G.P. Korchemsky and G.F. Sterman, Universality of infrared renormalons in hadronic cross-sections , in 30th Rencontres de Moriond: QCD and High-energy Hadronic Interactions , pp. 383–391, 1995 [hep-ph/9505391]

    1995 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Scimemi and A

    I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, Power corrections and renormalons in Transverse Momentum Distributions, JHEP 03 (2017) 002 [ 1609.06047]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    artemide

    “ artemide.” stable version: https://github.com/VladimirovAlexey/artemide-public in-production version: https://github.com/VladimirovAlexey/artemide-development

  27. [35]

    Scimemi and A

    I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, Analysis of vector boson production within TMD factorization , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 89 [ 1706.01473]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    R.N. Lee, A. von Manteuffel, R.M. Schabinger, A.V. Smirnov, V.A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, Quark and Gluon Form Factors in Four-Loop QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 212002 [2202.04660]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J.A.M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, On quartic colour factors in splitting functions and the gluon cusp anomalous dimension , Phys. Lett. B 782 (2018) 627 [ 1805.09638]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Herzog, S

    F. Herzog, S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J.A.M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Five-loop contributions to low-N non-singlet anomalous dimensions in QCD , Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 436 [ 1812.11818]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Scimemi and A

    I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, Systematic analysis of double-scale evolution , JHEP 08 (2018) 003 [1803.11089]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Vladimirov, Pion-induced Drell-Yan processes within TMD factorization , JHEP 10 (2019) 090 [1907.10356]

    A. Vladimirov, Pion-induced Drell-Yan processes within TMD factorization , JHEP 10 (2019) 090 [1907.10356]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    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) 749 [ 1708.04093]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Schindler, I.W

    S.T. Schindler, I.W. Stewart and Z. Sun, Renormalons in the energy-energy correlator , JHEP 10 (2023) 187 [ 2305.19311]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Echevarria, I

    M.G. Echevarria, I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, Transverse momentum dependent fragmentation function at next-to–next-to–leading order , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 011502 [ 1509.06392]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Echevarria, I

    M.G. Echevarria, I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, Unpolarized Transverse Momentum Dependent Parton Distribution and Fragmentation Functions at next-to-next-to-leading order , JHEP 09 (2016) 004 [1604.07869]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ebert, B

    M.A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita, TMD Fragmentation Functions at N 3LO, JHEP 07 (2021) 121 [2012.07853]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Luo, T.-Z

    M.-x. Luo, T.-Z. Yang, H.X. Zhu and Y.J. Zhu, Unpolarized quark and gluon TMD PDFs and FFs at N3LO, JHEP 06 (2021) 115 [ 2012.03256]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aglietti and G

    U.G. Aglietti and G. Ferrera, Energy-energy correlation in the back-to-back region at N3LL+NNLO in QCD , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 114004 [ 2403.04077]. – 23 –

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Aglietti and G

    U.G. Aglietti and G. Ferrera, Heavy quark mass effects in the energy–energy correlation in the back-to-back region, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 272 [ 2412.02629]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J.A.M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, The five-loop beta function of Yang-Mills theory with fermions , JHEP 02 (2017) 090 [ 1701.01404]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Schroder and M

    Y. Schroder and M. Steinhauser, Four-loop decoupling relations for the strong coupling , JHEP 01 (2006) 051 [ hep-ph/0512058]

    2006 arXiv

  43. [51]

    OPAL collaboration, An Improved measurement of alpha-s (M (Z0)) using energy correlations with the OPAL detector at LEP , Phys. Lett. B 276 (1992) 547

    1992

  44. [52]

    TOPAZ collaboration, Measurements of αs in e+e− Annihilation at √s = 53.3-GeV and 59.5-GeV , Phys. Lett. B 227 (1989) 495

    1989

  45. [53]

    Wood et al., Determination of αs From Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilation at 29-GeV, Phys

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

    1988

  46. [54]

    TASSO collaboration, A Study of Energy-energy Correlations Between 12-GeV and 46.8-GeV CM Energies, Z. Phys. C 36 (1987) 349

    1987

  47. [55]

    Fernandez et al., A Measurement of Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− → Hadrons at√s = 29-GeV, Phys

    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

  48. [56]

    PLUTO collaboration, Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilation Into Hadrons , Phys. Lett. B 99 (1981) 292

    1981

  49. [57]

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

    1982

  50. [58]

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

    1984

  51. [59]

    DELPHI collaboration, Determination of alpha(s) in second order QCD from hadronic Z decays , Z. Phys. C 54 (1992) 55

    1992

  52. [60]

    A Measurement of energy correlations and a determination of alpha-s (M2 (Z0)) in e+ e- annihilations at s**(1/2) = 91-GeV

    OPAL Collaboration, “A Measurement of energy correlations and a determination of alpha-s (M2 (Z0)) in e+ e- annihilations at s**(1/2) = 91-GeV.” HEPData (collection), 1991

    1991

  53. [61]

    An Improved measurement of alpha-s (M (Z0)) using energy correlations with the OPAL detector at LEP

    OPAL Collaboration, “An Improved measurement of alpha-s (M (Z0)) using energy correlations with the OPAL detector at LEP.” HEPData (collection), 1970

    1970

  54. [62]

    A Determination of alpha-s (M (Z0)) at LEP using resummed QCD calculations

    OPAL Collaboration, “A Determination of alpha-s (M (Z0)) at LEP using resummed QCD calculations.” HEPData (collection), 1994

    1994

  55. [63]

    Measurement of alpha-s (M(Z)**2) from hadronic event observables at the Z0 resonance

    SLD Collaboration, “Measurement of alpha-s (M(Z)**2) from hadronic event observables at the Z0 resonance.” HEPData (collection), 1995

    1995

  56. [64]

    Measurements of α−s in e+e− Annihilation at √s = 53.3-GeV and 59.5-GeV

    TOPAZ Collaboration, “Measurements of α−s in e+e− Annihilation at √s = 53.3-GeV and 59.5-GeV.” HEPData (collection), 1989

    1989

  57. [65]

    Determination of α−s From Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilation at 29-GeV

    D. Wood et al., “Determination of α−s From Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilation at 29-GeV.” HEPData (collection), 1988

    1988

  58. [66]

    A Study of Energy-energy Correlations Between 12-GeV and 46.8-GeV CM Energies

    TASSO Collaboration, “A Study of Energy-energy Correlations Between 12-GeV and 46.8-GeV CM Energies.” HEPData (collection), 1989

    1989

  59. [67]

    A Measurement of Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− → Hadrons at√s = 29-GeV

    E. Fernandez et al., “A Measurement of Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− → Hadrons at√s = 29-GeV.” HEPData (collection), 1984

    1984

  60. [68]

    Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilation Into Hadrons

    PLUTO Collaboration, “Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilation Into Hadrons.” HEPData (collection), 1989

    1989

  61. [69]

    PLUTO collaboration, A Study of Energy-energy Correlations in e+e− Annihilations at√s = 34.6-GeV, Z. Phys. C 28 (1985) 365. – 24 –

    1985

  62. [70]

    Analysis of the Energy Weighted Angular Correlations in Hadronic e+e− Annihilations at 22-GeV and 34-GeV

    CELLO Collaboration, “Analysis of the Energy Weighted Angular Correlations in Hadronic e+e− Annihilations at 22-GeV and 34-GeV.” HEPData (collection), 1984

    1984

  63. [71]

    Measurements of Energy Correlations in e+e− → Hadrons

    JADE Collaboration, “Measurements of Energy Correlations in e+e− → Hadrons.” HEPData (collection), 1989

    1989

  64. [72]

    Determination of alphas in second order QCD from hadronic Z decays

    DELPHI Collaboration, “Determination of alphas in second order QCD from hadronic Z decays.” HEPData (collection), 1992

    1992

  65. [73]

    Determination of alpha-s using the next-to-leading log approximation of QCD

    DELPHI Collaboration, “Determination of alpha-s using the next-to-leading log approximation of QCD.” HEPData (collection), 2003

    2003

  66. [74]

    DELPHI collaboration, Consistent measurements of alpha(s) from precise oriented event shape distributions, Eur. Phys. J. C 14 (2000) 557 [ hep-ex/0002026]

    2000 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Measurement of alpha-s from energy-energy correlations at the Z0 resonance

    SLD Collaboration, “Measurement of alpha-s from energy-energy correlations at the Z0 resonance.” HEPData (collection), 1994

    1994

  68. [76]

    Consistent measurements of alpha(s) from precise oriented event shape distributions

    DELPHI Collaboration, “Consistent measurements of alpha(s) from precise oriented event shape distributions..” HEPData (collection), 2000

    2000

  69. [77]

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

    1991

  70. [78]

    NNPDF collaboration, A Determination of parton distributions with faithful uncertainty estimation , Nucl. Phys. B 809 (2009) 1 [ 0808.1231]

    2009 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ball et al., Parton Distribution Benchmarking with LHC Data , JHEP 04 (2013) 125 [1211.5142]

    R.D. Ball et al., Parton Distribution Benchmarking with LHC Data , JHEP 04 (2013) 125 [1211.5142]

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  73. [81]

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

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8 [ 2203.11601]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Eichten, I

    E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. Lane and C. Quigg, Supercollider physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56 (1984) 579. – 25 –

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.