Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 138 references

A single transition scale Λ describes nearside energy-energy correlators from perturbative QCD into the post-confinement regime.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 14:59 UTC pith:M6UALDDP

load-bearing objection Solid Mellin-space benchmark for nearside EECs; the single-Λ claim is an effective multi-energy fit, not a parameter-free prediction. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09860 v1 pith:M6UALDDP submitted 2026-07-10 hep-ph hep-ex

Benchmarking the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators with Mellin Transform

Yuxun Guo , Feng Yuan This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords energy-energy correlatornearside EECMellin transformjet functionsDGLAP evolutionNNLO+NNLLhadronizatione+e- annihilation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Nearside energy-energy correlators measure how energy is shared between particles that fly out almost in the same direction. At very small angles the pattern is controlled by collinear gluon radiation that can be calculated in perturbative QCD; at still smaller angles the particles are already confined into hadrons and the scaling changes. This paper shows that both regimes can be treated together by solving the evolution equations in Mellin space. Once an initial condition that respects the known large-momentum scaling is fixed, a single non-perturbative length Λ marks the crossover. With next-to-next-to-leading-order hard coefficients and next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic resummation, that one-parameter form reproduces the measured nearside EECs in electron-positron annihilation from 22 GeV to the Z pole, including the recent ALEPH charged-hadron analysis. The result supplies a clean benchmark for extracting the strong coupling, mapping hot QCD matter, and preparing EEC studies at the Electron-Ion Collider.

Core claim

A Mellin-transform solution of the time-like collinear evolution equations for the unintegrated EEC jet functions, supplied with an initial condition that matches collinear large-q_T scaling and a simple exponential infrared regulator e^{-Λ b_T}, yields a universal one-parameter description of nearside EECs in e^{+}e^{-} annihilation that agrees with data across energies at NNLO+NNLL accuracy.

What carries the argument

Mellin moments of the b_T-space EEC jet functions. In Mellin space the DGLAP convolutions become multiplications, the evolution operator is a path-ordered exponential of the time-like anomalous dimensions, and inverse Mellin transforms automatically produce the constant small-q_T and 1/q_T^{2} large-q_T scalings required by light-ray operator product expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The initial condition for the jet functions is assumed to be a fixed-point anomalous-dimension solution times a simple exponential damping factor controlled by one scale Λ; if that boundary condition misses the true infrared structure, the single-parameter claim fails.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the nearside EEC shape at a new center-of-mass energy (or of the gluon-dominated EEC inside LHC jets) that cannot be reproduced by any single common value of Λ within the quoted scale-variation bands.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Mellin-transform framework for the unintegrated EEC jet functions that solves the time-like DGLAP evolution exactly in moment space (Eqs. 5–10), encodes the distinct small- and large-q_T scalings via the pole structure of the inverse Mellin transform (Eq. 12 and Fig. 1), and incorporates an initial-condition ansatz (Eqs. 13–16) that matches collinear NNLL results at large q_T while regulating the infrared with a single transition scale Λ. Applied to e^{+}e^{-} annihilation at NNLO+NNLL, the resulting formula (Eq. 20) is shown to describe the nearside region of ALEPH, OPAL, SLD, TASSO, TOPAZ and MAC data across 22–91 GeV once overall normalizations are fixed from the integrated EEC and the smallest-angle bins are removed (Figs. 3–4).

Significance. If the multi-energy description holds under the stated accuracy, the work supplies a practical, high-order benchmark for nearside EECs that systematically unifies perturbative collinear resummation with a minimal non-perturbative transition scale. The Mellin-space formulation is technically clean, makes the light-ray OPE correspondence transparent, and is immediately extensible to jet EECs at the LHC and to three-point correlators. The demonstrated reduction of scale-variation bands from LO to NNLO and the ability of one Λ to cover a wide Q range are concrete strengths that will aid future α_s extractions and EIC studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Figs. 3–4] Section IV and Figs. 3–4: The central claim that a single parameter Λ yields an “excellent description” rests on fixing Λ_q=Λ_g=2.5 GeV “to reproduce the small-q_T behavior of the data.” While the same value works across energies, the manuscript provides no quantitative measure of fit quality (χ^{2}, residual distributions) nor a systematic variation of Λ that would demonstrate the claimed universality. Without these, the single-parameter statement remains an effective description rather than a tested prediction.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (13)–(16)] Section III, Eqs. (13)–(16) and Fig. 2: The initial-condition ansatz combines the fixed-point (reciprocity) solution with a pure exponential e^{-Λ b_T} regulated by the b* prescription. Fig. 2 shows that this form matches collinear NNLL only for q_T≫Λ; the data fits then require a substantially larger Λ. The paper should either justify the exponential IR form from di-hadron fragmentation functions (mentioned in the introduction) or quantify the model dependence introduced by this choice, since the subsequent Mellin evolution cannot compensate for an incorrect boundary condition.
  3. [Section IV] Section IV: Data handling introduces two free normalizations (N_ALEPH≈(2/3)^{2}/2 imes0.87 and N≈1.1 for the older sets) and the removal of the smallest-angle bins. These choices should be documented more transparently (e.g., which bins are discarded and why they are “anomalous”) so that the residual agreement can be assessed independently of the overall scale factors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section V] The abstract and conclusion repeatedly state “a single parameter Λ” while the text sets Λ_q=Λ_g; a brief remark that e^{+}e^{-} data are insensitive to the gluon sector (already noted in Sec. IV) would avoid overstatement.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption refers to singularity structures discussed in light-ray OPE literature; a short explicit list of the poles retained in the numerical contour would help reproducibility.
  3. [Section II] Notation for the time-like anomalous dimensions switches between γ_T and γ without the T subscript after Eq. (6); a consistent convention would improve readability.
  4. [Section III] The b_max=1.5 GeV^{-1} choice is stated without sensitivity study; a one-sentence remark on its impact would be useful.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Single-Λ “excellent description” is a one-parameter fit of the IR scale to the same e+e- spectra, with the exponential initial-condition form taken from the authors’ prior ansatz papers.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (and Abstract / Conclusion)]
    "In this setup, the only additional non-perturbative inputs are the scales Λq and Λg, which we take to be Λq = Λg = 2.5 GeV to reproduce the small-q_T behavior of the data. ... the full NNLO theory predictions agree very well with the data across the full kinematic and energy range"

    Λ is adjusted specifically so that the small-q_T region of the e+e- EEC data is reproduced; the same data (ALEPH/OPAL/SLD plus lower-energy sets) are then shown in Figs. 3–4 and declared to be excellently described by that single parameter. The multi-energy agreement supplies a partial cross-check, but the absolute IR scale and the small-angle height are fixed by construction of the fit rather than predicted.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section III, Eqs. (15)–(16); Introduction]
    "Both conditions are naturally implemented in b_T space [76, 78] ... eΓi0(μ b)=Ni e^{-Λi b_T} [j(0)i + as(μ b)j(1)i + a2s(μ b)j(2)i ]"

    The pure-exponential non-perturbative factor e^{-Λ b_T} (regulated by b*) that supplies the single free parameter is not derived here; it is taken over from the authors’ prior works [76,78], which themselves introduced it as a phenomenological ansatz for the IR regulator of the unintegrated EEC jet function. The present paper then treats that form as the boundary condition whose single scale Λ “characterizes the transition” and yields the excellent description.

full rationale

The Mellin-space evolution, reciprocity-based fixed-point matching to collinear large-q_T scaling, and NNLO hard/anomalous-dimension inputs are independent of the data being described and rest on external literature plus standard DGLAP technology. The headline claim, however, is that one parameter Λ yields an excellent multi-energy description of the nearside EECs. That parameter is explicitly chosen “to reproduce the small-q_T behavior of the data” (Section IV), after which the same curves are plotted against those data (and lower-energy sets with the identical Λ) and declared successful. The multi-Q consistency is a non-trivial check, so the result is not forced by definition, but the central phenomenological success is a successful one-parameter fit rather than a parameter-free prediction. The pure-exponential IR form itself is imported from the authors’ earlier b_T-space papers [76,78], which adopted it by ansatz. This is partial circularity of the fitted-input and ansatz-via-self-citation kinds, not a self-definitional collapse of the whole derivation. Score 4 reflects independent theoretical content plus a load-bearing fit of the single advertised parameter.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD factorization and evolution plus one fitted infrared scale and a modeling choice for the Landau pole. No new particles or forces are introduced; the only free parameter that drives the data description is Λ.

free parameters (3)
  • Λ_q = Λ_g = 2.5 GeV
    Infrared transition scale appearing in the exponential form factor of the initial EEC jet function; set to 2.5 GeV to match the small-q_T data.
  • b_max = 1.5 GeV^{-1}
    Cutoff parameter in the b* prescription that freezes the coupling at large b_T; chosen by hand as a conventional TMD value.
  • data normalizations N_Data = N_ALEPH ≈ (2/3)^2/2 × 0.87; others ≈ 1.1
    Overall multiplicative factors that force the integrated EEC to match the theoretical integrated jet function; partly kinematic (charged particles) and partly numerical.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Collinear factorization of nearside EECs into hard coefficients times unintegrated EEC jet functions
    Starting point of the whole calculation (Eqs. 2–3); taken from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Time-like DGLAP evolution governs the scale dependence of the EEC jet functions
    Eq. 4; standard but applied here to the new jet functions.
  • domain assumption Reciprocity relation equates the fixed-point anomalous dimensions to space-like DGLAP kernels at N=3
    Used to construct the running-coupling initial ansatz (Eq. 15); asserted to hold in QCD through NNLO.
  • ad hoc to paper b* prescription with μ_b = 2e^{-γ_E}/b* adequately regulates the Landau pole
    Modeling choice introduced in Section III to define the initial condition at large b_T.
invented entities (1)
  • Mellin moments of the unintegrated EEC jet functions no independent evidence
    purpose: Convert convolution evolution into ordinary multiplication and encode both small- and large-q_T scalings via pole residues
    Technical representation defined in Eq. 5; not a new physical degree of freedom and carries no independent experimental handle beyond the EEC fits themselves.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19200 in / 2766 out tokens · 43645 ms · 2026-07-14T14:59:34.789143+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate nearside energy-energy correlators (EECs) at small angles, explicitly incorporating the QCD scaling behavior in both the perturbative and post-confinement regimes through a Mellin-transform framework. As an illustration, we show that a single parameter, $\Lambda$, characterizing the transition scale between the two regimes, provides an excellent description of nearside EECs in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, including the recent ALEPH analysis as well as earlier measurements across different energies, with next-to-next-to-leading-order accuracy and next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic resummation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09860 by Feng Yuan, Yuxun Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Singularity structures and contours on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison with the derivative of the cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison to new analysis of ALEPH data on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 100 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    = 0.256 and Γ ′ g(µ′

  2. [2]

    The Γ i(µb) is then obtained by evolving them to the scaleµ b with the cor- responding time-like anomalous dimensions

    = 0.130 atµ ′ 0 = 2 GeV. The Γ i(µb) is then obtained by evolving them to the scaleµ b with the cor- responding time-like anomalous dimensions. We compare our theoretical predictions with the recent analysis of ALEPH data on charged-hadron EECs [82] together with earlier OPAL [18] and SLD [19] measure- ments atQ= 91.2 GeV in Fig. 3 and at lower energies b...

  3. [3]

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

    1978

  4. [4]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D17, 2298 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D19, 2018 (1979)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Bergeret al.(PLUTO), Z

    C. Bergeret al.(PLUTO), Z. Phys. C28, 365 (1985)

    1985

  7. [7]

    Bergeret al.(PLUTO), Phys

    C. Bergeret al.(PLUTO), Phys. Lett. B90, 312 (1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    H. J. Behrendet al.(CELLO), Z. Phys. C14, 95 (1982)

    1982

  9. [9]

    Bartelet al.(JADE), Z

    W. Bartelet al.(JADE), Z. Phys. C25, 231 (1984)

    1984

  10. [10]

    Fernandezet al., Phys

    E. Fernandezet al., Phys. Rev. D31, 2724 (1985)

    1985

  11. [11]

    D. R. Woodet al., Phys. Rev. D37, 3091 (1988)

    1988

  12. [12]

    Braunschweiget al.(TASSO), Z

    W. Braunschweiget al.(TASSO), Z. Phys. C36, 349 (1987)

    1987

  13. [13]

    I. H. Parket al.(AMY), in24th International Confer- ence on High-energy Physics(1988)

    1988

  14. [14]

    Adachiet al.(TOPAZ), Phys

    I. Adachiet al.(TOPAZ), Phys. Lett. B227, 495 (1989)

    1989

  15. [15]

    Decampet al.(ALEPH), Phys

    D. Decampet al.(ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B257, 479 (1991)

    1991

  16. [16]

    Adevaet al.(L3), Phys

    B. Adevaet al.(L3), Phys. Lett. B257, 469 (1991)

    1991

  17. [17]

    Adrianet al.(L3), Phys

    O. Adrianet al.(L3), Phys. Lett. B284, 471 (1992)

    1992

  18. [18]

    Abreuet al.(DELPHI), Phys

    P. Abreuet al.(DELPHI), Phys. Lett. B252, 149 (1990)

    1990

  19. [19]

    M. Z. Akrawyet al.(OPAL), Phys. Lett. B252, 159 (1990)

    1990

  20. [20]

    P. D. Actonet al.(OPAL), Phys. Lett. B276, 547 (1992)

    1992

  21. [21]

    Abeet al.(SLD), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(SLD), Phys. Rev. D51, 962 (1995), arXiv:hep-ex/9501003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  22. [22]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B193, 381 (1981), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 213, 545 (1983)]

    1981

  23. [23]

    Ali and F

    A. Ali and F. Barreiro, Phys. Lett. B118, 155 (1982)

    1982

  24. [24]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  25. [25]

    de Florian and M

    D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B704, 387 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0407241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, and Z. Tr´ ocs´ anyi, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 152004 (2016), arXiv:1603.08927 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Tulip´ ant, A

    Z. Tulip´ ant, A. Kardos, and G. Somogyi, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 749 (2017), arXiv:1708.04093 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Kardos, S

    A. Kardos, S. Kluth, G. Somogyi, Z. Tulip´ ant, and A. Verbytskyi, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 498 (2018), arXiv:1804.09146 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, JHEP08, 160 (2018), arXiv:1801.02627 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    L. J. Dixon, M.-X. Luo, V. Shtabovenko, T.-Z. Yang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 102001 (2018), arXiv:1801.03219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    L. J. Dixon, I. Moult, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014009 (2019), arXiv:1905.01310 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger, and G. Vita, JHEP08, 022 (2021), arXiv:2012.07859 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Lee and G

    C. Lee and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D75, 014022 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  35. [35]

    C. F. Berger, T. Kucs, and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D68, 014012 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  36. [36]

    D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, JHEP05, 012 (2008), arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D102, 054012 (2020), arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    K. Lee, B. Me¸ caj, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D111, L011502 (2025), arXiv:2205.03414 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Craft, K

    E. Craft, K. Lee, B. Me¸ caj, and I. Moult, (2022), arXiv:2210.09311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    P. T. Komiske, I. Moult, J. Thaler, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 051901 (2023), arXiv:2201.07800 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 262301 (2023), arXiv:2209.11236 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP09, 088 (2023), arXiv:2303.03413 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D110, L031503 (2024), arXiv:2307.15110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Z. Yang, Y. He, I. Moult, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 011901 (2024), arXiv:2310.01500 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP03, 166 (2025), arXiv:2407.07936 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Barata, P

    J. Barata, P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and R. Szafron, JHEP11, 060 (2024), arXiv:2312.12527 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Barata, J

    J. Barata, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 174 (2024), arXiv:2308.01294 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Bossi, A

    H. Bossi, A. S. Kudinoor, I. Moult, D. Pablos, A. Rai, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP12, 073 (2024), arXiv:2407.13818 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Moult, (2023), arXiv:2308.01332 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    K. Lee, I. Moult, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP01, 194 (2024), arXiv:2308.00028 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    K. Lee, A. Pathak, I. W. Stewart, and Z. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 231902 (2024), arXiv:2405.19396 [hep- 7 ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    H. Chen, P. F. Monni, Z. Xu, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 231901 (2024), arXiv:2406.06668 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Holguin, I

    J. Holguin, I. Moult, A. Pathak, M. Procura, R. Sch¨ ofbeck, and D. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 231903 (2025), arXiv:2311.02157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Holguin, I

    J. Holguin, I. Moult, A. Pathak, M. Procura, R. Sch¨ ofbeck, and D. Schwarz, JHEP04, 072 (2025), arXiv:2407.12900 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    M. Xiao, Y. Ye, and X. Zhu, JHEP10, 088 (2024), arXiv:2405.20001 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Andres, J

    C. Andres, J. Holguin, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, and J. Viinikainen, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 082303 (2025), arXiv:2409.07514 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151901 (2025), arXiv:2410.16371 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Alipour-fard, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Z.-B. Kang, J. Penttala, and C. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2410.21435 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    A. B. Cuerpo, I. Scimemi, and A. Vladimirov, JHEP 11, 013 (2025), arXiv:2507.17478 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Barata, Z.-B

    J. Barata, Z.-B. Kang, X. Mayo L´ opez, and J. Penttala, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 251903 (2025), arXiv:2411.11782 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Cs´ aki, S

    C. Cs´ aki, S. Ferrante, and A. Ismail, JHEP07, 117 (2025), arXiv:2412.02738 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Y. Fu, B. M¨ uller, and C. Sirimanna, (2024), arXiv:2411.04866 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Apolin´ ario, R

    L. Apolin´ ario, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, N. O. Madureira, J.-X. Sheng, X.-N. Wang, and Z. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2502.11406 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Barata, I

    J. Barata, I. Moult, A. V. Sadofyev, and J. M. Silva, (2025), arXiv:2503.13603 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    H. Chen, H. Ruan, and H. X. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2505.16753 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2506.09119 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 071903 (2024), arXiv:2402.13864 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2024), arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2024), arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Tamis (STAR), PoSHardProbes2023, 175 (2024), arXiv:2309.05761 [hep-ex]

    A. Tamis (STAR), PoSHardProbes2023, 175 (2024), arXiv:2309.05761 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys

    V. Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B866, 139556 (2025), arXiv:2503.19993 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Energy-energy correlators of inclusive jets from small to large collision systems with the AL- ICE experiment,

    A. Nambrath, “Energy-energy correlators of inclusive jets from small to large collision systems with the AL- ICE experiment,” talk presented at the Hard Probe 2024, Nagasaki, Japan, September 22-27, 2024 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Barata, M

    J. Barata, M. V. Kuzmin, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, Phys. Rev. D112, 016005 (2025), arXiv:2412.03616 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Stewart, (2025), arXiv:2507.11495 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Chang, H

    C.-H. Chang, H. Chen, X. Liu, D. Simmons-Duffin, F. Yuan, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 081903 (2026), arXiv:2507.15923 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    Y. Guo, F. Yuan, and W. Zhao, (2025), arXiv:2507.15820 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, and C. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2507.17444 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Y. Guo, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D113, 074027 (2026), arXiv:2512.15896 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.