What Do Event Generators Compute? Flux Functionals from Detector Operators

Jack Holguin

REVIEW

What Do Event Generators Compute? Flux Functionals from Detector Operators

Jack Holguin

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 12 Oct 2026 · 66 references

Pith's verdict: A well-crafted theoretical framework that defines what event generators should compute, with a clean operator construction and a first perturbative calculation.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 14, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 1 major objection · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.17213 (version 1)

Pith IDC5IUVOHW, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJack Holguin. "What Do Event Generators Compute? Flux Functionals from Detector Operators." arXiv:2610.17213 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5IUVOHW

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Jack, this is a serious paper with a clear theoretical ambition: to give a non-perturbative, operator-based definition of what event generators should compute, and to show that the resulting object (the parton shower functional fPS) has a calculable logarithmic structure. The core idea—building the probability distribution of hadronic fluxes from detector operators and encoding it in a Laplace functional—is genuinely new and cleanly presented.

The paper does several things well. The definitions of fPS and gEG are precise, the continuum limit and analytic properties are discussed carefully, and the one-loop calculation (section 3) is carried through with appropriate handling of soft and collinear limits. The derivation of the logarithmic terms, including the sensitivity to kinematic recoil, is a solid first step. The toy-model factorisation in section 4, while minimal, makes a useful conceptual point about the limitations of single-scale RG evolution for resumming all logs in fPS.

That said, the practical impact remains conditional. The explicit one-loop result (Eq. 3.39) requires the source λ(hat n) to be twice differentiable around the Born directions, which rules out observables with sharp boundaries (the paper acknowledges this in footnote 7). More importantly, turning this framework into a tool for defining or verifying parton-shower accuracy requires a full resummation scheme and a factorisation theorem for the non-perturbative matching—both left to future work. The paper is honest about these limitations, but they mean the central claim (that fPS is a universal accuracy target) is not yet operational.

The citation pattern is fine; the paper builds on energy-flow operators and detector constructions from the literature (Sveshnikov–Tkachov, Korchemsky–Sterman, Hofman–Maldacena, Caron-Huot et al.). No invented entities or parametric fits.

Who should read this? Theorists working on parton-shower foundations, resummation, and the formal definition of event generators. It will be cited as a new perspective. I would accept a peer review invitation for this paper—it deserves scrutiny, but it is coherent and worth engaging with. The main revision point would be to ensure the conditional nature of the results is clearly stated throughout, which the authors already do.

Bottom line: a genuinely new conceptual contribution with a concrete perturbative result, but one whose practical reach depends on substantial future work. Send to review.

Referee report

Significance

If correct, the framework provides a crisp, non-perturbative definition of what an event generator must compute, shifting the accuracy question from a set of representative observables to a single functional. The connection to detector operators and the explicit one-loop check against thrust show that the construction is consistent with standard perturbative results. The paper's claim that fPS depends on a continuum of resolution scales and that a parton shower goes beyond a simple RG evolution is a potentially impactful observation for future shower development. The formulation also opens a door to studying event generation in theories beyond QCD, e.g., N=4 SYM, through light-ray operator methods. These merits are substantial, but the significance is moderated by the fact that the framework has not yet been deployed as a practical accuracy tool or matched to a real shower algorithm, both of which the paper explicitly leaves to future work.

Major objections (1)

[§3.1, Eq. (3.39); §3.2, Eq. (3.40); §2.6; footnote 7] The one-loop closed-form result (3.39) and the simplified large-log expression (3.40) rely on the assumption that λ(ˆn) is twice differentiable around the Born directions and that the derivative expansions converge. The paper acknowledges in footnote 7 that this assumption can be relaxed by introducing directional derivatives, but no explicit formula or example is given for discontinuous or cusp-shaped sources (e.g., the back-to-back limit of the energy–energy correlator, which the paper itself mentions in §3.2). Since many practically important calorimetric observables (like energy-correlation ratios with hard angular boundaries) do not meet the smoothness condition, the practical reach of the analytic result (3.39) is limited. This does not undermine the conceptual construction of fPS, but it is a load-bearing restriction for the perturbative computation, and the paper should either demonstrate the extension or more clearly separate the general four-dimensional expression (3.41) from the specialised closed form.

Minor objections (8)

[§2.2, around Eq. (2.20–2.24)] The continuum-limit argument leading to DPS is marked with “~=” and acknowledges its heuristic character. The rigorous definition is deferred to Appendix A. This is acceptable, but it would improve readability to state explicitly in the main text (not only in the appendix) that Eq. (2.24) is a formal object and that all measurement predictions are obtained via Eq. (2.26).
[§3.1, Eq. (3.10)] The differential cross section dσ3 is given as dσ_B times the splitting function and phase space. The normalisation of the Born factor σ_B is used; it would be helpful to state that σ_B includes the colour and polarisation sums, to avoid ambiguity when the reader compares with standard textbooks.
[§3.1, Eq. (3.17)] The derivative ∂⊥λ(ˆn_B^q) is introduced but not explicitly defined until Eq. (3.29). A short definition at first use (or a forward reference) would prevent confusion.
[§3.3, Eq. (3.44)] The source λ_τ = ν(1−|ˆn·ˆn_τ|)/Q is set up with the thrust axis aligned to the Born axis. The paper notes that this is sufficient at LL accuracy, but a brief reminder that the maximisation defining the thrust axis would generate subleading corrections would be welcome, especially for readers not familiar with event-shape resummation.
[§4, Eq. (4.5–4.8)] The toy model factorisation is presented compactly. The notation Tr[·] and ⊗_{x,ˆn} could be explained more explicitly; the sentence “bold symbols are tensors in colour space, over which Tr is a trace” is helpful, but the readers would benefit from seeing that the hard density matrix H_m carries colour indices and that the trace includes a sum over those indices.
[§2.5, Eq. (2.46)] The expression J = −∆₀ˡ + 1 − 2γ_T(−∆₀ˡ + 1) uses the time-like DGLAP anomalous dimension γ_T, but this quantity is not previously introduced. A short definition or a reference to Ref. [50] would suffice.
[§5, Conclusions] The final paragraph mentions N=4 SYM and the possibility of non-perturbative insight, but this thread is not developed. A one-sentence pointer to how the framework would change in a conformal theory (e.g., the role of the S-matrix vs. correlation functions) would strengthen the forward-looking statement.
[Throughout] The typesetting of “gEG” and “fPS” is consistent, but the subscript “PS” is sometimes rendered as “PS” (roman) and sometimes as “PS” (italic) in the text. Please unify.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Hadronic flux distributions define what event generators must compute

The reading

This paper gives event generators a precise mathematical definition: they must compute the probability distribution of hadronic fluxes as recorded by detectors. The central objects are two Laplace-transformed functionals—the event generator source functional (gEG) and the parton shower source functional (fPS)—built from detector operators acting on asymptotic hadronic states, fully non-perturbative and hadron-level. fPS is the infrared- and collinear-safe marginal of gEG over energy flux only, containing every calorimetric observable. Its one-loop logarithmic structure in e+e- annihilation is computed and shown to depend directly on kinematic recoil via angular derivatives of the source. The all-order toy model reveals that fPS depends on a continuum of low scales, implying that a parton shower must evolve more differentially than a standard single-scale renormalisation group can capture.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the family of commuting detector operators built from asymptotic hadronic creation and annihilation operators, measuring the flux of energy (and generalised fluxes for species, spin, and energy moments). Their joint spectrum defines a probability measure over flux configurations, whose Laplace transform gives the source functional. The energy-flow operator E(ˆn) and its exponential $e^{{-⟨λ,E⟩}}$ are the building blocks of fPS, with boundedness and positivity ensuring analyticity. The one-loop calculation uses the Ein function (the entire exponential integral) to regulate collinear and soft divergences, revealing logarithmic terms controlled by the source λ and its angular derivatives.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper constructs two source functionals: gEG, the Laplace transform of the full hadronic flux distribution including species, spin, and energy moments; and fPS, obtained by restricting gEG to the energy-flow detector (the unique IRC-safe member of the family). Both are exact, hadron-level, non-perturbative, and are positive normalised distributions whose samples are events. fPS is shown to encode every calorimetric measurement, recovering event-shape distributions and energy correlators as special source choices. The one-loop calculation yields an explicit expression (Eq. 3.39) for the logarithmic structure of fPS for any twice-differentiable source; the logarithms are governed by the source and its angular derivatives at the Born directions, establishing direct sensitivity to the parton-shower recoil scheme. In a toy-model factorisation, fPS matches the structure of non-global observables and depends on a continuum of low scales, implying that resummation of all its large logarithms requires an evolution more differential than hard-function renormalisation-group alone.

Load-bearing premise

The explicit one-loop formula for fPS (Eq. 3.39) assumes the source function λ(ˆn) is twice differentiable around the Born directions and that the derivative expansions converge; for observables with sharp boundaries this assumption fails and the logarithmic structure must be treated more generally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Parton-shower accuracy can now be defined directly by comparison with the theoretical prediction of fPS, eliminating the need to check a finite set of representative observables.
Hadronisation can be systematically incorporated through low-scale matrix elements of the generalised detector operators, connecting to generalised fragmented functions.
The extension of this operator-based formulation to conformal theories like N=4 SYM opens a non-perturbative route to study event-generator-like systems, potentially yielding insight into QCD.
The continuum of low scales appearing in fPS suggests that parton showers inherently perform a more differential resummation than standard effective-field-theory evolution, which may guide the construction of next-generation showers.

Reading between the lines

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

The framework implies that different parton-shower schemes can be quantitatively compared by evaluating their fPS bias, offering a diagnostic for recoil scheme choices.
The fPS one-loop result could be used to design observable-specific tests: measuring the logarithmic slope of a multi-cell energy flux distribution would directly expose the recoil dynamics.
By providing a complete target, this work may spur the development of event generators that directly sample fPS or gEG using Monte Carlo methods, analogous to lattice formulations.
The continuum-of-scales observation may lead to a new class of 'flux-ordered' parton showers that evolve toward a direction-dependent resolution scale µ(ˆn), realising a local resummation.

Original abstract

Every physical prediction of an event generator is a statement about the hadronic fluxes that can be recorded by particle detectors. By contrast, the formal backbone of modern event-generator precision is provided by the unobservable partonic final states of the parton shower, with hadronisation included as a model. We construct the probability distribution of the hadronic fluxes non-perturbatively, directly from detector operators acting on asymptotic hadronic states, and encode it in an event generator source functional. This distribution contains every measurement a detector can make, and is therefore what a generator must compute with precision, including the effects of hadronisation. Restricting the functional to the energy flow yields the parton shower source functional, which is infrared and collinear safe and contains every calorimetric observable, making it a natural object against which to assess parton-shower accuracy. We compute its logarithmic structure at one loop in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, finding it directly sensitive to kinematic recoil and hence to the recoil scheme of a parton shower. The parton shower functional depends on a continuum of low scales, one for each resolved direction, and in a toy model its logarithms cannot be entirely resummed within a factorisation whose evolution derives only from the high-scale physics. Our operator-based formulation opens the door to the study of event-generator-like systems in theories beyond QCD, including conformal theories such as $N=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory, and thereby offers a new route to non-perturbative insight into event generation.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-14: 1 request, 6,531 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.08 · states limitation 0.72 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.10 · compares with prior results 0.27 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Every physical prediction of an event generator is a statement about the hadronic fluxes that can be recorded by particle detectors. By contrast, the formal backbone of modern event-generator precision is provided by the unobservable partonic final states of the parton shower, with hadronisation included as a model. We construct the probability distribution of the hadronic fluxes non-perturbatively, directly from detector operators acting on asymptotic hadronic states, and encode it in an event generator source functional. This distribution contains every measurement a detector can make, and is therefore what a generator must compute with precision, including the effects of hadronisation. Restricting the functional to the energy flow yields the parton shower source functional, which is infrared and collinear safe and contains every calorimetric observable, making it a natural object against which to assess parton-shower accuracy. We compute its logarithmic structure at one loop in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, finding it directly sensitive to kinematic recoil and hence to the recoil scheme of a parton shower. The parton shower functional depends on a continuum of low scales, one for each resolved direction, and in a toy model its logarithms cannot be entirely resummed within a factorisation whose evolution derives only from the high-scale physics. Our operator-based formulation opens the door to the study of event-generator-like systems in theories beyond QCD, including conformal theories such as $N=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory, and thereby offers a new route to non-perturbative insight into event generation.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Every physical prediction of an event generator is a statement about the hadronic fluxes that can be recorded by particle detectors.	background 0.97	0.10	0.26	asserted 1.00
s1	By contrast, the formal backbone of modern event-generator precision is provided by the unobservable partonic final states of the parton shower, with hadronisation included as a model.	background 0.85	0.05	0.05	asserted 1.00
s2	We construct the probability distribution of the hadronic fluxes non-perturbatively, directly from detector operators acting on asymptotic hadronic states, and encode it in an event generator source functional.	contribution 0.57	0.94	0.31	asserted 1.00
s3	This distribution contains every measurement a detector can make, and is therefore what a generator must compute with precision, including the effects of hadronisation.	interpretation 0.90	0.26	0.45	asserted 1.00
s4	Restricting the functional to the energy flow yields the parton shower source functional, which is infrared and collinear safe and contains every calorimetric observable, making it a natural object against which to assess parton-shower accuracy.	contribution 0.44	0.65	0.15	asserted 1.00
s5	We compute its logarithmic structure at one loop in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, finding it directly sensitive to kinematic recoil and hence to the recoil scheme of a parton shower.	result 0.99	0.96	0.11	asserted 1.00
s6	The parton shower functional depends on a continuum of low scales, one for each resolved direction, and in a toy model its logarithms cannot be entirely resummed within a factorisation whose evolution derives only from the high-scale physics.	result 0.88	0.77	0.12	asserted 0.94
s7	Our operator-based formulation opens the door to the study of event-generator-like systems in theories beyond QCD, including conformal theories such as $N=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory, and thereby offers a new route to non-perturbative insight into event generation.	future work 0.76	0.36	0.15	hedged possibility 0.83

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.77 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.98.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (66)

[1]

S. Frixione and B. R. Webber,Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations,JHEP06(2002) 029 [hep-ph/0204244]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[2]

P. Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040 [hep-ph/0409146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[3]

A. Buckley et al.,General-purpose event generators for LHC physics,Phys. Rept.504(2011) 145 [1101.2599]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[4]

S. Platzer and S. Gieseke,Dipole Showers and Automated NLO Matching in Herwig++,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2187 [1109.6256]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[5]

C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8 [2203.11601]. [6]SherpaCollaboration,Event generation with Sherpa 3,JHEP12(2024) 156 [2410.22148]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[7]

J. Bellm et al.,The Physics of Herwig 7,2512.16645

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni and G. P. Salam,Logarithmic accuracy of parton showers: a fixed-order study,JHEP09(2018) 033 [1805.09327]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[9]

M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,Parton showers beyond leading logarithmic accuracy,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 052002 [2002.11114]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[10]

J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin and S. Pl¨ atzer,Building a consistent parton shower,JHEP09 (2020) 014 [2003.06400]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[11]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Summations of large logarithms by parton showers,Phys. Rev. D 104(2021) 054049 [2011.04773]. – 30 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[12]

F. Herren, S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, D. Reichelt and M. Schoenherr,A new approach to color-coherent parton evolution,JHEP10(2023) 091 [2208.06057]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[13]

M. van Beekveld et al.,New Standard for the Logarithmic Accuracy of Parton Showers, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 011901 [2406.02661]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[14]

A. H. Hoang, S. Pl¨ atzer and D. Samitz,On the Cutoff Dependence of the Quark Mass Parameter in Angular Ordered Parton Showers,JHEP10(2018) 200 [1807.06617]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[15]

A. H. Hoang, O. L. Jin, S. Pl¨ atzer and D. Samitz,Matching hadronization and perturbative evolution: the cluster model in light of infrared shower cutoff dependence,JHEP07(2025) 005 [2404.09856]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[16]

J. Holguin, S. Pl¨ atzer, M. H. Seymour and S. Sule,Studying the infrared behaviour of improved logarithmic accuracy parton showers with Herwig,JHEP08(2026) 146 [2605.02622]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[17]

K. Hamilton, R. Medves, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and G. Soyez,Colour and logarithmic accuracy in final-state parton showers,JHEP03(2021) 041 [2011.10054]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[18]

M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. P. Salam, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez and R. Verheyen,PanScales parton showers for hadron collisions: formulation and fixed-order studies,JHEP11(2022) 019 [2205.02237]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[19]

K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Matching and event-shape NNDL accuracy in parton showers,JHEP03(2023) 224 [2301.09645]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[20]

M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, J. Helliwell, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz et al.,Logarithmically-accurate and positive-definite NLO shower matching,JHEP10(2025) 038 [2504.05377]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[21]

C. T. Preuss,A partitioned dipole-antenna shower with improved transverse recoil,JHEP07 (2024) 161 [2403.19452]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[22]

R. ´Angeles-Mart ´ ınez, J. R. Forshaw and M. H. Seymour,Coulomb gluons and the ordering variable,JHEP12(2015) 091 [1510.07998]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[23]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,What is a parton shower?,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 014034 [1705.08093]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[24]

J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin and S. Pl¨ atzer,Parton branching at amplitude level,JHEP08 (2019) 145 [1905.08686]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[25]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Parton showers with more exact color evolution,Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 054009 [1902.02105]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[26]

M. De Angelis, J. R. Forshaw and S. Pl¨ atzer,Resummation and Simulation of Soft Gluon Effects beyond Leading Color,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 112001 [2007.09648]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[27]

S. Pl¨ atzer,Colour evolution and infrared physics,JHEP07(2023) 126 [2204.06956]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[28]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, D. Y. Shao and M. Stillger,Factorization of non-global LHC observables and resummation of super-leading logarithms,JHEP12(2023) 116 [2307.06359]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[29]

S. Catani, B. R. Webber and G. Marchesini,QCD coherent branching and semiinclusive processes at large x,Nucl. Phys. B349(1991) 635

View on Pith 1991
[30]

K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Soft spin correlations in final-state parton showers,JHEP03(2022) 193 [2111.01161]. – 31 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[31]

A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Spin correlations in final-state parton showers and jet observables,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 681 [2103.16526]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[32]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Summations by parton showers of large logarithms in electron-positron annihilation,2011.04777

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[33]

J. R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer and F. T. Gonz´ alez,Fully differential soft gluon evolution at the amplitude level,JHEP09(2025) 207 [2505.13183]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[34]

J. R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer and F. T. Gonz´ alez,Exact colour evolution for jet observables, JHEP02(2026) 174 [2502.12133]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[35]

N. A. Sveshnikov and F. V. Tkachov,Jets and quantum field theory,Phys. Lett. B382 (1996) 403 [hep-ph/9512370]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[36]

G. P. Korchemsky, G. Oderda and G. F. Sterman,Power corrections and nonlocal operators, AIP Conf. Proc.407(1997) 988 [hep-ph/9708346]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[37]

G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman,Power corrections to event shapes and factorization, Nucl. Phys. B555(1999) 335 [hep-ph/9902341]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[38]

A. V. Belitsky, G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman,Energy flow in QCD and event shape functions,Phys. Lett. B515(2001) 297 [hep-ph/0106308]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[39]

D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena,Conformal collider physics: Energy and charge correlations,JHEP05(2008) 012 [0803.1467]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[40]

S. Caron-Huot, M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Meltzer and D. Simmons-Duffin,Detectors in weakly-coupled field theories,JHEP04(2023) 014 [2209.00008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[41]

C.-H. Chang, H. Chen, D. Simmons-Duffin and H. X. Zhu,Seeing through the confinement screen: DGLAP/BFKL mixing and light-ray matching in QCD,JHEP02(2026) 251 [2506.06431]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[42]

C.-H. Chang, H. Chen, X. Liu, D. Simmons-Duffin, F. Yuan and H. X. Zhu,Quantum Scaling in Energy Correlators beyond the Confinement Transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.136 (2026) 081903 [2507.15923]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[43]

M. Gonzalez, K. Lee and I. Moult,Generalized Detectors at Colliders,2609.16114

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[44]

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

View on Pith 1978
[45]

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. D19(1979) 2018

View on Pith 1979
[46]

I. Moult and H. X. Zhu,Energy Correlators: A Journey From Theory to Experiment, 2506.09119

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[47]

P. Kravchuk and D. Simmons-Duffin,Light-ray operators in conformal field theory,JHEP11 (2018) 102 [1805.00098]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[48]

M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Simmons-Duffin and A. Zhiboedov,The light-ray OPE and conformal colliders,JHEP01(2021) 128 [1905.01311]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[49]

H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang and H. X. Zhu,Rethinking jets with energy correlators: Tracks, resummation, and analytic continuation,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 054012 [2004.11381]. – 32 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[50]

H. Chen, T.-Z. Yang, H. X. Zhu and Y. J. Zhu,Analytic Continuation and Reciprocity Relation for Collinear Splitting in QCD,Chin. Phys. C45(2021) 043101 [2006.10534]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[51]

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper,Parton Distribution and Decay Functions,Nucl. Phys. B194 (1982) 445

View on Pith 1982
[52]

J. Collins,Foundations of Perturbative QCD, vol. 32. Cambridge University Press, 2011, 10.1017/9781009401845

View on Pith doi:10.1017/9781009401845 2011
[53]

K. Lee and I. Moult,Joint Track Functions: Expanding the Space of Calculable Correlations at Colliders,2308.01332

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[54]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[55]

K. Lee and I. W. Stewart,Dihadron Fragmentation and the Confinement Transition in Energy Correlators,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 081902 [2507.11495]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[56]

A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi,Principles of general final-state resummation and automated implementation,JHEP03(2005) 073 [hep-ph/0407286]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[57]

Yu.L. Dokshitzer, V.A. Khoze, A.H. Mueller and S.I. Troyan,Basics of perturbative QCD. Editions Fronti` eres, 1991

View on Pith 1991
[58]

R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling and B. R. Webber,QCD and collider physics, vol. 8. Cambridge University Press, 10, 1996, 10.1017/CBO9780511628788

View on Pith doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628788 1996
[59]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber,Nonperturbative effects in the energy energy correlation,JHEP07(1999) 012 [hep-ph/9905339]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[60]

I. Moult and H. X. Zhu,Simplicity from Recoil: The Three-Loop Soft Function and Factorization for the Energy-Energy Correlation,JHEP08(2018) 160 [1801.02627]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[61]

M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita,The Energy-Energy Correlation in the back-to-back limit at N 3LO and N 3LL’,JHEP08(2021) 022 [2012.07859]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[62]

S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber,Resummation of large logarithms in e+ e- event shape distributions,Nucl. Phys. B407(1993) 3

View on Pith 1993
[63]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 114020 [hep-ph/0011336]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[64]

C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 054022 [hep-ph/0109045]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[65]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, L. Rothen and D. Y. Shao,Effective Field Theory for Jet Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 192001 [1508.06645]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[66]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, L. Rothen and D. Y. Shao,Factorization and Resummation for Jet Processes,JHEP11(2016) 019 [1605.02737]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[67]

T. Becher, M. Neubert and D. Y. Shao,Resummation of Super-Leading Logarithms,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 212002 [2107.01212]. – 33 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

S. Frixione and B. R. Webber,Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations,JHEP06(2002) 029 [hep-ph/0204244]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[2] [2]

P. Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040 [hep-ph/0409146]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[3] [3]

A. Buckley et al.,General-purpose event generators for LHC physics,Phys. Rept.504(2011) 145 [1101.2599]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[4] [4]

S. Platzer and S. Gieseke,Dipole Showers and Automated NLO Matching in Herwig++,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2187 [1109.6256]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[5] [5]

C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8 [2203.11601]. [6]SherpaCollaboration,Event generation with Sherpa 3,JHEP12(2024) 156 [2410.22148]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[6] [7]

J. Bellm et al.,The Physics of Herwig 7,2512.16645

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [8]

M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni and G. P. Salam,Logarithmic accuracy of parton showers: a fixed-order study,JHEP09(2018) 033 [1805.09327]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[8] [9]

M. Dasgupta, F. A. Dreyer, K. Hamilton, P. F. Monni, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,Parton showers beyond leading logarithmic accuracy,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 052002 [2002.11114]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[9] [10]

J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin and S. Pl¨ atzer,Building a consistent parton shower,JHEP09 (2020) 014 [2003.06400]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[10] [11]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Summations of large logarithms by parton showers,Phys. Rev. D 104(2021) 054049 [2011.04773]. – 30 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[11] [12]

F. Herren, S. H¨ oche, F. Krauss, D. Reichelt and M. Schoenherr,A new approach to color-coherent parton evolution,JHEP10(2023) 091 [2208.06057]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[12] [13]

M. van Beekveld et al.,New Standard for the Logarithmic Accuracy of Parton Showers, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 011901 [2406.02661]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[13] [14]

A. H. Hoang, S. Pl¨ atzer and D. Samitz,On the Cutoff Dependence of the Quark Mass Parameter in Angular Ordered Parton Showers,JHEP10(2018) 200 [1807.06617]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[14] [15]

A. H. Hoang, O. L. Jin, S. Pl¨ atzer and D. Samitz,Matching hadronization and perturbative evolution: the cluster model in light of infrared shower cutoff dependence,JHEP07(2025) 005 [2404.09856]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[15] [16]

J. Holguin, S. Pl¨ atzer, M. H. Seymour and S. Sule,Studying the infrared behaviour of improved logarithmic accuracy parton showers with Herwig,JHEP08(2026) 146 [2605.02622]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[16] [17]

K. Hamilton, R. Medves, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and G. Soyez,Colour and logarithmic accuracy in final-state parton showers,JHEP03(2021) 041 [2011.10054]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[17] [18]

M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. P. Salam, A. Soto-Ontoso, G. Soyez and R. Verheyen,PanScales parton showers for hadron collisions: formulation and fixed-order studies,JHEP11(2022) 019 [2205.02237]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[18] [19]

K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Matching and event-shape NNDL accuracy in parton showers,JHEP03(2023) 224 [2301.09645]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[19] [20]

M. van Beekveld, S. Ferrario Ravasio, J. Helliwell, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz et al.,Logarithmically-accurate and positive-definite NLO shower matching,JHEP10(2025) 038 [2504.05377]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[20] [21]

C. T. Preuss,A partitioned dipole-antenna shower with improved transverse recoil,JHEP07 (2024) 161 [2403.19452]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[21] [22]

R. ´Angeles-Mart ´ ınez, J. R. Forshaw and M. H. Seymour,Coulomb gluons and the ordering variable,JHEP12(2015) 091 [1510.07998]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[22] [23]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,What is a parton shower?,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 014034 [1705.08093]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[23] [24]

J. R. Forshaw, J. Holguin and S. Pl¨ atzer,Parton branching at amplitude level,JHEP08 (2019) 145 [1905.08686]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[24] [25]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Parton showers with more exact color evolution,Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 054009 [1902.02105]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[25] [26]

M. De Angelis, J. R. Forshaw and S. Pl¨ atzer,Resummation and Simulation of Soft Gluon Effects beyond Leading Color,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 112001 [2007.09648]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[26] [27]

S. Pl¨ atzer,Colour evolution and infrared physics,JHEP07(2023) 126 [2204.06956]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[27] [28]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, D. Y. Shao and M. Stillger,Factorization of non-global LHC observables and resummation of super-leading logarithms,JHEP12(2023) 116 [2307.06359]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[28] [29]

S. Catani, B. R. Webber and G. Marchesini,QCD coherent branching and semiinclusive processes at large x,Nucl. Phys. B349(1991) 635

View on Pith 1991

[29] [30]

K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Soft spin correlations in final-state parton showers,JHEP03(2022) 193 [2111.01161]. – 31 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[30] [31]

A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz and R. Verheyen,Spin correlations in final-state parton showers and jet observables,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 681 [2103.16526]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[31] [32]

Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper,Summations by parton showers of large logarithms in electron-positron annihilation,2011.04777

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[32] [33]

J. R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer and F. T. Gonz´ alez,Fully differential soft gluon evolution at the amplitude level,JHEP09(2025) 207 [2505.13183]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[33] [34]

J. R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer and F. T. Gonz´ alez,Exact colour evolution for jet observables, JHEP02(2026) 174 [2502.12133]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[34] [35]

N. A. Sveshnikov and F. V. Tkachov,Jets and quantum field theory,Phys. Lett. B382 (1996) 403 [hep-ph/9512370]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[35] [36]

G. P. Korchemsky, G. Oderda and G. F. Sterman,Power corrections and nonlocal operators, AIP Conf. Proc.407(1997) 988 [hep-ph/9708346]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[36] [37]

G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman,Power corrections to event shapes and factorization, Nucl. Phys. B555(1999) 335 [hep-ph/9902341]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[37] [38]

A. V. Belitsky, G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman,Energy flow in QCD and event shape functions,Phys. Lett. B515(2001) 297 [hep-ph/0106308]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[38] [39]

D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena,Conformal collider physics: Energy and charge correlations,JHEP05(2008) 012 [0803.1467]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[39] [40]

S. Caron-Huot, M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Meltzer and D. Simmons-Duffin,Detectors in weakly-coupled field theories,JHEP04(2023) 014 [2209.00008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[40] [41]

C.-H. Chang, H. Chen, D. Simmons-Duffin and H. X. Zhu,Seeing through the confinement screen: DGLAP/BFKL mixing and light-ray matching in QCD,JHEP02(2026) 251 [2506.06431]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[41] [42]

C.-H. Chang, H. Chen, X. Liu, D. Simmons-Duffin, F. Yuan and H. X. Zhu,Quantum Scaling in Energy Correlators beyond the Confinement Transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.136 (2026) 081903 [2507.15923]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[42] [43]

M. Gonzalez, K. Lee and I. Moult,Generalized Detectors at Colliders,2609.16114

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[43] [44]

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

View on Pith 1978

[44] [45]

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. D19(1979) 2018

View on Pith 1979

[45] [46]

I. Moult and H. X. Zhu,Energy Correlators: A Journey From Theory to Experiment, 2506.09119

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[46] [47]

P. Kravchuk and D. Simmons-Duffin,Light-ray operators in conformal field theory,JHEP11 (2018) 102 [1805.00098]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[47] [48]

M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Simmons-Duffin and A. Zhiboedov,The light-ray OPE and conformal colliders,JHEP01(2021) 128 [1905.01311]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[48] [49]

H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang and H. X. Zhu,Rethinking jets with energy correlators: Tracks, resummation, and analytic continuation,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 054012 [2004.11381]. – 32 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[49] [50]

H. Chen, T.-Z. Yang, H. X. Zhu and Y. J. Zhu,Analytic Continuation and Reciprocity Relation for Collinear Splitting in QCD,Chin. Phys. C45(2021) 043101 [2006.10534]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[50] [51]

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper,Parton Distribution and Decay Functions,Nucl. Phys. B194 (1982) 445

View on Pith 1982

[51] [52]

J. Collins,Foundations of Perturbative QCD, vol. 32. Cambridge University Press, 2011, 10.1017/9781009401845

View on Pith doi:10.1017/9781009401845 2011

[52] [53]

K. Lee and I. Moult,Joint Track Functions: Expanding the Space of Calculable Correlations at Colliders,2308.01332

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[53] [54]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[54] [55]

K. Lee and I. W. Stewart,Dihadron Fragmentation and the Confinement Transition in Energy Correlators,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 081902 [2507.11495]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[55] [56]

A. Banfi, G. P. Salam and G. Zanderighi,Principles of general final-state resummation and automated implementation,JHEP03(2005) 073 [hep-ph/0407286]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[56] [57]

Yu.L. Dokshitzer, V.A. Khoze, A.H. Mueller and S.I. Troyan,Basics of perturbative QCD. Editions Fronti` eres, 1991

View on Pith 1991

[57] [58]

R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling and B. R. Webber,QCD and collider physics, vol. 8. Cambridge University Press, 10, 1996, 10.1017/CBO9780511628788

View on Pith doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628788 1996

[58] [59]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber,Nonperturbative effects in the energy energy correlation,JHEP07(1999) 012 [hep-ph/9905339]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[59] [60]

I. Moult and H. X. Zhu,Simplicity from Recoil: The Three-Loop Soft Function and Factorization for the Energy-Energy Correlation,JHEP08(2018) 160 [1801.02627]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[60] [61]

M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger and G. Vita,The Energy-Energy Correlation in the back-to-back limit at N 3LO and N 3LL’,JHEP08(2021) 022 [2012.07859]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[61] [62]

S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber,Resummation of large logarithms in e+ e- event shape distributions,Nucl. Phys. B407(1993) 3

View on Pith 1993

[62] [63]

C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 114020 [hep-ph/0011336]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[63] [64]

C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 054022 [hep-ph/0109045]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[64] [65]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, L. Rothen and D. Y. Shao,Effective Field Theory for Jet Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 192001 [1508.06645]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[65] [66]

T. Becher, M. Neubert, L. Rothen and D. Y. Shao,Factorization and Resummation for Jet Processes,JHEP11(2016) 019 [1605.02737]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[66] [67]

T. Becher, M. Neubert and D. Y. Shao,Resummation of Super-Leading Logarithms,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 212002 [2107.01212]. – 33 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021