Factorization and Resummation for the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators

Feng Yuan; Wenbin Zhao; Yuxun Guo

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Factorization and Resummation for the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators

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 The paper derives an all-order resummation for the small-angle nearside energy-energy correlator (EEC) using di-hadron fragmentation functions in Fourier bT-space, and verifies that its leading-log expansion exactly matches the known…

desk verdict A careful, well-executed b_T-space resummation for the nearside EEC; the central no-soft-gluon assumption is physically motivated but not proven to all orders, so the claim should be framed as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15820 v1 pith:OMJLB2PF submitted 2025-07-21 hep-ph

Yuxun Guo , Feng Yuan , Wenbin Zhao This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords energy-energycorrelatorsresummationdi-hadronfragmentationfunctionsDGLAPevolutionTMDfactorizationbT-spacesmall-angleEECe+e-annihilation

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 claims that the small-angle (nearside) energy-energy correlator, the distribution of pairs of particles inside a jet at small relative angle, can be factorized in Fourier bT-space using di-hadron fragmentation functions, and that this factorization yields an all-order resummation of the large collinear logarithms. The central result is the formula $\tilde{\Gamma}_i(\mu,b_T) = \Gamma_j(\mu_b)\,P\exp[-\int d\ln\mu'^2\,\gamma(\mu')]_{ji}$, which exponentiates the DGLAP evolution of the EEC jet function between the hard scale and the transverse scale $\mu_b$. The paper shows that expanding this formula at leading-logarithmic order reproduces the first three coefficients of the fixed-order small-angle EEC. It matters because it makes precise predictions in the region where previous collinear resummation breaks down and where data show a turnover attributed to hadronization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the EEC jet function $\Gamma_i(\mu)$ built from di-hadron fragmentation functions, together with its unintegrated bT-space version $\tilde{\Gamma}_i(\mu,b_T)$ defined by a two-dimensional Fourier transform in the transverse momentum difference $q_\perp$. The identity that carries the argument is the momentum sum rule for di-hadron fragmentation, $\Gamma_i(\mu) = 1 - \Gamma'_i(\mu)$, which converts the known evolution of di-hadron fragmentation functions into a closed DGLAP-type evolution equation for $\Gamma$ in flavor-space. The all-order solution is a path-ordered exponential of the anomalous-dimension matrix $\gamma(\mu)$ integrated between the hard scale $\mu$ and the transverse scale $\mu_b = 2e^{-\gamma_E}/b_T$. For phenomenology, the $b^*$ prescription (a cutoff that stops $b_T$ at $b_{\max}$) plus a non-perturbative Gaussian factor $e^{-g b_T^2}$ is applied before Fourier transforming back to the angle distribution.

What would settle it

Compute the small-angle EEC at the next perturbative order and compare the $\alpha_s^3 \ln^3(\mu^2/\mu_b^2)$ coefficient ($A^{(3)}$) with the expansion of Eq. (23); any extra double-logarithmic Sudakov contribution from soft gluons would appear as a mismatch, and a precise measurement of the very-small-angle turnover in $e^+e^-$ data would test the non-perturbative Gaussian.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the nearside EEC is a pure collinear object: in the small-angle region there is no soft gluon radiation, so the transverse-momentum dependence is generated entirely by the inhomogeneous term in the evolution of di-hadron fragmentation functions, and the all-order resummation is a DGLAP path-ordered exponential rather than a Sudakov form factor. Working in bT-space, the one-loop calculation fixes the initial condition $\Gamma_i(\mu_b)$ and the anomalous-dimension matrix $\gamma^{(3)}$, and solving the evolution equation produces Eq. (23). The paper verifies the claim by expanding the resummed exponent in powers of $L = a_S \ln(\mu^2/\mu_b^2)$ and matching the coefficients $A^{(1)}$, $A^{(2)}$, $A^{(3)}$ to the fixed-order collinear results from Ref. [29], finding exact agreement after a factor mapping between $\ln z$ and $\ln(\mu^2/\mu_b^2)$. When Fourier-transformed back and applied to $e^+e^-$ annihilation, the resummed formula matches fixed-order calculations at moderate $z$, extends agreement to smaller angles than the earlier collinear resummation, and predicts a turnover at very small angles driven by the non-perturbative Gaussian.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that in the nearside region there is no soft gluon radiation, so the evolution is purely collinear DGLAP with no Sudakov double logarithms, and if soft effects contribute at higher orders the resummation formula would miss them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The small-angle EEC can be resummed to all orders with a DGLAP path-ordered exponential, with no Sudakov double logarithms, so its scale dependence is simpler than the away-side TMD case.
The leading-log expansion matches the known fixed-order coefficients through $A^{(3)}$, so the resummation can be merged with fixed-order calculations to extend predictions to smaller angles.
The resummed result predicts a turnover in the angular distribution at very small angles, driven by the non-perturbative Gaussian in bT-space, consistent with previous TMD-based calculations and data.
The formalism constrains di-hadron fragmentation functions, since the same evolution connects the EEC jet function to measured single-hadron fragmentation moments $\Gamma'(\mu)$.

Reading between the lines

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

The no-soft-radiation structure implies the nearside EEC is a cleaner probe of hadronization than away-side TMD observables, since the non-perturbative content is isolated in the bT-space Gaussian rather than convoluted with Sudakov double logarithms.
A testable extension would be to determine the non-perturbative parameters $g_q$ and $g_g$ from the turnover position across collision systems; a $Q$-dependence of the turnover inconsistent with the chosen $b_{\max}$ would expose the non-perturbative model.
The matching to third order suggests the formalism could be promoted to next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy by including the two-loop anomalous dimension in the path-ordered exponential, which would sharpen the comparison with data.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read.

The genuinely new thing is the explicit all-order resummation formula in b_T-space, Eq. (23), built from di-hadron fragmentation functions, with a one-loop factorization argument and a three-coefficient leading-log match to the collinear calculations. The idea that a TMD-type treatment applies here was already in the air (Refs. [56,59]), and the note added correctly flags a concurrent paper with the same conclusion, so this is not a bolt from the blue. What the authors add is a concrete derivation: the EEC jet function, the inhomogeneous term from single-parton splitting, the consistent one-loop anomalous dimension, and the path-ordered DGLAP evolution. The Appendix matching of A^(1..3) is a real check and it passes. The numerical section is honest — the non-perturbative parameters are inputs from earlier fits, not fitted here, and the authors say the turnover is a prediction of the framework rather than a discovery.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. Everything in Eq. (23) is collinear single-log evolution. The claim that there are no Sudakov double logarithms in the nearside region is argued from kinematics and supported at one loop, but it is not proven to all orders. The Appendix comparison is an internal consistency check against Ref. [29], which is built on the same leading-region analysis, so it does not independently test for a soft function that might first appear at two loops. If such a soft function exists, the resummed result is incomplete at NNLL. I would not call this a fatal flaw — the physical argument is plausible, and the one-loop structure is exactly what you expect — but it is a real gap, and the authors should either provide a two-loop check or soften the language. The abstract's "perfect matching" is also a bit strong; what is shown is a leading-log matching to fixed-order, not an exact statement.

Bottom line: this is a competent, useful paper for anyone working on EEC factorization. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it out, with the instruction that the referee should scrutinize the no-soft-gluon assumption and the sufficiency of the matching. If that holds up, publish with minor revisions.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the factorization of the near-side (small-angle) energy-energy correlator (EEC) in e+e- annihilation to all orders, using di-hadron fragmentation functions and a Fourier transform in the transverse-momentum variable b_T. The central result is Eq. (23): an all-order resummation formula in which the EEC jet function evolves via DGLAP evolution with time-like splitting kernels, with no Sudakov double logarithms, and with the initial condition given by the integrated EEC jet function at the scale mu_b. The authors verify the leading-order and one-loop IR structure, perform a leading-log expansion (Eqs. (A6)-(A9)) and compare the first three leading-log coefficients with the collinear resummation of Ref. [29] (Eqs. (A10)-(A12)). They then show numerical results for the EEC at Q = 50, 100, 200 GeV, contrast their TMD-type resummation with fixed-order and previous collinear resummation results, and discuss a non-perturbative Gaussian model with parameters taken from previous work.

Significance. If correct, the proposed formalism is a valuable alternative to existing collinear resummation for near-side EECs: it works directly in b_T space, connects naturally to di-hadron fragmentation functions, provides a framework for small-angle resummation, and gives a route to constraining di-hadron fragmentation inputs from EEC data. The explicit one-loop computation, the solution of the DGLAP evolution equations in Eq. (23), and the leading-log check against Ref. [29] are concrete and useful steps. The numerical illustration in Fig. 2 also shows the expected qualitative features, including the turnover at very small angles. The main significance is therefore moderate-to-high, conditional on the all-order no-soft-gluon assumption being substantiated beyond one loop.

major comments (3)

[III and IV, Eq. (23)] The all-order resummation (23) rests on the assertion in Sections III and IV that there is no soft gluon radiation in the near-side region, so that no Sudakov double logarithms appear at any order. The evidence presented is a one-loop calculation: Eq. (20) has a single 1/epsilon pole and a single logarithm, and Eq. (16) fixes the anomalous dimensions consistently. This does not exclude a soft function contributing first at O(alpha_s^2), nor does the Appendix close the gap, since the comparison with Ref. [29] is a comparison of leading-log coefficients within the same collinear framework and is not an independent test of the absence of soft double logarithms. I recommend either proving the soft decoupling as part of a bona fide factorization theorem, or providing an explicit two-loop check against the fixed-order small-angle EEC (e.g., the alpha_s^2 ln^2 z / z coefficient) before the all-order no-Sudakov claim can be regarded as established.
[Abstract and Conclusion; Appendix A] The abstract and conclusion state a 'perfect matching' to fixed-order results. What is actually verified in Appendix A is agreement of the A^(1), A^(2), A^(3) leading-log coefficients (Eqs. (A10)-(A12)) with the collinear results of Ref. [29]; there is no quantitative statement of the agreement in Fig. 2, and the matching is at leading logarithmic level only. The wording should be qualified accordingly, e.g., 'perfect leading-logarithmic matching of the first three coefficients', so that the claim matches the evidence.
[Section III, Eqs. (12)-(22)] The factorization of the small-angle EEC is introduced via a diagrammatic argument and a one-loop computation rather than a full all-order factorization theorem. In particular, Eq. (12) states an 'analogous factorization' for Gamma_i(mu, q_perp), and the subsequent derivation shows that the one-loop inhomogeneous term is TMD-like. The paper does not prove that there are no additional soft or collinear contributions at higher orders in the definition of Gamma_i(mu, q_perp). This is not a problem for the one-loop result, but it is load-bearing for the all-order claim in Eq. (23), and I would like to see at least a power-counting or soft-collinear argument that the soft function is trivial to all orders.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (19)] The text after Eq. (19) says 'contributions from both q -> g and q -> g channels'; this is clearly a typo and should read 'q -> q and q -> g' (or appropriate g -> q and q -> g), given the definitions of gamma_qq and gamma_gq.
[Appendix A, Eq. (A13)] The mapping in Eq. (A13) is stated without derivation, and it is not immediately obvious how the factor (-1)^n/(n+1) and the different normalization convention for z versus mu^2/mu_b^2 arise. A short explanation or a reference for the Fourier-transform convention would help the reader reproduce the sign factors mentioned in the following sentence.
[Fig. 2] The legend '| | LO, | | NLO, | | NNLO' is unclear (presumably it refers to dashed/dotted line styles), and the comparison curves are presented without any theory band or quantitative criterion for 'agreement'. The figure would be more informative if the collinear results and the TMD-resummed results were labeled explicitly and if the matching region in z were indicated.
[Throughout] There are several typos and slightly unclear phrases, including 'equivlanetly' in the sentence preceding Eq. (A5), 'awayside' in Section I, and 'with a differential respect to q_perp' in Section III. These do not affect the physics but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the all-order resummation (23) is derived from standard DGLAP evolution with external anomalous dimensions and checked against external fixed-order results; only a minor self-cited non-perturbative input feeds the small-angle turnover, not the central claim.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (24) and paragraph after Fig. 2]
"The final resummation result for eΓ reads as eΓres.(µ, bT ) = eΓperp(µ, b∗)e−gq,g b2 T , (24) where gq and gg are free parameters and will be fitted to experimental data. ... For the non-perturbative parameters, we take bmax = 1.5 GeV−1 and gq = gg = 0.35 which is consistent with the parametrization used in Ref. [56]. ... our TMD-type of resummation correctly predicts the turnover of the distributions at very small angles."

The turnover, presented as a prediction, is produced by Eq. (24)'s non-perturbative exponential whose parameters gq and gg are imported from a previous fit in Ref. [56], which shares an author with the present paper. The feature is therefore an input renamed as an output; it is not derived from Eq. (23) or from the perturbative matching. Since the central claim is Eq. (23) and its matching, this is a secondary element; it does not by itself make the all-order resummation circular, but it is a mild example of a fitted parameter being described as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (23) is obtained by solving DGLAP evolution with standard time-like anomalous dimensions; the one-loop boundary condition (22) is computed in the paper, and the matched coefficients A^(n) in Appendix A agree with the external collinear results of Ref. [29], a genuinely independent benchmark. The initial conditions Γ_i(µ0) come from the external single-hadron fragmentation fit [100] and are not fit to the nearside EEC. The no-soft-gluon assumption in Sections I and III is an assertion supported only at one loop; if a soft function contributes at higher orders, Eq. (23) would be incomplete. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity, because the derivation does not assume the conclusion it is testing. The Appendix match is an internal consistency check between two collinear formulations and does not test the no-soft assumption, but that is a limitation rather than a circular reduction. The self-citation [56] supplies only non-perturbative shape parameters for the phenomenological turnover, a secondary effect; the score is therefore 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central resummation formula depends on standard time-like DGLAP evolution, the momentum sum rule for di-hadron fragmentation functions, and the collinear factorization of the EEC jet function. The numerical demonstration adds the b* prescription and a Gaussian non-perturbative model with parameters from prior work, plus initial conditions from a global fit to single-hadron fragmentation functions. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

g_q = 0.35
Non-perturbative Gaussian coefficient in Eq (24); taken from Ref [56], not fitted in this paper.
g_g = 0.35
Non-perturbative Gaussian coefficient for gluon jets in Eq (24); taken from Ref [56], not fitted in this paper.
b_max = 1.5 GeV^-1
Cutoff in the b* prescription in Eq (24); chosen by hand, not fitted.
Gamma_q(mu0) = 0.754
Initial condition for the quark EEC jet function at mu0=2 GeV, computed from single-hadron fragmentation function moments [100].
Gamma_g(mu0) = 0.824
Initial condition for the gluon EEC jet function at mu0=2 GeV, computed from single-hadron fragmentation function moments [100].

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Time-like DGLAP evolution equations for di-hadron fragmentation functions are valid in the relevant jet kinematics.
Used to derive the evolution equation (9) and the all-order resummation; established in Ref [81].
standard math Momentum sum rule for di-hadron fragmentation functions (Eq (3)).
Momentum conservation identity from Refs [79,81]; used to relate Γ_i to single-hadron fragmentation function moments.
domain assumption Collinear factorization of the EEC jet function into hard coefficient and fragmentation functions (Eq (6)).
Assumes the standard collinear factorization for two-hadron production in a jet, following Ref [92].
domain assumption No soft gluon radiation in the nearside region, so the evolution is purely DGLAP with no Sudakov double logarithms.
Central physics input: the nearside EEC's IR behavior is dominated by collinear splitting; no soft radiation contributes (Section III).
ad hoc to paper b* prescription and Gaussian non-perturbative model (Eq (24)).
Model for the non-perturbative b_T dependence; parameters taken from Ref [56].
domain assumption Initial conditions from single-hadron fragmentation functions (Γ_i(µ0)).
External input from global fragmentation function fit [100], used to set the evolution starting point.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Factorization and Resummation for the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OMJLB2PF

@misc{pith2026250715820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Factorization and Resummation for the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OMJLB2PF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15820}
}

abstract

By utilizing the di-hadron fragmentation formalism, we extend the previous factorization of nearside energy-energy correlators (EEC) in the collinear limit and derive an all order resummation in the Fourier transform $b_T$-space. A perfect matching is obtained when we compare to the fixed-order results. We further demonstrate the resummation effects for the EEC in $e^+e^-$ annihilation and show that they will significantly improve the theoretical predictions at small angles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15820 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: EECs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

High precision heavy-boson-jet substructure with energy correlators
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The EEC peak in boosted Z jets is the Sudakov back-to-back region of the Z-pole EEC seen through a Lorentz boost, determined by one Lorentz-invariant shape function and computable at N3LL'.
Energy-Energy Correlators at Strong Coupling
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The strong-coupling EEC in planar N=4 SYM is now known through λ⁻² for p=2 and through λ⁻³ᐟ² for all half-BPS operators O_p, derived independently from worldsheet and low-energy Wilson-coefficient methods.
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.
Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Updated CoLBT-hydro simulations with Q_M=2.0 GeV reproduce CMS in-jet EEC data, validate background subtraction, and show path-length and diffusion-wake effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[29]

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

arXiv 2019
[1]

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

1978
[2]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2298 (1978)

1978
[3]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2018 (1979)

1979
[4]

Berger et al

C. Berger et al. (PLUTO), Z. Phys. C 28, 365 (1985)

1985
[5]

Berger et al.(PLUTO), Phys

C. Berger et al.(PLUTO), Phys. Lett. B 90, 312 (1980)

1980
[6]

H. J. Behrend et al.(CELLO), Z. Phys. C 14, 95 (1982)

1982
[7]

Bartel et al

W. Bartel et al. (JADE), Z. Phys. C 25, 231 (1984)

1984

Show all 102 references

[8]

Fernandez et al., Phys

E. Fernandez et al., Phys. Rev. D 31, 2724 (1985)

1985
[9]

D. R. Wood et al., Phys. Rev. D 37, 3091 (1988)

1988
[10]

Braunschweig et al

W. Braunschweig et al. (TASSO), Z. Phys. C 36, 349 (1987)

1987
[11]

I. H. Park et al. (AMY), in 24th International Confer- ence on High-energy Physics(1988)

1988
[12]

Adachi et al

I. Adachi et al. (TOPAZ), Phys. Lett. B 227, 495 (1989)

1989
[13]

Decamp et al

D. Decamp et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B 257, 479 (1991)

1991
[14]

Adeva et al

B. Adeva et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B 257, 469 (1991)

1991
[15]

Adrian et al

O. Adrian et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B 284, 471 (1992)

1992
[16]

Abreu et al

P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Phys. Lett. B 252, 149 (1990). 6

1990
[17]

M. Z. Akrawy et al. (OPAL), Phys. Lett. B 252, 159 (1990)

1990
[18]

P. D. Acton et al. (OPAL), Phys. Lett. B 276, 547 (1992)

1992
[19]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. (SLD), Phys. Rev. D 51, 962 (1995), arXiv:hep-ex/9501003

1995 arXiv
[20]

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 381 (1981), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 213, 545 (1983)]

1981
[21]

Ali and F

A. Ali and F. Barreiro, Phys. Lett. B 118, 155 (1982)

1982
[22]

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

1995 arXiv
[23]

de Florian and M

D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 704, 387 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0407241

2005 arXiv
[24]

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]

2016 arXiv
[25]

Tulip´ ant, A

Z. Tulip´ ant, A. Kardos, and G. Somogyi, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 749 (2017), arXiv:1708.04093 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[26]

Kardos, S

A. Kardos, S. Kluth, G. Somogyi, Z. Tulip´ ant, and A. Verbytskyi, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 498 (2018), arXiv:1804.09146 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[27]

Moult and H

I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 08, 160 (2018), arXiv:1801.02627 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[28]

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]

2018 arXiv
[30]

M. A. Ebert, B. Mistlberger, and G. Vita, JHEP 08, 022 (2021), arXiv:2012.07859 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[31]

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

2023 arXiv
[32]

Lee and G

C. Lee and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014022 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611061

2007 arXiv
[33]

C. F. Berger, T. Kucs, and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 68, 014012 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303051

2003 arXiv
[34]

D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, JHEP 05, 012 (2008), arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[35]

H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054012 (2020), arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[36]

K. Lee, B. Me¸ caj, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D 111, L011502 (2025), arXiv:2205.03414 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[37]

Craft, K

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

2022 arXiv
[38]

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

2023 arXiv
[39]

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]

2023 arXiv
[40]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP 09, 088 (2023), arXiv:2303.03413 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D 110, L031503 (2024), arXiv:2307.15110 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[42]

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

2024 arXiv
[43]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP 03, 166 (2025), arXiv:2407.07936 [hep- ph]

2025 arXiv
[44]

Barata, P

J. Barata, P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and R. Szafron, JHEP 11, 060 (2024), arXiv:2312.12527 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[45]

Barata, J

J. Barata, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 174 (2024), arXiv:2308.01294 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[46]

Bossi, A

H. Bossi, A. S. Kudinoor, I. Moult, D. Pablos, A. Rai, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 12, 073 (2024), arXiv:2407.13818 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[47]

Lee and I

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

2023 arXiv
[48]

K. Lee, I. Moult, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 01, 194 (2024), arXiv:2308.00028 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[49]

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

2024 arXiv
[50]

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

2024 arXiv
[51]

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]

2025 arXiv
[52]

Holguin, I

J. Holguin, I. Moult, A. Pathak, M. Procura, R. Sch¨ ofbeck, and D. Schwarz, JHEP 04, 072 (2025), arXiv:2407.12900 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[53]

M. Xiao, Y. Ye, and X. Zhu, JHEP 10, 088 (2024), arXiv:2405.20001 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[54]

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

2025 arXiv
[55]

Andres, J

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

2025 arXiv
[56]

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

2025 arXiv
[57]

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]

2025 arXiv
[58]

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

2024 arXiv
[59]

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]

2025 arXiv
[60]

Cs´ aki, S

C. Cs´ aki, S. Ferrante, and A. Ismail, JHEP 07, 117 (2025), arXiv:2412.02738 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[61]

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

2024 arXiv
[62]

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]

2025 arXiv
[63]

Barata, I

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

2025 arXiv
[64]

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

2025 arXiv
[65]

Moult and H

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

2025 arXiv
[66]

Hayrapetyan et al

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

2024 arXiv
[67]

Acharya et al

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

2024 arXiv
[68]

Tamis (STAR), PoS HardProbes2023, 175 (2024), arXiv:2309.05761 [hep-ex]

A. Tamis (STAR), PoS HardProbes2023, 175 (2024), arXiv:2309.05761 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[69]

Chekhovsky et al.(CMS), Phys

V. Chekhovsky et al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B 866, 139556 (2025), arXiv:2503.19993 [nucl-ex]

2025 arXiv
[70]

Acharya et al

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

2025 arXiv
[71]

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 7 2024, Nagasaki, Japan, September 22-27, 2024 (2024)

2024
[72]

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 194, 445 (1982)

1982
[73]

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 197, 446 (1982)

1982
[74]

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 655 (1982)

1982
[75]

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 199 (1985)

1985
[76]

Abbate, M

R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074021 (2011), arXiv:1006.3080 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[77]

G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 555, 335 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902341

1999 arXiv
[78]

Konishi, A

K. Konishi, A. Ukawa, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 78, 243 (1978)

1978
[79]

Konishi, A

K. Konishi, A. Ukawa, and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 157, 45 (1979)

1979
[80]

Vendramin, Nuovo Cim

I. Vendramin, Nuovo Cim. A 66, 339 (1981)

1981
[81]

de Florian and L

D. de Florian and L. Vanni, Phys. Lett. B 578, 139 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310196

2004 arXiv
[82]

Majumder and X.-N

A. Majumder and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D70, 014007 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402245

2004 arXiv
[83]

Majumder and X.-N

A. Majumder and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D72, 034007 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411174

2005 arXiv
[84]

R. L. Jaffe, X.-m. Jin, and J. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1166 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709322

1998 arXiv
[85]

Bianconi, S

A. Bianconi, S. Boffi, R. Jakob, and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 62, 034008 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907475

2000 arXiv
[86]

Bacchetta and M

A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 67, 094002 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212300

2003 arXiv
[87]

Bacchetta, A

A. Bacchetta, A. Courtoy, and M. Radici, JHEP 03, 119 (2013), arXiv:1212.3568 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[88]

Zhou and A

J. Zhou and A. Metz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 172001 (2011), arXiv:1101.3273 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[89]

Cocuzza, A

C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and R. Seidl (Jefferson Lab Angular Mo- mentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. D 109, 034024 (2024), arXiv:2308.14857 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[90]

Pitonyak, C

D. Pitonyak, C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, A. Prokudin, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 011902 (2024), arXiv:2305.11995 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[91]

Quantum Scaling Beyond the Confinement Transition in Energy Correlators,

C.-H. Chang, H. Chen, X. Liu, D. Simmons-Duffinand, F. Yuan, and H.-X. Zhu, “Quantum Scaling Beyond the Confinement Transition in Energy Correlators,” Preprint (2025)

2025
[92]

Kaufmann, A

T. Kaufmann, A. Mukherjee, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054015 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 079901 (2020)], arXiv:1506.01415 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[93]

Chien, Z.-B

Y.-T. Chien, Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, I. Vitev, and H. Xing, JHEP 05, 125 (2016), arXiv:1512.06851 [hep- ph]

2016 arXiv
[94]

J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Shen, H. Xing, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114019 (2024), arXiv:2407.04422 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[95]

Neill, I

D. Neill, I. Scimemi, and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 04, 020 (2017), arXiv:1612.04817 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[96]

Z.-B. Kang, X. Liu, F. Ringer, and H. Xing, JHEP 11, 068 (2017), arXiv:1705.08443 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[97]

Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, J. Terry, and H. Xing, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134978 (2019), arXiv:1906.07187 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[98]

One-Point energy correlator inside jets,

Z. Mi and Z. Wang, “One-Point energy correlator inside jets,” Preprint (2025)

2025
[99]

Particle Corre- lations in Jets,

W. Zhao, V. Koch, F. Yuan, and Zhu, “Particle Corre- lations in Jets,” Preprint (2025)

2025
[100]

J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Shen, H. Xing, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 261903 (2024), arXiv:2401.02781 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[101]

Bossi, A

H. Bossi, A. Baty, Y. Chen, Y.-C. J. Chen, G.-M. In- nocenti, M. Maggi, C. McGinn, and Y.-J. Lee, PoS LHCP2024, 228 (2025), arXiv:2501.01968 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[102]

Lee and I

K. Lee and I. Stewart, (2025), arXiv:2507.11495 [hep- ph]. 8 Appendix A: Resummation of EEC and perturbative matching with collinear calculations As discussed in the main text, the inhomogeneous term in the evolution of the di-hadron fragmentation functions generates the q⊥-de...

2025

Pith tools

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

[1] [29]

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

arXiv 2019

[2] [1]

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

1978

[3] [2]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2298 (1978)

1978

[4] [3]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2018 (1979)

1979

[5] [4]

Berger et al

C. Berger et al. (PLUTO), Z. Phys. C 28, 365 (1985)

1985

[6] [5]

Berger et al.(PLUTO), Phys

C. Berger et al.(PLUTO), Phys. Lett. B 90, 312 (1980)

1980

[7] [6]

H. J. Behrend et al.(CELLO), Z. Phys. C 14, 95 (1982)

1982

[8] [7]

Bartel et al

W. Bartel et al. (JADE), Z. Phys. C 25, 231 (1984)

1984