Jet Quenching via Jet Collimation

Jorge Casalderrey-Solana; Jose Guilherme Milhano; Urs Achim Wiedemann

REVIEW

Jet Quenching via Jet Collimation

Jorge Casalderrey-Solana, Jose Guilherme Milhano, Urs Achim Wiedemann

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 3 Dec 2010 · 31 references

Pith's verdict: A clean qualitative point — energy loss without azimuthal displacement means many soft partons — wrapped around q̂L numbers that carry an unpropagated factor-of-few geometric systematic.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 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 →

· 5 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1012.0745 (version 1)

Pith IDFAYBSS7F, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJorge Casalderrey-Solana, Jose Guilherme Milhano, Urs Achim Wiedemann. "Jet Quenching via Jet Collimation." arXiv:1012.0745 (2010). https://pith.science/paper/FAYBSS7F

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

The thing worth taking from this paper is one sentence: if a jet loses 10–20% of its energy out of an R = 0.4 cone without its center moving in azimuth, the loss cannot be a single hard parton radiated at large angle. It has to be many soft fragments. That is a real constraint extracted from the first ATLAS dijet data, it is stated cleanly, and it is why people cite this paper. The frequency-collimation framing — the medium trims away everything below √(q̂L) — is a good organizing picture and it is presented without overclaiming; the abstract says 'can be accomodated' and the body sticks to that (abstract:s3). Credit for that discipline; a lot of rapid communications from that winter did not have it.

Referee report

Significance

The paper is timely: it is one of the first theory responses to the LHC heavy-ion dijet data, and it isolates a qualitative feature of those data — energy loss without large azimuthal displacement of jet centers — that any successful jet-quenching model must reproduce. The frequency-collimation argument is simple, physically transparent, and stated in a form that can be tested: it predicts that the medium removes soft fragments broadly in angle rather than one hard fragment at a large angle, which is falsifiable with jet-shape and fragmentation-function measurements at the LHC. The derived reference values of q̂ are useful for model builders even if their uncertainty is large. The novelty is moderate rather than decisive: the individual ingredients (collisional broadening, decoherence of soft shower components, medium-modified MLLA evolution) are drawn from Refs. [15], [20]–[31], and the paper's contribution is to combine them into a single picture and attach numbers to it. The authors are commendably candid about the limitations of their own estimates (choice of Q_f, neglect of fluctuations, the corona modelling, the N_evt versus N_tot normalization), and I have tried below not to

Major objections (5)

[§5, Eq. (5) and the paragraph following Eq. (9)] There are two different decorrelation thresholds in the manuscript, and they differ by 1/R. Eq. (5) states that fragments with ω ≤ √(q̂L) are decorrelated from the jet direction, and this is the criterion used to convert the MLLA energy fraction into the bounds of Eqs. (8)–(9). But the physically relevant condition for leaving a cone of half-angle R is angular: a parton of energy ω deflected by θ ≈ k_T/ω with ⟨k_T²⟩ = q̂L exits the cone when ω ≲ √(q̂L)/R, not √(q̂L). The manuscript itself uses the correct scaling later, when it refers to 'harder partonic components of order O(√(q̂L)/R) that will be partially moved outside the jet cone.' With R = 0.4 the two thresholds differ by a factor 2.5 in ω and hence by up to ~1/R² ≈ 6 in q̂L. Because k_T is Gaussian-distributed, the exit is in any case a smooth probability rather than a step, so the true out-of-cone energy at fixed q̂L exceeds E(√(q̂L)/E_T), and inverting a fixed observed loss requires a smaller q̂L than Eq. (8) quotes. The authors flag the issue but do not propagate it, and the quoted bounds and the derived q̂ = 3–10 GeV²/fm carry no stated systematic. At minimum the manuscript should state the size and direction of this correction and reconcile Eq. (5) with the O(√(q̂L)/R) sentence; ideally it should repeat the extraction with the angular criterion. The competing effect — soft partons that are displaced but recaptured by the R = 0.4 jet — pushes the other way and may partly cancel, which is why the order-of-magnitude conclusion plausibly survives, but that cancellation should be argued rather than assumed.
[§4, Eqs. (2)–(4) and Fig. 1] The entire quantitative chain rests on the difference ⟨x⟩_pp − ⟨x⟩_PbPb ≥ 0.13, but the proton-proton baseline in Fig. 1 is taken at √s = 7 TeV while the Pb-Pb data are at √s_NN = 2.76 TeV. At fixed E_T1 > 100 GeV the two samples probe different regions of parton momentum fraction and different NLO corrections, and the x = E_T2/E_T1 distribution is not guaranteed to be energy-independent at the few-percent level, which is the level at which the 0.13 difference is being used. The manuscript does not discuss this at all. It should either quote a p-p reference at 2.76 TeV, or estimate the size of the √s-induced shift (for instance from PYTHIA or from the measured x distributions at the two energies) and show that it is small compared with 0.13. Without that, the lower bound in Eq. (3) and hence the lower bound in Eq. (8) is not established at the quoted precision.
[§4, paragraph following Eq. (4)] The text states that 'the interaction of the jet with the medium must be able to transport at least 20 GeV outside the jet cone.' This contradicts the equations it summarizes. Eq. (3) gives ⟨ΔE⟩/E_T > 0.1, i.e. at least 10 GeV for E_T > 100 GeV, and Eq. (4) gives ⟨ΔE⟩_m/E_T < 0.2, i.e. at most 20 GeV. The number 20 GeV is therefore an upper bound, not a lower bound, and the sentence as written strengthens the argument by a factor of two in the wrong direction. The conclusion that a large out-of-cone energy transport is required survives with the correct number, but the sentence should be corrected to 'at least 10 GeV' (or restated as a range).
[§5, Eqs. (8)–(9) and the final paragraph] The headline reference values '5 ≤ q̂ ≤ 10 GeV²/fm (3 ≤ q̂ ≤ 6 GeV²/fm)' for L ≈ 6 fm (L ≈ 10 fm) do not follow from Eq. (8). Dividing Eq. (8) by L = 6 fm gives 5.8–14.2 GeV²/fm, and by L = 10 fm gives 3.5–8.5 GeV²/fm. The quoted numbers reproduce Eq. (9) exactly (30/6 = 5, 60/6 = 10; 30/10 = 3, 60/10 = 6). The text says only 'taking the above estimates at face value,' which leaves the reader unable to tell which estimate is being used. This matters because Eq. (9) rests on the medium-modified MLLA kernel of Ref. [15], which is an unpublished preprint (arXiv:hep-ph/0506218) co-authored by one of the present authors, whereas Eq. (8) uses vacuum fragmentation and is independent of that input. The manuscript should state explicitly which equation the q̂ values come from, quote the range obtained from Eq. (8) as well, and make clear that the more aggressive numbers depend on an unpublished medium-modification model.
[§4, Eq. (4)] The upper bound in Eq. (4) is controlled entirely by the corona parameter α, which is fixed by the statement 'from the ratios of the yields at x ∼ 1 in Fig. 1 we estimate that the fraction of unmodified jets α is α ≲ 0.5.' No number, ratio, or procedure is given to support this estimate, yet it directly sets the upper bound on ⟨ΔE⟩_m/E_T and hence the upper bound on q̂L in Eqs. (8)–(9). The extraction of α should be shown explicitly — which bins in x are used, what ratio is taken, and what the associated uncertainty is — or the bound should be presented as a range in α with the corresponding range in q̂L. As it stands the reader cannot check the single most important number in the corona correction.

Minor objections (9)

[Abstract and §1] 'accomodated' should be 'accommodated' (it appears in both the abstract and the introduction).
[§5, paragraph on decoherence] 'become an independent quanta' should be 'become an independent quantum'; the same sentence also uses 'quanta' where a singular is intended.
[§6] 'accurate treatement' should be 'accurate treatment'.
[§5, paragraph before Fig. 3] 'Consistent with the praxis in Monte Carlo event generator' should read 'consistent with common practice in Monte Carlo event generators'.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to a scale Q that is not defined there; the text uses Q_0 = E_T sin(R) and Q_f = 1 GeV. Please state in the caption which scale is meant.
[Eq. (1)] The integral defining x̄ is written over the full range of x, but the measured distribution in Fig. 1 is cut off below x = E_T,min/E_T1 ≈ 0.25. The lower limit of integration should be stated, and it should be noted that the quoted means are computed over the experimentally accessible range only.
[§4, paragraph on single hard parton emission] The argument that a single hard parton carrying more than 20% of the energy at a large angle would displace the jet center by Δφ > 0.1 rad and thus be 'clearly distinguishable' should be quantified against the actual Δφ resolution and binning of the ATLAS measurement shown in Fig. 1 (bottom), rather than asserted.
[§3] The statement that the triggered leading jet in Pb-Pb is expected to have a structure comparable to that in p-p because of surface bias is plausible but is presented as an expectation without support; it would help to note explicitly that this is an assumption that the data can test, as the text in fact does parenthetically.
[References] Ref. [16] (ALICE) is cited as a preprint 'submitted to arXiv on 2 Dec. 2010'; if it has since been published, the published reference should be given.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The ATLAS dijet asymmetry can be explained if the quark-gluon medium strips soft fragments out of the jet cone while leaving the hard core, and hence the jet axis, intact.

The reading

In the first weeks of LHC lead-lead running, ATLAS reported that recoiling jets in dijet events arrive with far less energy than their trigger partners, yet the two jet axes remain nearly back-to-back in azimuth. This paper asks what that combination of facts permits one to say about the microscopic mechanism of jet quenching. The authors argue it disfavours a single hard, wide-angle emission as the dominant energy-loss channel, since moving 20 GeV or more out of the cone in one or two hard partons would visibly swing the recoil jet's centre. They instead propose that the medium acts as a frequency collimator: repeated small-angle scattering gives every jet fragment a random transverse momentum of order $k_T^2 = 4$. Matching the energy carried by those soft fragments, computed from a modified leading-logarithmic fragmentation distribution, to the measured out-of-cone energy gives values of $4$ in the range expected for a dense medium. If right, the picture says that the medium removes energy from jets by trimming their soft edges rather than by deflecting their cores.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frequency-collimation scale $4$: soft fragments below it are removed from the cone, hard fragments above it are not. It is derived from two kinematic facts, that multiple scattering builds up $4$ and that a fragment of energy $4$ decoheres from its parent on a formation time $4$. The second ingredient is the vacuum (and medium-modified) MLLA single-inclusive parton distribution inside a jet, evolved from an initial scale $4$ down to $4$ GeV, which gives the fraction $4$ of the jet energy carried by partons softer than $4$. Setting that fraction equal to the measured out-of-cone energy fraction turns the ATLAS dijet asymmetry into a bound on $4$. A third, qualitative ingredient is the argument that a single hard emission large enough to remove the required energy would displace the recoil jet centre by $4$, which the measured $4$ distribution excludes.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ATLAS dijet data select a specific energy-loss mechanism, which the authors call frequency collimation. In a medium of length $L$ characterized by the transport coefficient $4$ (the transverse momentum squared accumulated per unit path length), every parton in the shower undergoes Brownian motion and picks up transverse momentum of order $4$. Fragments whose energy satisfies $4$ are therefore decorrelated from the jet direction and fall outside a cone of radius $R = 0.4$, while harder fragments stay collimated. Because the trimmed fragments are numerous and soft, they carry away a large fraction of the jet energy without shifting the jet axis, which is what ATLAS sees. Reading the observed shift in the mean energy fraction carried by the recoil, $4$, as an out-of-cone energy loss of at least 10 GeV and at most about 20 percent of the jet energy, and using MLLA fragmentation to compute the fraction of jet energy stored below the collimation frequency, the authors extract $4$ GeV$^2$ from vacuum fragmentation and $4$ GeV$^2$ once medium-enhanced branching is included. For $L$ between 6 and 10 fm this corresponds to $4$ of a few GeV$^2$/fm, the order of magnitude expected for the dense matter produced at the LHC.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that the fraction of a jet's energy carried by fragments softer than $4$ in a vacuum-like, or single-kernel-modified, fragmentation calculation is exactly the energy the medium pushes outside the $R = 0.4$ cone, so that a fragmentation-based number can be equated with a medium-induced energy loss.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If frequency collimation is the dominant channel, the energy removed from the recoil cone should reappear as a broad spray of soft hadrons at angles larger than $R = 0.4$, not as one or two hard fragments near the jet axis.
The extracted $4$ scales with the square of the jet energy, $4$, so the fractional asymmetry should grow with $E_T$ in a way that can be checked against higher-energy dijet samples.
The same $4$ values, of order 3 to 10 GeV$^2$/fm for path lengths of 6 to 10 fm, should simultaneously account for the factor-of-several suppression of single inclusive hadron spectra at the LHC.
Because the mechanism is driven by soft multiple scattering rather than rare hard emissions, it predicts only mild broadening of the $4$ distribution for the bulk of dijets, with the visible broadening concentrated in the small-angle tail.
Photon-tagged jets, where the photon fixes the hard scale without a fragmentation trigger bias, should show the same out-of-cone energy loss without the surface bias that complicates the dijet sample.

Reading between the lines

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

The argument effectively converts a shape measurement into a transport-coefficient measurement, which suggests that track-based jet shapes out to radii larger than $R$ could serve as a direct $4$ probe, independent of the single-hadron suppression channel.
If the trimmed soft fragments are really decorrelated, they should also show up as an enhanced soft-hadron pedestal correlated in azimuth with the recoil jet but at large angles; such a pedestal would be a cleaner signature than the asymmetry itself.
The same collimation logic applies to the trigger jet, so a careful treatment should predict a small but nonzero softening of the leading jet as well; a measured leading-jet fragmentation modification comparable to the recoil's would undercut the surface-bias reading used here.
The tension between this soft-multiplicity picture and models built on a few hard, wide-angle emissions is resolvable with angular-resolved energy flow: the two pictures put the lost energy at different angular scales.

Original abstract

The ATLAS Collaboration recently reported strong modifications of dijet properties in heavy ion collisions. In this work, we discuss to what extent these first data constrain already the microscopic mechanism underlying jet quenching. Simple kinematic arguments lead us to identify a frequency collimation mechanism via which the medium efficiently trims away the soft components of the jet parton shower. Through this mechanism, the observed dijet asymmetry can be accomodated with values of $\hat{q}\, L$ that lie in the expected order of magnitude.

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-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,552 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.42 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.13 · compares with prior results 0.52 · 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.

The ATLAS Collaboration recently reported strong modifications of dijet properties in heavy ion collisions. In this work, we discuss to what extent these first data constrain already the microscopic mechanism underlying jet quenching. Simple kinematic arguments lead us to identify a frequency collimation mechanism via which the medium efficiently trims away the soft components of the jet parton shower. Through this mechanism, the observed dijet asymmetry can be accomodated with values of $\hat{q}\, L$ that lie in the expected order of magnitude.

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	The ATLAS Collaboration recently reported strong modifications of dijet properties in heavy ion collisions.	background 1.00	0.03	0.03	asserted 1.00
s1	In this work, we discuss to what extent these first data constrain already the microscopic mechanism underlying jet quenching.	contribution 0.90	0.41	0.05	unclear 0.72
s2	Simple kinematic arguments lead us to identify a frequency collimation mechanism via which the medium efficiently trims away the soft components of the jet parton shower.	contribution 0.72	0.85	0.62	asserted 0.88
s3	Through this mechanism, the observed dijet asymmetry can be accomodated with values of $\hat{q}\, L$ that lie in the expected order of magnitude.	result 0.60	0.76	0.47	asserted 0.58

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.59 · evidence from argument 0.62.

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

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Top: Dijet distributions measured by ATLAS as de

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Schematic illustration of the spatial embedding of a

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Fraction of the total jet energy,

Showing 3 of the paper's 4 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:1012.0745 by the authors.

References

Works cited (31)

[15]

N. Borghini and U. A. Wiedemann, arXiv:hep- ph/0506218

View on Pith
[20]

S. Wicks, W. Horowitz, M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 784, 426 (2007) [arXiv:nucl-th/0512076]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[31]

Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado and K. Tywoniuk, arXiv:1009.2965 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

U. A. Wiedemann, [arXiv:0908.2306 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[2]

D. d’Enterria, arXiv:0902.2011 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[3]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, C. A. Salgado, Acta Phys. Polon. B38, 3731-3794 (2007). [arXiv:0712.3443 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[4]

A. Majumder, M. Van Leeuwen, [arXiv:1002.2206 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[5]

P. Jacobs and X. N. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54, 443 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405125]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[6]

M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X. -N. Wang et al. , In *Hwa, R.C. (ed.) et al.: Quark gluon plasma* 123-191. [nucl- th/0302077]

View on Pith
[7]

M. Ploskon [ STAR Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 255C-258C (2009). [arXiv:0908.1799 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[8]

E. Bruna [ STAR Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 267C-270C (2009). [arXiv:0907.4788 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[9]

Y. -S. Lai [ PHENIX Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 251C-254C (2009). [arXiv:0907.4725 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[10]

ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

B. Wyslouch for the CMS Collaboration, CERN LPCC seminar on 2 Dec 2010, where preliminary CMS data consistent with [10] was presented

View on Pith 2010
[12]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[13]

K. Aamodt et al. [The ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1011.3916 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

D. E. Acosta et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 112002 [arXiv:hep-ex/0505013]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[16]

ALICE Collaboration, ”Suppression of Charged Particle Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Central Pb–Pb Collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV”, preprint sub- mitted to arXiv on 2 Dec. 2010

View on Pith 2010
[17]

C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 042301 [arXiv:hep-ph/0310079]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[18]

I. P. Lokhtin, S. V. Petrushanko, L. I. Sarycheva et al. , Phys. Rev. C73, 064905 (2006). [hep-ph/0603253]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[19]

I. Vitev, S. Wicks and B. W. Zhang, JHEP 0811 (2008) 093 [arXiv:0810.2807 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[21]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, E. V. Shuryak and D. Teaney, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 27, 22 (2005) [Nucl. Phys. A 774, 577 (2006)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0411315]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[22]

H. Li, F. Liu, G. l. Ma, X. N. Wang and Y. Zhu, arXiv:1006.2893 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

K. Zapp, G. Ingelman, J. Rathsman, J. Stachel and U. A. Wiedemann, Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 617 (2009) [arXiv:0804.3568 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[24]

K. Zapp, J. Stachel and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 152302 (2009) [arXiv:0812.3888 [hep-ph]]., and work in progress

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[25]

N. Armesto, G. Corcella, L. Cunqueiro and C. A. Sal- gado, JHEP 0911, 122 (2009) [arXiv:0909.5118 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[26]

N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro and C. A. Salgado, arXiv:0906.0754 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[27]

B. Schenke, C. Gale and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C80, 054913 (2009) [arXiv:0909.2037 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[28]

T. Renk, arXiv:1009.3740 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

X. N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3501 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[30]

A. Leonidov and V. Nechitailo, arXiv:1011.1671 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 21 Pith papers

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

A Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Approach to Jet Quenching
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

With a single fitted parameter, a model combining a perturbative QCD parton shower with holographic strong-coupling energy loss reproduces LHC jet suppression, dijet asymmetry and jet fragmentation ratios, and beats w...
Modification of Jet Substructure in Heavy Ion Collisions as a Probe of the Resolution Length of Quark-Gluon Plasma
hep-ph 2019-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Groomed jet substructure observables computed in the hybrid strong/weak coupling model separate a plasma that resolves jet constituents from one that does not, and current LHC data disfavor the fully unresolved limit.
Angular Structure of Jet Quenching Within a Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Model
hep-ph 2016-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Energy loss makes surviving quenched jets narrower than vacuum jets of the same energy, which hides transverse broadening from standard observables, while the plasma wake the jet leaves behind accounts qualitatively f...
Origins of the di-jet asymmetry in heavy ion collisions
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In JEWEL simulations, the di-jet asymmetry in heavy ion collisions is dominated by fluctuations in fragmentation and energy loss, while the difference in path length between the two jets plays only a sub-leading role.
Measurement of transverse momentum relative to dijet systems in PbPb and pp collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2015-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In central lead-lead collisions, the momentum missing from unbalanced dijets is recovered as an excess of low-momentum particles (0.5 to 2 GeV) at large angles from the jet axes, not as a shift in the angular pattern ...

Show 16 more citing papers

Jet quenching in strongly coupled plasma
hep-th 2014-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In strongly coupled N=4 SYM plasma, a jet that loses energy crossing a slab of thickness L emerges shaped like a vacuum jet of the reduced energy, with a larger opening angle, and loses energy at a rate proportional t...
Studies of dijet transverse momentum balance and pseudorapidity distributions in pPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2014-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In proton-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV, dijet transverse momentum balance and azimuthal width are unaffected by forward calorimeter activity, while the mean dijet pseudorapidity shifts monotonically with it.
Measurement of charged jet suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV
nucl-ex 2013-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Charged jets with radius 0.2 and 0.3 in central Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV are suppressed by a factor of about 2 to 3 relative to peripheral collisions, matching single-hadron suppression and showing no measurable r...
Interference effects in medium-induced gluon radiation
hep-ph 2011-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

For a color-singlet quark-antiquark dipole in a dense QCD medium, the interference between medium-induced gluon emissions is suppressed by the ratio of a coherence time to the medium length whenever the dipole opening...
Explanation of Di-jet asymmetry in Pb+Pb collisions at the Large Hadron Collider
hep-ph 2010-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An effective evolution equation for radiated gluons in a quark-gluon plasma, with a single fitted transport normalization, reproduces the ATLAS di-jet asymmetry distribution in central Pb+Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV.
A Simultaneous Description of Hadron and Jet Suppression in Heavy Ion Collisions
hep-ph 2018-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A single-parameter hybrid strong/weak coupling model simultaneously fits LHC jet and hadron suppression data and attributes the hadron-jet suppression gap to medium-induced hardening of the jet fragmentation function.
Full jet in quark-gluon plasma with hydrodynamic medium response
nucl-th 2017-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Coupling a full jet shower to a hydrodynamic medium shows that the fluid pushed by the jet recovers about 10% of the lost transverse momentum inside a cone of R=0.3 and dominates the jet shape function beyond r=0.5.
Energy versus centrality dependence of the jet quenching parameter $\hat q$ at RHIC and LHC: a new puzzle?
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The fitted jet-quenching rescaling K is larger at RHIC than at the LHC but almost independent of centrality, suggesting K tracks collision energy rather than local medium density.
Predictions for Boson-Jet Observables and Fragmentation Function Ratios from a Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Model for Jet Quenching
hep-ph 2015-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A one-parameter hybrid strong/weak coupling jet-quenching model describes current boson-jet data, predicts Run 2 observables, and a new ratio of fragmentation functions separates energy-loss mechanisms.
Medium-induced gluon radiation and colour decoherence beyond the soft approximation
hep-ph 2014-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The gluon radiation spectrum off a quark in a dense QCD medium is computed to all next-to-eikonal orders, and factorises into dipole cross sections times a colour-decoherence parameter.
Jet momentum dependence of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at sqrt(sNN)=2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2012-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Dijet momentum imbalance in central PbPb collisions at 2.76 TeV persists essentially unchanged up to leading jet transverse momenta above 300 GeV/c, while peripheral collisions match proton-proton data and a no-quench...
Dijet asymmetry at the Large Hadron Collider
nucl-th 2011-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A parton-transport simulation with one tuned coupling reproduces the dijet energy asymmetry measured by CMS, and less well by ATLAS, in central lead-lead collisions at the LHC.
Heavy ions at the Future Circular Collider
hep-ph 2016-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A working-group report projects that lead-lead collisions at 39 TeV and proton-lead at 63 TeV would deliver roughly ten times the LHC heavy-ion luminosity and open thermal-charm, boosted-top and gluon-saturation measurements.
Jet physics in heavy-ion collisions
hep-ph 2013-02 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The review organizes medium-induced jet modification around one transport coefficient, the LPM-suppressed radiation spectrum, and a color-decoherence criterion that separates a vacuum-like jet core from a strongly que...
QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching
hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

A historical and technical review of jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions, covering four decades of theory, the RHIC discovery, and modern Bayesian extractions of the jet transport parameter qhat.
Heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider: a review of the results from Run 1
nucl-ex 2015-11 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Run 1 at the LHC confirmed that PbPb collisions create a dense, strongly collective, nearly ideal fluid that is opaque to energetic partons, and unexpectedly found collective-like behaviour in high-multiplicity pPb co...

How the literature uses it

52 arXiv papers cite this in 64 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 45 sentences without a confident label

Compares with it 2 papers

However, they are much smaller than the value extracted via the approach of Arnold, Moore and Yaffe (AMY) [ref] and that of Armesto Salgado and Wiedemann (ASW) [ref] .

Scaling patterns for the suppression of charged hadron yields in Pb+Pb collisions at Root_s = 2.76 TeV: Constraints on transport coefficients · Introduction · 0.99
This value, which corresponds to the average imbalance in the energy lost by the two jets in the dijet pair, compares well with simple estimates [ref] .

Angular Structure of Jet Quenching Within a Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Model · Recovering the “Lost” Jet Energy and “Missing” $$ Deposited by a Dijet Pair · 0.81

Cites it as support 1 paper

Indeed, the quantum coherence effects and the associated interference phenomena are efficiently washed out by rescattering in the medium [ref] : the loss of color coherence occurs on a time scale comparable to that of the branching process, so that gluons that emerge from a splitting propagate independently of each other [ref] .

Medium-induced jet evolution: wave turbulence and energy loss · Introduction · 0.98

Cites it as background 15 papers

The physics of hard parton production and subsequent showering can be analyzed perturbatively, with weakly coupled QCD, making it natural to develop weakly coupled analyses of parton energy loss in medium [ref] .

A Simultaneous Description of Hadron and Jet Suppression in Heavy Ion Collisions · Introduction · 0.83
Phenomenological studies have been performed on various jet quenching observables, such as the nuclear modifications of single hadron productions [ref] , dihadron and photon-hadron correlations [ref] , as well as the observables related to fully reconstructed jets in relativistic nuclear collisions [ref] .

Extracting jet transport coefficient via single hadron and dihadron productions in high-energy heavy-ion collisions · Introduction · 0.98
The effects of both transverse momentum broadening [ref] and the backreaction of the medium [ref] on jet observables have also been studied within the context of perturbative energy loss mechanisms.

Angular Structure of Jet Quenching Within a Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Model · Introduction · 0.87

What it cites · 14 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 1 paper

Both jet energies are identified with the anti-$k_T$ algorithm [ref] with radius $R= 0.4$.

The anti-k_t jet clustering algorithm · Introduction · 1.00

Uses data or values from 2 papers

From jet shape measurements [ref] we estimate that for $E_T_1 > 100$ GeV we have $1 > E_T_1 /E_T > 0.8$, and <ΔE>/E_T > 0.8 ( < x>_pp - < x>_PbPb ) > 0.1 .

Study of Jet Shapes in Inclusive Jet Production in ppbar Collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV · Introduction · 0.89
This is the case since in the 10% most central Pb-Pb collisions there are of the order of 1500 [ref] charged particles with typical transverse momentum larger than 500 MeV which result in $𝒪$(100 GeV) background energy in any cone of radius $R=0.4$.

Charged-particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV · Introduction · 0.95

Cites as support 1 paper

However, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations have put such concerns largely to rest by embedding simulated dijets without medium-modifications both into a Monte Carlo model of the background [ref] and into real event samples [ref] .

Observation of a Centrality-Dependent Dijet Asymmetry in Lead-Lead Collisions at sqrt(S(NN))= 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC · Introduction · 0.96

Cites as background 15 papers

Nevertheless, some exploratory studies of jet broadening have been performed in the framework of radiative energy loss [ref] .

A theory of jet shapes and cross sections: from hadrons to nuclei · Introduction · 0.96
Nevertheless, some exploratory studies of jet broadening have been performed in the framework of radiative energy loss [ref] .

Medium Modification of Jet Shapes and Jet Multiplicities · Introduction · 0.96
Moreover, there has been a lot of activity in recent years on implementing these dynamical mechanisms into Monte Carlo models of the final state parton shower [ref] , including the role of decoherence and collisional broadening.

A Monte Carlo Model for 'Jet Quenching' · Introduction · 0.89

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] [15]

N. Borghini and U. A. Wiedemann, arXiv:hep- ph/0506218

View on Pith

[2] [20]

S. Wicks, W. Horowitz, M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 784, 426 (2007) [arXiv:nucl-th/0512076]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[3] [31]

Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado and K. Tywoniuk, arXiv:1009.2965 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [1]

U. A. Wiedemann, [arXiv:0908.2306 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[5] [2]

D. d’Enterria, arXiv:0902.2011 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[6] [3]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, C. A. Salgado, Acta Phys. Polon. B38, 3731-3794 (2007). [arXiv:0712.3443 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[7] [4]

A. Majumder, M. Van Leeuwen, [arXiv:1002.2206 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [5]

P. Jacobs and X. N. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54, 443 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405125]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[9] [6]

M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X. -N. Wang et al. , In *Hwa, R.C. (ed.) et al.: Quark gluon plasma* 123-191. [nucl- th/0302077]

View on Pith

[10] [7]

M. Ploskon [ STAR Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 255C-258C (2009). [arXiv:0908.1799 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[11] [8]

E. Bruna [ STAR Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 267C-270C (2009). [arXiv:0907.4788 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[12] [9]

Y. -S. Lai [ PHENIX Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 251C-254C (2009). [arXiv:0907.4725 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[13] [10]

ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [11]

B. Wyslouch for the CMS Collaboration, CERN LPCC seminar on 2 Dec 2010, where preliminary CMS data consistent with [10] was presented

View on Pith 2010

[15] [12]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[16] [13]

K. Aamodt et al. [The ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1011.3916 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [14]

D. E. Acosta et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 112002 [arXiv:hep-ex/0505013]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[18] [16]

ALICE Collaboration, ”Suppression of Charged Particle Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Central Pb–Pb Collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV”, preprint sub- mitted to arXiv on 2 Dec. 2010

View on Pith 2010

[19] [17]

C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 042301 [arXiv:hep-ph/0310079]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[20] [18]

I. P. Lokhtin, S. V. Petrushanko, L. I. Sarycheva et al. , Phys. Rev. C73, 064905 (2006). [hep-ph/0603253]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[21] [19]

I. Vitev, S. Wicks and B. W. Zhang, JHEP 0811 (2008) 093 [arXiv:0810.2807 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[22] [21]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, E. V. Shuryak and D. Teaney, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 27, 22 (2005) [Nucl. Phys. A 774, 577 (2006)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0411315]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[23] [22]

H. Li, F. Liu, G. l. Ma, X. N. Wang and Y. Zhu, arXiv:1006.2893 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[24] [23]

K. Zapp, G. Ingelman, J. Rathsman, J. Stachel and U. A. Wiedemann, Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 617 (2009) [arXiv:0804.3568 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[25] [24]

K. Zapp, J. Stachel and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 152302 (2009) [arXiv:0812.3888 [hep-ph]]., and work in progress

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[26] [25]

N. Armesto, G. Corcella, L. Cunqueiro and C. A. Sal- gado, JHEP 0911, 122 (2009) [arXiv:0909.5118 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[27] [26]

N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro and C. A. Salgado, arXiv:0906.0754 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[28] [27]

B. Schenke, C. Gale and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C80, 054913 (2009) [arXiv:0909.2037 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[29] [28]

T. Renk, arXiv:1009.3740 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[30] [29]

X. N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3501 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[31] [30]

A. Leonidov and V. Nechitailo, arXiv:1011.1671 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv