${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ analysis of inclusive jet and di-jet production in heavy ion reactions at the Large Hadron Collider

Ben-Wei Zhang; Ivan Vitev; Yuncun He

REVIEW

${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ analysis of inclusive jet and di-jet production in heavy ion reactions at the Large Hadron Collider

Yuncun He, Ivan Vitev, Ben-Wei Zhang

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 12 May 2011 · 40 references

Pith's verdict: The p+p baseline is genuinely validated and the di-jet R_AA map is new, but the headline claim about background ambiguity rests on one hand-set cutoff with no scan.

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 →

· 3 major objections · 12 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1105.2566 (version 2)

Pith IDX5PCLHZK, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationBen-Wei Zhang, Ivan Vitev, Yuncun He. "${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ analysis of inclusive jet and di-jet production in heavy ion reactions at the Large Hadron Collider." arXiv:1105.2566 (2011). https://pith.science/paper/X5PCLHZK

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

Worth your time, with a caveat about what the headline number actually is. The solid part is the p+p side: the EKS O(α_s^3) machinery reproduces the ATLAS 7 TeV inclusive jet spectrum over five orders of magnitude (Fig. 1) and the measured di-jet asymmetry with sub-2% scale sensitivity (Fig. 3). That is real external validation, not a self-check. On top of it they produce the first double-inclusive jet cross section and the first R_AA^{2-jet} map for central Pb+Pb at 2.76 TeV (Fig. 7), which shows the broad suppression band along the diagonal and the strong enhancement off-diagonal. That figure alone is worth having in the literature, and the qualitative explanation — quenched jets pile up where the spectrum falls steeply — is correct and clearly argued. The observation in footnote 3, that the ATLAS QM2011 re-analysis removed the finite-A_J peak, is a genuine point in the paper's favor; the structural prediction held up. The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test says. The claim in abstract:s7 is carried by p_T^min = 20 GeV in Eq. (9), a number imported from Ref. [27], a same-group preprint at essentially the same time, computed at R ≃ 2. Eq. (9) does not return 20 GeV — the paper itself says ⟨δE_T⟩ ≃ 15 GeV at R = 0.5 and ≃ 5 GeV at R = 0.2 — so mapping a total energy transfer onto a lower cutoff on the ω-integral is an ansatz, and the effective energy removed moves by a factor of three across the radii shown. Only the endpoints 0 and 20 GeV appear, and the '1/3 to 1/2' split is an eyeball comparison of histograms, not a number with an error bar. The authors do say that separating the two scenarios is future work, so they are not overselling in the body; the abstract's 'quantitatively' is a bit strong for what is shown. Minor: the inserted reviewer-response footnotes are visible in the text and should be cleaned up in the version of record. None of this sinks the paper. The p+p validation stands, the R_AA^{2-jet} map stands, and the argument that the asymmetry is a joint probe of medium physics and analysis procedure is well made even if the split is not pinned down. Send it out; a referee should ask for a p_T^min scan and an uncertainty band on the heavy-ion side.

Referee report

Significance

If the central results hold, this is a useful and timely Letter. The p+p side is a genuine strength: Figs. 1 and 3 demonstrate agreement with ATLAS over five orders of magnitude in the inclusive spectrum and in the A_J distribution, and the quoted scale-variation bands give the reader a concrete sense of theoretical control. The paper also makes falsifiable statements that are valuable independent of the medium modeling: that a peak in dσ/dA_J at A_J ≈ 0.3-0.4 is not compatible with realistic jet quenching, and that the A_J enhancement should become radius-independent once non-radiative removal of shower energy is included. The latter is a sharp, testable discriminant between radiative and collisional/background scenarios, and the authors are to be credited for stating it as such rather than fitting the data. The 3D map of R_AA^{2-jet} in Fig. 7, with its broad plateau near the diagonal and strong enhancement in the asymmetric region, is a genuinely new and physically transparent result.

Major objections (3)

[§3.2, Eq. (9), Figs. 8-9] The quantitative content of abstract:s7 is carried by a single hand-set number, p_T^min = 20 GeV in Eq. (9), and the calibration chain is not a derivation. Ref. [27] computes ∆E(shower→QGP) ≃ 20 GeV at a very large radius R ≃ 2; the authors then set p_T^min = 20 GeV and let Eq. (9) redistribute that number to finite R. But Eq. (9) does not return 20 GeV: the text itself states ⟨δE_T⟩ ≃ 15 GeV at R = 0.5 and ≃ 5 GeV at R = 0.2 for a 100 GeV gluon jet. The identification of a total energy transfer at R ≃ 2 with a lower cutoff on the ω-integral is therefore an ansatz, and the effective energy removed varies by roughly a factor of three across the radii actually shown. Because the claimed radiative/non-radiative split scales with ⟨δE_T⟩, the split is not pinned down by the present calculation. I ask the authors either to show a scan over p_T^min (for example 5, 10, 20 and 30 GeV) demonstrating how the A_J broadening and the radius dependence move with the knob, or to soften the word 'quantitatively' in abstract:s7 and in the corresponding passage of §3.2 to reflect that the 20 GeV assignment is an illustrative estimate rather than a determined quantity.
[§3.2, Figs. 8-9, abstract:s7] The statement that 'approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of the extra broadening that experiments attribute to jet interactions in matter can be described' is not backed by any scalar metric. It is an eyeball comparison of histograms in Figs. 8 and 9, and the reader cannot reproduce the fraction from the figures. A quantitative claim of this kind needs a defined estimator: for instance the mean A_J, the fraction of events with A_J > 0.2, or a χ² distance between the p+p baseline, the radiative-only curve and the data, each quoted with the scale and coupling variation as an uncertainty band. Without such a number the '1/3 to 1/2' figure is not falsifiable and should not appear in the abstract in its present form.
[§3.2, final paragraph; Fig. 7] The paper asserts that 'even if all the energy associated with the medium-induced parton shower is removed, the resulting A_J distribution is flat', and concludes that a peak at A_J = 0.3-0.4 is 'not compatible with realistic jet quenching calculations'. This is a strong and admirably falsifiable statement, but the extreme case (all shower energy removed) is not shown; only p_T^min = 0 and 20 GeV appear in Figs. 8-9. Since this claim is one of the paper's most distinctive predictions, it deserves an explicit curve or a short analytic argument, for example the limiting distribution obtained as the energy-removal fraction tends to unity, showing that it remains monotonic rather than peaked. As written the reader must take the flatness on faith.

Minor objections (12)

[Eq. (7) and following text] The factorization ansatz neglects contributions of the medium-induced shower associated with one jet to a nearby jet, dismissed as 'negligible' for back-to-back jets. At large A_J the subleading jet is soft, and the third parton of a 2→3 configuration can be collinear to it, so the neglect deserves at least a numerical estimate rather than an assertion.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption reads 'R = 0, 2, 0.6'; this should presumably be 'R = 0.2, 0.6'.
[Fig. 7 discussion] The phrase 'the maximum value shown no the z axis' contains a typo ('no' for 'on').
[§4, Summary and Conclusions] 'The importance of reliable O(αs^3) calculation cannot be under emphasized' should read 'cannot be over emphasized'.
[§3.1] 'Dell-Yan' should be 'Drell-Yan'.
[Footnote 2] 'Two weeks after this manuscript was been posted to the archive' should read 'was posted'.
[Eq. (9)] The denominator upper limit is typeset as 'R i∞' and should be R_i; the notation p_T^min versus p_{T i}^min should be made uniform between Eq. (9) and the surrounding text.
[Eq. (13)] The normalization by ⟨N_bin⟩ is stated but no numerical value or centrality definition is given for the central Pb+Pb bin; please quote the ⟨N_bin⟩, ⟨N_part⟩ and impact-parameter range used, so that the R_AA curves can be compared with other calculations.
[Footnote 1] The footnote thanking the reviewer for a suggestion belongs in a response to referees, not in the manuscript body, and should be removed from the published version.
[Fig. 2] The vertical axis label of Fig. 2 is garbled in the present rendering; please ensure the log10 σ̃ label is legible.
[§3.1, Fig. 5] The extrapolation f_NP = a + b/R to small radii changes σ(R1)/σ(R2) by up to 50% at R = 0.2, which is comparable to the medium effect being discussed. The authors acknowledge this, but a sentence quantifying how much of the R-dependence in Fig. 5 survives the full range of plausible f_NP would help the reader judge the robustness of the radius-dependence prediction.
[§3.2, Figs. 8-9] The A_J curves include cold nuclear matter effects, but no curve isolates their contribution to the asymmetry. Since CNM is a background to the QGP interpretation, a short statement of the size of the CNM-induced shift in dσ/dA_J would strengthen the argument.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The LHC's di-jet asymmetry is only partly explained by jet quenching, with the rest traceable to how jets are separated from the heavy-ion background.

The reading

The paper asks how much of the transverse-momentum imbalance between paired jets in lead-lead collisions at the LHC is genuinely caused by partons losing energy in the quark-gluon plasma, and how much is an artifact of how experimenters subtract the enormous soft background. The authors combine a next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD calculation of single- and double-inclusive jet production, $O(α_s^3)$, validated against 7 TeV proton-proton data, with a medium-induced radiative energy-loss model, and then run both through the collision geometry of central Pb+Pb at 2.76 TeV per nucleon pair. They find that radiative quenching alone reproduces only about a third to a half of the extra broadening that ATLAS and CMS reported. Adding a single knob — a 20 GeV cutoff that mimics either a fraction of the medium-induced shower being mis-subtracted as background or that energy diffusing outside the jet cone through collisions — closes much of the gap and simultaneously erases the cone-radius dependence the pure radiative calculation predicts. If this is right, the di-jet asymmetry is a joint probe of medium properties and analysis procedure, and the apparent inconsistency between RHIC's radius-dependent jet suppression and the LHC's radius-independent asymmetry has a natural resolution.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a convolution of an exact next-to-leading-order jet calculation with a probabilistic energy-loss model. The $O(α_s^3)$ Ellis-Kunszt-Soper numerical code supplies the $2→2$ plus $2→3$ jet cross sections with realistic jet-defining phase space $S_3(p_1,p_2,p_3)$, so that jets have a finite cone radius $R$ and the tree-level constraint $E_{T1} = E_{T2}$ is broken by parton splitting. Medium effects enter through a Poisson-distributed probability $P_{q,g}(ε)$ that a parent parton loses a fraction $ε$ of its energy, multiplied by a phase-space Jacobian $|J_i(ε_i)| = 1/(1 - [1 - f(R_i,p_T^{min})]ε_i)$. The function $f(R_i,p_T^{min})$, defined as the ratio of the medium-induced radiation falling inside the cone and above $p_T^{min}$ to all of it, is the single object that carries the paper's interpretive weight: it converts the abstract question of 'how much energy left the jet' into a calculable, radius-dependent number, and the choice $p_T^{min} = 0$ versus $20$ GeV is what separates the pure-radiative scenario from the collisional-or-mis-subtraction scenario.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is quantitative and twofold. First, at $O(α_s^3)$ the proton-proton di-jet asymmetry distribution at $√s = 7$ TeV agrees with the ATLAS measurement essentially without non-perturbative corrections, and the corresponding lead-lead calculation with only radiative energy loss produces a di-jet asymmetry $A_J$ distribution that is broader than the proton-proton baseline but accounts for only roughly one third to one half of the extra broadening seen by ATLAS and CMS. Second, if a fraction of the medium-induced parton shower is either subtracted as uncorrelated soft background or lost outside the cone through collisional processes — modeled by setting $p_T^{min} = 20$ GeV in the energy-redistribution fraction $f(R_i, p_T^{min})$, corresponding to $⟨δE_T⟩ ≃ 15$ GeV inside $R=0.5$ and $≃ 5$ GeV inside $R=0.2$ for a 100 GeV gluon jet — then the calculated asymmetry grows substantially and, notably, its dependence on the jet radius $R$ disappears. The authors also report the first calculation of the di-jet nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}^{2-jet}$ in heavy-ion collisions: it shows a broad region of suppression near $E_{T1} = E_{T2}$ and strong enhancement when the two jets are very unequal, which is what flattens the predicted $A_J$ distribution and rules out a peak at finite asymmetry from jet-quenching physics alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single hand-chosen cutoff of 20 GeV in the energy-redistribution fraction faithfully represents both the misassignment of medium-induced shower fragments to the soft background and the collisional diffusion of shower energy outside the cone, when only the two endpoints 0 and 20 GeV are shown and no independent experimental handle on the actually mis-subtracted energy is offered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Radiative jet quenching alone cannot reproduce the full di-jet asymmetry broadening measured by ATLAS and CMS in central Pb+Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV; a non-radiative contribution of order the radiative one is required.
The observed insensitivity of the di-jet asymmetry to the jet cone radius $R$ over $R = 0.2$ to $0.6$ is naturally explained if part of the shower energy is lost outside the cone or subtracted as background, since that mechanism removes the radius dependence that pure radiative quenching predicts.
The RHIC result that inclusive jet suppression depends strongly on cone radius and the LHC result that di-jet asymmetry does not are not necessarily in conflict; they can both hold if the asymmetry measurement is partly sensitive to background handling.
A statistical peak in the asymmetry distribution at finite $A_J \simeq 0.4$ is not compatible with realistic jet-quenching calculations, whose $A_J$ distribution is flat once the broad, nearly constant di-jet suppression region is accounted for.
Ratios of jet cross sections at two cone radii can suppress cold nuclear matter effects, but at small radii $R \sim 0.2$ non-perturbative hadronization corrections may shift those ratios by as much as 50 percent, so they must be constrained in proton-proton data first.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mis-subtracted energy per jet is closer to 5 GeV or 40 GeV than to 20 GeV, the paper's own accounting implies the split between radiative and non-radiative broadening shifts accordingly; a scan over $p_T^{min}$ rather than the two endpoints shown would turn this into a constraint rather than an illustration.
The proposal suggests a discriminating measurement: recovering the energy flow at angles larger than $R$ and checking whether it matches the missing momentum in asymmetric di-jets. Energy found outside the cone favors collisional diffusion; energy absent entirely favors mis-subtraction.
Photon-tagged or Z-tagged jets, where the tagging object carries no colour charge and hence no medium-induced radiation, could calibrate how much soft energy is genuinely attributable to the jet versus the underlying event, providing an independent handle on the subtraction ambiguity that this paper can only parametrize.
Because the same cutoff simultaneously broadens the asymmetry and flattens its radius dependence, the pair (asymmetry broadening, radius slope) forms a two-dimensional signature; future measurements of both in the same kinematic bin would over-constrain the model.

Original abstract

Jets physics in heavy ion reactions is an important new area of active research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that paves the way for novel tests of QCD multi-parton dynamics in dense nuclear matter. At present, perturbative QCD calculations of hard probes in elementary nucleon-nucleon reactions can be consistently combined with the effects of the nuclear medium up to $ {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3) $. While such accuracy is desirable but not necessary for leading particle tomography, it is absolutely essential for the new jet observables. With this motivation, we present first results and predictions to $ {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3) $ for the recent LHC lead-lead (Pb+Pb) run at a center-of-mass energy of 2.76 TeV per nucleon-nucleon pair. Specifically, we focus on the suppression of the single and double inclusive jet cross sections. Our analysis includes not only final-state inelastic parton interactions in the QGP, but also initial-state cold nuclear matter effects and an estimate of the non-perturbative hadronization corrections. We demonstrate how an enhanced di-jet asymmetry in central Pb+Pb reactions at the LHC, recently measured by the ATLAS and CMS experiments, can be derived from these results. We show quantitatively that a fraction of this enhancement may be related to the ambiguity in the separation between the jet and the soft background medium and/or the diffusion of the parton shower energy away from the jet axis through collisional processes. We point to a suite of measurements that can help build a consistent picture of parton shower modification in heavy ion collisions at the LHC.

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, 7,236 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.77 · states limitation 0.45 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.18 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.17 · compares with prior results 0.34 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Jets physics in heavy ion reactions is an important new area of active research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that paves the way for novel tests of QCD multi-parton dynamics in dense nuclear matter. At present, perturbative QCD calculations of hard probes in elementary nucleon-nucleon reactions can be consistently combined with the effects of the nuclear medium up to $ {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3) $. While such accuracy is desirable but not necessary for leading particle tomography, it is absolutely essential for the new jet observables. With this motivation, we present first results and predictions to $ {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3) $ for the recent LHC lead-lead (Pb+Pb) run at a center-of-mass energy of 2.76 TeV per nucleon-nucleon pair. Specifically, we focus on the suppression of the single and double inclusive jet cross sections. Our analysis includes not only final-state inelastic parton interactions in the QGP, but also initial-state cold nuclear matter effects and an estimate of the non-perturbative hadronization corrections. We demonstrate how an enhanced di-jet asymmetry in central Pb+Pb reactions at the LHC, recently measured by the ATLAS and CMS experiments, can be derived from these results. We show quantitatively that a fraction of this enhancement may be related to the ambiguity in the separation between the jet and the soft background medium and/or the diffusion of the parton shower energy away from the jet axis through collisional processes. We point to a suite of measurements that can help build a consistent picture of parton shower modification in heavy ion collisions at the LHC.

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	Jets physics in heavy ion reactions is an important new area of active research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that paves the way for novel tests of QCD multi-parton dynamics in dense nuclear matter.	background 1.00	0.04	0.03	asserted 1.00
s1	At present, perturbative QCD calculations of hard probes in elementary nucleon-nucleon reactions can be consistently combined with the effects of the nuclear medium up to $ {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3) $.	background 0.98	0.07	0.05	asserted 0.99
s2	While such accuracy is desirable but not necessary for leading particle tomography, it is absolutely essential for the new jet observables.	background 0.72	0.08	0.04	asserted 1.00
s3	With this motivation, we present first results and predictions to $ {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3) $ for the recent LHC lead-lead (Pb+Pb) run at a center-of-mass energy of 2.76 TeV per nucleon-nucleon pair.	contribution 1.00	0.89	0.09	asserted 0.99
s4	Specifically, we focus on the suppression of the single and double inclusive jet cross sections.	contribution 0.99	0.74	0.06	asserted 0.92
s5	Our analysis includes not only final-state inelastic parton interactions in the QGP, but also initial-state cold nuclear matter effects and an estimate of the non-perturbative hadronization corrections.	method 0.77	0.85	0.05	asserted 1.00
s6	We demonstrate how an enhanced di-jet asymmetry in central Pb+Pb reactions at the LHC, recently measured by the ATLAS and CMS experiments, can be derived from these results.	result 0.87	0.86	0.31	asserted 1.00
s7	We show quantitatively that a fraction of this enhancement may be related to the ambiguity in the separation between the jet and the soft background medium and/or the diffusion of the parton shower energy away from the jet axis through collisional processes.	interpretation 0.93	0.87	0.25	hedged possibility 0.93
s8	We point to a suite of measurements that can help build a consistent picture of parton shower modification in heavy ion collisions at the LHC.	future work 0.98	0.63	0.09	asserted 0.66

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.92 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.71.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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.** Comparison between the R = 0.4 inclusive jet cross section measured by the ATLAS Collaboration in p+p collisions at √ s = 7 TeV and the O(α 3 s ) QCD theory which includes non-perturbative corrections. Experimental error bars are statistical only. The first obvious deficiency of the LO formalism is its inability to describe the jet radius dependence of the physical observables [14]. The second much more significant shortcoming is the inadequate description of the differential distribution of tagged jets [18] and di-jets due to the δ-function constraint in Eq. (1). At O(α 3 s )

**Figure 2.** A three-dimensional representation of the

**Figure 3.** The normalized differential distribution of the di-jet asymmetry AJ , defined in Eq. (5), is evaluated at O(α 3 s ) and compared to the ATLAS experimental measurement at √ s = 7 TeV. Solid (dashed) lines include (do not include) non-perturbative corrections, respectively. With the O(α 3 s ) numerical results for ˜σ at hand, we can easily compute σ −1dσ/dAJ from Eq. (6) and confront it with the experimental data. The ATLAS Collaboration has measured the di-jet asymmetry distribution in p+p reactions at √ s = 7 TeV with the following kinematics cuts: ET 1 > 100 GeV for the leading…

**Figure 4.** illustrates the dependence of the suppression ratio R 1−jet AA for inclusive jets in central Pb+Pb collisions on the jet size R. The top panel shows the net suppression resulting from both initial-state and final-state effects for R = 0.2, 0.6 and the bands represent the variation in coupling strength between the jet and the medium. The dashed, solid, and dot-dashed lines correspond to gmed =1.8, 2, 2.2, respectively. Note that for small radii the suppression of jets can be comparable in magnitude to the suppression of inclusive particles. This is illustrated by including a…

**Figure 5.** Ratio of the inclusive jet cross sections in centra

**Figure 6.** The effects of parton shower collisional energy loss or misinterpreting some of the jet’s energy as soft background on R 1−jet AA (top panel) and σ(R1)/σ(R2) (bottom panel) are simulated with p min T = 20 GeV and represented by a cyan band. Results are contrasted to the p min T = 0 GeV case, represented by a yellow band, which is no collisional energy loss or unambiguous jet/background separation. Preliminary ATLAS RCP data is shown for R = 0.2, 0.4. comment on the difficulties related to the measurement of jet observables. In central Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC, for a typica

**Figure 7.** O(α 3 s ) calculation of the di-jet cross section suppression ratio R 2−jet AA versus ET 1 and ET 2 in √ sNN = 2.76 TeV central Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC. Our result is for R1 = R2 = 0.2 and includes cold nuclear matter effects. ion AJ enhancement that can be attributed to the physics of jet quenching. Next, the di-jet asymmetry is computed using Eq. (6) and compared to recent experimental results published by ATLAS [19] and CMS [20] in

**Figure 8.** Di-jet asymmetry distributions for different coupling strength in central Pb+Pb collisions at √ s = 2.76 TeV compared to data. The top panel is for leading jets of ET 1 > 100 GeV, subleading jets of ET 2 > 25 GeV (ATLAS [19], R = 0.4). The bottom panel is for leading jets of ET 1 > 120 GeV, subleading jet of ET 2 > 50 GeV (CMS [20], R = 0.5). Black lines are the results for p+p collisions under pQCD theory. Green lines assume perfect jet/background separation and are denoted p min T = 0 GeV. Red lines, denoted p min T = 20 GeV, show the consequences of the ambiguity in the…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1105.2566 by the authors.

References

Works cited (40)

[27]

R. B. Neufeld and I. Vitev, arXiv:1105.2067 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

J. M. Campbell, J. W. Huston and W. J. Stirling, Rept. Prog . Phys. 70, 89 (2007); S. D. Ellis et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60, 484 (2008)

View on Pith 2007
[2]

F. I. Olness, D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D81, 035018 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[3]

M. Dasgupta, L. Magnea, G. Salam, JHEP 0802, 055 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[4]

M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez, JHEP 0812, 032 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[5]

G. Aad et al. [ Atlas Collaboration ], Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1512 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[6]

V . Khachatryan et al. [ CMS Collaboration ], Phys. Lett. B698, 196-218 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[7]

M. Gyulassy and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 420, (1994) 583; R. Baier, Y . L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne and D. Schiﬀ, Nucl. Phys. B 484, (1997) 265; B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett.65, (1997) 615; U. A. Wiede- mann, Nucl. Phys. B 588, (2000) 303; M. Gyulassy, P. Levai and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B 594, (2001) 371; X. N. Wang and X. F. Guo, Nucl. Phys. A ...

View on Pith 1994
[8]

A. Majumder and M. Van Leeuwen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. A 66 (2011) 41

View on Pith 2011
[9]

I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B639, 38-45 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[10]

A. Adare et al. [ PHENIX Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 162301 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[11]

B. I. Abelev et al. [ STAR Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. C80, 044905 (2009). 9

View on Pith 2009
[12]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 696, 30 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[13]

I. Vitev, S. Wicks and B. W. Zhang, JHEP 0811, 093 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[14]

I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 132001 (2010) [arXiv:0910.1090 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[15]

S. Salur, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 230, 012008 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[16]

J. Jia [PHENIX Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A855, 92-100 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[17]

M. Ploskon [ STAR Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 255C-258C (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[18]

R. B. Neufeld, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034902 (2011) [arXiv:1006.2389 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[19]

G. Aad et al. [ Atlas Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252303 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[20]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration ], [arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1957
[21]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, J. G. Milhano, U. A. Wiedemann, J. Phys. G G38, 035006 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[22]

G. -Y . Qin, B. Muller, [arXiv:1012.5280 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

I. P. Lokhtin, A. V . Belyaev, A. M. Snigirev, [arXiv:1103.1853 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[24]

C. Young, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, [arXiv:1103.576 9 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith
[25]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez, arXiv:1101.2878 [he p-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

I. Vitev, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 187, 68 (2011) [arXiv:1010.5803 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[28]

J. F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (1987) 465

View on Pith 1987
[29]

S. D. Ellis, Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 2121; Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 192

View on Pith 1990
[30]

G. Ovanesyan, I. Vitev, [arXiv:1103.1074 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[31]

I. Vitev, B. W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 669, 337 (2008); R. Sharma, I. Vitev, B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054902 (2009)

View on Pith 2008
[32]

I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. C75, 064906 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[33]

R. B. Neufeld, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, arXiv:1010.3708 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[34]

K. Aamodt et al. [ The ALICE Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252301 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[35]

M. Gyulassy, P. Levai and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5535 (2000); I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. C75, 064906 (2007)

View on Pith 2000
[36]

P. Steinberg, QM2011 talk; B. Cole, QM2011 talk

View on Pith
[37]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration ], [arXiv:1102.5435 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[38]

G. Soyez, Phys. Lett. B698, 59-62 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[39]

J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadols ky, W. K. Tung, JHEP0207, 012 (2002). [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[40]

R. B. Neufeld and I. Vitev, arXiv:1202.5556 [hep-ph]. 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

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

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...
Jet substructure using semi-inclusive jet functions within SCET
hep-ph 2016-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The semi-inclusive fragmenting jet function obeys timelike DGLAP evolution, enabling resummation of jet-radius logarithms and NLO+NLL_R predictions that match LHC jet fragmentation data.
The semi-inclusive jet function in SCET and small radius resummation for inclusive jet production
hep-ph 2016-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A new semi-inclusive jet function, computed to NLO in SCET, obeys timelike DGLAP evolution, which enables resummation of ln R for inclusive jet cross sections.
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 ...
Jet-Medium Interactions at NLO in a Weakly-Coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma
hep-ph 2015-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The AMY jet-quenching kinetic framework is extended to next-to-leading order in the QCD coupling, with explicit NLO corrections to longitudinal momentum diffusion, quark-gluon conversion, and a new semi-collinear brem...

Show 14 more citing papers

Towards the understanding of jet shapes and cross sections in heavy ion collisions using soft-collinear effective theory
hep-ph 2015-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A soft-collinear effective theory calculation with medium-induced splitting functions reproduces the measured modification of jet shapes and jet cross sections in lead-lead collisions at 2.76 TeV.
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.
Jet size dependence of single jet suppression in lead-lead collisions at sqrt(s(NN)) = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC
hep-ex 2012-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Inclusive jet production in central lead-lead collisions at 2.76 TeV per nucleon is suppressed by roughly a factor of two relative to peripheral collisions, and the suppression depends significantly on jet radius for ...
Interplaying mechanisms behind single inclusive jet suppression in heavy-ion collisions
nucl-th 2018-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The near-flat transverse-momentum and collision-energy dependence of jet suppression at the LHC follows from the shape of the vacuum jet spectrum combined with a slowly varying, medium-response-damped jet energy loss.
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.
Probing Transverse Momentum Broadening in Heavy Ion Collisions
hep-ph 2016-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Vacuum Sudakov radiation dominates dijet azimuthal de-correlation at LHC energies, so medium-induced transverse momentum broadening should only become visible at RHIC.
Jet Quenching from QCD Evolution
hep-ph 2015-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Medium-modified DGLAP evolution of fragmentation functions reproduces LHC hadron suppression data and contains traditional parton energy loss as its soft-gluon emission limit.
An Upgrade Proposal from the PHENIX Collaboration
nucl-ex 2015-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

PHENIX proposes sPHENIX, a 1.5 T solenoid-based jet and Upsilon detector at RHIC, with GEANT 4 projections showing it could measure jet quenching and Upsilon suppression from 20 to 80 GeV.
Measurements of the Nuclear Modification Factor for Jets in Pb+Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS Detector
hep-ex 2014-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Jets in central lead-lead collisions at 2.76 TeV appear at about half the proton-proton rate, with the ratio rising weakly from 0.47 at 55 GeV to 0.56 at 350 GeV and showing no measurable rapidity dependence.
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...
Medium-induced parton splitting kernels from Soft Collinear Effective Theory with Glauber gluons
hep-ph 2011-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper derives medium-induced splitting kernels for all four QCD parton branchings beyond the soft-gluon approximation, with closed-form benchmarks for a uniform medium.
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...
QCD and strongly coupled gauge theories: challenges and perspectives
hep-ph 2014-04 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A large multi-author survey of quantum chromodynamics and strongly coupled gauge theories that catalogues the field's established results, open problems, and planned experiments as of early 2014, without reporting a n...

How later papers used it

63 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 41 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 2 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 16 of the 87 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 1 of 2 papers with this label

Used results based on this paper's analysis to find parton-initiated dijet probabilities for 120 GeV dijets in 2.76 TeV heavy-ion collisions.

Jet momentum balance independent of shear viscosity (2011) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

60 arXiv papers cite this in 84 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 · 58 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 3 papers

To generate the medium-modified B-meson+b-jet cross section per binary collision, we first calculate the medium-modified b-quark+b-jet cross section as follows [ref] 1/⟨N_bin⟩ dσ^AA/dp_T^b dp_T^j = ∑_(s,s') ∫_0^1 dϵP_(s)(ϵ) 1/1-ϵ ∫_0^1 dϵ' P_(s')(ϵ') J_(s')(ϵ') dσ_(s,s')^LO+PS(p_T^b/(1-ϵ), J_(s')(ϵ') p_T^j)/dp_T^b dp_T^j,

Photon-tagged and B-meson-tagged b-jet production at the LHC · Modification of tagged b-jet production in dense QCD matter · 0.84
Dijet spectrum in heavy ion collisions is ready to be given similarly as the inclusive jet [ref] , [equation] The two jets have symmetric final transverse momentum at leading-order.

Jet probes of QCD matter: single jets and dijets in heavy-ion collisions · Dijet productions in HIC · 0.80
To quantify the transverse momentum imbalance between the leading jet and the subleading jet one defines the dijet transverse momentum asymmetry $A_J$ as, [equation] The $A_J$ distribution can be expressed from the dijet transverse energy spectrum as follows [ref] : [equation] where $E_T 1 = E_T 2(1+A_J)/(1-A_J)$ is the transverse energy for leading jet.

Cold Nuclear Matter Effects on Dijet Productions in Relativistic Heavy-ion Reactions at LHC · Dijet Production in nucleon-nucleon Collisions · 0.91

Uses its data or values 2 papers

Fig. [ref] illustrates the dependence of the nuclear modification factor for single jet production $R_AA^1-jet$ in central Pb+Pb collisions on the jet size $R$ with an acceptance cut without ($p_T^min=0$ GeV) and with ($p_T^min>0$ GeV) collisional energy loss [ref] .

Probing nuclear matter with jets · Inclusive jet production in HIC · 0.83
Using results based on the analysis of [ref] one finds for these parameters that the probability that the primary partons initiating the dijets are two gluons is about 37$%$, the probability for two quarks is about 21$%$, and the probability for a quark and a gluon is about 42$%$.

Jet momentum balance independent of shear viscosity · Calculating the Parton Shower Energy Deposition Rate · 0.99

Compares with it 1 paper

We found that radiative energy loss supplemented with in-medium D meson dissociation [ref] and radiative plus collisional energy loss in the WHDG [ref] implementations, together with BDMPS-ASW [ref] and POWLANG [ref] describe the data reasonably well.

D meson nuclear modification factors in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 2.76 TeV with the ALICE detector · D meson nuclear modification factors · 0.96

Cites it as background 19 papers

As the running of heavy-ion programs at the LHC with its unprecedented colliding energies, the study of parton energy loss has been extended to medium modifications of many jet observables [ref] .

Multijet topology in high-energy nuclear collisions: jet broadening · Introduction · 0.83
The implementation of energy loss effects in heavy ion collisions is explained in detail in, e.g., Refs. [ref] .

Light and heavy flavor dijet production and dijet mass modification in heavy ion collisions · Modification of dijet production · 0.95
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

What it cites · 33 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 2 papers

We take into account the longitudinal Bjorken expansion of the medium and, by assuming local thermal equilibrium, we can evaluate the physical quantities, such as the Debye screening scale, the in-medium jet scattering cross sections, and the mean free paths [ref] , that are employed in the calculation of the radiative energy loss [ref] .

Jet tomography of high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions at next-to-leading order · Inclusive jet and di-jet production in heavy ion collisions · 0.91
In the calculations that follow we will take advantage of the Ellis, Kunszt and Soper (EKS) numerical implementation of $O( α_s^3 )$ jets production in hadron-hadron collisions [ref] and the CTEQ6.1M parametrization set of parton distribution functions [ref] .

New Generation of Parton Distributions with Uncertainties from Global QCD Analysis · Inclusive jet and di-jet production in p+p collisions · 1.00

Uses data or values from 2 papers

Specifically, one can adjust the value of $p_T i^min$ to reflect the collisional energy loss of the parton shower $⟨δE_T ⟩$ evaluated in Ref. [ref] .

Parton showers as sources of energy-momentum deposition in the QGP and their implication for shockwave formation at RHIC and at the LHC · Inclusive jet and di-jet production in heavy ion collisions · 0.89
In central Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC, for a typical jet size $R=0.5$, on the order of 100 GeV of the jet energy is interpreted as QGP background and subtracted from the total reconstructed energy [ref] .

Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy = 2.76 TeV · Quenching of inclusive jets · 0.90

Compares with 1 paper

In this sense, our result is similar to the argument presented in [ref] that background fluctuations can generate much of the asymmetry observed by ATLAS and CMS.

Fluctuations and asymmetric jet events in PbPb collisions at the LHC · Quenching of di-jets and their $E_T$ asymmetry · 0.87

Cites as support 2 papers

We find that a part of this enhancement may arise from the uncertainty in the jet/background separation and/or the dissipation of the energy from the shower into the QGP due to collisional processes [ref] .

Parton showers as sources of energy-momentum deposition in the QGP and their implication for shockwave formation at RHIC and at the LHC · Introduction · 0.99
The importance of reliable $O( α_s^3 )$ calculation cannot be under emphasized, since for tagged jets and di-jets an inaccurate description of the p+p baseline at LO can produce even qualitatively incorrect jet quenching predictions [ref] .

The physics of $Z^0/\gamma^*$-tagged jets at the LHC · Summary and Conclusions · 1.00

Cites as background 2 papers

Jet production and modification in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions have been proposed as new ways to unravel the properties of the hot and dense QCD medium and to elucidate the mechanisms of in-medium parton shower formation [ref] .

Jet tomography of high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions at next-to-leading order · Summary and Conclusions · 0.95
Jet production and modification in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions have been proposed as new ways to unravel the properties of the hot and dense QCD medium and to elucidate the mechanisms of in-medium parton shower formation [ref] .

The physics of $Z^0/\gamma^*$-tagged jets at the LHC · Summary and Conclusions · 0.95

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] [27]

R. B. Neufeld and I. Vitev, arXiv:1105.2067 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

J. M. Campbell, J. W. Huston and W. J. Stirling, Rept. Prog . Phys. 70, 89 (2007); S. D. Ellis et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60, 484 (2008)

View on Pith 2007

[3] [2]

F. I. Olness, D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D81, 035018 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[4] [3]

M. Dasgupta, L. Magnea, G. Salam, JHEP 0802, 055 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[5] [4]

M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez, JHEP 0812, 032 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[6] [5]

G. Aad et al. [ Atlas Collaboration ], Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1512 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[7] [6]

V . Khachatryan et al. [ CMS Collaboration ], Phys. Lett. B698, 196-218 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[8] [7]

M. Gyulassy and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 420, (1994) 583; R. Baier, Y . L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne and D. Schiﬀ, Nucl. Phys. B 484, (1997) 265; B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett.65, (1997) 615; U. A. Wiede- mann, Nucl. Phys. B 588, (2000) 303; M. Gyulassy, P. Levai and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B 594, (2001) 371; X. N. Wang and X. F. Guo, Nucl. Phys. A ...

View on Pith 1994

[9] [8]

A. Majumder and M. Van Leeuwen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. A 66 (2011) 41

View on Pith 2011

[10] [9]

I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B639, 38-45 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[11] [10]

A. Adare et al. [ PHENIX Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 162301 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[12] [11]

B. I. Abelev et al. [ STAR Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. C80, 044905 (2009). 9

View on Pith 2009

[13] [12]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 696, 30 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[14] [13]

I. Vitev, S. Wicks and B. W. Zhang, JHEP 0811, 093 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[15] [14]

I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 132001 (2010) [arXiv:0910.1090 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[16] [15]

S. Salur, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 230, 012008 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[17] [16]

J. Jia [PHENIX Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A855, 92-100 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[18] [17]

M. Ploskon [ STAR Collaboration ], Nucl. Phys. A830, 255C-258C (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[19] [18]

R. B. Neufeld, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034902 (2011) [arXiv:1006.2389 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[20] [19]

G. Aad et al. [ Atlas Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252303 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[21] [20]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration ], [arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1957

[22] [21]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, J. G. Milhano, U. A. Wiedemann, J. Phys. G G38, 035006 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[23] [22]

G. -Y . Qin, B. Muller, [arXiv:1012.5280 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[24] [23]

I. P. Lokhtin, A. V . Belyaev, A. M. Snigirev, [arXiv:1103.1853 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [24]

C. Young, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, [arXiv:1103.576 9 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith

[26] [25]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, G. Soyez, arXiv:1101.2878 [he p-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[27] [26]

I. Vitev, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 187, 68 (2011) [arXiv:1010.5803 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[28] [28]

J. F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (1987) 465

View on Pith 1987

[29] [29]

S. D. Ellis, Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 2121; Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 192

View on Pith 1990

[30] [30]

G. Ovanesyan, I. Vitev, [arXiv:1103.1074 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [31]

I. Vitev, B. W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 669, 337 (2008); R. Sharma, I. Vitev, B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054902 (2009)

View on Pith 2008

[32] [32]

I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. C75, 064906 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[33] [33]

R. B. Neufeld, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, arXiv:1010.3708 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[34] [34]

K. Aamodt et al. [ The ALICE Collaboration ], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252301 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[35] [35]

M. Gyulassy, P. Levai and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5535 (2000); I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. C75, 064906 (2007)

View on Pith 2000

[36] [36]

P. Steinberg, QM2011 talk; B. Cole, QM2011 talk

View on Pith

[37] [37]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration ], [arXiv:1102.5435 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[38] [38]

G. Soyez, Phys. Lett. B698, 59-62 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[39] [39]

J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadols ky, W. K. Tung, JHEP0207, 012 (2002). [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[40] [40]

R. B. Neufeld and I. Vitev, arXiv:1202.5556 [hep-ph]. 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv