Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities

Peter Christiansen; Pierre Van Mechelen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The LHC's soft-QCD data have falsified the traditional proton-proton collision picture, and surviving models must include final-state interactions.

desk verdict A well-written, opinionated review of soft QCD at the LHC; its 'irreversibly falsified' claim about the old pp paradigm is stronger than the cited evidence supports, but the review is worth engaging with. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02672 v1 pith:J5E2XTUB submitted 2024-12-03 hep-ex hep-phnucl-exnucl-th

Peter Christiansen , Pierre Van Mechelen This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-exhep-phnucl-exnucl-th

keywords LHCproton-protoncollisionssoftQCDunderlyingeventmultiplepartoninteractionsstrangenessenhancementcolorreconnectionquark-gluonplasma

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is a review of soft quantum chromodynamics (QCD) at the LHC, and its central argument is that the traditional proton-proton collision picture is no longer tenable. In that picture a pp collision is an incoherent sum of independent partonic subcollisions, and hadronization is universal, with the same rules tuned once on electron-positron data. The LHC's measurement of multiplicity-dependent strangeness enhancement — the rise of strange-baryon yields relative to pions as the collision becomes more active — breaks that picture because an incoherent sum would produce ratios that barely move with multiplicity. The review's positive claim is that every viable model must now include final-state interactions, in the form of color reconnection, quark recombination, or a quark-gluon-plasma-like core, and it documents where each candidate mechanism still strains against data. This matters beyond the soft-QCD community because the proton-proton collision is the background under every hard-scattering measurement at the LHC, so getting this picture right is a precondition for precision physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the particle-ratio-versus-multiplicity plot: $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yield ratios of identified hadrons ($\Xi/\pi$, $\Omega/\pi$, $\phi/\pi$, $\Lambda/K^0_{\rm s}$, $p/\pi$) as a function of $\langle dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta\rangle$ measured at mid-rapidity, with the multiplicity class defined by forward detectors to guard against selection and jet biases. The empirical content that carries the argument is the universality of these curves across collision systems and beam energies. On the model side, the mechanisms that carry the explanation are final-state interactions in three concrete forms: color reconnection that minimizes total string length and produces the mass-dependent rise of $\langle p_{\rm T}\rangle$ with multiplicity, extended with junctions and ropes to generate baryons and strangeness; quark recombination, where baryons form from three co-flowing quarks and naturally acquire higher $p_{\rm T}$ than mesons; and a core-corona picture where dense regions of the collision form a thermally hadronizing, hydrodynamically expanding medium. A complementary new probe is the measurement of which hadrons balance the baryon number, strangeness, and charge of a produced $\Xi$, which constrains the microscopic production step directly.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to repeat the strangeness-enhancement measurement with the multiplicity class defined at mid-rapidity and with jets explicitly removed: if the $\Xi/\pi$ and $\Omega/\pi$ ratios stop rising with multiplicity, or if pp points separate from the universal heavy-ion curve, the asserted falsification of the incoherent-sum picture collapses. A second, already-available check is the transverse-spherocity scan the paper cites: jet-like events should show a reduced enhancement in the data, while Herwig's baryon reconnection predicts the opposite, so measuring the residual enhancement across spherocity classes over a wide multiplicity range separates the candidate models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the paper reports is that the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yield ratios of strange hadrons to pions — $\Xi/\pi$ and $\Omega/\pi$ in particular — rise significantly with the charged-particle multiplicity density $\langle dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta\rangle$ in proton-proton collisions, and that the ratios follow a single universal curve in $\langle dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta\rangle$ regardless of collision system (pp, p–Pb, Pb–Pb) or beam energy. The review reads this universal scaling as the falsification of the traditional pp paradigm, which predicted almost multiplicity-independent ratios because of Jet Universality, and concludes that final-state interactions must be present in all viable models. It then walks through the candidate mechanisms: color reconnection with junction and rope formation in Pythia, gluon and baryon reconnection in Herwig, the hydrodynamically expanding thermal core of Epos, and canonical strangeness suppression in statistical thermal models, noting a specific tension for each. The second pillar is collectivity: the near-side ridge in high-multiplicity pp events, flow harmonics $v_2$ and $v_3$ that match heavy-ion values at the same multiplicity, evidence against initial-state-only explanations, and the absence of any observed onset of flow down to very low multiplicities. A newer observable, the quantum-number balance of produced $\Xi$ baryons, is reported to challenge all current generators because it shows little multiplicity dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the measured rise of strange-baryon ratios with event multiplicity is genuine physics and not an artifact of how events are sorted into multiplicity classes — the paper itself warns, in Section 5.2, that selection and jet biases easily enter when multiplicity is defined by forward detectors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

No event generator that treats pp collisions as an incoherent sum of multiple partonic interactions with universal hadronization can describe the identified-particle data, so all viable generators must implement final-state interactions.
Strangeness enhancement is mostly an underlying-event effect: the excess is located in the soft bulk rather than in jets, and the universal scaling breaks when hard, jet-like events are selected.
Flow signals in small systems are attributed to final-state interactions, with initial-state explanations disfavored both by the RHIC geometry scan and by the finding that the relevant long-range correlations vanish once final-state effects are included.
With Jet Universality broken, electron-positron data no longer determine hadronization parameters for proton-proton collisions, and the question of quark-gluon-plasma behavior in small systems becomes a concrete, data-driven research program.
The multiplicity-independent quantum-number balance of $\Xi$ production challenges every current generator and offers a direct experimental route to discriminating production mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

If the universal scaling with $\langle dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta\rangle$ is genuine, a testable extension is that heavy-flavor baryon-to-meson ratios should also organize onto a common curve in pp, p–Pb, and Pb–Pb collisions; the paper notes the existence of charm and bottom baryon enhancements but does not itself make that scaling claim.
The paper reports a suggestion that a negative elliptic flow $v_2$ in pp collisions would signal non-hydrodynamic, string-shoving dynamics; measuring the sign of $v_2$ as a function of multiplicity with existing LHC data would sharpen that discriminator beyond anything the paper proposes.
Because color-reconnection schemes shift even $W$-mass systematics in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, which the paper notes explicitly, the adoption of stronger final-state interactions in pp generators may carry underestimated systematic uncertainty into precision background estimates at the LHC more broadly.
If strangeness enhancement is genuinely confined to the soft underlying event, then a tight spherocity cut at fixed multiplicity should reduce the enhancement by a mechanism-dependent amount; comparing that residual across the generators discussed would quantify how much of the effect is collective versus recombination-like.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a review, not a new measurement. The authors use it to argue that strangeness enhancement in pp collisions has 'irreversibly falsified' the traditional picture of incoherent multiple parton interactions plus universal hadronization. That claim is the paper's load-bearing editorial position, and it is stronger than a review can strictly support. What the paper does well: it gives a clear, compact tour of soft QCD at the LHC—MPI, underlying-event tunes, identified-particle ratios, flow in small systems, and the generator landscape (Pythia, Herwig, EPOS). The historical framing is useful, the references are well chosen, and the authors are honest about open questions. They also flag the multiplicity-definition problem explicitly in Sec. 5.2, noting that forward-detector selections can introduce jet and selection biases. That is the right instinct, and it shows the review is not naive. Where it is soft: the 'irreversibly falsified' language. The case rests on the assumption that the forward-detector multiplicity estimator is an unbiased proxy for the mid-rapidity soft activity that drives the strange-to-pion ratios. The stress-test note is right that the paper acknowledges this risk but does not close it; no control using a mid-rapidity multiplicity definition or a matched forward/mid-rapidity comparison is presented. The cited spherocity study changes the observable, not the estimator, and the review even says that selecting jet-like events reduces the enhancement. That is exactly the kind of correlation that could produce an apparent multiplicity dependence without a breakdown of the old paradigm. So a reasonable referee could ask the authors to soften 'irreversibly' to something like 'strongly disfavors.' The review also leans on the authors' own work for some interpretive claims (the Pythia radial-flow boost, the sign of v2 in pp), which is fine in a review as long as it is transparent—and it is. Who this is for: people new to the field, and anyone wanting a concise statement of one influential perspective on where soft QCD is going. It is not a research paper and does not need to be judged as one. It deserves a serious referee, not because the claims are correct, but because the review will shape how people frame these questions. The referee should focus on calibrating the editorial claims and ensuring the caveats are prominent. I would accept it for peer review with minor revisions.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of soft QCD in non-diffractive proton-proton collisions at the LHC. It surveys the historical Regge/MPI background, the structure of the main Monte Carlo generators (Pythia, Herwig, EPOS), underlying-event tunes and their validation, identified-particle spectra and strangeness enhancement, and long-range correlations/collectivity. The paper's central interpretive claim is that the observed multiplicity-dependent enhancement of strange-to-pion ratios, together with its apparent universality in <dNch/dη> across collision systems, has 'irreversibly falsified' the traditional paradigm in which a pp collision is an incoherent sum of independent partonic subcollisions with universal hadronization. The review argues that final-state interactions (color reconnection, ropes/junctions, core-corona models, or canonical suppression) are therefore required in viable models, and it closes with open questions and recommendations for generator development.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the review identifies a genuine paradigm shift and provides a compact, well-referenced map of the current evidence and model landscape. It is useful as an entry point for newcomers and as a statement of open problems in soft QCD at the LHC. The paper's strengths include its extensive citation of the experimental literature, its explicit enumeration of model mechanisms, and its falsifiable suggestions (for example, the sign of v2 in pp collisions and the search for flow onset in smaller systems). The main weakness is that the headline claim is stated more strongly than the cited evidence warrants: the manuscript itself concedes that multiplicity selection can introduce selection and jet biases, and it does not provide or cite a control analysis that closes that loophole. The review would be more persuasive if it framed the falsification as the authors' interpretation, supported by a detailed discussion of bias controls, rather than as an established fact.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 5.2 and Sec. 7] The central claim that the ALICE strangeness-enhancement results have 'irreversibly falsified the traditional pp paradigm' is stronger than the evidence presented. The immediately following paragraph acknowledges that multiplicity definitions can introduce selection and jet biases, and the cited spherocity study (Ref. 59) shows that at fixed <dNch/dη> the enhancement can be reduced by selecting jet-like events. That result indicates that the enhancement is dominated by soft events, but it does not by itself exclude the possibility that the forward-detector multiplicity estimator is correlated with mid-rapidity composition in a way that produces or inflates the apparent multiplicity dependence. The review should either temper the word 'irreversibly' or add a concrete discussion of why forward-selection biases cannot mimic the observed trend, including control analyses using mid-rapidity multiplicity definitions or matched forward/mid-rapidity event classes.
[Sec. 5.2, Fig. 4] The universality of the particle-ratio scaling across collision systems and beam energies, shown in Fig. 4, is load-bearing for the argument that the enhancement is a genuine bulk property. However, the figure is reproduced from Ref. 52 and the text does not quantify the systematic uncertainties of the data points or the consistency of the multiplicity-estimator definitions across pp, p-Pb, and Pb-Pb systems. Since the review uses this scaling to argue against the traditional incoherent-MPI picture, it should state the relevant experimental systematics and explicitly discuss whether the same estimator biases apply in all systems. Without this, the universality claim is more qualitative than the text implies.
[Sec. 6] The statement that 'the only hypothesis that is currently valid is that flow in small system is to a large degree due to final-state interactions' is too categorical. The manuscript itself later discusses non-hydrodynamic final-state mechanisms such as the escape mechanism and string shoving, so the contrast is not between initial-state and final-state explanations in a single sharp sense. The sentence should be reworded to distinguish between disfavored initial-state-only explanations and the range of final-state mechanisms still under consideration, and it should be presented as the authors' assessment of the current literature rather than as a logical necessity. This matters because the paragraph uses the flow conclusion to reinforce the strangeness-enhancement argument.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 4.1] The variable 'pleading T' appears to be a typo for p_lead^T, the transverse momentum of the leading object.
[Sec. 4.3] The phrase 'Similar arise findings from studies of forward-backward and long-range correlations' is ungrammatical; it should read 'Similar findings arise from studies...'.
[Disclosure Statement] The disclosure statement contains a typo: 'If the authors have noting to disclose' should read 'nothing to disclose'.
[Fig. 4 caption] The left-panel caption text 'πRatio to' appears garbled; it should read 'Ratio to π' or similar.
[Sec. 6] There are several singular/plural inconsistencies with 'small system' where 'small systems' is intended, for example 'flow in small system is to a large degree...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's central falsification claim is an empirical statement based on ALICE data, and the two self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review paper, not a derivation, so the classical circularity failure modes do not apply. The central claim, 'The ALICE results on strangeness enhancement have irreversibly falsified the traditional pp paradigm' (Sec. 5), is an empirical inference from measured pT-integrated particle ratios (Ref. 46, Fig. 4), not a quantity defined in terms of the models being reviewed or from parameters fitted to the same data. The paper itself flags the main vulnerability of this inference in Sec. 5.2: 'one has to be careful with how one defines multiplicity because it is easy to introduce "selection" and "jet" biases.' That is an honest limitation about event-selection and jet biases, which is a correctness risk rather than a circular step. The only author-overlap citations are Ref. 26, used in Sec. 3.3 to state that Pythia's color reconnection effectively produces a radial-flow-like boost and the observed mass dependence, and Ref. 100, used in Sec. 6.1 to suggest that measuring the sign of v2 in pp collisions could image final-state degrees of freedom. Both are presented as supporting or speculative modeling statements, and neither is load-bearing for the falsification claim, which rests on ALICE measurements and cross-system comparisons. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no ansatz is imported solely through self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force a model choice. The derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained as a review of external data and generator comparisons.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the paper introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or entities. It inherits the assumptions of the cited experimental analyses and generator models.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The experimental measurements cited (multiplicity distributions, pT spectra, particle ratios, flow coefficients) are correctly measured and interpreted.
The review's conclusions, especially the claimed falsification of the traditional pp paradigm, rest on the accuracy of the cited ALICE, CMS and ATLAS results (Secs. 4, 5, 6).
domain assumption The Monte Carlo generators Pythia, Herwig and EPOS are representative of the current phenomenological models for soft pp collisions.
The review's model comparisons and open questions assume these generators span the relevant model space (Sec. 3).
standard math Standard QCD and Regge theory concepts (MPIs, color reconnection, saturation scale, hydrodynamics) are valid frameworks.
The review uses these frameworks to interpret data without re-deriving them (Secs. 2-3).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5E2XTUB

@misc{pith2026241202672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5E2XTUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02672}
}

abstract

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland became operational in 2009 and has since then produced a plethora of results for proton-proton (pp) collisions. This short review covers results that relates to soft QCD focusing on non-diffractive physics at mid-rapidity. Most of the presented results comes from transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$) spectra and related/derived observables such as multiplicity, $\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle$ and ratios, but also the observed ``ridge'' and the questions of quark-gluon plasma in pp collisions will be discussed. The goal of the review is on one hand to introduce the topics and provide references for scientists joining the LHC program while at the same time highlighting what we consider the most interesting results and open questions to inspire novel measurements.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and Ne$-$Ne collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{\textit s}_{\rm\mathbf {NN}}}}$ = 5.36 TeV
nucl-ex 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

First measurements of elliptic and triangular flow in OO and Ne-Ne collisions show geometry-driven collectivity consistent with hydrodynamic predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Campbell JM, Huston JW, Stirling WJ. Rept. Prog. Phys. 70:89 (2007)

2007
[2]

Grosse-Oetringhaus JF, Reygers K. J. Phys. G 37:083001 (2010)

2010
[3]

Singapore: World Scientific Publishing (2005)

Kittel W, De Wolf EA. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing (2005)

2005
[4]

Collins PDB. vol. 4 of Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics . Cambridge University Press (1977)

1977
[5]

Ellis RK, Stirling WJ, Webber BR. vol. 8 of Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Astronomy . Cambridge University Press (1996)

1996
[6]

Froissart M. Phys. Rev. 123:1053–1057 (1961)

1961
[7]

AIP Conf

Martin A. AIP Conf. Proc. 1105(1):258–261 (2009)

2009
[8]

Kovchegov YV. Phys. Rev. D 60:034008 (1999)

1999

Show all 102 references

[9]

Antchev G, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 79(2):103 (2019)

2019
[10]

Abramovsky VA, Gribov VN, Kancheli OV. Yad. Fiz. 18:595–616 (1973)

1973
[11]

Koba Z, Nielsen HB, Olesen P. Nucl. Phys. B 40:317–334 (1972)

1972
[12]

Blankenbecler R, Brodsky SJ, Gunion JF. Phys. Lett. B 42:461–465 (1972)

1972
[13]

Kulchitsky Y, Tsiareshka P. Eur. Phys. J. C 82(5):462 (2022)

2022
[14]

JHEP 08:086 (2011)

Chatrchyan S, et al. JHEP 08:086 (2011)

2011
[15]

Buckley A, et al. Phys. Rept. 504:145–233 (2011)

2011
[16]

Sjostrand T, van Zijl M. Phys. Rev. D 36:2019 (1987)

1987
[17]

SciPost Phys

Bierlich C, et al. SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022:8 (2022)

2022
[18]

Bellm J, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 76(4):196 (2016)

2016
[19]

Pierog T, Karpenko I, Katzy JM, Yatsenko E, Werner K. Phys. Rev. C 92(3):034906 (2015)

2015
[20]

Werner K. Phys. Rev. C 108(6):064903 (2023)

2023
[21]

Karneyeu A, Mijovic L, Prestel S, Skands PZ. Eur. Phys. J. C 74:2714 (2014)

2014
[22]

submitted to Phys

Hayrapetyan A, et al. submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024)

2024
[23]

Sirunyan AM, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 79(9):773 (2019)

2019
[24]

Nature 561(7723):321–330 (2018)

Andronic A, Braun-Munzinger P, Redlich K, Stachel J. Nature 561(7723):321–330 (2018)

2018
[25]

Chatrchyan S, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 72:2164 (2012)

2012
[26]

Ortiz Velasquez A, Christiansen P, Cuautle Flores E, Maldonado Cervantes I, Pai´ c G. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(4):042001 (2013)

2013
[27]

Gelis F, Iancu E, Jalilian-Marian J, Venugopalan R. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60:463–489 (2010)

2010
[28]

Bartalini P, Gaunt JR, eds. vol. 29 of Advanced Series on Directions in High Energy Physics . Singapore: World Scientific Publishing (2019) www.annualreviews.org • Soft QCD at LHC 23

2019
[29]

Affolder T, et al. Phys. Rev. D 65:092002 (2002)

2002
[30]

Buckley A, Hoeth H, Lacker H, Schulz H, von Seggern JE. Eur. Phys. J. C 65:331–357 (2010)

2010
[31]

SciPost Phys

Bierlich C, et al. SciPost Phys. 8:026 (2020)

2020
[32]

Sirunyan AM, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 80(1):4 (2020)

2020
[33]

ATLAS Collaboration. Tech. rep., CERN. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021 (2014)

2014
[34]

Tumasyan A, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 83(7):587 (2023)

2023
[35]

Accepted by Eur

Aad G, et al. Accepted by Eur. Phys. J. C (2024)

2024
[36]

Abelev B, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 72:2124 (2012)

2012
[37]

Aad G, et al. Phys. Rev. D 88(3):032004 (2013)

2013
[38]

Acharya S, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 79(10):857 (2019)

2019
[39]

JHEP 04:072 (2013)

Chatrchyan S, et al. JHEP 04:072 (2013)

2013
[40]

Sirunyan AM, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 79(11):893 (2019)

2019
[41]

JHEP 08:086 (2022)

Acharya S, et al. JHEP 08:086 (2022)

2022
[42]

JHEP 07:019 (2012)

Aad G, et al. JHEP 07:019 (2012)

2012
[43]

Aaboud M, et al. Phys. Rev. C 95(6):064914 (2017)

2017
[44]

arXiv:1203.2048 (hep-ph) (2012)

Alderweireldt S, Van Mechelen P. arXiv:1203.2048 (hep-ph) (2012)

2012 arXiv
[45]

JHEP 09:091 (2010)

Khachatryan V, et al. JHEP 09:091 (2010)

2010
[46]

Nature Phys

Adam J, et al. Nature Phys. 13:535–539 (2017)

2017
[47]

Acharya S, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 78(3):263 (2018)

2018
[48]

Acharya S, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 81(3):256 (2021)

2021
[49]

d’Enterria D, Eskola KJ, Helenius I, Paukkunen H. Nucl. Phys. B 883:615–628 (2014)

2014
[50]

Borsa I, de Florian D, Sassot R, Stratmann M. Phys. Rev. D 105(3):L031502 (2022)

2022
[51]

Norrbin E, Sjostrand T. Eur. Phys. J. C 17:137–161 (2000)

2000
[52]

Acharya S, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 84(8):813 (2024)

2024
[53]

Acharya S, et al. Phys. Rev. C 99(2):024906 (2019)

2019
[54]

Fries RJ, Muller B, Nonaka C, Bass SA. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90:202303 (2003)

2003
[55]

Acharya S, et al. Phys. Rev. C 107(6):064901 (2023)

2023
[56]

Aaij R, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(8):081901 (2024)

2024
[57]

JHEP 07:136 (2023)

Acharya S, et al. JHEP 07:136 (2023)

2023
[58]

JHEP 09:204 (2024)

Acharya S, et al. JHEP 09:204 (2024)

2024
[59]

JHEP 05:184 (2024)

Acharya S, et al. JHEP 05:184 (2024)

2024
[60]

JHEP 08:003 (2015)

Christiansen JR, Skands PZ. JHEP 08:003 (2015)

2015
[61]

JHEP 03:148 (2015)

Bierlich C, Gustafson G, L¨ onnblad L, Tarasov A. JHEP 03:148 (2015)

2015
[62]

Acharya S, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 80(8):693 (2020)

2020
[63]

Gieseke S, Kirchgaeßer P, Pl¨ atzer S.Eur. Phys. J. C 78(2):99 (2018)

2018
[64]

Werner K. Phys. Rev. C 109(1):014910 (2024)

2024
[65]

arXiv:1610.03001 (nucl-ex) (2016)

Vislavicius V, Kalweit A. arXiv:1610.03001 (nucl-ex) (2016)

2016 arXiv
[66]

Vovchenko V, D¨ onigus B, Stoecker H.Phys. Rev. C 100(5):054906 (2019)

2019
[67]

Cleymans J, Lo PM, Redlich K, Sharma N. Phys. Rev. C 103(1):014904 (2021)

2021
[68]

JHEP 09:102 (2024)

Acharya S, et al. JHEP 09:102 (2024)

2024
[69]

Adam J, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 77(8):569 (2017), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 79, 998 (2019)]

2017
[70]

Heinz U, Snellings R. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63:123–151 (2013)

2013
[71]

Nagle JL, Zajc WA. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68:211–235 (2018)

2018
[72]

submitted to Annual Review of Particle Physics (2024)

Grosse-Oetringhaus JF, Wiedemann UA. submitted to Annual Review of Particle Physics (2024)

2024
[73]

Kovtun P, Son DT, Starinets AO. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94:111601 (2005)

2005
[74]

Schenke B, Tribedy P, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108:252301 (2012)

2012
[75]

Bernhard JE, Moreland JS, Bass SA, Liu J, Heinz U. Phys. Rev. C 94(2):024907 (2016)

2016
[76]

Acharya S, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123(14):142301 (2019)

2019
[77]

Abelev B, et al. Phys. Lett. B 719:29–41 (2013)

2013
[78]

Aad G, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110(18):182302 (2013) 24 P. Christiansen and P. Van Mechelen

2013
[79]

Jia J, Zhou M, Trzupek A. Phys. Rev. C 96(3):034906 (2017)

2017
[80]

Dusling K, Mace M, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(4):042002 (2018)

2018
[81]

Nature Phys

Aidala C, et al. Nature Phys. 15(3):214–220 (2019)

2019
[82]

Schenke B, Schlichting S, Singh P. Phys. Rev. D 105(9):094023 (2022)

2022
[83]

Acharya S, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(17):172302 (2024)

2024
[84]

Badea A, Baty A, Chang P, Innocenti GM, Maggi M, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123(21):212002 (2019)

2019
[85]

Chen YC, et al. Phys. Lett. B 856:138957 (2024)

2024
[86]

Aad G, et al. Phys. Rev. C 104(1):014903 (2021)

2021
[87]

Tumasyan A, et al. Phys. Lett. B 844:137905 (2023)

2023
[88]

JHEP 04:070 (2020)

Abt I, et al. JHEP 04:070 (2020)

2020
[89]

JHEP 12:102 (2021)

Abt I, et al. JHEP 12:102 (2021)

2021
[90]

H1 Collaboration. Tech. rep., DESY. H1prelim-20-033 (2020)

2020
[91]

International Journal of Modern Physics E (2024)

Strickland M. International Journal of Modern Physics E (2024)

2024
[92]

Kurkela A, Mazeliauskas A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122:142301 (2019)

2019
[93]

Ambrus VE, Schlichting S, Werthmann C. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(15):152301 (2023)

2023
[94]

Kurkela A, Wiedemann UA, Wu B. Phys. Lett. B 783:274–279 (2018)

2018
[95]

JHEP 11:216 (2021)

Kurkela A, Mazeliauskas A, T¨ ornkvist R. JHEP 11:216 (2021)

2021
[96]

Hayrapetyan A, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133(14):142301 (2024)

2024
[97]

JHEP 05:229 (2024)

Acharya S, et al. JHEP 05:229 (2024)

2024
[98]

Aad G, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(7):072301 (2023)

2023
[99]

M¨ antysaari H, Schenke B, Shen C, Tribedy P.Phys. Lett. B 772:681–686 (2017)

2017
[100]

Bierlich C, Christiansen P, Gustafson G, L¨ onnblad L, T¨ ornkvist R, Zapp K.arXiv:2409.16093 (hep-ph) (2024)

2024 arXiv
[101]

Berges J, Heller MP, Mazeliauskas A, Venugopalan R. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93(3):035003 (2021)

2021
[102]

Bierlich C, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 80(5):485 (2020) www.annualreviews.org • Soft QCD at LHC 25

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Campbell JM, Huston JW, Stirling WJ. Rept. Prog. Phys. 70:89 (2007)

2007

[2] [2]

Grosse-Oetringhaus JF, Reygers K. J. Phys. G 37:083001 (2010)

2010

[3] [3]

Singapore: World Scientific Publishing (2005)

Kittel W, De Wolf EA. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing (2005)

2005

[4] [4]

Collins PDB. vol. 4 of Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics . Cambridge University Press (1977)

1977

[5] [5]

Ellis RK, Stirling WJ, Webber BR. vol. 8 of Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Astronomy . Cambridge University Press (1996)

1996

[6] [6]

Froissart M. Phys. Rev. 123:1053–1057 (1961)

1961

[7] [7]

AIP Conf

Martin A. AIP Conf. Proc. 1105(1):258–261 (2009)

2009

[8] [8]

Kovchegov YV. Phys. Rev. D 60:034008 (1999)

1999